Negotiators in Other School Districts Beware: Union Gains Additional Protections for Low-performing Teachers in Seattle

Snohomish River and Historic First Street

By Liv Finne
Seattle parents are beginning to wonder whether the recently approved Seattle teacher contract will improve teacher quality. Regrettably, the densely-worded document does anything but clearly explain what is really happening.

Parents deserve better answers. They worry about teacher quality and know that the number one factor that determines if their children learn is whether teachers are performing well. Here are a few answers for parents.

Will the contract improve the quality of teachers in Seattle? No.

The teacher contract creates a complex new process for evaluating and identifying good and bad teachers. Teachers who receive low scores on their evaluation will gain new procedural protections under this contract. Principals will be required to perform additional observations; provide additional monthly conferences; consult on how to use $500 on a professional development course; and develop "support plans" for teachers.

If low-scoring teachers do not improve, their principals -- if they follow all the proper steps -- can place them on probation, the first step for dismissal. State law then requires principals to comply with a similar thicket of procedures.

Principals must observe teachers on probation at least twice a month for more than 60 school days, write "performance improvement plans" on each observation, and allow numerous appeals, even to courts.

Because the administrative cost of the review process -- $200,000 -- is so prohibitive, few principals have tried to remove poor teachers from the classroom. That cost will now increase. In the meantime, the children in these teachers' classrooms will be denied a quality public education.

Will the contract allow school principals to get the best teachers for their school? No.

In the past, Seattle school officials allowed teachers to use their seniority status to transfer to another school to avoid being placed on probation, the notorious "dance of the lemons." This practice allowed low-performing teachers to transfer from school to school. Some principals even gave these poorly-performing teachers an undeserved "satisfactory" rating in exchange for the teacher's agreement to transfer from one school to another.

Under the new contract, low-performing teachers cannot use their seniority status to transfer to a new school, and must apply and be accepted by principals to fill a vacant position. Teachers who fail to find a position in this way before July 15, however, can still be forced upon schools.

These teachers will not be fired. The district will "force-place" these teachers on some unfortunate children. Only principals in the 17 lowest-performing schools are allowed by the contract to refuse the assignment of such teachers. Principals at the other 74 schools in Seattle must accept low-quality teachers for their students. The "dance of the lemons" lives on in Seattle.

Does the contract let schools keep terrific young teachers? No.

Schools will not be able to retain their best young teachers if layoffs are required. Layoffs will continue to be determined by seniority, and not by the ability of teachers to inspire young minds. When layoffs come, the worst teacher with seniority will be kept, and the best new teacher will be fired.

Until policymakers put principals in charge of evaluating and staffing of their own schools, as is done in the best private, innovation, and charter schools, the quality of teachers in Washington public schools will not improve, but decline.

Seattle's latest collective bargaining agreement shows what happens when district bureaucracies and unions forge binding contracts in closed-door sessions: they create a maze of regulations that fail to solve the problem, and few people even understand what happened.