September 21, 2010--Why School Reform Fails

If you want to know why it is so difficult to bring about sustainable, positive change in big-city school districts, take a look at what happened in Washington, DC last week.

Mayor Adrian Fenty was defeated for reelection by Vincent Gray.

The mayor appoints the school chancellor and it is widely expected that mayor-elect Gray will not rehire Michelle Rhee, who has been the system's CEO for three years and is widely acknowledged to have brought about real change to the District. (See linked New York Times article for details.)

During her few years in office she has taken on the powerful teachers union by raising private money to support performance-based pay for teachers (opposed by the union) and even moving to have incompetent teachers fired, including those with tenure (as you can imagine, this too was vigorously opposed). Dismissing ineffective teachers, many independent observers say, is one significant reason why many of DC's worst schools have improved but also why the local union as well as the national teachers' union and organized labor worked to oppose Fenty's reelection bid.

These unions clearly cared more about protecting incompetent teachers than the fate of the children in their care.

Rhee became the literal face of inner-city school reform, appearing on the cover of Time magazine and became a school reform superstar praised by President Obama and Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education. DC was recently awarded a $73 million Race to the Top grant, but the private funders have already indicated that if she leaves, or is forced out, they will stop funding the special programs she instituted.

Holding the empty bag will be the youngsters of the nation's capital.

In sad truth it is not unusual for a school chancellor to remain in a city for only three or four years. Most move on voluntarily, getting out of town, frequently having traded up to a bigger job, before the results of the changes they brought to the school district have had a chance to take hold and yield quantifiable results. Since so few years is too soon to see much measurable change, and for the school leader to be held accountable, moving on quickly is a good personal strategy for an ambitious educator.

We have seen this parade of chancellors and superintendents in almost all of our largest cities, from Los Angeles to Houston to Miami to Baltimore to Detroit to Memphis to . . . .

Students typically remain in the system for up to 12 years, a core of teachers may be there during the school years of most of the kids, but school superintendents have very short professional lifespans.

However, it is not inevitable for school reformers and teachers' unions to work at cross purposes.

Teachers unions, like other unions, are essential advocates for their members. Without them teachers' salaries would be even lower than they are; teacher, as in the past, could be fired without due process; and working conditions would be worse than at present. But when the union's primary agenda becomes protecting the ineffective or claims that all teachers are equally productive (the one-size-fits-all pay scale unions negotiate is based on this claim), meaningful reform is impossible.

Teachers unions could agree to weeding out low classroom performers (after all sorts of due process and in-service retraining) in exchange for increased compensation and benefits for high-achievers. But all around the country they are dug in and our children suffer. Because of this, ultimately, our competitive place in the world also suffers.

In addition, cities should make long-term, non-partisan, non-political commitments to school superintendents who prove to be effective. If we could bring the unions into a partnership dedicated to focusing on student achievement and keep the Michelle Rhees on board for more than a few years, we could begin to get the job done and everyone would benefit.