In response to a message to Charles on ...
SK>Hi Chuck,
SK>
SK>Thanks for the post from Al Shanker about the teacher tenure/peer review
SK>topic.
SK>
SK>In part, I quote below:
SK>
SK>->    Everybody loses with a system like this--other teachers, who
SK>-> have to live with the results of bad teaching by a colleague, as well
SK>-> as students. But there is an alternative that works. Peer
SK>-> review or peer intervention--it goes by various names--is a system
SK>-> developed by teacher unions, in collaboration with their school
SK>-> districts, in which experienced and excellent teachers observe
SK>-> probationary teachers and offer them help when they need it. At the
SK>-> conclusion of the probationary period, these master teachers make
SK>-> recommendations about who should be offered tenure and who let go.
SK>-> Peer review also includes assistance to tenured teachers who need
SK>-> help with their teaching and, in some cases, advice to quit the
SK>-> profession.
SK>
SK>I had mentioned the idea of peer review in a family discussion some time
SK>back (Thanksgiving?). My mother, who is a Marriage, Child and Family
SK>Counselor, did not think it sounded like a big improvement over what we
SK>have now. She pointed out that both the medical and law professions have
SK>such peer review processes, and that as a result of her counseling she
SK>knows of PLENTY of cases of doctors and lawyers out there who shouldn't
SK>be practicing.
Teaching is a subjective process - no one individual is ever going 
to be satisfied that all bad teachers have been cleared from the system ;-)
The main problem with any evaluation process remains the same - 
committment to the principles of the process.  We are experimenting 
with a new, very "progressive" evaluation process this year that has 
several layers, including self-evaluation for tenured teachers, 
observations, supportive supervision for teachers who are 
struggling, etc.  Interestingly enough we are only half-way through 
the first year and already we found the same problem we had with the 
old system - administrator apathy.  Administrators are not acting in 
a timely fashion - they are still ignoring deadlines, not following 
the guidelines set forth in the new plan, etc.  Would a teacher 
peer-review plan work any better?  Only if the teachers assigned to 
the review committee were more committed than the administrators.
SK>->    Toledo Federation of Teachers' peer review program, perhaps the
SK>-> first in the country, has been in operation since 1981. In Toledo,
SK>-> consulting teachers spend up to three years helping to train and
SK>-> evaluate new teachers, and they  play a major role in deciding which
SK>-> new teachers will get tenure. Tenured teachers who are in trouble get
SK>-> the same kind of one-on-one help from  colleagues, and it
SK>-> continues until the troubled teacher has either improved to the point
SK>-> of being successful or a termination is recommended.
SK>->
SK>->    But aren't teachers likely to be even easier on their
SK>-> colleagues than administrators? Both the Toledo Federation of
SK>-> Teachers and the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, which has had a
SK>-> peer assistance and evaluation program since 1985, have found the
SK>-> opposite to be true. In the Cincinnati program's first year,
SK>-> consulting teachers rated 10.5 percent of their new teachers less
SK>-> than satisfactory, compared to 4 percent by administrators. And 5
SK>-> percent of beginning teachers under peer review were recommended for
SK>-> dismissal as compared to 1.6 percent of those evaluated by
SK>-> principals. Results for subsequent years have been similar.
SK>
SK>Hmm. This is interesting. I wonder if this means the teaching profession
SK>would be different from those others? Or would medicine and law be even
SK>worse if they were not subjected to peer reviews?
I doubt that it would be much different. In those areas where there 
was real committment by the review panel it would work well (just as 
evaluation works well where the administrators are committed to 
improving instruction) and else-where it would falter.
Chuck
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* I finally got it all together but forgot where I put it.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------