Is D.C. teachers' contract a model?

Washington, D.C. teachers have agreed to a contract that includes pay for performance, reduced seniority protections – and hefty pay increases.  Will this prove to be a model for the nation? National Journal’s Education Experts discuss the issue.

The new contract includes a pay raise of 21.6 percent over five years (retroactive to the expiration of the old contract) that will raise average annual salary from $67,000 to $81,000. Philanthropic support made the generous financial package possible. Under the new regime, principals will use job performance, as opposed to seniority, as the top criterion to make decisions about staff reductions when budget or program changes require it.

Will the new contract lead to improved performance at D.C. schools? Should other cities look for foundation support to supplement teacher pay? What are the national implications?

“Fundamentally, this agreement would allow DCPS to treat its teachers as individual professionals, with their own qualities, successes and failures,” writes Daniel Weisberg of The New Teacher Project.

Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence points to the very high costs:

The financial incentives to enroll in the voluntary performance pay program will have to be significant, since brand-new teachers who don’t enroll will receive a minimum salary of $51,539 in the 2011-12 school year – and those with 21+ years of experience will earn up to $106,540.

Will the new contract lead to improved performance of D.C. schools? Let’s hope so. But its extraordinary cost makes it an unlikely model for other U.S. school districts.

I think Antonucci is right about the money.

Rick Hess has more on the contract’s significance.

D.C. teachers trade security for $$$

The proposed D.C. teacher contract offers “eye-popping” salaries, writes Rick Hess. Pay raises will be supplemented by performance bonuses.

Starting teachers will potentially be able to earn more than $72,000, as compared to the current $45,000. Teachers will be able to earn as much as $146,000, up from the current max of $87,000.

Unlike Superintendent Michelle Rhee’s original proposal, this contract “takes a clever, less-confrontational tack on tenure and seniority,” Hess writes. It should be easier to fire teachers who aren’t performing well.

Dismissed employees will still be able to fight terminations if they believe DCPS “did not follow the evaluation process.” DCPS officials tell me the result is school leaders have dramatically more freedom; but only time will tell whether this language amounts to a velvet revolution, or something less substantial.

Seniority rights will be much weaker. When layoffs are needed, the district will rely primarily on performance; seniority will count for only 10 percent.

Principals won’t be forced to hire teachers they don’t want. Laid-off teachers  who can’t find a new job will be let go with one year of leeway for teachers who meet “performance expectations.”

The $64.5 million in foundation funding that makes the contract possible isn’t so huge that the system will collapse when the commitment runs out, Hess predicts.

Such a deal in D.C.

After two years of wrangling, Washington, D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee has reached a tentative deal with the teachers’ union, reports the Washington Post.

The proposed pact, which must be ratified by union members and approved by the D.C. Council, provides teacher salary increases of more than 20 percent over five years, with much of it paid for through an unusual arrangement with a group of private foundations that have pledged to donate $64.5 million.

. . . The agreement includes a voluntary pay-for-performance program that will allow teachers to earn annual bonuses for student growth on standardized tests and other measures of academic success.

Rhee and her school principals will be able to retain highly rated teachers with less seniority, if layoffs are needed. The greatest weight would be given to the previous year’s evaluation, while seniority would receive the least weight, the Post reports.

. . . Those unable to find new positions in the system could take a $25,000 buyout, or retire with full benefits if they have at least 20 years of service. They could also spend a year searching while still on the payroll, although they would be subject to dismissal after that.

The pay raises will be funded by foundations created by Eli and Edythe Broad, Laura and John Arnold, Robertson and the Walton Family. These choice-oriented foundations must be eager to get performance pay.

Washington Teacher has more details on the contract.

Given what’s happening in other school districts, it sounds like a good deal for teachers.

D.C. data

I like the way Focus D.C. shows the data on achievement in traditional and charter schools in Washington, D.C. This scatter graph shows proficiency and progress.

Can D.C. scholarships be saved?

By cutting off new students from aid, Congress has condemned Washington, D.C.’s school voucher program to a “slow death,” say leaders of D.C. Parents for School Choice. There was no Christmas miracle for the program, despite evidence that scholarship students do better in reading than similar students who lose the lottery.

Instapundit suggests that private donors step in to fund scholarships to enable low-income children to escape unsafe, chaotic, low-performing schools.

Update: Save DC Kids is trying to keep the scholarships alive with private funding.

D.C.’s Braveheart

Michelle Rhee is via D.C.’s Braveheart, writes June Kronholz in Education Next.

. . . (At a senior staff meeting) Rhee wades in with, “Here’s what I think,” or “What I don’t want,” or “This is crap,” or “I want someone to figure this out,” or “I’m gonna tell you what we’re gonna do; we can talk about how we’re gonna do it.” And that is that. Next order of business, please.

Rhee’s style—as steely as the sound of her peekaboo high heels on a linoleum-tile hallway—has angered much of Washington, D.C., and baffled the rest since she arrived as schools chancellor in June 2007. But it is also helping her gain control of a school system that has defied management for decades: that hasn’t kept records, patched windows, met budgets, delivered books, returned phone calls, followed court orders, checked teachers’ credentials, or, for years on end, opened school on schedule in the fall.

When I asked Rhee to name her most significant achievement in her two years in Washington, her answer suggested that any progress is, so far, only incremental. “We have begun—begun—begun—to establish a culture of accountability,” she said, with a long pause between each “begun.”

There’s some evidence that test scores and graduation rates are rising, writes Kronholz. (NAEP reported higher 2009 math scores for D.C. fourth and eighth graders.) But the system is deeply dysfunctional — and losing more students every year to charter schools.

Rhee has no choice but to play hardball, writes Richard Whitmire in the Washington Post.  She has little time to produce results.

Rhee should be able to work with teachers, writes Robert Pondiscio. If she fails to persuade parents to keep their children in district-run schools, the unionized teachers will be out of work too.

D.C. vouchers boost reading

“The D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government’s official education research arm so far,” writes Patrick Wolf in Education Next. Wolf was hired to study the program by comparing lottery winners to losers. He found a significant impact on reading for lottery winners who used the scholarship to attend a private school.

. . .  students in the control group would need to remain in school an extra 3.7 months on average to catch up to the level of reading achievement attained by those who used the scholarship opportunity to attend a private school for any period of time. The catch-up time would have been around 5 months for those in the control group as compared to those who were attending a private school in the third year of the evaluation.

Wolf thinks voucher students will do even better as they adjust to more rigorous private schools.

In the control group of lottery losers, nearly half left district-run schools to enroll in charter schools or private schools.

Of course, Congress plans to end the federally funded program. Parents rallied today to ask that Education Secretary Arne Duncan rescind his order rescinding vouchers for 216 new students who won the lottery in the spring.

D.C. residents want school vouchers

Nearly 75 percent of Washington, D.C. residents supported school vouchers in a new poll; 68 percent of residents oppose Congress’ effort to end the federally funded program. Under the Opportunity Scholarship Program, low-income children who win a lottery have been eligible for scholarships up to $7,500, which can be used at private schools of their parents’ choice.

If given a choice, 70 percent of District parents say they’d send their children to private or public charter schools rather than to traditional public schools.

Last month, a majority of D.C. council members petitioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan to reverse his decision to rescind 216 scholarships awarded to new students starting school in the fall. He did agree to let current voucher students continue in their schools till graduation.

By the time parents learned of the decision, most of the city’s charter schools had no more space. Ninety percent of the students who lost their scholarships “are assigned to attend failing public schools,” concludes a review by D.C. Children First, reports the Washington Post.

Do vouchers matter?

School vouchers don’t matter in the larger policy debate, writes Kevin Carey of Education Sector in Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.’s program didn’t “create new competition and provide incentives for innovators and entrepreneurs to bring energy and resources to the enterprise of educating students.”

No new schools have been built as a result, no groundbreaking programs created, competition spurred, or innovators attracted. It’s basically just an exercise in seeing what happens when you take a couple thousand students out of pretty bad schools and put them in a range of other schools that are, collectively, somewhat better. Answer: some of the students may be doing somewhat better! I think we already knew this.

Remarkably, the D.C. voucher program is being taken seriously even as, right here in the same city, charter schools are actually creating the whole range of market responses that vouchers are not.

A better education for 1,700 low-income students is nothing to sneer at, counters Jay P. Greene.

While Carey doubts 17,000 vouchers would have motivated Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day to “up and build annexes in Anacostia,”  Greene responds that most voucher students attend non-elite private schools that might expand “if you offered them 10 times as many spots and long-term security of funding.” And D.C. charter schools wouldn’t be offering much competition if they’d been limited to 1,700 students and one third the district’s per-student funding.

Reason TV has video of the D.C. school voucher rally, which pushed President Obama to announce that currently enrolled students will continue to receive vouchers through high school. No new students will be allowed to enter the program.

Voucher video

Reason TV attacks President Obama’s failure to protect the Washington, D.C. voucher program for low-income students.

Mercedes Campbell uses the $7,500 voucher to attend Georgetown Visitation Prep. Her mother Ingrid says to Obama,  “We voted for you, we walked, we went to the parade, we stood freezing. Why?… Can you get this tape over to Obama and have him answer our questions? Why, sir, why?”