The blistering rejection of a proposed contract by two-thirds of the Hawaii State Teachers Association rank-and-file speaks volumes about the deep distrust that stands in the way of real cooperation among the public-education interest groups. It will be all but impossible to unify behind an agenda of educational reform until the players in the public schools system — the state Department of Education administration, the HSTA leadership and the teachers themselves — stop operating in silos, separated by self-interest and lacking much of a collaborative process.
The sinking of the proposed six-year contract by 67 percent of the teachers voting on Thursday almost certainly sinks hopes of safeguarding the entire $75 million Race to the Top grant for educational reform.
The Obama administration may hesitate before withdrawing the entire grant — will that set a precedent for evaluating other states that could be politically perilous in an election year? — but, at the very least, this additional roadblock will bring severe consequences. How can the federal DOE ensure its money will yield good results in the face of such an emphatic message as this contract vote?
And the message from the teachers is: We’re not on board with this, particularly not with a teacher-evaluation process that’s not yet clearly spelled out, seemingly driven by the outlines provided in the Race to the Top guidelines.
Their unease is understandable. Committing to a new pay-for-performance contract over such a long term is tough to do, especially if details are sketchy and little else in the contract is enticing.
There are many problems at the heart of this conflict, not the least of which was failure by union leaders to communicate with membership.
Judging by assorted comments from teachers who voted, few had anything approaching clarity on even the broad contours of the evaluation process.
Roughly half of the teacher’s evaluation, which was key to getting raises, was to be based on measures of student progress. The other half was to be based on the teacher’s own skill at classroom delivery, gauged by observers who would watch him or her address and work with students.
However, some teachers said they believed they’d be downgraded based on whether or not their students met testing benchmarks set by the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The fact that there was so much misapprehension about the process, indefinite though it still is, means that union leadership did not do its job explaining the contract elements to the members.
Many teachers already felt unsure that the union had been representing their interests. Months earlier, when the union board rejected an earlier contract proposal, it got angry feedback from members who believed — rightly — that it should have been put to a vote.
But at this juncture, the right move is for the teachers to accept the remaining year in the terms of the last, best and final offer the administration of Gov. Neil Abercrombie had imposed unilaterally. Between now and then, the union should embark on a more collaborative discussion with its members and DOE officials on the precise rules for the evaluation.
The bottom line is that teachers need to accept the principle that they should be judged in part by the results they get in the classroom.
Coming up with the right formula will be complex: Many factors besides the teacher’s delivery of the material affect how students perform on tests, and teachers should feel they are given ample opportunity to demonstrate their competence.
Whether or not Race to the Top funds remain to underwrite the reform, making the educational system more results-oriented, nimble and responsive to student needs, should remain the goal of the DOE and the Board of Education that oversees it.
The status quo has not worked, so falling back into that old rut will produce nothing but a second-rate education for Hawaii’s children. The 21st-century economy, which more than ever will demand more of the emerging generation of scholars, will simply leave too many of them behind.
