A Bird's Eye View

This is what typically happens with an intern program based on peer review. The first employment year is designated the intern year. The mentor/evaluator is an accomplished teacher, usually called a consulting teacher, released full time from teaching duties to work with 10-12 interns.

The consultant is solely responsible for mentoring and evaluation during the first year. During the first semester and second semester, an evaluation of each intern's work is presented to a joint union-management panel which, in turn, votes to accept or reject the evaluation. The second semester evaluation contains a recommendation about future employment upon which the panel votes, also. The panel then forwards its decisions to the superintendent for concurrence. The school board receives the recommendation of the superintendent.

The Peer Assistance and Review panel (PAR) represents a collaborative effort between union and management that is standards based and crucial to quality control issues.

In Toledo, we place every new teacher in the program but allow consultants to recommend removal of those first-year teachers who come to us with previous experience but who do not need further assistance. New teachers without experience must remain as interns for an entire academic year. Consultants typically observe and counsel first-year teachers on average about 20 hours each semester. More time is spent in group sessions and report writing.

Toledo has a two-year probationary experience. One-year contracts are given. During the second year, principals evaluate with the same standards used during the intern year.

Collaboration does not mean that two fingers in the stew at the same time are better than one. The importance of this separation of responsibilities is further explained in the next section, Two Fingers in the Stew. Over our 22 years of experience, on average 8 percent of our interns must be denied future employment. That statistic speaks volumes about teacher preparation programs in our nation.

Two Fingers in the Stew

Collaboration does not mean everyone has to do the same thing at the same time. With evaluation it is essential that responsibility be fixed on one person unless you are not serious about removing those who should not be teaching in your district. It doesn't make any difference who the two people are. Two teachers, two principals, a principal and a teacher - you're asking for trouble.

For us that means consulting teachers are solely responsible for the evaluation of their interns the first two semesters and principals are solely responsible for semesters three and four. The same standards and criteria are used throughout the two-year probation and beyond. That configuration will provide collaboration that gets results and keeps you out of unnecessary trouble.

Why do we do this? Experience tells us that two evaluators, or two or more persons who play a role in the evaluation, will differ enough - and enough times - so that contract nonrenewal or termination when warranted becomes unnecessarily difficult, if not impossible. Judges, juries and arbitrators are reluctant to end someone's employment, so if there are slightly different views (evidence), they won't do it. That's that practical reason.

In a broader view, if you permit the principal to retain control of the evaluation the first year, you have caved in to tradition and conventional wisdom about the very things you are trying to change. So, the question becomes, "Why change at all?" Workplace attitudes won't change and, besides, why would a union want to engage in a process that uses one of its members to build a case for a dismissal that management is going to control? It would only get the union in trouble and ultimately change few teacher attitudes about teaching or the role of the teachers' union in school reform. For sure, it will not change the attitudes of principals about teachers or the enforcement of standards. Obviously, you can't build a professional culture that way.

Principals

In Toledo, consulting teachers are solely responsible for mentoring and evaluation the first year even to the point that administrators are discouraged from classroom observations. Principals do submit a form to the consulting teacher indicating compliance with individual school and district policies, cooperation with parents, punctuality and things that the consultant might not witness. The form is presented to the PAR panel along with the intern's evaluation.

Consulting teachers stay in communication with principals and, with few exceptions, this works well. Principals are briefed about the evaluation before it is presented to the review panel.

During the second year of employment, principals are solely responsible for evaluation and mentoring, as time allows. The same forms and standards apply. In 22 years, there has not been a second-year termination or nonrenewal, and that speaks to the effectiveness of our intern year.