Confronting a colleague's instructional problems is definitely a learning experience for school people. It is also how a real profession should work.

Intervention is the name we use for the peer review and assistance component of The Toledo Plan that addresses instructional deficiencies exhibited by veteran teachers.

Immediately, a number of questions arise.

How do you identify struggling veterans?
Who recommends intervention?
What intervention strategies are helpful?
What about marginal performers?
What is the role of the union in employment that must be terminated?
Is the union's legal duty to fairly represent its members automatic?
Should there be time limits on the intervention?
Are records confidential?
Who makes the decision to non-renew or terminate?
Is intervention the best place to start a peer review program?

The list could be longer, but you can see that dealing with veteran teachers who have continuing contractual employment rights presents different legal problems than those encountered with interns who typically have one-year contracts.

Ms. Wright's Problem Again
Most of us identify problem veterans as "burned out" or poor classroom managers. But kids out of control and/or a lack of enthusiasm in presenting lessons are symptoms of deeper problems. Trouble at home, illness, flawed instructional practices, and many other factors can produce the outward signs that an experienced teacher's practice has declined to unacceptable levels. Intervention is designed to salvage a career that otherwise would have to be terminated. Intervention is an effective way to diagnose deficiencies and then develop and deliver improvement strategies for teachers in trouble.

One should not assume, however, that every referral merits intervention with its threat of termination if improvement is not achieved. Some cases, while clearly serious, might fall short of formal intervention with its "shape up" or "ship out" bottom line. Concerted mentoring is an option we provide for those whose problems are less severe.

Intervention is not a disciplinary program. Work rule violations should be addressed through normal union-management channels.

Identification
Referrals should start at the school. That's where confronting the competence issue can be participatory within the context of professional accountability. Several identification procedures are in use. Rochester, N.Y., assigns the responsibility solely to the principal. A negative evaluation leads to a choice for the teacher. Rather than simply face termination, a teacher may appeal to the peer review panel and place themselves in intervention. Intervention is a choice.

In Toledo, we took the view that identification should involve the teachers at the school because that would enhance our goal of getting teachers to broaden their sense of responsibility for instruction. Initially, we required both the principal and the school's union committee (elected annually) to agree about intervention before their recommendation could be acted on by the PAR panel. Several years ago, we amended the process so that either the committee or principal can recommend unilaterally, and we preserved the right to act collaboratively.

During our first 12 years, we placed just over 40 veteran teachers in intervention. Only three school recommendations were initiated by a principal. Even though we now allow principals to act unilaterally, that ratio has not changed. For whatever reason, principals have been reluctant to confront serious instructional deficiencies. Teachers are much less so, although our data indicates that secondary teachers are more reluctant to use intervention than are elementary teachers. There is a learning curve in the professionalization of teaching. Here is the procedure now in use once a recommendation comes to the review panel. We present our model to generate ideas for building your own process.

1. Ms. Wright is recommended for a "performance review." A written description of her problem(s) accompanies the request.
2. The PAR panel co-chairs then assign an active consulting teacher to observe Ms. Wright's teaching. She is notified that this unannounced visit (one or two) will take place.
3. After the observation, the consulting teacher will make one of three recommendations to the co-chairs:
       a. Intervention - serious deficiencies exist.
       b. Mentoring only - less serious and without the threat of dismissal.
       c. No assistance needed - we do get this recommendation occasionally.
4. The co-chairs recommend a course of action to the entire panel.

Intervention/ Assistance/ Performance Review

The Toledo Plan provides assistance and/or intervention for veteran teachers with multi-year contracts or tenure. It is designed to assist non-probationary teachers who have been identified as performing in a way so unsatisfactorily that improvement or termination is imperative. A system of checks and balances is used to avoid abuse of the intervention/ assistance process by either union or management. The principal or the union building committee, or both, may recommend a performance review.

Following are the procedures used:

• Principal and building representative meet to discuss reasons for referral for performance review.
• When probability of performance review is evident, principal consults with the assistant superintendent and building representative consults with the federation president.
• The principal and/or building representative officially notify the teacher that referral for possible assistance or intervention is to be considered.
• Teacher meets with the federation building committee and/or principal regarding possible performance review for placement in assistance or intervention. Following the meeting, federation building committee conducts a vote by secret ballot. If the decision is to proceed, the principal and/or building representative requests a performance review. That recommendation is sent to the co-chairs of the PAR panel.
• Consulting teacher is assigned to make up to two unannounced classroom observations and to recommend either assistance or intervention as the appropriate course of action. PAR panel accepts, rejects or alters the recommendation.
• Teacher has five days to file an appeal of placement in intervention to an impartial arbitrator whose decision is binding.
• If the arbitrator authorizes the process of intervention to proceed, a consulting teacher is assigned to the case by the co-chairs of the panel.
• Consultant's goal is to bring the teacher to a satisfactory level of teaching performance.
• There are no arbitrary time limits imposed.
• At the time, a status report is filed with both school management and the union.
• Representation and due-process rights and procedures exist for intervention teachers who are subject to termination.

Procedural Due Process
If the PAR panel decides that intervention is the appropriate remedy for the instructional problems reported, both union and management must be especially aware of the continuing employment rights of the referred teacher. Procedurally it is important to have identification, referral and the decision processes in writing before beginning an intervention program. All teachers should be aware of these procedures.

The first question that will arise in most cases is, "Why am I being placed in intervention?" In other words, the panel should consider whether intervention is the best option for dealing with the teacher's instructional problems. Are there other legitimate alternatives?

Here is an idea to consider. Once we identify and place a teacher in intervention, the teacher is given, in writing, seven days to appeal the panel's placement decision. The appeal goes to a designated attorney selected by both union and management. That person acts as an arbitrator in all such appeals. The attorney is selected by both union and management. That person acts as an arbitrator in all such appeals. The attorney may interview anyone at the school and/or district and union officials to decide the appropriateness of intervention. Typically, a 20- 30-page report with a decision is written that is binding on the district, the union and the teacher.

It is not the responsibility of the attorney to judge teaching practice. There are two questions, though, about which the attorney will rule. First, is intervention the best option, and second, was the identification and placement procedure followed? Yes, on several occasions an intervention has been stopped because certain identification procedures at the school were not followed.

You can assume that a legal challenge is probable after an unsuccessful intervention is concluded, so it is good to know that the initial placement received a serious up-front review by an independent party. In those districts where intervention is a self-referral, the up-front arbitration is less important as a procedural protection.

Roughly two-thirds of our interventions fail to bring instructional practice to an acceptable level. The number of interventions has slowly declined over the years because teachers with up to 22 years of experience have been through the intern program.

As in the case with our procedures, all teachers receive a copy of the standards of acceptable instructional practice that are the same for interns and veterans.

An Appeal for Interns

While this section has addressed the rights of veteran teachers, note that unsuccessful first-year teachers are given an opportunity to address the PAR panel if they choose to do so.

Cost?

Often, we are asked about the cost of enforcing our standards of practice. Generally, the cost in legal fees is higher with a serious PAR program because some dismissed individuals will seek legal redress. Absent PAR, not many teachers are fired, so legal costs are less. The cost for students is high, but beyond immediate calculation.

Concluding an Intervention
We don't put a deadline on intervention, and you shouldn't either. Artificial endings are thoughtless and they increase the chance of failure. This advice comes from experience, not theory.

The symptoms of poor teaching are similar but the ailments can be quite different, and the amount of time needed to successfully conclude an intervention can vary widely. Why not do as we do and let the consultant judge when his/her services should stop? A typical intervention lasts between one-and-a-half and two school years, although our shortest lasted five days because student safety was at risk.

Concluding an intervention brings us back to due-process rights. It is easy when the consultant says Ms. Wright is once again meeting standards. But if after weeks of mentoring Ms. Wright is beyond hope, what then? The first event will be a written status report from the consulting teacher: "This is what I found, this is what I did with supporting documentation, and this is why my services are ending." The status report does not contain a recommendation about future employment.

Two processes must be in place:

1. Procedures for deciding about future employment (management)
2. Procedures about whether to represent the teacher (union)

The status report will include pertinent material to support the reason the consultant is ending the intervention and will document the work that was done as well as the result. There are only two reasons why an intervention ends. Either the mentoring has been a success and further work is unnecessary, or further assistance is hopeless.

In Toledo, the report is submitted to management, usually the human resources office, and to the union president. Even though the report does not contain a recommendation about future employment status, a clear picture of the status of the teacher's work will be obvious. Federal case law imposes a general requirement that the union act responsibly in determining whether to represent Ms. Wright in our example.

Courts do not, however, impose an automatic duty to represent, contrary to what many think. Although federal DFR rulings (duty to fair representation) are anything but uniform, it is safe to say that the union must not be arbitrary or capricious in its decisions process. Whether Ms. Wright is represented, or not represented, her union must have an objective procedure in place for making that decision, and it must be uniformly applied from one person to the next.

Here is what we do. Ms. Wright may come before our grievance staff (five people) and present her reasons why termination of employment is not justified. The grievance staff hears from the consulting teacher, also. Some written criteria for determining representation in the case is helpful. After considering the evidence presented, the staff formulates a recommendation to the seven officers of the union. This is done orally. The officers then vote by secret ballot whether to represent Ms. Wright.

It is a process that has been tested in court with success. There are other procedures in use, and you can devise your own, but an objective, nondiscriminatory procedure that is neither arbitrary nor capricious is a must.

What I have described places the union squarely in the middle of the teacher quality debate where I think it should be. But in the old culture, it is more common for union officials to automatically represent everyone.

Either way, the status report will be used in any subsequent legal proceeding regardless of your effort to keep it confidential. It is unrealistic to assume that the consultant's work can be kept out of court or away from an arbitrator no matter what the stated intentions are.

With intervention, either the union joins in an effort to salvage a career with the risk of failure, or its officials should stand on the sidelines as they have always done with the risk that noninvolvement entails. Obviously, it takes a larger view of union responsibility to be proactive in these cases.

I have not addressed the internal management procedures needed to go forward with Ms. Wright's termination because school management can best figure that out. I can say that in Toledo, when management decided not to terminate because the teacher was close to retirement, I was asked to help fashion a remedy such as reassigning the person away from regular teaching duties.

Where To Start 
People become uncomfortable when traditional workplace practices are altered. If you ask whether to start with an intern or intervention program, it is easier to start with first-year teachers. That way, you can gain mentoring and evaluation experience in a way less threatening to teachers and principals. If your leadership, both union and management, has a good grasp of what can be accomplished with peer mentoring and review, and the leadership is respected, do both.

Remember, part-time mentoring is better than no mentoring. Full-time mentoring is more effective than part-time mentoring. Mentoring without peer evaluation means that transformation of teacher and management cultures will not happen.

Collective Bargaining and Peer Review 

"The intern-intervention program shall be continued subject to cancellation in its entirety by either the Board or the Federation."

That is the Toledo contract language. It has not changed since 1981 when we made the decision to implement The Toledo Plan.

Two points should be made. Trust was fragile in 1981. Teachers struck in 1978 and it was a long strike that saw teachers make significant gains. Two management changes resulted. A new superintendent was employed who signed on to our peer review model, and the school board hired a different negotiator, a lawyer, who understood how a profession works and sold the school board on the teacher induction idea. In effect, we cultivated ground where trust could grow even though that remained for the future. The right to cancel reflected our tentative beginnings.

Operationally, The Toledo Plan has its roots in our contractual relationship, but remember that while ideas never before tried can be explored at the bargaining table, fleshing out the details usually needs to take place later, after bargaining is concluded.

At the table, we merely agreed to proceed as you can see by the above language. The final program procedures were published under separate cover to all staff.

The time frame and tensions of the bargaining process do not lend themselves to exploring the unknown. Put the idea out there, agree to proceed, and your reform will have a chance to succeed.