An Open Letter to Jay Mathews (Washington Post)

Dear Jay,

You usually have it right. In the past when you’ve talked about charters, you’ve correctly noted that the high performing nature of so many has helped education become a reality for so many children without.

This week, however, you missed a bunch of important information when discussing a possible disconnect between how teachers operate in high performing charters and what Michelle Rhee’s performance pay plan would do for teachers in the traditional system.

Let me explain.

First, the teamwork you cite as so vital to successful charter schools - no matter which organization or company you cite - is evolutionary. It is not forced, but it is encouraged, and it is encouraged in a myriad of ways, much of which is left to the teachers themselves to decide.

The process by which those teachers entered their schools and began to work as teams is dramatically different than the manner in which most traditional DCPS teachers currently maintain their jobs. In DC, charter schools started from scratch. They were allowed to set their own pay levels and operational conditions, and they do not provide tenure or seniority. We know from CER surveys of teachers (and others back this up) that those in charter schools will most often cite the quality of the school culture they join that is the number one factor keeping them there, over and above pay.

What that means is that a charter, by its nature, is better able to attract an individual today, who is looking for the opportunity to be satisfied by teaching. Such an individual is naturally on a performance contract of sorts, even without the fine print. They serve at the pleasure of the administration. That means they were hired based on merit, and will be retained based on performance.

These teachers - often hailing from TFA and top universities; some even transplants looking for something better than the traditional system - want to work with others. They are not threatened by new ideas, new challenges. They succeed when the school succeeds. They find rewards beyond the financial, including the fact that they are retained in such a great environment.

That’s real “performance pay.” It is the charter concept that allows this to occur and teams of teachers in high performing schools have evolved knowing that each is a valued contributor.

Conversely, the system Michelle Rhee now leads offers no freedom or flexibility for teachers whose contracts stipulate how and when they work. Thus they do not come together naturally to collaborate in teams. Rhee, like other reformers, understands that there is no way to create a team-oriented culture if she doesn’t start with one fundamental first - that any teacher hired or retained to teach our most precious asset must demonstrate success. To do that, she must first begin to evaluate teachers individually using the same kind of merit-based system charters use when they first hire teachers. Then she must create compensation systems that allow the successful teachers to be rewarded for their work, helping to retain both those and others like them who see that a new culture of achievement can be the predominant value in the DC schools. Once in place, those teachers who perform well will gravitate towards each other. They will create opportunities to engage one another and, ideally, their principals, will incorporate that into their evaluation.

The teams can and will evolve given the right circumstances, not because teams in and of themselves always work, but in this case, because of a common, focused goal of working in the best interests of children.

This is the real lesson of charter schools. Freedom and accountability lead to results. Accountability is something the Chancellor is seeking. From there, hopefully, the freedom will follow.

Best Regards,

Jeanne Allen
President
The Center for Education Reform