February 20, 2008

Denver Opens The Floodgates?

Posted by Aaron Tang at 3:31PM

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

Last week, two Denver public schools took a bold step that may lead to significant change in the way schools are run throughout the country. The two schools, Bruce Randolph Middle School and Manual High School, received approval from the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (the local affiliate of the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union) to break from key parts of their union contract. The union's approval signified a major development in a long legacy of teacher union control over American schools, as both schools will now have newfound freedom in the teacher hiring process, teacher pay, and in altering the length of the school day and year.

Word of the schools' breaking away from key union contract provisions spread rapidly across the nation. Denver's school board, which also has to approve the modified contract, looks poised to approve Manual's changes--especially because they already approved changes in Bruce Randolph weeks ago. The upshot? As many as 18 more Denver schools are now considering similar proposals to break free of teacher union rules that some find restrictive and negative for student achievement.

Some have watched these developments with great excitement, as reducing teacher union control in schools has long been a change sought by elements in the school reform arena--particularly conservative ones. The theory adopted by these reformers is that teachers unions get in the way of what is best for students by protecting bad teachers, stifling creativity and innovation from potentially excellent teachers (since these teachers will not be paid more for their success under union contracts), and by generally being out principally for the best interests of teachers--which may sometimes run counter to what is best for kids. Union supporters, on the other hand, point to the great gains won by unions in workplace regulations and treatment of employees, especially in improving pay and conditions for female employees over time.

The key question to watch for in Denver, however, is not about politics. It's not about whether the two newly freed schools prove anti-union proponents wrong. It's about whether the schools are able to make any substantive changes for their students. In the end, the greatest way that they can do this is to dramatically alter the makeup of their teaching staffs to have as many dedicated, intelligent, and effective teachers as possible. If they can find these kinds of teachers, retain them, and reward them for their excellence, then the idea of increasing individual school autonomy will have gained staem. But if the schools face the same old problems, it will just prove that unions are not the be-all and end-all problem plaguing urban education.

As much as I respect the view points of both camps in this debate, my suspicion from my own experiences in a non-unionized charter school here in St. Louis is that the newly freed Denver schools will quickly realize that the increased autonomy is not a guarantee of any kind of success. Many charter schools already experience the same freedom from union and district bureaucracy as Manual and Randolph have fought for, and it hasn't always done these charter schools good. Better to think about individual school freedom as one of many fences that is needed to cage in the problem of under-performing schools. Reducing union power alone is not a sufficient means to educate every child, but in some cases it may help.