Negotiations conclude in Seattle . . .

Last week the Seattle Education Association and School District reached agreement on a new contract that included the use of test scores in the evaluation process.  It isn't the model that the district proposed, but it is a significant change from past practice.  I have not yet had the opportunity to read the details of the settlement, but in this Seattle Times article we learn that test scores won't factor into the evaluation itself.  They will, however, be used to identify teachers that will be given a closer look.  That is the part that will be interesting to review, what a closer look means.

Student growth, measured by test scores, won't be part of all teachers' evaluations, as the district had originally proposed. And the district won't limit raises to teachers who volunteer to sign up for the new evaluation system.



Instead, as the union suggested a few weeks ago, low student growth scores will only be used to trigger a closer look at teachers, even if principals otherwise have decided they're doing a competent job.

The change to this contract is consistent with what we are beginning to see in other districts across the country.  Moving in this direction is something that all districts and associations will face as contracts come up for renewal.  I agree with the need to consider student achievement in the success of the school system and in supervision of individual and teams of teachers.  How we do this, however, must be the result of a collaborative process involving teachers and administrators focused on how well we are preparing young people for success in post high school learning and work.  That takes place in classrooms that are parts of school buildings that form a school system.  Responsibility for success rests in all these places.

In our school system, the conversations will take place in committees reviewing Classroom 10 support needs and in conversations with district administrators and TEA representatives.  I don't view these conversations as negotiations.  I see them as skillful conversations focused on identifying what data are crucial for holding ourselves individually and collectively responsible for the success of all students in our school system.  The Seattle contract is one more data source to learn from as we embark on this journey.