Upon Melissa Rhone’s return to her fourth-grade classroom at Brennan-Rogers School, her students greet her with excitement. They proudly point out the eight lines on the whiteboard, each representing a compliment from the substitute teacher regarding their good behavior. These ticks hold significant meaning for Ms. Rhone as they signify her growth and success as an educator.

In November of last year, Ms. Rhone received a preliminary rating of 1, the lowest level, on the district’s new teacher evaluation system. This rating was primarily due to classroom management issues that arose after a co-teacher left early in the school year. However, with the support of instructional coaches, her principal, her husband, and her own hard work, Ms. Rhone improved her performance throughout the year and achieved a rating of 3 – a good rating on the scale of 5.

Reflecting on her experience, Ms. Rhone admits that she may have relied on the co-teacher’s departure as an excuse for her own shortcomings. Receiving a rating of 1 served as a reality check for her and motivated her to make necessary changes. The teacher evaluation system, known as TEVAL, was established in 2009 and implemented in the 2010-11 school year. It requires at least three professional conferences between instructional leaders who conduct classroom observations and each teacher. These conferences help identify areas of strength and weakness and provide guidance for improvement. The system also incorporates student achievement results.

TEVAL is just one aspect of a larger effort to improve education in New Haven. It symbolizes the city’s commitment to reform in collaboration with the teachers’ union. The initial data from TEVAL, released this year, showed that 73 percent of the district’s 1,850 teachers scored in the top three categories, while 75 teachers were at risk of losing their jobs due to low scores. Ultimately, 34 of those teachers chose to resign, including 16 who had tenure. Others, like Ms. Rhone, demonstrated improvement and were able to retain their positions. Superintendent Reggie Mayo was pleasantly surprised by the lack of resistance from the union, stating they were adamant about not tolerating incompetence in the district.

The president of the New Haven Federation of Teachers, David Cicarella, acknowledged the necessity of these changes and praised the timing. The public had expressed dissatisfaction with the state of education in New Haven, specifically concerning ineffective teachers and poor instruction. The year-end data from TEVAL, however, revealed that the system’s most valuable aspect was the professional learning opportunities it provided for teachers.

Rebecca Gratz, a high school history teacher, referred to as an instructional manager, explained the positive impact of TEVAL. She emphasized that it created a structure for meaningful conversations about teaching and learning among educators. Although Superintendent Mayo and David Cicarella were not particularly close before the contract, they found common ground in their shared goal of meaningful reform. This relationship and the subsequent collaboration on TEVAL and other district reforms owed much to the involvement of the city’s mayor, John DeStefano Jr. He had been pushing for these initiatives since mid-2008, including a rating system for schools, a metric for teacher performance, and the expansion of a portfolio approach to school management. Initially, Mayor DeStefano considered reconstituting the schools and potentially hiring nonunion teachers. However, he recognized the need for systemic change and eventually used a new contract as the foundation for implementing these reforms.

Unraveling Policy

Union leaders were also interested in finding a new approach. Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, had made a promise that her union would consider all options for education reform except for vouchers. However, the District of Columbia chapter found itself caught up in a contract dispute over tenure and compensation proposals. The New Haven district offered a promising opportunity for a fresh start. Despite an upcoming union election, Mr. Cicarella was determined to challenge his members to think differently and make changes to the teaching profession. He stated that he did not become a union leader to maintain the status quo, and this was his chance to do something different.

One of the first breakthroughs between the district and the union was separating the negotiation of policy changes from more basic issues like wage increases. Mr. Cicarella believed that these issues were straightforward and not as impactful in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, a separate team focused on negotiating the details of the reforms, while a negotiating committee handled the bread-and-butter issues. The collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified in October 2009, included the establishment of three categories of schools, a new teacher-evaluation system, and annual surveys to assess teachers’ perceptions of the school climate. Further details were to be determined by committees consisting of teachers, administrators, and parents. The contract was overwhelmingly approved by the teaching force and received positive feedback from experts, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

However, some skeptics saw the open-ended nature of the reform plans as an avoidance tactic. They believed that important details were being left undecided, prolonging the implementation of the reforms. Joan Devlin, a senior associate director of educational issues at aft, who was appointed by Ms. Weingarten to assist with the contract negotiations, acknowledged that they purposely avoided including every detail in the contract to avoid unnecessary complications. However, she noted that this led to some people perceiving the process as a joke or a way of avoiding responsibility.

Implementing Principal Scrutiny

Officials admitted that filling in the details of the contract was a challenging process. They emphasized the importance of a commitment to developing all staff members but acknowledged the difficulty in building a system that achieved this goal while being systematic and consequential. Trust developed between both parties over time, along with a degree of pragmatism, which helped them reach the desired outcome. For example, although teachers were initially concerned about the use of test scores in evaluations, Mr. Cicarella realized that opposing this element would not be productive. Instead, he urged both parties to ensure that it was implemented properly.

The power of the evaluation system lies in its ability to facilitate discussions about professional practice, according to educators. They believe that there is nothing in the framework that teachers can’t aspire to improve upon. Daniel Wajnowski, an English teacher at Cooperative Arts & Humanities High School, credits the conversations he had with his principal for his improvement in engaging students in group work. However, performing these evaluations presents a challenge of balancing the coaching role of supporting teachers with the need for improvement. The student-achievement component of the system, though not favored by all teachers, has gained some support. Each teacher, in collaboration with their principal, sets goals for student achievement and selects assessments to measure progress towards those goals. This process encourages teachers to critically assess their impact on each student. The evaluations also help principals track how each teacher contributes to the overall school’s progress. Leaders acknowledge that the evaluation system can still be improved. The student-achievement goal-setting and instructional conferences vary in quality, and this issue is being addressed. However, the evaluation process is time-consuming, and teachers in the middle range sometimes struggle to understand the significance of their ratings. The system also needs to provide more opportunities for teachers who earn the highest scores to take on additional responsibilities. As the implementation progresses, it is anticipated that more opportunities will arise. Despite disagreements, the lines of communication between Mr. Mayo and Mr. Cicarella will remain open. They have avoided confrontation and instead focused on productive discussions. Their relationship has grown stronger throughout this process. Although it is still early to determine the impact of the changes in the district, New Haven’s scores on state tests have been improving. However, there is still work to be done in order to close the black-white achievement gap within the ambitious timeline of five years. Collaborative strategies are being employed to reach this goal, and although progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. To achieve success, the effort must be sustained until the end.

Moving forward, the district has outlined plans to enhance various areas with a specific focus on working alongside community partners to offer comprehensive services. This includes increasing parental involvement and promoting a college-oriented atmosphere through the implementation of a scholarship program called Promise. This program will provide rewards to students who maintain commendable grades, attendance, and behavior.

In terms of evaluating teachers, the district aims to closely monitor progress and ensure that the implementation of the evaluation system is executed faithfully. However, there are certain challenges that the district anticipates. Historically, New Haven has faced difficulties in recruiting talented principals, and it is expected that around six principals will retire by the end of the year. It is voiced by Mr. Cicarella that not all assistant principals are prepared to take on these roles. Superintendent Mayo acknowledges the significance of prioritizing training for these individuals.

Simultaneously, the mayor hopes to foster a culture of collaborative reform that will continue to flourish. When asked about the district’s biggest challenge, Mr. DeStefano emphasized the importance of persistently striving for improvement despite changes in leadership. He believes that the key lies in establishing a climate that is adaptive to change, rather than relying solely on a particular group of people or an individual, so as to create a constant state of academic excellence.

michaellang

Michael Lang is a 33-year-old professor and blogger who is passionate about writing. He has been blogging for over 7 years and has written for various online publications. Michael is also a seasoned professor who has taught at the college level for over a decade. He is currently a professor of English at a community college in the Midwest.