Giving Teachers Carrots

Last weekend, Boston Public Schools Superintendent Carol R. Johnson announced a bold plan to revamp 12 underperforming schools, provoking sharp public resistance from the Boston Teachers Union. The most controversial measures include calling for teachers to work dozens of extra hours without compensation, rescinding layoff and seniority benefits, and linking annual pay raises to job performance. Although we believe that Johnson’s proposal that teachers work extra hours without increased pay is counterproductive, agreeing to union demands to scrap all the reform measures entirely will not improve the quality of teaching in the schools. BPS should instead focus on implementing Johnson’s suggested pay-for-performance plan, which will show teachers that their performance is valued on an individual level and encourage them to focus on improving their own work.

One reason why we oppose extending teacher hours without extra compensation is that the policy seeks to improve teachers by punishing them rather than providing an incentive to improve. In addition, it unfairly burdens teachers who lead extra-curricular activities, have families to care for, or work second jobs. We cannot expect teachers to thoroughly and enthusiastically teach in the classroom if they are not paid adequately for their work and feel their time is not adequately appreciated.

Additionally, Johnson’s proposal targets 12 of Boston's most underperforming schools where teachers already face tremendous obstacles. BPS can’t afford to discourage bright teachers who want to help struggling students from joining the schools where they are most needed. Mandating more training and more time spent teaching without any compensation is especially dangerous in schools where morale is already extremely low.

Instead, an incentive system is the most fair and straightforward way to provide motivation for teachers of varying experience to go above and beyond the 40-hour work week, experiment with innovative teaching methods, provide additional resources and time to students, reinforce existing success in the classroom, and distinguish good teaching from bad. Reduced seniority provisions could work to offset new performance bonuses, as Johnson suggested.

Highly effective teaching should be the goal, and shabby instruction that handicaps students is simply unacceptable. Currently, union contracts make it notoriously difficult for school officials to take underperforming teachers out of the classroom, except in the most egregious cases. If providing a better education for all students is the goal, then new reform must also make it easier for school officials to fire inadequate teachers. Specifically, teachers should be reevaluated frequently and should have to reapply for their position periodically. Regular job evaluations are accepted as standard protocol in many other professions, and there is no reason teaching should be an exception.

Rather than merely forcing teachers to expend more hours in the classroom, smart school reform must center on reinforcing and rewarding high-quality and high-impact teaching. In the end, teachers who want to improve will benefit students the most.