Cleveland teachers’ contract: It’s better than the one we got

by Paul Kersey In my last post, I called attention to the contract between the Cleveland Teachers Union (an affiliate of the American Federation, just like the union that represents Chicago teachers) and the Cleveland Municipal School District. The union and the district both deserve credit for releasing their contract to the media just two days after reaching...

by Paul Kersey

In my last post, I called attention to the contract between the Cleveland Teachers Union (an affiliate of the American Federation, just like the union that represents Chicago teachers) and the Cleveland Municipal School District. The union and the district both deserve credit for releasing their contract to the media just two days after reaching a tentative agreement – giving teachers and the public plenty of time to look the thing over before it is ratified and signed.

As for the contract itself, it’s pretty good – given the circumstances. Though it’s the product of collective bargaining, the contract does get rid of the rigid “step and lane” salary schedule in which teacher pay depends entirely on academic degrees and years of service, and replaces it with a “points” system in which teacher evaluations and student growth play major roles. But it turns out that the Ohio Legislature did a lot of the heavy lifting; legislation that took effect last fall calls for all new teacher contracts to provide for a “performance-based salary schedule.” At the end of the day, the district would have had to make similar changes anyway to comply with this law.

Under the points system, a teacher receiving the highest rating (“accomplished”) will be credited with 15 points, which just happens to be the number needed to receive a pay raise every year. Others receiving lower ratings may need to wait an extra year or two.

The problem is the contract leaves a lot to be filled in later by joint committees made up of union and administration members. Among other things, the two committees will determine how many points teachers receive for attendance, or for teaching certain subjects and in certain school buildings. These bonus points might be manipulated to make the regular performance evaluations much less important – and maybe thwart state law.

Still, the Cleveland teacher’s contract gives more respect to education reforms than the recent Chicago teacher contract did. That contract:

• Gave pay increases to teachers with the most seniority – not those who achieve the best results for their students.

• Made the Chicago Public School district’s billion-dollar budget deficit worse.

• Did little to fix the district’s poor student achievement – CPS graduates only 54 percent of its students.

• Watered down teacher evaluation reform efforts.

In the end, a lot depends on union and administration working together well. Ohio labor law is similar to that in Illinois. Neither guarantees good relations between teachers unions and school districts. But the situation in Cleveland may work out. Not all teacher unions are like the Chicago Teachers Union. The fact that the union and the district are willing to let the public see their handiwork is a good sign.