.1

 

   

. "1'
‘5': i '
'1‘- v

   

4

3773;).

    
       
  
 
      

?

3"- 3. ‘ w!“

. 21.: 11 ‘: .7.
, 115133171113“?
I? n

   

..

:25

   
 

AA . 1.., .,
«.37-, 4.27:,

.

a

....- .4“-

1.5;;

E-:;
J

  
 

_..7:.-LI. .
b:
1-... u... .

n-..“
I“.‘“'.‘

 

  
 
 

      
  
 

   

  
 
   
     

    

    
  
   

     
 
      
    
     
 
 
   

  

        

 

   

    
   
       
  

 

   
  

        
  
   

 

      
  
    
  

          

   
 

           
 

      

   

  

   

      

   
   

     

:1
L}.
I“
‘11.
.3:
'5
1
7‘
T?
.i‘
,5"
1"!"
3
.1
1
1t
u
'l
I’-
s k; .r
M1 3% . 1“ *
-:2*,:1.,. ' l -~E‘:r;' 15.135 7‘- 1'5 ‘1'“?
h,‘ ‘ cm. ‘ . l "". ‘ -' ' "V"
._,. .1 .M r z W
I; 1151,1111?“ ‘1}1'11“ “‘1' “0113111.. . ”251‘ '. ' 1: "221“?
l t, ‘1 .1 1- In.» w-“Lv ”a ’ .; . LI ’9
‘ ru~ rt ",. amid-1m u- '._«. v .1'@ ‘;‘ f". 5" A 4 (:44
1 1w .0) M" .u “9 1- -' g 1 :_ , y, “y. . - 12:).
1 My. ;.L'..~»'; ‘ . .1 ' "1" 3V" “Hill!
. "v 11 w ‘ V" '.V V 0‘" 5 u l‘
‘1 ”2143‘1111'” 133.111'1nk-‘1?! ~ 1:31:51 {14‘ "31:1! ‘H‘di‘t’
311%:"1‘1‘1 n)? 1‘“figfiffiefim"-;“‘zshfiéfii‘i1atfiv.. “'10.: ’ 1‘1
Au 1w. 5- 111' («Win 1.131141%" "‘ " 3" - -
'1 '- =I1awrig‘1aéa‘waéz’s '1 1115', ‘
; 1 . v‘ 3' , 5:341. ‘14.," km “‘15. =
s. E f'a-r211'3liatfl "3‘5: 22:":
1 ti 9 1 l ‘ 1
. 1' . nut-«thih'a'vn .1, N" Is“
. - '..1!.M;{‘.}E§i{~.1.mw € §
. "1 =0 '3‘1? 11. E1315. 'tifi'QVhi

 

THESIS
3

IUIIHUI111111111111111llllilHUHllllHilHlfl

3 1293 01701 9237

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JUN 2 9 20m
23116901312000

 

W§f§d&

 

U—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1I98 wmpes-pu

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

TEACHER UNIONISM AND PROFESSIONALISM:

AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PEER REVIEW PROGRAMS
AND THE COMPETING CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY

presented by

Philip P. Kelly

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . degree in Educafit ion

bMW

Majoilprofesso;

Date S1 18] (18’

 

MS U is an Affirmative Acu’on/ Equal Opportunity Institution 0—12771

 

TEACHER UNIONISM AND PROFESSIONALISM:

AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PEER REVIEW PROGRAMS
AND THE COMPETING CRITERIA FOR LEGITINIACY

Philip P. Kelly

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fialfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1998

COPYfight by
Philip P. Kelly
1 998

ABSTRACT

TEACHER UNIONISM AND PROFESSIONALISM:
AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PEER REVIEW PROGRAMS
AND THE COMPETING CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMACY
By

Philip P. Kelly

This study explores the phenomenon of teacher peer review as a response to the
increasing pressure for educational accountability as well as a method of reconciling the
competing criteria of legitimacy to which teachers and their unions are held. By engaging
in teacher peer review, and thus accepting responsiblity for quality of practice among their
members, teachers’ unions are able to reconcile the institutions of unionism and
professionalism. They do so by expanding the traditional conception of unionism from
protecting individual rights to protecting the occupation. Instead of protecting teachers,
leaders of the unions studied referred to protecting teaching.

This study is a comparative analysis of four teacher peer review programs
constructed through analysis of documentary artifacts and interviews conducted in each of
the four districts visited. Interviews were conducted with union presidents, district
superintendents, school board members, consultant teachers, program participants, and
groups of classroom teachers. The transcripts were examined to identify patterns of
responses along several dimensions.

It was found that some teachers’ unions are efl‘ectively reconciling the competing

criteria for legitimacy through engagement in peer review programs resulting in increasing

frequency of dismissals of substandard teachers. Repeatedly, it was reported that
consulting teachers (peer evaluators) were more demanding evaluators than principals.
Furthemore, the findings call into question Meyer and Rowan’s (1977) interpretation of
schools as institutional organizations in which ceremony and ritual are central to the
legitimation of public schools. Over the past decade these factors have not provided the
sense of legitimacy which are traditionally attributed to them. Instead, the public and the
economy are demanding of schools to be more technically productive. Increasingly
emphasis is being placed not on inputs, but on the end product of the educational
enterprise, student learning and competitive student success in wider arenas. Some
educational leaders are responding to the increasing pressures and decreasing legitimacy
by becoming more technically focused through emphasizing a technology, teacher
pedagogy. By taking responsibility for quality through actively monitoring the technical
production of their members, teachers’ unions are expanding the narrow confines of
industrial unionism to include more professional/technical concerns under the emergent

professional unionism.

To Jackie,
for all the dreams you’ve made come true.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to many people who have assisted me in countless ways over
my career thus far. Mthout their help, support, and occassional prodding, this study
would not have been possible. I first want to recognize and thank the four reseachers who
comprise my dissertation committee. Gary Sykes, the chair of my committee, helped
tremendously while I struggled to understand the various issues involved in studying
professionalism. Maybe not most importantly, but certainly most memorably, I wish to
thank Gary for not laughing at my ignorance four years ago, when I informed him that I
wanted to write about professionalism because “nobody has written about it.” I quickly
found out how wrong I was!!!

David Labaree, my advisor for the past five years, has been the most influential
person in my academic career. Although I was assigned as an advisee at the last minute,
David was simply a God-send. I will never be able to express the depth of gratitude I feel
for the many hours in your oflice and classroom during which you pushed me to defend
my ideas, argue persuasively, and repeatedly humbled me when you expertly destroyed my
“great ideas.” Besides being a demanding mentor, you have become a good friend whose
wit and charm will be sorely missed.

David Plank has been a tremendous addition to the College of Education and a
valuable member of my committee. It was David who, during a class, introduced me to

the concept of an institution and has pushed my thinking along this line. Your assistance

to my theoretical understanding of organizational analysis and politics of education have
been invaluable.

I must express my deep gratitude to Perry Lanier who three years ago made the
kind ofl‘er to take me to Toledo, Ohio to meet Dal Lawrence, president of the Toledo
Federation of Teachers. It was your ofl‘er that started me on the research path that
ultimately led to this dissertation. Although we have never had the chance to work closely
together, your constant support and interest in my work have been a great comfort.

I must also thank those professors who, although not on my committee, have been
great sources of knowledge and assistance. First among these is Bill McDiannid, with
whom I have worked over the past two years. You have been a great mentor and teacher
and, more than anybody else, made me into an educational researcher and policy analyst.
Brian Delaney contributed tremendously to my development as a policy analyst through
his courses and our many talks together. More than that however, I will always remember
our commiseration over being new fathers. Maenette Benham’s generosity has been
unparalleled. Allowing me to participant in your research writing/discussion groups have
been a tremendous benefit to me. Lastly, I would like to thank Michael Sedlak and Steve
Weiland, who during my first year demanded much of me and had faith in me to not let me
settle for merely adequate writing.

Several graduate students and staff members have also greatly enriched my
experience at MSU. During my dissertation I am deeply indebted to Jennifer Borman,
Cathy Reischl, Steve Sheldon and Brenda Neuman for providing intelligent and critical

feedback during data analysis as well as for carefully reading numerous drafts of chapters

vii

and papers during the process. Your assistance during this process was integral to
completion of this dissertation and the strengthening of the evidence and arguements
presented therein. Karla Bellingar’s quick and accurate transcription saved me countless
hours of fi'ustration. I also wish to acknowledge the support guidance given to me by Don
Hones, Nancy Schwartz, J'un Bowker, Jennifer Collard, and Margaret Selasky.

In my personal life, I truly cannot express the depth of gratitude I feel to the
following people. First, I would like to thank my parents, Pat and Judy Kelly, for instilling
in me a work ethic and pride in my work that will never leave me. Ma and Dad, I was
paying attention during those rough years. Second, I need to thank my in-laws, Jack and
GeorgAnn Turner, for being more supportive than I could have ever asked for. Your
countless hours of babysitting made attending graduate school and completing this
dissertation possible. Third, I wish to thank Mary Jo Pilat for showing me the way and
being a sympathetic friend when times got tough. I also wish to thank the many people
who believed in me, wished me well and have prayed for me including many fi'iends,
relatives, and the congregation of the First United Methodist Church of Howell.

Lastly, I am left in a quandry. How can I thank my wife, Jackie, and my three
daughters, Maureen, Mary and Sarah? To put into words the feelings of love and
thankfulness I feel for you is to do them a disservice. Jack, you know that you are my
strength. Thank you for believing in me when my own faith lacked, as well as for the
well-needed kick-in-the-pants which you gladly dispensed from time to time. Finally, I
have to thank my girls. Although you are too young to read this now, know that you have
taught me more than anyone. Maureen, Mary, and Sarah, you taught me what is really

important in life. I will never forget ~— I promise.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE : Teachers’ Unions in Crisis ............................................................ 1-12
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
Teachers’ Unions and the Crisis of Legitimacy ..................................................... 2
Background ......................................................................................................... 6

The Competing Criteria of Legitimacy .................................................................. 8
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 10
Overview of Dissertation Structure .................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO: Institutionalism as a Tool of Organizational Analysis .................. 13-36
Institutionalism ................................................................................................... 14
Multiple Definitions of “Institution“ ................................................................... 17

The Three Pillars of Institutions .......................................................................... 20
Organizational Analysis within Neoinstitutionalism ............................................. 24
Organizational Legitimacy .................................................................................. 29
Neoinstitutionalism and Organizational Change .................................................. 32
Summary ............................................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER THREE: The Competing Criteria of Legitimacy .................................... 37-71
Professionalism .................................................................................................. 37

What is a “Profession?” .......................................................................... 38

Teaching as a Profession? ....................................................................... 41

Common Chords .................................................................................... 48

Teacher Unionism .............................................................................................. 52
Regulative Constraints ............................................................................ 53

Cognitive Constraints ............................................................................. 56

Generational View of Teacher Unionism ................................................. 63

Professional Unionism ............................................................................ 67

Peer Review and Unionism ................................................................................. 70
CHAPTER FOUR: Programmatic Analysis of Teacher Peer Review ...................... 72-102
District Descriptions ........................................................................................... 72
Programmatic Features ...................................................................................... 74
Consulting Teachers ........................................................................................... 76
Selection Process .................................................................................... 77

Typical Activation .................................................................................. 77

Redland’s Program Structure .................................................................. 79

Autonomy and Oversight ........................................................................ 80

ix

Support and Professional Development ................................................... 81

Recruitment of Consulting Teachers ....................................................... 85

Intervention Process ........................................................................................... 86

The Peer Review Experience ............................................................................. 90

The Intern Experience ............................................................................. 90

The Intervention Experience ................................................................... 93

Consulting Teacher Recommendations ............................................................... 95

Legal Challenges ................................................................................................ 98
Summary .......................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER FIVE: Implementation Analysis of Teacher Peer Review ................... 103-135
Multiple Goals of Peer Review ......................................................................... 103
Program Implementation .................................................................................. 114
Presentation of Peer Review to Teachers .......................................................... 120
Teacher Reaction to Implementation of Peer Review ........................................ 123
Teacher Concerns ............................................................................................ 125
Potential Problems ........................................................................................... 127
Principal Reaction to Teacher Peer Review ...................................................... 132
Summary .......................................................................................................... 134
CHAPTER SIX: Reconciliation of the Competing Criteria for Legitimacy .......... 136-152
Legitimacy within Neoinstitutionalism and Organizational Analysis ................... 13]

Peer Review as Quality Control ........................................................................ 133
Hayesville ............................................................................................. 135

Marine City .......................................................................................... 137

F owlerton ............................................................................................. 139

Redland ................................................................................................ 141

Professional Legitimacy .................................................................................... 142

Union Legitimacy ............................................................................................. 144
Reconciling the Competing Criteria of Legitimacy ............................................ 145
Alternative Perspectives ................................................................................... 148
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 151
APPENDICES...................- .................................................................................. 161-184
Appendix A: Methodology .............................................................................. 161
Appendix B: Case Study Protocol ................................................................... 169
Appendix C: Foundational Interview Schedule ................................................ 170
Appendix D: Consent Form ............................................................................. 172
Appendix E: Managerial and Professional Occupations .................................... 173
Appendix F: Policy Recommendations ...................................................... 174-184

The NBA and AFT ............................................................................... 174

State-level Unions and Policymakers ..................................................... 177

Local Unions and School Districts ........................................................ 179
REFERENCES ........................................... . .......................................................... 185-197

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 1 Varying Emphases: Three Pillars of Institutions ................................................ 20
Table 2 District Demographic Data ............................................................................... 74
Table 3 Programmatic Overview ................................................................................... 75
Table 4 Consulting Teacher Data .................................................................................. 78
Table 5 Evaluation Data by District ............................................................................. 138
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Institutional Environments .............................................................................. 26
Figure 2 Typical Peer Review Process ........................................................................... 87
Figure 3 Relational Map of Multiple Goals .................................................................. 107

Chapter One

TEACHERS’ UNIONS IN CRISIS

Introduction

Public education is engulfed in a maelstrom of criticism, as usual. The current
storm of criticism, however, differs from its predecessors by attacking the very legitimacy
of public education and public schools as institutions designed to serve the public’s
interest (Mathews 1997). All too often one can read or hear about the government’s
monopoly of schools failing to meet the needs and/or desires of the public, parents and
children (Brimelow & Spencer, 1995; Chubb & Moe, 1990; Sowell, 1993). Once
dismissed as the rantings of conservative ideologues, criticism of public education can be
heard throughout the political spectrum. As Kerchner, Koppich and Weeres (1997) note,
“reforms on both the political left and right originate from a critique that holds that
existing institutions are incapable of performing as they should” (p. 15).

Chief among the complaints levied against public schools are charges of
unresponsiveness from school systems to the needs of parents, children, and the economy.
Many blame this failure to change and adapt on cumbersome administrative structures and
the presence of strong teachers’ unions which, together, developed an organization and
culture too inflexible to engage in the types of changes advocated by reformers
(Blumenfeld, 1984; Chubb & Moe, 1990; Lieberman, 1997, 1993; Sowell, 1993; Williams,

1981). Because of their historically defensive posture to many educational reforms and

often public, acrimonious practice of striking against school districts, teachers’ unions
have often been the focus of much of the criticism. A recent book on this topic, fie

Teacher Unions (Lieberman, 1997) embodies this focus, displaying proudly on the front

 

of its cover jacket a subtitle, “How the NEA andAFT Sabotage Reform and Hold
Students, Parents, Teachers, and Taxpayers Hostage to Bureaucracy.” For the most part,
throughout my teaching career, I held similar beliefs about the eficacy of unions in a
school environment under increasing pressure to hold high standards for all students. This
study is an efi‘ort to examine and explain one phenomenon in which some teachers’ unions
have been proactive in seeking solutions to concerns about educational quality generally,
and teacher quality specifically. As you will read in the following pages, some teacher
unionists are advocating change, not just in practice, but in the actual conception of

unionism, by developing and engaging in teacher peer review.

Teachers’ Unions and the Chg; of Lem

Teacher unionism in the late twentieth century is at a crossroads. For the past two
decades, criticism of teachers’ unions has increased in both strength and scope (Bennett,
1992; Blumenfeld, 1984; Cramer, 1980; Lieberman, 1997, 1993). As the legitimacy of
public education as a viableand responsible institution has been questioned, so too has the
fundamental legitimacy of teachers’ unions. Teachers’ unions contributed to the
development of the crisis by purposely rejecting responsibility in issues involving teacher
quality. Throughout the past two decades, reports of local unions defending incompetent

and harmful teachers have become the stuff of lore (Toch, 1996; Williams, 1981) In the

February 26, 1996 issue of US. News fit World Report, Toch reports one such incident,
writing

Students began complaining about Juliet Ellery’s English classes in 1981.
The veteran teacher at El Cajon Valley High School outside San Diego
refused to answer questions, they said. Her assignments mad no sense.
Her speech was unintelligible. Ellery was dismissed in 1986 but fought her
termination. After years of hearings and court proceedings -she tried
unsuccessfirlly to get the Supreme Court to hear her case-- her teacher’s
license was suspended for one year in 1994. The school district’s cost in

legal fees: $300,000. (p. 65)
Because of reports like this, teachers’ unions over the past decade have come under
increasingly scathing attacks and currently find themselves in their own crisis of
legitimacy. They are being challenged and criticized both externally and internally with
increasing intensity. No longer is the unions’ reactionary stance to protect the jobs of all
members without regard to merit actively supported by teachers. For years, this aspect of
unionism has brought much scorn to unions from the public.

The most prominent indicator of the state of crisis to which teachers’ unions have
fallen was the nomination acceptance speech of Robert Dole, 1996 Republican presidential
candidate (8/14/96). In his speech, Dole directly challenged, (some say “attacked”,

American Teacher, 10/96, p. 6) teachers’ unions as impediments to public education.

I say this not to the teachers, but to their unions: If education were a war,
you would be losing it. If it were a business, you would be driving it into
bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying.

To the teachers unions I say, when I am president, I will disregard your
political power, for the sake of your children, the schools and the nation.
I plan to enrich your vocabulary with those words you fear - school
choice, competition, and opportunity scholarships - so that you will join
the rest of us in accountability, while others compete with you for the
privilege of giving our children a real education.
(http://www.usatodaycom/elect/ec/ecr/ecrl26.htm, 11/97)

Because of their traditionally impressive political strength, it is indeed a rare occasion
when a political candidate risks alienating a tremendous number of voters, teachers, by
attacking their unions (Berube, 1988).1 By directly challenging teachers’ unions, Dole’s
speech highlighted their weakened state, and the current crisis of legitimacy in which they
find themselves. While blaming teachers’ unions for the ills of public education is neither a
new phenomenon nor necessarily accurate, the strength of the attack appears to have
accelerated recently and may be the impetus behind some changes in union positions on
some issues such as teacher quality.

This legitimacy crisis is indicative of an institutions facing eminent paradigmatic
collapse. The same institutional pressures and environmental conditions that were present
during the collapse of the industrial paradigm within industry are now contributing to the
paradigmatic evolution of American public education. So fitting is this analogy, that

delegates fiom both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education
Association have turned to leaders of the Saturn plant in Springhill, Tennessee for insight
in organizational and institutional change within a unionized workforce. As American
corporations faced increasing foreign competition, public schools today face increasing
competition from charter schools, vouchers, and schools of choice. As industries down-
Sizcd, in education, the push for smaller schools continues, often emulating schools-
within-schools. Finally, as American businesses lost the confidence of consumers, public
confidence in public schools has sunken to the point that many consider public schools to
be “illegitimate,” neither responsive to public demands, nor accountable for educational

‘

‘ According to Cramer (1930), 85% to 90% ofteachers vote regularly. In terms ofvotes, this equals at
least 2.5 million votes.

achievement (Mathews, 1997). These conditions have created a crisis of legitimacy for all
of public education.

In response to increasing delegitimation, unionists are now addressing issues of
quality through programs like peer review, mentoring, and new member induction
programs. Leaders of the NEA are presently trying to make the case to their members,
policy makers, and the public that the antagonistic characteristics of professionalism and
unionism can be reconciled effectively. In his final presidential address to the NEA
Representative Assembly (NBA-RA), Geiger (1996) carried the message to his skeptical
members saying

Let me say this bluntly: We as an Association cannot continue to sidestep

accountability for the quality of our members’ work. We cannot tolerate --

and we certainly shouldn’t protect -- that small minority of school

employees who fail to measure up professionally.

Peer review is not a game of “gotcha.” It is about helping. It is about

professional development at its best. the bottom line is accountability.

As NEA members, we must take charge of our professionalism.

(original emphasis, http://www.nea.org/ra/geiger/html)

Robert Chase (1997a, 1997b), current NEA president, firrther elevated the idea of peer
review in speeches before the National Press Club (1997a) and in his presidential address
to the NBA-RA (1997b). Furthermore, Chase is making it a cornerstone of his vision to
reinvent the largest national teachers’ union as one more responsive to clients and more
TCSponsible for educational quality in the nation’s public schools. While he acknowledges
that ideas such as peer review may have been “heretical in the past” (1997b), Chase
Counters that
...there are indeed some bad teachers in America’s schools, and it is our job

- it is our job as a union to improve those teachers, or that failing, to get
them out of the classroom.

And today, with all due respect, I say to the traditionalists within our ranks,

to those who argue that we should stick to our knitting, leaving education

reform to others, you are mistaken. (1997a, p. 5, emphasis added)
\Vrthin the much smaller American Federation of Teachers (AFT), long-time president
Albert Shanker advocated peer review as first implemented by the Toledo Federation of
Teachers in 1981 for more than a decade without much success (Shanker, 1985). Through
such statements, union leaders are attempting to widely legitimize a broadened view of

unionism to facilitate a paradigmatic evolution to “professional unionism” (Kerchner &

Koppich 1993; Koppich, 1993) or “new unionism” (Chase 1997a, 1997b).

Background
Teachers’ unions’ participation in the design, implementation, and operation of
peer review programs is significant when considering the history of reform impedance
attributed to teachers’ unions (Berube, 1988; Lieberman, 1993, 1997; Urban, 1982). Over
the past three decades, the dominant mode of teacher unionism has evolved to embrace
the basic tenets of industrial unionism, including a clear delineation between managerial
and workers’ duties. In fact, as recently as June 21, 1996, I was informed by a
representative of the Michigan Education Association that peer review was a “terrible
idea” because teacher evaluation was an “adbninistrative function. ”
Understandably, unionism among public school teachers arose out of concerns of

siniple survival. Teaching historically is a poorly paying profession. At the turn of the
century, teachers earned barely enough on which to survive. As centralization and

bureaucratization spread throughout the country, the criteria for the hiring and retention of

teachers changed rapidly. Teachers once hired because of their personal demeanor, and

- retained because of their strong ties to the community, faced impersonal working
conditions and were often treated as interchangeable parts in the cogs of the educational
bureaucracy.

Albert Bushnell Hart, a Harvard historian and member of the Committee of Ten,
was also a member of the Cambridge (Massachusetts) School Committee during the
period in which centralization was considered. The committee on which he served
decided in favor of centralization in spite of Hart's showing that

neither teachers nor ordinary citizens were of great concern to

administrative reformers. The corporate model served the interests of

those who proposed it: business and professional men and the school

executives who would emulate corporate executives if reform were

approved. The interests of teachers and ordinary people would be taken

care of indirectly, if at all. (in Urban, 1982, pp. 36-37)

Because of their nearly unanimous opposition to these bureaucratic reforms, organized
teachers were often characterized as being unprofessional, and as impeding progress, by
both school district officials, education school faculty, and the press.

Further damaging to the professional status of public school teachers was their
collective efi’ort to establish salary scales for all teachers within a district. ”Once a scale
was achieved, city teacher'sassociations could seek to expand the number of steps on it, a
goal which institutionalized experience as the most important criterion of competence for
a teacher” (Urban, 1982, p. 21). The natural result of these actions in a meritocratic social
Organization, was the destruction almost any semblance of professionalism in teaching. As

Laharee (1989) notes "membership in an undifferentiated status group is tantamount to an

admission of mediocrity, since merit is seen as rising to the top. Thus a profession with no

top or bottom cannot be a profession at all..." (p. 185). The unspoken assumption behind
salary scales (and of industrial unionism) must be that all employees are of the same
quality. This idea, as well as the basic operating principles of teachers' unionism were
”developed on an industrial union model, which views the work to be performed as largely
unskilled" (Firestone & Bader, 1992, p. 160). Thus, the pursuit of salary scales worked

against the professionalization of public school teachers.

The Competing Criterig of Legfiimig

Teachers’ unions’ current crisis of legitimacy is caused by their unique position
within the organizational environments of public education and unionism. Because of their
position, teachers’ unions must try to firlfill two competing criteria for legitimacy. As
labor unions, they must fillfill the traditional obligations required by the statutes of federal
and state labor laws, as well as the precedents of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB). Typically, the traditional concerns of labor unions are characterized as “bread
and butter” issues including bargaining over wages and working conditions, and protecting
members’ jobs (Atleson, 1983; Brody, 1993; McDonnell & Pascal, 1988).

As professionals charged with educating our children, some attribute to teachers,
and thus their unions, the moral obligation to educate our children as well as possible
(Chase, 1997a; Geiger, 1996; Goodlad, Soder & Sirotnik, 1990; Gutrnann, 1987;
Kerchner, Koppich, & Weeres, 1997). Proponents of a more professionally responsible
conception of teacher unionism, argue that teachers’ unionism and professionalism do not

need to be antagonistic to one another.

However, resistance to professionalization efforts can be found even among those
who stand to benefit, individual teachers. When one considers the demands placed on
teachers, one must question whether teachers possess two resources necessary for reform
implementation, "capacity and will" (McLaughlin, 1987, pp. 171-178). Devaney and
Sykes (1988) analyze the situation well, writing

Certainly all teachers would endorse professional-level salaries, benefits,

and perquisites; but professional level responsibility for decisions about the

classroom's and school's instructional program? for setting and maintaining

standards of practice among fellow practitioners? for continuous updating

and upgrading of knowledge and skill? It is no slander to say that many,

many capable, long-experienced teachers, upon pondering such obligations

in return for professional salary and status, might decline the offer - or

would at least think twice before accepting. (p. 3)

Given the long history of additional burdens being placed upon them without regard to
their professional needs, it is only logical for teachers to balk at accepting even more
work. COOper (1988) astutely observes of teachers now faced with "professionalization"
reforms, that "secretly they are skeptical, wondering at this sudden interest in their
professionalism, when for years their behavior has been standardized and prescribed"
(p. 46). Teachers as a group have become "accustomed to being run over by hurtling
bandwagons" (Cooper, p. 46). As a result, the teaching workforce cannot help but to
become cynical of educational reform in general.

Slowly, however, in a few local unions across the country, innovative leaders have

begun to challenge the traditional modus operandi of their unions. Kerchner and Koppich

(1993), in A Union of Professionals, document several innovations in local labor-

 

management relations such as peer review, policy trust agreements, and active cooperation

in decentralized settings. To this emerging form of unionism, the authors give the term

10

“professional unionism.” Koppich (1993) summarizes the challenges of professional
unionism well writing, “professional unions must be willing to assume roles that fly in
the face of conventional unionism” (p. 202). She continues,

Teachers must assume an obligation to be active partners in the

development of educational policy. They must be willing to tackle thorny

issues of colleague competence and resource allocation. They must

struggle to come to terms with the definition of good teaching and with

important issues of quality - how to measure it, how to achieve it and how

to retain it. (p. 202)
Historically, however, teachers’ unions have operated within an industrial unionism
paradigm, of which two fimdamental premises are the importance of solidarity and the
inherent separateness of managerial and worker fimctions. Consequently, actions such as

peer review met with strong opposition fiom unionists.

Purpose of the Study

Although still rare, teacher peer review is not a new phenomenon. Since 1981 the
Toledo (Ohio) Federation of Teachers through their Intem-lntervention Program have
evaluated all teachers new to Toledo Public Schools, as well as those veteran teachers
deemed to be seriously deficient. Initially (and to a large part, still) very unpopular among
unionists, the idea of peer review - taking responsibility for the quality of practice among
teachers - has recently been elevated to national prominence (Chase, 1997; Kerchner,
KOppich & Weeres, 1997; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,

1 996).
This purpose of this study is to examine this conception of professional unionism

by studying teacher peer review programs implemented by local unions. Teacher peer

11

review has experienced a meteoric rise to prominence over the past two years which can
be attributed to two major policy initiatives. The report of the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future (1996) and the recent policy reversal of the National
Education Association (1997) both advocate the implementation of teacher peer review as
a means of improving teaching by acting as a gate-keeping mechanism for new teachers as
well as assisting experienced teachers whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory.
From this study, I hope to determine how teachers and their unions reconcile the

competing criteria of legitimacy to which they are held accountable - unionism and
professionalism, both theoretically and practically. Therefore the research question
guiding this study is:

How do teachers’ unions reconcile the competing criteria for legitimacy of
the institutions of professionalism and unionism to which they are held?

This area was chosen specifically because, where successful, peer review captures the
quintessential conflict between unionism and professionalism. As peer review of teachers
increases in prominence, local school districts and teachers’ unions will increasingly need
accurate information and analyses upon which to base their implementation decisions. By
gaining insight into those practices and/or conditions which affect the implementation and
maintenance of teacher peer review, fixture efforts of local teachers’ unions efforts to

reconcile the competing criteria of legitimacy may be better informed.

12

Overview of the Dissertafion Structure

This dissertation is written in six chapters with an appendices describing the
methodology used during data collection and analysis.2 Chapter one is a general
introduction to the context of the study, situating it within the current dynamics of teacher
unionism. Chapter two presents for the reader the theoretical framework employed for
this study, neoinstitutionalism. It attempts to describe the fundamental underpinnings of
neoinstitutional theory as they relate to organizational analysis and the paradigmatic
metamorphosis taking place within teachers’ unions. Chapter three examines in depth the
competing criteria for legitimacy, professionalism and unionism, and the constraints
imposed on teachers’ actions by each. Chapters four and five present the bulk of the data.
Chapter four describes peer review programs as implemented and operated in the four
school districts visited. Chapter five examines the motives and reactions of those involved
in the implementation and design process. It also reveals the cognitive and normative
constraints which guide the actions of the local actors. Chapter six is a synthesis of the
data with the theoretical framework and directly answers the research questions posed
above. Finally, the dissertation concludes with Appendix F which ofi‘ers readers a set of

policy considerations and recommendations for the national, state and district level.

 

2 All cities and persons portrayed in this study have been given pseudonyms to protect the identity of
classroom teachers interviewed.

Chapter Two

INSTITUTIONALISM AS A TOOL OF ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS

To examine the phenomenon of fundamental organizational change within
teachers’ unions, of which engagement in peer review is indicative, I have chosen to
employ the analytical lens of “new institutionalism.” This chapter will portray the
fundamental underpinnings of institutionalism as well as differentiate between “old”
institutionalism and its more recent instantiation. It will then examine organizational
analysis of public education and public schools within neoinstitutionalism by focusing upon
the seminal works of Meyer, Rowan, and Scott (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1995;
Scott and Meyer, 1983, 1991). Although Meyer and Rowan’s work was a watershed for
organizational analysis and institutionalism, I will argue that their characterization of the
environment of public schools as strongly institutional and weakly technical is no longer
accurately descriptive. Under ever-increasing demands for technical productivity, the
institutional norms of public education are presently evolving. No longer will the
maintenance of the symbolic structures as described by Meyer and Rowan (1977) retain
the institutional legitimacy of public schools within a society emphasizing accountability
for high levels of technical production fiom organizations. The chapter will conclude with
an examination of the role of legitimacy as an organizational resource as well as a source

of organizational pressure to change or conform to the wider social environment.

13

14

Some may question the use of an institutional theoretical framework to examine
organizational change, given its historical bias toward constancy or inertia in institutions.
The appropriateness of the application of neoinstitutionalism to the study of change will be
made clear through a more dynamic characterization of neoinstitutionalism than has been
ofl‘ered to date. It is this author’s opinion that the significance of organizational legitimacy
within the larger social environment has been long underestimated or neglected by other
institutional theorists. Indeed, it appears that many critics who have characterized
institutionalism as deterministic fail to recognize Rowan’s (1982) important reminder that
“institutionalized beliefs and regulations need not remain stable” (p. 261). This study
will provide evidence to support this more dynamic version of neoinstitutionalism by
examining one small segment of change occurring within some local school districts,

teacher peer review.

Institutionalism

Institutionalism, when reduced to its most fundamental basis, simply incorporates
the belief that when examining human actions, history and the social environment matter.
Within the social sciences, institutionalism arose in response to the ultra-rational
“economic man” whose decisions, according to classical economic theory are based solely
upon economic maximization criteria, independent of time and environment (Hollis, 1975).
Early institutionalists (see for example, Durkheim, 1901; Veblen, 1919; or Weber, 1924)
argued that “individuals do not mechanically respond to stimuli (as the economic man

does); they first interpret them and then shape their response” (Scott, 1995, p. 11).

15

Furthermore, researchers and analysts cannot expect to “understand social behavior
without taking into account the meanings that mediate social action” (Scott, 1995, p. 11).

From dissatisfaction with ahistorical economic analyses, the analytical lens of
institutionalism was developed within economics, political science, and sociology.
Keohane (1988) notes that some social science researchers came to recognize that

institutions do not merely reflect the preferences and power of the units

constituting them; the institutions themselves shape those preferences and

that power. (p. 382)

For these researchers, it became imperative that social and organizational analyses hold
central the efi‘ect of the environment on the decisions of both the individual and the
collective group.

Within sociology, the emergent theoretical perspective of institutionalism in the
early twentieth century developed several distinguishing characteristics. According to Bill
and Hardgrave (1981), the early form of institutionalism was 1) too narrowly focused on
formal, dominant structures and legal systems, 2) emphasized detailed descriptive
accounts of political systems, 3) “was conservative in the sense that it emphasized the
‘permanent and unchanging,” and 4) ‘yvas largely nontheoretical, with more attention
being given to historical reconstruction of specific institutional forms” (quoted in Scott,
1995, p. 6). Because of these characteristics, institutionalism failed to become dominant
within sociology, or any other discipline for that matter. Instead, institutionalism has
waxed and waned within the social sciences. Of the cyclic fortunes of institutionalism,
Dorothy Ross (1995), professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, notes

To an historian of social science, what is most striking about

institutionalism is its recurrence. In the United States institutionalism has
been repeatedly invented, first in economics, then in political science and

16

sociology. Each time it develops as an opposition movement, a dissenter
fiom mainstream social science paradigms. (p. 117)

Continuing this trend, approximately halfa century after the initial rise of institutionalism,
the most recent incarnation of institutional theory, aptly referred to as “new
institutionalism” or “neoinstitutionalism,” came to prominence through the work of social
scientists such as DiMaggio and Powell (1983), March and Olson (1984), and Meyer and
Rowan (1977).

Of the emergent neoinstitutionalism, Powell and DiMaggio (1991) note in The
Newjrsfitutionalism in Organizational Analysis that

There are, in fact, many new institutionalisms united by little but a

common skepticism toward atomistic accounts of social processes and a

common conviction that institutional arrangements and social processes

matter. (p. 3)
“fithin the confines of this study, primary focus will be upon the sociological conception
of institutionalism generally, and more specifically upon neoinstitutionalism within
organizational analysis. Before continuing however, it is usefiil at this point to
difi’erentiate between “old” and “new” institutionalism. Neoinstitutionalism difl’ers fi'om its
predecessor in that it broadens the scope of environmental factors afl’ecting actors and
organizations to include non-local factors, such as societal norms or the zeitgeist. In this
way, “environments are more subtle in their influence” by “creating the lenses through
which actors view the world and the very categories of structure, action and thought”
(Powell & DiMaggio, 1991, p. 13). Cibulka (1996) notes that a strength of
neoinstitutional theory is that

it can focus on the interpenetration of organizations and their

environments, and how strategies for controlling those environments must
shift to accommodate the environmental changes. As will be seen, it is this

I7

problem which is, in my view, at the heart of the current crisis of
legitimacy for public schools. (emphasis added, p. 10)

Furthermore, neoinstitutional sociologists (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1988; Meyer &
Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1991; and Zucker, 1987) refined earlier constructions of
institutionalism to more adeptly analyze social phenomena through concentration on the

processes by which institutions are established and evolve.

Multiple DefiJnitions of “Institution”

Before going filrther into neoinstitutional analysis of organizations, it is helpfirl to
explore what is meant by the term “institution” within the literature pertaining specifically
to organizational analysis. From an economic perspective, North (1990) emphasizes the
rewards and sanctions embodied in institutions as “the rules of the game in a society or,
more formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction, the
rules and informal codes are sometimes violated and punishment is enacted. Therefore, an
essential part of the functioning of institutions is the costliness of ascertaining violations
and the severity of punishment” (p 3,4)” North attaches no normative value to these
“rules of the game,” but instead presents them as regulative, environmental factors
external to the organization which must be considered in economic analysis.

Sociologist Ronald Jepperson (1991) describes institutions as “organized,
established, procedure(s). These special procedures are often represented as the
constituent rules of society. ...(Institutions) are variously ‘production systems’ or
‘enabling structures’ or social ‘programs’ or performance scripts. Each of these

metaphors connotes stable designs for chronically repeated activity sequences”

I8

(Jepperson, p. 143-145). While highlighting the rule-like nature of institutions,
Jepperson’s definition differs from that of economist North by focusing on the cognitive
limitations imposed by institutions. Inherent in the repeated procedural nature of this
definition, institutions become accepted as “the way we do things” within organizations.
As such, J epperson argues that institutions become very strong mechanisms for
reproduction within an organization or society. Olson (1965) summarizes this point well,
writing, “Action is a much weaker form of reproduction than institutionalization, because
it faces all the ‘logic of collective action’ problems” (in Jepperson, 1991, p. 148). Once
practices and procedures become institutionalized, “they are considered natural and
legitimate (and) a search for alternative approaches is uncommon” (Ginsberg, 1996, p.
159).

Berger, Berger, and Kellner (1973) carry this argument one step further,
attributing to institutional procedures perceived normative qualities. Writing about
bureaucracies, the authors argue

In (a) bureaucracy the means are typically as important, or nearly so, as the

ends. The proper means and procedures are given a positive moral

value, and in many cases it is assumed that even if the legitimate end is

obtained by illegitimate means, the damage done by this to the

bureaucratic agency far outweighs any positive benefit from the action.

(emphasis added, p. 53)

According to this conception, institutions not only represent cognitive or regulative
limitations upon the actions of individuals and organizations, but can actually acquire

normative force as the way things should be done. As such, some social scientists

attribute to institutions incredible power, going as far as suggesting that institutions

19

“control human conduct prior to or apart fi'om an mechanisms or sanctions set up to
. support them” (Berger and Luckman, 1967,p. 55).

In Institutions and anizations (1995), Scott attempts to synthesize the above
approaches into one, all encompassing, definition:

institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and

activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior.

Institutions are transported by various carriers - cultures, structures, and

routines - and they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction. (original

emphasis, p. 33)

In this definition, Scott attempts to highlight the often interwoven nature of the various
factors which affect the establishment and maintenance of institutions over time. All of the
above definitions, however, rely upon the notions of rules or constraints. This is
important. Institutions, as presented in the broader sociological and organizational
literatures, are usually portrayed as setting limits upon actors’ actions and thoughts.

A common measure of the strength of institutions often referred to is their “taken-
for-grantedness” (Powell, 1991). Because institutions often exist in the form of informal
rules, or more's, they both confine, and enable, actions and thoughts within the general
notion of “the way things ought to be.” When actors or organizations violate the “way
things should be” criterion, as North observes, sanctions are imposed upon the violators.
The strength of sanctions for violating institutional constraints can cause organizations to
continue to adhere to their norms even though they may be “suboptimal” and “serve no

one’s interests” (Akerlof, 1976; Zucker, 1986). Institutional scholars (Ginsberg, 1996;

North, 1990; Powell, 1991) refer to this phenomenon as “path dependence” in which

20

“initial choices preclude future options, including those that would have been more
cfl’ective in the long run” (Powell, 1991, p. 192). North (1990) explains,

Once a development path is set on a particular course, the network

externalities, the learning process of organizations, and the historically

derived subjective modeling of the issues reinforce the course. (p. 99)
This observation is supported by empirical work such as Stinchcombe’s (1965) analysis of
organizational founding processes, in which he argued that the basic structural features of
organizations “vary systematically by time of founding and remain fairly constant over

time” (in Powell, 1991, p. 192).

Thil'hree Pill_ars of Institutions

Scott (1991, 1995) provides a useful synthesis of the various institutional factors
by highlighting the differing emphases used by institutional scholars of organizational
analysis which he terms “the three pillars of institutions” (see Table 1). Scott groups these
emphases into three general categories: regulative, normative and cognitive. All three

pillars are useful when examining organizational change within teachers’ unions. Through

 

 

Table l
m Emphases: Three Pillars of Institutions
Regulative Normative Cognitive
Basis of Expedience Social obligation Taken for granted
compliance
Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Indicators Rules, laws, Certification, Prevalence,
sanctions accreditation isomorphism
Basis of legitimacy Legally sanctioned Morally governed Culturally supported,
conceptually correct

 

(Scott, 1995, p. 35)

21

their differing foci, each pillar highlights relevant factors either facilitating or inhibiting the
change process occurring within the four focal districts of this study. The table above
displays some of the facets along which the pillars differ.

Broadly speaking, institutionalists view institutions as confining organizational or
individual action. Theorists emphasizing the regulative pillar, however, “are distinguished
by the prominence they give to explicit regulative processes - rule-setting, monitoring,
and sanctioning activities” (Scott, 1995, p. 35). Within the regulative pillar, Scott explains
that

it is in the actor’s self-interest to conform... Actors behave expediently;

they calculate rewards and penalties, whether these come fi'om other

individuals, from organizations, or from the state. (p. 37)

For labor unions within the United States, including teachers’ unions, the regulative pillar
of the institution of unionism lies within the voluminous federal and state labor laws as
well as the bylaws, contracts, and procedures by which unions operate. As explained
more fully in the following chapter, the regulative laws and policies under which teachers’
unions operate greatly constrain their range of actions on a variety of issues, including
teacher evaluation and cooperative ventures with district administrators. Although
constraining in nature, mechanisms belonging to the regulative pillar, because of the
reliance on formal rules and laws, are the most easily altered. Mechanisms supporting the
normative and cognitive pillars of institutions are much more amorphous and thus less
amenable to direct action and change.

Rather than formal rules, the normative pillar relies more on societal or

organizational values, norms, and ideals. Scott explains that these mechanisms

22

are not simply anticipations or predictions but prescriptions - normative

expectations- of what the actors are supposed to do. The expectations are

held by other salient actors in the situation and so are experienced as

external pressures by the focal actor. Also, and to varying degrees, they

become internalized by the actor. (emphasis added, 1995, p. 37)
As such, these mechanisms attach normative, sometimes moral, value upon certain courses
of actions or beliefs over others deemed less appropriate or ideal. “fithin the context of
this study, normative mechanisms play a very significant roll through both institutions in
question - professionalism and unionism. Details regarding these institutions are reserved
for the following chapter, but the professional ideals of service to clients and of quality
assurances greatly facilitate teachers’ unions’ abilities to pursue programs such as peer

review. On the other hand, normative ideals of unionism, such as solidarity and the

inherent separateness of supervisors and workers, act to inhibit the adaptation of peer

review.3 From these competing normative criteria arises the problematic position in
which unions considering organizational change find themselves.

The last, or cognitive, pillar of institutions has contributed greatly to the
development of neoinstitutional analysis by expanding the definition of environmental
factors affecting individual and organizational behavior to include the internal
representation actors hold of their environment. Within the cognitive pillar, “to
understand or explain any action, the analyst must take into account not only the objective
conditions, but the actor’s subjective interpretation of them” (Scott, 1995, p. 40). These
interpretations,

although a product of human interaction, are experienced by individuals as

objective. Although subjectively formed, they become "crystallized.” They
are, in Durkheim's (1901/1950) terms, ”social facts": phenomena perceived

 

3 Evidence supporting this claim will be presented in chapter four.

23

by the individual as being both "external" (to that person) and "coercive"
(backed by sanctions). (in Scott, 1995, p. 10)

Unlike the regulative view, within the cognitive pillar, institutions encompass more than
simply rules and sanctions, but actually involve the social construction of actors/or
organizations (Berger and Luckman, 1967). The resultant construction then defines for
the actors/organizations what their interests are.

For organizations, such as unions, the constructed identity includes certain
definitions or interpretations of their environment and the organizations/actors with which
they have interactions. These interpretations become routinized over time and become
institutionalized as part of the identity of the organizations. In other words, they develop
an inherent and self-perpetuating nature, as they become characterized as “the way things
are” or “the way we do things here” (Johnson, 1984, pp. 85, 110) Mthin the context of
this study, the cognitive pillar is very important for it aptly describes the way in which
traditional unionists think of teacher evaluation as “something we just don’t do.” Cibulka
(1996) commenting on the effects of the cognitive limitations resulting from institutional
constraints, writes

institutionalization of schools has proven to be a destabilizing force at the

present moment of environmental turbulence, robbing school omcials of

their capacity to perceive their options clearly. (original emphasis, p. 20)

As a result, the cognitive institutional constraints within the American conception of
unionism act as an impediment to even the consideration of peer review-based teacher

evaluation programs.

24

Organizational Analysis within Neoin_stitutionglism

Meyer and Rowan (1977) in their seminal piece, “Institutionalized Organizations:
Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” provided a watershed for organizational
analysts by highlighting the decoupled nature of technical production and organizational
structure. In their article, the authors wrote that “many elements of formal structure are
highly institutionalized and fimction as myths,” meaning that the long-held notion of
bureaucratic efiiciency as a driving force for organizational structure is mediated by
institutional norms or “myths” (1977, p. 342). Furthermore, Meyer and Rowan
highlighted the irnportance of institutional environments on organizations writing,

Isomorphism with environmental institutions has some crucial

consequences for organizations: (a) they incorporate elements which are

legitimated externally, rather than in terms of efiiciency; (b) they employ

external or ceremonial assessment criteria to define the value of structural

elements; and (c) dependence on externally fixed institutions reduces

turbulence and maintains stability. (1977, p. 348)

When addressing public education and public schools, Meyer and Rowan (1977)
observed that schools as organizations “use variable, ambiguous technologies
(pedagogies) to produce outputs (student learning) that are difficult to appraise” (p. 354).
Baldridge and Bumham (1975) concluded much the same when they observed that

Educational innovations tend to have high levels of technical uncertainty

and, as a result, can seldom be justified on the basis of solid technical

evidence. Instead, educational innovations tend to gain legitimacy and
acceptance of the basis of social evaluations, such as the endorsement of
legislatures or professional agencies. School systems are highly sensitive to
these social evaluations and tend to become isomorphic with them. (in

Rowan, 1982, p. 260)

Consequently, Meyer and Rowan (1977) observe that public schools “evolved from

producing rather specific training that was evaluated according to strict criteria of

25

efiiciency to producing ambiguously defined services that are evaluated according to
criteria of certification” (p. 354). Although accurate at the time, now more than two
decades past, Meyer and Rowan’s characterizations are no longer accurate. Instead of
being evaluated by the “criteria of certification,” public education and public schools are
increasingly being evaluated according to strictly technical criteria, achievement in student
learning. Given the rise in prominence of standardized testing, “high-stakes” testing, and
general calls for accountability, schools cannot retain their organizational legitimacy
without directly addressing their more technical facets of organizational behavior. This
shift in the organizational environment is bringing tremendous pressure to bear on public
schools to shift their focus from primarily an institutional one to a more technical focus.

Scott and Meyer (1983, 1991) offer assistance in understanding environmental
efl’ects on organizations by further refining the work of Meyer and Rowan through more
sophisticated analysis of the institutional environments which they call “societal sector.” A
“societal sector,” according to Scott and Meyer (1983, 1991) is “defined as (1) a
collection of organizations operating in the same domain... (2) together with those
organizations that critically influence the performance of focal organizations” (1991, p.
117). When engaging in organizational analysis, societal sectors can be classified
according to characteristics ’of the environment. Scott and Meyer identify two such
classifications;

Technical environments are, by definition, those in which a product or

service is produced and exchanged in a market such that organizations are

rewarded for efi’ective and eficient control of their production system.

Institutional enviromnents are, by definition, those characterized by the
elaboration of rules and requirements to which individual organizations

26

must conform if they are to receive support and legitimacy. (original
emphasis, 1991, p. 123)

The two classifications are not dichotomous but describe characteristics within
organizations’ environments. As illustrated in the figure below, it is possible for an
organization to operate within an environment which is simultaneously strongly

institutional and technical, or weakly characterized on both measures.

 

 

Figure 1
Institutional Environments
Sager Weaker
Utilities General manufacturing
Stronger tiscal
Technical General hospitalsp
Environments Mental health clinics Restaurants
Weaker Schools, legal agencies Health clubs
Churches

 

 

 

 

(Scott, 1987, p. 126)

While it is possible for strong and stable organizations to exist within either strongly
institutional or technical environments, a lack of such commonly-held norms inherent in
these environments is deleterious to the survival of organizations (Scott and Meyer,
1991). In environments that are neither strongly institutional nor technical, organizations
(typified above as restaurants or health clubs) tend to be small and rather unstable as
organizations.

Schools (and teachers’ unions) operate within a strongly institutional environment
which relies heavily on conforming to the institutional norms of the sector (Meyer and
Rowan, 1977). This emphasis on conforming to traditional norms poses a considerable
barrier to significant organizational change through two different mechanisms. First,

because of the heavy reliance on norms developed over time path dependence develops

27

through repeated patterns of interaction. Once an organization develops an operational
structure and organizational procedures, it is very diflicult to diverge from that initial path.

Further facilitating the perpetuation of path dependence are the interorganizational
connections formed through routine interactions. Of this Powell (1991) comments,

Cormnon procedures that facilitate interorganizational communication may

be maintained, even in the face of considerable evidence that they are

suboptimal, because the benefits associated with familiarity may easily

outweigh the gains associated with flexibility. Altering institutional rules

always involves high switching costs, thus a host of politicaL financial, and

cognitive considerations mitigate against making such changes. (p. 192)

Within the context of teachers’ unions, interorganizational connections through routine
exchanges are very significant. As Kerchner and Mitchell (1988) highlight in The
Changing Idea of a Teachers’ Union, district administrators and union leaders, because of
their frequent interactions tend to “accommodate” one another through the establishment
of routines through various problem solving activities. So even though a given
institutional relationship may be suboptimal, as Powell notes above, the costs of changing
“the way things are done” between unions and administrations are very high and embody a
significant impediment to reform.

The second impediment to significant organizational change within an institutional
environment with heavy reliance on norms is strong pressure for organizations to be
isomorphic.4 In their seminal piece, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism
and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” DiMaggio and Powell (1983 ), identify

three mechanisms facilitating institutional isomorphism. They are

 

4 “Isomorphism” is defined by Hawley (1968) as “a constraining process that forces one unit in a
population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions” (in Powell and
DiMaggio 1991, p. 66).

28

(1) coercive isomorphism that stems fi'om political influence and the
problem of legitimacy;

(2) mimetic isomorphism resulting from standard responses to uncertainty;
(3) normative isomorphism, associated with professionalization. (p. 150-
154)

Historically, for teachers’ unions, the mechanisms exerting the greatest influence on
organizational development have been coercive and mimetic. Mimetic forces arising fi'om
the inherently uncertain act of establishing new organizations during the 19605 and 1970s,
led early local teachers’ unions, as collective bargaining agents for large numbers of
teachers, to look to the highly successful manufacturing industrial labor unions as a viable
organizational model. Furthermore, the isomorphic pressures due to uncertainty were
facilitated by coercive elements such as federal and state labor statutes restricting both the
activities and membership of unions.

As fledgling organizations within the societal sector of labor relations and union
activism, teachers’ unions also experienced, and presently experience, pressure to conform
to norms of the traditional union sector. While interviewing the executive director of the
Marine City Education Association (MCEA), he reported that the MCEA’s venture into
peer review-based teacher evaluation as a means for accepting some responsibility for the
quality of education within Marine City schools has engendered animosity from other
industrial unions in the area.

We’ve got the business community saying, “Wow,” because at (Acme

Aerospace) the machinists’ union doesn’t take any responsibility for the

quality of the work. This is our biggest employer saying, “My God, there's

a union that's willing to do this!” And so, I‘ve had nasty calls from
machinists!

29

Recently, however, as stated in chapter one, the pressures being exerted on teachers’
unions as organizations are evolving and changing in a manner which, at present time, is
increasing the strength of the technical demands and expectations of the public school
system and teachers. Within the strongly institutional environment of public education,
the growing technical pressures are often generating turmoil as they conflict with deeply

held institutional beliefs and procedures.

Organizational Qg'timagy

As stated earlier, at its core, neoinstitutionalism is based upon the idea that when
examining the actions of individuals or organizations, history and the social environment
matter. Any organizational analysis, therefore, must be informed by examination of the
fi'ameworks within which an organization and its actors operate. For organizations
operating in strongly institutional societal sectors, such as teachers’ unions, legitimacy is
an integral factor adding to the strength of the cognitive and normative institutional pillars.
By definition (Scott 1995), societal sectors which are strongly institutional rely heavily on
shared cognitive norms, organizational structures, and operating procedures.
Organizations failing to adhere to the sector norms are perceived by others within the
sector as illegitimate, which. is detrimental to organizational survival (Dowling & Pfeffer,
1975; Mathews, 1997; Meyer and Scott, 1983; Rowan, 1982).

Reviewing the organizational analysis literature, the centrality of legitimacy as an
organizational resource is undeniable. Scott (1995) explains that legitimacy is “a

condition reflecting cultural alignment, normative support, or consonance with relevant

 

 

30

rules or laws” (p. 45). Rowan (1982) refers to the condition of cultural alignment as
“balance” within the institutional environment. Organizations, including teachers’ unions,
seek to “establish congruence between the social values associated with or implied by their
activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the larger social system of which they
are a part” (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975, p. 122). As Parsons (1960) observed, the
establishment of environmental congruence or institutional balance is important “since
organizations exist in a superordinate social system and utilize resources which might
otherwise be allocated, the utilization of these resources must be accepted as legitimate by
the larger social system” (in Dowling & Pfeffer, p. 123). For teachers’ unions,
representing large numbers of workers employed with public monies, the importance of
their organizational legitimacy when advocating for increased salaries becomes clear. As
with everything, however, societal norms and values are not immutable and therefore, the
criteria upon which organizations are legitimated are also not immutable.

What appears to be occurring presently within teacher unionism, as well as public
education, is a redefinition of the criteria for organizational legitimacy within the societal
sector of public education. Herein lies the dilemma in which teachers’ unions are currently
immersed. Because public education is public, no clear organizational boundaries exist
between society and public Schooling. Teachers’ unions, being actors within the system of
public education, are also subject to fuzzy delineations between organization and
environment. As several reports and authors have observed the environment in which
public education operates is changing drastically (see for example, Fullan, 1991; National

Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Commission on Teaching and

31

America’s Future, 1996). As a result of changing social norms and values, the level of

~ “environmental balance” upon which organizations can draw support is greatly diminished
(Rowan, 1982):1 The consequences for a highly institutional organization of an
“imbalance” in the environment of a societal sector are significant.

In a pattern reminiscent of the painfill changes in the auto industry in the 19803,
schools and teachers are presently required to be much more focused on technical
production (or student learning) than in the past. Therefore, as the broader culture places
more emphasis on the technical production of schools and teachers, school districts and
teachers’ unions are forced to evolve to remain legitimate. Dowling and Pfeffer (1975)
describe three options for organizations attempting to improve their legitimacy within the
larger social environment.

First, the organization can adapt its output, goals, and methods of

operation to conform to prevailing definitions of legitimacy. Second, the

organization can attempt, through communication, to alter the definition of

social legitimacy so that it conforms to the organization’s present practices,

output, and values. Finally, the organization can attempt, again through

communication, to become identified with symbols, values, or institutions

which have a strong base of social legitimacy. (p. 126-127)

The implementation of teacher peer review as an organizational practice within teachers’
unions is an example of the first of Dowling and Pfeffer’s strategies. Chapter Four will
describe in detail the actual changes in teacher evaluation practices inherent in teacher peer
review.

So important is legitimacy for schools and teachers’ unions that Kerchner, Koppich

and Weeres (1997) write

 

5 Balance is defined as the establishment of ideological consensus and harmonious working relations
among legislatures, publies, regulatory agencies, and professional associations. (Rowan, 1982, pp. 259-
260)

32

The most fimdamental institutional rule is the grant of legitimacy that
society gives to those who work in education. When society has
confidence in an institution, it grants fieedom and self-govemance to those
who work in it. ...When, as Dunlop writes ([1958] 1993), the basic grants
of legitimacy are withdrawn, none of the rest of the rules have much

power. (p. 33)
Society, over the last two decades, has seriously questioned the legitimacy of the public
school systems within the United States as well as the role of teachers’ unions within
them. Over this period, the technical demands on public schools and the teachers therein
have steadily increased. Repeatedly, schools have been subject to demands for improving
student achievement, strengthening graduation requirements, and increasing standardized
test scores. The increasing technical requirements generated inconsistencies within the
institutions of public education and teachers’ unions, which had formerly relied on

symbolism and rituals for legitimacy.

Neoinstitutiogalismgnd Organizational Change

Some may question the applicability of neoinstitutionalism to a study of
organizational change, claiming as does DiMaggio (1988) that institutional approaches to
organizational analysis tend to be deterministic and often neglect, or do not allow for,
purposive action and agency. As such, writes DiMaggio

the utility of institutional theory is limited to the analysis of phenomena that

are driven by taken-for-granted constitutive understandings or that are so
complex that interest-maximizing actors cannot exert effective influence.

(p. 11)
DiMaggio continues claiming that institutional theory tells us little about

“deinstitutionalization and how institutionalized forms and practices fall into disuse” (p.

33

12). Because of these characteristics, DiMaggio argues that there exist certain kinds of
changes which institutional theory addresses poorly. Among these are two types of
change directly relevant to the development and implementation of teacher peer review
programs.

1. Change in organizational fields that is orthogonal to the wider

institutional order: for example, changes in work organization that

have neither been embraced by dominant organizations in the field nor

by organizations to which dominant actors are tied.

2. Change in organizations and organizational fields that tends to

delegitirnate the institutional order of the field. (DiMaggio, 1988, p. 12)
The practice of peer review, teachers as union members making summative evaluations of
fellow teachers, is both orthogonal to the institutional order of unionism and delegitimates
firndamental tenets of unionism.

Institutional critics (DiMaggio, 1988; Perrow, 1985; Powell, 1985) often portray
organizations as “relatively passive actors that simply adapt to their institutional
environments” (Rowan and Miskel, 1997, p. 22). What DiMaggio and others fail to
understand is the power of legitimacy (or the lack thereof) in institutional sectors to
pressure organizations to change, or even abandon, previously institutionalized structures
and procedures (Dowling & Pfefi‘er, 1975; Rowan, 1982, Rowan & Miskel, 1997). As
organizations in evolving institutional environments begin to feel the pressure of
legitimacy maintenance, they must make a choice. Institutional scholars are beginning to
characterize organizations as more proactive in interactions with the broader social
environment.

Oliver (1991) provides a typology of actions an organization, such as a teachers’

union, may take when facing institutional pressure (See Table 2). According to this more

34

 

 

Table 2
Strategies Tactics Examples
Habit Following invisible, taken-for-granted norms
Acquiesce Irnitate Mimicking institutional models
Comply Obeying rules and accepting norms
Balance Balancing the expectations of multiple constituents
Compromise Pacify Placating and accommodating institutional elements
Bargain Negotiating with institutional stakeholders
Conceal Disguising nonconformity
Avoid Buffer Loosening institutional attachments
Escape Changing goals, activities, or domains
Dismiss Ignoring explicit norms and values
Defy Challenge Contesting rules and requirements
Attack Assaulting the sources of institutional pressure
Co-opt Importing influential constituents
Manipulate Influence Shaping values and criteria
Control Dominating institutional constituents and processes

 

(Oliver, 1991, p. 152)

dynamic view of organizations in institutional environments, organizations act not as
simple bobbers tossed passively about in the ebbs and flows of societal norms and values.
Instead, organizations make strategic choices when responding to environmental
pressures.

For teacher’s unions, an embrace of teacher peer review is only one of a number of
responses to the environment that one might offer. Other unions may respond by avoiding
pressure for accountability via lip-service to the ideals of high standards and commitment
to children’s learning while continuing with standard operating procedures. Others may
attempt to redefine pressure for accountability based upon academic standards into
accountability for educating the “whole child,” which also conveniently evades

measurability. Still others may respond with retrenchment, adhering more strongly to

35

traditional unionism norms and attacking critics as unreasonable, uninformed, or engaging
in “union-busting.” Clearly then, teachers’ unions as organizations are not simply passive
recipients of institutional pressures to conform. Neoinstitutionalism, thus can account for
organizational change, and incorporating the factor of environmental influence, even

predicts organizational change in times of environmental imbalance (Rowan, 1982).

W

Under increasing pressure to attain high levels of educational achievement with
greater numbers of children and decreasing belief of their legitimacy through ceremonial
events, schools have been (are still) undergoing evolutionary metamorphoses. The
technical production demanded of schools and teachers is being raised within an
institutional sector in which organizations historically have relied on ceremonies and
rituals to maintain their legitimacy. However, increasing emphasis is being placed not on
inputs or processes, but on the end product of the educational enterprise, student learning
(typically measured through standardized test scores). As part of this evolutionary
development of public education, the criteria for institutional and organizational legitimacy
are changing as well. Thus, the legitimacy of public schools no longer rests upon Carnegie
units, graduation ceremonies and empty credentials.

Likewise, but in a delayed manner, teachers’ unions are now responding to
pressures of greater accountability and lack of legitimacy. Throughout their history,
unions also have been characterized as institutional, stressing ceremony and procedures,

actively resisting quality control measures - or shaping them in such a way that union

36

members and solidarity are not significantly challenged. Recently however, some
progressive local unions are responding to the increasing pressures and decreasing
legitimacy by attempting to interweave technical and institutional demands. They are
becoming more technical through emphasizing the technology of teacher pedagogy and
producing demonstrable results by retaining or dismissing teachers on the basis of quality.
By taking responsibility for quality control through actively monitoring the technical
production of their members, they are expanding the narrow confines of industrial
unionism to include more technical, or “professional,” concerns under the guise of what is
becoming known as “professional unionism.”

Although many may deem the development of professional unionism as beneficial
to both teachers’ unions and public education, the process of change is bound to be a very
painfiil one. As unions embrace some of the fimdamental tenets of professionalism in their
attempt to increase technical production, they also embrace criteria for legitimacy (as
professionals) which may be antithetical to the legitimacy criteria inherent in traditional
unionism. Of such situations, Meyer and Scott (1983) warn

The legitimacy of a given organization is negatively affected by the number

of different authorities sovereign over it and by the diversity or

inconsistency of their accounts as how it is to function. (p. 202)

For the teacher’s unions studied here, the technical/institutional tension first mentioned by
Meyer and Rowan (1977) manifests itself in the struggle between the competing criteria
for legitimacy embodied within the institutions of professionalism and unionism. It is

upon these criteria that the follow chapter focuses through detailed analyses of each

institution individually, then as combined in the still emergent professional unionism.

Chapter Three

THE COMPETING CRITERIA OF LEGITIMACY

Within this chapter, I will examine the institutions of professionalism and unionism
within the United States which, in the context of this study, comprise the competing
criteria for legitimacy between which some teachers’ unions are currently trying to forge
a common ground. It is useful to think of these criteria as the “difl‘erent authorities”
negatively afi‘ecting organizational legitimacy to which Meyer and Scott (1983) refer. The
chapter will focus first on the institution of professionalism. It will also illuminate and
clarify both the connotations and denotations of profession, professional, professionalism
and professionalization within the confines of teaching and this study. The focus will
then shift to the institution of unionism, by tracing the historic development of unionism
within the United States. By highlighting the path dependence of the institution of
unionism, insight may be gained into the current conception of unionism which often
confines the actions of present-day teachers’ unions with regards to peer review and
teacher evaluation. Finally, the chapter will conclude with an examination of the scant
empirical literature focusing on the phenomenon of peer review-based teacher evaluation

among unionized teachers.

Lrfiessionalism
While a great number of participants in the ongoing debate and reform efl‘orts of

American public education employ terms such as profession, professional, professionalism,
and professionalization, no common understanding of terminology informs this debate.
Instead, every participant has his own rather clear, but unique, definitions of these terms,

Teachers and their unions tend to color these phrases with references to power, prestige,

37

38

and income. Administrators tend to think of these words through a more bureaucratic
lens, focusing on issues of compliance. Parents, however, tend to view these issues in
terms of competence and how well their own children are treated. These are but three
parties to the debate, also included are federal, state, and local elected ofiicials and their
bureaucratic counterparts, business leaders, and the general public - each having a unique
view of the educational enterprise. As Goodlad (1990) observes of the resultant

cacophonous discussion,

It is not surprising, then, that widely varying reform initiatives cloak
themselves in the language of advancing a true profession while pursuing
often contradictory ends. (p. 12)

It is no wonder then, that both the history of teacher professionalization and the current
debate are wreaked with confusion resulting from conflicting arguments couched in
support of seemingly similar concepts. This review will explore these issues in an attempt
to journey through the fog of ambiguous connotations and denotations to achieve some
measure of clarity which may help to inform this study as well as the ongoing debate and

possibly further the realization of teaching as a profession.

What is a ”Profession?"

Eliot F reidson, author of Professiogtl Powers (1986), aptly warns that "a word
with so many connotations and denotations cannot be employed in precise discourse
without definition” (p. 35). 'To facilitate the discourse necessarily needed in the
educational debate about teacher professionalism, and for this study, we must first look at
the fundamental concept of "profession. ” Originating fi'om the Latin, professio,
profession originally meant a declaration or avowal usually in relation to religious beliefs.
However, by the sixteenth century, this rather narrow meaning expanded to include a

connotation of insincerity in the profession of secular matters, as in ”their professed

39

neutrality” (Webster’s New Unjvrerial Unabrng Dictionary, 1983, p. 143 7). Thus, the
ambiguous nature of "profession" is at least four centuries old.

The noun profession, referring to an occupation, also dates back to at least the
sixteenth century, and is equally ambiguous. Originally denoting the occupations of
university-educated men, specifically men of high social standing, its use was limited to
”the learned professions” of medicine, law and divinity. Inherent within this context is the
elite and prestigious connotation many hold of ”the professions” to this day. As Freidson
notes, the original professionals

addressed each other and members of the ruling elite who shared some of
their knowledge and belief in its virtues. They did not address the common
people or the common, specialized trades. So it is in our time. (p. 3)

Although originally limited in its scope, profession quickly came into use when referring to
a wide range of occupations by which people made their living, regardless of their social
status or prestige. The referent occupation could indeed be common or of ill-repute,
including everyone from priests to prostitutes, members of ”the oldest profession." Thus,
almost from the beginning, the term profession could be used to mean either a small,
exclusive set of occupations or its opposite, any occupation at all.

Unfortunately, the denotational ambiguity of profession was transferred to its
derivation as an adjective, professional, which, in turn, soon encompassed a variety of
connotations as well, both positive and negative in nature. Originally connoting
association with gentlemanly occupations and activities, professional also reversed its
connotation, referring to things considered ungentlernanly or untoward. A common
example can be gathered from athletics, when the term is used in contrast with amateur.
An amateur athlete supposedly engages in activities for the sheer love of athleticism alone,
with no ulterior motives. A professional, on the other hand, engages in the same activities
for monetary compensation, and as such, is considered tainted in comparison to the
amateur. One need only think of recent debates regarding the participation of

4O

”professionals" in the Olympic Games to see this tension. The disparaging use of
professional goes beyond association with money, however. In the nineteenth century, it
also came to connote "bad form" or poor taste, as in ”a professional partygoer, a
professional beauty” (Freidson, p. 23).

As the nineteenth century progressed into the twentieth, industrialization swept
across Western Europe and North America. \Vrth it came ever increasing occupational
difl'erentiation. As people's occupations became more specialized and interdependent,
professional added once again to its connotations. However, the normative value of the

new additions was reversed, this time fiom negative to positive. VVrthin this context,

The amateur is a dabbler at a mere pastime, the professional is dedicated
to practice and refinement of his or her skill during the working days of the
week and so seeks support for it. In this sense, the professional is an
accomplished expert, a full-time specialist cultivating a particular kind of
skill or activity. (Freidson, p. 24)

Hence, to refer to one's workmanship as amateurish is to characterize it as being of poor
or shoddy quality. In contrast to amateurish stands professional, which connotes
workmanship of excellent quality and reliability. Consequently, we are left to inherit a
term which can connote either high quality craftsmanship, bad form, or less than ideal
motives, about a set of activities that can vary from the occupations of highly learned
upper class elites to any occupation for which one is paid. It is no wonder that any
debates or reform which center around the concept of ”profession” become riddled with
contradictions and confusion. ”On the whole, as Bell (1979) put it, it is a 'muddled
concept” (quoted in Freidson, 1986, p. 43).

As a result of this ambiguity, in today's occupational market, all participants can
rightfully lay claim on the label of ”profession. " Many occupations have actively lobbied
to be officially recognized as professions, for with this designation comes not only
affiliation (however weak) with the social elite, but also the connotation of professional

ethics which in turn can provide ”political legitimation for the effort to gain protection

41

from competition in the labor market" (Freidson, p. 33). So wide-spread have the claims
to professional status become that the 1994 Statistical Abstragt of the United Stag
includes occupations under the heading of ”managerial and professional” ranging from
craft-artists, recreation workers and athletes to lawyers, doctors, and clergy (the original
"learned professions”) (p. 407)!5 Given the amorphous nature of professional

classification, Freidson declares of the multitude of these occupational claims, that

no one (claim) may be thought to be better grounded,
phenomenologically, than any other. Ifthis be granted, then it follows that
there is no way of resolving the problem of defining profession that is not
arbitrary. (original italics, p. 36)

Terminology harboring connotations and denotations of such an arbitrary nature are
practically worthless when trying to engage and sustain informed debates and discussions.
Therefore, it is useful to narrow the focus of this literature review on profession and all of
its derivations to specifically, those discussions centering on teacher professionalism and

professionalization in the late twentieth century.

Teaching as a Professiofi?

Tomas Englund (1993) informs us that the phrase teaching as a profession ”has no
unequivocal meaning, and that the conceptual meaning of profession is a void, being no
more than a ”buzzword" (p. l). Fortunately, however, the efforts and reforms
surrounding the concept of teaching break down into the two somewhat distinct concepts
of professionalization and professionalism, both of which are more susceptible to analysis.
Professionalization can be viewed as a sociological process by which an occupation gains
professional status and privilege. It is both culturally and temporally bound. As Johnson,

author of Professions and Power (1972), writes

Professionalization is a historically specific process, which some
occupations have undergone at a particular time, rather than a process

 

6 See Appendix E for the complete list of ”managerial and professional“ companions.

42

which certain occupations may always be expected to undergo because of
their ”essential” qualities. (quoted in Soder, 1990, p. 63)

Therefore, the processes of professionalization undergone by other occupations do not
necessarily serve as guideposts for teaching's long struggle toward professional status.
Because of its sociological aspect, professionalization is necessarily dependent upon
society as a whole, which may either grant or withhold professional designation. Englund
summarizes this concept nicely, defining professionalization as ”a measure of the societal
strength and authority of an occupational group" (italics added, p. 2).

Arguments for the professionalization of teaching usually focus on the privilege
and prestige of previously established professions, refening most notably to the institution
of medical practice as "the ultimate in status, the elite position in the world of work"
(Soder, p. 35). The fundamental basis of educators' argument is that they possess a
formal, esoteric knowledge base which can guide practitioners' actions, similar to that of
doctor's medical knowledge. Indeed the 1986 Holmes Group report, Tomorrow’s

Teachers typifies the centrality of knowledge to claiming similarity with other professions.

The established professions have, over time, developed a body of
specialized knowledge, codified and transmitted through professional
education and clinical practice. Their claim to professional status rests on
this. The Holmes Group commits itself to phase out the undergraduate
education major in member institutions and to develop in its place a
graduate professional program in teacher education. (p. 63)

This plan would make education a strictly graduate level endeavor, much like medicine
(the use of ”clinical” above is hardly coincidental). Teacher education programs, such as
that at Michigan State University, have even adopted medical terminology. Pre-service
initiates to teaching are no longer "student teachers” but are referred to as ”interns.”
Professional development schools, among the latest innovations in education, are being
purposefully modeled after teaching hospitals. Unfortunately, the claims of similarity with

medicine have not served teaching well. The reactions of established professionals to

43

these claims ”is rather like the indulgent response of airline passengers to the youngster
who announces he is a 'pilot' because he is wearing a pilot pin" (Soder, p. 49).

The very structure of the rhetorical argument from sirnilitude regarding
professionalization is selfodefeating. ”We're like doctors,’ teachers say. 'Prove it,‘ replies
the audience” (Soder, p. 71). Given the long history of criticism of the intellectual content
of teacher education and the inferior intelligence of teachers, any claim to similarity with
medicine immediately becomes laughable (Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Williams, 1981) To
counter this line of argument, some turn to the role of testing in teacher certification as
being analogous to the medical board examinations. However, such a comparison serves
"merely to underscore the real and considerable differences between medicine and
education - and hardly in favor of education” (Soder, p. 69). It should be evident that the
fundamental premise of similarity is flawed, to say the least. Teaching cannot achieve
professional status by following the medical model of professionalization. As Soder
concludes, ”Once teachers (and their leaders) cease attempts to define themselves as
'professionals' in terms of the medical model, they will begin to flee themselves from the
tyranny of their own dreams" (Soder, p. 72).

In contrast to focusing on professionalization, many feel that concentration on the
institution of professionalism, which rather than relying on societal approval refers to
aspects more internal to teaching children, is a more appropriate and plausibly more
efl‘ective avenue to establishing teaching as a profession. Professionalism is characterized
by Englund as focusing ”on the question of what qualifications and acquired capacities,
what competence, is required for the successfirl exercise of an occupation" (p. 2).
Professionalism is then the quality of being professional, of allowing one's actions to be
regulated by an ”internal code of ethics” (McDonnell & Pascal, 1988, p. 5). This is
analogous to the normative pillar supporting some institutions as described by Scott
(1995). Therefore, professionalism deals with one's motivations and the mental context

with which one approaches one's work. Thus, the only people responsible for, or capable

44

of, developing professionalism among the nation's teaching workforce are the teachers
themselves.

There exists two major arguments supporting the centrality of professionalism to
the educational debate, professionalism as a state of mind and professionalism as a moral
imperative. Popular across a wide range of occupations is fiaming professionalism as
simply a state of mind. In contrast to the more dominant conceptual fiarneworks in the
educational debate, Peter Clamp (1990) writes

Professionalism is a state of mind. It actually has little to do with
occupation, position, rank, years of service, clientele or hours worked. It
also has little to do with seniority, personal ambition, remuneration,
holidays, ofiice size or mode of dress. Neither has it anything to do with
years spent in a university, degrees attained, social standing, or even real or
imagined codes of conduct and etiquette. It is quite simply, an ideal.

(p. 53)

Clamp characterizes professionalism instead as being composed of four attributes -
competency, integrity, reliability, and empathic humanism which he defines as evidence of
”genuine caring for fellow humans" (pp. 54-55). While no one can really take exception
to these attributes, they allow absolutely anybody to claim professional status on the basis
of exhibited professionalism. Both a Supreme Court justice and a ditch-digging chain
gang member can rightfirlly claim such status as long as they are in possession of Clamp's
four characteristics. For obvious reasons, such an egalitarian conception of
professionalism may enjoy vast support fiom the general populace, including teachers.
Unfortunately, Clamp's framework leads further into already ambiguous bog of conceptual
confusion.

Further hindering debate based upon such a conception of professionalism is the
internal nature of these characteristics. They are possessed in a strictly individual manner
and for the most part are not directly observable. An occupation cannot exhibit personal
values. In order to be considered a profession an occupation must produce demonstrable

results (Sykes, personal communication, 3/2/95). Thus reliance on competency, integrity,

45

reliability and empathic humanism, while noble, will not substantively contribute to either
the current educational debate, or the future realization of teaching as a profession.
Therefore, I will now focus attention on the place of normative regulation and moral
imperative in professionalism.

The concept of teacher professionalism as a moral imperative is based upon the
centrality of children in the educational setting. Thus far, children have been noticeably
absent fiom discussions surrounding these issues. Of this situation, Myrna Cooper (1988),

Director of the New York City Teacher Center Consortium, laments

The milieu of schools is written in the lives of children as well as
professionals. Yet the lore on school professional culture ignores the
client. The notion of service, the personal nature of the relationship to
youngster and families, the caring and bonding context of the event are
embarrassingly absent. (p. 48)

Fortunately, focus has recently been placed squarely upon children and the responsibilities
of teachers individually, and teaching collectively, to them. In fact, the central focus on
children can be seen among such participants in the educational debate as Linda Darling-
Hammond, John Goodlad and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
(hereafter referred to as the NBPTS). Goodlad, in the preface of, The Moria] Dimenm
of Teacm g (1990) clearly states, "The teacher's first responsibilities are to those being
taught” (p. xii). So important does the NBPTS consider the place of children that it takes
children as the central focus of their first policy position statement writing, ”(Board-
certified) Teachers are committed to students and their learning" (1994, p. 6). Darling-
Harnmond (1989) most efi‘ectively communicates the position of those people arguing

from a moral imperative basis, writing

Misinterpreting professionalization as mainly a quest for money, status, and
autonomy, opponents worry that ”empowered” teachers will be
unaccountable. They fail to understand that the major reason for seeking
to create a profession of teaching is that it will increase the probability that
all students will be well educated because they are well taught - that

46
professionalism seeks to heighten accountability by investing in knowledge

and its responsible use. (p. 15)

Darling-Hammond's articulation of this position thus answers Sykes' criticism of Clamp's
argument. By tying teacher professionalism with classroom pedagogy and student
learning, teachers have a demonstrable event upon which to base their claims of
professionalism. If teaching as an occupation does not consider the efi‘ects of its
individual and collective actions upon students' educational experiences, then it does not
deserve the honorific of ”professional.”

In an ironic twist, the argument for professionalism, a concept internally bound
within members of an occupation, on the basis of moral imperative actually results in
developing support for the professionalization of teaching, a process external to the
control of an occupation. The basis of professional claims upon service to children
benefits the process of professionalization in three significant ways. First and most
basically, it reconnects today’s teachers with the ideal of service connoted by the original
”learned professions” of medicine, law, and divinity. Hence, it also strengthens the
normative pillar supporting the evolving conception of teacher unionism. Darling-
I-Iarnmond, once again, summarizes this position well by reminding teachers that
”professionals are obligated to do whatever is best for the client, not what is easiest, most
expedient, or even what the client might want” (1989, italics added, pp. 15-16).
Unfortunately, this position in not prevalent in a large majority of literature generated by
teachers and their unions when writing about teacher professionalization.

The second way in which a focus on children benefits the process of
professionalization arises from the compulsory nature of public education in the United
States. Parents are required by law to send their children to school. For the vast majority
of these parents, public schooling represent the only feasible way to educate their children
and comply with the law. Because children are defenseless, the act of sending one's
children to school becomes an act of ”surrender” (Soder, pp. 73-74). The "equality of

47

surrender” exhibited by parents in sending their children to the local school, Soder argues,
”should imply equality of treatment" (p. 73). Therefore, children should not be subjected
to qualitatively difl‘erential educational experiences simply because of difi‘erences in social
class, ethnicity, gender, or other factors over which children have no control. Equality of
surrender must necessitate equality of treatment. Ifthis condition does not hold true,
then it is immoral to demand surrender of parent's most precious possessions, their
children. Consequently, ”those responsible for treatment of children in schools have a
moral obligation to ensure equality of treatment" (Soder, p. 73).

The equality of treatment argument offered above has recently had significant
impact upon the regulative pillar supporting the institution and organization of public
schooling. Because of funding inequities and chronically disparate achievement results,
some state systems of public education have been declared unconstitutional. The most
prominent of these cases was the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision to declare that
state’s public school system unconstitutional and to order the Kentucky Department of
Education to completely redesign the system. The result of this declaration was the
Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990, which is a omnibus piece of legislation
addressing all aspects of schooling, curriculum, school improvement, teacher professional
development, and accountability procedures. The result of KERA was major institutional
and organizational change throughout the schools of Kentucky which generated a great
deal of discomfort among school personnel (Holland, 1997; McDiarmid, 1997; Rothman
1997).

Amy Gutmann, a political philosopher, offers a third argument that, although
similar to Soder’s, does not rely on a moral imperative but on a democratic imperative. In
Democrfiatic Edgation (1987), Gutrnann acknowledges that the legitimate interests of
citizens in controlling public education must be limited. Ifcitizen interest/control is not
limited, schools may “serve simply to perpetuate the beliefs held by dominant majorities”
and thus become “agents of political repression” (p. 75). Over a century earlier, John

48

Stuart Mill (1859), expressed the same concerns of unrestrained democratic control of
schools establishing “a despotism over the mind” (p. 129). Gutrnarm answers this fear by
arguing for the professionalization of public school teachers by establishing professional

autonomy. She writes

The division between democratic and nondemocratic control over primary
(K-l2) schooling depends most crucially on the educational role we
attribute to teachers and teachers’ unions. ...The professional responsibility
of teachers is to uphold the principle of nonrepression by cultivating the
capacity for democratic deliberation. ...The principle of nonrepression
therefore not only constrains democratic authority, it also supplies
democratic content to the concept of professionalism among teachers.
...Understood as the degree of autonomy necessary to fulfill the
democratic firnctions of ofice, professionalism completes rather than
competes with democracy. (pp. 76-77)

The arguments for teacher professionalism on the basis of the moral and
democratic imperatives inherent within American public education offer the most
promising potential avenue to the realization of teaching as a profession. As Becker
(1962) suggests ”public willingness to accord honors to an occupation derives fi'om a
collective sense of the moral praiseworthiness of that occupation” (quoted in Soder, p.
72). The above arguments supply the ”moral praiseworthiness" needed for strengthening
the normative and regulative pillars supporting the advancement of teacher
professionalization. They also provide demonstrable criteria for competence as required
by Sykes, through concentration on student learning at the core. In addition, the moral
imperative argument also associates teaching with established professions, not through
emphasis on a knowledge base and prestige, but instead in its focus on service as a central
guiding factor. Unfortunately, however, these arguments are only two of many, currently
lost in the cacophony referred to as the educational debate regarding teacher
professionalization.

49

Common Chords

Although ofien cacophonous, common chords can be distinguished from the
disparate arguments and positions ofi’ered in the current debate. In order to reduce the
confusion clouding issues of teaching as a profession, I bring these chords to the
foreground of the ongoing discussions. By carefiilly blending the chords together, it is
possible to forge a single conception of "professional teaching” which can, in turn, provide
a basis for the commonly shared terminology necessary for any informed debate.

When reviewing the literature regarding professions in general, and teaching as a
profession in particular, one can glean three firndamental bases for professional
designation. These are knowledge, competence, and commitment to clients/ students. The
third of these, commitment to students, is discussed at length in the previous section.
Therefore, it will not be reviewed again. Knowledge as a prerequisite for professional
designation can be traced throughout the history of professional literature. Talcott
Parsons (1951) in his ranking of the ”normative world from the popular to the
professional" employs a continuum fiom ”the emotional to the cognitive" (emphasis
added, quoted in Bledstein, 1985, p. 6). Nathan Glazer does an excellent job of reviewing
the position of knowledge in professional designation, in his work, " The Schools the
Minor Professions” (1974). In it, Glazer quotes several researchers' perspectives such as
that of Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933) who "recognize a profession as a vocation
founded upon prolonged and specialized intellectual training ...” (emphasis added, p.
347). More contemporary researchers continue to echo the importance of a firm
knowledge base. Labaree (1992) identifies knowledge as one of "two key elements that
are demonstrably part of any successful claim of professional status” (p. 125). Talbert and
McLaughlin (1994) in their work, ”Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts”
also point to ”a specialized knowledge" as ”primary among the conditions that distinguish
a 'profession' fi'om other occupations" (emphasis added, p. 126).

50

Unfortunately, knowledge as a criterion for professional status has proven
troublesome to teachers in the past. Within teaching, two types of knowledge must be
mastered, pedagogy and subject matter. Most critics ignore this fact. Instead, they
demand that high school chemistry teachers to be as well trained in chemistry as
professional chemists. Such a demand is unreasonable. This is not to dismiss the criticism
which befalls educators, but this fact must be kept in mind when considering the
intellectual training of teachers. Unfortunately the intellectual accomplishments and
training of our nation's teachers is deserving of much of the criticism. Teachers and
teacher education have historically been criticized as intellectually weak and lacking in any
respectable knowledge base.7 As Soder observes,

The general sentiment has long appeared to be that not only are the worst
and the dumbest stumbling into teaching but, with few exceptions, the
lesser lights are staying on. As one observer put it, ”We can expect only
the dumb and the dull to linger in teaching careers our teaching corps is

unacceptably incompetent." (p. 48)
Of teacher preparation programs, Goodlad remarks that they are ”disturbingly alike and
almost uniformly inadequate” (1984, p. 315). Clifford and Guthrie, in Ed School (1988),
confirm the dismal intellectual resources going into education by observing that teaching
”draws heavily form the bottom quintiles of quality” (p. 32). Consequently, any attempt at
the professionalization of teachers must aggressively increase the caliber of new teaching
recruits. If the intellectual quality of teachers is not elevated, George Bernard Shaw's
(1903) adage - ”He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.”-- will only become more
firmly entrenched in the folk wisdom of the nation (p. 260).

Some may question the utility of separating competence from knowledge as a
prerequisite of professional designation. I think the distinction is not only useful, but

 

7 Anextensivebodyofliteranuehasbeenwrittenonthissubject. Seeforexample Bestor, A. (1988)
Educational Wastelands. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; Clapp, H. (1949) “The Stranglehold on
Education." Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors; Clifford, G. and Guthrie, J.
(1988) Ed School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; and Koerner, J. (1963) The Miseducation of
American Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifllin.

 

51

necessary as well. Thorough understanding of the knowledge base of one's occupational
field is absolutely necessary to inform one's actions. Understanding alone, however, does
not ensure practical competence. A teacher fully cognizant of both subject matter and
pedagogical knowledge may not be able to teach a classroom hill of adolescents.
Therefore, one may be knowledgeable, but incompetent.

It is within competence that teachers may produce the demonstrable effects
necessary for professional claims through such actions as peer review-based teacher
evaluation. Because of the unique daily occurrences in teaching, teachers must rely on
their own professional judgment to successfirlly resolve the innumerable problems which
they must face. Although not explicitly addressed throughout a good portion of the
literature, competence as a prerequisite for professional designation can be found
implicitly throughout the discussions of professions and professionals. Bledstein observes
that "routine matters do not get professionalized, and that would include a most important
dimension of the professional role” (p. 6-7). The NBPTS (1994) policy statement bases
two of the five "fundamental requirements for proficient teaching” on ”skills" to bring
about "effective student learning" (p. 4). The Board continues claiming that teaching
"ultimately requires” among other things, ”judgment" and ”improvisation” (p. 4). More
explicitly, Nathan Essex (1992) in "Echtcational Malpractice" views a professional teacher
as one who ”exhibits competency and creativity, and conveys subject matter effectively"
(p. 230). Darling-Hammond (1988) also contributes, writing, "Efl’ective teaching
requires flexibility, a wide repertoire of strategies and use of judgment" (p. 61). Thus the
case can be made to include competence (the focus of teacher peer review) among the
three prerequisites for professional designation.

To this point, I have been careful to use the phrase prerequisite for professional
designation. The three prerequisites of knowledge, competence and commitment to
students, are only the beginning, a first step on the way to the realization of teaching as a

profession. To be a profession, an occupation must act collectively. Indeed, Darling-

52

Hammond declares, "It is the degree to which teachers assume collective responsibility for
‘ instructional quality that determines professionalism" (italics added, 1989, p. 18).
Individual teachers cannot become a profession. In order to professionalize, the entire
occupation must speak with one voice, on behalf of all teachers. Of course, complete
uniformity of voice is impossible to achieve, but a dominant voice focused on the issues
raised here is within the realm of possibility. Considering the increasing number and
intensity of attacks aimed at teachers’ unions from both within and without, as well as
leaders of the NBA and AF T both advocating teacher accountability, the time is now ripe
for teacher unionism to firlly engage in the transformation into the “third generation of
unionism,” or “professional unionism” (Kerchner & Caufinan, 1995; Kerchner & Koppich,
1993; Kerchner & Mitchell, 1988).

It is only through collective, focused action that teaching may attain professional
autonomy. Because professionalization is dependent upon societal recognition, the
characteristics discussed previously must be in place before teaching as a occupation
attempts to actively gain professional status and autonomy. As Cooper puts it, ”Status
and control are not the characteristics of professionalism, they are the byproducts” (p. 47).
In this sense, knowledge, competence and commitment to students are truly prerequisites.
Only after the prerequisites are developed with the occupation of teaching, can it hope to

make ”the bargain that all professions make with society:”
for occupations that-require discretion and judgment in meeting the unique
needs of clients, the profession guarantees the competence of members in
exchange for the privilege of professional control over work structure and
standards of practice. (Darling-Hammond, 1988, p. 59)

“Within schools however, the institutional constraints in which teachers and their

administrators typically work pose very significant impediments to reform efi‘orts aimed at

53

altering traditional working patterns. Chief among these impediments is the institution of

teacher unionism and the organizational accommodations resulting fi'om union activity.

whet Unionism

It has been shown repeatedly that teachers’ unions maintain a unique position
within the societal sector of labor/professional organizations (Bascia, 1994; Cresswell &
Murphy, 1980; Jessup, 1985; Urban, 1982). Unlike typical labor organizations, such as
the United Auto Workers, the determination of legitimate goals for a teachers’ union is
influenced by two sets of traditions; labor union traditions and professional traditions.
Parsons (1951) highlights the inherent tension in this condition noting that the goals
developing out of the two traditions are at times incompatible because “the pursuit of ends
associated with self-interest is contradictory to norms emphasizing service to others” (in
Jessup, p. 10). As this review will demonstrate, because of a variety of factors -- some of
which were beyond the control of teachers or their unions -- the norms of industrial
unionism have been dominant in structuring both the goals and the activities of teachers’
unions. Thus, a dilemma exists between professional peer review of teachers and the

fundamental operating principles of most local teachers’ unions.

Regulative Constraints

To understand the basic tenets upon which modern unions operate, one must look
to the Wagner Act of 1935, a landmark piece of legislation designed to help facilitate the

growth of labor unions among the American workforce. While it attempted to secure for

54

American workers the right to collectively organize unions, the Wagner Act also
established a set of rules and regulations developed within a particular conception of
unionism and collective bargaining. By doing so, the Wagner Act also forged very strong
regulative, and eventually cognitive, constraints which greatly afl‘ected the path
dependence of teachers’ unions. Atleson (1983), in Values and Assumptions in American
Labor Law, identifies the following as underlying assumptions resulting from the original
conception of unionism which informed the Wagner Act.

employees, unless controlled, will act irresponsibly.

employees owe a measure of respect and deference to their

employer.

0 employees cannot be filll partners in the enterprise because such an

arrangement would interfere with inherent and exclusive managerial

rights of employers.

o the most crucial decisions about the enterprise are excluded fiom the

scope of mandatory bargaining.

0 employees have no stake, interest, or investment in the “common

enterprise” other than the right to receive wages for the sale of their

labor. (pp. 7-15)
The results of these underlying assumptions can be identified in the present day policies
and practices of labor relations, both among teachers’ unions and their industrial
counterparts.

Of primary importance to the relationship between teachers and peer review is the
distinction made in labor laws between supervisors (peer evaluators) and workers
(teachers). While the Wagner Act implicitly laid the foundations of the conceptual
framework of modern industrial relations, the Tait-Hartley Act of 1947 explicitly made
clear the important distinction between supervisory personnel and regular workers.

Specifically, Tali-Hartley amended Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

55

of 1935 to omit from collective bargaining “any individual employed as a supervisor”
which it further defines as

any individual having authority in the interest of the employer, to hire,

transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or

discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their

grievances, or effectively to recommend such actions, if in connection with

the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or

clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. (Labor

Management Relations Act, 1947)

If peer review programs for teachers are held against this standard, it becomes very
doubtful that many would support peer review (Shanker, 1986). For if teachers evaluating
their peers are deemed to be “supervisory” according to the definition above, some
observers claim that teachers would be found to be in violation of the NLRA or state-level
versions of it, and as such, forfeit the right to collective bargaining and union
representation (Iorio, 1988). It was under this definition that the Supreme Court decided
the precedent-setting National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University (1980) case
in which the high court ruled that the faculty of Yeshiva University were managerial
employees because of their participation in faculty committees which recommended
policies in areas such as grading and curricula, and as such had no representation rights
guaranteed them under the NLRA (444 US. 672 (1980); Jascourt, 1988). Whether the
Yeshiva criteria are to be transferred from the private sector to the public sector and
applied in K-12 education is yet to be seen.”

While some claim that Yeshiva creates at worst, a precedent forbidding unionized

teachers from engaging in “supervisory” or “managerial” activities, and at best, a

dampening effect on teacher professionalization efi‘orts, others, such as the president of

 

3 Yeshiva University is a private enterprise.

56

the Toledo Federation of Teachers (TFT), Dal Lawrence, claims Yeshiva to be completely
irrelevant to the realm of teacher unionism among our public schools (Iorio, 1988;
Lawrence, 1988; Margolies, 1988). In 1981, the TFT, under Lawrence’s leadership,
established a peer review system for all first year teachers and for veteran teachers deemed
to be unsatisfactory. Over the program’s fifteen years of existence, the TFT has yet to
lose a legal challenge in Ohio courts (Kelly, 1997a; Lawrence, 1988). Thus, the nature of
the actual efi’ect of Yeshiva on the actions and policies of teachers’ unions cannot be
determined at this time.

More serious challenges to implementation of peer review within a unionized
workforce come from laws regarding representation duties which constitute a significant
portion of the regulative pillar of unionism. Lawrence (1988) describes the confused state
of regulative constraints embodied in legal statutes regarding unions’ duties, writing

The numerous federal court decisions in cases where a union’s duty to

fairly represent its members was litigated are conflicting, confirsed and

present a fare greater challenge to reform efforts. (p. 113)

However, most labor laws prohibit supervisors and workers to be part of the same
bargaining unit. Consequently, the fact that peer evaluators and evaluatees are both
classroom teachers and thus come fiom the same pool of employees or “bargaining unit,”
is very problematic for unions. Efi‘orts to claim joint responsibility with management have
met with mixed results. Significant precedents have been set which establish that if the
workers (teachers) have demonstrable authority, then the distinction between supervisory

personnel and workers must be recognized (Atleson, 1983; Iorio, 1988). Therefore, peer

 

 

57

evaluators would lose union representation, while teachers being evaluated would retain

union membership and thus be the focus of the union’s obligation for representation.

Cognjtive Constraints

Coupled with the legal challenges within the regulative structures which face peer
review systems, the norms and traditions of American unionism also pose obstacles to
implementation in the form of cognitive constraints. Developing peer review programs
within organizations founded upon the premise of equality among members and collective
action necessarily challenges these fundamental premises. Upon reviewing the literatures
of general US. industrial unionism and teachers’ unionism, 1 have identified four basic
tenets underlying most union policies and actions. They are

1. An adversarial approach to relationships with administration/

management.

2. A reactionary stance to educational policy and reform efforts.
A focus on maintaining union strength thorough solidarity of
membership.

4. Maintaining a negotiating focus primarily on traditional “bread and
butter” issues.

5”

The order of the above list is inconsequential. These four facets of modern unionism are
thoroughly interwoven and at times indistinguishable. Furthermore, one cannot place
upon them a temporal order, for their interrelatedness generates a symbiotic relationship
among them with no single factor necessarily taking precedence over the others.

The first of the above factors, maintaining an adversarial approach in interactions
involving administration, significantly impacts all facets of industrial relations between a

union and management, whether in education or not. An adversarial stance taken by a

58

union, by definition, generates an “us vs. them” mentality and thus efi’ectively forecloses
cooperative efl‘orts between administrators and teachers (Kerchner, unpublished).
Furthermore, an adversarial stance cannot be taken alone. Teachers’ unions approaching
administrators in an adversarial nature are bound to receive an adversarial response. Thus,
even if a local teachers’ union approached the administration about some issue, the
administrators will likely view the proposal with an undue amount of skepticism, due to
the tenor of past adversarial relationships. Consequently, adversarial relationships greatly
inhibit the ability of both teachers and administrators to engage in activities which require
a significant level of trust, such as peer review.

Evidence of this phenomenon can be seen in the actions taken by Toledo Public
Schools’ administrators when the TFT approached them regarding peer review. For nine
years, from 1972 to 1981, during annual negotiations between the TFT and the district,
the administrators dismissed Lawrence’s peer review proposal out of hand as a union
attempt to gain power, and thus, as a net loss of power for their principals (Gallagher,
Lanier, & Kerchner, 1993; Kelly, 1997b). In an adversarial atmosphere, negotiations, as
evidenced in the Toledo example, take on a “zero-sum” nature in which any gain by one
party must be a loss by the opposing party. The concept of mutual benefit is foreign in
such a setting. So dominant is the adversarial/competitive nature of labor relations in K-
12 education that Kerchner (1986) refers the contracts resulting from negotiations as “the
boxscore that determines how well or poorly each party did” (p. 320). Consequently,

adversarial dispositions of the participants in a district’s labor relations create very

59

daunting cognitive impediments for the mere acceptance of the concept of peer review
within a school district.

The second factor, a reactionary stance to educational policy and reform efforts,
arises fi'om the historical traditions which have developed within American unionism.
Fundamentally, any union is “an employer regulating device” (Bakke, 1948, p. 140).
Because of this, it has become axiomatic within labor relations that “Management acts, the
union grieves. And grieves and grieves” (Geoghegan, 1991, pp. 31, 161). American labor
has always had a pragmatic focus aimed at taking care of immediate concerns (Brody,
1993; Kerchner, 1986). Indeed, labor historian David Brody characterizes Samuel
Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, as holding firm to the belief that
within the American labor movement, “visionary thinking was to be avoided” (p. 87).
Gompers’ own words highlight the passive stance which has characterized much of
unions’ policies and practices saying,

I am perfectly satisfied to fight the battles of today, of those here, and

those that come tomorrow, so their conditions may be improved, and they

may be better prepared to fight the contests or solve the problems

presented to them. (emphasis added, in Brody, pp. 87-88)

So dominant are the cognitive constraints embodied in the reactionary and adversarial
nature of union/management interactions, that Heckscher, author of The New Unionism
(1988), observes

The labor relations scene is frozen; in recent years there has been almost

no movement and very little imagination. Efi’orts at direct worker

participation have been perceived as an attack on the system rather than

as an opportunity for something really new. Most unions have resisted

these efforts or have remained ambivalent, seeing them as a way of getting
around union representation, (p. 6)

60

Simply put, modern unions, including teachers’ unions, are not accustomed to
being proactive in advocating for policy changes in areas other than working conditions.
Heckscher characterizes the typical union stance as “more comfortable in challenging
management than in pr0posing positive solutions” (p. 7). Looking more directly at
teachers and public education, Fraser (1989) notes, ”when teachers have been the center
of attention, the story often has been more of what was done to them by others" (p. 118).
This historically firndamental facet of unionism thus helps to explain Berube’s (1988)
observation that "teacher unions have yet to become the initiators of sweeping educational
change in America" (original emphasis, p. 151). Overall, Kerchner and Caufinan ( 1995)
observe, “unions have been more powerful at preventing things fiom happening than in
getting things done” (p. 112).

The third fundamental tenet of modern unionism, unions’ focus on solidarity of
membership, is so fundamental that the efl'ects of labor relations or negotiated policies
upon a union’s solidarity must inform all actions taken by a union. By the very nature of
their work, unions must maintain organizational cohesion and thus go to great measures to
avoid matters which challenge their members’ solidarity. So central to unionism is the
concept of worker solidarity, that Engels, writing in 1844, observes

The competition between workers is the sharpest weapon of the

employing class against labor. This explains the rise of trade unions, which

represent an attempt to eliminate such fi'atricidal conflict between the

workers themselves. (in Green, 1976, p. 63)

Over a century later, Bakke (1967) continues this fundamental theme describing a union as

a device to reduce or eliminate competition among workers by establishing

uniform rules and standards, and by compelling individual workers to
conform to them. (p. 140)

61

Bakke continues, highlighting that without solidarity, “the bargaining power of the group
as a whole is destroyed” (p. 140). Consequently, unions, to survive, must hold
organizational solidarity as a primary concern.

The importance of solidarity to unions has significant ramifications on the range of

activities in which a union can engage, including peer review. J essup, in Teachers

 

Unions, and Change (1985) observes that
teacher organizations and the collective bargaining process are subject to
internal and external constraints that restrict or alter the direction of union
activity. Such constraints include, for example, the political necessity for
the organization to build and sustain a large, supportive membership and to

develop membership solidarity. The need to establish solidarity may tend
to relegate complex educational issues to lower levels of organizational

priority... (p. 4)

Within the traditional operational paradigm of most local teachers’ unions, the
prioritization mentioned by Jessup seriously calls into question the prospect of future
adoption and implementation of peer review, which necessarily challenges solidarity of the
membership.

Even discounting the legal challenges to peer review among unionized teachers
under Taft-Hartley, the challenges peer review may raise within a local union, through
members summatively evaluating each other, will be significant. Gould’s (1993)
evaluation of reform effortsiin labor relations involving workers’ adoption of
“management responsibility” showed that union leaders were “critical of such ideas in
an outspoken and derisive manner” (p. 112). McDonnell and Pascal (1988) summarize
well the dilemma in which progressive union leaders find themselves, writing

if a teacher union decides to play an active leadership role in efforts to

enhance teacher professionalism, it may please some policymakers but lose
the support of its own members. Conversely, if a union opposes moves to

62

differentiate tasks within teaching, it may satisfy its own members but
run the risk of firrther diminishing support for public education. (p. vii)

Consequently, the ethos of union solidarity is a formidable obstacle to the firrther
implementation of peer review.

The final underlying factor of modern unionism, a narrow focus on “bread and
butter” issues arises due to two factors. First, gains in wages, salary structures, and
concrete working conditions are most demonstrable to union members, and therefore
develop confidence in union leadership and union strength most quickly (Urban 1982).
Second, as Lortie (1973, 1975) suggests, economic issues may be the relatively narrow
“common denominator” on which all teachers can agree, and which “neutralize differences
of interest within the occupation” (1975, p. 204). One must be mindfirl that as typically
organized, bargaining units within teachers’ unions include all the teachers in a single
district; fi'om kindergarten teachers to college-preparatory teachers, fiom home' economics
teachers to welding teachers, from art teachers to computer programming teachers.
Considering the often conflicting “differences in interest” which members present teachers’
unions, it is little wonder that the only common ground to be found is economic.

Because of the great disparity of interests held among members of teachers’
unions, the prioritization to which Jessup refers necessarily is severely constrained.
Policies and/or programs involving “complex educational issues” only highlight the real
lack of unity in the day-to-day lives of K- 1 2 teachers as collective members of a single
union. Teacher evaluation through peer review is just such an issue. Because the
dominant form of unionism shaping teachers’ unions originated in the industrial sector,

most union policies try to treat all teachers not equitably, but as if they were the same. As

63

a result, evaluation clauses in teachers’ contracts are necessarily vague enough to include
all teachers. Ifdifi’erentiation among teachers (a necessary component of peer review)
were allowed to happen, the complexity of evaluation procedures for different types/levels
of teachers and subsequent grievance criteria could indeed be cumbersome. Consequently,
because of the great variety among their members, teachers’ unions have avoided issues
which could highlight the “difl’erences of interest” and possibly weaken member
cohesiveness (McDonnell & Pascal 1988). Thus, teachers’ unions maintain a relatively

narrow focus when negotiating, primarily focusing on economic factors.

Generational View of Teacher Um

That teachers’ unions may not address issues such as peer review in negotiations
does not mean that teachers lose interest in them. Indeed, in her work, Jessup observes
that “teacher organizations may be subject to continuing demands from within their
own membership to respond to such concerns” (p. 5). These demands, if unmet for a
significant period of time by a large number of teachers will create discontent, which in
turn creates pressure on union leaders to address the unanswered demands. Ifsignificant
enough, the internal pressure could call into question the legitimacy of union leadership or
of the union itself. 5

The resultant crisis of legitimacy is directly addressed by Kerchner and Mitchell, in
The Changing Idea of a Teachers’ Union (1988), in which they account for the rise and
fall of discontent within labor relations by taking a generational view of teachers’ unions.

According to the authors, the history of teachers’ unions can be divided into three

64

generations. The time span for each generation is unique to each locale for transition

. between generations is not determined chronologically, but ideologically. As fundamental
premises of current labor relations are seriously questioned, the birth of a new generation
of teacher unionism may occur. Kerchner and Mitchell describe the generational dynamics
of teachers’ unionism as a cyclic process, comprised of four steps.

(a) Discontent - when flaws in the existing system of labor relations
become obvious, new ideas are advocated and gain support. They
are strongly opposed, setting the stage for conflict and political
cnsrs.

(b) Crisis -- when intense, and sometimes sustained, conflict is experienced
between those who support the old order and those committed to
the new idea. The crisis is resolved when advocates for one belief
system win a symbolic political victory - often accompanied by
leadership changes on one or both sides.

(c) Institutionalization9 - when the representatives of the new unionism
idea establish their right to shape the labor relations agenda. They
redefine roles and responsibilities and develop new decision-making
and resource allocation procedures.

(d) Accommodation -- when the leaders of both labor and management
routinize with the new arrangement and engage in practical problem
solving. As accommodation proceeds, new sources of discontent
also develop initiating the possibility of a new change cycle. (p. 31)

The first generation of teacher unionism, characterized by the meet and confer
process, represents the period in which teachers initially gain a legitimate collective voice
before local school boards and central administration (Kerchner & Mitchell, pp. 4-7, 61 -
67). \Vrth the dawn of the first generation of teacher unionism comes the realization and
acceptance that teachers do indeed have a unique perspective on educational policy and

that this perspective is of value. That teachers’ interests and those of the administrators or

 

9 Kerchner and Mitchell misuse the term “institutionalization” in their generational model. The third
step should instead be termed “transformation” because it represents the period during which roles and
responsibilities are redefined. The final step, above termed “accommodation” should be labeled
“institutionalization” because it represents the period during which the process of routinization occurs
and new institutions are formed

65

school board might diverge significantly is not considered during this period. Kerchner
and Mitchell describe the underlying premise of the meet and confer era, writing

Meet and confer sessions are predicated on the assumption that both sides

are committed to defining and solving mutual problems using educational

efi’ectiveness as the criterion for a decision. (p. 5)

Although it becomes common practice to include teachers’ voices and concerns in
educational decision making, teachers, during the first generation of teacher unionism, lack
authentic power to significantly efl‘ect local policy.

As discontent rises among teachers, their unions, and administrators, a transition
into the second generation of teacher unionism, the era of “good faith bargaining” begins
(Kerchner & Mitchell, pp. 122-150). \Vrth the realization that teachers and administrators
are not unitary in focus or interest, disillusionment of the meet and confer process
develops rapidly. Mth the ideological shifi required to acknowledge the difference in
interests between teachers and administrators comes the transition into the second
generational phase. Generally speaking, the second generation of teacher unionism began
for most districts between roughly the mid-19605 to early 1970s. Kerchner and Mitchell
characterize the era of good faith bargaining writing,

The Second Generation is epitomized by the phrase ‘good faith bargaining’

because it becomes legitimate for teachers to represent their own welfare

interests, and to explicitly bargain with management over economic and

procedural due process questions. . . .Second Generation norms include a

very strong belief that conflict is endemic to the worlmlace and that

efi’ective conflict management is a vitally important aspect of labor

relations. The participants in Second Generation labor relations

generally adopt the beliefs of private sector industrial unionism that labor

relations can and should be separated from organizational policy. ‘Boards
govern, superintendents acbninister, teachers teach ’ (emphasis added,

9. 7)

The above description aptly describes a great number of the relationships found in our
nation’s school districts. However, as with the first generation, discontent among
participants in the second generation paradigm has formed and is rising, possibly signaling
a transition into a third generation.

Although much of the current discontent with teachers, teachers’ unions, and
school district officials is unfocused, significant changes in the nature of labor relations can
be noticed among a relative few school districts and teachers’ unions. In some of these
districts, educational leaders are engaging in behaviors antithetical to the belief structure
of the second generation by making “an explicit attempt to shape school district policy
through the contract and the union rather than attempting to manage ‘around the contract’
or through informal accommodation with the union” (Kerchner and Mitchell, p. 8). No
longer are some teachers or administrators willing to adhere to the underlying assumptions
which inform most of American labor policies. Kerchner and Mitchell write that

During this generation, all parties, including the public, acknowledge that

teacher negotiations are substantially and directly concerned with the ways

in which schools will be run; the patterns of authority and social interaction

in the buildings; the definition of what will be taught, for how long, and to

whom; and the determinations of who has the right to decide how planning,

evaluation and supervision of instruction will be carried out. Typically, the

era of negotiated policy begins with the recognition by management and

the school board that they have a genuine interest in negotiating an
effective and workable evaluation clause in the contract. (emphasis added,

a 9)

A third generation of teacher unionism, as described above, is now beginning to
develop. It appears that a major shift in the operating principles of teachers’ unions may
indeed be afoot. Unlike Kerchner and Mitchell, who place the impetus for generational

transformation with “management and the school board,” because of the pressures being

67

placed upon teachers unions, I will describe in the following chapters how the impetus for
change developed internally, within the unions studied. Investigating school districts in

which teachers’ unions advocate peer review is my way of exploring this phenomenon.

Professional Unionism
Some local teacher unions are beginning to evolve into organizations that
simultaneously advocate both teacher and student interests in a proactive manner.

Kerchner and Koppich, in A Union of Professionals (1993 ), introduce the concept of

 

professional unionism which contrasts drastically with its predecessor, industrial
unionism. In order to evolve toward professional unionism, progressive local unions are
distancing themselves from “three of industrial unionism’s most cherished assumptions;”

0 the inherent separateness of labor and management, or teaching and
administration.

0 the necessity of adversarial relationships (between the bargaining units
and district administration)

0 ideas about teacher protection are being rethought to include protecting
the quality and integrity of teaching as well as individual teachers.
(Kerchner & Koppich, p. 9)

Such a fimdarnental organizational and ideological change is difficult to engender,
however. Koppich (1993) notes that the pain and discomfort of transformation is endured
because of the sense of urgency felt by many public school teachers. Under increasing
condemnation and public scorn, unionized teachers are recognizing that drastic changes
are going to occur within their schools, either with or without them. Change, therefore, is
not an option.

Koppich further notes that a prerequisite for the establishment of professional
unionism, developing a belief in expanded teacher roles, may be dificult to establish.
Simply put, old habits die hard. A significant level of discomfort may be generated as the

68

general modes of operating and thinking, the cognitive constraints, of various parties
involved in the operation of schools undergoes transformation. Because of the
interdependency which develops within a societal sector, teachers’ unions, principals, and
central ofice personnel all must change the way in which they conceptualize teachers and
teaching. As mentioned previously, as teaching becomes professionalized, teachers’
unions will have to abandon the rigid contractual distinctions between managerial duties
and employee duties. .

However, inherent in the act of teaching are many managerial fimctions, fi'om
simply “managing” the classroom environment, to the scheduling and acquisition of
materials needed to teach, to exercising professional judgment in the isolation of the
classroom. In some districts, the realization that manager/employee distinctions do not fit
well within the world of teaching is being made10 (Chase, 1997a-c; Urbanski, 1988). For
example, in the Toledo (Ohio) Public Schools, through the actions of the superintendent
and the president of the union, the school community was able to develop new
conceptions of the proper roles of teachers within the district. The Toledo Federation of
Teachers (TFT) facilitated this transition by developing a peer review system which
became a national model for other innovative school districts (See Gallagher, Lanier, &
Kerchner, 1993; Kelly, 1997). Often, however, many teachers are very reluctant to

increase their scope of responsibilities, even for the benefits of professionalization.

After reviewing the role of teacher unionism upon the debate for
professionalization, it can justifiably be said that over the past three decades, teacher
unionism has had contradictory effects. In the early years of collective bargaining,
teachers’ average salaries rose significantly thus placing them socioeconomically closer to

occupations considered professional. However, inherent in the form of unionism that

 

1° Among the local unions one may investigate are those in the following cities; Rochester, New York;
Glenview, Illinois; Colorado Springs, Colorado.

69

developed, based upon the industrial unions of the auto factories, steel mills, and coal
mines, teachers effectively eliminated teaching from consideration as a profession. By
basing their model of negotiations upon unions which represented unskilled, or semi-
skilled workers, teachers’ unions allowed administrators to control managerial processes
in exchange for improved working conditions and salaries. These decisions, in turn,
resulted in a set of institutional constraints, and a path-dependent course of development
which foreclosed alternative considerations over the past three decades. Therefore,
teachers have possessed neither the authority nor the formal autonomy representative of
professionals in other occupations. Some teachers’ unions, however, are abandoning the
underlying values and assumptions of the dominant form of American unionism which
inhibited the professionalization of teaching.

It is important for the professionalization of teachers that unions begin the
transformation toward professional unionism. Currently, several reform proposals
envision the professionalization of teachers being brought about by professional standards
boards and certification committees such as the NBPTS. Others look to subject matter
associations such as the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, or the National
Science Teachers Association, for subject-specific guidance and quality control of
classroom teachers. Unfortunately, neither of these options are organizationally or
developmentally mature enough to operationalize such a diflicult endeavor (Cohen,
5/26/95). The NBA and the AFT, however, are organizationally very strong and represent
almost every public school teacher in the country. Of this situation, Kerchner and
Caufinan note

Other teacher organizations, such as the councils of English or mathematics
teachers, can set standards and provide high-quality service to their
members, but they lack the ability to link standards of good practice to the
allocation of time and other resources in classrooms. Only the unions have
this (organizational) capacity. (italics added, p. 109)

70

Until very recently, however, the unions have not actively advocated the measures

. necessary to support professional unionism. Therefore, its progress has been anecdotal.
The recent shifts in rhetoric, coupled with numerous individual districts’ experiments, may
signify a steady coalescence toward a more powerful and coherent movement based upon

increased teacher professionalism within both unions and across all schools.

Mevkw and Un_ionism

Although the teacher evaluation and teacher unionism literatures are both
expansive, very little empirical work has been published exploring the controversial
relationship between peer review and teacher unions. Most works that address this
relationship do so only casually, usually conjecturing that teachers are unprepared to
accept teachers in roles traditionally carried out only by administrators (Smylie & Denny,
1990). Others, such as Bodenhausen (1990) report state-level unions’ “unabated
opposition to peer evaluation” (p. 3). No one to date has done a comparative analysis of
successfirl programs to identify those factors which may facilitate, or at least be conducive
to, peer review implementation among unionized public school teachers.

The empirical work that has been done regarding peer review systems usually
focuses on teachers’ attitudes (Benzley, Kauchak, & Peterson, 1985; Bodenhausen, 1990;
Hanson, 1990). In each of these studies, researchers concluded that the staunch
opposition to peer review reported in the larger literature failed to materialize in their
respective studies. All researchers identified initial resistance to the concept of teachers

evaluating each other, but the strength of this resistance varied greatly. In fact, a majority

71

of teachers interviewed in these studies reacted positively to peer evaluation after either
experiencing the process or learning more about it. In the words of Bodenhausen,
“opposition to peer evaluation is no longer the monolith of years past” (p. 14).

Prior to this study, the most detailed account of union-sponsored peer review
programs was a chapter written by Gallagher, Lanier and Kerchner in A Union of
Professionals (1993) by Kerchner and Koppich. In their chapter, the authors describe in
detail the genesis of peer reviews programs in Toledo, Ohio and Poway, California. The
programs are very similar with Poway’s program being a direct descendent fiom its
predecessor in Toledo. Each program assigns consulting teachers/mentors to novice
teachers and to those experienced teachers “identified as performing in a way so
unsatisfactory that improvement or termination is imperative” (Toledo Public Schools,
1991,p.35)

This is the firndamental similarity of all peer review programs examined during this
study. The following chapters present the evidence gathered during this study in an
attempt to explain how these local unions reconcile the competing criteria of legitimacy
embodied in the institutions of professionalism and unionism. They also describe for the
reader how these programs operate and what factors most afi’ected the implementation

process either beneficially or detrimentally.

Chapter Four

PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS OF TEACHER PEER REVIEW

The intent of this chapter is to lay out for the reader a basic overview of the typical
teacher peer review program in operation. To place the programs within their proper
context and to provide for the reader a sense of familiarity, this chapter will start with a
brief introduction to the four districts studied. 11 Following the introduction to the sites,
programmatic analysis will begin with a summary of program characteristics followed by
more in-depth examination of several important facets of the programs. The
characteristics highlighted for examination represent those facets which have important
implications for the reconciliation of the competing criteria of legitimacy and in which
important similarities and differences exist. First, the process by which consulting teachers
are identified, trained, and monitored will be presented. Second, an overview of the
typical intervention process will be examined and explained. The focus will then turn to
the interaction between consulting teachers and interns and/or intervention participants.
Finally, the culminating act of peer review, the final recommendation of the consulting
teacher to the governing panel will be examined as well as the resultant legal challenges to

these programs.

 

“ Pseudonyms are used for all cities, districts, unions and imerview participants.

72

73

District Descriptiog

The four districts examined are located in urban areas with a great deal of ethnic and
economic diversity. Hayesville is a mid-sized city in the Midwest which enjoys a rather
robust economy and is closely afiliated with the major university in the immediate vicinity.
It is the largest city in the study with a 1990 census population of approximately 633,000.
Since the implementation of their peer review program, the Hayesville Education ,
Association has had only one president, who brought the concept of peer review to
Hayesville. Five superintendents have served during this same period. The labor relations
within the Hayesville school district have been relatively peaceful in recent years according
to leaders from both the HEA and the district.

Fowlerton is also in the Midwest, but has suffered serious economic downturns
over the past decade due to its dependence on the manufacturing industry. Fowlerton is
part of what can be referred to as the “Rust Belt,” and experienced a net loss of
population through the 1980s. Over sixteen years, the F owlerton Federation of Teachers
(FF T) was led by the man who introduced peer review. After retiring in 1997, his wife
was elected to the union presidency. During this time, five superintendents have served
the district. Due to the great fiscal pressure within the district, the FF T has been unable to
negotiate salaries comparable to their neighboring suburban counterparts. Instead, they
have successfully negotiated teacher representation at almost all levels of decision making
within the district.

Redland is a mid-sized urban center in the Northeast with a diverse, relatively

stable economy and population. During the period of peer review, the district has had one

74

union president and four superintendents. The Redland Federation of Teachers (RF T) has
been recognized for its innovative ideas and is ofien at the forefiont of labor relations.
When asked about the climate of labor relations within the district, it was often
characterized as evolving fi'om a “very centralized approach, very dictatorial” to one of
cautious cooperation between the superintendent, the school board and the RF T (Aurelio
Rodriguez Redland human resources director.

Marine City is a large port city on the west coast and is both economically and
ethnically very diverse. Three superintendents and three union presidents have served in
Marine City since the implementation of peer review. Two factors are notable about
Marine City. First, due to legislative action at the state level, the Marine City school
district will lose $35 million dollars over a three year period. Data was collected in
Marine City during the first year of this period during which they lost ten million dollars of
funding. Second, labor relations within Marine City were often characterized as distrustful

and antagonistic. Table 2 below displays relevant demographic data across the four

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

districts

Table 2 District Demographic Data

Sites Fowlerton Hayesville Marine City Redland
City Population (1990) 332,943 632,910 51§259 231,636
% Change (1980-90) -6.1 % +12.0 % +4.5 % -4.2 %
% Minority 0990) 23.0 % 25.6 % 24.7 % 38.9 %
Median income (1990) 3 24,819 5 26,651 8 29,353 3 22, 785
%FamiliesinPoverty 15.4% 12.6% 7.4% 21.1%
11990)

Student Enrollment 43,000 (approx) 62,800 47,075 37,153
96-97)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proggammatic Features

75

All four peer review programs were designed to serve the same two populations of

teachers, people new to the district (interns) and those veteran teachers (interventions)

who were deemed performing in a way so unsatisfactory that dismissal was likely if

unchecked. Due to abnormally high numbers of new teachers during the 1996-97 school

year in Marine City, Hayesville and Redland, program directors needed to triage teachers

new to the district according to greatest need as determined by lack of teaching experience

and difficulty of assignment as determined by an intern or their supervisor. In each of

these districts, however, steps were being taken to address the needs of as many interns as

possible - including the early release of those interns deemed to be exceptionally strong

novices to allow services to be redirected to those new teachers not yet included in the

program.

Table 3 Programmatic Overview

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Districts Fowlerton Hayesville Marine Cig Redland

Union Afliliation AFT NBA NBA AFT

# of Consulting 16 13 12 80

Teachers (CT)

it of Participants (1997) 180 210 212 246

Total # of Teachers 2500 4800 2900 2500

% of Total Stafi‘ 50% 60 % 25 % 33%

through Prom

Governipg Panel 5 union/4 admin. 4 union/3 admin. 4 union/3 admin. 3 union/3 admin.

Cost 3 500.000 S 1,000,000 S 700,000 S 860,000

Leadership Stability 2 union presidents 1 union president 3 union presidents 1 rmion president
5 superintendents 5 superintendents 3 superintendents 4 superintendents

 

All programs are coordinated by a joint governing panel composed of both union

and district representatives. In Fowlerton, Hayesville and Marine City, the union

representatives outnumber district representatives by one person. In Redland, each party

has three representatives. To avoid union domination of any decision made by the panels,

 

76

parties have either agreed to decide by consensus, or by a majority larger than that held by
. the teachers’ union. Table 3 above displays a brief overview of several major
programmatic features.

Some of the similarity among the characteristics listed above can be explained by

the genealogy of program implementation across the four districts. 12 Fowlerton has the
oldest of the programs studied, being in operation for over fifteen years. Teachers and
administrators from Hayesville visited Fowlerton when considering adopting a peer review
program. Hayesville’s program in now over ten years old. Personnel fiom Marine City
then looked to Hayesville when contemplating implementation of their program. Redland
also examined Fowlerton as well as Hayesville, but substantially altered the fundamental
structure employed in the other three cities. The structure of Redland’s peer review

program will be discussed later in this chapter.

Consulting Teachers

Implicit in the phenomenon of peer review, whether it be in teaching or any other
endeavor, are the fundamental premises of expertise and trust. As represented in this
study, teacher peer review is based upon an understanding that active teachers,
knowledgeable in all that constitutes efi’ective instruction, are better judges of professional
competence than are principals - who may not have taught regularly in a classroom for
over a decade or more. Trust is also firndamental to the process of peer review. The

public, as represented by the school board, and the district administrative stafl’ must trust

 

‘2 A more detailed analysis ofthe circumstances ofimplementation will be presented in chapter five.

77

that the peers chosen as evaluators will efi’ectively and consistently uphold a professional
code of ethics and protect the interests of the schoolchildren. Therefore, attention will
first be focused on the process by which consulting teachers, or peer evaluators, are

selected.

Selection Process

Each of the programs is stafi‘ed by “consultant teachers” who are selected through
a competitive application process fi'om among active classroom teachers with a minimum
level of experience (5-7 years). The application process includes the submission of four to
five letters of recommendation fi'om an applicant’s building administrator, department
chair, and fellow teachers. After reviewing the letters, a governing panel of teachers and
administrators interview applicants during which the panel gathers information about the
applicants’ personal demeanor, communication skills, judgment skills. Ofien applicants
are asked to role play or respond to hypothetical situations or written descriptions of a
case of a teacher in trouble. In Fowlerton and Redland, actual classroom observations of
the applicant’s teaching are performed. A combined list of the desired characteristics

upon which applicants are evaluated include;

o Cooperative 0 Ability to work with adults and

0 Discrete diverse groups

0 Leadership 0 Subject matter knowledge

0 Outstanding teaching ability 0 Ability to make dificult decisions
0 Extensive knowledge of management 0 Good communication skills

and instnrctional techniques

yea

chi

wit

0011

C011

For

tea

and

tear

wh

rs.

%

has. m an REE. n. new

78

Typical Activation

In Fowlerton, Hayesville, and Marine City, the successfirl applicants become
consulting teachers and may be released firll-time from their classrooms for up to three
years to serve as a consultant/mentor for interns and interventions. However, due to
changes in demographics and shifting enrollment patterns, the need for consulting teachers
within any given city fluctuates from year to year. In some cases, successful applicants
may be accepted and receive the distinction of being recognized as worthy of being a
consultant teacher, but may not actively consult immediately. In all four cities, some
consultants are “inactive,” acting as a body of reserve consultants to be activated when the
need arises. When a consulting teacher is activated, the governing panel assigns a
caseload ranging from 12 to 22 teachers with Hayesville having the largest caseloads,
Fowlerton the smallest and Marine City falling between. Upon activation, consultant
teachers receive additional remuneration of 8 5,000 in Fowlerton, $ 5,500 in Marine City,
and a stipend of 20 % of salary in Hayesville. The length of activation for consulting
teachers within these districts is limited to no more than three consecutive years afier
which they must return to the classroom. See Table 4 for summary data regarding
consulting teachers in each district.

Table 4 Consulting Teacher Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Districts Fowlerton Hayesville Marine City Redland

Union Affiliation AFT NBA NBA AF'I’

# of Consulting 16 13 12 80

Teachers (CT)

CT Release Time Full Time/ Full Time/ Full time! . 1/2 or no time/
limit3years limit3years limit3year's nolimit

CT Congrensation 8 5,000 20 % of salary 3 5,500 10 % or 5 %

CaseloadRatio 12tol 22tol 18tol 4tol or ltol

Interventions Weighted Yes Yes Yes No

more heavily than

Interns

Subject Matter Match Yes No Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

Redland’s Prcham Structure

Redland’s program difi’ers from that of the other three districts because of their
insistence that their consulting teachers be actively teaching while consulting. Because of
this, no consulting teacher in Redland is released fi'om classroom instructional duties fiill
time. Several informants in the Redland reported that this facet of the program greatly
increased the “credibility,” or legitimacy of their consultants in the eyes of both the
program participants and fellow teachers. Because of the focus on maintaining close
connections to the classroom and active teaching, Redland uses two different types of
consulting teachers. The first is referred to as a “traditional mentor” who is released
approximately half-time to consult, maintains a half-time teaching load and receives a ten
percent stipend. Traditional mentors usually carry a total of four interns and/or
intervention cases. The second type of consultant teacher is called a “site-based mentor,”
or “building mentor,” who are not released fiom teaching duties but are given five per
diem days of release time and a 5 % stipend in exchange for working with one intern in
their building.

The Redland program also differs in that there is no programmatic limit on the time
one can remain a consulting teacher. Because their consulting teachers are actively
teaching while consulting, the program leaders report no need to limit teachers’
involvement in order to maintain identification with “normal” classroom teachers, or active
classroom teaching. One Redland consultant teacher has been serving since peer review

was established in her district - nine years ago.

Autonomy and Oversigl_rt

Whether released firll or half-time, consultant teachers in all four districts perform
their duties relatively free fiom bureaucratic oversight. They are responsible for the
allocation of their time and interactions with interns and intervention cases. This allows
the consultants to adjust the focus of their time and energy as needed across the teachers
on their caseload and throughout the year. Of this autonomous nature of the organization,
Cathy Doane, a Marine City consulting teacher, commented that within the district, it was
“the first time I was treated as an adult.” Deanna Sirtis, a Redland consultant, firrther
explains the significance to teachers’ newly found autonomy, saying

It's very fluid. I think that the exciting thing is that as professionals we get

a chance to make some of those decisions (about) where your attention

goes and how it goes. That's very exciting.

As the bottom dwellers of the educational bureaucracy, or “street-level bureaucrats,”
(Lipsky, 1980) teachers chosen to be consultants greatly cherish the professional freedom
and license common to other professions.

To say that consulting teachers are autonomous is not to say that they are
completely fi'ee fiom supervision or any bureaucratic responsibility however. Each district
designed into its program mechanisms to provide a measure of oversight of the consulting
teachers. All four districts require consulting teachers to make reports to the governing
panels about the progress, or lack thereof, of the people on their caseload, what support
they have given to their participants and finally a detailed justification of their final
recommendation about the candidate. Fowlerton and Redland require program

participants to evaluate their consulting teacher as well as their experience in the peer

81

review programs. Redland provides the most oversight of consulting teachers through
formal evaluation of each consultant by a pair of members of the governing panel.
Furthermore, each Redland consulting teacher is formally observed in the process of

interacting with interns and/or intervention participants by panel members as well.

Supmrt and Professional Development

In those districts with firll-time consulting teachers, a site is designated as the
program headquarters in which all consulting teachers have ofice space and fi'om which
they operate. In all three districts, respondents commented on the importance of a
common location for consultants as an important source of mutual assistance and support.
About Fowlerton’s program headquarters, Harry Miller, FFT president comments

That’s where it all happens. We didn’t realize, obviously, the significance

of putting them all together. But as it turns out that was a stroke of genius

because so much of the quality of the work is tied up with having them all

in one location. Some people «some school districts- fool around with

mentoring programs with mentors in this building and mentors in that

building and they never talk back and forth. It’s pretty much a waste of

time and money, I think. It just seemed logical to put them all together.

Miller’s emphasis on the importance of communication among the consulting teachers,
and the lack of communication generated by scattering mentors across buildings was also
expressed by Marina Troi, a Redland mentor. When asked what she would do to improve
Redland’s peer review program, Troi strongly recommended more contact among the
consulting teachers. According to Troi, the regularly scheduled monthly meetings did not
sufficiently meet the needs of the new mentors and hindered acclimation to the position of

consulting teacher.

de'
dis

ind

(19
isg

Bn

Fur
thrc

Ma

teat

pres

82

Each district does however provide some form of support and professional
, development for their consulting teachers. Because of the wide variety between the four
districts, the professional development activities of each district will be presented
individually. Marine City provides the most professional development for its consultant
teachers and attempts to coordinate program activities through a central focus on Costa’s
(1994) “Cognitive Coaching” methods. Usually five days of training in cognitive coaching
is given to all new consulting teachers before the school year. Consultant teacher Mary
Brunnick describes what is learned through this process, saying

You learn all kinds of things like what are people really saying when they're

talking; how to read their body language; what are people saying; how you

can set up rapport with people. We learn a lot about what constitutes real

change in people. What is it that brings about change? They actually take

us through different stages of the coaching process. You get to watch it,

you get to participate in it, you get to be part of the different parts which

you evaluate. You're given problems to deal with, people may bring up on

the job problems that they're dealing with.
Furthermore, the MCEA and the district provide professional development opportunities

throughout the year as well on issues identified by consulting teachers as areas of need.

Marine City also programmatically allows for individual needs/interests of its consulting

teachers by giving each a professional development stipend. 13 Pattra Tuckey, MCEA
president, explains

The consulting teachers, up until this year, each had $750 for their own
personal training firnd. That was above and beyond the Wednesday
afternoons and cognitive coaching. Ifthere was a conference or a
workshop they wanted to take, they could use that to pay the tuition for it.

 

‘3 Due to the loss of $10 million in operating revenues, the district canceled the 8750 professional
development stipend during the 96-97 school year.

83

Hayesville is unique in that the district and union both work closely with the major
university in town. Consultant teachers take an active role in teaching a university course
for interns and also make use of university resources as a source of professional
development. While innovative, the courses at the university are not the predominant way
in which most consultant teachers receive support. According to HEA president, J efii'ey
Boss,

Normally in the spring of the year, the people who are in the pool as
(inactive) consultants are brought in for at least a day to go out and visit
schools and be with a consultant during the course of a case. That's kind of
an initial training. It's an opportunity to talk about a number of things and
so forth. Beyond that, when you first come in, we really do rely on our
fellow colleagues for the nuts and bolts. How do I write up this
observation? Where do I keep this? You know, show me what paperwork
nwds to be done. How do I make this contact?

We usually assigned a particular consultant as a mentor. But of
course we bounce things off everybody else. Then there is some ongoing
training through (the university) on a regular basis. ..We have someone
who comes over and a lot of issues do get discussed that relate to the
program that are of assistance to new people as well as people that have
already had some experience.

In terms of formal training, probably the best formal training we
get is a combination of working with our colleagues, asking those
questions, going out into the field and coming back with probably 30 more
questions than we went out with.

The lack of structure for the formal training of consulting teachers has recemly
caused concern among the new director of human resources for Hayesville, Gerri Jackson,
who came to Hayesville from another district which operated a teacher peer review
program. According to Jackson, a significant amount of inconsistency currently exists
across evaluations conducted by consulting teachers which could be rectified through a
more formal and coordinated approach to their professional development. As evidence of

the inconsistent application of evaluation standards, Jackson highlights the fact that the

84

Hayesville program is actually seeing “repeat customers.” Some interns who were
successfiilly exited out of the program are now performing so poorly that they are being
recommended back into the program as intervention candidates. The significance of
recidivism within peer review programs and their effectiveness as mechanisms for quality
control within teaching will be addressed in chapter six.

Fowlerton is similar to Hayesville in that the primary source of support and
professional development arise out of collegial interaction among the consulting teachers.
As in Hayesville, this informal system of support is facilitated by the placement of all
consulting teachers within one facility. Fowlerton also provides a one-day intensive
workshop before the beginning of the school year to acclimate new consulting teachers
into their role. Beyond this, consulting teachers in Fowlerton receive very little in the way
of formal professional development.

Redland consulting teachers receive at least two full days of intensive training prior
to the school year as well as training throughout the year at monthly meetings. Originally,
the professional development opportunities were provided by an outside consulting
agency. Over the years, Redland generated their own in-house experts in a number of
professional development programs, such as Efi‘ective Teaching, Peer Coaching, reflective
teaching, etc. Program coordinators emphasize the professional development aspect of
being consulting teachers by helping their consultants to experience new things and
expand their repertoire.

We've tried to view mentoring as a professional development activity. The

whole process of becoming a mentor, applying for it, interviewing for it,

going to the meetings, having to dialogue with a whole lot of different

pe0ple in a lot of difi‘erent situations, we've tried to keep in mind that's a
professional development activity. So I think that's something we really

85

try to focus more on. I don't know that the general teacher views it that

way. They see a lead teacher as someone who is hired to do a job and that's

very true but we see it with another dimension added to it which is, it's also

going to benefit them in a very deliberate way -not an accidental way, but

a deliberate way. (Beverly McFadden, Redland teacher and assistant

program coordinator)
While many consulting teachers reported their own professional development resulting
fiom their consulting experience, Redland’s program leaders were the only respondents
who placed emphasis on a purposive development of the consultants beyond simply

performing their jobs well.

Recruitment of Cgrsulting Teachers

Across the districts, program leaders reported difiiculties in securing top quality
applicants for consulting teacher positions. Members of the joint panels mentioned the
reluctance of many teachers who are eligible to serve as consulting teachers to serve in this
capacity because it would force them to leave their classrooms and their students. As
Lortie (1975) reported over two decades ago, many classroom teachers gain their
firlfillment out of the dynamic interactions of the teaching/learning process. From this
study, it appears that teachers apparently refuse to forego the familiar intrinsic rewards for
unfamiliar work that is seemingly detached fi'om children. Teachers are thus either
unwilling or unable to violate the cognitive institutional constraints of what it means to be
a teacher. Aurelio Rodriguez, Human Resources Director for Redland observes

There are a lot of wonderful potential mentors out there who just don't

want come out of the classroom, or who don't want to put in the time that's

required to be a mentor. The question is are there more about there

that would also make wonderful lead teachers? Yes, I believe there are.

But you can't force them to apply if they don't have the desire to want to
do that.

In Fowlerton and Marine City, this problem is addressed by “targeted recruitment”
of master teachers as applicants for the consulting teacher openings. The leaders of
Hayesville’s program responded to this phenomenon differently,

Initially we attracted a whole bunch of people. We had a great group of

consultants. Matter of fact, the first two rounds had great consultants. I felt

our third round we fell into a little bit of a lull. We were not attracting the

best and I was a little concerned about that. Actually we upped the pay of

5%. (Jeffrey Boss, Hayesville Education Association)

Given that Lortie and others have documented the importance of intrinsic rewards for
teachers, it is doubtful whether Boss’ strategy of increasing the consulting teacher stipend

by five percent will have the intended consequences.

Intervention Process

This section describes for the reader the typical process by which a classroom
teacher can be recommended for intervention participation. There are many steps to this
process. Please refer to the flowchart (Figure 1) on the following page while reading this
section.

When a teacher is identified by either an administrator or a peer as needing
assistance in the form of intervention services, the referring party usually informs the
principal, the building committee and the program’s governing panel. The principal and
building committee then meet to consider the merits of the recommendation confidentially.
If the principal and the building committee support the recommendation, the
recommendation for intervention then is submitted to the governing panel who reviews the

recommendation. Ifeither the principal or the teacher constituent of the building

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2
Typical Peer Review Process
Teacher recommended for
Intervention by either peers or
administrator.
Recommendation evaluated by
[school-based committee and
principal. ,
No change in teacher’s
if re' ed status, continues teaching.
. Due Process Procedures
Teacher recommends Recommendation evaluated by Continue.
self into intervention ‘ governing joint panel.
No change in teacher’s
status, continues teaching.
Due Process Procedures
A consulting teacher is assigned. Continue.
Consulting teacher, principal
and participant set goals for
improvement.
Novice Teacher is hired
Consulting teacher and
participant work toward
improvement.
Consulting teacher makes
recommendation to governing
panel.
Positive Evaluation; Negr_itive Evaluation:
0 teacher remains in classroom ' summary report placed in
performing at acceptable level personnel file
0 surnmaryreportplacedin 0 teachercounseledoutofteaching
personnel file 0 teacher resigns
0 teacher retires
0 teacher nonrenewed

 

 

 

88

committee disagree with the recommendation, the teacher is so informed and continues
teaching. At this point in the process, the candidate may appear before the panel to
explain their situation in an effort to avoid intervention.

Upon reviewing the case, if the panel votes to accept the recommendation for
iratervention, they inform the candidate in writing and allow a five-day period during which
the teacher may appeal the decision of the panel to an independent arbiter. Once a
candidate is accepted into intervention, the panel assigns a consulting teacher to work with
the case. In Fowlerton and Hayesville, however, participation in intervention is not

voluntary. If approved, the participant must participate or face dismissal proceedings.

Reasons for rejecting intervention recommendations usually relate to two

circumstances. The first is procedural impropriety during the recommendation process at
the building level, such as a person not working in a position for a required minimum
1 ength of time. Second, recommendations are usually rejected if the reasons for the
recommendation are not related to classroom performance. In most instances, the reason
must be directly related to classroom instructional practices of the candidate.
Recommendations for teachers with difficulties following school/district policies,
absenteeism, insubordination, etc., are often rejected. In some cases in which the teacher
self-recommends intervention in an effort solely to avoid being placed on probation. Many

of these cases are rejected because it violates the purpose of the program and undermines

its professional legitimacy.
Upon receiving the intervention assignment, the consulting teacher arranges for a

meeting between the participant, the principal and him/herself in which specific

89

performance goals are determined for the teacher and an informal timeline for improving is
also established. In all the districts, but Redland, however, no terminal time constraints
are established. The reasoning of program leaders in the three districts is that artificially
imposed programmatic timelines are ill-advised because of the unique nature of each
intervention experience. Harry Miller, president of the Fowlerton Federation of Teachers,
summarizes their thinking well, saying

We don’t tell them how long they have to do it. ....It is strictly left to the

judgment of the consulting teacher. We thought that through very

carefully and decided that one of the problems with other kinds of

intervention or assistance programs is that there are cut-ofi‘s. The cut-offs

are usually one year, sometimes less. ...Besides, if we have a good person

that we have some faith in, why do we want to tell them what to do.

The consulting teacher should tell us what the status of that

individual is and what kinds of problems there are and what kinds of help

are being given. ....They are told that if there is a serious management

problem that endangers the students, then you must do something quickly.

We cannot allow a situation to drift if there is a physical danger to the

students and everybody understands that. Other than that there is no

timelines.
The Redland program however linrits participation to a maximum of three complete
semesters. By maintaining time limits, Redland’s program places the student’s need for
quality teachers above that of job protection for a chronically substandard classroom
teacher. The other programs appear to favor job retention. The manner in which district
oflicials and union leaders approach the phenomenon of quality control among teachers
willbeaddressed fintherinchaptersix.

All programs provide safeguards against possible misuse of the process by
requiring agreement fiom both teacher representatives and administrators to place a

classroom teacher into intervention. Hayesville and Marine City also allow for self-referral

into the intervention process for those teachers that feel they could benefit from the
interactions with a consulting teacher. For those teachers who refer themselves, their
referrals go directly to the program panel for review. Once accepted, the process is the

same for all intervention participants.

The Peer Review Exgrience

The Intern Experience

The experience of interns across the four districts appears to be very similar,
according to descriptions fiom consulting teachers, current interns, and former interns. As
would be expected in any mentoring program, novices looked to their consulting teachers
for a variety of forms of support. Chief among the forms of support utilized by interns
were assistance with identifying and acquiring curricular resources, advice about
classroom management, lesson construction and delivery, and finally help with acclimating
to a new city/district/school and urban environment.

When examining the intern experience, it is useful to difl‘erentiate between novices
conring into the classroom directly fiom their certification or degree programs and
experienced teachers who, for whatever reason, are new to the district. Understandably
less experienced interns tend to make more extensive use oftheir consultant teachers
around the issues of lesson construction and delivery, and curricular resources. New
teachers are often intimidated by their more senior faculty members, as Michelle Sielski, a
former Hayesville intern comments

As a first year teacher, you have so much going with lesson plans and

getting a curriculum ready, it's so overwhelming. To have a person, to go
to and say, “How do I handle this? What do I do?” on a fiiendly basis

91

instead of feeling like you have to go to one of these teachers who have
been teaching for 20 years. You feel kind of intimidated, to go and ask a
lot of these little questions. You might feel like you're bothering them. Or
they may look at you like you're asking something stupid or something
remedial that you should already know. I think it is a really good thing
especially for new teachers. Whether they're first year as a teacher or first
year in the system because there are a lot of little ins and outs and things
you need to know that you've have to ask somebody.

Ray Brice, a 27-year veteran teacher and current consulting teacher in Hayesville,
confirms Sielski’s feelings of intimidation, revealing his own demeanor, and that of his
colleagues, toward novices as a senior classroom teachers.

There's an attitude on the part of a lot of teachers when a new teacher

comes in the building. They're willing to assist to a point. They're willing

to tell them where to go to get the flag, go get those erasers and that kind

of stufl‘, but then, the most common thing that happens is that there are

management difficulties with a new teacher. That's very common.

I think what a lot of teachers do, they'll help to a point but then

they'll step back and say, “Okay, I've helped you do this. Now, prove

yourself to me.” And I think that's very common and I was very guilty of

that myself, as a teacher in a building. Now, I'm ashamed of myself -- now

that I'm working in this capacity.

In this context, the consultant can serve as a confidential mentor to whom novices can
turn without feeling a great deal of intimidation or embarrassment.

The intern experience for those interns with prior teaching experience difl‘er from
those of inexperienced novices in two ways. First, experienced interns tend to be initially
more resistant to being assigned a consulting teacher than were inexperienced interns.
Once they experienced the help consultants could provide such as advice about where to
find resources or about the local district politics and policies, they greatly appreciated the

opportunity to interact with their consultant. Second, experienced interns tended to

92

acclimate to their new classrooms more quickly than novices, and consequently ofien were
reported to be successfully released from the various peer review programs more quickly.

Consulting teachers in all four districts work at trying to maintain a positive,
supporting relationship with all of their interns. Once again, Brice offers usefirl insight,
this time into the consulting teacheruintern relationship, saying

I think the strongest point of the program is that it is assistance and that

our approach is positive. We don't ignore the difficult areas but it is a

positive approach and an attempt to go ahead and bring out the positives in

a person's teacher.

We're providing some emotional support, too, because of all of the
fi'ustration of beginning teaching. ...One of the biggest things that we can

do to help people is simply to listen to them and commiserate because

they're experiencing this for the first time. We can let them know that

they're not alone. I tell them, “It is very common for this to happen,

especially this time of year...”

The emphasis on a positive approach and emotionally supporting the intern is also viewed
as important by the interns as well. Earlier, in her study of Rochester’s (NY) Peer
Assistance and Review program, Halkett (1988) documents that 89.9 % of the interns
participating in Rochester’s program reported needing assistance with “moral support and
encouragement” (p. 28).

While the vast majority of current and former interns reported about their intern
experience and their relationship with their consultant teacher positively, four of the 37
interns interviews (10.8 %) reported significant dificulties with the intern experience.
Three of the four respondents were elementary teachers who were very defensive to
comments about their teaching styles. When discussing her intern experience, Hayesville
fourth grade teacher, Barbara Hagstrom comments typify those made by other elementary

teachers critical of their internship.

93

I think they didn’t think they took into consideration that people have
difl‘erent teaching styles. Ifyou didn’t teach like your (consulting teacher)
thought you should be teaching, then she’ll write you a note “Well, I think
you should have done...”
But that’s my way of teaching! I don’t think it was fair to me to
get notes like that.
No secondary teachers reported anything similar to these comments. An interesting
subject for further analysis would be a difl‘erentiated examination by of teachers’

interpretations of their intern experience by school level.

The Intervgltion Eigaeriencel4

The typical intervention experience tends to be much more focused than that of an
internship. Because the program participant in most cases has been identified as
performing in a manner so unsatisfactory that dismissal is likely, consulting teachers work
much more intensively with their intervention cases than with interns. Maria Rivera, a
Redland consultant, describes the difference saying,

When you start with a new intern, I more typically will sit back and not

intervene quite as quickly. I watch and get a sense for where this new

teacher is in her or his development. With an intervention, you really have

to really get to work right away so to speak. That was the difference that I

really felt. You had to really sit down, find out where the trouble is, and

develop a plan quickly.

The dynamics of the intervention experience also differ dramatically fiom that of
an intern experience. Unlike their novice counterparts, teachers recommended into

intervention have a history in their building which alters the approach consultants must

take when working on intervention cases. Rivera observes in a typical intervention,

 

1‘ Because of the understandable reticence of teachers identified as needing intervention, the material for
this section is gathered from consulting teachers, building representatives, and former intervention
participants. No current intervention participant consented to be part of this study.

94

Typically when you go into an intervention, you've got somebody who's

pretty battered by the time you get to them. They're feeling they've failed.

They know that their job is on the line, if they're not successful. ...It's a real

shaky situation.

Hayesville consultant, Ray Brice describes filrther the context in which many consulting
teachers must attempt to assist teachers placed in intervention.

We go in understanding that there are a number of things going on.

Number one, there are some emotional things that usually are part of being

placed in (intervention) because of performance difficulties, so we do have

to be attuned to that. There's a lot of embarrassment sometimes on the

part of some of these pe0ple. There can be anger on many occasions.

Sometimes pe0ple are hostile. We need to be aware of that in going in.

So demanding is the work required of a consulting teacher overseeing an intervention case
that Fowlerton, Hayesville, and Marine City weight interventions more heavily than interns
when calculating consultants caseload. In these districts, when balancing caseloads across
consulting teachers, intervention cases are considered the equivalent of 1.5 or 2 interns.
Because of the small caseload ratio in Redland (no more than 4 to 1), program oflicials
decided not to difi’erentially weigh interventions, but do address the added difficulty by
only assigning interventions to experienced consulting teachers.

Further complicating matters, oflen faculty and stafi’ members within a building
often hold strong feelings regarding the intervention participant. Several mentors in
across the four districts reported incidents in which they were approached by intervention
participants’ fellow faculty members giving testimonials either defending the teachers in
question or condemning them. Typical comments include

“This person should have been out of here five years ago. Why is this

person still here? Get her out of here.” Ray Brice, Redland consulting
teacher

95

People come up and say, “That person is such a good person. They’re

really doing a great job.” I have a hard time because I can’t go out and

say, “Look, you know, he does this, this, and this wrong in his classroom.

He berates students.” I can’t do that in a professional sense, so I have to

‘bite my tongue’ and say, “Well, thanks for your information.” and leave it

at that. Jim Carroll, Fowlerton consulting teacher
Carroll’s comment illustrates a common predicament in which consultants often find
themselves. Because they are bound by the professional ethics of confidentiality,
consultant teachers are prohibited from informing those teachers and administrators who
attempt to sway their decisions about what actually occurs in participants’ classrooms.

More importantly however, the defensive reaction of fellow faculty members when
one of their cohort is placed on intervention has important implications for this study. In
this reaction we see an indication of the fimdamental conflict between the solidarity
required by the tenets of unionism and the emphasis on quality of practice required by

professionalism. An examination of this conflict as well as a strategy for reconciling the

competing criteria for legitimacy will be presented in the final chapter.

Consulting Teacher Recommendations

Consulting teachers in all four programs are required to submit a final report
regarding the status of the program participant, whether an intern or an intervention case.
A typical final report includes the participants’ entrance and exit date from the program, a
list of any goals established, a decision whether the internship/intervention was successful,
and a documentation log of all interactions between the participant and the consulting

teacher. In Hayesville, Redland and Fowlerton, the final recommendation of the

96

consulting teacher to the governing panel, is usually the dominant factor in decisions
regarding the future employment status of the program participant. A summative negative
evaluation from a consulting teacher almost universally results in the teacher leaving the
classroom, either through dismissal, retirement, or resignation. Even in cases of
disagreement, consultants’ recommendations tend to carry more weight than building
administrators’ decisions. Redland human resources director, Rodriguez puts the
following question to people skeptical of giving consulting teachers’ decisions this level of
importance, saying

Somewhere between 40 and 60% of new teachers were not getting their

full complement of three observations and one evaluation. They weren't

even getting that fill] contractual observation or evaluation. ...and that's

probably the most you're going to get. In (our) program, a (consultant) has

somewhere between 55 and 75 contacts and formal observations with their

interns. Question to you is whose recommendation would you support?

The one who has been in the classroom three or four times or the one that's

been in contact with this mentor 50, 60 or 70 times?
On the rare occasions that negative recommendations are not heeded, the reasons reported
by various panel members were procedural irnproprieties regarding recommendation into
the intervention process, such as failing to meet a minimum time requirement in the
participant’s position, or an improper vote by the building committee during the original
decision to place the teacher in intervention.

Marine City’s program is unique in that although teachers engage in peer review
and actively counsel negatively evaluated peers out of the profession, the Marine City
Education Association (MCEA) designed their peer review process so that no direct

connection between the program and final employment decisions exists at all. The

executive director of the MCEA explains the necessity of separating peer review fi'om

97

oflicial teacher evaluation by highlighting the history of distrust and suspicion in the
. district between administrators and teachers around issues of evaluation.

...the culture was lots of suspicion around evaluation -- anything that even
smacked of evaluation. ..(the teachers) view evaluation in a negative sense.
They don't view evaluation as something that's going to be helpful. That's
a part of the culture that we're trying to turn around. Evaluation should be
a helping tool as opposed to a "gotcha" but it's still, in an awful lot of
schools, it's still a "gotcha" and our members view it as a ”gotcha.”

In so doing, she highlights the dynamics of institutional constraints shaping actors’ beliefs
and actions within an organization. This point is fiirther illustrated by the MCEA
president who quickly corrected me when I referred to the consulting teachers as “peer

evaluators,” saying

They’re called consulting teachers. We’re real particular about that
because this has nothing to do with the statutory evaluation at all. This
operates separate from that. We are very careful to keep the two very,
very separate because we wanted a program that was going to give
assistance to people, to help them to fine tune their skills and then to help
bring the new people along. Ifwe tied it to the evaluation process which
also gets into probation and possible non-renewal, then what it does it sets
up a negative climate at this particular point with our members. So we’ve
tried to keep it separate from the evaluation process. So we try not to use
any words like “evaluation.”

MCEA’s stance regarding peer evaluation is very significant with regard to issues of
legitimacy and institutional change. Through this programmatic separation, the MCEA is
emphasizing member protection demanded for union legitimacy, over that of quality
demanded by professional legitimacy. As a result of this separation between the peer
review program and formal summative evaluation, the efi’ectiveness of the program, as

well as its very existence, is being questioned by district oficials. The significance of this

98

arrangement will be addressed further in chapter six when addressing issues of

professional legitimacy and quality control among practitioners.

gal Challenges

The separation of consulting teachers fi'om the overall population of teachers for
supervisory roles is very significant. By doing this, teachers’ unions are violating one of
the fundamental criteria for union legitimacy, equality among members. Although the
Supreme Court in the Yeshiva decision, concluded that employees engaging in supervisory
or managerial functions were omitted fiom collective bargaining protection, this standard
has never been applied to K-12 education (444 US. 672, 1980). Because of the legally
tenuous positions teachers’ unions find themselves in when engaging in peer review, it is
important to examine legal challenges which have their genesis in these programs. All four
districts and/or unions have been challenged legally as a direct result of decisions made in
the various peer review programs. In Hayesville, a teacher recommended and approved
for intervention refused to c00perate with the consulting teacher and physically barred the
consultant from his classroom. This teacher was fired by the district for insubordination.
The teacher then sued the district because he considered the insubordination charge to be
an invalid reason for termination. The district and the peer review program were upheld in
both the local court and an appellate court as well.

The teachers’ unions of Fowlerton, Redland and Marine City, each have been

challenged by dismissed teachers for allegedly failing to meet their “duty for fair

99

representation.” 15 In all of the cases, dismissed teachers charged that their unions, the
MCEA and the RFT, did not adequately represent their interests or protect their “rights.”
In every instance, decisions were rendered that the union had indeed protected their rights
through involvement in the peer review process. It was decided that the teachers were
given ample assistance to improve from their consulting teachers but failed to do so.
Therefore, dismissals were upheld and the unions’ actions defended.

Interestingly, in the Redland and Marine City cases, the local union refused to
legally represent the plaintiff, a union member. In both instances, the unusual
circumstance arose in which the state level union represented the local union’s member in
a legal action against the local affiliate. John Denzer, RFT vice-president and chair of
Redland’s program, describes the situation, saying

The district's attorney was questioning me. The union attorney was

representing her and was also questioning me. It was a very unusual

situation. Of course, our state affiliate does not like this at all. They think

that teachers shouldn't have any role at all in doing management's work.

...We don't think of it as management's work. We think of it as

protecting the profession.

The strange configuration of roles in the above description only firrther highlights the state

of institutional flux, or paradigmatic shift, in which teachers’ unions currently find

themselves.

 

'5 “DmyofFairRepresentation” isdefinedas“Theobligationprimari1yoftheunionimposedbyfederal
labor laws to fairly represent all bargaining unit members in collective bargaining and in the enforcement
of the agreement” in Roberts, 11.5. (1996) Robert’s Dictiom of Industrial Relations. The Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc; Washington, DC. The duty of unions to represent employees is based upon the
Supreme Court ruling, Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RR, 323 us. 192, (1944) which requires that
unions must “act for and not against those whom it represents.”

100

Beyond challenges fi'om terminated teachers, both the Redland and the F owlerton
unions were challenged by their administrative counterparts, principals’ unions. Upon
implementation in Redland, Denzer reports that the principals’ union

filed suit against the district and the union claiming that teachers were

being assigned responsibilities, particularly evaluation responsibilities that

they were not qualified for and further they were not legally permitted to

do in (the) state. That went through a couple different court cases which

they lost. Eventually the judge in the Court of Appeals, which in (our)

state is the highest court, said, “Not only is there nothing illegal about this

but it may very well present a much better W! for evaluating new

teachers than the existing model.”

The conflict in Fowlerton happened not during implementation, but much later in a most

unusual turn of events. After successfully maintaining a peer review program for over a

decade, the FFT canceled the program in a dispute with the district on what appeared to

be an unrelated matter. 16 The FFT filed a unfair labor practice charge against the district
for bargaining over what it interpreted were teachers’ working conditions with the
Fowlerton Association of Administrative Personnel (F AAP). The FAAP filed its first
unfair labor practice charge (ULP) against the FFT when they threatened to cancel the
program. When the program was canceled, the evaluation of teachers fell back to building
principals. Because of this the FAAP, filed a ULP against the district because they did not
bargain evaluation as part of their contract, and therefore was not a required job function.
Eventually, the peer review program was reinstated with the support of the FFT. At this
time, the FAAP filed a third ULP against the district and the union for taking away their

administrative function which also failed on appeal.

 

1‘ See Kelly, P. (1997a) “The Inherent Difliculties of Teacher Peer Review Within a Unionized
Workforce: Analysis of a Case.” for a full analysis of the conditions leading up to the programs’
cancellation.

101

While the two conflicts described above may be the most dramatic, in every district
initially significant resistance was reported by building administrators. Given that the
teachers’ unions studied are engaged in institutional change, it stands to reason that the
institutions with which teachers’ unions interact must also change (Goldring, 1996;
Kerchner & Mitchell, 1988). Whether this change process is due to isomorphic pressures,
or simply an adjustment to changes in the institutional environment remains to be seen. A
carefirl longitudinal study of institutional evolution represented by the changes in these or
similar teachers’ unions and their corresponding districts will most probably yield valuable

insights into organizational analysis and the theoretical fiamework of new institutionalism.

Summgy

Although it is possible to identify a fundamental design for peer review programs
as typified in Figure 2, more interesting are the difl’erences between the programs. The
local institutional framework of the school district appears to shape both program design
and implementation processes. Each district altered -sometimes significantly-
programmatic features to be more congruent with the local context. To explore this more
fully, the process of implementation is addressed in the following chapter. As an example,
at a district level within Redland, professional development of teachers is very important.
This being the case, it is easy to see how their concern flavored the manner in which
interview respondents spoke about the consultant teacher experience as one of
professional development. In Marine City, however, institutional norms affected program

design by prohibiting a direct connection between the peer review program and formal,

102

summative evaluation procedures. It is in these differences of design and implementation
that one can best observe the manner in which institutional constraints manifest themselves
in the actions of individuals within organizations.

Thus in chapter five, I shift focus slightly using a more analytical lens with which
to explore the process of implementation in each district as well as the actions and
reactions of the primary actors involved, teachers and principals. It is through their
actions that one can gain further insight into the institutional dynamics during a process of
paradigmatic transformation. In chapter six, I will interweave description and analysis in

an effort to answer the research question guiding this study.

Chapter Five

IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS OF TEACHER PEER REVIEW

This chapter looks more closely at the phenomenon of institutional and
organizational change within and across the four districts and unions. It begins with an
examination of what exactly caused these four teachers’ unions to consider peer review,
and the district to support it. Then an analysis of the interrelationships of the goals
addressed by peer review is presented as a way of understanding the symbiotic relationship
between the unions and district personnel. The chapter will next examine the act of
implementation across the four districts in an attempt to gain insight into the processes
involved in institutional evolution. Finally, the reactions of both teachers and principals to
the implementation of the programs will be examined to explore the difficulties of

expanding or abandoning institutionally defined roles.

Multiple Goals of Peer Review

The first question which must be addressed in a study of institutional change within
organizations must by “Why?” Why would organizations as steeped in tradition and
organizational myth as teachers’ unions incur the formidable transaction costs required
when engaging in fundamental institutional change? Why would these unions even

consider a concept like peer evaluation, which is antithetical to the traditional beliefs and

l03

104

policies? To answer this question, both union and district leaders were specifically asked,
“What caused the union and/or district to consider peer review?”

An interesting pattern emerged from the responses to this question. Across three
of the four districts, the responses revolved around one major impetus, public demand for
accountability. Repeatedly, respondents, regardless of position, mentioned the public’s
outcry for teacher and school accountability. As Redland school board member, Maureen
George observes, often when, “The community is talking about accountability, that
means getting rid of bad teachers.” Thus the implementation of peer review-based teacher
evaluation programs in Hayesville, Marine City, and Redland is meant to directly address
the demand for accountability to the broader school community and general public.

In the fourth district, Fowlerton, the impetus for consideration of peer review
came solely from the FFT president, Harry Miller, who was disappointed with the quality
of novice teachers coming into Fowlerton. Ten years before the peer review program
finally became a reality, Miller recalls that

The real trigger was the (State) Department of Education Committee on

which I served. We were revising the standards for teacher education. I

thought we ought to have a five-year training program. It was the

fi'ustration fiom not having any support down there... Afier that

experience, it suddenly occurred to me that we might not get five years of

teacher training, but- we had everything necessary to have an internship.

The impetus for Fowlerton’s program is thus unique by not emanating from public
demands of accountability or union criticism which characterized the other three districts.

For this study, purposes of the programs are differentiated from the stimuli causing

consideration of peer review in each district. While the press for accountability from both

districts and unions may have caused leaders to consider peer review, in order to be

105

acceptable to the various parties, the program had to serve purposes which the various
parties view as beneficial. A certain amount of overlap may exist between these
categories, but the use of “purpose” connotes a deliberative aspect to leaders’ actions and
programmatic decisions that “impetus” does not. Unlike similar reports across roles
within the districts about what caused the leaders to consider peer review, the purposes
reported to be addressed by the programs varied according to the role of the informant.

Union leaders and teachers tend to emphasize the symbolic purpose of peer review
as a means for teacher professionalization. A mentor teacher in Fowlerton describes the
main goal of his program saying that FFT members want

to see teaching as being a credible profession as opposed to somebody just

in there serving their time and working like bluecollar workers...

(Fowlerton) is a blue-collar town. ...Harr'y’s (FFT president) been a real

pusher to say that teachers are professionals and we should be treated like

professionals in pay and respect. And we should act like professionals in

getting rid of people who don’t belong with us.
Repeatedly throughout the interviews, the phrase “policing our own ranks” was used to
convey union members’ opinions that by engaging in peer review, they were taking
“responsibility for the quality of teaching” in their respective districts (Executive Director,
MCEA). By maintaining the symbolic goal of professionalization through peer review,
teachers’ unions may achieve three things simultaneously. First, they counter criticisms of
protecting incompetent classroom teachers by accepting responsibility for evaluative
duties and recommendations for dismissal. Second, unions improve their professional
status in the eyes of the general public and their own members by appearing to meet the
professional criteria for legitimacy -- focus on quality and professional autonomy. Lastly,

although not expressed openly by union leaders, by taking responsibility for quality among

106

the teaching workforce, teachers’ unions may gain improved bargaining positions during
contract negotiations.

District oflicials, on the other hand, emphasize the symbolic goal of providing
quality education for all children as a way of Mpowering them within their urban
environments. District leaders argue that by implementing peer review as a mechanism for
establishing quality control and accountability among teachers, the overall quality of
education will improve within their districts and the public’s demand for accountability
will be met. Maureen George, Redland school board member, observes that

There is a great human cry for accountability. How do we make teachers

accountable? Board members are really looking for the mentor program

to do that. How do we make teachers accountable?

By emphasizing quality education as their primary goal, district leaders are able to
maintain their legitimacy as an institution of democratic public education.

An interesting coalescence of the symbolic goals of the union and district becomes
apparent when one tries to identify the supporting instrumental goals for both teacher
professionalization and quality education. Specifically, they both firndamentally rely on a
central unifying goal, improved practice, which is critical to meeting the criteria for
legitimacy within professionalism and the evolving conception of unionism. Improved
practice, in turn, is supported by three subordinate instrumental goals, improved
assessment, support for practitioners, and reduced attrition among novice teachers.
Below is a graphic representation (Figure 3) of the various symbolic and instrumental
goals mentioned during interviews and their relationships to the central goal of improved

practice. Each of the goals identified is supported by the subgoals beneath it, with all of

107

the firndamental instrumental goals (in bold) supporting the unifying goal of improved
practice which then meets the needs of both local unions and school districts. At the
bottom of the figure is the process of peer review which is used in these districts to
achieve the instrumental goals.

Figure 3
Relational Map of Multiple Goals

 

 

Public Demand for Loss of
Accountability IMPETUS Legitimacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

puts pressure on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l L
Teachers’ Union School District I
«aphasim emphasizes
. . . SYMBOLIC . .
Professronalrzatron GOALS Quality Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\ /
relies on / relies on

INSTRUMENTAL GOALS

    
 

Improved
Practice

    
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

is
stationed by
_ Improved ’ Support for 7 Decreased
Assessment Practitioners Novice Attrition

 

 

 

 

incorporated
into

TEACHER PEER REVIEW J PROCESS

 

 

 

 

108

From the literature regarding teacher evaluation as well as from interview data,
two primary factors contribute to the perceived and actual failure of school districts to
“get rid of bad teachers,” - poor quality of traditional administrative evaluations of
teachers and teachers ’ unions ’ protection of incompetent practitioners (Bridges, 1992;
Johnson, 1984). While some may prefer to lay blame more heavily on one aspect over the
other, both have contributed significantly to the overall poor record of dismissing poorly
performing teachers. A third, often overlooked, factor afl‘ecting the overall quality of
teachers within urban districts is the lack of suitable induction experiences for novices in
the profession of teaching which results in high attrition rates among young teachers.
These factors are common across many of our nation’s school districts and were present in
the four districts studied.

Consistently, throughout every interview, respondents reported that one of the
main goals of engaging in peer review was improved assessment of teaching practice.
Teachers, union leaders, school board members, district officials, and principals all
reported that traditional administrative evaluation of classroom teachers and teaching were
not efl’ective in maintaining satisfactory levels of quality instruction and learning. The
common principal evaluation of a teacher’s classroom practice is often solely based on a
very short observation a few times per year. Typical comments about the lack of worth of
such administrative evaluations include that of Rodriguez,

The superintendent indicated that administrators’ evaluation of

teachers was not significant in the role of really identifying poor

performers. Our own records review for a period of time showed that 99%

of our teachers were all above average or superior - which we knew was

not accurate. So we invested in making a strategic decision to empower

teachers to evaluate and assess new teachers to the district. (Director of
Human Resources, Redland Public Schools)

109

I-IEA president, Jefl’rey Boss recalls the nonexistent nature of principal evaluation fi'om his
teaching days,

the superintendent at the time... mentioned that there was a lot of noise

on the board that evaluation was not being effective and not being as useful

as the board members felt that it needed to be. And I said, ‘That issue

doesn't particularly bother me. I've felt that it was relatively useless for a

while, too, and gave him my personal experiences fi'om the evaluation

which were not positive. Since, due to the fact that I was a union leader

and a department chair, the principals didn't even bother to evaluate me.

They never even came in. It was just like I was ignored in the whole

process.’

Respondents emphasizing the inferior quality of principals’ assessments implicitly make
the plausible argument that peer review as a mechanism for teacher evaluation can only be
better -- it can do no worse.

Principals are also critical of the quality of evaluation and assistance they can offer
their staff members. Due to the multiple demands of their jobs, principals report that they
are unable to adequately evaluate and assist their stafl’ members. Mary Jo Pillato, an
elementary principal in Redland, when describing the intern portion of Redland’s program,
reports that consulting teachers’ mentoring provides for her new hires a level of service
that she is incapable of giving, because she is a principal with many other
responsibilities. Respondents within various roles and across the districts echoed Pillato’s
observation, often remarking that the job of being a principal precluded administrators

fiom visiting classrooms long enough and often enough to adequately evaluate classroom

practice.

110

In a secondary school with dozens of subject matter specialists, administrative
conduct of teacher evaluations becomes even more difficult. Secondary teachers when
referencing the goal of improved assessment very fi'equently pointed to the role of subject
matter knowledge and subject-specific pedagogy as integral to quality instruction and
quality evaluations. MCEA executive director, Patrick Kewin, describes principal’s
limited scope of ability saying

Principals are no longer really the instructional leaders. I mean, they're not

up to date on all of the instructional strategies and techniques. They don't

have the repertoire that a teacher needs to have. ...The principal ...can

come in and talk about relationships that you might have with kids, but in

terms of understanding the instructional strategies, or the tactics and

strategies that teachers need to use, the repertoire... This is one of the

problems.

Mark Lawrence, a Fowlerton middle school science teacher, summarizes well the position
of secondary teachers, declaring

An administrator can come into my classroom and tell me if I am teaching,

using the proper techniques, but as far as the science - no. ...So if I’m

going to be reviewed, I want it to be by a science teacher.

The instrumental goals of improved assessment and support for practitioners are
addressed not by the mere shifting of evaluation authority from principals to teachers, but
by the change in the evaluation process within the programs. Rather than the much-
maligned, traditionally quick checklist evaluation format used by principals for decades,
within the peer review programs studied, the evaluator (consulting teacher) works much
more closely with the practitioner, over a longer period of time, than in the former system.

Classroom observations are greatly increased fiom contractual obligations of two to three

occurrences per academic year required fi'om administrators. When interviewing

111

consulting teachers, the lowest number of observations reported was eight for an intern
performing well in his/her classroom in Fowlerton. At the other end of the range is
Redland, where because of the low caseload ratios, consultants reported observing
teachers as often as 60 times. In Redland, it is very common for consultant teachers to
visit program participants every week.

The second major impediment to “getting rid of bad teachers” is teachers ’ unions
perceived protection of incompetent teachers. Unions, as discussed in chapter three,
historically acted as if quality issues were not within their range of responsibility. Critics
claim that teachers’ unions are no exception, often acting without regard for the quality of
educational experiences provided for children. While all four districts reported similar
criticisms from the public, the two NEA-afliliated unions, in Hayesville and Marine City,
reported significant internal criticism coming from their own members.

(The) NBA came in and did an assessment of Marine City Public

Schools. They talked to teachers in the classrooms, and business and

community leaders as well as to district administration and some parents.

The biggest thing that they kept getting over and over was “The

Association keeps protecting bad teachers. You need to have a way to fire

bad teachers,” kind of thing. I think the most telling piece of that was

when our own members were saying that. (Tuckey, Union President,

MCEA)

The teachers were saying back to us is “We 're tired of our union protecting

people that are struggling or people that are incompetent. We don't want

you doing that any more. Okay? We want to do something else here. We

want to either help these people or help them leave, one of the two.”

(Kewin, Executive Director, MCEA)

One of the biggest criticisms that I took both internally and externally,

was over the issue of evaluation and the fact that we didn't police our
ranks at all. (Boss, Union President, HEA)

112

Such comments are reflective of the increasing delegitimation of traditional industrial
unionism among teachers as union members. Furthermore, they are indicative of a general
trend toward efi‘orts aimed at establishing and meeting professionfl criteria for legitimacy
within the occupation of teaching.

The third significant factor affecting the overall quality of teachers within a district,
high rate of novice attrition, was reported in each of these urban areas. Across the four
cities, respondents indicated that their respective districts suffered from a large turnover
rate among their novice teachers. Thus, the districts and unions, both placed great
importance on the support and retention of their best new teachers. Mary Bnrnnick, a
veteran consulting teacher in Marine City summarized this point well, saying

We are getting what's called a brain drain. “fithin five years, 50% of our

teachers, new teachers are leaving us. And they're usually, not always but

often, our best. They're the best; they're the ones who are the best in the

classroom. So we tell them that Marine City has made this

commitment to try to keep our teachers. This is one of the reasons why

they put the mentoring program in place is because we realize that an urban

district like ours is dificult...

The intern component of these programs was reported to be a great comfort to
participants who were inexperienced in either the district or city, by making resources
available of which they would otherwise be ignorant.

So significant is this-portion of Redland’s peer review program, that human
resources director, Rodriguez, uses the fact that they have an intern program as a
recruiting tool when trying to attract candidates. He describes Redland’s use of the intern
experience. saying

Our mentoring program has been probably our number one magnet for

attracting educators fi'om outside of (Redland) to come to (Redland).
When I'm going to Puerto Rico or the southern colleges to recruit

113

Afiican American educators, I tell them very simply, “Look around this
room here. There are 180 districts, 350 recruiters, all trying to recruit the
same 70 or 80 college graduates from southern universities. You go
around the room and talk to the districts and say, “What kind of support
am I going to get that first year? Formal support? Not that there's a helping
teacher on the side of the building or the building principal will come in
periodically. That's nonsense. I'm talking about real support: that's going to
be in there 50 or 60 times during the course, going to mentor you, going to
provide demonstration lessons, going to release you to go observe teachers
that have good classroom management practices (or) strong instructional
skills..., who are going to release you for the day so you can do an
inservice and get professional support.

“We can offer that to you in (Redland) and we've consistently have
been doing it and our retention rate of teachers is over 93%. ...Chances are
that wherever you start to work is where you're going to stay. But you also
need to know that within the first five to seven years, (there) is the high
burnout rate for teachers when they get out of the profession because they
didn't get support in the first year or two.”

Eight out of ten people that we talk to who we aggressively want to
recruit come back to us and say, “99% of the districts in this room can't
offer the kind of formal services you can. I'm more interested, let's talk.”
It’s a very successful recruiting tool.

While the other districts did not emphasize the recruitment aspect of the internship
experience to the extent that people in Redland did, all districts were relying on their
programs to curb attrition among novices. In the future, however, urban districts may
implement similar intern programs to retain their high quality novice teachers and thereby
improve the educational experience of their school children.

In only locale, Marine City, did comments deviate significantly from the overall
pattern described above. Teachers in Marine City, as well as the district’s Director of
Human Resources, reported that one of the purposes of their peer review program was to
“protect teachers” fiom administrative discipline. The use of Marine City’s peer review
program as a shelter for teachers is clearly evident in the report of Andrea Anderson, a

Marine City elementary teacher.

114

the (consulting teacher)... was so supportive. She would just come and

she'd observe me during my lessons. She'd say, “I don't see anything

wrong. You're doing wonderfirl work. You're helping the children, you're

supporting the children.” She said, “IfI saw a problem, I would tell you.

But she said I don't see any problems.” I kept her for the year. I even kept

her for two years because I still felt under the old principal we had, I felt

threatened a little bit...
While the teachers described this purpose in a beneficial light, the district administrator did
not. From his vantage point, the Marine City peer review program was not upholding the
professional standards and accountability espoused -- the professional criteria for

legitimacy. Because of this, Marine City’s director of human resources was considering

advocating the cancellation of the program.

Proggam Implementation

When engaging in institutional and organizational evolutionary change,
implementation efi’orts are critically important to successful transformation of both
collective and individual conceptions of “the way things should be.” Therefore, this
section is devoted to examining the implementation efforts in each of the districts. This
will be done in a three-step process. First, I will concentrate solely on the implementation
process in F owlerton because it was the first district to engage in peer review and thus has
a unique implementation story. Second, a synthesis of the stories of Hayesville, Marine
City, and Redland will be presented together because their implementation efl‘orts are very
similar. This similarity is instructive when considering the larger population of districts
which either are presently engaging in peer review or are considering it. Lastly, separate

sections examining teachers’ and principals’ reactions to implementation are presented.

115

Having the oldest program, Fowlerton could not base their program on any

' preexisting model. As described previously, Miller, who was unhappy with the quality of
novice teachers in Fowlerton and unable to persuade the state to establish a five-year
teacher training model with an internship, decided to establish an internship program, not
for student teachers, but for teachers during their first year of employment. From this
revelation, Miller proposed a intern plan in which experienced teachers (consulting
teachers) mentored and evaluated novices. However, Miller’s original proposal met with
harsh criticism and condemnation fiom building administrators in the district through their
union, the Fowlerton Association of Administrative Personnel (F AAP), who viewed the
proposed program as a turf issue. For nine years, the FAAP and central office negotiators
rejected Miller’s proposal.

During contract negotiations in 1981, a new district negotiator, attorney Al
Schultz, made the critical difference which led to the program’s acceptance. Miller
explains the pivotal role Schultz played in implementation by highlighting the institution of
professionalism within Schultz’ occupation, legal practice.

The school board had a new negotiator who was an attorney. . .. When we

had this intern program on the table, we could never get it accepted... But

the attorney could understand a profession, and I could see tint he was

interested in how we were describing the purpose of the program,

because it was really an eflort to start a professionalization program. So

he’s the one who got management to put it in place.

He ...came back to us and said “Can we use these expert
teachers/consultant teachers to deal with more experienced teachers who

were having serious problems?” That was quid pro quo. I didn’t really

have that in the plan, but I didn’t do any second thinking about it, I just
said “you got it” and shook hands on it and that was the deal.

116

The fact that Schultz was an outsider to the institution of public education, highlighted by
Miller, supports the conceptual constraints within which workers in an institution operate.
As an outsider, Schultz was not subject to the same cognitive limitations that educators
develop within their strongly institutional organization. Simply put, for workers within
public education, teacher evaluation is not some thing teachers do. Mthin the traditional
institution of public schooling, teachers teach, and administrators evaluate - and never the
twain shall meet.

Once finally accepted in 1981, Miller and Locke, the assistant superintendent,
worked out the program parameters together. When the program design was completed,
Miller and Locke traveled throughout Fowlerton explaining the program to teachers and
parents in schools and other local organizations. Generally, the program received a warm
welcome from stafi‘ members, parents and the local business community. After its first
year of operation, the major Fowlerton newspaper endorsed the peer review program in its
opeed pages. Since then, the Fowlerton program has survived many fiscal challenges and
often contentious labor relations. During the 1995-96 school year, the program was
temporarily canceled in a labor dispute between the FFT, the FAAP and the
superintendent’s office. It was reinstated the following year with the firll support of FFT
members. i

In Hayesville, Marine City and Redland, the stories of implementation difl’er fi'om
that of Fowlerton, but are similar to each other. In each district, a concern about teacher
evaluation and support started conversations between union presidents and

superintendents. The union presidents had heard something about peer evaluation taking

117

place in F owlerton, or another city, and brought the idea to the superintendent’s attention.
Unlike Miller and Locke, leaders in the other three cities typically took approximately a
year to research the concept of teacher peer review and develop programs curtailed to

particular local nuances. MCEA president, Pattra Tuckey describes the typical process,
saying

(The former MCEA president) had done a lot of reading and had heard of a
program in (I-Iayesville),. .. So he went to visit and came back with the
idea. So when they were at the bargaining table that year, the issue came
up again so we proposed that we take a look at the program in
(Hayesville). That’s a program that’s talking about peer assistance and it’s
getting the experienced teachers the assistance they need to improve their
skills as well as helping new people. That might be something that might
work in (Marine City).

The superintendent at that time was very excited about the idea. So
they (organized a) joint committee, it was made up of central
administrators, principals, and teachers selected by the association. They
spent about a year doing research, and writing what they wanted the
program to be and what they wanted it to address and basically what it
wanted to look like.

All along we kept doing checks with our membership especially
through the representative assembly about what was happening with the
project. When they got the initial program written, we took it to our
assembly and had people take a look at it, because this was in-between
bargaining. When we finally took a polling of our members, we had a good
70% of our members saying “good, let’s do it.”

While Tuckey describes keeping members informed through their representative
assembly, Hayesville and Redland chose different avenues for informational dissemination.
In Hayesville, rather than relying on representatives disseminating information, the HEA
kept members informed constantly throughout the process through a weekly union
newsletter. In Redland, union president Jerry Schlicker visited every worksite within the

district to explain the program to teachers. Cognizant that peer review was foreign to the

118

institution of public school teaching, union leaders took great pains to ensure that their
programs would neither be improperly construed, nor be a great shock to their
membership. Teachers’ reactions to these efforts will be explored in the following section.
During the process of program development in both Marine City and Redland,
action in their respective state legislatures regarding teacher mentoring programs greatly
afl’ected implementation. Because their legislatures were discussing teacher mentoring
programs both Marine City and Redland sought funding for their programs as “pilot
programs” because of the mentoring component inherent in peer review. In Redland, the
actual programmatic structure was altered to secure firnding, which proved problematic in

implementation. RFT vice president, John Denzer, recalls the period of implementation,
saying

At the same time we were underway with the design of (the program), the
state legislature was considering changing the state education law that
would provide some grant firnding for mentor programs. So, at the same
time we were doing this, we applied for... and we received a grant of about
$600,000. However, the grant had some strings attached to it which on the
balance was good but it just (required) ...a couple more things that needed
to be incorporated into the planning... at the 11th hour.

In the state program, there was a 20% reduction in teaching
responsibilities for first year teacher - which at the secondary level makes
absolute sense. To this day, I'm sure that whoever wrote the legislation
only had in mind secondary teachers because instead of teaching five which
is the traditional, you'd teach four. Well, it's not so easy a fix for an
elementary teacher or a special education teacher... So that was a
challenge to work that out. But we worked it out and the first year we had
over 170 interns in the program.

While reduced workloads are common during the induction period of practitioners in

other professions, they are virtually unheard of within teaching. Although logistically

119

problematic, as Denzer stated, teachers in Redland reported that the reduction was very
worthwhile during their first year teaching.

While Marine City was able to secure $100,000 per year from their state house
initially, it also forced them to hurriedly start their program in the middle of the school
year. This, in turn, created problems in the schools where consulting teachers were
currently teaching. Lee Santos, a member of the planning committee and director of
human resources, explains,

There was movement afoot in the legislature,.... PeOple were saying,
“Well, geez, ...we need to think about implementing mid year.” So it was
like “Oh, man!” ...It wouldn't have even hurt so much for secondary
teachers because their workload often changes over (semester break). But
for the elementary teachers, you have to take (into account things like),
you've got your kindergarten child in Miss Karschnick’s class. She's a
master teacher. Now you rip that teacher out and she goes in (the
program), and she wants to go into the program. She loves the program.
We got many, many negative comments from, fi'om doing implementation
in mid year. We did it because we knew the legislature was meeting and
we wanted to show that this model could work. ...They ultimately did put
some money towards the program. I think it was $100,000 per year.

The unintended consequences of starting the program in mid-year thus generated a
measure of animosity among some parents that would have been either non-existent, or
greatly reduced had the program started at the beginning of the school year.

Although Hayesville also started their program at semester break, they avoided the
problems experienced in Marine City by starting on a small scale, with only intervention
participants. HEA president, Boss, describes the implementation saying,

We started with the intervention phase first and in the middle of the year.

So we started with only three or four consultants and only a very, very few

cases of some of our experienced teachers who were in severe difficulty.

Matter of fact, these were individuals that to a degree had become

legends in their own time. Everybody sort of knew that (they were) serious
problems but nobody ever did anything about (them). So we sort of

120

phased it in and had a whole semester's experience of working with just a
few cases before we brought in the large group of new teachers the next
fall.

Starting the program in this manner accomplished two things for leaders in Hayesville.
First, by starting out with only a few people in January, the program leaders were able to
develop appropriate procedures and work out initial “kinks” with the advice of active
consulting teachers. Second, by starting with teachers recommended for intervention that
were so poorly performing to be deemed “legends,” they avoided, or lessened, the vitriolic
opposition of traditional unionists among their members, than if they had started with
more controversial recommendations.

A key component of any policy implementation effort is the manner in which it is
presented to those persons charged with the responsibilities of changing their practice to
comply with the new policy. McLaughlin (1990) made the observation that
implementation dominates outcomes and that local will to implement policy changes is
important to the success of such efforts. Therefore, it is important to examine the manner
in which the innovative leaders in each district attempted to develop the will necessary to
successfirlly engage teachers in a paradigmatic shift in their thinking about unionism,
teacher evaluation, and the “proper” roles and responsibilities of teachers in issues of

quality control among their peers.

Presentation of Peer Review to Teachers
Every union leader interviewed was cognizant that the vision of teachers as

professionals embodied by peer review would be revolutionary to their members.

121

Therefore, when garnering support for the peer review among teachers, union leaders
’ took great care to introduce it not as “teachers evaluating teachers.” Instead, they
emphasized the issues of professional responsibility, new teacher induction, and support
for teachers having difliculty. Miller, because of his interest in teacher professionalization,
emphasized professionalism when approaching his members. Specifically, Miller recalls
asking them,

Ifyou have an experienced teacher in trouble and they need to be removed

fi'om the profession, whose responsibility is it? Is it management’s

responsibility or is it the union’s responsibility? Eleven to one, they said
“It’s the union’s responsibility.”

Miller’s emphasis on teacher quality and the removal of substandard teachers «union

members-- is indicative of his deep commitment to the professionalization of teaching for

its own sake. 17 Therefore, while not emphasizing teachers evaluating teachers, Miller
does address head-on the notion of professional accountability for quality of practice and
furthermore, locates that responsibility within the teachers’ union.

Marine City, Hayesville, and Redland, however, began their programs as a result of
the public pressure around issues of accountability, not out of an intrinsic desire for
teacher professionalization. In these cities, leaders emphasized the more supportive nature
of peer review by highlighting the difliculties many teachers faced as either novices or
troubled veterans under the traditional organization. Boss, PEA president, stressed for his
members, the all-too-common lack of support and feelings of inadequacy experienced by

most first year teachers, saying

 

'7 One must remember that Fowlerton’s program predated the recently increasing public pressure for
accountability, or the increasing delegitimation, apparent in the other three districts. Fowlerton’s
program was operational firlly two years before A Nation at Risk (1983) was released and accelerated
scrutiny of public schooling.

122

We were losing a lot more (novices) because... there wasn't much support

and they felt tremendously lost. Probably, the biggest selling item with our

own members was saying flatly to them, “Do you remember what it was

like when you were first year? What kind of support did you have?” We

brought out all kinds of horror stories and all kinds of personal testimonial

to that. So, that's why our whole process has a variety of supports.
Union leaders in Marine City approached introduction of peer review to their members in
a similar manner, emphasizing its supportive nature as well. As stated earlier however,
because of an atmosphere of mistrust in the district, Marine City’s program is only
supportive. It does not contribute to the omcial summative evaluation and dismissal
processes in the district. The significance of Marine City’s union leaders inability to
reconcile the competing criteria of legitimacy will be addressed in depth in the following
chapter.

The creation of the consulting teacher positions necessary for peer review was the
focus of Redland’s union leaders. The consulting teacher positions were looked upon as a
means for professional development and career advancement in a manner very similar to
some of the career ladder plans of the 19705 and 1980s. RFT vice president, Denzer
explains,

In establishing this consulting teacher position, it provided an opportunity

for teachers who didn't want to leave the profession to get ahead so to

speak, which had been lacking in this district. I think it's still lacking in

most districts. The old song (goes), the only way, you can't get ahead in

teaching but you can get ahead in education so you can advance but it's out

of the classroom. This program enabled teachers to stay in the classroom

and still have additional responsibilities, receive additional compensation,

and make a contribution to the profession.
This focus was firrther supported by the heavy emphasis given to professional

deve10pment as an important aspect of the consulting teacher experience through several

123

interviews with consultants in Redland. Regardless of how these peer review programs
were presented however, teachers in the districts had to accept the idea for the programs

to be successfirlly implemented.

Teacher Reaction to Implementagion of Peer Review

Although union leaders took great pains to introduce peer review to their unions in
the most conducive manner possible, one would not expect such a significant shift in the
conceptualization of unionism to be accepted without challenge. However, the general
trend of teachers’ reaction to the introduction of peer review programs is characterized
best as skeptically optimistic. While the teachers interviewed generally disliked
administrative evaluation of teaching practice, many were initially very unsure about the
involvement of the union and fellow teachers in teacher evaluation. Susan Wallace, a
Redland elementary teacher, succinctly encapsulates the predicament caused by the
competing criteria for legitimacy as well as sununarizes the prevalent attitude of teachers
well, commenting

It's almost like a contradiction because we're employed by the union and it's

supposed to be saving people's jobs but there comes a point sometimes

when, if someone is having a really, really dificult time and they don't see it

in themselves, for the sake of the kids, you have to step in. It's not an easy

thing.

Most veteran teachers when asked about their thoughts regarding the respective
programs in their districts responded favorably towards both the intern and intervention

components, but especially liked the intern experience. Once again, Ms. Wallace offers

useful insight,

124

I think (the intern experience) is a nice luxury because I started a long time

ago... When I started, I went right into the classroom and it was a sink

or swim situation. (I) cried for two months every night. I really think the

intern program is excellent. The concept is wonderful and I wish I had been

able to do it.
Given the stressful nature of one’s first years teaching, and the powerlessness of novices,
it is understandable why teachers view the induction aspect of these peer review programs
more favorably than intervention.

Not all teachers were initially receptive to the concept of peer review however.
Ruth Tharpe, a Redland teacher recalls a faculty meeting during which the program was
initially introduced to the teachers, saying,

I think a lot of people just weren't in the mind set yet in the schools. I mean

that some of the people that worked on this in the beginning were very

smart intellectually. I think you have to give other people a chance to

catch up with you. I remember (John Denzer, RFT vice-president)

conring to our school to talk and teachers practically threw things at

him. He had been working on this and he didn't understand the problem.

Because when you work on something, you already have it all ironed out.

When everybody left that day, they were having a fit.
Union presidents in Hayesville and Marine City, similarly reported some opposition to
implementation efforts. In both cases, critical teachers were characterized by their peers
as being senior teachers who had “been through the trenches” and looked upon peer
review as either “selling-out to management” or “as a way to “pit teacher against teacher.”
Across all four districts, however, resistance to the implementation of peer review was
reported to be restricted to a small minority of the classroom teachers.

In three of the districts, the overall positive response of teachers to the programs

was documented in union polls of their members when considering implementation.

Fowlerton and Hayesville reported similar support of 92% and 96%, respectively. Marine

125

City teachers supported peer review at a lower level of approximately 7 0%.
Unfortunately, district and union officials in Redland never surveyed teachers individually
about implementing their program. The Redland program was formulated as a memo of
understanding between the district and the teachers’ union, then incorporated into the
overall collective bargaining agreement upon which teachers voted and subsequently

approved.

Teachers’ Concerns

While teachers generally agreed with the notion of peer review, they often had
concerns about how the process would work, and the fairness of the evaluations. Chief
among their concerns was the notion of personality conflicts between fellow teachers
resulting in inappropriate intervention referrals by peers, or stylistic differences between
consulting teachers and participants resulting in “unfair” teacher evaluations. Such
feelings are indicative of the general unease generated as organizations engage in
institutional change. In this case, the unions changed institutionally by moving away from,
or redefining, their role of protecting members which, traditionally, is a function upon
which their legitimacy rests. Teachers in all four districts commonly reported these two
initial concerns, but countered that their fears lessened as they became more familiar with
the process.

An interestingly counterintuitive concern that did not diminish over time was
expressed by elementary teachers in both Marine City and Redland. These teachers

reported that although the consulting teachers may be excellent classroom teachers, they

126

lacked the context-specific knowledge of each school’s environment. Judy McCarthy, a
Marine City elementary teacher, is critical of the change fi'om teacher evaluations
conducted by building administrators to evaluations conducted by consulting teachers.
Because of their knowledge of the local contextual factors, McCarthy prefers evaluation
by building principals to that of consulting teachers. She explains

McCarthy: It (switching fiom administrative evaluation) makes me
uncomfortable.

Kelly: Why?

McCarthy: I just don't feel that (consulting teachers) should have that

power because although they may be really good teachers, I don't know

that they would know all of the intricacies of the building and everything

that was going on.

McCarthy continued to explain that she would rather accept the traditional administrative
evaluation, with its limitations, than that of someone who was ignorant of the local
context of her school and classroom. McCarthy’s hesitancy to have “outsiders” come into
her classroom to for evaluative purposes was repeated by other elementary teachers
included in the study as well.

While I am unable to state with confidence that a pattern of response to peer
review exists among teachers according to grade level, I did notice a trend across the
interview respondents. Generally speaking, secondary teachers appeared to be most
accepting of the concept and practice of peer review, while elementary teachers tended to
be more defensive and critical of the concept as well as its practice. The phenomenon of

elementary teachers being more resistant to peer review may be due to their unease with

subject matter knowledge and emphasis on interpersonal relations as a core pedagogical

127

tool. Because of this, criticism of their teaching may be construed as criticism of them as

~ people. Secondary teachers, on the other hand, typically have stronger disciplinary
knowledge as well as a personal identification with a discipline rather than with children.
Because of this, they may be able to separate criticism of their teaching from their own
self-conception. I cannot make any firm statements about this perceived phenomenon,
regarding either its significance or even its existence. In any event, given the high
prominence accorded to peer review and professional unionism by the NBA and AFT, this

is definitely an area in need of firrther research.

Poten_ti_al Problems

Although I view the development of peer review among teachers favorably, I must
give heed to problems that were reported occasionally in the districts examined.
Therefore, within this section, I will present three problems reported during this study: 1)
use of the consulting teacher as a crutch, 2) antagonism among peers resulting from peer
review programs, and 3) unclear bases for recommendations into intervention. These
problems were reported by only a few people throughout the entire study. However,
because of the seriousness of their potential effects, it is prudent to give them attention.
The evidence supporting each of the potential problems was scarce and the number of
sites included in this study small. Therefore, further research into each of these
phenomena will be of great use to practitioners and may yield important theoretical

insights for researchers.

128

Although the peer review program is strongly supported by everyone interviewed
in Redland, an elementary classroom teacher made an interesting observation of a potential
negative effect resulting from new teachers’ participation in the peer review program as
interns. According to her observation, overreliance on consulting teacher may result in the
atrophy of interns teaching skills and independence. She describes the effect saying,

When I was an intern there were three of us in this building who

had a mentor and we all got through the first year. During the second year,

although my mentor had thought she was doing okay, ...the administrator

let (one of the three teachers) go because she wasn't able to do it.

The second year is probably the most critical because they don't

have that person coming in. Mentors do a lot. They get materials for them.

They help them with a lot of planning. And it's somebody that, even

though it's subconscious, somebody's keeping tabs on them and they

know it, too. They know they're getting evaluated by their mentor as well.

(During) the second year, they have to be more self motivated.

Therefore, engagement in peer review, in some cases, may have the capacity to act more
as a crutch for marginal teachers, possibly over-supporting them while in the program to
the point that the teacher fails to become self-sufficient. Although this phenomenon was
only mentioned by one respondent during the study, it may be worth firrther investigation.

Second, traditional unionists claim that peer review will generate a climate of
mistrust and antagonism among teachers. Chase (1997c), trying to answer this criticism in
an Education Week article titled, “Teacher vs. Teacher? Nonsense.” argues that peer
review is more about assisting new teachers into the profession and assisting veteran
teachers in trouble, rather than an a “gotc ” in which teachers try to get rid of each other.

In a sense however, getting rid of irreparably bad teachers is integral to peer review.

When viewed solely as a mechanism to fire teachers, the potential for a great deal of

129

animosity to develop exists. Unfortunately, Hayesville high school teacher, Dick
Buckholtz, alter recommending a teacher for intervention, was the recipient of a great deal
of animosity from the referred teacher and the referred teacher’s fiiends in the building.
Buckholtz tells his story as follows,

Buckholtz: I'm saying now I'll never recommend another person to (the
peer review program). Because I've done nothing but catch hell for three
years. It's just somebody laying in wait for me to screw up so they can do
something... and it's been jab, jab, jab and I'll never recommend somebody
for (intervention).

Kelly: Did you already recommend somebody for (the peer review
program)?

Buckholtz: Yeah. And it went through (the building committee) and got
recommended and passed on and never went on (intervention). And all I'm
catching is hell.

Masinick (a coworker of Buckholtz): I can explain why, too. There was
to be a meeting between somebody at central ofice, the teacher, and his
legal representative. He involved the lawyer. And the lady fi'om the board
didn't show up. So it was thrown out.

Buckholtz: Yeah, if you've got that teacher in the building that, even

though he isn‘t a good teacher but he's got two or three fiiends in the

building, those two or three fiiends turn against you, too. And I'll never do

it again. I mean, if the guy sat back there and slept all day and the kids

were shooting each other, I'd just...
While Buckholtz’ situation was complicated by the recommended teacher never being
placed into intervention, the residual anger of the incident resulting in poisoning the
working atmosphere of the department, increased tension among the staff, and alienated a

teacher who stuck his neck out to recommend someone for assistance through

intervention. If such actions were allow to occur with any amount of frequency, criticisms

130

about generating climates of mistrust and antagonism to the point of damning the program
may come to be.

The third potential problem observed concerns the validity of peer
recommendations of fellow teachers into intervention. A great deal of the literature
regarding teachers’ work accepts as a fundamental premise, Lortie’s (1975) “culture of
isolation.” Repeatedly references are made to the “factory model” of schooling in which

teachers work independently of one another, each adding their own piece of the product to

the chassis. 13 The organization of schools is often characterized as an “egg crate” both
physically and intellectually with each classroom, and the lessons therein, being
disconnected from one another. Thus, the problem concerning the validity of peer
recommendations is this:

If teachers work in a culture of isolation, without much opportunity to

work together and even less opportunity to observe each other, how can

they make judgments about each others’ teaching?
When a doubtful Hayesville teacher asked this question of me, I lacked an adequate
response, saying something like “Well, you just kinda know who the good teachers in the
building are.” Needless to say, it was hardly a response of which I was proud. It is
however, an excellent question, deserving a better answer than my first response.

Just how do classroom teachers know who is a good teacher and who is bad?
From interview data and informal conversations with teachers in the districts, it appears

that teachers rely on four primary sources of information; 1) teaching a class for which the

material in another class is a prerequisite, 2) student talk both to each other and with the

 

‘8 See for example, Johnson (1990), Nasaw (1981), Lortie (1975).

131

teacher, 3) close physical proximity, and 4) faculty gossip. Unfortunately, the data
collected during this study will not allow me to provide a satisfactory answer to this
question at this time. Instead, I would like to focus on the underdeveloped concept of
interdependence among teachers in a school.

There exists within schools an interconnectedness and interdependence that is
often neglected in the literature. Teachers are both technically interdependent through the
curricular ties within students, and institutionally interdependent through the established
organizational culture within the school building and/or department. One common
reference made during interviews was that teachers teaching higher level courses (or
grades) reported great fi'ustration with the apparent lack of leaning occurring in the classes
of occasionally substandard teachers in lower level courses (or grades). This fiustration,
in some instances led to placement of substandard teachers into intervention. The
interdependence of teachers upon one another in both elementary and secondary schools
has been a topic long neglected in educational research, which deserves much greater
scrutiny.

The three potential problems presented here, as well as the teachers’ concerns, fail
to substantiate enough evidence to condemn current and future reform efi’orts involving
teacher peer review. They do however provide a cautionary warning for future reformers
and union leaders when considering the design and implementation of such programs. The
concerns expressed in this section are accounted for in the policy recommendations

presented in chapter seven.

132

Principal Regction to Teapher Peer Review

The reaction of principals to the implementation of teacher peer review programs
was remarkably similar across the four districts. Uniformly, the majority of principals
initially reacted to the implementation of teacher peer review programs with staunch
opposition. In Redland, the administrators’ union went as far as filing a law suit against
the school district because “they felt that (the district) was taking away their right, which
was to review and assess teachers” (emphasis added, Director of Human Resources,
Redland). Across the districts, comments regarding the principals’ initial reaction ran
along the same vein. Typical comments included,

There was a fear that we were taking away some of their power.’ For some

reason, administrators have viewed the threat of evaluation as a power

base. (Jeffrey Boss, Union President, Hayesville)

Many were not real pleased with it because they felt as though somehow

that was taking away part of their responsibility. (Mary J o Pillato,

Principal, Redland)

There has been resistance by some principals who see it as an erosion of
their power. (Colleen Kiesler, Classroom Teacher, Marine City)

One of the main difliculties that arose was convincing school administrators

that their authority as principals or supervisors was not being eroded as a

result of us negotiating this plan. ...it was initially a real turf thing between

the teachers’ union and the school administrators’ union on who was going

to evaluate teachers; (Robert Locke, Assistant Superintendent, Fowlerton)
These comments represent a domino efl‘ect caused by adaptation of principals and their
unions to the major change within the institutional environment of their respective school
districts. Due to the interdependencies that develop as actors and organizations within
societal sectors interact with one another, any major change on the part of one societal

actor induces forced adaptation from other societal actors. From the above statements,

133

one may speculate that teachers’ assumption of evaluative duties within schools removes
‘ fi'om the principals the “latent firnction” of teacher evaluation as a mechanism of control
and authority (Merton, 1957). Facing the loss of this latent function, principals
understandably were initially resistant to implementation efi’orts in every district studied.

Among most principals, however, this resistance was short lived. As the programs
were implemented and as the principals actually experienced having consulting teachers in
their buildings, their initial opposition began to slowly dissolve. Universally, it was
reported that the basis for principals’ support resulted fi'om the tremendous demands upon
their time. By relinquishing evaluation duties, principals reported being able to devote
more time to other school matters. Principal Mary Jo Pillato describes the relief Redland’s
peer review program provides for her, saying

I've enjoyed having the mentor program in the building because I know that

the three first year teachers that I have are going to get daily assistance and

advice and practical guidance that I could give, if I wasn't principal. But

because I have so many other responsibilities, it helps me to have assurance

that no one is going too far astray without support and guidance.
Pillato’s relief over the loss of evaluative duties was reported across all districts.
Remarkably, when considering their initial opposition, principals eventually became among
the strongest supporters of the programs, even lobbying for the retention of the Hayesville
program when budget cuts threatened their program. In Fowlerton, principals asked the

district and the teachers’ union to expand the program to include teachers for the first two

years, rather than the first year only.

134

Surrungg

The process of engaging in organizational and institutional change is very complex.
The interconnections between the multiple goals pursued by the various participants in a
school district quickly become labyrinthine. The end result, however, is a web of support
for a process through which some school districts are attempting to improve educational
experience of children - teacher peer review. Whether the actors’ goals are accountability
to the public, or increased professionalism, they both unite in seeking increased legitimacy
for their respective organizations by focusing on improved teaching. It is important for
reformers at the local level to have a unifying goal to which potential adversaries may
justifiably support in order to maintain organizational legitimacy.

As with any major educational reform effort, implementation is the key to success.
It is no different for teachers’ union reform. Upon review of the data presented thus far, it
is evident that institutional impediments to implementation are numerous, and together,
quite strong. Principal opposition to teacher peer review has not been addressed in the
literature to date, but if unaddressed may condemn such programs before they are fully
implemented. Furthermore, there exist many cognitive constraints within which teacher
work and view their roles in schools such as reluctance to open classroom doors to other
teachers, or unease with assuming the responsibilities demanded of consulting teachers.
Therefore, very clear communication with both teachers and principals must be part of any
implementation effort. By clearly communicating the programmatic design, the peer
review process and the reasoning behind teacher peer review, it may be possible to greatly

lessen the trauma experienced by actors within the focal districts.

135

From the data presented in this chapter, it appears that the three factors
contributing to the retention of poorly performing teachers (i.e. poor quality of principal
evaluation of teacher, union protection of incompetent teachers, and a high attrition rate
among novices) are addressed by through the process of peer review peer review as it was
implemented in the focal cities. In each of the cities, the numbers of substandard teachers
leaving the district, either through retirement, dismissal, or resignation, increased under
their respective peer review systems. At the same time, districts reported lower rates of
attrition among novice teachers. Furthermore, fi'om reports in local newspapers and
heightened prominence at the national level, it appears that engagement in peer review
may have beneficial effects on the legitimacy of local teachers’ unions. Whether each of
the unions in this study were able to successfully meet the competing criteria for
legitimacy within professionalism and unionism, and were able to reconcile them, are the

foci of the following chapter.

Chapter Six

RECONCILIATION OF THE COMPETING CRITERIA OF LEGITIMACY

This chapter serves a simple purpose -- to answer the question posed many pages
ago.

How do teachers’ unions reconcile the competing criteria for legitimacy of
the institutions of professionalism and unionism to which they are held?

Before an answer is formulated, however, the criteria upon which the answer rests
must be explicated and explored. The question rests on the premise that the
teachers’ unions studied do indeed reconcile the fundamental tenets of both
professionalism and unionism. Thus, before this focal question can be answered, it
must be determined whether the unions in question are meeting the criteria of
professional and/or union legitimacy individually. Only then can one ask how the
competing criteria for legitimacy are reconciled.

To this effort, this chapter is constructed in two parts. The first section
examines how the peer review programs meet the competing criteria for legitimacy
individually. This examination determines whether or not the four focal unions
meet the professional criterion of quality control, as well as the union criteria of
protecting their members’ rights and negotiating traditional issues with district
administration. The conclusions reached are based upon the data presented thus
far, as well as some data to be included in this chapter, and rely solely upon the

author’s judgment.

136

137

The second section directly addresses the question of how organizations, as
institutionally constrained as unions, can successfully transform themselves by reconciling
supposedly antithetical institutions with competing criteria for legitimacy and vastly
difl‘erent notions of practitioners’ occupational responsibility. In doing so, it explains the
importance of organizational legitimacy within institutional environments as an important
catalyst for change. Thus, this chapter provides a usefirl synthesis of the data presented
thus far with the theoretical framework discussed in chapters two and three. Others,
however, may interpret the phenomena presented in this study and the rising prominence
of “new” or “professional” unionism difl’erently. Therefore, alternative interpretations are
presented and evaluated based upon the data collected during this study. Finally,
implications of this study for future organizational analysis within neoinstitutionalism are

presented.

Peer Review gs Ouan Control

When considering if the teachers’ unions studied are actually upholding
professional criteria for legitimacy, one must examine the effects of their peer review
programs upon the quality of the teachers within the district. From the interview data and
the documented rates at which interns and intervention cases are nonrenewed, it appears
that consulting teachers are indeed upholding a higher standard of professional practice
than did principals who failed to dismiss comparable numbers of teachers per year due to
poor performance. The table below exhibits the rates at which both interns and

intervention cases are not successful.

 

138

Table 5 Evaluation Data by District

 

 

 

 

 

Districts Fowlerton Hayesville Marine City Redland
% of Total Staff 50% 60 % 25 % 33%
Muslim

%lnternsnot 7to8% 5to7% 5% 7t08%
Successful

% of Interventions not 69 % 59 % 50 % 10 %
Successful

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, specific numbers of teachers nonrenewed on an annual basis prior

to program implementation were not available in any of the districts visited. 19 On a
general level, the vast majority of interview respondents reported that consulting teachers
were more demanding evaluators than their administrative predecessors. Typical
comments to this effect include “a peer teacher is more likely to make the tough call”
(Human Resources Director, Hayesville), and “teacher consultants... (are) not afraid to
make those hard decisions.” (Asst. Superintendent of Human Resources, Fowlerton).
Note that both of these comments were made by district administrators, not by union
activists. This is not to say, however, that there were no criticisms or concerns expressed
about the peer review programs effectiveness as quality control mechanisms.

Interestingly, when analyzing responses relevant to issues of peer review as a
mechanism for quality control, an unanticipated division among the four districts arose.
While strong supporters for the peer review programs were found in each district, strong
critics were not as evenly distributed across the districts. The programs of the two

districts with AFT-amliated unions were described in a much more beneficial manner than

 

‘9 For comparison of the numbers of teachers nonrenewed through peer review programs with the
numbers nonrenewed previous to program implementation, district personnel directors and union
presidents were asked to compare the rates of dismissal from memory.

139

the programs in those with NBA-affiliated unions. To most effectively relate the

difl‘erences between the districts, each district will be described separately.

Hayesville (NEA)

The peer review program in Hayesville is based upon the premise that “good
teaching is good teaching” (Boss, PEA president). Thus program leaders did not
emphasize the assignment of consulting teachers by subject matter concentration to the
program participants. The resulting mismatch of subject matter between participant and
consulting teacher was the most commonly mentioned factor by all teachers interviewed,
whether consulting teachers, interns, former intervention participants, or normal classroom
teachers. It was universally condemned by all teachers interviewed. When told of the
overwhelming dissatisfaction with the common mismatches, the president of PEA
responded that due to the very late and unpredictable nature of the districts hiring
practices that the program coordinators cannot adequately plan and assign to effectively
match program participants. Boss explains

...it's a problem and I don't know if we're ever going to be able to
overcome it. It would be wonderful if we could arrange situations so that,
we could have all of the multiplicity of needs. This district has so much
movement that it changes and so when we pull somebody in to be a
consultant, then the demographics may change and we don't have that
person quite fitting the needs. A math teacher may also have to deal with
all the sciences because we don't have enough of a load to cover all of
those things.

...looking at it from our view of the panel, I can understand people
out there feel much more concerned because they want to have somebody
who's dealing with the same material that they're dealing with. But you
see, we don't find that much of an issue tied in with their knowledge of
their material. The only time we find that is when somebody has been
completely misplaced in an area. Over 90 to 95% of the problems deal

140

with management issues and developing things in the classroom and that
crosses all of the areas.

There were also several statements made by people in a variety of positions across
the district regarding the rigor of the summative decisions. Of these comments, the
observation most often made was about the recidivism of interns who had successfully
completed their internships. In a number of instances, interns who had successfirlly exited
the program were later recommended for intervention as being seriously deficient. In a
few cases, the necessary recommendations for intervention could not be made because the
teacher had not been on staff the minimum of five years to be placed in intervention.
Classroom teachers interviewed at all school levels reported instances similar to that
below,

That individual was able to play the game, be different when the

(consulting teacher) was observing them. Yeah, the teaching changed.

You didn’t hear the degrading marks that you heard all the time from her

when her (consulting teacher) was observing. (Elementary Teacher,

Hayesville)

...the end result was the teacher is still teaching or was teaching and

I wasn't so sure that anything had changed. The behavior of the class was

still the same. The lack of instruction that was taking place was still very

low. It was easy for the teacher to prepare for the day the (consulting

teacher) coming in. It's almost like if they're on intervention, that

(consulting teacher) needs to be there every day. For a long period of time

to see what long term is happening. (High School Teacher, Hayesville)

Others blamed the recidivism of interns on principals’ unwillingness to agree with
recommendations for nonrenewal or intervention. Two reasons were given by informants
for principals’ reluctance, high principal turnover constantly started the administrative
evaluation over again, and discomfort of the principal to recommend based on an

inadequate number of observations. The respondents observations of principals’ reticence

141

to nonrenew teachers are firrther supported by the works of Susan Moore Johnson (1984)
and Edwin M. Bridges (1992).

The significance of the conditions described above becomes readily apparent when
one considers the observation of Gerri Jackson, Hayesville Director of Human Resources.
Although she is a strong critic of the recidivism and apparent lack of high performance
standards, Jackson still remarks

I think that in terms of the outcome, a peer teacher is more likely to make

the tough call. I have found that in both districts that the principals were a
little bit more hesitant to make the diflicult call and to basically terminate a

person.20 (emphasis added)
Even though several informants mentioned a lack of rigor within Hayesville’s program, it
was still generally believed that consultant teachers were more rigorous evaluators than
principals. The belief that consulting teachers would be more likely to recommend
dismissal of a fellow teacher than a principal was reported in every district, except Marine

City.

Mpdne City (NBA)

The consistent refusal of the MCEA to allow their peer review program to
officially contribute to the possible dismissal of a teacher has resulted in the questioning of
the program’s continued existence. Rather than a consulting teacher’s negative evaluation
leading directly toward dismissal proceedings, in Marine City, the negative exit is merely
noted in the teacher’s personnel file. The impetus to place a teacher on probation and

document the teacher’s deficiencies is solely the responsibility of the building

 

2° Ms. Jackson worked in two districts, both of which had summative peer evaluation of teachers.

142

administrator. If that administrator does not take action, the teacher remains in the
classroom with children, teaching poorly. MCEA President Tuckey when commenting on
this phenomenon, places the responsibility for removing substandard teachers squarely
upon the shoulders of school principals.
...several teachers (whom) we have unsuccessfully exited from the
program, they are still teaching in school. The principals have not bothered

to take the time to put them on probation. We know that they are still

doing a lousy job but the principal hasn't taken up the job to do that. It 's

still the responsibility» of the principal to do that. In fact, in two cases, the

principal had been on the panel and he still hasn't done his job. (emphasis

added, MCEA President, Marine City)

Tuckey’s statement indicates the strength of the cognitive constraints within which
members of highly institutional organizations view their world. Even while pursuing a
program geared toward teacher professionalization, the union president in Marine City is
unable to see the contradictory nature of her organization’s position. Because of the
MCEA’s refirsal to “police their own,” they clearly fail to uphold the professional criterion
for legitimacy of quality control.

However, if the principal does move to dismiss the teacher following participation
in Marine City’s peer review program, according the former Director of Human
Resources, Lee Santos, the fact that the teacher had been through the peer review process
contributes greatly to the arbitration hearing process.

We had much better success in those hearings with the documentation that

we developed as a result of the (peer review) program. I don't think we've

lost a (peer review)—based non-renewal yet... We haven't lost any of them

because people see the documentation and all the help they've been given.

So that clears up one major hurdle for the hearing examiner -- “Has this

person been given enough help to overcome their deficiencies?” And when

they see how many visits in the log, they usually (have) no sympathy for
them, or very little anyway.

143

Therefore, even though the peer review program and the process for dismissal are kept
separate officially, the district still reaps the benefit of the consulting teachers’ work in
mentoring and evaluating teacher performance. However, these benefits do not accrue to
the MCEA, who through their insistence on separation have apparently chosen to place
protection of all members, a criterion for union legitimacy above the professional criterion
for legitimacy, quality control. Because of the increasing emphasis within the public arena
on issues of accountability within education, the MCEA’s actions will only further

delegitimate their organization in the community.

Fowlerton (AFT)

Over the 15 years of its existence, the Fowlerton peer review program has
managed to maintain a level of respect and credibility among both union supporters and
district administrators. The complaints of recidivism and inappropriate union protection
which were raised in Marine City and Hayesville are not present in F owlerton.
Throughout the district, regardless of position, people consistently reported that the
consulting teachers were tougher evaluators than the principals. Director of Human
Resources for Fowlerton, Robert Locke, notes

Teacher consultantsutheir colleagues-are harder on the interns

than the principals were. Normally in the past what you would find is that

principals have a tendency to give more "outstanding" ratings. ...But you're

going to find that teachers are harder on their colleagues than are building
administrators and incidentally, not afraid to make recommendations

regarding dismissals.

Regarding recidivism of interns, Fowlerton has only had two interns recommended for

intervention years later. When one considers that slightly over half of the teachers in

144

Fowlerton (approx. 1300) were inducted through the intern program, the lack of
recidivism is impressive.

The merit of F owlerton’s program was recently validated through an unusual and
unfortunate turn of events. Due to labor relations problems arising between the teachers’
union, the principals’ union and district officials, the Fowlerton peer review program was
canceled for an entire school year. During this time, school administrators resumed
evaluation of the teaching staff. As a result of their evaluations, not a single teacher --
either novice or veteran -- was dismissed. Jacqulyn Turner, an elementary teacher
describes the situation, saying

I think the years that we have had (the peer review program) have always

had a positive efl‘ect. Last year, when we didn’t have it, it was more of a

burden on our adnrinistrators because they couldn’t get around to all the

new hires and help them out and give them the guidance that the intern

program has given them. Actually, this is my own personal conviction,

they were slighted. Our new hires last year were slighted the opportunity

to be educated into the Wowlerton) Public School System.

Ironically through its absence, compelling evidence arises that the F owlerton peer review
program is fulfilling the criterion of quality required by professionalism and public calls for

accountability. The fact that the F owlerton Federation of Teachers canceled the program

however, raises valid questions about the teachers’ union internalization of quality control

as a legitimate union firnction.21 This only firrther highlights the often contradictory

nature of the competing criteria for legitimacy in which unions find themselves.

 

2‘ The FFT president rejects the characterization of his treatment of the peer review program as
representing any lack of internalization. Instead, Miller explains his actions by stating that the labor-
management atmosphere of the FowlertonPublic Schools had become so contaminated that the FFT was
ending all activities requiring collaboration with the district administration. Thus, the tweher peer review
program was a victim of this more far-reaching action.

 

145

Redland ( AF T)

Like Fowlerton, Redland has also been able to maintain a peer review program
which is consistently regarded as credible and effective. The Redland program has never
had a case of recidivism, nor would they support the placement of a former intern back
into intervention. When asked about recidivism, the coordinator of Redland’s program
stated that the joint governing panel would rather recommend termination than allow
someone to go through the program twice.

As in the other cities, the vast majority of people indicated that consulting teachers
were much more demanding evaluators than building principals. Both union and district
officials repeatedly made reference to the poor quality of administrative evaluations, when
talking about the strength of their peer-based evaluations. Director of Human Resources,
Aurelio Rodriguez, highlights the relative weakness of administrative evaluations, saying

An administrator is required to do a minimum of three observations
and a final evaluation on all new teachers. Over the last several years, an
analysis fiom the department of human resources showed that somewhere
between 40 and 60%. .. of new teachers were not getting their fill]
complement of three observations and one evaluation. So they weren't even
getting that fill] contractual observation or evaluation and those are the
minimum. That's probably the most you're going to get. In the mentoring
program, a mentor has somewhere between 55 and 75 contacts and formal
observations with their interns. Question to you is whose recommendation
would you support? The one who has been in the classroom three or four
times or the one that's been in contact with this mentor 50, 60 or 70 times?

It is my belief that if there's a conflict between the administrative
recommendation and the teacher mentor recommendation, that I would be
more inclined to support the mentor's recommendation because of so much
more contact that they have with that intern as opposed to the
administrator’s contact.

 

146

The program leaders’ commitment to maintaining the integrity of program through
monitoring consulting teachers, having small caseloads per consultant, forbidding
recidivism, and releasing consulting teachers for only half of their teaching load has
worked to produce an exemplary program which successfully mentors and evaluates

teachers.

Professional Legitimacy

Reviewing the programmatic features and quality control indicators in each
district, I conclude that all four programs studied are contributing to the betterment of the
overall quality of teachers in their respective districts. Although admirable, these
contributions are necessary but not sufficient to meet the professional criterion for quality.
To do so, the unions, as professional organizations, must take/accept collective
responsibility for self-regulated quality control of their members. From the data gathered
for this study, it is apparent that the teachers’ unions of Hayesville, Fowlerton, and
Redland, accept the necessary responsibility. The Marine City Education Association,
however, refuses to accept responsibility for such self-regulation of quality among their
members and so does not meet the professional criteria for legitimacy. Thus, the MCEA
is professionally illegitimate;

Of the three teachers’ unions accepting the requisite responsibility, as indicated
earlier, there are varying levels of efl’ectiveness and programmatic quality. Because of the
manner in which consulting teachers are assigned by subject matter specialty and lack of

recidivism, the programs in Fowlerton and Redland are superior to Hayesville’s program.

 

147

The program developed in Hayesville, although more demanding than principal evaluation,
does appear to be fundamentally flawed. The PEA program seems to operate in
ignorance of the research supporting the great importance of a deep knowledge of one’s
subject matter, and of subject-specific pedagogy (e. g., Ball, 1991; Larnpert, 1990;
Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). This fact alone does not alter the judgment that PEA accepts
responsibility for quality among its members because their consulting teachers do actively
contribute to the dismissal of substandard teachers from their ranks -- an action taboo to
traditional labor unions. However, the PEA engages in professional unionism poorly by

not making use of readily available pedagogical research or their member’s complaints

regarding curricular mismatches between consulting teachers and program participants.22
Redland’s unique programmatic structure of releasing consultant teachers for a
maximum of half-time, allows a smaller caseload ratio. This facet of their design works to
the benefit of program participants by allowing a much closer working arrangement than
in any of the other districts. It also allows more closely matched assignment of consulting
teachers according to subject matter to be made. While beneficial for program
participants, it may not be most beneficial for elementary students however. Although no
data was gathered fi'om students or parents during this study, it seems that splitting an
elementary classroom between two consulting teachers, each with a half-time assignment
may be problematic for the students. Further study in Redland on the efl‘ects of splitting

elementary instruction in this way should be conducted.

 

22 When I last spoke with the president of the PEA, he reported that the peer review prograru’s governing
panel would be taking this issue under advisement.

148

Union Legitimacy

When answering the question of whether the unions studied uphold the criteria of
legitimacy as a union, one must first focus upon the traditional concerns of unions --
wages, working conditions, due process, and job security. In all four districts, the unions
were reported to be strong negotiators with district omcials. In no district were
accusations of “selling out to management” made by even the most critical of informants.
In fact, a history of adversarial, sometimes contentious, bargaining was present in each
district. Although district-union cooperation through peer review programs did lead to
other cooperative ventures occasionally within the districts, as Miller, president of the
Fowlerton Federation of Teachers explains,

It (cooperating in the peer review program) does not make the difficult

parts of bargaining any easier. It does help with the stuff where there is a
mutual determination to resolve problems. But the tough stuff is still

tough.

Tough issues in collective bargaining will always arise. The districts and unions studied
here are no different. To illustrate, Hayesville, Fowlerton, and Marine City all experienced
labor relations strife during the last two years to the point of considering striking against
the district. In each instance, however, the peer review program was able to survive the
tough times due to a generally accepted utility.

Regarding the issues of job security and due process protections for members, all
four districts successfully met these criteria -- but not as traditional industrial unions may
meet them. The teachers’ unions examined all continued to support grievances filed by
members and closely monitored working conditions for adherence to contract regulations.

Teachers’ jobs, however, are not reflexively protected without concern for the quality of

149

the teachers’ job performance. Instead, the peer review programs firnction as exemplars
of due process. For those teachers recommended into intervention, by definition, they
have been identified as substantially substandard teachers who, without peer review
programs, would be recommended for termination by their building administrator.
Instead, they enter an intensive program designed to provide the assistance necessary to
improve their job performance to an acceptable level. Only if they fail to do so, do

dismissal proceedings proceed on the basis of incompetence.

Reconciling the Compefipg Criterip of Legigrchy

Generally speaking, teacher peer review programs do hold promise for successfillly
reconciling the competing criteria of legitimacy. In Fowlerton, Redland, and to a lesser
extent, Hayesville, the competing criteria of professionalism and unionism were
successfully reconciled. The unions in each of these three cities were able to take
responsibility for the quality of their members, while at the same time remaining tough
negotiators over the traditional “bread and butter” concerns of more conservative
unionists. The teachers’ union of Marine City, because it could not satisfy the professional
criterion for legitimacy, failed to achieve the synthesis observed in the other districts.

In the successful districts, the teachers’ unions have undergone an institutional and
organizational metamorphosis, without a great deal of interrnl dtfliculty or dissension.
The cognitive and normative constraints which institutionalism predicts for organizations
attempting fundamental change were not insuperable. Actually, they were far weaker than

would be stereotypically predicted for organizations as historically and institutionally

150

bound as teachers’ unions, thereby lending credence to the importance of organizational
delegitimation as a catalyst for significant change. This is not to say that no internal
opposition arose in these districts, or will develop as the National Education Association
makes embracing “new unionism” and collective responsibility for the quality of teachers
primary issues.

Indeed, dissent was present in each district studied when the concept of teacher
peer review was considered, most prominently in Marine City. Recently, very strong
opposition among a minority of NBA state and local afiliates quickly developed as the
national union charts a new course for teacher unionism. NEA president Bob Chase has
been accused by critics of being a “heretic” regarding the institution of unionism (Chase
I997c). State-level affiliates fi'om California, New Jersey and Wisconsin have generated
particularly vitriolic opposition. Dennis Testa, president of the New Jersey Education
Association, when speaking in opposition to the NEA’s acceptance of peer review claimed
that he “wanted to continue to be teachers’ protector” (quoted in Bradley, 1997, p. 14).
Testa’s position is indicative of traditional unionist’s who view “the union in the role of
defender interposed between teachers (the potential victims) and administrators (the
evaluators)” (Chase, 1997c, p. 28). Within this conception of teachers and unionism,
“teachers remain largely passive - pawns whose fate is determined by others” (Chase,
l997c, p. 28).

It is against this conception of teachers and their unions that the implementation of
peer review specifically, and professional unionism more generally, must compete at

various organizational levels of teacher unionism - local, state and national. It is

151

interesting to note that the strongest opposition to the concept of peer review within
teachers’ unions does not take place in the local districts which attempt it, but at the state
level. This may be due to the rather heterogeneous nature of teachers which constitute the
collective bargaining units around which local unions form. As one moves vertically
through the union bureaucratic structure, it may be that a homogenization process occurs
(Berube, 1988; Lieberman, 1997). The result of this process may be that union leaders,
those leading state level organizations, may be more homogenous and more strongly
committed to unionism norms and values than the union members who are actively
teaching in classrooms.

Commonsensically, and according to institutional theory, as an actor works for
many years for a union, the manner in which that actor views the world is shaped and
constrained by the institutional pillars embraced by the organization. However, simply
applying this concept to the study of teachers’ unions at the national level leads to an
apparent paradox. Equating hierarchical position within a union bureaucracy directly to
dogmatic adherence to institutional constraints suggests that national leaders, such as
Shanker or Chase, would be the most dogmatic of all union members. Clearly, this is not
the case. Rather than being the most conservative unionists, national union presidents are
advocating for fundamental fichange and reform within their organizational structure and
focus.

To explain this, one must understand the various activities in which organizational
actors engage, or the “ecology of games,” within large bureaucratic structures (Firestone,

1989). Because of their role within the NEA organizational structure, state level unions

152

are actively engaged in the collective bargaining process through support services supplied
to local districts. Because of their ongoing engagement in collective bargaining and
arbitration, state level union leaders become immersed in the industrial paradigm of
unionism. As a result, the institutional constraints inherent within industrial unionism can
have a large effect on the decisions and actions of such leaders. Leaders of the national
teachers’ unions however, do not engage in collective bargaining with local school
districts. Because of this, institutional constraints which may be so strong among state
level unionism can atrophy among national leaders. The resultant weakening of cognitive
constraints allows national leaders to explore options beyond the traditional norms of the

institutional paradigm within which rank-and-file union members must operate.

Peer Review and Orm' tional Qgitimacy

As explained theoretically in chapter two, and presented empirically in chapter five,

 

legitimacy within a societal sector is a critical resource for organizations. Teachers’
unions are no different. Repeatedly, respondents reported that increasing technical
demands for better teaching, increased student achievement and strengthened
accountability systems were motivating factors for unions and districts to consider peer
review-based teacher evaluation. The increasingly technical environment in which schools
and teachers’ unions must currently operate requires the redefinition of the criteria upon
which legitimacy is to be granted. Because organizational legitimacy is necessary for
survival, the increasing delegitimation of public education and teachers’ unions poses a

serious organizational threat. As Oliver (1991) observed, within a changing institutional

153

environment, organizations may respond in any of several ways. The teachers’ unions
studied here chose to respond by modifying their institutionalized norms to better meet the
emerging, more technical, criteria for organizational legitimacy within public education.
Peer review was their mechanism for change. Whether the implementation of teacher peer
review programs and the resultant toughening of teacher evaluation standards has had a
demonstrable efi’ect on the public has yet to be seen however.

Because of the nature of this study, it is diEcult to reach any definite conclusions
regarding the effects of engaging in peer review on the organizational legitimacy of the
teachers’ unions studied. All persons interviewed during this study were members of the
educational community and institutional environment. Therefore, accurate descriptions of
the effects of these programs on more broadly-conceived organizational legitimacy are
anecdotal at best. The most concrete evidence of increased legitimacy was an editorial
published in Fowlerton’s major newspaper (9/28/81), which applauded the efl‘orts of the
union and district for establishing their peer review program. Furthermore, within
Fowlerton, both the union president and the director of human resources reported that
during the first years of the program, parents expressed their gratitude that the issue of
teacher quality was being addressed during informational meetings in which the peer
review program was explained.

Evidence also exists which supports increased legitimacy and professionalization
for teachers in both Redland and Hayesville. In Redland, Mary Jo Pillato, a principal
reports that their peer review program

raises the value of teaching as a profession. It provides a career ladder. It

gives value to those teachers that have worked hard and have been
effective.

154

The establishment of a qualitative hierarchy in which excellence is recognized and
rewarded is imperative for an occupation to be deemed professionally legitimate (Labaree,
1989). Thus, by honoring those excellent teachers and culling fi'om their ranks those
teachers deemed substandard, peer review contributes to the legitimation of teachers and
their unions according to Labaree’s (1989) criteria of an occupation recognizing that its
practitioners differ qualitatively.

Further anecdotal evidence supporting the legitimation of teachers and their unions
can be gleaned from the interview data. In Hayesville, the consulting teachers’ expertise is
recognized through their participation, and the union’s cooperation, in teaching courses at
a nearby major university. In Marine City, the business community supported the
teachers’ union’s efl‘orts by contributing firnds toward the establishment and
implementation of their peer review program. In Redland and Hayesville, participation in
the joint governing panel of their respective peer review programs has been a foundation
upon which further collaborative efforts between the teachers’ unions and district officials.
Empirical study of the relationship between the implementation of teacher peer review
programs and community members’ perceptions of the union are needed to better examine

this phenomenon.

Alternptive Permives
Some may question the use of the word “reconciliation” within this study. Rather
than a reconciliation, the adoption of peer review can be construed as simply adapting a

organizational procedure normally affiliated with the professions of medicine and law into

155

unions which remain essentially unaltered. This argument, however, fails to recognize the
significance of union members contributing to summative evaluation decisions of fellow
union members. Such actions are not only antithetical, but heretical, to the firndamental
tenets of traditional unionism. For local unions to implement efl‘ective teacher peer review
procedures, their members must first accept that it is their professional responsibility to
maintain the quality of teaching among their peers. Through their actions, some local
teachers’ unions are beginning to give shape to an emergent institution distinguishable
from both industrial unionism and professionalism - professional unionism.

According to some critics, the recent shift of emphases in the NBA and AFT may
be nothing more than diversionary tactics. Susan Straub, president of Pennsylvanians For
Right To Work, Inc, clearly expresses in the excerpt below what some conservative
critics of teachers’ unions believe - namely, that peer review implementation is just
another way in which unions are trying to grab more power for themselves.

President Bob Chase of the National Education Association attempts a
compelling case for his members to join him in his new-found support for
"peer-assistance and -review programs,” but between the lines, the old
union demagoguery lives on.

Throughout his argument, the intent is clear: The NEA's current
drumbeating for peer-review adoption is about the union ”taking charge of
their profession," not teachers.

What better way to whip recalcitrant nonunion teachers into joining the
union that controlled their review, assistance and dismissal
recommendations?

Mr. Chase is absolutely right when he calls peer assistance and review
”tough-minded unionism at its best.” Adding one more link to the chain
that will bind every teacher to the local union official and behemoth
national union is the most basic union organizing tactic.

School directors, taxpayers, and competent teachers should view this
newest bandwagon led by the NEA with a wary eye. (original emphasis,
Straub, 1997, p. 35)

 

156

While one may characterize Straub’s interpretation of peer review as a mechanism to
“bind every teacher” to their teachers’ unions as extreme, Myron Lieberman, a former
union advocate now turned critic and prominent author, has repeatedly argued that
teachers’ unions’ primary interest is that of power and at time conflicts directly with the
interests of teachers.

In his latest book, The Teachers Unions (1997) Lieberman highlights the
conflicting interests of unions as organizations and their members, classroom teachers.
Lieberman explains

On some matters, the union interests coincide with teacher interests, but on

others, there is an actual or potential conflict of interest. For example, the

teachers are consumers of representational services. The unions are

producers of them. In this capacity, it is in the union’s interest to be paid

more, in the teachers’ interest to pay less. The union’s interest lies in

persuading members that they are receiving excellent service for their dues;

the member interest lies in getting all the facts, not simply those which

strengthen the union’s position. (p. 3)

While Lieberman’s focus above is on fiscal matters, it does support a position that,
although legally bound by labor statutes to do otherwise, teachers’ unions may not
necessarily act in the best interests of teachers. Although Straub uses this line of argument
directly against the implementation of peer review, I believe that it is inappropriately
applied to the phenomenon under study.

As structured in the three cities successfillly reconciling professionalism and
unionism, peer review programs do not aggregate power to unions at the cost of their
members. Instead, unions are accepting a much greater proportion of the responsibility

(and risk) for maintaining quality control. Ifconsulting teachers (union members) fail to

uphold quality standards, or the unions refilse to accept the requisite responsibility, no

157

benefit at all accrues to the union. When, as in Marine City, unions act in the interest of
protecting jobs at the expense of quality education, they only further delegitimate
themselves as professional organizations and firrther weaken their already marginal status
with the public. Furthermore, because public schools are institutions of the state,
representatives of the public, district administrators cannot abdicate all authority over
evaluation procedures. Therefore, rather than peer review becoming a tool of independent
teachers’ unions, they are mechanisms in which both the district administrators and the
union representatives must c00perate. The result of which may be, as it was in Fowlerton,
Hayesville, and Redland additional cooperative ventures aimed at improving the
educational experiences of children.

Other critics take a different approach however, labeling peer review as a
mechanism for ‘firnion-busting.” The November 1997 issue of NBA Today featured a pair
of articles debating the merits of peer review with an accompanying internet discussion
forum. In the internet discussion, 72% of respondents thought peer review would
negatively impact both teachers and unions
(http://www.nea.org/neatoday/97l l/debate.html#forum). Typical comments included

I could think of no more effective union busting tool than turning members

against one another; The job of a union is to look out for its members.

Why would one pay dues to an organization that would work against them

in favor of management? (Chris Henderson,

http://www.nea.org/neatoday/97l 1/messages/72.html)

Peer review is the worst idea to come along in quite a while. First of all,

simply by choosing some staff as peer reviewers, you are splitting the

faculty into “good” and “not-so-good.” Our teachers’ unions must

remain strong, united and supportive. (Al Stein,
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/971 l/messages/48.html)

158

This is the worst of your many bad policies that consume my dues money...
There is no way that a peer teacher can judge another teacher without the
same political agenda every educator follows. Giving union support to this
undercuts my right to be represented against arbitrary termination actions.
Tenure and job security are what the union needs to focus on. (Peter
Thorpe, http://www.nea. org/neatoday/971 l/messages/53.html)

Evaluation is a tool of a bureaucratic or authoritarian scheme of
organization; whereas mentoring is collegial and helping. What do you get
when you mix the two? -- vindictive or territorial teachers entering the

program in order to exercise more power than they have ever had before...
They are like the brown shirts of Germany, turning in fiiends and family to

gain favor with the party. (Larry Wilson,

http://www.nea.org/neatoday/97l l/messages/74.html)
Critics, such as these, miss the point that the teacher peer review programs, as currently
operated, first provide assistance to novices and teachers in need. Only after an extended
time of observation and interaction between consulting teachers and program participants
are summative decisions made. From the tone of the comments above, it appears that the
writers are unfamiliar with districts which actually operate peer review programs. In no
interview conducted during this study were any of the above problems described by
respondents. There were no charges of “union busting,” of divisiveness caused by
consulting teacher selection, of vested political agendas, or description of “territorial
teachers” reminiscent of Nazis. In the opinion of this author, such comments are

indicative of emotional hyperbole uttered by persons whose institutionally defined world

view is being fundamentally questioned as teacher unionism evolves.

Implications for Organizational Analysis

This study indicates that the characterizations of schools as institutional

organizations whose legitimacy is based upon adherence to traditions and organizational

159

myths may no longer be as useful as when first conceived. Instead, a new conceptual
understanding of public schools needs to emerge which accounts for the increasingly
technical environment in which they must operate. No longer can schools neglect the
technical demands placed upon them. Maintaining a facade of dedication, efl’ectiveness
and caring will no longer provide schools with the legitimacy requisite for public support
and ultimately, survival. In an era of increasing technical demands and public scrutiny,
failure to produce quality learning for the students will be organizationally devastating.
Neoinstitutionalism provides a usefill tool toward understanding the actions, or
lack thereof, taken by organizations within the societal sector of public education.
Institutional theory need not be limited to examinations of organizational inertia and
passivity. By more thoroughly incorporating the role of evolving institutional pressures
and legitimacy within societal sectors, social science researchers can provide more useful
explanations of organizational actions in turbulent, or “unbalanced” environments (Rowan,
1982). Within unbalanced environments, actors continue to perceive their surroundings
through the filtering lenses of cognitive, regulative and normative institutional constraints,
but they need not be passively reacting. When a state of unbalance arises within an
environment, actors and organizations must make choices. What choices are made depend
on the interpretations key actors make of their environment. A more dynamic institutional
theory may help analysts to identify and explain these interpretations and therefore explain,

or even predict, organizational change.

160

Conclusion

Teacher peer review programs do ofl‘er local unions an avenue through which the
competing criteria for legitimacy may be reconciled successfully. Implementation of peer
review programs in and of itself does not guarantee successful reconciliation, as is so
clearly observed in Marine City. When considering design and implementation of such
programs it is imperative that efi’orts are informed by a thorough knowledge of the
institutional context in which the various actors involved work. Furthermore, it is
important that suflicient attention he paid to the clarity of performance standards and the
consistency with which they are applied. Without doing so, teacher peer review programs
will fail to reconcile the competing criteria for legitimacy well. Hayesville, provides ample
evidence of a local union with good intentions at reconciliation, but does so in a manner
which is substantially less than optimal. Therefore, while peer review programs may hold
much promise for teacher professionalization and professional unionism, they are not
panaceas. They must be designed, implemented and operated with great care and in firll
knowledge that institutional constraints are inherent in major organizational reforms. The
following chapter ofl’ers for potential reformers a series of policy recommendations and

programmatic design concerns in an effort to better inform firture efforts.

161

Appgndix A

Methodology

To examine this phenomenon, a multi-site case study was conducted to construct a
comparative analysis of peer review-based teacher evaluation programs/policies as well as
the districts and unions which support them. The methodology employed included a
combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection procedures, including analysis
of documentary artifacts for all such programs in the nation as well as site visits and
numerous interviews in four representative districts. This particular approach has met with
past success when similar topics were explored by Susan Moore Johnson (1984) in her
study of the efi‘ects of teachers’ unions upon schools, and by David Cohen and Richard
Mumane in their mid-eighties studies involving districts in which merit pay plans had
actually survived (Cohen & Mumane, 1985; Mumane & Cohen, 1985a, 1985b). Of
particular relevance to this study is the very similar methodology employed by Cohen and
Mumane which yielded data highlighting the effects which the fundamental tenets of
industrial unionism upon teachers’ unions. In their studies, Cohen and Mumane identified
six school districts having merit pay, interviewed a sample of personnel in each district,
and collected the necessary. documentary evidence to complete their analyses. Although
unionism was not directly addressed in these studies, the author’s final analyses highlight
the importance of educational reforms fitting within the fundamental tenets of modern

unionism previously described.

162

Among the “four most important strategies” for success implementation of merit
pay plans as identified by Cohen and Mumane, three specifically address traditional
industrial unionism concerns pertinent to this study (p. 7). First, successful merit pay
plans “define the scheme as extra pay for extra work,” thereby avoiding qualitative
differentiation among members (p. 7 ). By doing so, the merit rewards fi'amed in such a
way as to be consistent with the industrial unionism focus on “bread and butter” issues.
Furthermore, Cohen and Mumane identify explicit attempts by those involved with merit
pay plans to “manipulate the merit rewards so as to minimize provocation” including
passing “them out to nearly everyone,” as well as purposively keeping “a low profile on
merit pay” (p. 7). Both of these strategies evolve directly from concerns regarding the
development of competition among teachers, which could result in the breakdown of
solidarity among the teachers. By adopting similar data collection procedures, this study
produced data necessary to reach an acceptable conclusion regarding the main research

questions.

Desigp of Study

To establish the scientific integrity of this study, I designed a data collection
procedure keeping in mind the tests of academic quality of construct validity, internal
validity, external validity, and reliability. To establish construct validity, I used multiple
sources of evidence which converge toward reliable interpretations of events and policies.
To address concerns about internal validity, the use of multiple sites, informants, and

documentation allows for pattern identification among the evidence, as well as the

163

identification of disconfirrnatory data. External validity of this study to a larger population
will be limited due to the natural limitations of such a small sample size. As Yin (1994)
observes however, “Ihis analogy to samples and universes is incorrect when dealing with
case studies” (original emphasis, p. 36). The purpose of this study is not to identify
universal truths about peer review. It is instead to investigate the changing institutional
dynamics within the labor relations of school districts which engage in peer review. From
this investigation, the generalizations made are statistical, but analytical, speaking to the
“institutional arena” of teacher unionism (Weiss, 1995). The multi-site nature of this study
is adequate for this purpose. The final measure of academic integrity, reliability, is also
supported by the multi-site nature of this study, as well as the detailed case study protocol
developed in Appendix B.

Rather than adopting a dogmatic approach to data collection, I prefer to think of it
pragrnatically. Because of this, I designed an interview schedule (Appendix C) crafted
within the parameters of standardized survey interviewing as presented by Fowler and
Mangione (1990). However, because the histories, personalities, and current conditions of
the sites included in the study will vary, I will only emphasize standardization to a point.
In addition to the scheduled responses, I will allow my informants to elaborate as they feel
the need to do so, within reason. By doing so, I hope to achieve a high degree of internal
validity as well as accurate accounts of the phenomena of interest.

Since by definition, the informants had information I was trying to acquire,
digressions and anecdotal excursions by the informants were considered carefully. The

respondents were thus given the opportunity to direct the interviews where I really

164

wanted them to go. Anecdotal and other unrequested ofi’erings by respondents may
indeed be the gold for which the researcher mines. While interviews were not be allowed
to wander aimlessly at the whim of the informant, a good measure of latitude was allowed.
It would be tragic for an interviewer, intent on adhering to the interview schedule, to
needlessly limit the range of data which might assist his research. As the oral historian,
Valerie Yow (1994) notes, one must never dismiss "the possibility of discovering
something not even thought of before" (p. 7 ).

By engaging the people involved with peer review programs in in-depth
interviewing, I hoped to reveal the underlying values and assumptions which inform their
actions and policies. Hammersly and Atkinson (1983) support this approach writing

The actual words people use can be of considerable analytic importance.

The 'situated vocabularies' employed provide us with valuable information

about the way in which members of a particular culture organize their

perceptions of the world. (p. 153)

Yow further supports the use of data collected in this manner “to discover habitual
thinking (often below the level of conscious thinking), which comes from the evolving
culture in which individuals live" (p. 23). Although the term "culture" has numerous
meanings, I agree with the definition given by ethnographer Clifford Geertz (1973);

Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of

significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the

analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law

but an interpretative one in search of meaning. (p. 5)

Through the in-depth interview, one "can reveal a psychological reality that is the basis for
ideals the individual holds and for the things he or she does" (Y ow, p. 15). One can

therefore begin to map out the topology of "webs of significance" (or cognitive and

165

normative institutional constraints) a respondent has spun to form his reality and actually

gain access to the world through his perspective.

Data Collection

The interview portion of data collection is comprised of interviews at each site
including a representative of the superintendent’s office, the union president, a school
board member, a consulting teacher, and a peer review program participant. In addition to
individual interviews, group interviews were conducted with teachers at each major level
of schooling, elementary, middle, and high school. All interviews were both in-depth and
semi-structured to facilitate comparison across interviews through a selection of common
questions, as well as allowing for idiosyncratic data to be gathered through probing and
allowing respondents to identify issues/occurrences which they deem relevant.23 The
interviews involved 79 respondents, ranged in length from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours, and
occurred between December 1996 and May 1997.

All interviews were taped and transcribed. The resulting data was then analyzed in
a fashion similar to Benzley, Kauchak, and Peterson (1985). First, each of the common
questions was examined for difi‘erent types of responses. From this preliminary analysis,
categories were formed and the responses reanalyzed and coded. The transcripts were
then reread several times to identify important passages relevant to the study. These

passages were then excerpted into a database and coded by city, informant position, and

 

23 See Appendix B for the foundational interview schedule to be asked of each group of interviewees.

166

main issue. During this process, I developed sixteen different codes, or issues, some of

which were further refined into smaller subgroups. The list of sixteen issues included

0 Impetus o Programmatic Features

0 Purpose 0 Implementation

0 Quality Control 0 Participation Experience

0 Solidarity 0 Labor Relations

0 Teacher Reaction 0 Success of Program

0 Principal Reaction 0 Slow Spread of Peer Review
0 School Board Reaction 0 Legal Issues

0 NEA/AF T Differences

Coding the responses in this manner allowed me to identify patterns of responses by
district and across positions of respondents. I was able to do this simultaneously by
constructing large tables by topic in which columns and rows divided the data by position
and district. Conducting data analysis in this manner greatly facilitated my ability to
identify response patterns and interesting atypical responses. This process was done in an
iterative fashion with the assistance and criticism of fellow researchers at Michigan State
University.24
Site Selection

The school districts included in this study were chosen according to the following
criteria; longevity of program, programmatic features, national union afiliation,
geographic location. The four districts upon which this study focuses include 2 NEA-
afiliates and 2 AFT-afliliates, all located in urban areas with one each in the west and east,
and two in the mid-west. The four unions represent between 2500 and 4800 teachers

each, with a total representation of approximately 12,700 teachers.

 

2‘ I am deeply indebted to Jennifer Borman, Brenda Neuman, Catherine Reischl, and Steve Sheldon for
their very valuable criticism, assistance, and patience, during the early stages of data analysis.

167

Over several months, from approximately January and August 1996, I collected all
references to peer review and teachers’ unions that I could find. Unfortunately, neither
the AFT nor the NBA, keep a list of local afiliates which engage in peer review. Some of
the references were from ofl‘-hand comments in newspaper articles or personal
conversations. Therefore, the validity of all of the collected sites varied considerably. I
planned to collect data from no less than four sites which implemented and maintained
teacher peer review programs.

At the beginning of this study, I compiled a list of sixteen possible sites with peer
review. The sites were

Possible successful sites

District Affiliation District Affiliation
Toledo, OH AFT Pittsburgh, PA AFT
Columbus, OH NBA Old Westbury, NY AFT
Cincinnati, OH AFT Parrna, OH AFT
Rochester, NY AFT Santa Cruz, CA AFT
Seattle, WA NBA Larnphere, M] AFT
New Albany, IN NBA Dearborn, MI AFT
Poway, CA AFT Salt Lake City, UT NBA
Hammond, IN AFT Dade County, FL AFT

To each of the above unions, I mailed a letter explaining the study, requesting information
about their various programs and soliciting their permission to take part in the study.
From the responses, I identified six districts as potentially fiuitfill sites to be included in
this study. From the six, I chose the only two NBA-afiliated unions included because of
the difficulty of institutional change inherent in engaging in peer review with the NBA

during a time at which the NBA officially opposed the practice. The two AFT-afiliated

168

unions included in the study were chosen because of their longevity and unique

programmatic features.

 

 

169

Apmndix B
Case Study Protocol

I Procedures

A. Initial Contact - Initial contact will be made by phone with both the
superintendent and the local union president. Must have names, and possibly
references, prior to contact.

B. Participation Agreement - A shortened version of the approved dissertation
proposal, letters of consent, and confidentiality agreements will be forwarded to
both the superintendent and the union president. Also included will be a stamped
self-addressed rettun envelope and a request for descriptive material relating to
the program.

C. Scheduling Field Visit -- Upon physical receipt of letters of consent from both the
superintendent and the union president, identify a week during which a field visit
will be acceptable. Make plane and hotel reservations as needed. Schedule
interviews. Confirm interviews before leaving.

H Data Collection and Manggement

A. Day One - Arrive night before. Review notes to date. Interview union president
in morning. Interview superintendent late morning. Interview school board
member early afternoon. Arrange to collect documentary evidence with central
office personnel. Gain written consent and interview group of elementary
teachers after school. Provide refreshments. Confirm interviews tomorrow.

B. Day Two -- Review evaluation files. Make copies of records of positively and
negatively evaluated teachers. Gain written consent and interview peer evaluator,

peer evaluatee during the day and group of middle school teachers after school.
Provide refreshments.

C. Day Three -- Conduct follow-up interviews with union president and

superintendent. Interview group of high school teachers after school. Provide
refreshments. Depart field site.

 

 

170

Apmndix C
Foundational Interview Schedule

Historical Questions
1. What caused the local teachers’ union to consider peer review?

2. What caused the local teachers’ union to adopt/reject peer review?

3. Were there difficulties inhibiting initial implementation of peer review? If so, what
were they? What was done to overcome them?

4. Who initially proposed teacher peer review?

5. Can you identify any person or group who either strongly advocated peer review or
strongly opposed it? Who were they? Why do you think they took that position?
Motivafion/Stgzport mestionp

6. Why do you think the union supports peer review?

7. Does the superintendent support peer review? Why (not)?

8. Do the principals support peer review? Why (not)?

9. Do the teachers support peer review? Why (not)?

10. Is the public/parents aware of the peer review program? How were they made
aware? Do they support peer review? Why (not)?

11. Do you like working in a district with teacher peer review? Why (not)?

Labor Relations Qpestions -
12. How would you characterize labor relations between the teachers’ union and district

administration prior to considering peer review?

13. How would you characterize labor relations between the teachers’ union and district
administration after implementing peer review?

14. Has the presence of peer review afl‘ected the overall tenor of labor relations between
the teachers’ union and district administration?

 

171

Apgndix C

15. Has the overall prioritization of union concerns changed since peer review was
adopted? If so, how? To what would you attribute these changes?

16. Has the peer review program weakened members’ solidarity within the union? If so,
how?

17. Have any tensions been noted between peer evaluators and others in the schools? If
so, please describe them.

18. Has engagement in peer review resulted in legal action for any employee of the

district? If so, please describe nature of the action.

Programmatic Questions

19. Why was it decided to include only a portion of the teachers (or all the teachers) in
the peer review program?

20. If peer review is optional, why was it decided to be optional?

21. Does the program currently have or cause any difficulties? What are they? Why do
they arise? What is being done to address them?

22. Is the local union/district sharing its experience with any other unions/districts? How
so?

22. To what factors would you attribute the success of the current peer review program?

23. Do you think the peer review program is successful? By what criteria are you making
that judgment?

24. Have teacher evaluations changed as a result of peer review? How? Why (not)?

25. If teacher evaluations have changed are they more or less thorough? more or less
demanding? more or less efl‘ective at maintaining a high quality faculty? more or less fair?

26. Has peer review had any impact on the day-to-day life of classroom teachers? If so,
what has changed?

172

Appendix D

W

I, do hereby fi'eely consent to participate in the research
of Philip P. Kelly, of Michigan State University, and may discontinue my participation at
any time without penalty. I understand that Mr. Kelly is conducting a comparative
analysis of school districts and teachers’ unions which engage in teacher peer review. To
do this, Mr. Kelly will interview individuals fiom the teachers’ union, the superintendent’s
office, the school board and classroom teachers. Mr. Kelly will also collect documentary
evidence to support his analysis, including, but not limited to programmatic publications,
the district-union contract, and teacher evaluations.

 

Estimate of Time Required

I understand that Mr. Kelly will interview me no more than twice with each interview
lasting approximately one hour, for a possible total time commitment of approximately
two hours.

Confidentiality
I understand that Mr. Kelly will protect the identities of all participants, as well as that of

the districts in which they work. Due to the presence of others, the confidentiality of
teachers participating in group interviews cannot he promised. However, pseudonyms
will be used for all cities, districts, and people involved in this study in any publications.

Publication of the Final Report

I understand that Mr. Kelly will retain all rights to publication of this dissertation and any
data collected in the process. In all publications, Mr. Kelly will protect the identities of all
cities, districts, and people.

If I have any questions at any time prior to, during, or after this research, I may contact
either Philip P. Kelly at 517-545-3248 (H), 517-353-3 738 (O), or his supervisor,
Dr. Gary Sykes at 517-353-9337 (0).

My dated signature below indicates my consent to be part of the research described above.

 

 

Signature Date

173

 

 

 

 

 

A ndix E
140. 337. Employed Ctvlllans. by Occupatlon. 8011, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
1933 and 1993
1933 1993
warm ‘3‘: PM" 0' 1°10 ‘2: Percent 01 real
F0- Hls- Fe- m-
m mmm11.wo'lm°”m
1~IOOOOIOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO ‘m ‘34, ’0’ ”9‘.” ‘u 'u 7..
W WM” 23.392 40.9 3.3 2.3 47.3 3.3 4.0
sanctum. mum. and W141 ' ........... 10.772 32.4 4.7 as 15.570 42.0 52 4.5
Ottldals mm plus ............... 417 33.3 3.3 3.3 331 431 11.3 4.3
W 00000000000 O I O O I O I O O O 0 2?“? 3': 3': :0; g 3'; :3 :0:
Personnel and relations mat-s ............ . . . . .
Puchasing managers ............. . .......... 32 23.3 3.1 1.4 109 34.9 3.0 3.3
Managers. muttering. ' and relations 393 21.3 2.7 1.7 493 312 3.1 3.3
Amt-stratus. 001mm w ......... 413 41.4 11.3 2.4 333 39.9 13.0 3.3
W. and M ....... . . ....... 91 37.0 3.0 2.0 430 70.3 3.3 4.2
We and red .............. 1.30.: :33 3.: 3g ‘ 4g; 33:; 9:: ::
wm'.'mm mm 0 O I I O 0000000 a . .
Aeeemtarlts and .................... 1.103 33.7 3.3 3.3 1.337 492 7.0 42
Wm M ' . .................... 12.420 41 5.4 2.5 15.004 5:12 7.0 as
Helmets ................................ 103 12.7 1.3 1.3 123 13.3 3.1 2.3
' ........... . . .................. 1.372 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.713 3.3 3.7 3.3
W ....................... 30 3.9 1.3 2.1 33 7.3 2.1 3.9
Chained smears ......... . .............. 37 3.1 3.0 1.4 33 10.0 2.3 4.9
cu W ............. . ............. 211 4.0 1.9 3.2 221 9.4 4.7 3.3
Ebcutcat and W ...... . .............. :38 ‘33 g; 2:: g 13.: 3.: 3.4
1mm W ........................ . . . 4.4
' ................ ‘ ............ $9 23.: :2 2:3 ‘ g 33:: 3:; :3
Matted and comb sew ............ . . ,
Ms su'srls‘sts ........... 273 27.3 3.2 2.7 733 29.9 3.3 24
Operations and system rsssslerlsrs and analysts . . . 142 31.3 4.9 2.2 233 39.7 3.3 3.0
Nam mts' ‘ ‘ .......................... 337 20.3 2.3 2.1 331 30.1 3.3 1.9
cum except ' ................. 93 23.3 4.3 12 133 23.3 43 3.0
0001090 ts and ................... 33 13.0 1.1 2.3 34 14.0 1.0 2.1
w and ' s selsntlsts .................. 33 40.3 2.4 1.3 114 40.4 3.9 1.4
Health W ' adamant-4 ' ................. 755 15.5 2.7 as 000 20.5 5.0 as
' .............................. 319 13.3 3.2 4.3 303 21.3 3.7 4.3
................................ ‘ $ 0:: 2.: 2:2 2 33 :22 :3 3::
Hostel assassrllsnt and 1700.10 m ........ . . . , .
7109310700 ......................... 1.372 93.3 3.7 1.3 1.339 94.4 3.4 3.2
Mounts ............................. 133 23.7 3.3 2.3 137 33.1 3.1 2.7
Mans. ............................. 71 90.3 21.0 3.7 94 92.3 17.3 3.0
that-pats ‘ ............................. 247 75.5 7.5 2.7 414 74.0 as 4.1
"Nation W10 ...................... 39 39.4 3.3 3.7 92 33.4 10.0 3.9
Pity-cal W14 ....................... 55 77.0 9.7 1.5 115 72.5 3.0 5.0
Speech therapists ....................... 31 90.3 1.3 - 3g 91.! 3. 1?
Physician assistants ...................... 31 33.3 7 7 4.4 l t 1 r ( )
teachers. and m ................. 303 33.3 4 4 1.3 772 42.3 4.3 3.1
resellers except eel and marry ‘ ........... 3.333 70.9 01 2.7 4.397 75.1 3.3 3.3
0mm ............... 299 93.2 11.3 3.4 301 97.7 11.7 3.0
school ......................... 1.330 33.3 1 1.1 3.1 1.333 33.9 9.3 3.9
school ......................... 1.209 31.3 7 2 2.3 1.237 37.3 39 3.1
Special tron ......................... st 522 10.2 2.5 200 54.0 10.1 2.3
Collusion. serum and m ............ 134 33.1 13.9 3.2 224 37.3 14.3 3.9
Liar-tans. activists. and sinus. ............... 213 34.4 7.3 1.3 223 33.3 3.2 3.3
............................... 193 37.3 7.9 1.3 193 33.3 7.0 3.3
Seem m1: and rattan m ' ............. 201 45.0 7 1 21 300 57.0 5.0 5.0
............................. 93 37.9 3.3 2.7 1 17 47.3 4.3 3.3
............................ 133 37.1 3.3 1.1 241 34.1 7.1 3.1
Social. moon. and resolut- m» ' ........... 331 43.1 12.1 as 1.005 50.5 15.5 5.0
Social workers ........................... 407 34.3 13 2 3.3 333 33.9 21.4 3.0
Rscrsas'on workers ........................ 33 71.9 13.7 2.0 39 73.1 14.3 4.7
................................. 293 3.3 4.9 1.4 330 11.4 3.7 3.1
Lawyers and W ......................... 331 13.3 2.7 1.0 313 22.3 2.3 2.1
Lawyers ................................ 312 13.3 2.3 0.9 777 22.9 2.7 2.1
will-n. artists. We. and am ' .......... 1.544 42.7 4 s 2.0 2.025 411.0 5.5 4.7
Arm ................................ 3} 43% 2.21 0 139 37.2 2.4 1.9
Tad-neat waters .......................... I l l l l ( 33 32.3 2.7 23
Designers .............................. 393 32.7 3 1 2. 341 32.3 3.7 4.4
Mlle-clans and 0011100000 .................... 133 23.0 7 9 4.4 174 32.3 3.3 3.3
Actus and chem ....................... 30 30.3 3.3 3.4 93 33.3 10.4 4.7
. seldom emit-Uta. and artist
on ............................. 133 47.4 2.1 23 222 43.0 3.3 4.1
........................... 113 20.7 4 0 3.4 133 23.2 3.3 7.1
Eaters and reporters ....................... 204 43.4 2.9 2.1 233 43.3 3.0 3.4
Plait: retaliate spec-fits ................... 137 30.1 3 2 1.9 133 39.3 7.0 3.3
................................ 33 17.3 9 4 1.7 30 23.9 10.1 3.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174

Appendix F

Although the preceding six chapters may be interesting to educational reformers
and union leaders, for those considering implementation of teacher peer review a more
practical question is of more pressing interest; How can further efi'orts at teacher
professionalization through peer review be best facilitated? For these readers, this
appendix offers a series of practical considerations and policy recommendations to better
inform their efforts. First, the past actions of the national unions and suggestions for
future initiatives will be presented. Second, the focus will shift to the state level teachers’
unions and legislators. Finally, a series of concrete programmatic and policy
recommendations are offered to local teachers’ unions and school districts considering

changing their teacher evaluation practices to a peer review-based approach.

The NBA and AFT

 

The leaders of the NBA and AFT, presently Bob Chase and Sandra Feldman
respectively, can play a major role in legitimating peer review as an acceptable
evolutionary development within the institution of teacher unionism. Chase has made
great strides toward legitimating peer review through his many speeches and writings.
Chase has been careful to treat the concept of “new unionism,” of which peer review is a
part, as evolutionary, not as a whole-cloth replacement of the more traditional concept of
unionism. Throughout his appearances and writings, he is carefirl not to denigrate the

traditional unionists who built the national teachers’ unions into the prominent and

175

powerfiil organizations they are today. To this end, Chase is fond of saying that his new
direction for the NEA is “about tough-minded unionism at its best” (1997c).

Feldman has not made peer review or the evolution of the institution of unionism a
top priority thus far in her short tenure. In the opinion of this author, she is not in as
strong a position organizationally as Chase. Having to immediately follow Al Shanker as
president of the AFT, Feldman has tremendous shoes to fill. Consequently, Feldman must
work within the intellectual shadow cast by the legacy of Shanker. As a result, her first
priority is to legitimate her own role as the authentic leader of the AFT, not to advocate a
new conception of unionism which may call the legitimacy of teachers’ unions into
question. Feldman does however have the power of the “bully pulpit” through weekly
columns in the New York Times, as well as the legitimacy of being closely associated with
Shanker before his death.

By highlighting and publicizing a more “professional” conception of unionism,
Chase and Feldman can facilitate the necessary institutional transformation advocated
herein. To analyze how such leadership may facilitate the evolutionary process, it is useful
to recall Scott’s (1995) three pillars of institutions, the regulative, normative and
cognitive. Advocacy by legitimate, vocal leaders on these issues has the potential to afi‘ect
all three pillars. The regulative pillar already changed significantly when the
Representative Assembly of the NBA voted in July 1997 to no longer oppose the practice
of peer review and evaluation. The executive council of the AFT made a similar decision
in the mid-1980s Within the broader arena of labor law and court decisions, although no

federal labor law endorses supervisory responsibilities for only some members within a

176

bargaining unit, no legal challenge brought against any of the four unions studied resulting
from their peer review program has been successful. Whether this trend will continue, or
whether the federal and state labor statutes will be rewritten remains to be seen.

Advocacy from the presidents of the national unions will work more slowly and
more indirectly on the cognitive and normative pillars which rely on commonly held beliefs
and ideas. However, strengthening of the normative pillar supporting peer review is
facilitated by a broader social undercurrent stressing accountability within public
organizations and schools. Redland school board member, Maureen George, when
recalling the conditions surrounding the design and implementation of Redland’s peer
review program remarks

I think there is a great human cry for accountability. Accountability. How

do we make teachers accountable? And so some people, some board

members are really looking for the mentor program to do that. How we

make teachers accountable?

This emphasis on accountability creates a cultural climate and normative pressure which
support the evolutionary development of professional unionism of which peer review is a
part.

Furthermore, advocacy by the national union presidents of institutional reform
toward professional unionism affects the cognitive pillar of unionism by making it
acceptable to even consider what heretofore had been taboo, namely, the evaluation of one
union member by another. The cognitive pillar relies on mimetic processes for
propagation of an institution which, in turn, are facilitated by isomorphic pressures as an
institution becomes culturally supported as the conceptually correct model. Professional

unionism and peer review are not yet accepted as the correct model, but their continued

177

prominence in speeches and writings of union leaders may slowly legitimate professional
unionism as the prevalent model. As this occurs, isomorphism will occur among state and
local unions in an effort to retain their legitimacy as members of organizational

environment of teacher unionism.

_S_tate-level [Lnions a_n_d Policym_ak_e§

Because state legislatures establish teacher licensure requirements and most
educational laws, and because state level unions are ofien very powerful political forces at
the state level, it is possible that the establishment of peer review programs may be greatly
facilitated through state level legislative activity. However, political tensions between
teachers’ unions and politicians may work to the detriment of such efi’orts. It may be
possible, however, to crafl the rhetoric and design of a legislative proposal in such a way
that it may find support from both teachers’ unions and politicians as well.

Organizations such as the Holmes Partnership, the Carnegie Forum on Education
and the Economy, and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, all
call for fifth-year, or graduate-level, teacher preparation programs. Some leading teacher
preparation programs, such as that at Michigan State University (MSU), recently changed
to include what is termed an “internship.” As designed at MSU, the internship, or fifth-
year, consists of a year-long combination of student-teaching and seminar classes.
Understandably, students who participate in these programs endure financial hardship due
to the demands of their internship, and forgone income that they could have earned by

attending more traditional teacher preparation programs.

178

Because of this, teacher peer review programs can be presented as a method to
solve multiple problems simultaneously. First, novice teachers receive intensive assistance
during their first year as they would during the fifth-year programs, but without the
financial burden. Furthermore, as reported earlier, the mentoring aspect of the peer
review programs in this study all resulted in great teacher retention. As a result, it can be
claimed that these programs help to retain teachers in urban areas, thus reducing teacher
turnover and consequently improving the quality of the educational experiences for urban
children. The university-led seminar portion of fifth-year program can also be worked
into peer review programs as is done in Hayesville, where novice teachers take two
courses at a nearby university which are co-taught by university professors and
outstanding classroom teachers. Furthermore, because of the dependency of teachers’
colleges upon local school districts for placement of student teachers, Hayesville teachers
were able to negotiate free tuition for the novice teachers and others.

Second, the factor of teacher accountability will appeal to those of a politically
more conservative nature. When compared to dismissal rates under principal-led
evaluation systems, peer review-based systems appear to be much more strenuous.
According to interviews previously cited, consulting teachers were able to provide much
more useful assistance than principals, and hence were able to remediate marginal
teachers. They also were able to make the decision to terminate failing teachers at a much
higher rate than principals. Because of this, conservative advocates can stress the
increased teacher accountability and can claim that they are helping to “get rid of bad

teachers.”

 

179

I-lindering these efforts are the initial costs of the programs which are considerable.
Based upon the costs and numbers of participants in table 3 (p. 69), the average cost per
participant is approximately $3,600. Because of a shorter time involved in the peer review
program, the cost for interns is less than that for intervention cases. Overall cost of
operating the programs can be reduced through early release of interns who are excelling
in their new teaching assignments. By releasing such interns early, consulting teachers will
be able to accept more interns hired during the school year, and more teachers placed in
intervention throughout the year. The cost incurred can further be justified by highlighting
the exorbitant costs currently incurred by districts and unions during adversarial dismissal
proceedings which ofien escalate into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The lack of
turnover among newly hired teachers also must be included in any arguments aimed at

justifying the expense of peer review programs.

Local Unions and School Districts

For local school districts and teachers’ unions, I offer the following ten
recommendations for programmatic design and implementation. Each will be explained
briefly.

1. Go Slowly

2. Keep open lines of communication between teachers, principals, union and district
oflicials.

3. Establish clear criteria for selection of consulting teachers.

4. Provide professional development/training for consulting teachers to establish a
common basis for operations.

5. Periodically review consulting teachers’ work to ensure maintenance of uniform

enforcement of performance standards.

Match consulting teachers and participants by grade level or subject matter

Establish clear standards as quality performance indicators.

Directly connect peer review program with dismissal proceedings.

90.49

180

9. Establish a three semester limit for placement in intervention.
10. Avoid recidivism.

Go Slowly. Because of the cognitive and normative constraints within which
school personnel currently operate, it is imperative that districts and unions take the time
to educate members of their organizations about the concepts and purposes underlying
peer review programs. Rushing through the design and implementation process will only
result in generating strong opposition both fi'om traditional unionists who view peer
review as a threat to solidarity and administrators who may view it as a loss of authority or
power.

Keep open lines of communication between teachers, principals, union and
district officials. It is important that open communication exist during the processes of
program design and implementation. The districts included in this study used a variety of
methods to communicate among the various parties, including weekly union newsletters,
presentations at each school within the district, and large district wide meetings of
teachers and/or administrators. During interviews, district and union representatives
uniformly stressed the importance of good communication and the desire that their district
had given the process more thought. It was not uncommon to hear interviewees, such as
Tuckey Pattra, president of the Marine City Education Association to make comments
regarding rumors during the implementation process such as,

The first year or so, the kinds of rumors we got, they were fimny they

were so ridiculous. We started out with “All of the consulting teachers

have district cars and cell phones.” and “They all have brand-new

computers.” We all looked around and said “WHERE?” Two of our

consulting teachers did have cell phones, but they bought them with their

own money. They did not have district cars or any of those luxurious
things.

 

 

181

To avoid such rumors, it is imperative that all parties understand the process and the
programmatic features being discussed.

Establish clear criteria for selection of consulting teachers. To avoid any
misunderstanding among teachers, it is imperative to have clearly defined criteria for the
selection of consulting teachers. An appearance of impropriety during the selection
process will negatively affect the face validity of the entire program.

Provide professional development/training for consulting teachers to
establish a common basis for operations. To avoid the problems of inconsistent
applications of performance standards among consultant teachers, it is important that they
receive some common form of training from program leaders and/or outside consultants in
either evaluation or adult learning. Furthermore, it may of use to the district and program
for consultant teachers to engage in further professional development around issues
pertinent to the local district to broaden the scope of expertise among their consultant
teachers.

Periodically review consulting teachers’ work to ensure maintenance of
uniform enforcement of performance standards. Professional development and
common training is not always enough to ensure consistency in consulting teacher
performance. Some individuals, while excellent classroom teachers, may fail to be
adequate mentors or evaluators. Furthermore, as close working relationships between
consulting teachers and program participants develop, some consultants may be unable to

make the hard decision to make a negative evaluation.

182

Match consulting teachers and participants by grade level or subject matter.
It is important for consulting teachers and participants to have a common professional
flame of reference. It is unfair, and professionally indefensible in light of pedagogical
research, to ask both a consulting teacher to evaluate/mentor a teacher teaching outside of
the consultant’s range of expertise, as well as to ask a teacher to submit to evaluation by
such an evaluator.

Establish clear standards as quality performance indicators. To avoid any
ambiguity during the evaluation process, it is important to establish clear indicators of
quality performance. By doing so, it is clear to both the consultant teacher and the
program participant the criteria by which the evaluation and mentoring processes will be
guided. Furthermore, clear standards will articulate for all teachers within a district,
whether involved in the peer review process or not, what professional expectations the
district holds for them.

Directly connect peer review program with dismissal proceedings. In order
for teachers’ unions to make the claim that they are professional organizations, they must
be willing to accept responsibility for maintaining an acceptable level of quality control
among practitioners. Failure to do so will result in criticism of the union’s embrace of
“peer review” as only more empty union rhetoric, designed to mollify the public into
thinking that accountability is being addressed. This most likely will result in further
delegitimation of the union. Furthermore, failure to connect peer review programs with
dismissal proceedings results in no clear benefit to district administrators who must

document and often duplicate efi’orts of the consulting teachers. The end result being that

 

183

substandard teachers remain in the classroom with children much longer and the cost of
dismissing these teachers increases.

Establish a three semester limit for placement in intervention. Although
F owlerton, Hayesville, and Marine City do not place time limits upon intervention,
claiming that it is unfair to place artificially imposed time limits upon processes of
remediation with goals as various as intervention participants, I think they are in error. By
definition, while a teacher is in the intervention process, they are substandard. As such
they are not offering to children appropriate educational experiences. Therefore, it is in
the best interest of the children to establish some terminal point at which a decision must
be made. By establishing a three semester limit, intervention participants are allowed at
least a full school year to improve their performance. The additional semester allows for
both placements made during semesters, and for decisions to be made at semester breaks
to reduce the upheaval caused by the dismissal of a teacher.

Avoid recidivism. Nothing will damn a peer review program faster than
recidivism. If a former program participant is (re)recommended for intervention, program
leaders should think very carefirlly about accepting the teacher back into the program.
Under no circumstances should a teacher he re-accepted shortly after being successfully
released from a program. However, in the interests of fairness, both to the program and
the individual teacher, it is reasonable to allow some teachers who successfully completed
their intern experience at the beginning of their career to be admitted into intervention at

some point several years later. What this time limit should be, or under what conditions

 

184

intervention recommendations should be accepted, must be decided locally through joint

discussions with district administrators and union omcials.

From the data and analysis presented within this study, I believe that teacher peer
review programs, while not panaceas, do hold significant promise for the
professionalization of teachers and for guiding the evolution of the institution of teacher
unionism. The above recommendations for leaders at the national, state, and local levels,
should facilitate the development of the emerging conception of professional unionism and
contribute toward the establishment of teaching as a self-regulating profession. It is
important, though, that individuals interested in advocating teacher peer review be
cognizant of the institutional constraints within which actors in local unions and school
districts must operate. To proceed without considering these cognitive, normative and
regulative factors will greatly increase the difiiculty of the task and, more often than not,
may lead to failure. This would be a great disservice to teachers, their unions, and the

students who benefit from having the best teachers possible.

 

 

References

(1996) “Dole attacks teacher unions, presses for vouchers.” American TeaQer.
81(2), p. 6.

Akerlof, G. (1976) “The Economics of Caste and of the Rat Race and Other Woefitl
Tales.” grader]; Journal of Econonfl. 90. pp. 599-617.

Atleson, J. B. (1983) Values and Assumption_s in American Labor Law. Amherst,
Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press.

Bakke, E. W., et. al. (1967) Unions, Management and the Public. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc.

Bakke, E. W. (1967) “Some Basic Characteristics of Unions.” in Bakke, E. W., et. al.
Unions, Management and the Public. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,
Inc.

Ball, D. L. (1991). “Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter
knowledge part of the equation.” in J. E. Brophy (Eds), Teachers' knowledge of
subiect was it relates to their teaching practice. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Inc.

Bascia, N. (1994). Unions in Teachers’ Professional Lives: Socialélntellectual, and
Practical Concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

Becker, H. S. (1962). The Nature 03 Profession (Sixty-First Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education . Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Bell, D. (1979) “The New Class: A Muddled Concept.” Sociag. 16 pp. 15-23.

Bennett, W. J. (1992) The De-valuing of America: The Fjgm for Our Culture and Our
Children. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Benzley, 1., Kauchak, D., &' Peterson K. (1985). “Peer Evaluation: An Interview Study of
Teachers Evaluating Teachers.” Paper presented at American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. ERIC ED 260 099.

Berger, P. L. Berger, B. and Kellner, H. (1973) The Homeless Mind: Modemiition and
Consciousness. New York: Random House.

Berger, P. L. and Luckman, T. (1967) The Social Con_struction of Reality. New York:
Doubleday.

Berube, M. R. (1988). I_e__acher Politics: The Influence of Unio__ns. New York: Greenwood
Press.

185

 

186

References

Bestor, A. (1988). Educational Wastelands. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Bill, J. A. and Hardgrave, R L. (1981) Comparative Politics: The Quest for Theory.
Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Bledstein, B. J. (1985). “Discussing Terms: Professions, Professionals, and
Professionalism.” 1_’r_o_§pects: An Annual of American Cultural Studies 10 1-15.

 

Blumenfeld, S. L. (1984). NBA: Trojan Horse in American Education. Boise, Idaho:
Paradigm.

Bodenhausen, J. (1990). “Teacher Attitudes toward Peer Evaluation: What Shapes
Them?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. Boston, MA. ERIC ED 319 758.

Bradley, A. (1997). “Fate of Peer Review Rests With NBA Locals.” Education Week. 16
(41), p. 14.

Bridges, B. M. (1992). W the Incompetent TeaLcher. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

Brimelow, P. and Spencer, L. (1995) “Apple for the Teacher: Are Teachers Underpaid?”
Forbes. 155 (9) pp. 46-48.

Brody, D. (1993) In Labor’s Cause: Main Themes on the Histog of the American
Worker. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burbules, N. C. and Densmore, K. (1991) “The Limits of Making Teaching a Profession.”
Educational Polig. 5 (1) pp. 44-63.

Carr-Saunders, A. M., & Wilson, P. A. (1933). The Professions. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986) A Nation Prepared: Teachers for
the 21st Cenm. New York: Carnegie Foundation.

Chase, R. (19972) Address to National Press Club Luncheon. Washington DC: National
Press Club (transcript).

Chase, R. (1997b) Keynote address to 1997 NBA Representative Assembly. Website --
http://www.nea.org/nr/sp970703.htrnl

Chase, R. (1997c). “Teacher vs. Teacher? Nonsense.” Education Week. 17(8), p. 26.

 

187

References

Chubb, J. B. and Moe, T. M. (1990) Politics. Maalcetsind America’s Schools.
Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institute.

Cibulka, J. G. (1996). “The reform and survival of American public schools: an
institutional perspective.” in R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd, & H. B. Mawhinney
(Ed), The Politics of Education and the New Institutionflam: Reinventing the
Amen'aan School (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Clamp, P. G. (1990). “Professionalism in Education: A State of Mind.” Education Digeat.
56 (2), pp. 33-36.

Clapp, H. L. (1956). “The Stranglehold on Education.” Reprinted in M. Smith The Public
Schools in Cris_is: Some Critical Essgs . Chicago, Illinois: Henry Regency
Company.

Clifford, G. J., & Guthrie, J. W. (1988). Ed School: A Brief for Professional Education.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, D. K. (1995) Personal Conversation. New York. (May 26, 1995)

Cohen, D. K. and Mumane, R. J. (1985) “The Merits of Merit Pay.” Report for the
National Institute of Education, US. Department of Education. Washington,
DC. (ERIC ED 018 517)

Cooper, M. (1988). “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway?” in A. Lieberman (Ed), Building a
Professional Culture in Schools (pp. 45-54). New York: Teachers College Press.

Costa, A. L. (1994). Cogm'tive Coaching: a foungation for renaissance schools. Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Cresswell, A. M., & Murphy, M. (1980). Teachers Unions and Collective Bargg'ning in
Public Education. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corp.

 

Cramer, J. (1980) “Here’s How Teacher Power Afi’ects You.” The Ameriaan School
Board Journal. November 1980.

Crowson, R. L., Boyd, W. L., &. Mawhinney, H. B. (Ed.). (1996). The Politics of
Education and the New Ingitutionalism: Reinventing the American School.
Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). “Policy and Professionalism.” in A. Lieberman (Ed),
Building a Professional Culture in Schools (pp. 55-77). New York: Teachers
College Press.

 

 

188

References

Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). “Teacher Professionalism and Accountability.” Education
Digest. 55((1)), 15-19.

Densmore, K. (1987) “Professionalism, Proletarianization and Teacher Work.” in
Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed) Critical Studies in Teacher Education: Its F_oll_dore. Theory
and Practice. New York: The Falmer Press. pp. 130-160.

Devaney, K., & Sykes, G. (1988). “Making the Case for Professionalism.” in A.
Lieberman (Ed), Buildinga Professional Culture in Schools (pp. 3-22). New
York: Teachers College Press.

DiMaggio, PI. (1988) “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory.” in L. Zucker (Ed),
Institutional Pattern_sand Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American
Sociological Review. 48 pp. 147-160.

Dole, R. (1996) Speech to the Republican National Convention.
website: http://www.usatoday.com/elect/ec/ecr/ecrl26.htm

Dowling, J., & Pfefl‘er, J. (1975) “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and
Organizational Behavior.” Pacific Sociological Review. 18 (1) pp. 125-136.

Durkheim, E. (1901/1950) The Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press.

Engels, F. (1844/1958) The Condiaion of the Working Class of England. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.

Englund, T. (1993). “Are Professional Teachers A Good Thing?” Paper delivered at the
meeting of the Professional Actions and Cultures of Teaching Conference.
London, Ontario.

Essex, N. L. (1992). “Educational Malpractice: The Price of Professionalism.” Th;
Clearing House, 65((4)). 229-232.

Firestone, W. (1989) “Educational Policy as an Ecology of Games.” Educational
W. 18 (7).

Firestone, W. A. and Bader, B. D. (1992)Redesigm'r_1g Teachers: Professionalism g
Bureaucragl. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

 

189

References

Fowler, F. J. Jr. and Mangione, T. W. Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing
Iaterviewer Related Error. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Fraser, J. W. (1989). “Agents of Democracy: Urban Elementary-School Teachers and the
Conditions of Teaching.” in D. Warren (Ed), American Teachers: Histories of a
Profession at Work (pp. 118-156). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Freidson, E. (1986). Professional Powers: A Study of the InsLtitutionalization of Formal
Knowledge. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Gallagher, J. J., Lanier, P. and Kerchner, C. T. (1993) “Toledo and Poway: Practicing
Peer Review.” In Kerchner, C. T. and Koppich, J. E. (1993) A Union of
Professionals: Libor Relations and Educational Reform. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledie: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthromlogy. New
York: Basic Books.

Geiger, K.. (1996) “Reclaiming the Dream.” Keynote address to 1996 NBA
Representative Assembly. Website -- http://www.nea.org/ra/geiger.html

Geoghegan, T.. (1992) Which Side Are You On?: Tryingar Be for Labor When It’s Flat
on Its Back. New York: Plume Books.

 

Ginsberg, R. (1996). “The new institutionalism, the new science, persistence and change:
the power of faith in schools.” in R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd, & H. B.
Mawhinney (Ed), The Politics of Educatioaanma New Institutionalism:
Reinventirflre American School. Washington, DC: The F almer Press. pp. 153-
166.

Glazer, N. (1974). “The Schools of the Minor Professions.” Minerva, 12 (July, 1974),
346-364.

Goldring, E. B. (1996). “Environmental adaptation and selection: where are the parents
and the public?” in R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd, & H. B. Mawhinney (Ed), 1119
Politics of Educatigand the New Inatitutionalism: Reinventing the American
School. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. pp. 43-53.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). “The Occupation of Teaching in Schools.” In J. Goodlad, R. Soder,
& K. Sirotnik (Eds), The Moral Dimenaigrs of Teaching. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 3-34.

 

190

References

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (1990). The Moral Dimensions of Teaching. San
Francisco, California: Jossey Bassey Publishers.

Gould, W. B. (1993) Agenda for Reform: The Future of Employment Relationships and
the Law. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Green, Gil. (1976) What’s Hapm‘ng to Labor? New York, International Publishers.

Gutmann, A. (1987) Democratic Education. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

Halkett, K. A. (1988). “Peer Assistance and Review Program: 1986/87 Local Evaluation
Report.” Rochester, New York: Rochester City School District.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnoggaphy: Princiries in chtice. New York:
Routledge.

Hanson, M. K. (1992). “Peer Evaluation among Teachers: Acceptance of Alternative
Roles.” Paper presented at the Amerigan Educational Research Assflrtion Aan
Meeting. San Francisco, CA. ERIC ED 347 662.

Hawley, A. (1968) “Human Ecology.” in D. L. Sills (Ed) International EncyclgediLof
the Soil] Sciences. New York: Macmillan.

Heckscher, C. C. (1988) The New Unionism: Employee Involvement in the Changing
Comration. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Holland, H. (1997) “KERA: A Tale of One Teacher.” Phi Delta Qpan. 79 (4) pp 264-
271.

Hollis, M. (1975) Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neo-classical
Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes Group (1986) Tomorrow's Teachers: A Rapprt of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing, Michigan: The Holmes Group, Inc.

Iorio, J. E. (1988) “The Relevance of Yeshiva to Public Education.” Journal of Law
and Education. 16 (1) pp. 95-103.

Jacoby, S. M. (1990). “The New Institutionalism: What Can It Learn fi'om the Old?”
Industrjal Relations. 29(2), pp. 316-340.

 

191

References

Jascourt, H. D. (1988) “The Relevance of Yeshiva to Public Education: An
Introduction.” Journal of Law and Education. 16 (1). pp. 93, 94.

Jepperson (1991) “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.” in W.W. Powell
and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds). The New In_stitutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Jessup, D. K. (1985). Teachers, Unions, and Change: A Comparative Study. New York:
Praeger Publishers.

Johnson, 8. M. (1990) T_e_achers at Work: Achjevirig Success in Our Schgla. Basic
Books.

Johnson, S. M. (1984). Teacher Unions in Schools. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple
University Press.

Johnson, T. J. (1972). Professions and Power. London, England: Macmillan Press.

Kelly, P. P. (1997a) “The Inherent Difliculties of Teacher Peer Review Within a
Unionized Workforce: Analysis of a Case.” Paper presentation at the National
Evaluation Institute: Indianapolis, Indiana.

Kelly, P. P. (1997b) “Peer Review-Based Summative Teacher Evaluation Programs: A
Comparative Analysis of the Programs and the Unions which Support Them”
Paper Presentation at The Sixth Annual National Evaluation Institute. Indianapolis,
Indiana.

Keohane, R. O. (1988) “International Institutions: Two Research Programs.” International
Studies Qu_arterlv. 32 pp. 379-396.

Kerchner, C. T. (1986) “Union-Made Teaching: The Effects of Labor Relations on
Teaching Work.” Review of Research in Education. 13 pp. 317-349.

Kerchner, C. T., & Caufinan, K. D. (1994). “Reconsidering Partnerships: The Prospects
for Teachers and Governments.” Paper presented at Partnerships in Educational
Reform Conference Unpublished.

Kerchner, C. T. and Koppich, J. E. (1993) A Union of Professionals: @or Relations and
Educational Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kerchner, C. T., Koppich, J. E., & Weeres, J. G. (1997) filed Mind Workers: Unions
and Teaching in the Knowledge Socie_ty. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

192

References

Kerchner, C. T., & Mitchell, D. E. (1988). The Changing Idea of a Teachers' Union. New
York: F almer Press.

Koerner, J. (1963). The Miseducation of American Leghers. Boston, Massachusetts:
Houghton Mifflin.

Koppich, J. E. (1993) “Getting Started: A Primer on Professional Unionism.” In C. T.
Kerchner, and J. E. Koppich. A Un_ion of Professionals: Labor Relations and
Educational Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1992). “Power, Knowledge, and the Rationalization of Teaching: A
Geneology of the Movement to Professionalize Teaching.” Harvard Educational
Review 62(2), pp. 123-154.

 

Labaree, D. F. (1989) “Career Ladders and the Early Public High School Teacher: A
Study of Inequality and Opportunity.” in D. Warren. American Teachers: Histories
of a Profession at Work. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 157-
189.

Lampert, M. (1990). “When the problem is not the question and the solutioni s not the
answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.” Amean Educational Research
Journal, 27(1), 29-63.

Lawrence, D. (1988) “The Relevance of Yeshiva to Public Education: A Union
Perspective.” Journal of Law and Education. 16 (1) pp. 113-117.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Lieberman, M. (1997) The Teacher Unions: How the NBA and AFT Sabotage Reform

and Hold Students, Parent; Teacher; and Twyers Home to Bureaucrag.
New York: The Free Press.

Lieberman, M. (1993). Public Education: An Autopg. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy . New York: Russell Sage Publications.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteapher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, Illinois: University
of Chicago Press.

March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in
Political Life.” American Political Science Review. (78) pp. 734-749.

 

193

References

Margolies (1988) “The Relevance of Yeshiva to Public Education: A Management
Perspective.” Journal of Law and Eduaation. 16 (1) pp. 105-111.

Mathews, D. (1997). “The Lack of a Public for Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappa, 78
(10), pp. 740-743.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1997) “Teachers Planning Professional Development in a Reform
Context: The Case of Kentucky.” Paper Presented at the American Education
Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois.

McDonnell, L. and Pascal, A. (1988) Teacher Unions and Educational Reform. Santa
Monica, California: Center for Policy Research in Education, distributed by
Publications Department, Rand Corporation.

McKenchnie, Jean L. (1983) Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionag. New York:
Dorsett and Baber.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). “The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro
Perspectives and Micro Realities” Educational Researcher. pp. 11-16.

McLauglin, M. W. (1987). “Learning From Experience: Lessons from Policy
Implementation.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 9 (2), 171-178.

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977) “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology. 83 pp. 340-363.

Meyer, J.W. and Scott, W. R. (1983) Organizational Environments: Ritual and
Rationality. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

Mill, J. S. (1859/1956). On Lib_e_rg. New York: Macmillan.

Mumane, Richard J. and Cohen, David K. (1985a) “Merit Pay and the Evaluation
Problem: Understanding Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and a Few Survive.”
Report for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance,
Stanford University, California. ERIC ED 018 516.

Mumane, Richard J. and Cohen, David K. (1985b) “‘Merit Pay’ and the Nature of the
Employment Relationship: Lessons form Public School Systems.” Report for the
National Institute of Education, US. Department of Education: Washington, DC.
ERIC ED 018 515.

Nasaw, D. (1981) Schooled to Order: A Social Histogy of Public Schooling in the United
States. New York: Oxford University Press.

194

References

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (1994). What Teaghers Should Know
And Be Able To Do. Detroit, Michigan: Author.

National Commission on Excellence in Education, U. S. Department of Education. (1983).
A NraioLat Rigk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) What Matters Most:
Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Author.

National Education Association (1997) NBA Hgdbook: 1997-1998. Washington, DC:
Author

North, D. C. (1990). In_stitutionaalnstitutiong Change and Economic Performance. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, C. (1991) “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes.” Academy of
Management Review. 16 (1) pp. 145-179.

Olson, M. (1965) The Lagic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Parsons, T. (1960) Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press.

Parsons, T. (1951). The 80% System. New York: Free Press.

Perrow, C. (1985) “Overboard with Myth and Symbols.” American Journa of Sociology.
91 pp. 151-155.

Powell, W. W. (1991) “Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis.” in W. W. Powell
and P. J. DiMaggio. The NewaInatitutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Powell, W.W. (1985) “The Institutionalization of Rational Organization: Review of
Organizational Environments.” Contemmgy Sociology. 14 (5) pp. 564-566.

Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (1991) The New In_stitutionalism in OrgM’ ional
Analysis. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

 

195

References

Roberts, H. S. (1996) Robert’s Dictiongy of Industrial Relations. Washington, DC: The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Ross, D. (1995) “The Many Lives of Institutionalism in American Social Science.” Polity.
28 (1) pp. 117-124.

Rothman, R. (1997) “KERA: A Tale of One School.” Phi Delta Kappan. 79 (4) pp. 272-
275.

Rowan, B. (1982) “Organizational Structure and the Institutional Environment: The Case
of Public Schools.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 27 pp. 259-279.

Rowan, B. and Miskel, CG. (1997) “Institutional Theory and the Study of Educational
Organizations” Manuscript. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

Scott, W. R. (1991) “The Evolution of Organization Theory.” in G. Miller (Ed). Studies
in Organizational Sociology: Essays in Honor of Qharles K. Warriner. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press. pp. 53-68.

Scott, W. R. (1987) “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory.” Administrative Science
Qaarterly. 32 pp. 493-511.

Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W. (1991) “The Organization of Societal Sectors.” in W.W.

Powell and P. J. DiMaggio The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W. (1983) “The Organization of Societal Sectors.” in J. W.

Meyer and W. R Scott (Ed) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationalig.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Shanker, A. (1986) “Teachers Must Take Charge.” Educational Leadership. 44 (1)
pp.12,l3.

Shanker, A. (1985) “Expanded Role for Teacher Unions.” New York Times 12/8/85 p. E9

Shaw, George Bernard. (1962) Man and Sum. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin
Books.

Smylie, M. A. and Denny, J .W. (1990) “Teacher Leadership: Tensions and Ambiguities in

Organizational Perspective.” Educational Administration Qaarterly. 26 (3)
pp. 23 5-259.

I96

Refacing

Soder, R. (1990). “The Rhetoric of Teacher Professionalism.” in Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R.,
and Sirotnik, K.A (Eds). The Mogl Dimensions of Teaching (pp. 35-86). San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sowell, T. (1993) _Ias_ide American Education: The Decline. The Deception. The Dagpaa.
New York: The Free Press.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965) “Social Structure and Organizations.” in J. G. March (Ed)
Handbook of Orgam_za' tions. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally.

Straub, S. (1997). “Union Critic, NEA Member Cites Peer-Review Flaws.” Education
WeekaXVII (12), 35.

Sykes, G. (1995, March 2) Personal Conversation, Michigan State University.

Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). “Teacher Professionalism in Local School
Contexts.” American Journal of Education. 102 (2), 123-153.

Toch, T. (1996) “Why Teachers Don’t Teach.” US. News & World Report. pp. 62-71.

United States Department of Census. (1994). Statistical Abstract of the United Stat_es.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofiice.

Urban, W. J. (1982). WE Teaahers Organized . Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State
University Press.

Urbanski, A. (1988) “The Rochester Contract: A Status Report.” Educational Leadership.
(46) 2, 48-52.

Veblen, T. B. (1919) The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essays. New
York: Huebsch.

Warren, D. (Ed). (1989) American Teachers: Histories ofa Profession at Work. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Weber, M. (1924/1968) Economy and Sociear: An Intargpretive Sociology. New York:
Bedminister.

Weiss, C. H. (1995) “The Four I’s of School Reform.” Harvard Educatioaal Review. 65
(4).

Williams, W. (1981) “Teachers Are in Trouble.” Newsweek. (April 27, 1981) pp. 78-82.

197

References

Wineberg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). “Subject matter knowledge in the teaching of
history.” In J. E. Brophy (Eds), Teachers' knowledge of subject matter as it rela_ta§
to their aaching practice. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Yin, R. K. (1994) C_ase Stuch/ Reseach: Desigp and Methods. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications

Yow, V. R. (1994) Recording Oral History: Agactical Guide for Soaial Scientists.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Zucker, L. (1987) “Institutional Theories of Organizations.” Annual Review af Sociology.
13 pp. 443-464.

 

Zucker (1986) “Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-
1920. in Resaarch in Organizational Behavior. 8 Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI
Press. pp. 53-111.

‘Ig'

flICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
llHIIHHNHIIHIIWHININIIHHIllllllIHHIIWHIIWI
31293017019237