I wonder sometimes if the Seattle Times editorial board reads Seattle Times reporting. The editorial “Gov. Gregoire: Don’t veto teacher performance bill” contains little evidence that the writer(s) grasp how complicated teacher performance is, without attaching it to the hot-button issue of who gets laid off first in an economic downturn.

SB 5399 (from senators Tom, Litzow, Hill, Hobbs, King, Hargrove, Sheldon, Shin) instructs public schools to ensure “that teachers who do the best work are the ones who keep their jobs when budgets need to be cut, by basing reduction in force policies on the evaluations the legislature has outlined for measuring teacher performance.”

Typically, the schools use a last-in-first-out policy, which is now construed to mean protection for teachers with seniority, rather than what it does, which is kick the last person off the bus who got on. It’s the usual procedure in just about any sector because it is not assumed that organizations are actively striving to harbor bad apples for great lengths of time.

Who would be afraid of a performance review, anyway? SB 5399 simply stipulates:

Certificated classroom teachers who received the lowest evaluation rating, as described in RCW 28A.405.100, when averaging their two most recent evaluations in accordance with the method in subsection (2) of this section [oldest worth 40 percent, latest worth 60 percent], must have their contracts nonrenewed first, with nonrenewals continuing to proceed upward through the two-year average ratings in such a manner.

If there’s a tie score, then it goes the runner teacher with the seniority. But if you’ve spoken with teachers–even outstanding ones–you’ll find that many have had their run-ins with the administration that conducts their performance reviews. Sometimes a teacher and a principal click, sometimes they ignore each other, and sometimes the dynamic becomes toxic.

Given that teachers with seniority may have seen administrations come and go, there’s an understandable reluctance to let performance reviews dictate whether you remain at a school you’ve taught at for 15 years because someone who arrived three years ago doesn’t care for your methods.

In contrast, the Seattle Times has also been tracking the dismissal of Ingraham Principal Martin Floe, based on his performance review by interim Seattle Schools Superintendent Susan Enfield:

Ingraham High Principal Martin Floe was ousted because the school’s test scores were “stagnant,” and the school was the second-lowest-performing high school in the Seattle district, interim Seattle Superintendent Susan Enfield said.

There are four stories on the matter, which has drawn huge public outcry (there are also four separate letters-to-the-editor pages dominated by the topic). The Times again: “Parent and PTSA member Deborah Niedermeyer said school parents aren’t focused on test scores, but ‘are more interested in a safe and supportive environment'”–they point to Floe’s encouragement of low-income and minority students to take tougher classes.

So here we have a performance review that is being rejected by everyone it’s supposed to please, as the Times tells you: “Nearly every teacher at the North Seattle school signed a resolution in support of Floe’s leadership. Parents and teachers bombarded Enfield and School Board members with emails and phone calls.” Enfield is now “listening.”

UPDATE: “Ingraham high school principal rehired”

It’s ironic because the impetus behind the legislature’s bill is a study that purports to show “conducting layoffs on the basis of performance rather than seniority would result in about 3 more months of learning per year for students in classrooms affected by layoffs.”

How much time do you think has been lost–will continue to be lost–protesting this one decision? How much time could potentially be lost if the bill’s effects on teachers are fought like this statewide? Was that included in the study?

If the problem is union protection of ineffective teachers, why not address that with a “laser-like focus”? Otherwise, people might think you were trying to balance a budget on the backs of older teachers who have worked their way into a middle-class wage.