The New Haven Teacher Contract: A Closer Look

All eyes were on New Haven, Conn. last week when the teachers' union, in a 21-1 vote, overwhelmingly approved a new contract to go into effect next year.

The contract, which includes changes typically eschewed by unions such as performance pay for teachers and the option to shut down and reorganize failing schools, is being widely hailed as “historic” and “a national model for reform.” In the words of  AFT President Randi Weingarten:

This is both a collective bargaining agreement, as well as a process that should be analyzed through virtually all the public school districts throughout this country as a model of both process and outcome.

And according to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the New Haven contract:

shows a willingness to go into areas that used to be seen as untouchable. This shows real courage on the union's part.

But does the contract actually live up to all of this hype?

Let's start with the negotiation process which took place during four months of closed door meetings and resulted in a document that all sides seem to agree to. That alone is an admirable accomplishment, given that words like “compromise,” “collaboration,” “flexibility,” and “civility” aren’t usually associated with union contract negotiations. Further, as the Wall Street Journal points out, the fact that both Arne Duncan and the AFT approve of the contract in almost equal measure is pretty amazing. Can it really be that all sides have set aside their political differences and finally come together to do what’s in the best interest of children?

Here are some of the most notable features of the new contract:

Teachers will receive an average 3% raise each year for four years, and will be eligible for performance pay. A union committee that includes teachers and administrators will collaborate with the city to develop a teacher evaluation system that will take student performance into account. Teachers will have a say on work-rule issues like moving to a longer school day or school year. A new tier system will offer high-performing schools some independence from central office supervision, thereby encouraging innovation, while low performing schools can be converted into charter schools providing that they remain unionized, guarantee no layoffs, and preserve grievance procedures.

In his piece in the Huffington Post, Thomas W. Carroll, President of the Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability, criticizes the New Haven contract for being “substantially less novel than advertised,” and says that it “contains some significant obstacles to reform.” For instance, he notes that while the pay for performance possibility promises to give teachers school-wide bonuses, it will not allow the district to pay “good teachers” more than “bad teachers.” Further, although work-rule changes are possible, they require at least 75% of teachers to vote in favor, and even then can be subjected to a unilateral veto by the New Haven Federation of Teachers. And although the contract makes school turnarounds possible, there are no specific commitments to actually close any schools. Finally, the contract still preserves tenure.

My take is that while the new contract incorporates greater flexibility than its predecessor as far as making certain reforms possible, how this contract will actually be implemented in practice, and whether changes will be made in the best interest of students, still remains to be seen. For instance, it’s entirely conceivable that the new teacher evaluation system will to be too watered down, or too heavily tied to (meaningless) test scores. On the other hand, it could end up being an innovative and powerful tool used to help teachers improve their practice and enhance student learning. Failing schools may or may not be turned around, and may or may not end up any better off than they were before their transformation. And while I certainly don’t object to rewarding teachers in successful schools with bonuses, whether or not this will have a notable impact on the quality of education that children receive is far from clear.

What if, under the new contract, New Haven public schools turn into drill and kill test prep machines, churning out the highest scoring little test takers in the nation? Will we still call the contract “a national model for reform?” I definitely appreciate the effort made by all parties involved to reach an agreement that seems to be more conducive to reform, but for now, I’ll hold my applause until I see how the new contract is actually implemented in practice.