Firing Teachers in Rhode Island

Last week, the school board in Rhode Island’s poorest city, Central Falls, made national news by firing all 74 teachers and 19 staff members at Central Falls High. The move was part of a “turnaround” plan of the type being pushed by the Obama Administration.  Education Secretary Arne Duncan applauded the action, arguing “the status quo needs to change.”  The local school board and Duncan may get political points for being seen as “tough,” and “demanding action,” but is it fair to blame the teachers in Central Falls, and, more importantly, will the effort work to help students?

No, it’s not fair and the move mostly likely will fail.  (Thankfully, the school board and the teachers' union are currently trying to negotiate a middle ground.)

Research has long found that the biggest predictor of academic achievement is the socioeconomic status of the family a child comes from so holding teachers in poverty-ridden Central Falls to the same standard as teachers in affluent Barrington, Rhode Island – as the No Child Left Behind Act does – makes no sense. As Diane Ravitch notes in her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System  (which I reviewed in the current issue of the Washington Monthly), No Child Left Behind’s notion that teachers should be fired if 100% of students are not proficient by 2014 is akin to saying the police should lose their jobs if urban crime is not eliminated by 2014.

Moreover, turnaround efforts that focus exclusively on firing faculty have been tried in city after city, include Chicago, the district Duncan ran for several years, and they almost always fail. Why?  Because the problem with schools like Central Falls High is at root the concentration of school poverty.  A given student at Central Falls High is surrounded by peers who are on average less academically engaged and more likely to act out than in Barrington.  The parents in the larger school community are much less likely to volunteer in the schools and know how to hold school officials accountable.  And these conditions – high levels of disorder and lack of parental support – make it very difficult to attract great teachers.

Should bad teachers be dismissed?  Absolutely.  But as I noted in the New York Times blog last week, there are good ways to do this and bad ways. The best way is “peer review,” in which expert teachers work with struggling ones to improve their skills.  If that doesn’t work, incompetent teachers should be let go.  This is far different of course, than the en masse firings in Central Falls High, which uses an ax rather than a scalpel.  It’s hard enough connecting great teachers with the low-income students who need them most.  But if the Central High model of mass firings becomes commonplace, what teacher in his or her right mind would agree to take on the challenges of the toughest schools?

If Central High is really to be turned around, it should adopt a special magnet theme, which attracts great teachers and students from across the region, including more affluent communities such as Barrington and Cumberland.  Doing so requires much more planning and hard work than firing faculty, but it has a much higher likelihood of success. When the school district and teachers return to the negotiating table, they should turn to such a strategy.