Excellent reporting last week by the Los Angeles Times and the online publication Voice of San Diego offers powerful evidence for why the Obama administration has made reforming teacher development its number one priority for K-12 education. The articles expose fundamental flaws in the hiring and transfer of two of California’s largest districts. And those policies and practices are representative of  districts in the state.

Voice of San Diego reporter Emily Alpert’s look at transfer polices in San Diego Unified (here and here) reveals  how seniority rights under collective bargaining can undermine principals’ efforts to turn around failing schools and create a cohesive culture. Particularly in an era of budget cuts, and, in half the districts in the state, declining enrollments, the job protection clauses have led to the dismissal of rising stars in the classroom.

Some principals have used transfer procedures, instead of time-consuming critical evaluations, to purge bad teachers from their schools. The problem is that often they end up being forced on low-performing schools where they’re not wanted, and where they don’t want to be. Alpert points out how principals have devised ways to skirt collective bargaining, because the system has been immune to reforms.

Alpert’s three-part series (the last part on Tuedsay) “revealed a flawed teacher placement system that can undercut schools from making straightforward choices on the fundamental issue of who teaches in their classrooms.” It’s an open question whether the new Obama regulations for low-achieving schools receiving federal money will give principals autonomy to choose the staff they want.

Of course, as with so much in education, there are contradictions and cross-currents.  While some bad teachers are being dumped on low-achieving schools, some great teachers are fleeing them in droves, because they’re poorly led. Alpert also cited one elementary school where teachers clamored to stay, because conditions were good and they felt empowered.

98 percent get tenure

The Los Angeles Times story, “Low bar for lifetime job in L.A. schools,” the work of three reporters, revealed that principals in Los Angeles Unified have utterly failed to evaluate new teachers critically. Fewer than 2 percent are denied tenure after a two-year probationary period (Some additional teachers do quit after the first year on their own, however.)  And once they have tenure, teachers gain due-process rights that make it nearly impossible to get rid of them. Many principals spend little or no time observing teachers in the classroom – or they do it once, with plenty of advance notice. No wonder reviews are commonly called ”drive-throughs.” And principals generally ignore a 30-year-old state law that requires that they consider student progress as a factor in granting tenure.

Evaluations are time-consuming, and the cutback in assistant principals statewide has compounded principals’ problems.

In order to score high in the federal Race to the Top competition, states must  agree to redo teacher and principal evaluation forms, including using data on students to decide tenure. State officials in California are hoping that districts will voluntary agree to do that  in exchange for money if California wins a piece of the $4.3 billion program.

The Times shared its findings with the district. In response, two days before the story was published, LA Unified Superintendent Ray Cortines held a press converence to vow that the district would begin to root out bad probationary teachers. He didn’t say how.