What would it look like if politicians, college presidents and school "reform" experts were assessed by the same benchmarks and criteria as classroom teachers? Comes now the Chicago Teachers Union with something I've wanted to see for a long time -- a rubric for assessing the performance of elected officials in three "domains" that parodies the language of Illinois' Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010.
Fred Klonsky, whose blog on Chicago school politics is required reading (yep, even for a retiree whose teaching career was in higher ed, at a private school downstate), headlined his post: "Whoever thought of this at the CTU deserves an award." Yep, and yep again! Klonsky writes:
This almost caused me to do a spit-take with my coffee this morning.
Whoever came up with this at the CTU: God bless ‘em.
If you missed it, this completely mirrors what politicians in this and other states have foisted upon teachers.
In a nutshell, the CTU questionnaire evaluates candidates for political office on evidence of proficiency in three domains (planning, legislative issues and professional ethics), according to a rubric that sets criteria for ratings of unsatisfactory, basic, proficient and distinguished. It's exactly like the rubrics I worked with at SCI-Benedictine.
Greg Hinz of Crain's Chicago Business found it: "Cheeky, boldly assertive and even arrogant," not to mention "a bit bureaucratic and onerous." (I would have added: "Snotty." But that's how the language of all rubrics strikes me.) Klonsky thinks Hinz missed the joke, but I'm not so sure. Over the years Hinz has been a pretty astute observer of Chicago and Illinois state politics. And he does headline his article on the questionnaire:
CTU tells candidates: Sit up straight and raise your hand for support
Which perfectly matches the tone of CTU's gambit.
Hinz aptly summarizes it:
Overall, CTU asks that those seeking its endorsement answer three general questions, with as many as five sub-questions each, about them and their campaign. On each — much like a standardized test — the candidates will be ranked: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient or distinguished.
For example, in question 2e, dealing with cuts to public services, an "unsatisfactory" candidate would be one who has supported cuts in services such as health clinics, Medicaid, police protection and schools. A "proficient" candidate would have "consistently opposed cuts" via "pubic pronouncements and legislative initiatives." To be rated "distinguished," that contender would have to have "proposed reinstatement of prior cuts."
Another example: campaign communications. The "unsatisfactory" candidate has "no strategy for communications," but does have an "uncomfortable" public speaking style. But a "distinguished" one would speak "in multiple formats" in ways that are "easy to comprehend." And the candidate should be such a good speaker that his or her future constituents will be "excited about the candidate."
In other words, no dees, dose and dems, alder-people.
Here's why I think Hinz maybe gets it after all -- it's when he slips "much like a standardized test" into a subordinate phrase. He adds:
To those who think this all sounds a bit bureaucratic and onerous, the union pretty much says: tough.
In the form, it notes that, over its opposition, the state in 2010 adopted new teachers evaluation standards that have "four domains with 19 separate components," with teachers being rated unsatisfactory to distinguished.
"We believe those who develop, pass and enforce laws should be held to the same standards as our members," the evaluation form says. "To that end, the Chicago Teachers Union will assess candidates for elective office using this rubric based on the one used to evaluate teachers."
It's also the language that has been used to evaluate students for years now. And, as Hinz noted, it is much like a standardized test.
The complete text of CTU's rubric, uh, questionnaire, is available on line at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/247306416/CTU-Questionnaire.
