In Teachers Evaluating Teachers, Myron Lieberman, a senior research
scholar of the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, takes issue with
peer review as a means through which to address the "crisis"
in American public education. Lieberman, who has served as a chief negotiator
for school districts during collective bargaining, asserts that teacher
unions, such as the National Education Association (NEA) and American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), have blocked educational reform by protecting
the employment status of incompetent teachers.
However, Lieberman acknowledges that the teacher unions, conscious
of growing public criticism, have attempted to alter their image by
embracing the "new unionism," which the author finds to be
an undefined and ambiguous concept. The concept of peer review is representative
of the "new unionism" which the teacher unions, based primarily
upon what the NEA and AFT perceive as successful experiments in the
public schools of Columbus and Toledo, Ohio, have championed as a method
by which teachers needing assistance may receive evaluation and mentoring
from peer "consulting teachers."
Lieberman attacks the reform of peer review as a sham. The educational
consultant asserts that results on student standardized tests (the panacea
of contemporary American education) have not increased in schools using
peer review. In addition, the process is costly and bureaucratic, while
good teachers are taken out of the classroom to serve as "consulting
teachers." Thus, Lieberman concludes that peer review may actually
hinder rather than support the cause of educational reform in the public
schools. Instead, he advocates that teachers eschew collective bargaining
and the traditional union model in favor of professional organizations
which would allow for more individual choice among teachers; protection
of occupational minorities, such as skilled mathematics teachers; and
advocate what Lieberman terms as "occupational citizenship."
Indeed, there is much one may find to criticize in teacher unions; however,
Lieberman is hardly an unbiased observer, for he represents the Social
Philosophy and Policy Center, which supports privatization, vouchers,
competition, and the market system as the solution for America's public
schools. Of course, this is the same market system which rewards professional
wrestler/entertainers so lavishly and teachers so poorly. Lieberman
also demonstrates little respect for teachers; a public attitude which,
along with low pay, has contributed to the problems of American education.
For example, he pokes fun at the idea that teachers would be the ones
most capable of establishing their own professional development plans.
He assumes that they would seek salary credit for courses that "are
the easiest, the most convenient, or the least expensive" (102).
Nor does Lieberman express much appreciation for the role played by
the labor movement in American history. Lieberman writes: "The
union movement in the U. S. emerged as a response to what was perceived
to be the excessive power of the employers over individual employees"
(8). What does he mean by perceived? Was Lieberman simply daydreaming
when his history teacher covered the excesses of American capitalism
in the late nineteenth century?
Lieberman's book is a contribution to the growing political debate
regarding the direction of public education in America; a policy matter
which emerged as a major issue in the 2000 Presidential campaign. However,
Lieberman is hardly a disinterested participant in this dialogue, and
readers of this volume should keep those biases in mind. As for this
reviewer, who is a teacher in an independent school and not a union
member, there remains considerable pride in serving alongside public
and private school colleagues, who are among the most dedicated professionals
in the world.