Harvard Political Review: What school districts do you see as models for improving American schools?
Randi Weingarten: We just created a prize called “Solution-Driven Unionism,” which is about not just recognizing good work, but encouraging risk-taking to try to do new things that we think are best practices for other schools.
Thirty-nine public high schools have received this prize in New York. What we’ve seen in these schools is that they have an 80 to 90 percent graduation rate of African-American and Hispanic students, and 85 percent attend good colleges and stay in good colleges.
Another example is the New Haven School system, which has been focused on improving public education for everyone in the neighborhood. The system focuses on turning schools around, preparing and supporting teachers, and giving them what they need, which all contributes to a safe environment.
Our school system is not a failing system. We are not broken, but instead are in need of continuous improvement. I could go on and on about the school systems that are driving our country, but to drive improvement we need to include not just the Common Core, but also art and music, and address kids’ other social and emotional needs, while engaging parents in a collaborative way.
HPR: You recently gave an address on ‘reclaiming the promise of public education.’ Would your vision of a reclaimed public education system increase U.S. student achievement or equity within the system?
RW: I think if you increase equity within the system, you increase student achievement. When you start focusing on equity and try to create supportive environments for the kids who have the least, quality follows equity.
Professionalism and collaboration are key ingredients in ensuring high quality. Teaching is pretty complicated; you need to focus on quality, equity, and fairness. We also want to make sure someone is supported when teaching. Instead of blaming teachers and focusing on testing, let’s provide them with the support they need.
HPR: If you were designing a teacher preparation and selection program, what would it look like?
RW: You need to do three things for teacher preparation.
First, you need to have teachers who are immersed in and really know their content. You also need teachers with critical experience. Finally, you need on-the-job training.
We have suggested that there be a law-like or medical-like process so that teachers across the country would actually have an assessment process they have before they enter the classroom so that they and school system would know that they have mastered their skills that they need to be competent and confident in teaching.
HPR: Sec. Duncan recently announced the NAEP scores, which overall had a slight uptick. You’ve been critical of the District of Columbia’s and Tennessee’s education policy, yet they were two of only three jurisdictions to have shown gains in both subjects and grade levels over the past two years. To what do you attribute those gains?
RW: Every time there is an increase, that’s good news. You need to remember where Tennessee and DC started—far below the others. It’s great they’ve had that kind of uptick. Their success is due to the resources they’ve put into the program. There are so many districts that are making real changes in what kids like to study and where they want to go to school.
I’m critical because there has been a fixation on testing the point where kids don’t want to go to school and teachers can’t teach creativity. I’m thinking about problem-solving and critical thinking. Our job is how to help students not just to have a new body of knowledge, but to have real relationships with each other and how they become problem-solvers and critical thinkers.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.