I’ve covered this previously: The DC schools superintendent—a now-famous Michelle Rhee—is proposing to reward teachers who improve student achievement, and end tenure to simplify the removal of chronically ineffective teachers. The idea is generally supported by younger teachers, and opposed by long-time teachers. Current teachers could opt in (or not, and not qualify for the large potential raises), but, at some point, all new teachers would join the new plan. After growing impatient with stalled negotiations, Rhee is moving to administratively impose a 90-day improvement plan on some of the District’s chronically ineffective teachers.

A growing number of folks (including President-Elect Obama) now support reforming the teacher tenure and compensation system as a critical strategy for improving student achievement. And, just today, a teacher’s union president spoke approvingly of a pilot that rewards teachers and other school staff for increasing student achievement (was that a certain fiery place freezing over?). The issue was addressed recently by two national writers, both of whom are almost certainly left-of-center:

• Leonard Pitts applauds the dedication of teachers, but maintains that exceptional urban public schools are, well, the exception and not the rule. Student dropout rates and achievement would support his argument. Rewarding teachers and firing the bad ones would go far in improving schools, in Pitts’ opinion. However, nowhere does Pitts mention the responsibility that parents and students bear, though I suspect it was an oversight, as Pitts I think often promotes personal responsibility.

• Nicholas Kristoff believes that growing our economy and addressing poverty issues depends on improving our failing urban schools. He highlights recommendations from the centrist Brookings Institute:  ease the certification requirements that, in practice, bar talented professionals from teaching; change tenure rules to simplify weeding out ineffective teachers; and give hefty bonuses to teachers willing to serve in low-income areas. Kristoff also argues that we need to pay teachers a lot more.

Of course the devil’s in the details. It’s a complicated issue and many teachers have legitimate concerns that should be carefully addressed.  We believe the focus first should be on helping current teachers improve and recruiting potentially great teachers (and compensating them accordingly), instead of focusing solely on removing ineffective teachers.