With the exception of perhaps some teacher union leaders, I don't think anyone believes teacher evaluation systems work well. The recent report from The New Teacher Project called the Widget Effect clearly described just how dysfunctional these systems are.

Today, I read this Washington Post story describes how the "Peer Assistance and Review" program is working in Montgomery County, near Washington, D.C.

Peer review, embraced by more than 80 school systems nationwide, confronts one of public education's most vexing problems: What to do with under-performing teachers?

Union contracts and tenure rules tend to make it difficult to dismiss ineffective teachers. But in Montgomery, the union is teaming with school officials to weed out -- or, better yet, help improve -- teachers who fall short.

Introduced by teachers in Toledo in 1981, peer review arrived in Montgomery 10 years ago and is considered in many quarters a promising solution to the labor-management impasse over teacher dismissals. The National Education Association has encouraged peer review since the mid-1990s. The American Federation of Teachers, which had supported it even earlier, last year passed a resolution calling on affiliates to consider the program.

But no other school system in the D.C. region has embraced peer review, and the program has expanded slowly. Federation President Randi Weingarten said peer review "takes real collaboration between the superintendent and the union leader." Often, the two are adversaries.

Peer review gives Maryland's largest school system the power to dismiss under-performers. It gives struggling teachers a chance to rebuild skills. Of 66 Montgomery teachers in peer review in the 2008-09 school year, 10 are being dismissed and 21 have resigned or retired. Five will remain in review for a second year. The remaining 30 will successfully exit.

"We've changed the whole culture from 'gotcha' to support," said Montgomery Superintendent Jerry D. Weast.

Peer review, which costs Montgomery schools $2 million a year, pairs a struggling teacher with a mentor. Those who improve return to the classroom. Those who do not go before a panel of 16 teachers and principals that amounts to an impartial court. It decides whether to recommend termination or a second year of monitoring. No one gets more than two years.

In a session observed by a reporter, a middle school principal pleaded with the panel to endorse firing a teacher who could not control her classroom. "It's been a two-year ordeal for me," he said. The mentor on the case agreed. But after the principal left the hearing room, the teacher said the principal had undermined her. "I love teaching," she said. "I love my job. I love working in Montgomery County." The panel gave her another year to shape up.

In the decade before peer review began in the county, one teacher was removed for performance, said Doug Prouty, president-elect of the Montgomery County Education Association. Principals would encourage ineffective teachers to transfer or "make things so uncomfortable for that person, they would want to transfer," he said.

I'm intrigued by how this program is working in Montgomery schools. California had a Peer Assistance and Review program right up until tomorrow. The PAR program was included in the Tier 3 list of categorical programs that cease to exist. I haven't heard a single example in California where the program has made a significant difference. Maybe someone can help me find one.

While the numbers are relatively small, it is a start.

The number of teachers leaving Montgomery schools this year through peer review is statistically small: 31 out of 11,500. But school officials point to cumulative effects.

Teachers are selected for peer review based on a poor job evaluation. Each year, the program weeds out 2 to 3 percent of the county's probationary teachers, along with a smaller number of tenured faculty. (Of 66 teachers in peer review this year, 27 had tenure.) In nine academic years, peer review has pared 403 teachers from the system.

"Does it get every low-achieving teacher? No. But it's a step in the right direction," said Thomas Toch of the Washington-based think tank Education Sector, who has studied the program. "It helps create a professional climate in the school system, and that's a good thing."

I agree. I think this program is a much more realistic system than what most districts do. It requires the admission by all sides that there are some teachers who are simply not doing well and that some of them need to find another profession. I think the 16-member panel provides protection from the administrator maliciousness that teacher unions claim exist in teacher evaluation. The program provides a great opportunity for struggling teachers to get the help they need. It just makes sense to me. Why aren't we doing this in more districts?