In my forty years or so of studying the history of American education, I have learned about fads that came and went, disappeared and returned, over the course of the past century, each time treated as an innovation. It demonstrates to me the value of studying the history of education, so as to be aware of why ideas and methods work or don’t work, and to protect children against the latest passing enthusiasm. It strikes me that people who are teaching must find it very distracting to see the mandates come rolling out of the state department of education, or now the federal government, to do what they know is wrong or what is distracting, or to do something that violates their sense of professionalism. Yes, change is important, and yes, change can mean progress. But not always. The wise educator can tell the difference.
A reader answers an earlier post:
In my 16 years of experience, I have seen ideas come and go only to return again when some higher-up at the state DOE thinks that he or she has some kind of innovative approach despite the fact that we’ve tried that method before. Teachers with experience under their belts have an understanding of what works and what doesn’t work in their classrooms. I highly doubt that TFA has some miracle approach on how to teach that will revolutionize the profession.
“Value-added” is another one of those “buzzwords” that reformers like to infuse into the teaching environment. The mere fact that you used the term shows that there is an obvious “superman” mentality in the TFA concept (not just to quote that propaganda of a movie) wherein success is quantifiable in the same way that businesses measure success by profits. Students are not “products”–they’re people as are those who teach them. You cannot put a number on the complexity of teachers’ contributions to the students of our country.
Another idea that I hope will go, is inexperienced teachers.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/my-year-volunteering-as-a-teacher-helped-educate-a,28803/
Speaking of value-added, the TN Dept of Ed released its recommendations for changes to the TEAM evaluation system this week (there’s a link to the plan on this page https://news.tn.gov/node/9223).
Two pages of the report harp on the disparity between the percentage of teachers with Level 1 value-added scores (16.5%) and Level 1 observation scores (.2%). Not surprisingly, they blame evaluators, claiming that this is an indication of inflated observations. The funny thing is, anyone who looks at the chart on page 32 can plainly see there are disparities at the high end of the scale, too:
Level 4
TVAAS 11.9%
Observation 53%
Level 5
TVAAS 31.9%
Observation 23.2%
If the issue is actually observation score inflation, why then does the department not cite Level 4? And, again, if the source of error is the observation, not the TVAAS, why not argue that more teachers should’ve received a 5 for their observation score?
Of course, the answer is that the department is choosing to ignore the fact the problem lies with the value-added model, not the evaluators.
Jason. I’ve added a direct link to the study you note.
Click to access yr_1_tchr_eval_rpt.pdf
After reading it, I come to a different conclusion.
Based on teacher observation, 0.2% of teachers received a “falling significantly below expectations.” When only 1 out of every 500 people reviewed are significantly below expecations (in just about any human endeavor), the review system is broken and needs fixing.
Observers are not using the full review scale and I have seen this in many different settings. This is not unique to teaching. What ends up happening is that ratings “1” and “2” don’t get used because reviewers consider them too harsh. Instead, only “3-5 gets used. A “3” ends up meaning someone is performing below expectations, A “4” ends up meaning someone is performing at-expectations, and A “5” ends up meaning someone is performing above expectations.
The Tennesse report is absolutely correct in noting that observers are not using the full scale and therefore teachers are not getting the accurate feedback they deserve.
Everything I have said here is independent of Tennessee’s value-added model. I’m making no statement as to whether that is good, bad, or just OK.
Here’s an article from the Washington Post on HQT. The Onion piece is hysterical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/does-5-weeks-of-training-make-a-teacher-highly-qualified-house-panel-to-vote/2012/07/17/gJQARodPsW_blog.html?fb_ref=sm_btn_fb&fb_source=other_multiline