The U.S. Department of Education is doing something to the nation’s schools that has never been done before.
Through the leverage of its Race to the Top program, it has persuaded, pushed, and prodded at least 36 states to evaluate teachers by the test scores of their students.
There is no evidence that this will improve education or teaching. There is reason to believe it will incentivize narrowing the curriculum, cheating, and teaching to the test.
There is plenty of evidence from sources like the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association that the ratings will reflect who is in the class, not teacher quality.
John Thompson, guest-blogging for Anthony Cody, asks why the Gates Foundation went full-steam ahead with value-added assessment and the MET Project, encouraging rapid implementation of value-added assessment without waiting to get the results of its experimentation.
Wouldn’t it have been wiser to learn how to do it right rather than imposing this untried, unproven methodology on millions of students and teachers?
Never before has the U.S. Department of Education imposed its views on the nation–even when there was ample evidence to support its policies.
No one knows how to make VAA work without incentivizing all the wrong consequences.
It would have been a good idea to do this right, not fast.
Unfortunately both Gates and Duncan agreed that the basic problem of U.S. education is “bad” teachers.
They are wrong, and they won’t admit it.
The basic problem of American education is poverty.
The kids in affluent districts are doing very well indeed.
Should be phrased “kids in affluent districts who have the exact same proportions of good, bad, and so-so teachers as kids in other districts…”
And now NAE is offering research grants to junior scholars to analyze the MET data: http://www.naeducation.org/MET_Grants_Program.html Are they hoping for different outcomes perhaps?
Why the entire nation all at once? Because if they tried it in a handful of experimental districts, other districts would have plenty of warning about what bunk it is and be better able to block it in their own district. Shock therapy is best administered in large doses.
Maybe they want to start it ASAP to be used in conjunction with CCSS & CCSS aligned products development.
Maybe it’s data they care about, not the teachers or children.
In answer to your question, Why Foist an Unproven Method on the Entire Nation All at Once?: The current teacher evaluation systems are an attempt to undermine the natural authority of teachers, especially teachers collectively. The evaluation systems sort teachers and create divisions and categories.
The general public is allowing this to happen because everyone wants education to improve, and this separation and sorting of teachers has the appearance of providing greater understanding of the very complex process of educating children in today’s world.
The needed response to this assault on teacher’s authority is for teachers to reassert their authority by more clearly articulating how they teach and what they teach. This articulation will need to include specific explanations of how teachers, all teachers, assess their students learning. The antidote to standardized summative assessment is not no testing; it’s more formative assessment that is more clearly articulated to all. We have the ability to do it.
Divide and conquer, indeed. Perhaps lessening the professional voice is a back-door way of lessening bargaining power. At least it is one of the “benefits.” One very important aspect of the “reform” plan is to appeal to the sense of professional standards that teachers possess by framing the argument in terms of the “good and the bad.” Playing the role of “Superman” is a dangerous game, and definitely one that will lead to a segregated teaching profession.
“Unfortunately both Gates and Duncan agreed that the basic problem of U.S. education is ‘bad’ teachers.”
We must maintain vigilance in regard to policies put forth by non-experts who make divisive statements based in rhetoric. Wolves in sheep’s clothing have duped the most intuitive among us when they appeal to our sense of honor in doing everything we can to help children succeed. How many in the teaching profession are so quick to judge other colleagues as “incompetent?” Too many. Yet, in a great number of instances, those who deem others to be “bad” may not know enough about the intricacies of every area of expertise themselves to notice how their colleagues are actually contributing positively to their students’ success. People tend to fixate on what they know, not what they do not know. Be careful not to fall victim to the super-hero syndrome as touted by those who have the money, power and influence to control the message. It appeals to hearts and egos alike.
I don’t believe we should even have a federal education agency..there should be no Duncan in charge.
The Constitution writers put the states in charge of education just like the states are in charge of marriage.
Are we going to have a sec of marriage next?
And the Gates/Bloomberg/Sam Walton/Rupert Merdock/EliBroad money
is feeding the greed of Michelle Rhee/Joel Klein/Jeb Bush/Duncan/all the Chiefs for Change/the politicians like
Christie/Jindal et al and this is not ethical either…Politics should not be driving education
but it is…This free enterprise/privatization balloon has to burst before mroe students get hurt in the process.
Not to worry they will give Roland Fryer and Will Dobie a million or so dollar grant to analyze the results.
The sad truth is that neither Gates nor Duncan care about the inaccuracies of value added models. I don’t even think they honestly believe the “crisis” is caused by “bad” teaching. This is all about finding a means to eliminate tenured teachers and cut labor costs so public education dollars can be funneled to tech firms, testing companies and charter schools.
But… Diane, don’t you see that fixing poverty requires a “redistribution” and that, as we all know, is “socialism”… it’s so much easier to blame those lazy and greedy teachers
I agree wholeheartedly that VAA is not the answer and bad teachers isn’t the cause. However poverty is a correlation to poor scholastic achievement not a cause in and of itself. Parental involvement and household appreciation of education is more applicable than the far easier statement of poverty. It is simpler to pin it on one thing than to try to explain and address a very complex societal issue.
I disagree. Poverty is a cause, not just a correlation. The poorest kids are at the bottom of every standardized test in use: SAT, ACT, NAEP, state tests, international tests. No surprise.
Strictly speaking, the correlates of poverty are the cause. Poverty is reasonable shorthand, but using the shorthand exposes one to simplistic accusations of excuse-making in our toxic political atmosphere.
Diane I disagree. I teach in a high poverty area of NC at one of the lowest SES high schools. The students are capable in the raw, but the support and backing from home is lacking. Poverty is the common thread but it doesnt cause students to not do their homework or read their assignments or to be apathetic. I have many poor students who do very well bc the parents understand the value of what we do. To wave a magic wand that ends poverty will not change their faulty belief system. This is a problem that has been generations in the making and their is no single cause or simple cure. I love your posts Dr Ravitch but I am not with you on the simple poverty issue.
Ncirish2002:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/study-shows-correlation-b_n_1981264.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
Interesting take on this from Valerie Strauss, and a great comment from reader kwheatley with an apt quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/10/19/about-the-rogue-experiment-that-upset-researchers/
I would rather use the money spent on that data modeling and data analysis pretty much anywhere else in the education system.
My theory is that the reason Finland’s kids do so well on the PISA is because all workers have 6 weeks paid vacation. I’m not actually joking: I think such a move would probably do more to improve student test scores than this craze for value-add analysis on teachers.
Somehow the Gates Foundation doesn’t seem interested in my idea.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
It’s a full court press on the teachers, unions, parents and teachers. With everyone fighting for survival due to the economic conditions created by the sponsors of the education “reformers” in our midsts, there is little energy left for questioning or critical thinking. This is exactly the intended consequences. Children who are taught to follow the evidence wherever it may lead will inevitably speak up and speak out and this cannot be allowed by our corporate captors.
Some of Florida’s results are in, and it isn’t pretty:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/new-scoring-system-for-evaluations-stirs-concern-and-confusion-among-tampa/1257409
Buffy Francisco wrote a great letter to the editor in the San Francisco Chronicle. Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:15:27 +0000 To: rke25@hotmail.com
it is even worse than RTTT – it is a huge part of the waviers to AYP…..the wavier is no picnic, its just another method to force their ‘plan’ on more unsuspecting states.
The waiver is just RTTT on the cheap. States and school districts will have to implement very expensive data systems and tests with no additional funds. All for what? So they can be expected to be 100% proficient in 2020 instead of 2014? What is the point of the waiver? If most schools are nowhere near 100% proficiency after 10 years of NCLB why will they be there in 2020? There is even less of a chance of 100% proficiency since all waiver states will have to implement new tests with the Common Core standards.
It’s more of the same.
We don’t need a standardized test to tell us the results. Money is being spent foolishly, not doing what is best for kids and educators. How can we get excited about teaching let alone teaching in a title school where kids need us the most?
We need to hold Gates and Duncan accountable to prove that VAA works, period, but not at the expense of the entire country. What they ought to do is hire “highly qualified teachers”, have them teach students in poverty (only), and view the results. Oh darn, why would any teacher want to risk their reputation when it could jepardize their job? If Gates or Duncan were teachers would they want to fill the vacancies under these circumstances? They should be able to model for us firsthand. All they’re lacking is the 5- week training to be “highly qualified”.