Anthony Cody read Bill Gates’ article in the Washington Post, in which he said it is time to reduce the emphasis on high-stakes testing.
Anthony wondered if Gates means it.
Anthony writes:
“No one in America has done more to promote the raising of stakes for test scores in education than Bill Gates….You can read his words…, but his actions have spoken so much more loudly, that I cannot even make sense out of what he is attempting to say now. So let’s focus first on what Bill Gates has wrought.”
Anthony documents the destructive programs that Gates has funded (read the list, and it is only the tip of the iceberg), and he concludes:
“This amounts to an attempt to distance the Gates Foundation from the asinine consequences of the policies they have sponsored, while accepting no responsibility for them whatsoever.
“This is a non-starter, as far as I am concerned.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As long as money talks…we’ll have to suffer fools.
The correct answer is NOOOO!
Diane- do you have any response to the hateful language used by Ceresta Smith? http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2013/04/education_department_protesters_turn_fierce_rhetoric_on_corporate_reform.html
I was not there to hear what Ceresta said. If she used the language reported, I am appalled. We should never refer to anyone by negative reference to their race, religion, ethnicity, or gender. And you know I disapprove of expletives. We should strive to maintain high standards of behavior and language.
Yes, racial slurs have no place in civil discourse.
Her question as to if Rhee was treated with the same scrutiny as Hall in Atlanta is legitimate. Are administrators who failed to control cheating being equally investigated and prosecuted?
Foundations have been attempting to influence education policy for decades. Two of many examples include: Ford Foundation – Promoting Advanced Placement courses and Head Start; Carnegie Corporation – consolidating high schools, promoting the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Using foundation funds to try influencing public policy is nothing new.
I get that Cody and others active on this list serve don’t like some of the things that Gates is doing. But using foundation funds to try to influence public policies is nothing new.
Actually, Joe, that’s not true. Philanthropy has changed in the past dozen years with the rise of philanthro-capitalism. Read some more. Read chapter 10 of my book for starters.
Diane, I have read your book. I’m not sure what is “not true” in what I wrote.
Ford actively promoted Head Start and convinced policymakers to help fund it. Ford also promoted A.P. (I met with Ed Meade at Ford who made this clear.) Advanced Placement is a prime example of a high stakes test. Do you think a student’s credit should come down to how well she/he does on a single, final test? I don’t.
Carnegie strongly promoted consolidation (which much research shows was unfortunate for many rural communities and students – a precursor to the school closings that you now condemn). Carnegie also gave $ to the National Board which convinced many state legislatures to put millions into this…millions that could have been spent on other approaches to reducing achievement gaps.
Yes, I have read several of your books. Hope you have read some of mine (such as Free to Teach 1983) which called for a very different direction that you promoted for years).
After reading Free to Teach, Lamar Alexander asked me to coordinate several National Governors Task Forces that resulted in the 1986 Time for Results Report…that report, among other things, strongly promoted more early childhood education, more opportunities for teachers to create public schools they thought useful, more shared facilities with schools, com
This rising philanthro-capitalism has a name– villainthropy!
You are right that foundations have sought to influence policy for years. What’s new is how, in the age of so-called venture philanthropy (a better term for which is “malanthropy”), purported philanthropy is directly tied to the financial interests of the funders, namely, privatization, automation and the monetization of assets formerly known as students.
In other words, today’s billionaire malanthropists are having their financial and ideological interests subsidized by the tax code.
Michael, corporate foundations have for years given money to school districts to try to promote a positive feeling about their companies. Many urban districts have for decades tried to (and in many cases succeeded) in obtain corporate foundation funds. And many funders such as IBM and Apple (to name just a few) gave $ to promote use of their products.
I’m not defending every grant applied for or received. Just pointing out that districts have been applying for and receiving outside funds for decades to do this that promote interests of various corporations. And foundations have for decades been trying to influence public policies.
We’ve spent decades working in part, in rural areas. There is considerable justified anger in many rural communities about forced rural consolidation that Carnegie promoted.
Again, Joe, you’re being obtuse if you think it’s just about “positive feelings about their company”. Today’s venture “philanthropists” are trying to change education policy so that they can directly profit off it. For instance, in Gates case, by selling his own technology to schools. It goes way beyond charity to make a good name – there is nothing charitable about it.
Dienne, there seems to be a lot of name calling on this list serve.
To your point – I’m not defending every grant the Gates Foundation has made. My point is that school districts have been applying for and accepting $ for years that promote companies (Apple and IBM are two examples). Where’s the outrage toward them?
Not sure if Mr. Cody benefited financially from the “merit pay” that goes to National Board Certified teachers in many states. I’ve asked. That was promoted by the Carnegie Corporation.
Can you or anyone else make the case that students from low income families gained more by extra $ for National Board certification than they would have if Carnegie had promoted more $ for high quality early childhood education, or better housing, or job training programs?
Where’s the outrage about “merit pay” millions that went to National Board certified teachers, that could have gone to anti-poverty programs such as those mentioned above?
This seems to be a usual pattern with you, Joe. You respond with things that have little if anything to do with what was being discussed. Whether or not Mr. Cody benefits from the National Board Certification program seems rather irrelevant here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe he is responsible for pushing that in the first place. Do you see how that’s different than Gates pushing educational technology that his company will directly profit from? If not, “obtuse” is not name-calling, simply an observation.
Sure I see a difference, Dienne.
But Mr. Cody has spent a lot of time criticizing BIll Gates for not trying to reduce more to reduce poverty in the US. I’m questioning why there isn’t more criticism of Carnegie for investing millions (and then convincing state legislators to spend a lot more public dollars) on “merit pay” for teachers who pass the privately funded, non-publicly accountable National Board. Could it be because some teachers got paid “merit pay”?
What’s a better investment of public dollars, Dienne? Spending millions of “merit pay” for a small group of teachers, or spending it on high quality early childhood education for youngsters from low income families?
NBCT is not merit pay.
It is recognition for excellence, based on a portfolio of work, not based on student test scores.
Diane, it is additional pay, coming from public funds, based on what an unaccountable, private group has concluded merits additional pay. Given the number of times you have criticized private, not publicly accountable groups that receive foundation funds, why not be concerned about millions of public dollars going to such a group?
And would you care to explain why it’s a wiser public investment to give $ to this non-accountable body than to invest those public dollars, for example, in high quality early childhood education, or food for the poor, or a vast array of other approaches to help reduce poverty?
Knowing how much Dr. Ravitch likes Marc Tucker (not), how does she feel about millions of public dollars going to support the National Board – which Tucker created (with lots of $ from Carnegie)?
Two of you say that National Board payments to certain teachers do not constitute “merit pay.” Here’s how the online Merriam Webster dictionary defines “merit”: “character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem”. If a state gives out tax $ because someone has National Board Certification, doesn’t that mean they have decided the NB certification “merits” additional dollars?
Joe
Are you just being provocative or obtuse?
Merit pay is a bonus tied to higher test scores.
It has NOTHING to do with National Board Certification.
N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Repeating an error doesn’t make it true.
Diane, calling me “obtuse” is not a response to the questions I asked. The National Board is a classic example of a non-publicly accountable organization that has received millions of public funds (the kind of thing you often criticize).
When I quoted the Merriam Webster definition of merit, you accused me of being “obtuse” or “provocative.” Millions given to National Board certified teachers are a form of merit pay.
As a long time advocate of high quality early childhood education (whose mother was the first Head Start director in Kansas), I think the nation would be far better off if it had spent the millions devoted to the National Board on high quality early childhood education for youngsters from low income families.
If that’s provocative, great!
Joe, I explained at least two or three times that National Board Certification is not merit pay. You insist that it is. This insistent refusal to understand what I am saying is a textbook definition of obtuse. It is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. I won’t discuss this with you any more. It has become boring.
I understand what you are saying. Fortunately many policy-makers are deciding it’s more important to fund high quality early childhood education than to fund the National Board.
Maybe you find that boring. I think it’s great.
Why not use the same model of compensation used in higher education? Differential pay need not be based on student test scores.
Joseph,
I earned the $3,000-per-year-for-ten-year bonus pay when I passed my National Boards. I was NEVER judged upon test scores as a criterion for passing.
If you know anything about NBC, you’d know that the 4 part portfolio has only to do with evaluating a teacher’s process of achieving a goal. It looks at the teacher’s reflection and adjustment in their teaching. The means leading to an end is what is magnified thousands of times when you attempt to achieve NBC.
Moreover, I had to take a 6 part content test in my specialty, which lasted 3 hours and had to be typed on a computer.
I was required to condense the equivalent of almost 400 hours of coursework into 8 months of teaching, and I had to wait almost a year for the results.
The money used to compensate teachers who pass is a reflection and recognition of teacher excellence. To equate teacher excellence and excellence in professionalism with high test scores is overly simplistic and – forgive the “name calling” – ignorant.
Excellence in teaching is not an “if-then” statement. Reformers are trying so hard to sell the narrative, “If I provide excellence in teaching, then my students will inevitably achieve high scores, and there are no other factors at play here.”
Such drivel is counterproductive.
Conserving funds by not paying NBCT’s the bonus will not prevent poverty in this country, nor does such usage of the money cause impoverishment. Preventing children from becoming impoverished years before they even enter nursey school or pre-K is a much more complex problem that will not be helped by depriving teachers of a small bonus that recognizes big excellence and giant acumen.
Also, if our nation had the wherewithal to bail out Wall Street, which committed grotesque fraud and got away with no arrests or trials other than Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff, then giving a teacher $3,000 per year over ten years is not even a molecule of money to spend on such a great cause.
If you want to help impoverished families in this countries, consider more equitable ways for earned monies across the socieoeconomic spectrum to be distributed, as opposed to this skewered, biased, lopsided system we now have in place. Just look at our tax codes and our military campaigns to start.
Robert, I’ve studied the National Board. I’ve known some cruel teachers who have been named National Board teachers. I’ve know teachers with very negative attitudes toward families and youngsters of different races who have been named National Board certified teachers. I’ve also known some fine teachers who were national board certified.
I asked if anyone could document that spending millions on national board was a better investment than spending $ on strong early childhood programs for low income kids. You responded by calling me “ignorant.”
As a former inner city public school teacher,administrator and PTA President, I find your insults confirming previous experiences with some National Board teachers.
I can’t speak for others, but part of what I find exasperating is your perseveration on the issue of whether the National Board is a “better investment” than early childhood ed, as if there’s a dichotomy there.
You could argue that cancer research is a “better investment” than cystic fibrosis research because vastly more people suffer from cancer. Or you could argue that both are worthy investments. So long as said wealthy philanthropists don’t have a personal stake in profiting from cystic fibrosis treatment, we could cheer their generosity. If, however, they do have a personal financial stake in cystic fibrosis treatment, then there’s nothing “generous” or “charitable” in their contribution to research, especially if they are directing policy in ways that long-time researchers and workers in cystic fibrosis find insane and untenable and which seem ultimately directed toward imploding the whole field of cystic fibrosis treatment.
Dienne, in the real world of state legislators and Congress, priorities have to be set and decisions made. Part of our work is with legislators, and with coalitions that work on increasing opportunities for students from low income families.
So, I’m suggesting, along with many others, that investing in high quality early childhood education should be a higher priority. Fortunately our liberal Democratic Gov, who also has urged (wisely) an increase in taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans, has recommended increases in funding for programs serving 3-4 year olds, increased funding for all day kg, and increased funding for k-12. I support those priorities.
All I know, is that when you go on the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland, the tour guide is a live human. After all these years, if it was more efficient just to roll a video, why haven’t they hired Khan to make a video?
Touché!
If you have to ask, you can’t afford him.
Would you trust anyone for whom the term “finite greed” is an insult?
(www.nytimes.com/ books/99/03/01/specials/moody-body.html)
To me, his op ed was the new party line — hey, what are you complaining about, test scores will only be part of teacher evals. It’s the way Rhee and others are playing it now, too.
It’s a way of diverting attention from questions about whether the test measures are meaningful at all, and from the whole obsession with high stakes testing.
Of course the “test measures” are meaningless. See Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at:
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 to understand why.
Can we trust Bill and Melinda?
I suggest not until their actions change.
So sad really. So much harm they have caused already.
I may be naive, but they have done so much good internationally that I choose to believe, they know not what they do- in education reform.
We’ll see.
Galton, I agree. I’ll believe it when I see their actions and rhetoric change.
It’s hard to trust the wolf you see trying to slip into sheep’s clothing. I suggest we all wait to see what this Reformed Reformer’s next plan is.
NO, there are many insights into the Gates’ work abroad that show how much of a megalomaniac these two are.
I think that Bill Gates does want to help but he entrusted his money to the wrong bunch…they used it for standardized tests and more standardized tests ..paying millions to the publishing companies and to consultants…
Simply put..Gates gave his big money to help but all it has done is fattened the pockets of the corporate world , the test-writers, and the Political Power Mongrels who control the coastlines, the golf courses, and the vacation homes in America.
I think it’s naïve to think that Gates simply “wants to help”. Follow the money back around to Gates’ own pocket. You find that sort of loop in nearly every charitable venture he has embarked on.
I think Anthony raised important points and is justifiably concerned, as am I. While Gates conceded basically the same things that his rep. Vicki Phillips did when she partnered with Randi Weingarten in a recent article in the New Republic, Gates did not apologize for the integral but misguided role he has been playing in directing the course of public education in this country, including ramping up high-stakes testing and VAM.
I remain skeptical of Gates for several reasons, two of which are primary: his venture philanthropy, because Gates does not give without planning for a return on his investments, as well as the fact that he has continued to avoid addressing poverty in America. Anyone with that kind of money (both his own billions plus the billions donated to his foundation by Warren Buffet) who refuses to tackle poverty head-on, such as by supporting jobs programs and livable wages for workers, is no friend of the poor. And, since he continues to outsource jobs and hide assets in foreign countries, he is effectively responsible for perpetuating poverty.
I also like Anthony’s, “Accountability for Mr. Gates: The Billionaire Philanthropist Evaluation” http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/04/accountability_for_mr_gates_th.html (I have suggested using the Clinical Supervision model for this in the comments.)
Open question for Mr. Cody and other National Board Certified Teachers: Mr. Cody, as a National Board Certified teacher, were you been paid more than other teachers with comparable experience and education? Not sure, so I’m asking.
I’m asking in part because Carnegie Corporation funded the National Board to go all over the country promoting legislative appropriations to give $ to help people apply for National Board Certification, and then to give millions of dollars to those who received national board certification.
Mr. Cody, can you make a case that the millions that went into the National Board made more difference for low income students than say, if those state $ had been given for high quality early childhood education, or better medical care for low income families, or other ways to help low income families? I ask because you have criticized Gates for not spending enough to reduce poverty.
If you can’t make the case, should I expect you to take that merit pay money and donate it to food shelves, or health care for the poor, or job training programs, or …..?
Might it have been better in Carnegie had spent $ to reduce poverty, rather than to give it to a “merit pay” system?
I am not an NBCT but, from what I have read in my district’s literature, National Board Certification costs approximately $2,565 and candidates are eligible to receive $2000 from my state towards the cost of that. Upon completion, they receive a stipend of $1,750. I see no separate category for NCBTs in my district’s step and lane salary schedule and I could find nothing indicating that any foundations subsidize NBCTs here.
I do not see that small stipend for achieving National Board certification as “merit pay.” I think it off-sets the additional cost and effort of pursuing NBCT, similar to small scholarships granted for attending conferences for professional development. Even if there was a separate lane for NBCT, I think it would be similar to the pay in lanes for initial certification and increases.for further education. Lanes are incentives for teachers to improve their skills, by pursuing additional formal training, increasing their qualifications and earning advanced degrees. This is often seen in salary schedules for college teachers, too.
K12 public school teachers are already expected to eradicate poverty all by themselves. They should not be expected to forgo pay for increasing their qualifications, so that money can be earmarked for addressing poverty. There are many other sources of revenue that could be devoted to that, including the government and true charitable foundations –not venture philanthropists who are expecting a return on “investing” in the poor.
CosmicTinker, you might want to check with your state legislature or your state dept to see if your state subsidizes either the National Board application, or gives $ to people who are certified by the National Board. Please remember that the National Board, created with Carnegie Corporation funds is an unelected, not-publicly accountable group of the kind that so often draws criticism here.
The Idaho Dept of Education website on National Board Certification asserts in part, “Today, virtually every state and more than 25 percent of all school districts offer financial rewards or incentives for teachers seeking National Board Certification.”
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacher_certification/nbpts.htm
Here’s some info from the Michigan Dept of Education about how the National Board offers a “standards based approach for improving teacher practice.” I know how much some of you love (not) this whole “standards based approach.
http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_5683-78686–,00.html
The Tennessee State Dept of Ed notes that “approximately 40% of those who apply are certified at the end of the first year.” So more than half who apply aren’t approved – but of course the National Board gets to keep the money. Nice.
This thread in particular is indicative of your frequent efforts at using red herrings to derail discussion of the issue at hand: National Board Certification has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of this post, which is about the trustworthiness of Bill Gates and his purported “philanthropy” in education.
Additionally, your persistent themes of “let’s (private charters and real public schools) work together and learn from each other,” while charter schools are by design used to destabilize public education, is disingenuous at best.
Michael, I think what people do with their own resources are an important indicator of what and what they are.
Fortunately there are many public school educators eager to work with and learn from each other.
Gates used his immense wealth to drive a system based on his assumptions. The most critical assumption is what he wrote an op-ed about concerning the role of measurement in solving the world’s problems.
What Gates seeks is a surefire answer to problems that don’t have surefire answers. He has given money to any organization that would promote his vision before he tested out the assumptions behind this vision. Would he have told Microsoft to roll out a product before testing it?
Let’s consider the numerous delays that occurred before the MET published its report on teacher measurement. It was obvious that Gates wanted to provide the magic formula of teaching. He thought he knew it before MET began. My guess is that he videotaped all of those teachers and saw several different teaching styles and lessons attain effectiveness. This did not jive with his vision so he kept delaying the results until he got something close enough to what he wanted.
Like his small schools movement, Gates has been allowed to spend his way into costly unproven experiments. He has done so with very little input from actual educators on the front end. (My district took a far different approach in crafting a teacher evaluation system to comply with state law. We were collaborative at all levels across the district and fostered an environment of participation. We also recognized that our first attempt would not be perfect and would require evolution.)
He has used his money to support his non-research views. And because the volume of this money is so enormous, he has wielded the power to get it done. I’ve longed believed that Gates is not sinister. His heart is in the right place. But his attention should be focused on things he actually knows something about.
“Would he have told Microsoft to roll out a product before testing it?”
Considering all the not-ready-for-prime-time software with glitches that needed immediate patches which Gates has rolled out prematurely, I think we have seen the pattern many times before –which provides insight into this self-described “Impatient Optimist.”
Steve, you wrote in part, “Like his small schools movement, Gates has been allowed to spend his way into costly unproven experiments.” Small schools are not a silver bullet or panacea – but then, nothing is.
There was a huge body of research about the value of small schools, on which Gates and his colleagues relied. I’ve cited some of it before on this list serve, Here are a few examples:
Click to access po-01-03.pdf
“From the perspectives of both safety and academics, new studies and experience from the 1990s have strengthened an already notable consensus on school
size: smaller is better. There is overwhelming evidence that violence is less likely in smaller schools. And a number of studies also find a correlation between smaller size and higher achievement for poor and minority students, with all
students performing at least as well if not better than in large schools.”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2012/01/small_schools_spur_academic_gr.html
new report by the New York-based education & social research organization MDRC indicates that students in 105 of New York City’s 123 so-called “small schools of choice” grew more academically and were more likely to graduate than students in New York’s larger public high schools.
The positive outcomes held true for all subgroups, including African-American and Latino males, students who tested at all levels of proficiency in math, and students who were eligible for free and reduced price lunch.
http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2038
“School size is a critical factor in determining educational outcomes. Research links small school size with higher levels of achievement and cost effectiveness. Small size also makes other school improvements more effective.”
I deeply admire what Cincinnati Public School Teachers, the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers, and the district was able to accomplish using small schools as part of an overall strategy. And I admire and appreciate what people like Ann Cook and her colleagues have done at the Julia Richman complex, a part of the New York City district public schools.
They and many others have used small schools as part of a strategy to help many youngsters. And incidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has NOT stopped funding small schools. It continues to provide funds to help replicate/expand many small schools.
Listen to the sayings of a very wise man whose family has over 114 years of continuous civil rights “I hear real good, but I see a whole lot better.” Only look at what they do not what they say. The same for Obama who is a true “Orwellian” doublespeaker as is Gates.
Great article Anthony. It definitely points out the harmful policies that Gates has had a hand in implementing. I can tell you that these policies have done a great deal of damage out here. I have seen an entire building of teachers labeled minimally effective and ineffective-all based on test scores. This is insane. Bill Gates has helped to unleash the worst and most ridiculous reforms. His latest idea about parent and student surveys is equally insulting. When do students begin being surveyed? Kindergarten? Circle the smile or frown to tell how you feel about your teacher?? His problem is that he is so arrogant that he didn’t even respect the people who had been educators for years and years. He has ruined his legacy. I honestly can’t stand seeing him on tv. He turned the Dept of Ed. into a vehicle to hurt and demoralize teachers. Shameful. How do I rate Bill Gates?? A gigantic “F”.
And just as a connect-the-dots-aside, can anyone believe Obama?
FIrst Race to the Top and facilitated privatization, then his signing off on legislation that makes it legal to detain or kill any U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism and not provide ANY due process, and now the offering of Social Security cuts to Congress.
Who is this man?
Obama as a democrat?
Is anyone reading this as furious as me? Am I the only one? Please . . . . I need some solidarity.
No, Robert you’re not alone. You did forget to mention that he “ended the war in Iraq”-ha ha as that was Bush the Least’s doing or that the Obamacare is in reality a bill that is identical to one proposed in/around 1994 by the Republicans (who had massive help and support from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the time) or his refusal to prosecute Bush era war criminals at any level including the top, now of which he is one or not only “his signing off on legislation that makes it legal to detain or kill any U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism and not provide ANY due process” but who has actually has successfully ordered the due processless killing of American citizens, one of whom was a sixteen year old child.
Yes, it’s a run on sentence because I could go on and on and on and on about the current occupant of the White House.
Yes, there are some of us out here that understand what is really going on with this president, most choose to ignore what can be in plain sight if one looks.
Duane
Because of my progressive leanings, people often assume I am a cheerleader for Obama. Hardly! I voted for him in 2008, but not in 2012. Neither party at the national level supports the common man/woman/child any more.
I posted this comment earlier when Diane asked if Bill Gates’ piece in the Washington Post meant he was “reversing course” on teacher evaluations.
Bill Gates has not changed his mind about anything regarding teacher evaluations. He is merely trying to make the case for the kind of evaluation plan –– based predominantly on student test scores –– that his foundation funded. Gates has spent a TON of cash poking and prying into every educational nook and cranny trying to force his view of education “reform” onto public schools. But there’s just no there there.
In a recent letter on the “findings” from the Gates-funded MET (Measures of Effective Teaching) “study,” Gates says “how important it is to set clear goals and measure progress in order to accomplish the foundation’s priorities.” He lauds “the power of measurement,” and he claims –– incorrectly –– that “our schools have lacked the kinds of measurement tools that can drive meaningful change.”
Perhaps Gates has never heard of the Eight Year Study. Or the Sandia Report. The Eight Year Study made clear what “meaningful change” looks like. And the Sandia Report undermined virtually all the wildly speculative claims in A Nation at Risk about a “rising tide of mediocrity” in American public education that “threatened” the nation’s security.
Nevertheless, the Gates foundation has not provided any “meaningful” measures. Gates says that ” a strong” teacher evaluation system would only cost about 2 percent (surely a lowball estimate) of a total compensation budget, which is the most significant part of any school system’s spending. In a small, suburban school district that easily translates into an extra $2-3 million a year –– additional cost at a time when funding is more than tight. In a school district the size of Fairfax County, VA, or New York City, the costs would be significantly higher. And what does that extra cost actually bring?
Here’s the crux of Gates “strong” teacher evaluation plan, described in the MET project’s Feedback for BetterTeaching (Nine Principles for Using Measures of Effective Teaching):
“MET project teachers’ classroom observation scores were bunched at the center of the distribution, where 50 percent of the teachers scored within 0.4 points of each other (on a four-point scale) using Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. Teachers at the 25th and 75th percentiles scored less than one-quarter point different from the average. Only 7.5 percent of teachers scored below a two, and only 4.2 percent of teachers scored above a three. This would suggest a large middle category of effectiveness with two smaller ones at each end. Rather than trying to make fine distinctions among teachers in this vast middle, efforts would be better spent working to improve their practice.” Say what?
In other words, this is much ado about not very much. Most teachers and administrators already know where the stronger and weaker links are in any school faculty. And there are plenty of ways to create a high-performing school culture without resorting to the complex and costly evaluation and “reform” plans envisioned by Bill Gates and his corporate allies.
By the way, while Gates is touting “multiple measures” “such as student surveys, classroom observations,” his own foundation-funded “study” found that these measures add absolutely nothing to effective teaching data. Nothing. But Gates knows that he cannot simply rely on student test scores alone, so he’s trying to sell his clunker of a value-added model with fins and a cool-sounding horn. But it’s still one heck of a clunker. The Gates-VAM is so erratic as to be virtually useless, so Gates is plying lipstick to the pig.
In his Washington Post piece, Gates writes that “as states and districts rush to implement new teacher development and evaluation systems, there is a risk they’ll use hastily contrived, unproven measures.” Oh, the irony!
First, why is there a “rush” to new evaluations? Isn’t Gates one of those who is pushing the “rush?” And funding it?
Second, the “research” that comes from Gates-funded “studies” indicate that the teacher evaluation system he supports is, in fact, contrived and unproven.
No, Bill Gates has not changed his mind on anything. He’s simply rearranging the words to try and sell a bad idea to the public.
@ Robert Rendo……No. you are not the only one…the appointment of Arne Duncan as ed secretary was a BIG disappointment…but was it any worse than Obama’s failure to prosecute those who authorized and conducted torture? or was it any worse than Obama’s failure to go after the big bankers and hedge-funders who broke the economy, refused to take any responsibility for it, took taxpayer bailout money, and now demand even more tax cuts while they point the finger of blame at public schools and teachers for a lack of “economic competitiveness?” [By the way, this shifting of blame and the “economic competitiveness” malarkey has an awful lot of traction in the mainstream press.]
Still, would you have preferred John McCain or Mitt Romney in the White House?
Answering your question for myself, NO! But I voted my conscience and not the “lesser of two evils” as we still ended up with, in my thinking, evil.
And speaking of teacher evaluations, here’s Harvard’s Edward Glaeser weighing in, citing (sigh, eye roll) that silly Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff study as his “evidence:”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/outsiders_should_evaluate_teac.php?page=1
What are your criticisms of the paper? Do you think they screwed up the statistics?
The Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff study is a good example of economists –– and the mainstream press – making causal inferences based on small correlative measures. It is much ado about nothing. It’s essential finding makes little if any sense.
The essential finding of the study is this: a high-quality teacher creates “more than a quarter of a million dollars” in higher earnings per CLASSROOM of students.
If there are an average of 30 students in these urban classrooms, that amounts to $8,333 per student over a life-time of employment. If that employment career lasts 30 years, then that’s about $278 extra a year, or $23 a month, or $5.75 a week.
More curiously, the authors of the study offer up this gem in their executive summary:
“parents whose children will earn around $40,000 in their late 20s should be willing to pay $10,000 to switch from a below-average to an above-average teacher for one grade, based on the expected increase in their child’s lifetime earnings”
Does it make sense for parents to spend $10,000 in current funds to ensure that their children can make an extra $8,333 over a life-time? Given the current job market, the off-shoring of jobs, immigrant labor, corporate efforts to drive down salaries and destroy unions, the rise in poverty, the decline in the American standard of living, and the increasing lack of social mobility, and this is their recommendation?
I would have thought the findings would have made sense. The abstract states
We then document four sets of experimental impacts. First, students in small classes are significantly more likely to attend college and exhibit improvements on other outcomes. Class size does not have a significant effect on earnings at age 27, but this effect is imprecisely estimated. Second, students who had a more experienced teacher in kindergarten have higher earnings. Third, an analysis of variance reveals significant classroom effects on earnings. Students who were randomly assigned to higher quality classrooms in grades K-3—as measured by classmates’ end-of-class test scores—have higher earnings, college attendance rates, and other outcomes. Finally, the effects of class quality fade out on test scores in later grades, but gains in noncognitive measures persist.
So they find small class size is important, teacher experience is important, class quality matters for important lifetime outcomes, and class quality is important for things that can not be measured on test scores. You may be right that they are wrong about all these things.
“First, students in small classes are significantly more likely to attend college and exhibit improvements on other outcomes.” Duh!! Ask any teacher worth his/her salt and they could have told you that.
Wow. I’m impressed. I finally found a bunch of people who can discuss the realities using a dialectic approach. The problem is that the rhetoric needs to be distilled for the public. This is akin to preaching to the choir. First, are you “educators” or teachers?
You understand the implications here. Did you stay the course and put in 30 years doing 6 forty minute shows a day, 5 days a week, 180 days per year, or are you the typical “educator” who fill the educational supervision instructor slots in the universities? I’m impressed with the conversation, but I need validation of your classroom experience. The bottom line is that it is high time to return education back to the teachers, and extirpate the administrative, superfluous jobs that are draining the public coffers, and raising the costs of public education, and making it fiscally unsustainable. Read my book “New Money For Old Rope.” It’s lacks fanciful language, but it tells the story of why we will never have true reform until we remove this top down, authoritarian system of school governance. Corruption has permeated all of society, but it is especially corrosive at the leadership level. Have a go at that, and see if you can tell some truths without being sued.
Ian Kay