Peter Greene says that corporate reformers have discovered the secret to generating an endless supply of “ineffective” teachers: just keep proclaiming that teachers are ineffective if their students get low scores.
“In the wake of Vergara, we’ve repeatedly heard an old piece of reformster wisdom: Poor students are nearly twice as likely as their wealthier peers to have ineffective, or low-performing, teachers. This new interpretation of “ineffective” or “low-performing” guarantees that there will always be an endless supply of ineffective teachers.
“The new definition of “ineffective teacher” is “teacher whose students score poorly on test.”
“Add to that the assumption that a student only scores low on a test because of the student had an ineffective teacher.
“You have now created a perfect circular definition. And the beauty of this is that in order to generate the statistics tossed around in the poster above, you don’t even have to evaluate teachers!”
And he adds:
“You can have people trade places all day — you will always find roughly the same distribution of slow/fast, wet/dry. good/bad vision. Because what you are fixing is not the source of your problem. It’s like getting a bad meal in a restaurant and demanding that a different waiter bring it to you.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“It’s like getting a bad meal in a restaurant and demanding that a different waiter bring it to you.”
This is a great line. 🙂
Be sure to fire the waiter every time.
With politicians insisting they know better than a waiter how to serve food because, of course, politicians ate in a restaurant.
And everyone is an expert on education, after all, they once were a student.
And then go talk about the bad waiter that you had, getting paid 50k a speech for it, and create laws stating that, no matter the condition of the kitchen, or the ingredients, the next waiter needs to fix that food in the short time that they are conveying it to the table.
I have nothing to add but that you have all hit it out of the park and torn the cover off the ball.
Excellent Analogy!!!
Great analogy. I’m stealing this one!
Love the “waiter” metaphor. Yes, it’s circular. And the hyper-focus on data/test scores keeps our educrats in administrations busy moving kids around to raise the data. In our district, the difficult kids dragging on the test scores are moved to a continuation high school. That school once functioned efficiently, serving students who needed the alternative setting to complete high school. Now, as a “dumping ground,” it no longer works for the students it once promised to serve. BUT, it helps raise the test scores in each of the high schools that are shedding these troubled kids. Same with intervention programs: hyper focus on low-testers at a very high cost – smaller classes, doubling the time spent in core subjects. To pay for this? The “regular” classes are stuffed to capacity and interesting electives dropped. As a result, low test scores rise and all of our AP scores dropped, by a lot.
But, hey. The test scores that administrators live and die with rose enough to move all of them up the ladder.
Corrupt? You betcha.
And where might this be happening?
Fairfield Suisun Unified in Fairfield, California.
Thanks, it’s important to name names on these sorts of educational malpractice. I wish you the best!
Isn’t that the definition of a charter school – evicting any student who has special needs (whether it be physical, intellectual, emotional, or psychological)?
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. -William Butler Yeats, writer, Nobel laureate (1865-1939)
I am so glad I got to light a “fire” in my students early in my career before the insanity began. We got to create, explore, learn and hunger after knowledge. I am heartsick over the changes that have taken place. I retired because I could no longer teach when I was so divided in my soul between what I was forced to do and what in my heart of hearts knew what was good for the children.
Retired Teacher: I like the Yeats version too, but the idea goes way back—
“The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.” [Plutarch]
Ah, those very old, very dead and very Greek guys…
😎
P.S. “That that know, do. Those that understand, teach.” [Aristotle]
Thank you for doing and understanding.
😄
“That (Those?) that know, do. Those that understand, teach.” [Aristotle]
I like that one so much better than the accepted bastardization.
2old2teach: thank you for catching my error. I could blame it on auto-correct but that would be so Bill Gates-like…
“Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.” [Aristotle]
😎
I didn’t catch it at first. I read what I thought it said. It was only after several readings that I caught it. After hearing the old saw, Those who can, do; those who can’t teach,” as the default saying, it was important to my self esteem to hear the original. Now I have a comeback that I can say without sounding defensive!
So long as kids are stack-ranked against each other, there will always be a bottom 10% and, hence, a bottom 10% of teachers.
Dienne: exactly!
And how did Microsoft under Bill Gates, Mr. “Stack Ranking” himself, fare?
[start quote]
By 2002 the by-product of bureaucracy—brutal corporate politics—had reared its head at Microsoft. And, current and former executives said, each year the intensity and destructiveness of the game playing grew worse as employees struggled to beat out their co-workers for promotions, bonuses, or just survival.
Microsoft’s managers, intentionally or not, pumped up the volume on the viciousness. What emerged—when combined with the bitterness about financial disparities among employees, the slow pace of development, and the power of the Windows and Office divisions to kill innovation—was a toxic stew of internal antagonism and warfare.
“If you don’t play the politics, it’s management by character assassination,” said Turkel.
At the center of the cultural problems was a management system called “stack ranking.” Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees. The system—also referred to as “the performance model,” “the bell curve,” or just “the employee review”—has, with certain variations over the years, worked like this: every unit was forced to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor.
“If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, two people were going to get a great review, seven were going to get mediocre reviews, and one was going to get a terrible review,” said a former software developer. “It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies.”
[end quote]
Link: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mojo-steve-ballmer
‘Those who studiously forget about their own past will make the rest of us relive their miserable avoidable mistakes over and over and over again.’ [My mangled version of a well-known quote]
😎
Yes. One of the start ups I worked was closely affiliated with Microsoft and borrowed the model. These environments are a cross between a death march to see who cracks, a gladiatorial combat, and a demonstration of game theory gone bad. Executives are cronies in way over their head, floundering around afraid to make decisions. Mid-level managers take no risks and blame issues on subordinates. The people actually doing the work are trying to compensate for poor decisions from the top. If you manage to avoid being back stabbed by a coworker, you are on borrowed time anyways as the next reorganization or slightest misstep and you are out. And don’t turn 40, become ill, or have any family issues. Remember, Paul Allen told how Gates and Balmer tried to cut him out when Allen got cancer.
Funny:
A French high school student has leaked to Twitter the philosophy essay questions on the country’s version of the SAT.
According to LeMonde, just 19 minutes into the test, called the BAC, the student Tweeted, “Ok the question on the philosophy section, is ‘Art or happiness?'”
Twelve minutes later she wrote, “First subject: Can works of art form our perception? Second subject: Should one do everything they can to be happy?”
She then continued on to the society and economics essays. “First subject: Does having choices alone make us free? Second subject: Why try to know yourself?”
The Élysée soon caught wind of the Tweets and responded: “Divulging subjects during the first hour of the test will result in heavy penalties. Please remove these Tweets immediately.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-french-teen-leaked-sections-of-the-countrys-sat-to-twitter-2014-6#ixzz350nw5VYf
The premise of this article is that “The new definition of “ineffective teacher” is “teacher whose students score poorly on test.”. Whose definition is this? Who defines ineffective based on absolute performance vs. growth, anyone?
First, you really should learn a whole lot more about VAM and other teacher rating systems before spouting off here.
Second, it doesn’t matter whether absolute performance or growth is being measured, because it’s all stack-ranked. There will always be the bottom 10% on performance and the bottom 10% on growth, so either way, there will be a bottom 10% of teachers.
I know a lot about VAM, Dienne. What I don’t understand is why the author won’t confront VAM if he dislikes it, but instead pretends that we’re judging teachers on the students assigned to them or that they opt to teach based on which school they teach in.
Why spend all this energy setting up the straw man of corporate reformers judging teachers on their students absolute scores, which everyone acknowledges are most affected by poverty. That’s something people do to avoid the real discussion or hide a weak argument.
I think it matters a lot whether we’re talking about performance or absolute measures. In the author’s words, it’s the difference between “bad meat” and “bad cook”. Sure, there are legitimate arguments around how to measure teacher performance, but I don’t know of anyone that is judging teachers by absolute test scores. Pretending such a thing exists detracts from an actual debate.
“Why spend all this energy setting up the straw man of corporate reformers judging teachers on their students absolute scores, which everyone acknowledges are most affected by poverty.”
¿?
The single most revealing cliché of the self-styled leaders of the charterite/privatizer movement is “poverty is not destiny” when it comes to education. And in practice/MSM appearances/marketing pitches they give the in-school factor of teachers a greater importance than everything else—in- and out-of-school—combined.
Just one of a host of examples, from the BeeEater Herself.
[start quote]
Rhee was shocked by what she found in D.C. The central office was a bureaucratic sinkhole. School facilities were in shambles. Many lacked libraries and textbooks. At one school, Rhee spotted a sign: “Teachers cannot make up for what parents and students will not do.” Rhee’s was “enraged” by this attitude. “Most people blamed poverty for the low academic achievement levels of the children in D.C.,” writes Rhee. She disagreed, noting that poor African-American kids in New York City were two grades ahead of their peers in D.C. “There is no doubt that poverty and home environment have an impact on students and schools, but clearly there was something terribly wrong with the D.C. schools.”
[end quote]
Link: http://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-michelle-rhee-versus-diane-ravitch.html
¿And the Vergara “decision”?
Dienne: don’t waste your powder.
😎
Again, we’re talking about differences in performance, not absolute performance.
This is the federal definition. it is built into the RTTT legislation. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 18, 2009 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II [Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0006] Final Definitions 559751-52 ( Lightly edited for length)
‘‘Student growth means the change in student achievement…for an individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.’’
“Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance.”
“Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth.”
“Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth.”
“High-quality assessment means an assessment designed to measure a student’s knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply, critical concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats (e.g., open-ended responses, performance-based tasks). Such assessments should enable measurement of student achievement and student growth; be of high technical quality (e.g., be valid, reliable, fair, and aligned to standards); incorporate technology where appropriate; include the assessment of students with disabilities and English language learners.”
“Interim assessment means an assessment that is given at regular and specified intervals throughout the school year, is designed to evaluate students’ knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic standards, and produces results that can be aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.”
“Student achievement means— (a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s score on the State’s assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.”
“Student growth means the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.”
Race to the Top FAQs supplements these definitions–perhaps illegally. Example: “measures must be rigorous (that is, statistically rigorous) and comparable across classrooms in a LEA or across classrooms statewide. It is not acceptable to use measures of student growth that are only comparable across students within a class.” RTTT does not mandate “statistical rigor.” In fact whether this definition of rigor should function as a criterion was a concern of many commentators of the draft legislation. USDE dismissed the debate, left the legislation as is, then added “statistical rigor” in FAQ.
There is no explicit definition of a “year’s worth of growth.” Any application of this concept to the evaluation of teacher effectiveness in a complete artifact of many unstated statistical and educational assumptions, including the length of a school year, the length of an accountabilty year, the notion that distributions of data points accurately represent “bits” and snippents of learning, all of the snippets have the same educational worth and so on.
See: Flaws in the concepts of “grade-level expectation” and “a year’s worth of growth” —-Ligon, G. D. (2009). The optimal reference guide: Performing on grade level and making a year’s growth: Muddled definitions and expectations, growth model series, Part III. Austin, TX: ESP Solutions http://www.espsolutionsgroup.com/espweb/assets/files/ESP_Performing_on_Grade_Level_ORG.pdf
Laura,
Again, we’re talking about student *growth*, which is not the same thing as “teacher whose students score poorly on test.”
Growth as currently defined is simply two absolute performances stood side by side. Or, at least in Pennsylvania, the student’s actual absolute score stood next to an imaginary hypothetical absolute score that the student achieved in a parallel universe.
Pick VAM or absolute score; either way, we’re mixing random numbers with test results to generate numbers that are most closely associated with the students socio-economic background. For VAM proponents to claim that they have mathematically removed the effects of poverty is just silly. Teachers are still judged on the basis of the students they end up teaching, and those results are still best correlated with poverty (or the lack thereof).
Peter,
If anything, raw growth scores are higher for low-SES kids than for high-SES kids because there is much more room for growth.
Jpr,
Are you a teacher of ESOL or special ed students? Where? How does your district calculate VAM scores?
In my district those teachers ( along with the gifted teachers) don’t have very strong ” growth ” scores, because they kids did ” improve” but not enough.
Tricky
That’s a typical chicken vs. egg argument that doesn’t go anywhere. It is usually politicians, national media, and pro-reform pundits claiming educational authority who define the terms–grossly wrong–to deliberately misrepresent the public.
My Kindergarteners’ scores are worth 50% of my evaluation. Even if I score highly effective in the instructional/professional parts, if my students don’t measure up to their pre-requisite levels of growth-I’m still deemed ineffective. It doesn’t have to be the only factor-it just has to hold enough weight to pull the rating down.
Texas Teacher
I’m laughing, but if I were you I’d be screaming at how ridiculous this all sounds.
The dysfunctional behaviors and dynamics that are characteristic in families of workaholics, alcoholics, and dysfunctional families are the same as those being conditioned in children in the dysfunctional Common Core Environment.
Our schools need to be safe havens for children, not places of punishment that will cause psychiatric disorders for a lifetime.
Here is the list of Borderline behaviors that will be conditioned in children in the Common Core Environment as a result of chronic stress from fear and intimidation, and neglect of their social and emotional needs:
http://www.adultchildren.org/lit/Laundry_List.php
The fake education reformers even label teachers incompetent when they are in close proximity to low performing at risk kids they have never taught. Heck, the kids who score low might even be at a nearby school instead of where the teacher works.
The metrics in use are designed to replace the meanings and connotations of growth as a process that refers to the multi- faceted development of students as human beings with that process encompassing physical growth, social skills and attitudes, affinities, and all the rest. the selection of the term “growth” for a change in test scores within a year or year-to-year is intended to suppress the legacy of educational thinking and research about human development and focus in favor of an econometric view of education with the production of gains in test scores the primary indicator of “effective” teaching.