Great common on my Edweek blog. Often I wish I had a way to call attention to smart comments like this one. My new blog gives me the chance to give additional attention to the ideas of thoughtful writers. This one comments as “laborlawyer.”
Objecting to high-stakes-testing cannot stop high-stakes-testing unless those objecting can offer a reasonable alternative to high-stakes-testing as a way to identify/remove ineffective teachers. The high-stakes-testing supporters argue that there are ineffective teachers in the schools, that current teacher evaluation systems are not identifying/removing those ineffective teachers, and that these ineffective teachers are a major cause of poorly-performing schools (that is, of low test scores in inner-city schools). These arguments are superficially compelling. It’s true that there are ineffective teachers in the schools (just as there are ineffective employees everywhere) and virtually all citizens have personal recollections of ineffective teachers from their own school days. It’s also true that current teacher evaluation systems are not identifying/removing ineffective teachers — in most school systems, the traditional principal-observes-and-evaluates evaluation system results in very few, if any, discharges. It’s probably not true that ineffective teachers are a major cause of poorly-performing schools (that is, the poorly performing schools are concentrated in low-income areas while the ineffective teachers, even if somewhat more common in the low-income areas, are certainly not concentrated in the low-income areas to the same extent as the low test scores are). But — it’s impossible to prove that ineffective teachers are not a major problem and, in any event, arguing in favor of ineffective teachers has zero appeal. High-stakes-testing is an inexpensive solution to the identify/remove-ineffective-teacher issue. So — to win the debate, opponents of high-stakes-testing must provide an alternative solution. An obvious possibility is a peer-review evaluation system similar to that used in Montgomery County, MD schools since 2001. This system — called “PAR” — has been amazingly successful at removing ineffective teachers with over 500 teachers discharged or resigned-in-lieu-of-PAR-evaluation. The teachers union supports PAR. There have been few litigation challenges to the discharges. The overwhelming majority of teachers think the system is fair. There is no high-stakes-testing, with all its adverse side effects. Briefly, principals identify teachers as possibly poor-performers; senior consulting teachers (who do not report to the principal) intensively monitor/evaluate the identified teachers; a consulting-teachers/principals committee makes the final discharge decision. It’s unclear why PAR has received so little public attention. The NY Times wrote a column praising PAR. But, the media and ed bloggers have otherwise largely ignored it. Opponents of high-stakes-testing should study and publicize PAR — or something like it — as an inexpensive, productive alternative to the destructive high-stakes-testing as a way to identify/remove ineffective teachers.
I appreciate your sentiments here and greatly agree that an alternative to testing must be provided; testing cannot be argued into oblivion. However, I disagree with a small point about high-stakes testing being inexpensive. As a teacher, I would argue that high-stakes testing costs a LOT because of all the classes, programs, curricula, online programs, and training schools spend money on in order to prepare for these tests. While the tests themselves may be “inexpensive”, the bottom lines have risen considerably because of this new movement and more importantly, the testing fixation has taken away from tried and true education practices that actually promote learning and critical thinking.
I think much of this arugment is garbage.
It is garbage because it does not acknowledge that much fo the “debate” out there is based upon garbage.
It simply is NOT true that poor teachers do not leave the classroom. The attrition rate for new teachers is extraordinarily high. A HUGE number of bad teachers leave teaching. HUGE. The problem is NOT that bad teachers cannot be removed from the classroom.
And this is how it is for much of the “debates.” The problem is that one side or the other (even both?) claim to be arguing something, when they are in fact arguing something else — and one of both of those things are NOT supported by the facts.
How are their opponents supposed to come up with an alternative that meets their percieved need when their preferred solution does not meet their percieved need in the first place?
I am all for understanding one’s opponents’ concerns, values and desire. Heck, I think it is important that one understand their concerns, values, desiring and thinking better than they do. But if they have pre-determined conclusions and pre-determined solutions, that matters. If they are not suseptable to the facts, that matters. And pretending that someone else is reasonable or flexible or careful in their thinking when they are not does NOT help.
Where are your facts, friend?
I believe you that some bad teachers leave the profession of their own volition (which I think you are saying). So do good teachers. I’ve seen both cases. One of the best teachers we ever had at my school in Harlem is currently in Peru, not teaching, after a stint in the Marshall Islands (where she was teaching). Another one is in Japan (not teaching).
The problem is that sometimes, there’s an underperforming teacher who has had the opportunity to improve and hasn’t done so. And he or she won’t go, maybe doesn’t even recognize how bad he or she is. Maybe the administrator isn’t supporting this professional (or at one time had been, but is now fed up), and while the faculty colleagues recognize the problem, they don’t have the gumption, or maybe the impetus, to say so. This scenario is abhorrent to the current education reformers (who believe that bad teachers undermine the system of reform) and the union people (who believe, or ought to believe, that bad teachers give them a bad name and drag down the profession).
I don’t know what evidence you have that this scenario is uncommon. In my personal experience and through my broad network of peer school leaders–district and charter–I have found it to be quite common. Peer review could have a HUGE impact on this scenario. I don’t understand your beef with it.
You don’t seem to be contesting my facts. You agree that many bad teachers leave the classroom. You’d probably even acknowledge that it’s a large number.
The issue of good teachers leaving, too, will not be solved by testing. Nor will it be helped by merit pay. The long history of research on the topic is clear in that regard. The “reform” crowd is not pushing for solutions that will help that.
But my big point here is that the offered position simply lacks a factual basis because the offered position does not acknowledge the facts. The problem is NOT that bad teachers don’t leave the profession. We know that so many already do.
The problem the offered position is approaching — but not actually addressing — is that there are some bad teachers who get tenure and some good teachers who get tenure who become bad teachers.
Will testing solve those problems? Only if the tests actually properly identify bad teachers. But there is no evidence that they work for that.
Improving school leaders, on the other hand, might actually work. If the old evaluation system is not functioning properly and is not achieving the desired end, why not address that? The problem, as is usually the case with long-standing poor performers, is management.
Bad teachers should not get tenure. If they do, it’s the fault of those who have given them good evaluations.
Good teachers should not become bad teachers of long standing. Their issues should be addressed and the supports they need supplied. After all, a good teacher is worth so much that it is worth the trouble to try to take someone who WAS a good teacher and bring them back to that.
And if that effort doesn’t work, it’s not that hard to remove them. The process of firing a teacher begins with the same thing as the process of supporting a teacher — which those interested in what is best for kids should want anyway.
Where are my facts? They are the same facts you believe.
Peer review evaluation systems are powerful in so many ways and I think you’re just scratching the surface on how it can be used. What’s sad is that in order to convince lawmakers of the validity of an approach, it must be demonstrated that the system “removes bad teachers” (and you provided the proof to make that argument).
The extension of PAR leads to the type of real reform and change that everyone imagines; number one being the creation of a culture of growth and development. Having peers in the classroom observing (outside is fine, but even better are the teachers in the building or down the street) can establish credibility and respect and not inspire fear.
Enable them with technology to get rid of pen and paper and now you maintain evidence of strengths and weaknesses. Administrators and the teachers themselves know where specifically they need to improve, and now all of a sudden you have foundation for differentiated learning for teachers.
Taken even farther – establish learning communities by identifying where each of your teachers excel (everyone is strong in something) and have them teach the staff instead of using external PD.
My favorite part about this – social pressures drive ineffective teachers to improve or leave. Everyone’s held accountable, but not for job security – for doing the best they can to help students.
Maybe it’s naive, maybe it’s idealistic, but as someone who’s not a teacher I’m in awe of how driven these men and women are to create success for their students (and fellow teachers, just look at PLNs!). There’s some people who create these cultures for their staff but VAM and other requirements are challenging their resolve.
Clearly, PAR is not discussed as a viable alternative simply because there are not massive amounts of money to be made from it, by people in the private sector. Clearly, not a viable alternative because it won’t help people like Cuomo in 2016, it’s simply not as sexy as bashing teachers and ‘holding them accountable’ through testing students with invalid questions.