As we have discussed in the past few days, the judge will expect teachers in Los Angeles to agree to incorporate measures of student performance into teacher evaluations. This is in response to a lawsuit initiated by EdVoice on behalf of anonymous parents, citing the Stull Act, passed many years ago before today’s era of high-stakes testing. Look through the comments in earlier posts to learn more about EdVoice.
Here is the judge’s writ, as promised: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101233092/Doe-v-Deasy-Writ-All-Counsel-Edits
The definition of pupil performance, how to measure it, and how it relates to teachers’ evaluations, will be subject to collective bargaining.
A reader comments:
| Realistically, there were many acceptable ways under the Stull Act that California teachers could show pupil performance. Yes, standardized test scores could be used if that is what the teacher chose to use to demonstrate student performance but there were many others: teacher observation, principal observation, student work samples and portfolios, criterion referenced tests, and text book publishers tests were all very acceptable ways to demonstrate pupil performance. No teacher or principal in California ever thought that standardized tests were the only way to demonstrate student performance – when did that change? I don’t believe it has.
|
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I remember when standardized tests were a reflection of *my* performance and aptitudes as a student. Could our society possibly remove *more* responsibility from students and their families?
LikeLike
“I remember when standardized tests were a reflection of *my* performance and aptitudes as a student.”
No the standardized test scores weren’t a valid reflection of anything due to the myriad errors involved in the process. See Wilson’s in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at:
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577 or “A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review” found at: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v10n5index.html to understand why those scores didn’t say anything worth listening to.
LikeLike
And I can remember a time when the National Merit Scholarship Corporation included a friendly notice to hometown news media along with its press releases of competition finalists, advising them against using student stats as local bragging rights, since student performances were more often a matter of individual achievement than anything else.
LikeLike
Well now; isn’t it nice to have the actual text of the law to analyze. Seems there are far more options than just test scores and it’s a matter of the teacher’s choice, not some newspaper or ed reform guru.
LikeLike
I worked for a district outside of Los Angeles where the Stull Act was observed. Every other year I had my “Stull Evaluation,” which meant that I brought evidence to demonstrate the progress of each child in my class. This was not difficult to do with various measures, such as monthly compositions, end-of-chapter tests, teacher-made tests, classwork, pre and post-tests etc. Basically I used student work and assessments that were an integral part of my normal instruction.
Teachers MUST go on the offensive in this matter. John Deasy is deftly trying to place the blame on teachers and “the unions” even though his name is on the lawsuit. Legally it is the job of administrators to evaluate teachers. The union cannot negate state law and I’ll bet Deasy knows that.
Teachers should INSIST on the tools and procedures for individually assessing every single child in the class. They should go to court if necessary to insist that they have the proper materials to assess the children as well as administrative involvement. Yes, an administrator needs to be familiar with the progress of each child in the class. This is basically what the Stull Act is about. The teacher should also make certain that the administrator is informed of extenuating circumstances (i.e. “Jose went to Mexico December 20 and didn’t come back until March 15). For every child who does not make adequate progress, teachers should insist on administrative involvement as well as signed statements acknowledging such circumstances.
Sound expensive? Oh well. Of course there is no ten-dollar group test that can evaluate a teacher, or any other professional. Teachers can play this evaluation game and I’m betting that they will come out on top.
Did Deasy even know about the Stull Act? If not, will he be deemed incompetent? If so, will he be held accountable for ignoring it? I hope so.
(Are you a young teacher who doesn’t want to deal with the above? Try to get a job in an affluent suburb and take your former students, relatives and friends with you.)
LikeLike