A friend who observed the proceedings in the Vergara trial sent me the following notes, based on the testimony of Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond. She is probably the nation’s leading expert on issues related to teacher recruitment, preparation, retention, and support. Her testimony, based on many years of study and experience, was devastating to the plaintiff’s case.
Linda Darling-Hammond’s testimony
Overview
Yesterday, expert witness Linda Darling-Hammond, a renowned scholar and Stanford professor, has refuted the main arguments of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Darling-Hammond, whose insights come from both research and experience, stated that measures based on student test scores do not identify effective teachers, that two years is enough time to identify teachers who should be counseled out of the profession, and that extending that period beyond two years would harm students.
Excerpts
On what a good evaluation process looks like.
“With respect to tenure decisions, first of all, you need to have – in the system, you need to have clear standards that you’re going to evaluate the teacher against, that express the kind of teaching practices that are expected; and a way of collecting evidence about what the teacher does in the classroom. That includes observations and may also include certain artifacts of the teacher’s work, like lesson plans, curriculum units, student work, et cetera.”
“You need well-trained evaluators who know how to apply that instrument in a consistent and effective way.
“You want to have a system in which the evaluation is organized over a period of time so that the teacher is getting clarity about what they’re expected to do, feed back about what they’re doing, and so on.
In California – note related to the tenure decision, but separately – there is a mentoring program that may be going on side-by-side; but really, that does not feed into the tenure decisions. It’s really the observation and feedback process.”
On the problem with extending the tenure beyond two years
“It’s important that while we want teachers to at some point have due process rights in their career, that that judgment be made relatively soon; and that a floundering teacher who is grossly ineffective is not allowed to continue for many years because a year is a long time in the life of a student.
“So I think that having the two-year mark—which means you’re making a decision usually within 19 months of the starting point of that teacher – has the interest of allowing a – of encouraging districts to make that decision in a reasonable time frame so that students aren’t exposed to struggling teachers for long than they might need to be.”
Other reasons why two years is enough
“My opinion is that, for the first reason I mentioned earlier—the encouragement to make a judgment about a grossly ineffective teacher before many years go by is a useful reason to have a shorter tenure period – or pre-tenure period.
“But at the end of the say, the most important thing is not the amount of time; the most important thing is the quality and the intensity of the evaluation and support process that goes on for beginning teachers.
On the benefits and importance of having a system that includes support for struggling teachers
“Well, it’s important both as a part of a due process expectation; that if somebody is told they’re not meeting a standard, they should have some help to meet that standard.
The principal typically does not have as much time and may not have the expertise in the content area that a mentor teacher would have. For example, in physics or mathematics, usually the mentor is in the same area, so the help is more intensive and more specific.
“And in such programs, we often find that half of the teachers do improve. Others may not improve, and then the decision is more well- grounded. And when it is made, there is almost never a grievance or a lawsuit that follows because there’s ben such a strong process of help.
“The benefits to students are that as teachers are getting assistance and they’re improving their practice, students are likely to be better taught.
“And in the cases where the assistance may not prove adequate to help an incompetent teacher become competent, the benefit is that that teacher is going to be removed from the classroom sooner, if, sort of, they allowed the situation to just go on for a long time, which is truncated by this process of intensive assistance….
“The benefits to districts are that by doing this, you actually end up making the evaluation process more effective, making personnel decisions in a more timely way, making them with enough of a documentation record and a due process fidelity, that very rarely does there occur a problem after that with lawsuits; which means the district spends a little bit of money to save a lot of money and to improve the effectiveness of teaching for its students.
On peer assistance and review (PAR) and other mentoring programs
“A PAR program and other programs that mentor teachers typically improve the retention of teachers; that is, they keep more of the beginning teachers, which is where a lot of attrition occurs. But they do ensure that the teachers who leave are the ones that you’d like to have leave, as opposed to the ones who leave for other reasons.”
On firing the bottom 5% of teachers
“My opinion is that there are at least three reasons why firing the bottom 5 percent of teachers, as defined by the bottom 5 percent on an effectiveness continuum created by using the value-added test scores of their students on state tests, will not improve the overall effectiveness of teachers….
One reason is that, as I described earlier, those value-added metrics are inaccurate for many teachers. In addition, they’re highly unstable. So the teachers who are in the bottom 5 percent in one year are unlikely to be the same teachers as who would be in the bottom 5 percent the next year, assuming they were left in place.
“And the third reason is that when you create a system that is not oriented to attract high-quality teachers and support them in their work, that location becomes a very unattractive workplace. And an empirical proof of that is the situation currently in Houston, Texas, which has been firing many teachers at the bottom end of the value-added continuum without creating stronger overall achievement, and finding that they have fewer and fewer people who are willing to come apply for jobs in the district because with the instability of those scores, the inaccuracy and bias that they represent for groups of teachers, it’s become an unattractive place to work.
“The statement is often made with respect to Finland that if you fire the bottom 5 percent [of teachers], we will be on a par with achievement in Finland. And Finland does none of those things. Finland invests in the quality of beginning teachers, trains them well, brings them into the classroom and supports them, and doesn’t need to fire a lot of teachers.”
About Finland – admission to teaching in Finland is far more rigorous than in the US, and they can be selective because the profession is highly respected and not constantly under attack.
Even so, they have teachers who struggle – after all academic excellence on one’s own behalf is not necessarily a guarantee that one will be an effective educator for the learning of others.
Thus it is worth remembering what the Finnish Minister of Education said when asked what they do with struggling teachers:
“We help them.”
But, what, he was asked, do you do if they still struggle?
“We help them some more.”
I have been the cooperating teacher for five student teachers from the University of Maryland at College Park, three from the undergraduate program and two from the masters’ program. The only one who failed to ‘make it’ was a 4.0 student who refused to listen to the notion that he had to meet the kids where they were in order to be able to inspire/entice them to move further. He dropped out before doing his full load of student teaching.
I have been a building union rep and have served as an informal mentor to both beginning and struggling experienced teachers. I have helped some turn around and have counseled others out of the profession. I have as a union rep helped remove a tenured teacher (who never should have gotten tenure) who was not merely ineffective but a danger to students.
We have those who should never go into teaching – they don’t like kids.
Teacher education is a cash cow, both in original certification and in the courses required to maintain certification. There are too many institutions whose programs should be shut down, but it has nothing to do with the test score of the students taught by their graduates.
In 18 years of teaching, a profession to which I came after more than 20 years in data processing including serving as a second level manager (having managers who reported to me) and as a consultant to businesses and government agencies in the US and abroad and universities, having hired and fired people in the private sector and as a local government civil servant, I think I have a broad enough perspective to address this issue.
My perspective is simple
– we do a piss poor job of recruiting, training, inducting and supporting those who teach our children.
– the average teacher does not begin to hit his or her stride until around the middle of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd year of teaching (which of course argues against TFA).
– despite the problems identified above, the vast majority of those who come into teaching could be helped to be successful if we provided them with appropriate support, time to observe and collaborate with experienced teachers, and most of all time to reflect upon what they are doing.
If we want a professional teaching force, we need to deal with our teaching force as if they were professionals, not interchangeable cogs in a machine.
And while subject matter knowledge is important, it is insufficient. One must care about the students, one must develop a range of pedagogical techniques in order to reach the diversity of learners in one’s classroom. And in these cases, test scores may be a totally inaccurate measure of one’s effectiveness.
I came out of retirement to work in schools with less advantaged populations. I am finding the imposition of mandates flowing from the federal government through state governments to local school boards so contrary to what my students really need that I am about ready to give up in frustration, either totally leaving the profession or perhaps leaving public out of the educational settings in which I am willing to work. And note – by the ridiculous standard of tests I normally perform not merely at a very good level.
It is worth noting. Our state tests and the AP tests will not move.
Our schools have been closed for 9 days this year because of winter weather. But we are on an A day B day schedule, with 90 minutes every other day. That schedule does NOT slide if school is closed. Six of the 9 days of closure have been for B Day. I have 3 classes in AP government, 2 on A, one on B. Those 9 days translate into 18 instructional intervals, or 10% of the time they will be in school for the year, not all of which are for instruction. And of course both AP exams and state exams occur before the end of the school year.
On my most recent assessments, my B day class performs much worse than do my two A day classes. Think the missing time from school has anything to do with it?
I suspect my AP scores will be down, because I will not be able to have them go into as great a depth as I would minus the missing school days. I wonder if the AP folks are going to be willing to provide a geographic analysis of scores comparing years as well as regions, to provide context to what those scores actually mean? How can a situation where I have perhaps 15% less instructional time provide a valid basis of comparison?
Am I any less effective because one year I have no snow days and another year we are closed for more than a week because of Snowmageddon?
Just a few thoughts.
Beautifully stated.
Excellent comment, Ken. I appreciate your including information on the Finnish respect for teaching as a profession that is coupled with the expectation of teacher rigor.
Several years ago I had to flunk a student teacher. She could not connect with the class, and this presented discipline problems. The sad part is that she did not see the disconnect.
It was so much work for me to have a student teacher who could not control a class (documentation; remediation; extra meetings). I was also concerned for the loss of learning my students experienced. They begged me to return to my classroom. I found it difficult to be away knowing they were not learning.
Thanks Ken for this assessment…reflects in most instances how many of us feel.
Diane, thank you so much for your continued coverage of this case.
seconded!
“My opinion is that there are at least three reasons why firing the bottom 5 percent of teachers, as defined by the bottom 5 percent on an effectiveness continuum created by using the value-added test scores…”
“value-added test scores” created by “caring reformers”?
In all professions there are regular meetings to discuss strategies and share ideas. This is how one grows in the profession. This should be built into the system. Any evaluator should have 5 years experience “at that teaching level”, and the administrative demands should be adjusted for each teacher based on the evaluators perceptions to insure that new and dynamic methods are not disregarded. Ms. Meiers did not bring much to the table. Those who are not in the classroom are out of the loop. Ms Meiers should do an internship at a school, like Margaret Meade would go to the Polynesian islands to reconfirm her theories. I had MM in college btw.
Sorry LDH not Meiers, but the same message for both. The lowest 5% being axed was the idea of Jack Welch of GE. Our LDH’s experts are not on the ground running with this and seeing the material being used as a judgment tool. I was shocked to learn that teachers are being judged by lessons with a smartboard, next they will be judged by how they seat a child in front of a computer, then they will be judged on how they prevent the door from hitting them on their way out..
Joseph, the idea of firing the bottom 5-10% comes both from Jack Welch in industry but also from Eric Hanushek of Stanford, who has written about the benefits of “deselecting” the bottom 5-10% of teachers whose students see the smallest test score gains.
Diane…some LAUSD teachers who will only write their impressions as between themselves, not on blog sites, for fear of being fired and thrown in teacher jail, are very disturbed by Stanford’s latest Credo reports on LAUSD and lauding charters in LA and throughout California. They feel that Stanford, for whatever reason, has become anti teacher and pro charter schools.
I can only report that it is a different approach than when I participated in educational research based on longitutdinal studies eminating from SRI about 20 years ago. The Hoover Instituted has brought many conservatives into their mix, sadly not for the better of unbiased scholarship.
The one argument I didn’t understand was her defense of two years rather than longer for making a tenure decision. While I agree that a good evaluation system should allow an administrator to make a tenure decision in two years, her argument against longer periods before the tenure decision is made didn’t make sense. It sounded like she assumed that a teacher could not be fired except at the time for a tenure decision. I suppose that could be true in California (which negates my argument) but in my state you can be fired at any time since you are not entitled to due process. We are “provisional” teachers, so to speak, for four years before being granted tenure and at will employees up until that time. A district does not have to suffer an incompetent teacher for four years; they do not owe that teacher four years to prove themselves.
Here it’s 3 years, but a principal can extend the probationary period if he/she deems it will help. I think 3 years is a good number since the first year is really a big training ground, and by the 2nd year you are starting to gain confidence. The 3rd year is when you should be able to hold your own. 2 years seems too low and 5 years too high.
TeacherKen wrote an excellent comment. Even teachers who once were good could change, so it’s not only the new teachers who need support.
Linda Darling-Hammond is one that must be listened to. The Secretary of Education would be wise to take advice from her.
LDH should have been named Secty of Education. Obama pulled a “switcheroo” when he hired her as his consultant during his campaign and dumped her for Duncan.
LDH has turned around many schools with her staff development plans that allow teachers to meet and discuss (during the school day) ways lessons can be altered or improved by looking at students’ work. During these hours, the rest of the school get their enrichment in courses like Art, Music, Gym, etc. Of course with Common Core and VAM, the student is the last person to come into this equation since many of the lessons are one-size-fits all.
Let me focus on one point brought up by Linda Darling-Hammond. That concerns the “firing the bottom 5% of teachers.”
First, stacked rank/forced ranking/rank-and-yank/burn-and-churn has been extensively tested on Planet Gates aka Microsoft. Colossal failure.
[start quote]
Eichenwald’s conversations reveal that a management system known as “stack ranking”—a program that forces every unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, good performers, average, and poor—effectively crippled Microsoft’s ability to innovate. “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,” Eichenwald writes. “If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, 2 people were going to get a great review, 7 were going to get mediocre reviews, and 1 was going to get a terrible review,” says 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/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall-emails-steve-ballmer
See also:
Link: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579193951987616572
But the colossal failure was predicted decades before these recent revelations and changes.
From W. Edwards Deming, THE ESSENTIAL DEMING: LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES FROM THE FATHER OF QUALITY (Joyce Orsini, ed., 2013, p. 27, “The Merit System: The Annual Appraisal: Destroyer of People):
[start quote]
Many companies in America have systems by which everyone in management or in research receives from his superiors a rating every year. On the basis of this rating, employees are ranked for raises—for example, outstanding high, outstanding, etc., on down to unsatisfactory. Management by fear would be a better name. … The basic fault of the annual appraisal is that it penalizes people for normal variation of a system.
The merit rating nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, [and] nourishes rivalry and politics. … It is unfair, as it ascribes to the people in a group differences that may be caused totally by the system that they work in.
The idea of a merit rating is alluring. The sound of the words captivate the imagination: pay for what you get; get what you pay for; motivate people to do their best, for their own good.
The effect is exactly the opposite of what the words promise. Everyone propels himself forward, or tries to, for his own good, on his own life preserver. The organization is the loser.
The merit rating rewards people that conform to the system. It does not reward attempts to improve the system. Don’t rock the boat.
Moreover, a merit rating is meaningless as a predictor of performance, except for someone who has placed himself outside the system.
[end quote]
Just think about two details [many many more could be added]: when using standardized test scores in VAManiacal formulae, think of the variability induced by changes in the composition of the students taught by teachers; and notice the sickening likeness of the picture painted by Deming of a workplace ruled by a so-called merit system and the references above to Microsoft.
So to Dee Dee’s statement “Have they no shame?????” when referring to the self-styled “education reformers” and their proven worst management practices we can add—
Do they ever learn from their own mistakes?
In both cases, NO!
Really.
Not Rheeally.
😎
P.S. Please excuse the very long comment.
superb comment, as always, not-so-Krazy!
Krazy TA, I know I am probably crazy myself but I see the whole Gates-funded Danielson Rubric nonsense as the means of stack-ranking teachers. Her very mild and nearly silent protestations to the contrary, there is little else that the famed and vaunted is used for as far as I can discover. It fits hand and glove into the VAM and stack ranking obsessed ALEC legislation and RTTT, does it not?
We are so unfortunate as to have been told this week by our assistant superintendent of instruction that she is abandoning our carefully-crafted attempt at ameliorating the worst of the Florida VAM law, which included teachers, parents, principals, and community members in its creation, in favor of wholesale adoption of the Danielson crap for no apparent reason other than it in fashion and the latest thing. Ugh.
Chris in Florida: not such a crazy idea.
I would add that when you combine ego and an outlandish sense of self to the agendas of immensely wealthy and powerful people—
And then add in the feeling that you are among “The Few. The Proud. The Entitled.” —
You have a very potent mix that can do fatal damage to both the ideal and reality of public education.
After all, if Pitbull can be an educator, and if John Deasy and Steve Perry can be gifted with doctorates, and if Bill Gates can ensure one sort of education for HIS OWN CHILDREN while denying that to almost EVERYBODY ELSE’S CHILDREN—
Anything is possible. On RheeWorld.
Although on Planet Reality, not so easy to steamroller people with the latest vanity projects of the leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time.”
As much as it hurts now, imagine that the White House monitors the owner of this blog.
The tide is turning, but painfully slow.
Hang in there.
😎
Enron also used this system,,,,
Here are today’s Bill Gates pronoucements. He lives in another world.
Bill Gates: The Rolling Stone Interview
Goodell writes: “At 58, Bill Gates is not only the richest man in the
world, with a fortune that now exceeds $76 billion, but he may also be
the most optimistic.”
READ MORE
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313
I know this won’t be popular with many commenters here but I would warn you to take anything Linda Darling-Hammond says with a huge grain of salt. Susan Ohanian has documented D-H’s involvement in letting Pearson take over teacher preparation in Mass. here:
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=1072
There is also enough of the reformer rhetoric in her talk to make me extremely uncomfortable. Remember, her whole body of work is based upon the idea that A) we DO have an education crisis in the USA (disproven over and over again) and B) what teachers need to “improve” is an outsider coming in and watching them and then telling them what to do over and over again. I’m not convinced that this model proves or does anything of worth since the very presence of the outsider alters the actions of students and a classroom and is by its very nature extremely limited.
I’m glad you brought the Massachusetts controversy up again. I couldn’t remember (sadly) why Darling-Hammond made me so uncomfortable. A quick skim about the SCALE project a few days ago had me wondering why people seemed so excited by her.
Chris in Florida:
Her testimony also suggests that she is all in favor of increasing the number of hoops beginning teachers must go through to prove themselves. (And apparently the “intensity” of those hoops–hey, how about flaming hoops?)
This will likely lead to conditions that make teachers want to quit. (See Diane’s post today about the beginning teacher in Houston who couldn’t take it any more.) Instead of promoting self-care and personal development for teachers, she wants to burden them with more paperwork and administrivia meant to ensure that they’re following orders. That’s not a recipe for great teaching.
Just pointing out, that if one reads Darling-Hammond’s description of edTPA, one gets a totally different impression of it than the post in the Ohanian blog above. I don’;t know which account of it is correct, or somewhere in between, but to read both sides, please read LDH’s description of it, as reprinted in Valerie Strauss’s “The Answer Sheet” in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-new-way-to-evaluate-teachers–by-teachers/2012/08/14/5844dc86-e677-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html
Unfortunately, I couldn’t read both sides because the links in Ohanian’s blog (?) go to a site that requires a subscription. The criticisms of other beyond the UMass professor would cost me $17.95. If someone has access in another way, let us know. As noted, LDH does not address the criticism, which should be included in any truly persuasive essay. 🙂
I can’t say I’m a huge fan of some of this testimony. The first thing that jumped out at me:
” . . . you need to have clear standards that you’re going to evaluate the teacher against, that express the kind of teaching practices that are expected…”
So much for teacher autonomy. This kind of authoritarian approach will stifle creativity and reduce the cognitive diversity of the faculty (cognitive diversity being a key to institutional functioning and improvement).
What’s being suggested is that all teachers would be required to teach the same way, even though they serve a diverse population. To try to standardize teaching practice is a bad idea for lots of reasons, but it should go without saying that not all students will respond well to a single approach..
It also means that teachers who don’t follow the formula won’t make the grade, no matter how good they are with students. If a teacher’s general style and philosophy of education doesn’t fit the prescribed standards and he wants to keep his job, he’ll have to do the obligatory dog-and-pony-show every time he’s evaluated. This isn’t new, but codifying the “expected” teaching practices will raise the stakes and make it tough for teachers who don’t buy in to the prescribed methods.
Who would decide on the “expected practices,” anyway? And by what authority would they make a teacher’s job dependent on those practices? Based on this excerpt alone, I’m going to be skeptical about her views on how to improve the teaching profession.
Randal, are you sure you are not reading things into her words that are not there? Did she say that all teachers must teach the same way, and that teaching practice should be standardized and codified? I didn’t see that in her words. Consider that you may be making incorrect assumptions about implications that may not have been meant at all.
You have to realize who she was talking to as well–the judge in the Vergara case. If instead of how she testified, she were to testify instead something like: “There need be no standards for good teaching, and no need for teacher evaluations. All teachers are good and need no evaluation, no accountability, but can teach how they see fit”, do you think that would help us win (defeat) that case? (I am not saying that you said that, just using an extreme hypothetical example to make a point.)
No, she repeats the idea of using the evaluation system to make teachers do what they’re “expected” to do:
“You want to have a system in which the evaluation is organized over a period of time so that the teacher is getting clarity about what they’re expected to do, feed back about what they’re doing, and so on.”
When you’re talking about a high-stakes evaluation system, “expected to do” means “directed to do.”
I don’t understand your hypothetical example. A good recruitment and evaluation system would make sure that teachers who don’t show sufficient promise won’t make it past the trial period. But it will also guard against over-managing a teacher’s classroom practice once that trial period is over.
The language she uses indicates she isn’t in favor of teacher autonomy. As such, she does sound like she’s leaning toward the reformers.
Teachers should be expected to follow curricular guidelines, but they should have input into those guidelines. They should also be free to try new things. Tying teacher evaluations to what teachers are “expected to do” in the classroom limits their options. In some cases, as has been reported over and over, it forces them to do things teachers know are bad for children.
After reading the comments here about LDH, it becomes worriesome that since the attorneys for the defense certainly prepped her, and since her testimony is questioned by educators here who are insightful, and with Ohanian’s perspective, could it be that this trial is a foregone conclusion similar to the Trayvon Martin case? There, the prosecutors put on their case with such laxity and misdirection that they seemed to be working for Zimmerman. If the defense witnesses in Vergara are not strong, and only a few have been, and with Ted Olsen and his partner taking them apart, might a biased judge, not unheard of in California courts, side with the plaintiffs?
Who would pick up the tab for the defense to carry this to a higher court when Gates, Broad, Welch et al are the deep pockets for the plaintiffs? We are still reeling from Deasy’s testimony for the plaintiffs against his own district teachers. The clever big Broad law firms and PR firms have coined the new phrase ‘this is a civil liberties case” as they did with the golden iPads which totally mischaracterizes the case.
Back in the 90’s I heard about a book that all Microsoft employees were required to read. There was a room full of these books. The awful title was Peopleware. I read the first half and the gist is that your employees are the most important part of your organization; they are your organization. Productivity comes through better workspace, cohesive teams, varied experience, freedom to fail, etc.
From an Amazon book review: Summed up in one sentence, Peopleware says this: give smart people physical space, intellectual responsibility and strategic direction. DeMarco and Lister advocate private offices and windows. They advocate creating teams with aligned goals and limited non-team work. They advocate managers finding good staff and putting their fate in the hands of those staff.
Remember all the stories about interesting workplaces back then…
I also don’t find it reassuring that Linda Darling-Hammond is listed as an author on the grit study.