Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is conservative; he believes in state and local control of education. He doesn’t think that Washington knows best. He favors legislation to encourage states but not to compel them to do what Washington wants. In this article, he expressed his strong opposition to Arne Duncan’s favorite initiative, evaluating teachers by test scores and offering waivers only to states that agree to do it. Let me be clear that I disagree with his praise for the Teacher Incentive Fund (merit pay), because merit pay has never worked anywhere. The TIF was a waste of $1 billion, and now more money will be thrown at a failed policy. I have no doubt that I won’t like whatever is in the final bill to support privatization and profiteering, but I like Alexander’s clear dismissal of federally mandated teacher evaluation, which is a poison pill invented by Duncan and opposed by every major scholarly organization (the American Statistical Association, the American Education Research Association, the National Academy of Education). Leaving it (teacher and principal evaluation) to the states raises the possibility that some states will be even more heavy-handed and punitive than Duncan, but it’s hard to imagine how.
He said, in part:
Given all of the great progress that states and local school districts have made on standards, accountability, tests, and teacher evaluation over the last 30 years—you’ll get a lot more progress with a lot less opposition if you leave those decisions there.
I think we should return to states and local school districts decisions for measuring the progress of our schools and for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of teachers.
I know it is tempting to try to improve teachers from Washington. I also hear from governors and school superintendents who say that if “Washington doesn’t make us do it, the teachers unions and opponents from the right will make it impossible to have good evaluation systems and better teachers.”
And I understand what they’re saying. After I left office, the NEA watered down Tennessee’s Master Teacher program.
Nevertheless, the Chairman’s Staff Discussion draft eliminates the Highly Qualified Teacher requirements and definition, and allows states to decide the licenses and credentials that they are going to require their teachers to have.
And despite my personal support for teacher evaluation, the draft doesn’t mandate teacher and principal evaluations.
Rather, it enables States to use the more than $2.5 billion under Title II to develop, implement, or improve these evaluation systems.
In a state like Tennessee, that would mean $39 million potentially available for continuing the work Tennessee has well underway for evaluating teachers, including linking performance and student achievement.
In addition, it would expand one of the provisions in No Child Left behind – the Teacher Incentive Fund that Secretary Spellings recommended putting into law and that Secretary Duncan said, in testimony before the HELP Committee in January 2009, was “One of the best things I think Secretary Spellings’ has done…the more we can reward excellence, the more we can incentivize excellence, the more we can get our best teachers to work in those hard-to-staff schools and communities, the better our students are going to do.”
And third, it would emphasize the idea of a Secretary’s report card—calling considerable attention to the bully pulpit a secretary or president has to call attention to states that are succeeding or failing.
For example, I remember President Reagan visited Farragut High School in Knoxville in 1984 to call attention to our Master Teacher program. It caused the Democratic speaker of our House of Representatives to say, “This is the American way,” and come up with an amendment to my proposal that was critical to its passage. President Reagan didn’t order every other state to do what Tennessee was doing, but the president’s bully pulpit made a real difference.
Thomas Friedman recently told a group of senators that one of his two rules of life is that he’s never met anyone who washed a rented car.
In other words, people take care of what they own.
My experience is that finding a way to fairly reward better teaching is the holy grail of K-12 education—but Washington will get the best long-term result by creating an environment in which states and communities are encouraged, not ordered, to evaluate teachers.
Let’s not mandate it from Washington if we want them to own it and make it work.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Though it does open the door for states to make poor use of testing (don’t see New York slowing down any time soon), the fact that Senator Alexander would strip the Department of Education of its ability to blackmail states into using VAM-related evaluations for NCLB waivers would almost certainly be a monumental (dare I say “game-changing”?) shift in national education policy. Sure, some states will be as bad (or worse!) than ever, but other states (like Washington and Maine) will be shining counterexamples that everyone around the country will be able to see. Secretary Duncan continues to do everything in his power to prevent anyone from seeing what life would be like away from his agenda. He’s desperate to prevent CHOICE in educational policy! I’m hopeful that Senator Alexander is able to end Secretary Duncan’s (and Bill Gate’s) monopolistic test-based view.
Ugh. I’m sorry, Diane, but after reading that, I need a bath. It’s just smoothly polished Tea Party rhetoric. And just as contradictory. Forcing states to do teacher evaluations through the power of the Department of Education is bad. But using the bully pulpit of the presidency is good. Really the only difference between Alexander and Duncan is Alexander would rather use honey than vinegar. But they’re both equally devoid of anything based in research, common sense or reality.
“Thomas Friedman recently told a group of senators that one of his two rules of life is that he’s never met anyone who washed a rented car. In other words, people take care of what they own.”
He is correct in not ever having met me. After driving back from the NPE conference in Austin last year through snow and crude (cinders and salt) I washed the rental car before dropping it off.
I, me, mine people like Friedman who “take care of what they own” couldn’t get beyond their own egos to see fit to do what’s right in the case of a rental car. Selfish SOB!
That’s prolly why Thomas Friedman had such a callous attitude toward Iraq. He figured it was just a rental.
He beat the war drums for the invasion of Iraq because it was the right thing to do.
Is that sarcasm?
Do you have an answer jb2 for my question?
It’s a simple yes or no type question!!
The casual dismissal of personal responsibility for the effects and consequences of one’s words and deeds is a hallmark of the self-styled “education reformers” and their counterparts in other areas of life.
Being held responsible is just for the “little people” [shades of Leona Helmsley].
Grotesque caricatures of caring and decent human beings.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
I guess I’m a “I, me, mine” person like Friedman who nevertheless has taken more crappy mid-sized rental cars to the car wash than I can count. In a previous life, my job occasionally required me to visit random cities in all corners of the country for 1-2 weeks at a time, and I simply didn’t want to drive around in a dirty car. Far more importantly, my employer would reimburse me for the cost of the wash.
I got your “world is flat” right here, Tommy Boy!
We must have been brought up by the same kind of people, Duane. We were taught to take extra special care of someone else’s property. Just because we paid for the use of something didn’t mean we could trash it. Having said that, I’m not sure I would have washed the rental car after driving it in bad weather conditions, but the inside would not have been free of debris.
Just what I was thinking – He’s never met me – I had a muddy rental washed a couple of years ago. But think of the kinds of people he meets; no doubt they are the type of people who never have to disturb their huge, important minds with such trivialities as car-washing.
Yes, this is a good thing. Alexander and Duncan both represent corporate interests, always, but those interests have split into two camps. I think. My hope that we can finesse their political clout against each other, and put the brakes on both sides.
I don’t see how either faction can win unless they dupe some of our movement over to support them, but that’s what seems to be happening, even on the left flank. Let me share an argument I got on Facebook yesterday from a long-time political operative, about Alexander:
“Yes there are components, but its called compromise and politics not advocacy. Advocate for what you want, and then negotiate.
Alexander, as the Chair IS the person who makes the decision. We need to get this to the floor and the Presidents desk ASAP. NCLB was NEVER reauthorized. Not in 2007 or 2012 when it was due. We NEED a new education law passed NOW!”
No, the only people who NEED a new education law NOW are the corporate raiders. Their influence pyramid will crumble if they can’t meet deadline on their deliverables.
That would be a good thing.
We’re holding the only card that matters, which is the will of the people. Parent concern for their children is trumps at the voting booth this year. Please, compatriots of all these weary years of struggle, don’t sell democracy short now. Don’t “negotiate” for an illusory seat of influence for your favored candidates in the bankrupt, corrupt political process.
And, please, don’t believe Lamar Alexander is driven by any principled conservative stance, unless he’s suffered some kind of near-death spiritual awakening.
Politicians need a new law too, because they have to prove they can get something done.
I’m curious why all the federalists didn’t stop Arne Duncan years ago. I suspect it’s because they agree with 90% of his mandates and it’s easier to blame him than accept responsibility.
If Arne wants it, it is because the President wants it.
And if the president wants it, this means big $$$$$ is backing the DEFORM for bottom-line…the quarterly profit reports.
How sad! Republican party education policies that should be resisted now look good when compared to Democratic party education policies.
I think you’re going to end up with a compromise position where Democrats get annual testing (which they will use at the state level, for teacher evaluations, among other things) and Republicans get federal funding for vouchers and charters.
That’s the top two goals of the respective parties- Democrats want testing and Republicans want vouchers and charters. I’m sure Republicans have an ideological goal to promote or appear to promote federalism, also.
I don’t even think they should limit state testing at the federal level, after looking at the proposed law. It just looks like another huge pile of money devoted to testing. States will pare back testing anyway without any help from national ed reformers because they are under (local) political pressure from parents and teachers. That was well underway, thanks to local activists and public school supporters. Evaluating testing to reduce it will just turn into another giant testing-related expense and time sink for public schools.
“States will pare back testing anyway without any help from national ed reformers because they are under (local) political pressure from parents and teachers.”
With any luck, they’ll pare them back just enough to make them seem no different than all the other unpleasant, unfair, and unnecessary things about life we regard as inevitable.
My son took the CC practice training. They’re using Chromebooks.
He and his friends told me they think tablets are for old people and “babies” which I did not know – that tablets had this old people/babies reputation among 12 year olds 🙂
Well, for what it’s worth, Moses used tablets and he was old (700 years?).
Though that’s just one case so it might not prove much.
Chiara, Your prediction of testing & vouchers means we’d get the worst of both worlds.
Teachers need to be a major force in finding new candidates and forming a new major party. Working with Zephyr Teachout, if she is amenable, would be one place to start.
Teachers are not the only ones fed up with government and politicians.
It starts locally. Teachers need to group, join with like minds, and field candidates for their local school boards, races for judge, state legislatures, etc.
USDE’s own research says pay for performance does not improve test scores–which is what “performance” means. One of the biggest experiments was in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC. Fiasco–budget cuts, changes in administration, external “consultants” run amok trying to explain the new rules, SLOs as the basis for this scheme for teachers who were out of the loop of VAM.
“The federal government is not going to tell you what to do. I personally love what you’re doing. I’m also personally prepared to cut you a massive check if you keep doing it. But hey, that’s just me, maybe I’m crazy.”
This opt-outer is a joy to read because she’s so blunt:
“First of all, our children are over-tested, so there was going to be a time I put my foot down,” said May, who also teaches kindergarten in the Lafayette Parish School System. “When I saw the sample questions for the PARCC tests, I realized this was the time to put my foot down.”
I nominate her to testify in DC. She’ll come in well under the 5 minute limit 🙂
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2015/01/26/lpss-receives-first-testing-refusal-more-expected-soon/22346389/
Tennessee isn’t going to pare down testing even if Moses himself walked into the governor’s office and hit him with his wet staff. The state of Tennessee leads the way in evaluating teachers based on scores. We are praised by our state legislature while they continue to tell us to bend over because they want to beat us some more.
While I appreciate your stance on Alexander’s proposal, he’s still one of the ones here in this state who wants to continue to use test scores as our primary means of evaluation.
There were less than 22 sixth-grade ELA teachers in the state last year who scored a 4 or 5 on VAM. The state refuses to admit that there is a mistake. Every sixth-grade English teacher in my district is on a Plan of Assistance because of low VAM.
I will not praise any legislator in our federal government or the state of Tennessee if any of his proposals contain any part of evaluating teachers based on VAM on standardized testing.
Melissa
About pay for performance – and where does THAT money come from? Will is be so disparate that certain teachers will earn $30,000 and others will earn $70,000 for doing the same job? I hear that due to Arne’s budget cuts, teachers are already buying paper, chalk, pens and toilet paper. If schools don’t have money to purchase supplies, where will the come up with bonus pay? Its ridiculousness, just like the Zuckerberg Millions that were mis-spent in Newark. All that cash got into Cami Anderson’s cronies’ hands. Period.
This is already happening. In Florida veteran teachers who have been fortunate enough to make it to step 22 are making roughly 72 thousand per year. Everyone else with 15 years experience or less is making roughly 40 thousand for the rest of their respective careers. Seems pretty disproportionate to me if you ask for doing the same exact job and one of the main reasons I left the the profession.
You ask a very good question. The money won’t be there. Florida did this by passing a merit pay law and not funding the bonuses. Read the law and it’s fine print in Florida the law for the merit pay increases are “contingent on State funding” wink wink. So on the surface it looks like the thieves are trying to pay teachers more but in reality when the teachers hit the established goals and try to collect those bonuses they get a pat on the back and a better luck next year bumper sticker. If there’s funding for the increases next year that is.
“Leaving it (teacher and principal evaluation) to the states raises the possibility that some states will be even more heavy-handed and punitive than Duncan, but it’s hard to imagine how.”
Why imagine? Just watch Cuomo at work.
Hopefully we will get to watch him in a perp-walk before he can inflict his damage.
A teacher can receive a highly effective in every observation and that is worth 60% of the teachers score. The state tests are worth 20% and local measures of student learning another 20%. However, if the students do not fare well on the state tests the teachers overall rating can fall into the ineffective or developing category. What a disparity from what the principal observes to scores. This teacher may teach ELL that have to take the test, because they fall into that 1 year and 1 day category or a host of other factors. I think that the principal should have the ability to intercede on the teachers behalf when things like these happen because in high poverty schools with large populations of ELL’s and Special Education population.
Cuomo’s proposal for NY state wide APPR:
50% state test scores using VAM
35% outside observer evaluation
15% school administrator evaluation
“. . . and local measures of student learning another 20%. . . ”
There are NO MEASURES of student learning.
There can be assessments but logically there can be no measures as tests are not measuring devices even though the vast majority of people think that they are.
The vast majority of people used to believe the world was flat and that the sun evolved around the moon. Didn’t make it true.
I can’t remember who said it. I think it was in a recent letter to Alexander that Diane posted, but I am not sure. Anyway, I thought of you, Duane, and what I think is a corollary to what you are saying. Do we want to look at learning as a product or do we believe that learning is a process?
I’m fairly confused at this point. I thought one of the big arguments against NCLB/RTTT was that it used the promise of federal aid to effectively coerce states into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Isn’t that what Alexander is proposing here?
Also, I understand that Diane thinks the HQT provision was “a joke” because it included TFA teachers. But does that alone justify throwing out a rule that teachers must meet minimum competency requirements like having a college degree, being state certified, and to be competent in the subject they teach? Was the rule always a joke? Is the problem one of federalism, i.e. that states, not the federal government, should have total control over these issues? If setting teacher qualifications should be purely up individual states, why would it be a good thing to have a “national bar exam” for teachers?
Yours,
Flummoxed in Flatiron
No. It but it does justify amending the HQT provision (summary below) that allows TFA, 5-week wunderkinds to be sent into some of the most challenging classroom in the country.
HQT Summary:
“The highly qualified teacher provision is one of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The term highly qualified teachers (HQT) comes from the original language of Title II (Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals) of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title II of NCLB designates federal funds to educational agencies for the purpose of improving the student achievement through the professional development of highly qualified teachers and principals. To qualify for this funding, states must comply with a series of conditions stipulated in NCLB, and track their progress toward goals each state sets. Title II was originally known as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program,[1] and has undergone several reauthorizations, though the original intent has remained relatively intact. The main goals of the highly qualified teacher provision is to ensure that every classroom is staffed by a teacher deemed “highly-qualified” under conditions set by NCLB.[2] As some point out (e.g., Eric Hanushek), this section of NCLB is quite at odds with the general thrust of NCLB because it focuses on school inputs rather than student outcomes. [3] The sections of NCLB designated to HQTs allocates the majority of the funds to the states and does not clearly define at the federal level what is and what is not a highly-qualified teacher, allowing for more local definitions of this term. This provision has come under much scrutiny, as is it up to states to decide how to measure highly-qualified, and states are not holding their teachers to the same level of rigor across the country. Since its reauthorization in 2001, Title II has yet to reach its stated goal of ensuring that 100% of teachers in public schools in the United States are highly qualified.”
“When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first created, Title II was known as the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortiums Program. Its goals were to provide financial assistance to states to support the professional development of their math and science teachers. In 1984, this was reauthorized as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program under Title II, Part A of the ESEA, and funding for the program began in 1985.[6] It was developed in the wake of the Nation at Risk Report of 1983 to allocate funds to educational agencies and non-profits through the states. In particular, the Eisenhower Program focused on the professional development of math and science teachers, as the findings of A Nation at Risk indicated that the United States was falling drastically behind the rest of the world in these fields.[7] This report, issued by former President Ronald Reagan, made a series of recommendations to improve the quality of education across the United States based on its findings. One of these recommendations was improved teaching. The report found that teachers were not adequately trained, not well paid, and were not qualified to teach their subject area.[7] The report recommended school boards should hold teachers to higher expectations, teacher training programs should be improved, and that teacher salaries and incentives should be increased.”
“Reauthorization through the Eisenhower Program built off of the recommendations of the Nation At Risk Report and expanded the focus of professional development to include all core subject areas. The original goals of the program were to support the professional development of teachers of core subject, target those teachers who teach “at-risk” students, integrate other reform efforts to ensure all aspect of the education system were geared toward the same goals, and track the progress of states and local education agencies against a series of performance indicators. States were required to measure their performance using a series of six objectives aimed to develop highly-qualified teachers and a system of highly-qualified teachers. When ESEA was reauthorized in 1994, this program was also reauthorized and renamed the Eisenhower Professional Development Program.[9] Finally, in 2001 with the latest reauthorization and rename of ESEA, the Eisenhower Program was renamed Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals.”
“Currently, it is the job of the states to define what it means to be “highly-qualified” and to monitor their own progress.[10] States are required to complete and submit three annual reports on the progress they are making. Schools of education need to report their graduation pass rates for teacher certification to the state in April. States then report “information on certification and licensure requirements, pass rates on state assessments disaggregated and ranked by institution, and other information” to the U.S. Department of Education in October. The U.S. Secretary of Education then releases an Annual Report on Teacher Quality which synthesizes this data.”
“According to NCLB, a highly qualified teacher must have “1) a bachelor’s degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.” Beyond that, NCLB does not define its terminology, and it leaves requirements up the states. States are allowed the liberty to determine how teachers can prove their content knowledge. Many states have chosen to approach this issue with standardized content exams. However, the exams, themselves, are not standardized. This means that “qualification” has a different meaning in each state. A teacher who may be deemed “highly qualified” by Alabama standards, may not be deemed “highly qualified” by California standards. Some scholars point out that “from a practical standpoint, interstate differences in what it meant to be certified provided the federal government with few assurances that, across the board, the nations’ teachers were qualified to teach.”[17] There is also widespread disagreement about what it means to be a highly qualified teacher.”
“According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s future, HQTs should “graduate from accredited institutions, pass licensing examinations that include both content and performance components, and be certified when they obtain advanced levels of competence.”[18] While others point out that standardized test scores and prestigious degrees neither effectively prepare HQTs for the classroom nor capture the qualities necessary to be an effective teacher.”
“Ultimately, while the Department of Education may boast 97% HQTs in core content classrooms, the true meaning of “qualified” remains vague and transient.”
I have heard — possibly from a commenter on this site — that the percentage of teachers in New York who teach “out of field” has declined partly as a result this NCLB provision. I don’t know whether that’s true, but if it is, perhaps it was a good thing. I know that Diane (among others) wrote loads of columns back in the day about how woefully underqualified New York teachers were in terms of subject-matter competence, particularly in history.
Also, this is unintentionally brilliant and spot-on:
“One of my rules is that I’ve never met anyone who did X” actually seems like something Friedman would say.
See my comment above, FLERP!
His attitude is elitist and stupid.
I showed another teacher that quote and she said bullshit also. She also has washed a rental before returning it. Only people who are so self centered, I, ME, MINE think that people renting something wouldn’t take care of it.
I can’t remember any specific instance where I washed a rental car, but I may have done it, and it doesn’t seem that odd to me.
On the other hand, I can barely remember any instances where I washed my own car.
His second rule is that he never met an ed-reformer that believed in taking care of a child who wasn’t hi/her own.
TAGO!
He also has a third rule: to always disregard Molly Ivins First rule of holes (“When you’re in one stop digging.”)
How did this NCLB provision slip past the edu-fakers?
“The act requires schools to rely on scientifically based research for programs and teaching methods. The act defines this as “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.” Scientifically based research results in “replicable and applicable findings” from research that used appropriate methods to generate persuasive, empirical conclusions.
Non-scientific methods include following tradition, personal preferences, and non-scientific research, such as research based on case studies, ethnographies, personal interviews, discourse analysis, grounded theory, action research, and other forms of qualitative research. These are generally not an acceptable basis for making decisions about teaching children under the act.”
This should make the use of VAM and SLOs to evaluate teachers illegal.
If this provision remains in the re-write a law suit against the use of VAM and SLOs/SGOs must follow. I will personally take this to NYSUT after the re-write.
Yes, there re things in Alexander’s statement that I’ll never agree with, but overall I like the states’ rights platform (and I haven’t been a conservative since the 80s!).
This, however, galls me: “…the more we can get our best teachers to work in those hard-to-staff schools and communities…” Some of us have been working in those places for decades. More money will not entice the best–they’re enticed by the challenges and the rewards.
Well the back door regulations that let TFA be considered HQ are certainly a joke, when traditionally trained, certified, teachers have to jump through every hoop, only to not get the jobs specifically broker for TFA–then TFA get their weekend masters degrees paid for too. What a frigging joke the DOE has played on real teachers.
Let’s support Mercedes Schneider’s new book on CCSS http://www.gofundme.com/g0ehic
But many people rent washed cars.
If we only have to clean things we own, that does it, I’m selling the house and getting an apartment asap. Who knew it was that easy?
READ the BILL. This gives the Secretary of Education Freedom to do whatever he wants. He can grant waivers and make his own decisions.
Go to:
http://abcsofdumbdown.blogspot.com/2015/01/lamar-alexanders-re-authorization-of.html
Page 48 makes FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, federal law, which would put Obama’s EO into law, that allows third party contractors to access personally identifiable information on student records and substantiates a longitudinal state data collection system.
Pages 117-118 the Secretary of Education can propose regulations or alternate processes in any event of failure to reach consensus so the secretary can propose regulations that will go through the rulemaking process
Page 153 the Secretary can grant waivers
Page 157 teacher pay will be based on measurable increase in student achievement
The 48 page section on charter schools is a cash giveaway. The system will be so easily gamed by charters due to the vagueness and the ability of states to create their own metrics for high-quality. It’s late so I won’t go off on a rant but read the section on charters.
How did we let them opinion-mold our demand into “pare down testing”, while we reaffirm their absolute power to destroy our public schools, at their data-driven whimsy? The people have literally risen to END the nightmare, in defense of our own children.
But our own false leadership stands against us, as their only sniveling path to sustain their own fantasy of influence with the ruling elite.
Network for Public Education is bartering away the trust American parents and teachers have given you. Shame on anybody who claims the mantle of leadership of this movement, and then sells it out to a well-rehearsed mantra of political expediency.
Don’t bother denouncing me as “divisive”. Yes, there are two sides to this struggle, and you’ve taken the other one.
“My experience is that finding a way to fairly reward better teaching is the holy grail of K-12 education. . . ”
If that is the case then his “experience” is quite lacking to the point of stupidity.
Yikes. This thread has really opened my eyes. I want to hope so badly for positive change.
Reblogged this on Network Schools – Wayne Gersen and commented:
Diane Ravitch is spot on with her introduction to this excerpt of Lamar Alexander’s article.. but I fear she might be off base with this part of her analysis:
“Leaving it (teacher and principal evaluation) to the states raises the possibility that some states will be even more heavy-handed and punitive than Duncan, but it’s hard to imagine how.” Andrew Cuomo, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Mike Pence might have some very vivid imaginations when it comes to heavy-handed evaluation of teachers and principals. RTTT over-reached… but some states will suffer if the governor’s are given free reign.