Peter Greene goes through the #TeachStrong proposals, one at a time.
He agrees with the first one.
For the other eight, it is just more of the old familiar reformster effort to remake teaching without any practical knowledge.
Why should there be the same entry standard for a high school teacher of physics and a teacher of first grade and a teacher of physical education?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
He doesn’t really disagree with any of the points. They’re all so vaguely worded that it’s hard to disagree with them. With all of the points, his issue is, what are the details? We’ve all heard enough about “I support teachers” or “I support public schools”. Yeah, and we all like cute puppies too.
As far as diversity in the teacher ranks, does that mean hiring teachers who look like the students they’ll be teaching and who can identify with their experiences? Or does it mean looking for white people who happen to have slightly darker skin or an “ethnic” name? My daughters are bi-racial, but they’ve lived pretty cushy lives with an awful lot of white privilege. Hiring them to teach in an all-black Chicago public school (if they were old enough) would not be the kind of diversity that’s really needed.
LikeLike
Peter Greene called it. He said it was a political effort, and it is:
“Because of these policy disagreements, some have warned candidates like Hillary Clinton to avoid the topic of education altogether for fear that any mention of K-12 will further divide the Democratic base.
However, this week’s launch of a new national coalition—Teach Strong—shows that Democrats are in fact strongly united around one seminal K-12 issue: the need to elevate and modernize the teaching profession. Specifically, the campaign brings together over 40 diverse stakeholders ranging from teachers’ unions to more traditional education “reformers” with the hope of making the issue of attracting, preparing, and retaining excellent teachers the top K-12 priority for policymakers for years to come.”
They’re worried public school supporters won’t keep voting for Democrats, so they intend to avoid the issues completely and “strongly unite” around this one.
I’m not a highly paid political professional, but do they really think most voters are going to get excited about an LSAT for teachers? This is the best the Democrats could do? I don’t even think this will work as a distraction from their public ed policies, quite frankly.
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2015/11/11/teach_strong_an_education_platform_to_unite_the_democratic_party_1241.html
LikeLike
“I’m not a highly paid political professional….”
You should be. You’re far better at it than anyone who currently is a highly paid political professional.
LikeLike
You’re right, this is not a compelling platform.
Local public schools, led by an elected school board, parents, teachers and communities committed to a full and enriching education for every child.
That would catch my attention.
LikeLike
Better I think, are two brilliant analyses of TeachStrong at Mercedes Schneider’s website: deutsch29
LikeLike
Diane, do you no longer support the idea of a national “bar exam” exam for teachers? I recall Randi Weingarten making this proposal in a WSJ column a few years ago, and I recall you being very enthusiastic about it.
LikeLike
FLERP, I no longer support a national exam for teachers unless it is a basic literacy and numeracy test. One test cannot adequately measure all teachers, all specialities.
LikeLike
@TamaraHiler explains how #TeachStrong is an education platform to unite the Democratic party
Rather than re-examine their education agenda and try to determine how it ended up identical to that of Republicans, the Democrats have decided to simply NOT run on their actual education agenda, and instead talk about this teacher training scheme.
It’s brilliant, because it’s so simple. Incredibly dishonest and extremely cowardly, but simple 🙂
LikeLike
Ugh. Mixed messages from the American Educational Research Association on so-called value-added measures— the infamous VAM.
AERA sent me a press release. It is supposed to be about “the Use of Value-Added Models in Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs.”
AERA’s long delay in taking a position on the abuses of VAM in K-12 education over the last 15 years is suddenly worth a public statement, but why now? Why so little so late?
And why the hedging?
The press release (Nov.11, 2015) actually gives credence to VAM and the whole mission of “measuring teacher IMPACTS on student learning outcomes.”
Is no one at AERA paying attention to this horrible language? Or the gaping hole left for future abuse of VAM in this message?
…”While VAM may be superior to some other models of measuring teacher impacts on student learning outcomes, ‘it does not mean that they are ready for use in educator or program evaluation. There are potentially serious negative consequences in the context of evaluation that can result from the use of VAM based on incomplete or flawed data, as well as from the misinterpretation or misuse of the VAM results.’”
So, because VAM has migrated into higher education suddenly AERA discovers they need to say “not in my territory, not in teacher education, not in my program evaluations.”
Dear colleagues in research, the use of VAM for teacher, principal, and school evaluations has been common in K-12 education for fifteen years. TheUgh. Mixed messages from the American Educational Research Association on so-called value-added measures— the infamous VAM.
AERA sent me a press release. It is supposed to be about “the Use of Value-Added Models in Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs.”
AERA’s long delay in taking a position on the abuses of VAM in K-12 education over the last 15 years is suddenly worth attention, a public statement, by why now? Why so little so late?
And why this hedging?
The press release (Nov.11, 2015) actually gives credence to VAM and the whole mission of “measuring teacher IMPACTS on student learning outcomes.”
Is no one at AERA paying attention to the AERA to this horrible language? Or the gaping hole left for future abuse of VAM in this message?
…”While VAM may be superior to some other models of measuring teacher impacts on student learning outcomes, ‘it does not mean that they are ready for use in educator or program evaluation. There are potentially serious negative consequences in the context of evaluation that can result from the use of VAM based on incomplete or flawed data, as well as from the misinterpretation or misuse of the VAM results.’”
So, because VAM has migrated into higher education suddenly AERA discovers they need to say “not in my territory, not in teacher education, not in my program evaluations.”
Dear colleagues in research, the use of VAM for teacher, principal, and school evaluations has been common in K-12 education for fifteen years. TheUgh. Mixed messages from the American Educational Research Association on so-called value-added measures— the infamous VAM.
AERA sent me a press release. It is supposed to be about “the Use of Value-Added Models in Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs.”
AERA’s long delay in taking a position on the abuses of VAM in K-12 education over the last 15 years is suddenly worth attention, a public statement, by why now? Why so little so late?
And why this hedging?
The press release (Nov.11, 2015) actually gives credence to VAM and the whole mission of “measuring teacher IMPACTS on student learning outcomes.”
Is no one at AERA paying attention to the AERA to this horrible language? Or the gaping hole left for future abuse of VAM in this message?
…”While VAM may be superior to some other models of measuring teacher impacts on student learning outcomes, ‘it does not mean that they are ready for use in educator or program evaluation. There are potentially serious negative consequences in the context of evaluation that can result from the use of VAM based on incomplete or flawed data, as well as from the misinterpretation or misuse of the VAM results.’”
So, because VAM has migrated into higher education suddenly AERA discovers they need to say “not in my territory, not in teacher education, not in my program evaluations.”
Dear colleagues in research, the use of VAM for teacher, principal, and school evaluations has been common in K-12 education for fifteen years. Misuse has been aided and abetted by your collective silence. Countless schools have been closed. Able and committed principals and teachers have been fired, others demeaned by the aggrandizement of test scores and quixotic ratings from VAM and so-called alternative measures of teaching effectiveness.
So, suddenly the researchers and scholars in teacher education are “at risk” of being VAMed.
Their “value-added” will be calculated by the student scores produced by graduates of their programs. Teacher education programs will be stack rated by the long reach of Bill Gate’s “teacher quality” initiative and the migration of VAM algorithms from their use as measures of the productivity of seeds, sows, and cows to their use as measures of the productivity of teachers and teacher education programs.
Being VAMed means you are really impacted by a flawed policy and metric.
Ask those who have been victimized. And while you are thinking about the sham ratings of teachers, consider an apology to the entire community of workers in K-12 education for your unconscionable silence about the abuse.
And please stop legitimating the idea that IMPACTING is a proper word for describing the work of teachers.
This press release is available online.
The full statement, included in a Special Issue of Educational Researcher (March 2015) is here: Value Added Meets the Schools: The Effects of Using Test-Based Teacher Evaluation on the Work of Teachers and Leaders
ided and abetted by your collective silence, countless schools have been closed, able and committed principals and teachers fired, others demeaned by the aggrandizement of test scores and quixotic ratings from VAM and so—called alternative measures of teaching effectiveness.
So, suddenly the researchers and scholars in teacher education are “at risk” of being VAMed. Their “value-added” will be calculated by the student scores produced by graduates of their programs. Teacher education programs will stack rated by the long reach of Bill Gate’s “teacher quality” initiative and the migration of VAM algorithms from their use as measures of the productivity of seeds, sows, and cows to their use as measures of the productivity of teachers and teacher education programs.
Being VAMed means you are going to be impacted by a flawed policy and metric.
Ask those who have been victimized. And while you are thinking about the shame ratings of teachers, consider an apology to the entire community of workers in K-12 education for your unconscionable silence about the abuse.
And please stop legitimating the idea that IMPACTING is a proper word for describing the work of teachers.
This press release is available online.
The full statement, included in a Special Issue of Educational Researcher (March 2015) is here: Value Added Meets the Schools: The Effects of Using Test-Based Teacher Evaluation on the Work of Teachers and Leaders
LikeLike
“So, suddenly the researchers and scholars in teacher education are “at risk” of being VAMed.
Their “value-added” will be calculated by the student scores produced by graduates of their programs. Teacher education programs will be stack rated by the long reach of Bill Gate’s “teacher quality” initiative and the migration of VAM algorithms from their use as measures of the productivity of seeds, sows, and cows to their use as measures of the productivity of teachers and teacher education programs.”
I think it’s a great point. You saw the same dynamic at work when the Obama Administration tried to rank colleges and universities. All of a sudden it was unimaginable that the administration could measure the value of such complex systems! Never mind that they rank and sort and grade public school systems constantly.
The administration backed off too. They declined to rank colleges.
It’s about power, and prestige.
It’s much easier to bully the assistant principal of some average public school than it is the president of a university.
LikeLike
“Is no one at AERA paying attention to this horrible language” or to Noel Wilson’s critique of the testing bible?
See below for rest of comment.
LikeLike
From the introduction to that edition:
“While a useful starting point, the validity and reliability of the measures tell us very little about the effects on teaching and learning that come from embedding value added into policies like teacher evaluation, tenure, and compensation.”
How does that square with what the testing bible put out by the AERA, APA and NCME says about testing and by extension the usage of results of said tests: “Validity is, therefore, the most fundamental consideration in developing tests” (p. 9).
Let’s see validity of the test is “the most fundamental consideration” but the fact that the tests and conclusions are completely invalid as proven by Wilson “tells us very little about the effects on teaching and learning. . . . ”
NO, idiotas, it tells us all we need to know, any conclusions are also COMPLETELY INVALID THEREFORE COMPLETELY USELESS WHICH TELLS US ALL (a hell of a lot more than “tells us very little”) WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS.
Using the results of standardized tests for anything (other than lining the bird cage or litter box with the paper) is pure conjecture, lying, fraud, falsehoods, deceptions, dishonest, etc. . . .
Why it is almost impossible to disabuse people of the tyranny that are educational standards and standardized testing and to help liberate their thinking and elevate practices beyond sorting, separating and discriminating against students is beyond my comprehension.
Open your minds folks, they’re rotting from within without a little sunshine of rationo-logical thought to disinfect them from these educational malfeasances.
LikeLike
Laura, speaking of the AERA and testing, have you read this?
“A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review” by Noel Wilson
American Educational Research Association; American Psychological Association; National Council on Measurement in Education. (2002). “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing” Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. ISBN 0-935302-25-5
“As a test maker I worked for the Australian Council for Educational Research for six years. As a result I had always regarded this book in its previous incarnations as a sort of bible, a reference of last resort. So not until I wrote my Ph D thesis on Educational Standards and the Problem of Error did I subject the 1985 version of Standards to a more critical analysis (Wilson, 1997). As that analysis was not overly complimentary, I thought it only fair to look at the 2002 version with similar critical gaze. As before, I focus on validity. Why? Because, as the good book says, “Validity is, therefore, the most fundamental consideration in developing tests” (p. 9). I concur. If the test event is not valid, if indeed the test is invalid, then all else is vain and illusory.”
Citation: Wilson, Noel. (2007, April 26). A little less than valid: An essay review. Education Review, 10(5). Retrieved [date] from http://edrev.asu.edu/essays/v10n5index.html
LikeLike
“Why it is almost impossible to disabuse people of the tyranny that are educational standards and standardized testing and to help liberate their thinking and elevate practices beyond sorting, separating and discriminating against students is beyond my comprehension.”
Educational standards are the basis for a “lead role in a cage”.
LikeLike
Bash the lowly teacher prep programs. Bash the teachers that come from/came from lowly teacher prep programs. More money, but only for the elite TFA teachers. Get rid of those low life veteran teachers, certified teachers, ed graduates, veteran teachers, teacher who WANT to be teachers. Get rid of the union. Hire only the elites, and the TFAs, and PAY THEM WELL. Crap salaries and genes were good enough for the traditionally trained/certified/qualified novice and veteran teachers, but TFAs aren’t making enough to match their bloodline, their pedigree, their ivy league educations, their connections — why, they could go straight to Wall Street, or law school, or med school, but…they need to stop along the way for a few months, maybe a year or two, before moving on, and the salary just isn’t enough for them; there is no prestige is teacher. So, lets up the ante for the ivy leaguers and the TFAs–pay them more, start their salaries higher, and by all means….give them the respect the DESERVE, not earned mind you. And, never mind that TFA gets loan forgiveness, housing assistance, weekend masters degrees and quickie lube certifications. All the Best for the Best. The rest? Make them go away. That is what this nonsense is about. Same players, same game, marketed as something different.
LikeLike