Peter Greene truly performs a public service for all of us. He reads the deluge of reports and studies about what’s wrong with teachers, public schools, unions, teacher preparation, etc. so others don’t have to.
In this post, he writes a hilarious summary of the latest report of the National Council on Teacher Quality. He starts by noting that no one on the “council” or the staff is an experienced teacher.
That’s a clue.
NCTQ rates the education schools of the nation, not visiting any campuses, just reading course catalogues. In this report, NCTQ rates states by how faithfully they are adopting NCTQ’s recommendations for teacher evaluation , even though it offers no evidence for the soundness of those recommendations. It’s main policy goal is to ensure that teachers are evaluated by the test scores of their students, ignoring the succinct dismissal of that policy by the American Statistical Association in 2014.
You might find it useful to read Mercedes Schneider’s review of the NCTQ board (linked in Peter’s post) and my account (see link below*) of the origins of NCTQ, birthed by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation to undermine Ed schools, and rescued by Secretary of Education Rod Paige with a grant of $5 million when it was floundering.
Peter writes:
“What NCTQ would like to see more than anything else in the whole wide world is a teacher evaluation system driven by test scores that in turn drives everything else. Hiring, firing, promotions, tenure, revoking tenure, pay level– they would like to see all of those tied to the teacher evaluation.
“NCTQ credits Delaware, Florida and Louisiana with “connecting the dots” best of all. The language used for this baloney is itself baloney– it’s like the baloney you make out of the leftover scraps of baloney. But it’s worth seeing, because it’s language that keeps reappearing, including in places like, say, TeachStrong….
“The report includes not a word about how we might know that any of the recommended policies actually works. We are clear that the be-all and end-all is to raise student test scores. Any proof that higher test scores are indicative of anything other than scoring higher? And as we move to teacher evaluation systems, is there any proof that, say, linking tenure to test scores improves test scores or anything that are actually related to a good education?
No. So the report is left with a basic stance of, “Here are some things everybody should be doing because we think they are good ideas, though none of us have ever been public school teachers, and none of us have any real experience in public education. But you should do these things, and if you do, education in your state will be better in ways that we can’t really support or specify.” And it took over 100 pages to say that. But this is NCTQ, so some bunch of media dopes are going to report on this as if it is real research from reputable experts who know what the hell they’re talking about. What a world.”
*my origins post:
sorry, WordPress won’t let me embed the link. This is what I get for upgrading to iPhone 6
If the NCTQ is involved, well, it’s got the word “National” and “Council” and “Teacher Quality”—what could go wrong? Surely they are an a-one tip-top world-class rheephorm clearing house for all that is excellent in education.
Rheeally! And in the most Johnsonally sort of ways…
From this blog, 6-24-2013, “Who Won the British National Contest for Teaching Grit?”—
[start posting]
Aaron Pallas is a sociologist at Teachers College, Columbia University, who is one of our nation’s best scholars of education. He is quick to spot Bunkum.
He said this about the report on teacher preparation programs by NCTQ:
“To be sure, few of us relish being put under the microscope. But it’s another matter entirely to be seen via a funhouse mirror. My institution, Teachers College at Columbia University, didn’t receive a summary rating of zero to four stars in the report, but the NCTQ website does rate some features of our teacher-prep programs. I was very gratified to see that our undergraduate elementary and secondary teacher-education programs received four out of four stars for student selectivity. Those programs are really tough to get into—nobody gets admitted. And that’s not hyperbole; the programs don’t exist.
“That’s one of the dangers of rating academic programs based solely on documents such as websites and course syllabi. You might miss something important—like “Does this program exist?”
Pallas noted that the Washington Post published an editorial praising the report. He commented: “I look forward to the Post instructing their restaurant reviewer, Tom Sietsema, to rate restaurants based on their online menus rather than several in-person visits to taste the food.”
[end posting]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/06/24/aaron-pallas-the-trouble-with-the-nctq-ratings-of-ed-schools/
C’mon, shills and trolls for corporate education reform, how can you argue with that?
😎
There is a strong irony that exists in our school district regarding the intent of legislation requiring test scores as part of teacher evaluation. The legislation was written by politicians who wanted to get rid of poor teachers. Here is the unintended consequence of the handy work of ignorant legislators. Student test scores in districts, like ours, will always be high. We are fortunate because our community is affluent and test scores reflect our demographic. This means a poor teacher is protected from being fired because school test scores will always keep their overall evaluation from being low enough to support dismissal. Meanwhile, great teachers in poverty stricken districts get fired because test scores are low. ISANE.
Too bad that all of the people who make decisions about this stuff will read the report rather than Peter Greene’s summary.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
“Stupid is as Stupid Does” – Forest Gump. Read this post and discover what Forest Gump meant. The Urban Dictionary defined this quote from Gump: “It means that an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. You are what you do.”
“Stupid is as stupid does”
Stupid is as stupid does
Fire teachers just because
Students don’t perform on test
Due to hunger and the rest
Cut the funds and close the schools
Just because the testing rules
Set the cut-score up so high
That it nearly touched the sky
Stupid is as stupid does
Drop the recess just because
Arne Duncan says “It’s best
Way to boost the score on test”
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/clintons-charter-school-exaggeration/?utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=35b0b7060a-FactCheck_Newsletter_11_13_201511_13_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-35b0b7060a-47750805
Of course, FACTCHECK is a neo lib, neo con, paid for by the educational industrial complex organisation?
Good leaders support teacher leaders. Check out GREEN LIGHT LEADERSHIP as a contribution to the conversation!
There’s an appalling story of how NCTQ tries do collect this data. It used to be here:
http://atthechalkface.com/2014/05/23/nctq-gets-caught-in-a-data-collecting-lie/
… but alas, now, it’s gone.
I don’t know how to use the Wayback Machine or whatever to retrieve this article/story, but I cut-‘n-pasted pieces from it in a past post.
Mercedes Schneider referenced this same story as well in a (somewhat-better-written 😉 ) post here:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/nctq-gets-caught-in-a-data-collecting-lie/
Here’s the post based on this:
==============
JACK:
NCTQ creates fictional imposter parent
identities to collect data… to get around
university Ed. Departments’ refusal to participate
in or cooperate with NCTQ’s farcical “evaluations.”
Just when you thought you’ve seen and heard
it all, comes this:
http://atthechalkface.com/2014/05/23/nctq-gets-caught-in-a-data-collecting-lie/
BACKGROUND:
NCTQ only uses artifacts—i.e. syllabi—to
render their pre-ordained and universally
negative views of traditional training programs.
No on-site observations… no interviews with…
— faculty,
— students,
— graduates currently teaching,
— principals / administrators supervising
graduates currently teaching… etc.
It’s kind of like a restaurant reviewer who
judges restaurants by reading the menus
that a restaurant posts on “Restaurant.com”.
Having caught onto this, university Ed. Dept.
programs have condemned and refuse to participate
NCTQ’s farce of an evaluation… the goal
of which is the elimination of university-based
teacher education and training, and replace
it with “Teach for America”-like private
institutions (Wendy Kopp is on NCTQ’s board)
According to NCTQ critic Jack Hassard,
NCTQ uses unethical methods to gather
info.
Undaunted, NCTQ has researchers are now
contacting faculty directly… posing as “parents” of
prospective students.. complete with fictional
aliases…
You can’t make this up.
THE STORY:
One professor at Fordham University (not to
be confused with Mike Petrilli’s Fordham
Institute… perish the thought! ) went public
with his experiences.
Someone claiming to be an interested parent
whose daughter wants to become teacher—
one “Emilie Baker” being the name of the
“parent” — contacted Fordham
University Associate Professor John Craven.
“Emilie Baker” asks Associate Professor Craven,
emailing the following:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
EMILIE BAKER-to-PROFESSOR CRAVEN:
“My daughter is currently looking at different grad
programs. Being a teacher myself, I have a
question about the student teaching aspect of
the program. I was on the school website and
couldn’t find how many formal observations
are conducted by the university supervisor
during the student teaching semester.
“Could you please elaborate on this?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
An odd email: A teacher “parent” writing on
behalf of her soon-to-graduate-high-school
“student” daughter. Both are interested in
the daughter possibly attending Fordham
University’s Dept. of Education to further
the daughter’s goal of becoming a teacher,
being careful to ascertain information as
to which institution will best serve
this end.
A bit odd, but … ya know … what-ever.
So what exactly do “Emilie” and her daughter
want to know?
In the inquiring email (excerpted ABOVE),
parent “Emilie” singles out the number of
formal observations that a Fordham Ed.
Dept. professor receives (???) as what
both parent “Emilie” and her “daughter”
view as a key criterion that both she and
her daughter need to make their decision
as to which institution they will choose
for the daughter to be educated in pedagogy??
Hmmm…. ?
Craven informed his Fordham colleagues of this
strange query. His colleagues had previously alerted
Craven to NCTQ’s origins, goals, and shady
tactics, and then restated all this to him, in the light
of this new inquiry from parent “Emilie,”
Thus informed, Craven emailed “Emilie Baker”
back, saying that … yeah, sure, he’d be happy to
send “Baker” all that she asked for.
Just give me the street address that you want
me to send it to, and I will do so happily.
“Emilie” sends the street address to Craven.
————————————-
Emilie Baker
xxxx W. xxxxxxxxx St, #3
Chicago, IL 60657
(the street NAME & NUMBER are redacted, JACK)
——————————————
Well, Craven traces the street address “Emlie” provided
and discovers — shock & horror —that it belongs
not to “Emilie Baker”, but instead to the following
person with that same street address:
(the street NAME & NUMBER are redacted, JACK)
————————————-
Andrew McCorry
xxxx W. xxxxxxxxx St, #3
Chicago, IL 60657
——————————————
No “Emilie Baker” actually exists, obviously.
Well, now. Who is Andrew McCorry in Chicago?
Craven investigated and uncovered the following
Linkedin bio:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
“Andrew McCorry
“Research Analyst at
National Council on Teacher Quality
“Greater Chicago Area
“Nonprofit Organization Management”
Here’s Jack Hassard’s analysis of NCTQ’s evaluation of university ed. departments, and the questionable tactics and methodology used:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/nctq-report-teacher-prep
Here are Hassard’s bonafides:
—————————
Professor emeritus of science education, Georgia State University (GSU). I was a professor of science teacher education at GSU from 1969 – 2002, coordinator of science education and co-developer of alternative, undergraduate, and graduate teacher prep programs. I also was visiting professor in teacher education programs at the University of Vermont and the University Hawaii, Hilo. I taught science teacher education seminars for more than 20,000 teachers in the Bureau of Education & Research.
—————————
Here’s some of what he said:
JACK HASSARD:
“When you read the NCTQ report, it seems as if teacher prep institutions are the enemy. …All of the data come from paper or online documents. None involved interviews or discussions with people at the teacher prep institutions. As hard as this is believe, it is the pattern that the NCTQ has followed since it was formed by the Thomas Fordham Institute
” … ”
“Susan Jacoby, in her book THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON, helps us understand the quite pervasive phenomenon in which anti-rationalism and contempt for countervailing facts and expert opinions manifest itself as the truth. Jacoby point out that junk thought can come from the right as well as the left.
“Accusing each other of irrationality thrives.
“But, she suggests that junk thinkers see ‘evidence as a tiresome stumbling block to deeper, instinctive ways of knowing.’ (Jacoby, Susan (2008-02-12). The Age of American Unreason (Kindle Location 3798). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).
“The NCTQ report on teacher preparation is junk science. The method that they employed in their study avoided data from the very sources that could help uncover the nature of teacher preparation. These sources are faculty, administrators, students, and cooperating school districts and educators. Without interviewing and observing teacher preparation programs directly, and without establishing a cooperative relationship with the these institutions, the NCTQ condemns itself to false claims, outright opinions that have little bearing on the nature of teacher preparation.
“The conclusions NCTQ makes has nothing to do with the data they collected. Their conclusion is a political statement.
“The NCTQ is averse to evidence and scientific reasoning. Instead of reviewing the literature on teacher education programs, the nature of these programs, and what makes for effective teacher prep, the NCTQ starts with the premise that teacher preparation in the U.S. is a failure. They cherry pick studies in the literature (only a very few) that support their distorted picture of teacher prep, then use unscientific and nontransparent methods that are impossible to replicate. Honestly, I can’t figure out how they arrived at their rankings.
“That is, until I read the two-page conclusion near the end of the report.
“According to NCTQ, teacher prep institutions do not ‘arm’ novice teachers with practical tools to succeed in the classroom. Mind you, the NCTQ study did not collect any data about ‘tools’ that were or were not in the teacher prep curriculum, nor did the survey students in any program, or conduct site visits to see teacher educators at work.
“Another conclusion NCTQ makes is that teacher prep programs make candidates show their feelings and attitudes about race, class, language and culture through in-class dialogue and journal writing. They never visited classrooms to observe these dialogues, nor did they read any student journals. Again, no where in the report is there any data related to this politically charged conclusion.
“None of the remarkable conclusions are related to the ‘data’ NCTQ collected.
“One more thing.
“(NCTQ leader Kate) Walsh and her colleagues really seem to have a disdain for teacher education. They believe that it is the job of teacher educators to train candidates for teaching much like the Teach For America (TFA) program does in its 5 week teacher prep program. NCTQ reels when teacher educators suggest that their mission is to prepare candidates, and not train them.
“The NCTQ is a wonderful example of not only junk thought, but is the epitome of junk science.”
—————-
Mercedes Schneiders echoes Hassard’s sentiments here:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/nctq-gets-caught-in-a-data-collecting-lie/
———————————-
MERCEDES SCHNEIDER:
“Passing maligned judgment is what NCTQ does. And because their reporting is done with much fanfare and is backed by reformer cash (Gates alone has paid NCTQ $11 million since 2005), the public views NCTQ as a credible source for information on teacher education.
“Why, NCTQ will even grade a program that doesn’t exist.
“NCTQ is the creation of the Fordham Institute, a pro-privatization organization that is pushing hard for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), having itself taken over $6 million from Gates, $2 million of which is earmarked for the CCSS push. Fordham Institute’s VP Mike Petrilli is even willing to tell states with comparable or better standards that they should retain CCSS.
“Back to NCTQ’s shallow ‘reviews’ of teacher training:
“The beauty of NCTQ’s grading teacher training programs based upon artifacts (as opposed to on-site observations and in-person, open communication with the evaluated programs) is that NCTQ is still able to complete its ‘evaluations’ even when programs do not wish to participate.
“As far as non-accredited, self-appointed traditional-teacher-training policeman NCTQ is concerned, programs are not allowed to refuse the NCTQ intrusion.”
Sometimes the best and most revealing information comes from the COMMENTS section in response to articles.
An example of this is when this NCTQ functionary “Emily” gets into it with Seattle parent “Dora” in the COMMENTS section of Dora’s article — posted on a Seattle parents’ blog called SEATTLE SCHOOLS.”
https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/kate-walsh-nctq-and-us-news-world-report/
In her article, Dora eviscerates NCTQ and its motives and tactics, and by extension, the motives and tactics of its funders — the usual suspects, Broad, Gates, Walton, etc. In particular, Dora also calls out NCTQ’s leader Kate Walsh’s lack of qualifications — i.e. Walsh’s minimal background or experience in education, and the fact that Walsh regularly introduces herself oddly for someone who’s out to help teachers and children.
Walsh leads with her self-description “I’m an entrepreneur”, not “I’m an educator”, as Walsh did at a presentation that she gave to parents and community members at a Seattle forum that Dora attended.
NCTQ’s Emily, who apparently works far and admires Kate, is quite livid and vocal in her retort defending NCTQ and her boss Kate.
First, here’s some of what Dora said that provoked Emily:
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
DORA, parent writing at “Seattle Schools”:
“When Kate Walsh came to Seattle to present her NCTQ report, it was just before union negotiations were to begin with the Seattle Education Association. The terms that were introduced in the report were echoed by ed reform groups during that time, terms like “teacher effectiveness and ‘performance pay’, items that our Broad–trained superintendent had put on the table for negotiations six months earlier.
“The report was waved around in front of the press and community leaders by the faux grassroots ed reform organizations that were spawned by Gates and Broad, causing many community organizations to sign onto a Community Values Statement. That statement was brought in front of the teacher’s union during negotiations as a way to make teachers feel that the entire community was demanding that they relent on the issues of merit pay and seniority.
“It was a scam plain and simple, and we will be written about in detail in a future post. That document also made its’ way to Olympia and our state legislators who then thought that everyone wanted these measures put into place and from that our ed reform Bill 6696 was born and adopted.
“All of this done without anyone coming to the rest of us, parents, students and teachers, and asking us to participate in the formulation of our vision for education in Seattle.”
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
Emily then gets out her cat claws:
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
NCTQ’s EMILY:
“Did you know that (NCTQ head Kate Walsh) started a school for underprivileged boys from inner city Baltimore, and that shucks, she didn’t do it to win praise from people like you? She has devoted her entire life to improving education standards for schools, and she is doing is trying her best to think outside the box in a creative, constructive way.
“Her entire staff is made up of former public school teachers, did you know that? All of the people producing and advocating this research- every single one of them has taught in a classroom.
“What I find really hilarious is that you think that NCTQ and the rest of the cohort are out to hurt teachers or something? They want to get good teachers into school classrooms. Do you as a parent — which you so often like to point out — have issues with people who are trying to find other ways to evaluate our nations teachers?
“Our government (i.e. its school system, JACK) is not performing. Mrs. Walsh’s statement about (the worthlessness of Education Dept.) Masters degrees is true. Look at what YOU have written. You’re getting fired up about people who are actually trying to do good in this world. Pick a different victim and — as a parent — look at people who are trying to harm your children and make it a more challenging world for them.
“And please, do your homework before you write a slandering blog about someone you know absolutely nothing about.
” … ”
“Dora, if you want to have a look at Kate’s CV and past experience, you just have to click on her name on the NCTQ website- pretty straight forward.
“Or, for that matter give her a ring at her office.”
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
Dora is unfazed by Emily’s screed:
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
DORA:
“Emily, there is a difference between a curriculum vitae and experiences that would fit onto a resume.
“A curriculum vitae describes the education and experiences directly involved in an individual’s choice of profession. Ms. Walsh did not come to the table with any sort of background in education.
“Yes, I am aware of the fact that she established a school for boys, but just like Rhee — who established an organization after two years as a Teach for America recruit — it does not tell me anything but that she was possibly an entrepreneur. That (“I’m an entreprenuer” was what she led with at the Seattle forum, JACK) was how she introduced herself when she made her presentation of the NCTQ report here in Seattle.
“Yes, she established a school for boys, but that was it, that was the extent of her involvement closely pertaining to the field of education.
“And yes, there are many people opening schools these days for tax shelters — for profit or for altruistic reasons — but that has NOTHING to do with their understanding of children, how they learn, or with any long term experience in the field of education, particularly in the area of teaching.
“My point is… before you hang your hat on any report or statement, you need to do your homework.
“Ms. Walsh, along with US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, will be issuing a report with a lot of hoopla next year and it will have some bearing on how people evaluate an educational institution. Based on the report that was done by her organization regarding the colleges that prepare teachers in Illinois, I would say that Ms. Walsh and her staff will need to consider taking a far more rigorous and scientific approach to how a school is evaluated.
(Here, Dora is referencing a blistering white paper made by a collection of Ed. Department heads in Illinois, a report that trashed NCTQ’s report’s methodology & conclusions, JACK… Dora references the Illinois report again a couple paragraphs later)
“So far she has gone from town to town making the same indictment on teachers, coming up with the same ‘facts’ (in every town, JACK). I find that suspicious at best. How can you go from one school district to the next, and still have the same results with little-to-no variation? Statistically that is not possible.
“Or is this simply a witch hunt where the verdict for all teachers around the country is ‘Guilty as charged! ‘ ?
“Yes, I am skeptical, and the statement issued by the schools in Illinois bear out my doubts. Before she takes on the responsibility of evaluating 100 schools of education around the country, she better make sure that she approaches this ‘study’ in a more scientific, professional, and thorough manner.
“And to the point of teachers, there are evaluation systems in place. One is a four-tiered system that our state superintendent of schools has endorsed and is supported by our local teachers’ union. If the teachers in Seattle are confident that it will work, then I have the confidence that it will also. It has been explained to me by the union president and appears rational and reasonable.
“The other point about teachers is that they (alleged “bad teachers”, JACK) are not the reason for our faltering educational system. See: Where Do We Go From Here?.
———————————————
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? article:
“A lack of funding over four decades has left our educational system in shambles. We have schools that are legally unsafe, children do not have enough materials, books or workbooks to help them achieve the best that they can be.
“In Seattle the students get ‘Art on a cart’ because of a lack of funding in many schools. Schools have had to shorten their days and increase class sizes due to a lack of funding. If we financially supported our educational system to the degree that we do our military/industrial complex or to the extent that we bailed out several corporations or subsidize oil companies, we would not be where we are today.
“To put the emphasis on teachers as the sole problem in our educational system is naive at best.”
———————————————
DORA:
“And one last point. Everything that I wrote in this post was true, with enough links to each fact to validate all of my statements.”
————————————————————-
————————————————————-
That’s the end of the dialogue, from either of them.