Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

This is an excellent article, written by NYC charter school teacher Allison LaFave.

It was prompted by Bob Schieffer’s off-hand remark during the last Presidential debate that “We all love teachers.”

Do we all love teachers?

Why don’t we trust them to manage their classrooms?

Why must they be evaluated by the test scores of their students?

Why do so many politicians want to take away their collective bargaining rights?

Why are legislatures reducing them to voiceless robots whose sole job is to raise test scores?

While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.

I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.

I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)

The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.

I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.

Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.

Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.

I understand all that.

And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.

Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.

In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.

Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.

This is a golden oldie. Imagine reading something written long, long ago, like three whole years.

This was written by G.F. Brandenburg, retired DC teacher. His blog is skeptical of Rhee and her misguided fixes. Here he questions the claims of Jason Kamras, who was named US Teacher of the Year in 2005 and became a favorite of Michelle Rhee. He designed Rhee’s IMPACT system, which has thus far produced no test score gains and is still under construction.

I am assuming Thomas Friedman knows a lot about foreign affairs, which is what he mostly writes about. He certainly knows very little about America’s public schools. I wonder when was the last time he stepped into a school or talked to a real teacher. My guess: it has been many years. Maybe he went to a public school.

His article in Sunday’s New York Times demonstrates that he is not only out of touch, but woefully misinformed. Everything he knows about Race to the Top he learned not by any research or school visits or investigative reporting, but by talking to Arne Duncan.

Guess what? Arne Duncan thinks Race to the Top is a huge success. He says so. It must be so. It will make the entire population college-ready. Everyone will go to college, get a good job, poverty will end, and we will outcompete every other nation in the world.

If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. It’s not too far from where I live, and it is regularly sold to the gullible.

Of course, Friedman also really admires No Child Left Behind too, even though it wasn’t perfect. and he sees the close connection between NCLB and RTTT. Where do you begin with a man who opines but knows so little?

Please, someone, bombard Mr. Thomas Friedman with the nearly 400 letters from parents, teachers, administrators, and students about the massive disaster called Race to the Top.

Ask him where we are racing. Ask him who will get to the top. Ask him why we ditched equality of educational opportunity.

A reader called my attention to this comment by an anonymous teacher in Florida. It appears following an article in the Tampa Bay Times about the disastrous implementation of the value-added methodology in Pinellas County.

I was reminded when I read this comment about a conversation with an economist in Austin, Texas, who wondered if it might be fruitful to study the question of why “reformers” assert they are improving education when everything they do demoralizes teachers. How can one improve the profession, she asked, by making it unattractive. I hope she follows through, because this is a crucial issue.

Teachers in Florida, Tennessee, and other states are suffering under the inaccuracy and invalidity of value-added assessment; careers and reputations are being heedlessly ruined. The damage will continue as long as the Obama administration blindly clings to this nutty scheme in which numbers replace professional judgment. But there is some comfort in knowing that these methods are so harmful that they educate the public about the destructive nature of the alleged reforms. The more the public understands the damage they are doing, the sooner the day will come when these so-called reforms are exposed as fraudulent. They will blow up in the faces of those who designed them. This whole house of cards will come down, hopefully sooner rather than later. As the reformers like to say about their hare-brained schemes, “we can’t wait.”

The following is a comment on the article cited above:

Dedicated Educator18 hours ago
I am a Pinellas County teacher that has received ratings of “highly effective” for the past 20+ years. I have received nominations for “Math Teacher Of The Year” from a top performing elementary school. I have been featured in various newspaper articles for innovative teaching, and my students have been featured on the news for outstanding work that promotes community. My students have consistently done well on state and county tests, and I have had the privilege of training other teachers in various educational fields. However, now according to the VAM and the new evaluation scale, I am a ” teacher that needs improvement”.I can handle being among the worst paid teachers in the United States. (49th out of 50th). I can handle them taking away a portion of our promised retirement. I can handle the mounds of new paperwork and mandates by the state. But, there is one thing I cannot handle, and that is being called a “teacher that needs improvement. “Just ask the hundreds of students I have taught what they learned in my classroom. It is far beyond academics. I have loved my students and my families. I have dedicated my life to the children of this county.And now my heart is broken. If I told my former students, they would be up in arms. However, I am too embarrassed to even share that I am not the great teacher they thought I once was when they were in my classroom… because the “secret formula” the state has developed said so.

An English teacher in Rhode Island writes:

I’m a great teacher. I’m waiting for the opportunity, at the ripe old age of 49, to switch careers. My heart is broken. I am deluged with PLC’s, SLO’s, dog and pony lesson plans that go nowhere, and impossible observations that require me to make my students lie through their teeth. I’m tired of the “idiocracy” that states things like “the SAT is an achievement test” and that “all children can learn” without providing qualifiers and quantifiers. I am waiting for the hammer to fall when I get caught not teaching the new Common Core Curriculum because I’m ignoring it and teaching to the curriculum I created that works VERY well. If I have to learn one new acronym I’m going to eat a bullet. Rhode Island is being run into the ground by a Broad Academy robot. Teachers in my district are running scared, the administrators are capos, the union has been neutered, and the school board couldn’t find it’s hiney with a flashlight. All of this “educational reform” is just making us chase our tails; it’s not letting us teach.

Teachers in some of Louisiana’s best schools are getting low ratings. Because their students already have high scores, the teachers are not getting high value-added scores, and many of he state’s best teachers will be rated ineffective. A teacher rated ineffective two years in a row may be fired.

Test scores count for 50% of every teacher’s evaluation.

State Commissioner of Education John White defends the state’s harsh system, even though it appears set to remove excellent teachers from top schools.

How long will it take before the people who launched this inaccurate, unreliable, invalid way of evaluating teachers acknowledge their error? Will they ever admit they were wrong or will they just continue ruining the lives of children and teachers? How long until the public throws them all out and tells them to find another line of work?

The Tampa Bay Times reports that teachers are baffled, confused, and outraged by their value-added ratings, which will determine their evaluation, their longevity and their career.

The story begins like this:

Geoffrey Robinson is a National Board certified teacher at Osceola High School in Pinellas County who says 60 percent of his upper-level calculus students last year tested so well they earned college credit.

But this week Robinson received his teacher evaluation, based on a controversial new formula being rolled out statewide.

He was shocked to see how poorly he scored in the “student achievement” portion: 10.63 out of 40.

He’s not alone. Teachers all over Pinellashave received their scores, calculated by a new formula that confounds even math teachers. Hillsborough teachers also got their scores, though their situation is different due to participation in a grant program with its own evaluation rules. In Pasco, the scoring is on hold while the teachers union and the district figure out how to implement it.

Another teacher said that she is one of the best in the state in terms of test scores, but was rated only 57 out of 100 points. She said:

“I know I’m good, I’ve been teaching for 19 years, I’m not stressing about that. But if I was new, I’d go home crying.”

Teachers were wondering how these wildly erratic and inaccurate ratings are supposed to improve education.

In Hillsborough, where the Gates Foundation poured in many millions of dollars ($100 million?), 95 percent of teachers were rated either “effective” or “highly effective.” So they are not as unhappy as the bewildered teachers in Pinellas County.

Some teachers were rated based on the scores of students they never taught.

As one teacher says in the article, this system is not ready for prime time.

Can anyone remember how or why it was supposed to improve education?

It would be interesting if someone figures out how much money Florida received from Race to the Top and how much it has spent to implement the mandates of Race to the Top.

 

Arthur Goldstein teaches English in a high school in Queens, New York City. If you want to know what teachers in New York City are saying, you have to read his blog. It’s funny, sad, outrageous, and honest. Here’s Arthur:

I found your piece about student ratings very interesting.

I taught almost 20 years at the English Language Institute at Queens College. Student ratings were very important—word of mouth kept enrollment very robust. I‘d come to this position from the POV of a high school teacher. As such, I insisted on homework and participation. I also gave people a pretty hard time if they didn’t do the work. For a number of years I scored 80% favorable with the students, but one year I got a bad rating. It was partially my insistence on assignments done on time, but mostly my fault—I’d selected a text that was too tough.

After that, I chose texts more carefully. I also stopped bothering students about missing homework. My scores jumped to 99% favorable, and could have hit 100 were it not for my awful handwriting. They stayed there until I quit about five years ago. So if student ratings are important, I can do that.

On the other hand, if test scores are what you want, I can teach to the test and be a total pain. When I taught ESL kids how to pass the English Regents, my Chinese-teaching colleague overheard and translated the following exchange:

“I don’t know what to do. I can’t seem to pass the English Regents.”

“That’s too bad. You should take Goldstein’s class.”

“Why? Is it good?”

“No, it’s terrible. You will hate every minute of it. But you will pass the Regents.”

I was lucky enough not to be rated by the students in that class. But they wouldn’t have been able to graduate without passing that test, so I did what I could for them. Many kids, who really did not know English, managed to pass the test anyway.

Now, I teach near-beginners the English they really need. I hassle them if they don’t participate or do the work. I call their parents, or have people who speak their languages do so. I think the kids would give me a good rating, but not 99%. However, if you put a gun to my head and demand I teach to a test that doesn’t really suit them, I’ll take another approach, and there goes my rating.

If Gates and his band of know-nothings have their way, we’ll be judged both on test scores and student ratings. I can cater to one or the other if I have to. I’ve done it.

That’s why I know a better system would be to trust me to do my job and teach my kids what they need to know. Unlike the folks at Pearson who sit in offices writing tests, I see these kids every day. I can adjust the course to their needs, and adjust the tests to their needs too.

It’s not like I run around telling “reformers” how to run their hedge funds. I don’t even know what a hedge fund is. And after ten years of “reform,” it’s clear to me that billionaires making rules about my business haven’t got the slightest notion what makes that work, let alone how to put “Children First, Ever.”

The U.S. Department of Education is doing something to the nation’s schools that has never been done before.

Through the leverage of its Race to the Top program, it has persuaded, pushed, and prodded at least 36 states to evaluate teachers by the test scores of their students.

There is no evidence that this will improve education or teaching. There is reason to believe it will incentivize narrowing the curriculum, cheating, and teaching to the test.

There is plenty of evidence from sources like the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association that the ratings will reflect who is in the class, not teacher quality.

John Thompson, guest-blogging for Anthony Cody, asks why the Gates Foundation went full-steam ahead with value-added assessment and the MET Project, encouraging rapid implementation of value-added assessment without waiting to get the results of its experimentation.

Wouldn’t it have been wiser to learn how to do it right rather than imposing this untried, unproven methodology on millions of students and teachers?

Never before has the U.S. Department of Education imposed its views on the nation–even when there was ample evidence to support its policies.

No one knows how to make VAA work without incentivizing all the wrong consequences.

It would have been a good idea to do this right, not fast.

Unfortunately both Gates and Duncan agreed that the basic problem of U.S. education is “bad” teachers.

They are wrong, and they won’t admit it.

The basic problem of American education is poverty.

The kids in affluent districts are doing very well indeed.