Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

Students in Douglas County, Colorado, walked out and picketed to express their outrage at the high rates of teacher turnover in their school. Teacher turnover may be caused by the demoralizing policies enacted by the state and the district. Colorado teachers have suffered since 2010 under State Senator Michael Johnston’s legislation to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores. DougCo has had a conservative school board, which destabilized the schools.

 

A boisterous crowd of 100 or so students walked out of Ponderosa High School on Wednesday morning to highlight what they say is an excessive departure rate among teachers at the school and within the Douglas County School District.

 

They waved signs on school property that read “We love teachers” and “Keep DCSD Great,” while chanting “best teachers, best students.”

 

Several passing drivers honked their horns in support.

 

“We don’t find it fair that our teachers are leaving the district, and we want to know why,” said senior Lisa Culverhouse, who was skipping math, English and Spanish to rally with classmates. “We hope the district will realize it’s a problem — students want to be heard….”

 

Courtney Smith, president of the Douglas County Federation, said teacher morale has never been lower. She counts the teacher evaluation system — which she said was mostly about “uploading evidence” rather than true assessment of teaching skills — among the chief problems.

 

Good work, Senator Johnston. When does your promise of “great schools, great principals, great teachers” come to pass? How much longer shall we wait?

 

 

Merryl Tisch is stepping down as Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents, ending a 20-year tenure on the board. The New York Times interviewed her about her time in office.

 

Tisch led the state’s effort to win Race to the Top funding. The state received $700 million, promising to increase charters, adopt the Common Core, create a longitudinal database for students, and evaluate teachers by test scores.

 

She promoted high-stakes testing, test-based teacher evaluation, charter schools, and everything expected by Race to the Top. And she didn’t just comply, she truly believes that testing, Common Core, and accountability will increase equity and reduce achievement gaps. She did it for the kids.

 

“She tried to do too much, too fast.

 
“That is Merryl H. Tisch’s appraisal of her tenure as chancellor of the Board of Regents, the top education post in New York State, as she prepares to step down at the end of the month.

 
“Her critics say the same thing.

 
“A champion of the Common Core learning standards, Dr. Tisch, 60, pushed for the creation of new, harder tests based on those standards and for teacher evaluations tied to students’ performance on the exams.

 

“That set off a backlash in which a fifth of the eligible students sat out the state’s third- through eighth-grade reading and math tests last spring. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, once her ally on using test scores in teacher evaluations, did an about-face….

 

““If anything, I fault myself for being ambitious for every child,” she said.”

 

 

Larry Lee reports on pending legislation intended to create a state framework for evaluating teachers.

 

He cites an analysis of Alabama’s proposed legislation by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley. She says that it is apparent that Alabama’s lawmakers did not inform themselves about research on teacher evaluation measures.

 

Amrein-Beardsley writes:

 

Nothing is written about the ongoing research and evaluation of the state system, that is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the system is working as intended, especially before any types of consequential decisions are to be made (e.g., school bonuses, teachers’ denial of tenure, teacher termination, teacher termination due to a reduction in force).

To measure growth the state is set to use student performance data on state tests, as well as data derived via the ACT Aspire examination, American College Test (ACT), and “any number of measures from the department developed list of preapproved options for governing boards to utilize to measure student achievement growth.” As mentioned in my prior post about Alabama, this is precisely what has gotten the whole state of New Mexico wrapped up in, and quasi-losing their ongoing lawsuit. While providing districts with menus of off-the-shelf and other assessment options might make sense to policymakers, any self respecting researcher should know why this is entirely inappropriate.

Clearly the state does not understand the current issues with value-added/growth levels of reliability, or consistency, or lack thereof, that are altogether preventing such consistent classifications of teachers over time. Inversely, what is consistently evident across all growth models is that estimates are very inconsistent from year to year, which will likely thwart what the bill has written into it here, as such a theoretically simple proposition.

Unless the state plans on “artificially conflating” scores, by manufacturing and forcing the oft-unreliable growth data to fit or correlate with teachers’ observational data (two observations per year are to be required), and/or survey data (student surveys are to be used for teachers of students in grades three and above), such consistency is thus far impossible unless deliberately manipulated.

 

In short, Alabama legislators are considering a measure that is very likely invalid and unreliable. They really should do some more homework and go back to the drawing board.

Rick Hess writes about a new study of teacher evaluation systems in 19 states by Matthew Kraft and Allison Gilmour. It shows that the new systems have made little difference. Instead of 99% of trachers rated effective, 97% are rated effective.

 

This was Arne Duncan’s Big Idea. It was an essential element of Race to the Top. The assumption behind it was that if kids got low test scores, their teachers must be ineffective.

 

It failed, despite the hundreds of millions–perhaps billions– devoted to creating these new systems to grade teachers. Think of how that money might have been used to help children and schools directly!

 

Hess writes:

 

“Emboldened by a remarkable confidence in noble intentions and technocratic expertise, advocates have tended to act as if these policies would be self-fulfilling. They can protest this characterization all they want, but one reason we’ve heard so much about pre-K in the past few years is that, as far as many reformers were concerned, the big and interesting fights on teacher evaluation had already been won. They had moved on.

 

“There’s a telling irony here. Back in the 1990s, there was a sense that reforms failed when advocates got bogged down in efforts to change “professional practice” while ignoring the role of policy. Reformers learned the lesson, but they may have learned it too well. While past reformers tried to change educational culture without changing policy, today’s frequently seem intent on changing policy without changing culture. The resulting policies are overmatched by the incentives embedded in professional and political culture, and the fact that most school leaders and district officials are neither inclined nor equipped to translate these policy dictates into practice.

 

“And it’s not like policymakers have helped with any of this by reducing the paper burden associated with harsh evaluations or giving principals tools for dealing with now-embittered teachers. If anything, these evaluation systems have ramped up the paperwork and procedural burdens on school leaders—ultimately encouraging them to go through the motions and undercut the whole point of these systems.”

 

 

 

 

As I posted yesterday, the judge in the New Mexico trial of teacher evaluation based on test scores has been delayed.

 

Audrey Amrein-Beardsley explains the delay here. 

 

The good news is that the preliminary injunction on use of VAM remains in place.

I received an email from a daily reader of the blog who asked me how she could explain the downside of corporate reform to friends at a dinner party in the suburbs who know nothing at all about the issues. She said that her friends were liberal Democrats, but their own children are grown, and they don’t read the blogs. What could she say that was direct, accurate, and informative?

We exchanged emails and began creating a list of snappy explanatory comments. Our combined list is below. Would you be good enough to send me your suggestions?

Your friend says, “So what do you think of the education reform movement?” Or, “How could anyone be opposed to education reform?”

And you answer, “What you call education “reform” is not reform at all. It is a way of making public schools look bad so they can be turned over to private managers. That’s privatization of one of our fundamental democratic institutions.”

Well, they may look at you and wonder if you have gone off the deep end, so you have to give them examples of what “education reform” actually means.

Like “for profit charter schools that are supported with tax dollars”

Like “excessive testing that makes money for test companies but isn’t good for kids”

Like “giving standardized tests to children in kindergarten and the earliest grades”

Like “turning kindergarten into first or second grade, where children study academics instead of playing”

Like “Race to the Top that pays schools to use the Common Core”

Like “charter schools that are never held accountable because their owners make big contributions to politicians”

Like “charter schools that get high test scores because they exclude kids with disabilities, kids learning English and remove those with low test scores”

Like “corporate charter chains replacing neighborhood public schools”

Like “virtual charters where kids lose 180 days of math for every 100 days of school”

Like “vouchers that go to fundamentalist schools where kids learn creationist science and the evangelical version of history”

Like “teachers are evaluated as ineffective or effective by the test scores of their students, even though research demonstrates that this is a flawed method”

Like “uncertified, inexperienced teachers who are assigned to the kids with the greatest needs”

And for a fanfare: “Our nation has pursued failed market-based policies for 15 years. It is time to do what works, based on evidence and experience.”

The list could be longer. Send me your suggestions. We could put them on a palm card so that anyone is prepared to answer the questions at any time.

Audrey Amrein-Beardsley and her graduate students analyzed the results of Houstin ISD’s hefty investment in value-added measurement of teachers. Houston spends a cool $500,000 a year to implement VAM.

 

Is is it working?

 

No.

The Democratic-controlled House Education Committe in Colorado rejected a bill that would have modified the state’s draconian and pointless teacher evaluation system.

Key testimony against the bill was provided by leaders of the privatization movement who masquerade as reformers.

“Lobbyists from three education advocacy groups — the Colorado Children’s Campaign, Colorado Succeeds and Stand for Children — testified strongly against the bill. Another major reform group, Democrats for Education Reform, was neutral, Arndt said.

“But other witnesses from the Poudre school district — as well as board certified teachers and representatives of the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union — urged the committee to pass the bill.
In closing statements before the vote, some committee members clearly were torn.
“I’m really struggling with this one,” said Rep. Dominick Moreno, D-Commerce City.

“With the defeat of the House bill, no other pending bills would alter the state system, which requires that principals and teachers be evaluated half on their professional practice and half on student academic growth.”

FYI, from a Denver source:

“The founder of the Colorado Children’s Campaign is a current Denver Public Schools’ board of Ed member, former lieutenant governor, current CEO of the non-Union schools’ principal training program Catapult. President of Colorado Succeeds is former leg aide to Johnston and helped write SB-191.”

Carol Burris, who is now the executive director of the Network for Public Education, spent decades as a teacher and an administrator. She retired last year as principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York. She helped to ignite the “principals’ revolt” against the state’s adoption of a test-based teacher and principal evaluation system; she and another Long Island principal, Sean Feeney, drafted a letter of protest that was eventually signed by nearly 5,000 principals across the state, about 40% of the total.

 

In this post, Burris explains what happened during John King’s time as State Commissioner of Education in New York, and how he alienated parents, teachers, and administrators. King was recently nominated by President Obama to serve as U.S. Secretary of Education.

 

Listening to others–especially parents and teachers–is not his strong point. More than anyone else, Duncan managed to ignite the massive opt out movement in New York last spring. He deserves credit for getting parents so riled up that one of every five eligible students refused the state tests, that is, about 220,000 children in grades 3 through 8.

 

Based on his record in New York, Burris predicts that we can expect more of the same from the Department of Education…or worse.

In 2010, I was in Denver the day that the Legislature was debating S. 10-191, a bill sponsored by young Senator Michael Johnston. It was a bill to base 50% of teachers’ evaluation on test scores, a new, untried, and very controversial idea. Teachers were strongly opposed, and the Legislature was deeply divided but the bill passed. I was supposed to debate Johnston at a lunch in downtown Denver, but the debate didn’t work as planned. There were about 60 civic leaders in the room, and we waited patiently for Johnston. We finished lunch and still no Johnston. So I got up and gave my talk and explained why it was wrong to evaluate teachers and principals by test scores (at that time, I was working with Richard Rothstein on a statement against test-based evaluation that was signed by a bevy of testing experts). No sooner did I finish, then presto-change-o, young Senator Johnston strides through the doors in the back of the room. He had carefully managed not to hear anything I said.

 

He then proceeded to talk for 20 minutes or more about the glories of using test scores to judge teachers, principals, and schools. He predicted that the passage of his bill would bring about miraculous improvements in education across the state of Colorado. He praised his legislation as the dawn of a new day. Michael Johnston is an alum of Teach for America (were you surprised to hear that?). The title of his bill was something grandiose and completely fraudulent, something like “Great Schools and Great Teachers Act of 2010.” Gosh, it is six years later, and almost everyone except Michael Johnston knows that test-based accountability flopped. It flopped in Colorado and it flopped everywhere else, despite the billions pumped into by the federal government, the Gates Foundation, states and local districts.

 

Just in the past few days, both John Merrow and the team of Checker Finn and Michael Petrilli independently agreed that teacher evaluation by test scores was Arne Duncan’s worst mistake. John Merrow said, “Tying teacher evaluations to testing was a mistake, probably Arne Duncan’s biggest mistake.” Petrilli and Finn said that the federal mandate for teacher evaluations was “politically poisonous.” But not in Colorado, it seems.

 

A group of legislators proposed revising his bill to eliminate evaluation by test scores, and it appeared to have the support it needed. But at the last minute, two of the Republicans changed their minds about dropping the teacher evaluation by test scores, and Michael Johnston’s failed idea survived by a vote of 6-3. So Johnston and five Republican Senators managed to preserve this program, which has not worked in Colorado nor anywhere else in America. Six years after passage, there is not a whit of evidence that it improves teaching and learning.

 

Do you think Michael Johnston read the statement by the American Statistical Association in 2014 warning that using test scores to evaluate individual teachers is not a reasonable idea, because teachers influence between 1-14% of the variation in student test scores? I don’t think so. Do you think he saw the statement by the American Educational Research Association last fall against the use of this method? I don’t think so. Do you think he read the statement by Edward Haertel, the Stanford University testing expert, on the flaws of value-added assessment? Do you think he knows that it has been dropped by district after district because it costs millions and it has failed everywhere to identify the best or the worst teachers? Apparently not.

 

Michael Johnston doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. With this last-ditch effort to preserve the bad idea he sponsored, he has proved that he neither reads nor thinks.

 

Message to Colorado parents: Opt out. Resist. Do not let the state impose bad policies on your children or their teachers.