Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

This was written by Kipp Dawson, an experienced teacher of English and social studies in middle school in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh won a large grant from the Gates Foundation to apply its ideas about evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students. Things have not gone well, as Dawson reporters here, especially since the city schools have a Broad superintendent who is a true believer in test scores as the measure of one’s worth.

Before becoming a teacher, Kipp Dawson spent ten years as a coal miner. She knows the importance of collaboration with colleagues. In the mines, her life depended on it every day.

She writes:

Education “reformers” are pointing their “effective teaching” arrows in precisely the wrong direction. In real life, anyone who wants to see really bad teaching can walk into any “highly effective” teacher’s classroom in public school in any Broad-trained-superintendent’s district infested by any Gates-type teacher “evaluation” system and see what fear has turned “effective teaching” into.

The day begins with an administrator’s announcement over the PA system of how many days are left until the BIG test.

Children, our precious children, then go from room to room (or the little ones stay in one room) led by a teacher who fears every moment for her/his job, and “knows” the way to keep it is to get those high test scores from those actual real children from the real world who are going to make or break her/his employment by which circles they fill in on those answer sheets during all of those days. So fear guides her/him as lessons are planned, as letters are sent home to parents, and as children’s time in school is more and more frenziedly taken up with frenzied, fear-inspired “teaching” of how to fill in those bubbles, by golly, we’re gonna make this happen, aren’t we, kids. And if any parent of a “high achieving” child dares mention opting out of these tests, fear guides the teacher’s response — fear based on real possibilities that in and of themselves make this whole scene draconian.

This is what classrooms across this country are becoming/have become for our beautiful kids — kids who come to us to get away from the growing poverty and violence which in too many cases controls their lives outside of school.

Fear.

Fear is coloring the days of children and teachers alike. THIS is what “education reform” ala Broad and Gates hath wrought. This is what we teachers and our organizations need to recognize, stand up against, and fight. Alongside our real allies. Along with parents who are telling the truth about what is going on even as they do all they can to stop the attacks on us teachers, too many of whom have been pushed into being agents of this horror.

Let us raise high again, out of the dust this mess is creating, the images of what real teaching and learning can be like (for a quick refresher, go back to chapter 9 of Diane Ravitch’s “Death and Life of the Great American Schopl System” — “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?”). We have to stop this madness.

Audrey Amrein Beardsley of Arizona State Is one of our nation’s leading experts on matters related to value-added measurement. In this rarified but important field, Beardsley has a stellar advantage: she was a classroom teacher. Imagine that!

She has been following the Vergara trial in Los Angeles closely.

She writes here about the testimony of Harvard professor Tom Kane, who advises the Gates Foundation:

“If I was to make a list of VAMboozlers, Kane would be near the top of the list, especially as he is increasingly using his Harvard affiliation to advance his own (profitable) credibility in this area. To read an insightful post about just this, read VAMboozled! reader Laura Chapman’s comment at the bottom of a recent post here, in which she wrote, “Harvard is only one of a dozen high profile institutions that has become the source of propaganda about K-12 education and teacher performance as measured by scores on standardized tests.”

“Anyhow, and as per a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, Kane testified that “Black and Latino students are more likely to get ineffective teachers in Los Angeles schools than white and Asian students,” and that “the worst teachers–in the bottom 5%–taught 3.2% of white students and 5.4% of Latino students. If ineffective teachers were evenly distributed, you’d expect that 5% of each group of students would have these low-rated instructors.” He concluded that “The teaching-quality imbalance especially hurts the neediest students because ‘rather than assign them more effective teachers to help close the gap with white students they’re assigned less effective teachers, which results in the gap being slightly wider in the following year.”

“Kane’s research was, of course, used to support the claim that bad teachers are causing the disparities that he cited, regardless of the fact the inverse could be also, equally, or even more true–that the value-added measures used to measure teacher effectiveness in these schools are biased by the very nature of the students in these schools that are contributing their low test scores to such estimates. As increasingly being demonstrated in the literature, these models are biased by the types of students in the classrooms and schools that contribute to the measures themselves.”

Mark Weber, who blogs as Jersey Jazzman, here describes the legacy of Chris Cerf’s three years as State Commissioner of Education in New Jersey.

Cerf has announced that he is leaving to join Amplify, the education division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which is headed by Cerf’s former boss Joel Klein. Cerf was deputy chancellor in New York City when Klein was chancellor. Together, they will sell hardware and software to the nation’s schools on behalf of Murdoch.

Weber sums Cerf’s legacy thus:

More state control.
More emphasis on standardized testing.
More inequitably funded districts.
More inexperienced district leaders.
More intensely segregated districts.
More unfunded mandates.
More demoralized and burned out teachers.

A respected researcher recently pointed out to me that there is a vast divide between most economists of education–who devoutly believe (it seems) that whatever matters can be measured, and if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t matter–and education researchers, who tend to think about the real world of students and teachers.

Here is an excellent example of the divide.

Bruce Baker takes issue with the currently fashionable idea that education can be dramatically improved by identifying the “best” teachers, giving them larger classes, and getting rid of the loser teachers.

Or, as he puts it:

“The solution to all of our woes is simple and elegant. Just follow these steps.

Step 1: Identify “really great” teachers (using your best VAM or SGP) who happen to be currently teaching inefficiently small classes of 14 to 17 students.

Step 2: Re-assign to those “really great” teachers another 12 or so students, because whatever losses might occur in relation to increased class size, the benefits of the “really great” teacher will far outweigh those losses.

Step 3: Enter underpants Gnomes.

Step 4. Test Score Awesomeness!”

He has a suggestion: Why not try the same at the fancy private and public schools?.

“One might assert that affluent suburban Westchester and Long Island districts with much smaller average class sizes should give more serious consideration to this proposal, that is, if they are a) willing to accept the assertion that they have both “bad” and “good” teachers and b) that parents in their districts are really willing to permit such experimentation with their children? I remain unconvinced.

“As for leading private independent schools which continue to use small class size as a major selling point (& differentiator from public districts), I’m currently pondering the construction of the double-decker Harkness table, to accommodate 12 students sitting on the backs of 12 others. This will be a disruptive innovation like no other!”

Peter Greene, who teaches high school English in Pennsylvania, here reviews the Twitter outburst with the hash tag #evaluatethat.

The campaign on Twitter began as a way to point out that teachers do far more important things for students than get measured on standardized tests. And it grew.

Greene points out that people in many occupations go beyond their job descriptions.

So what is the point of #evaluatethat?

He writes:

“It goes back to what’s wrong with “college and career ready.” Because it is not enough to be good at your job. You need to be good at life. You need to be good at being a human in this world, and that is so much more than a job.

“I’ve maintained for years that teaching is a kind of guerilla warfare, that many of us are fighting in the underground, doing what we can in spite of the authorities. Under the current wave of reformy stuff, this is more true than ever. Education is occupied territory, and we are members of the resistance, not powerful enough to directly oppose the forces that have taken control of our home. Instead, we save who we can when we can, chip away at the occupiers, and work toward the day when we can send them packing.

“In the meantime, we have to do what we can to stay in contact with the rest of the underground and remind ourselves what we represent, what we fight for. I don’t think #evaluatethat will change much. I think people who are imagining that occupiers will slap their heads and say, “Yes, yes, I’ve been so blind” are kidding themselves. But for the rest of us, knowing that we are not alone, that other people get it, that other people are also standing up for what is best and brightest, that we are not crazy for thinking that we are in a classroom to help nurture and grow real human people and not to just collect data, read a script and do some test prep– I think knowing that is golden. Evaluate that, indeed.”

Tom Scarice, superintendent of schools in Madison, Connecticut, has already been named to the honor roll for his leadership and vision in bringing together his community to plan for the future of Madison public schools.

Now, he steps up and speaks out again to take issue with those, like Governor Dannell Malloy, who call for a “pause” in the implementation of misguided reforms.

In a letter to his state representatives, Scarice explains that education policy must be based on sound research and experience. What Connecticut is doing now, he writes, is merely complying with federal mandates that harm schools and demoralize teachers.

If every superintendent had Tom Scarice’s courage and understanding, this country would have a far, far better education system and could easily repel the intrusions of bad policies.

Here is his letter:

January 29, 2014

Senator Edward Meyer
Legislative Office Building,
Room 3200 Hartford, CT 06106
Representative Noreen Kokoruda
Legislative Office Building, Room 4200 State of Connecticut
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Senator Meyer and Representative Kokoruda:

As a superintendent of schools it is incumbent upon me to ground my work with my local board of education. My work must be grounded in two areas: in accurately framing problems to solve, and most importantly, in proposing solutions grounded in evidence, research, and legitimate literature to support a particular direction. Any other approach would be irresponsible and I’m certain my board would reject such shortcuts and hold me accountable.

In our profession, we have the fortune of volumes of literature and research on our practices. We have evidence to guide our decision making to make responsible decisions in solving our problems of practice. This is not unlike the field of medicine or engineering. To ignore this evidence, in my estimation, is irresponsible.

Legislators across the state have heard from, and will continue to hear loudly from, educators about what is referred to as education reforms. Webster defines “reform” as “a method to change into an improved condition.” I believe that legislators will continue to hear from the thousands of educators across the state because the reforms, in that sense, are not resulting in an improved condition. In fact, a case can be made that the conditions have worsened.

To be fair, the reforms did, in fact, shine a light on the role of evaluation in raising the performance of our workforce. There were cases of a dereliction of duty in the evaluation of professional staff. This is unacceptable and was not the norm for all school districts.
However, I would like to make the case that these reforms will not result in improved conditions since they are not grounded in research, the evidence that supports professional decision-making, like a doctor or engineer. It is simply a matter of substance. The evidence is clear in schools across the state. It is not working.

We have spent the better part of the last 12 years with a test-based accountability movement that has not led to better results or better conditions for children. What it has led to is a general malaise among our profession, one that has accepted a narrowing of the curriculum, a teaching to the test mentality, and a poorly constructed redefinition of what a good education is. Today, a good education is narrowly defined as good test scores. What it has led to is a culture of compliance in our schools.

We have doubled-down on the failed practices of No Child Left Behind. Not only do we subscribe to a test and punish mentality for school districts, we have now drilled that mentality down to the individual teacher level.

We have an opportunity to listen to the teachers, administrators, parents, and even the students, to make the necessary course corrections. We know what is coming. We’ve seen it happen in other states. We can easily look at the literature and predict how this story ends. New York, Kentucky and so forth, these states are about one year ahead of Connecticut. Why would we think it will end any differently for our state? We can take action to prevent the inevitable.

We have an opportunity. You as legislators have an opportunity. Our students and communities are counting on us.
I am pleased to see that the Governor has asserted his authority to address this deeply rooted problem. But we cannot stop there.

I ask the following:

Do not be lulled into solutions that promote “delay.” Although the problem is being framed as an issue of implementation timelines and volume, I contend that this is much more about substance than delays. Revisit the substance of these reforms, particularly the rigidity of the teacher evaluation guidelines.

As you revisit the substance, demand the evidence and research that grounds the reforms, just as a board of education would demand of a superintendent. You will find, as I have, that the current reforms are simply not grounded in research. As legislators, demand the evidence, particularly the literature that illustrates the damaging effects of high stakes test scores in teacher evaluations. Demand the evidence that demonstrates that this approach is valid and will withstand legal scrutiny. Demanding evidence is how every local board of education holds their administrators accountable.

Build on the Governor’s first steps and create even greater flexibility for local districts to innovate and create. This is 2014…standardizing our work across all schools is not the answer. That’s the factory / assembly line mentality that got public schools into this mess. We need a diversity of thought, similar to a “crowd sourcing” approach, if we are to solve the problems of the 21st century. Above all, commit to the principle that “one size fits all” does not work. We would never accept that from individual teachers in their work with students, why should we accept “one size fits all” for very different school districts across the state? There are indeed alternative approaches that fit the context and needs of individual districts. I would be happy to provide with you with our example.

You, as legislators, can create the space for innovation to thrive. Promote innovation, not mere compliance.

Revisit the No Child Left Behind waiver that was filed with the U. S. Department of Education. This is consistently presented as the trump card in any discussion involving modifications to the reform package passed a couple of years ago. We’ve been told that we cannot make changes because of promises made to the federal government. Was there a lower threshold for compliance with the No Child Left Behind waiver? Can we take a more aggressive approach for our state and not be dictated to by the federal government to this degree? This resonates at the local level and ought to at least be considered.

Finally, do not be a cynic, but be a skeptic about the common core. How can this be done?

Demand the evidence to support whether or not the standards are age-appropriate for our youngest learners. Demand the input of early childhood experts like the 500+ nationally recognized early childhood professionals who signed a joint statement expressing “grave concerns” about the K-3 standards. Or perhaps seek input right here in Connecticut from the early childhood experts at the Geselle Institute in New Haven.

Demand the evidence that supports that every child should master the same benchmarks every year when we know that all children develop at different rates.

Demand an accurate accounting of the current and, more importantly, future costs of implementing the common core and the new Smarter Balanced (SBAC) testing system.

Demand the evidence that supports coupling the common core to unproven tests. In just weeks, many students will sit for these new tests. They will serve as subjects to “test out the test.” It is quite possible that you will hear even more from parents after the tests are administered. Be proactive and seek these answers in advance of the inevitable questions you will be asked.

I want to close by stating that I personally have between eighteen to twenty more years to serve in this state and I look at these problems in a very long-term sense. What can we do now, not for this year or next, but in the long-term to be the shining example for the rest of the country that Connecticut’s public education system once was considered? I’m committed to this work and I will continue that commitment for nearly two more decades.

I ask you to seize this opportunity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thomas R. Scarice Superintendent

As readers of this blog know, Michelle Rhee promised to debate me at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania last spring.

The date was set, at her request, on February 6.

Then she demanded a second, and I agreed. (Her second was going to be Rod Paige.)

Then she demanded a third, and I agreed.

Then she said she couldn’t find a third, and she canceled.

Now I learn she is speaking to the Chamber of Commerce in Minneapolis on February 6, where she will bring the message that the way to have great schools is to fire teachers and use test scores as the absolute judge of students, teachers, principals, and schools.

She is speaking during the day so it is not likely that there will be teachers or students present.

I wish she would debate me. I would even accept a fourth or a fifth. We could each bring a team and mud-wrestle.

But no basketball. She would bring you-know-who, and I am not that tall.

Come on, Michelle. Just do it.

Remember the study that claimed that teachers who produce higher test scores in fourth or fifth grade have miraculous lifetime effects on students? Among other things, the students are less likely to get pregnant and an entire class will increase its lifetime earnings by $250,000 a year!

The study was reported on the first page of the Néw York Times, where one author said the lesson was to fire teachers sooner, based on value-added test scores.

President Obama was so impressed–since the study echoed Race to the Top’s focus on using VAM for firing teachers and giving bonuses –that he mentioned the study in his State of the Union Address. Of course, Sidwell Friends, where his daughters are enrolled, wouldn’t do any such thing as VAM.

Critics quickly pointed out that the Chetty study, as it was known for its lead author Raj Chetty, had not been peer reviewed and its findings were overstated.

Bruce Baker explained that an increase of $250,000 for a class works out to about $5 a week, maybe a cup of coffee at Starbucks or a couple more plus a donut at Dunkin Donuts.

Now, Audrey Amrein-Beardsley provides a valuable service by pointing out that the study has been released a THIRD time, still not peer reviewed.

In a startling development, the State Board of Education in Tennessee made clear at its meeting on Friday that it may eliminate or modify value-added measurement (VAM).

State Commissioner Keven Huffman was stunned.

Tennessee is the state where VAM got started, launched in the 1980s by agricultural statistician William Sanders. Based on his experience, Sanders assumed that it was possible to hold all other variables constant and attribute the rise or fall of test scores to teachers. Most social scientists understand that children are not corn, and it is impossible to hold all other variables constant. But Sanders now has a consulting business, and his methods are proprietary information, c.osely held.

In the future, if the board sticks to its guns, VAM will not play a part in deciding whether teachers may be licensed to work in the state of Tennessee. Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, an expert on VAM, celebrates that major victory here. Beardsley includes links to the three YouTube videos that the TEA shared with the board, called “The Trouble with TVAAAS.”

Given this background, the discussion at Fridays board meeting was indeed welcome to critics of test-based accountability, which has failed wherever it has been put into place.

Joey Garrison of the Tennessean reports:

” At its meeting in Nashville on Friday, the board stepped away from the new policy, promising an April rewrite eliminating learning gains as the overriding factor in whether teachers can work in Tennessee. The state’s educators claimed victory after a three-year pounding that also ended the promises of contract negotiations and annual raises, then tied their tenure to student test scores.

“Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman, who backed the original policy, and state education board Chairman Fielding Rolston downplayed the vote, characterizing it as a small and appropriate tweak before the policy takes effect in 2015. Education reform advocates took the same tack, pointing out that basing licenses on overall teacher evaluation scores, which include learning gains but give more weight to principal observations, is still progress….

“But the vote coincides with a bipartisan bill gaining ground in the legislature this session. The Educator Respect and Accountability Act, sponsored by Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, and Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, would prevent the state from yanking teachers’ licenses based on “any statistical estimate utilizing standardized test scores.”

Huffman, who is heartily disliked by both teachers and administrators (nearly half the state’s district superintendents signed a petition decrying his top-down, non-collaborative style), was clearly outraged by the board’s second thoughts but leveled his criticism at the union. (Tennessee withdrew collective bargaining rights in 2011, and the TEA is weak.)

He said “he was flummoxed to see the union withdrawing its support of any use of value-added scores in evaluations and licensing after the state received a $500 million federal Race to the Top grant in part based on it.

“This is a very significant change in their position, and to be frank, I find it incredibly hypocritical that TEA would support the inclusion of value-added scores when there’s a bunch of federal money at the table and then turn around a few years later when that money is no longer going to be around,” he said.

“In a media release, the 46,000-member TEA countered that it endorsed the Race to the Top plan under former Gov. Phil Bredesen’s administration, but Huffman and Gov. Bill Haslam didn’t honor the agreements.

“Since Bredesen’s administration, teachers have complained of abysmal morale over the loss of union contract negotiations and use of student test data in their evaluations — even if the subjects they teach aren’t tested.”

Another way to look at the change of view of the board and the teachers is that they know now that VAM doesn’t wrk, that it is inaccurate, and they are acknowledging the realities.

In 2012, Governor Bobby Jindal rammed through the legislature his compleat program of privatization of public schools and dismantling the teaching profession.

But things have not gone well since then because of the judiciary.

The funding if the voucher program was held unconstitutional and so was the act that outraged teachers.

The latter was overturned a second time.

The courts continue to be the guardians of due process. They have a habit of sticking to the state and federal constitutions.