Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

A reader posted this AP story about parent support for standardized testing and the Common Core. If you read the story carefully, it shows that parents have no idea how test results are being misused and are unfamiliar with the Common Core. The headline says parents support “high-stakes testing,” but nothing in the story supports that assertion.

One parent quote in the story below thinks the test results are used diagnostically, which would be appropriate: ““The tests are good be­cause they show us where students are at, if they need help with anything,” said Vicky Nevarez, whose son Jesse just grad­uated from high school in Murrieta, Calif. “His teachers were great and if there were problems, the tests let me know.”

Parents think that the test results will be used to help their child do better. They don’t realize that the results are not available for months, when their child no longer has the same teacher. Nor do they know that neither the teacher nor the student is allowed to see the test questions after the test, so they never learn what they got wrong and where they need to improve.

A thoughtful poll would reveal, I suspect, that parents know that the teacher is not the sole determinant of their child’s test scores. Even President Obama once opined that one of his daughters got a low test score in science because she wasn’t trying hard enough. He didn’t blame her teacher; he said Malia was “slacking off.” He said, ““But even in our own household, with all the privileges and opportunities we have, there are times when the kids slack off. There are times when they would rather be watching TV or playing a computer game than hitting the books.’’ In the school his daughters attend, teachers write their own tests, which is the way it should be.

How would parents react if they knew that the tests are not used to help their child, but to give her a rating and to rate the teacher and the school How would they respond if they knew that their child’s score would be used to fire her teacher or close her school?

Here is the story. If anyone can find the questions, please send a link or the questions.

Posted by a reader:

New poll: Parents back high-stakes testing

“By Philip Elliott and Jennifer Agiesta

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Often criticized as too prescrip­tive and all-consuming, standardized tests have support among parents, who view them as a useful way to measure both stu­dents’ and schools’ perfor­mances, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll. Most parents also say their own children are given about the right number of standardized tests, according to the AP­NORC poll. They’d like to see stu­dent performance on statewide exams used in evaluating teachers, and almost three-quarters said they favored changes that would make it easier for schools to fire poorly performing teachers. “The tests are good be­cause they show us where students are at, if they need help with anything,” said Vicky Nevarez, whose son Jesse just grad­uated from high school in Murrieta, Calif. “His teachers were great and if there were problems, the tests let me know.”

The polling results are good news for states look­ing to implement in­creased accountability standards and for those who want to hold teachers responsible for students’ slipping standing against other countries’ scores. Teachers’ unions have ob­jected to linking educa­tors’ evaluations to stu­dent performance.

As students prepare to return to classrooms, the AP-NORC Center sur­veyed parents of students at all grade levels and found:

» Sixty-one percent of parents think their chil­dren take an appropriate number of standardized tests and 26 percent think their children take too many tests.

» Teachers’ fates shouldn’t rest solely on test results, according to a majority of parents. Fifty­six percent said class­room observations should be part of teachers’ evalu­ations, and 74 percent of all parents said they want­ed districts to help strug­gling teachers.

» Despite many Re­publicans’ unrelenting criticism of the Common Core State Standards, in various stages of imple­mentation in 45 states and the District of Columbia, 52 percent parents have heard little or nothing about the academic benchmarks and a third are unsure if they live in a state using them. Still, when given a brief de­scription of what the stan­dards do, about half of parents say educational quality will improve once the standards are imple­mented, 11 percent think it will get worse, and 27 per­cent say they’ll have no ef­fect.

» Seventy-five per­cent of parents say stan­dardized tests are a solid measure of their chil­dren’s abilities, and 69 percent say such exams are a good measure of the schools’ quality. “We know when the tests are coming up. They spend a lot of time getting ready for them,” said Rod­ney Land of Lansing, Mich. His daughter, Selena, will be in eighth grade at a charter school this fall. The weights-and-mea­sures inspector supports the testing because “it shows what they know, and what they should know.”

“We need some way to keep track of whether the teachers are spending enough time educating,” Land said.

“Education union lead­ers have stood opposed to linking teacher evalua­tions with these tests, ar­guing it is unfair to punish teachers for students’ shortcomings. They also say teachers have not had sufficient time to rewrite their lessons to reflect new academic bench­marks, such as those found in the Common Core.

“When states have adopted the Common Core State Standards, which aim to provide con­sistent requirements across all states for math and English, test results often falter and the stan­dards can make schools and teachers appear to be faring worse than they did the previous year.”

A teacher in Connecticut will lose her job because she teaches the neediest kids. If she can get a job in an affluent district, she will get a high rating.

She writes:

“I have been reading your flurry of blog posts and the excellent comments from teachers and other concerned citizens all at once this morning, and while I must say, they are very cathartic, my stomach is all in knots because they so hit home with my present situation, and clearly of so many other teachers. What you say about charter schools being “free to choose its enrollment and kick out disruptive students while we must accept everyone” is one of the kernels of truth at the center of this whole mess.

“I teach 7/8 social studies in one of the “lowest performing” schools (read highest poverty and crime neighborhoods), in a large CT urban district (name withheld to protect the guilty…). According to the new teacher evaluation system tied to test scores, I have been labelled as ineffective, and am being terminated by the district after 10 years.

“My school is not a magnet, and so we must accept students who are “kicked out” of charters and magnets from around the city at all times during the school year, and I actually had 6 students transfer in after March! These are often children with severe emotional disturbances, but they are almost always children who are very low-skilled, and by middle school, very turned off by the “Brave New World” of being tested more than they are being taught. Just the change in the classroom dynamic when new students like these are brought in is enough to throw all learning out of kilter as my current students feel the need to establish themselves in the pecking order of their new classmates. This makes any of my cooperative grouping plans go right out the window until I can try to form relationships with the new students, which sometimes is next to impossible, and this is only one of a myriad of problems like 10 year-old computers, no librarian, huge school wide disciplinary problems, lack of parental involvement, etc., etc.

“However, all these challenges for me and other teachers in schools like mine might be overcome if it were not for the pressure of district and school administrators constantly harping on deficient test scores, not enough “higher order thinking” questions, (very hard to do when many of my students can barely read) and not perfect classroom management. I have always believed that good teachers teach the “whole student” and that before any of those higher order thinking goals can be achieved, I need to meet the students at their level, and try to build on their strengths to give them the confidence they need to succeed, let alone survive the many traumas they face from their home situations. It is cruel to give them tests that just confirm their feelings of inadequacy, and yet, sadly, that is the future for my students with the CCSS Smarter Balance testing on the way.

“Of course I am not trying to claim that I have all the answers, but I don’t think that the powers that be do either. Every weekend of the past two years I have spent countless hours online looking at excellent websites like teachingchannel.org or edutopia.org among many others, and all have been very helpful for me in improving my practice and finding methods to increase student-directed learning. I have attended workshops and served on school reform committees in my district, but still, according to my district, I am not effective because my children are deficient according to these “standards.” I came to teaching 10 years ago after having had another career because I really thought I could make a difference for children in a school like mine, and judging from the number of kids who come back to say hello after they graduate and have written me thank you letters, I think I probably have. I am 57 and have been sending applications to other districts, but this may be the end of my teaching career because of my age and my poor rating.

“Thank you, Diane, for making me feel that at least I am not alone in this tragedy that is occurring in public education, although it is a small comfort considering that the welfare of our most at-risk children is at stake.”

There is a sacrosanct principle that has informed the actions of the U.S. Department of Education throughout its 33-year history: federalism. That is, a recognition that the federal government has limited authority, and that states and localities have the primary responsibility for education. George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind was a direct assault on federalism because it asserted the power of Congress and the Department of Education to tell states and localities how to measure “progress” and how to reform schools. Since no one in either Congress or the Department of Education knows how to reform schools, this was a bad but costly joke. And not funny.

Arne Duncan made the assault on federalism more intense by promulgating Race to the Top. RTTT offered a huge financial lure to states willing to abandon their authority and accept Duncan’s untried “remedies.” Most were hungry enough to do so, because in a time of financial crisis, money talks.

Duncan’s worst idea was evaluating teachers by test scores. Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that the teachers in affluent districts get big gains and look effective while those who teach needy students do not get big gains and look like ineffective teachers. Duncan doesn’t care. He has his idee fixe and he is sticking to it, regardless of how many teachers-of-the-year get fired.

Now he has found a new way to undermine federalism. Frustrated by California’s stubborn refusal to join Duncan’s Race to Oblivion, he was able to find a group of superintendents (mostly trained by the unaccredited Broad Academy) who want federal money. So Duncan has bypassed the state, the entity that has legal jurisdiction over these districts, and has formed a direct relationship between the federal government and the coalition called CORE (California Office to Reform Education).

Read this post to learn more about this special “partnership” that cut the state out of the transaction. You will see familiar names, well known in corporate reform circles. They are eager to do what Duncan wants them to do, while ignoring the state of which they are part, which has wisely steered clear of Duncan’s mandates.

The saddest part of all this is that Duncan was a failure in Chicago, yet now he has brought his failed ideas to become national policy. After eight years of his “leadership,” what will be left of American public education? Who will want to teach?

The Gates Foundation just showered more millions on allies prepared to spread Bill Gates’ gospel of testing, test-based teacher evaluation, and Common Core.

Millions for the young inexperienced teachers who fight tenure and demand testing (Educators4Excellence); millions for Jefferson County, Colorado, where the school board and superintendent believe in testing and privatization; millions to buy off the NEA; and more. Read the link to learn who else won Gates’ money this time.

The hundreds of millions that Gates has poured into teacher evaluation by test scores has thus far produced nothing but massive demoralization.

Will anyone tell Bill & Melinda?

Policymakers are mostly agreed that they can measure teacher quality by whether scores go up or down.

Research does not support this simplistic notion.

Mostly, researchers have found that teachers in affluent districts get bigger score gains on standardized tests than teachers who are in poor districts, who have many children who don’t read English or have special needs.

And there is what I think of as the cardinal rule: Tests should be used only for the purpose for which they were designed.

A test of fifth grade math tests whether students have learned fifth grade math, not whether their teacher is effective.

Matt Di Carlo here discusses a research study whose author suggests that there should be two different tests: one for students, another for teachers.

I have trouble visualizing what the teacher test would look like, or what it would measure that would be an accurate gauge of “teacher quality.”

But then I have grown increasingly weary of our public infatuation with standardized testing as the answer to our educational needs.

Lance Hill points out that his state has a double standard when it evaluates teachers by test scores. Some who teach high-scoring students were rated “ineffective” because their students showed no growth. Their ratings were set aside for review. They were treated differently from those who teach high-needs students.

The Louisiana formula:

Excuses for the teachers of the high-performing. No excuses for those who take on the biggest challenges.

A couple of years ago, I was on a panel discussion about school reform in NYC. To one side of me was a young man of maybe 23 or 24 who was remarkable. He knew everything. He had taught for 18 months and had learned everything there was to know about teaching and how to reform schools. I should have been impressed, but found his arrogance annoying.

He was representing a group of other young teachers who call themselves Educators4Excellence,. They are funded by the Gates Foundation. They think that teachers should be evaluated by test scores of their students. They believe in merit pay. They oppose tenure or any kind of job security for teachers.

They just received another $3 million from the Gates Foundation. For rising young stars, it pays better than teaching to be an Educator 4 Excellence.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2013/jul/30/state-school-chief-responds-us-doe-plans-withhold-/

A few days ago, Georgia announced that it was dropping out of PARCC, the Common Core testing consortium funded by the U.S. Department of Education. State officials said the state could not afford the technology or the cost.

The U.S. Department of Education was swift to respond. It wrote Georgia to warn that it is withholding $10 million from the state’s Race to the Top funding. Maybe the timing was a coincidence. Maybe not.

The state says it needs more time to fix its educator evaluation system before it can be implemented, but the Feds insist that Georgia must start evaluating teachers and principals based on test scores without further delay.

Now for a dose of reality. Research does not support any part of Race to the Top. Research shows that tying educator evaluations to test scores produces narrowing the curriculum, gaming the system, teaching to the test, cheating, and score inflation. The most “effective” teachers teach the most affluent students in the most affluent schools. The least “effective” teach the poorest. Research shows that over 100 years of trying, merit pay has Never worked. Teachers are doing the best they know how; they are not holding back and hoping for a bonus or a biscuit.

Race to the Top will someday be remembered in the history books as a Grand Detour, when ideologues gained control of federal policy and used an economic crisis to dangle money in front of the states so they would agree to implement failed policies.

All of this will change, but not until there is wiser leadership in Washington, wise enough to banish Race to the Top and recover a common sense approach to education reform based on what children and schools need, not what misguided politicians demand.

Bruce Baker brilliantly explains here why he won’t use the term “corporate reform.”

The strategies now being imposed on the schools have failed when applied in corporate settings, he writes.

He looks at the use of two now-popular “reform” ideas in education: the portfolio model and evaluation by results.

The portfolio model is based on the belief that schools should compete, and that those in charge should close the ones that don’t have high test scores while adding new ones.

Baker shows that when Sears tried the portfolio model, it was a disaster.

Units competed with one another, and each one thought only about what was good for its own survival.

There was, as one would predict, the worst kind of competition for survival, with cream skimming.

The overall results were devastating to the corporation.

When IBM tried to reverse its declining fortunes, it adopted a competitive employee rating system.

This too was a disaster.

(Edwards Deming could have predicted these disasters, but that’s another subject.)

So, Baker argues that current education reform should not be called “corporate reform” because good corporations would never do what the “reformers” now insist upon.

But, I will continue to use the term “corporate reform” because I think he proves the point that I make.

The bad ideas now infesting public education came from the corporate sector, where they failed.

They are failed corporate ideas that are being imposed on public schools, where they also fail.

It is important to understand why they failed in the corporate world, because it helps to explain why they are failing in the education world.

So I will continue to refer to the “reformers” as corporate reformers because it captures the origins of their bad ideas.

They are the people insisting upon the portfolio model, upon teacher evaluation models that turn teaching into a metrical exercise, upon data as the goal of education, upon turning everything into a metric, upon closing community schools, upon lowering standards for entry into teaching. They are the people who think that Big Data can solve all problems, even those that can’t be measured. They are the people who say “you measure what you treasure,” although they sometimes say, “you treasure what you measure.” And they say, “if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it.”

If someone has a better term than “corporate reform,” I’m all ears.

 

George Schmidt taught for many years in Chicago until he was fired by Paul Vallas, then the CEO, for revealing test questions (to show how idiotic they were). He now offers advice on how to succeed as a teacher:

 

Thanks for making me laugh this otherwise unfunny Chicago morning. Around here, the best way to become one of the “best” teachers is to get as far as possible away from the hard core segregated impoverished inner city schools (where I had the privilege of teaching for decades before being purged and blacklisted by Paul Vallas & Co). Step one in the “Two Step” is to transfer from a “bad” school to a “good” school within the city. That trick has been done regularly here in Chicago. I remember two decent English teachers who transferred from Chicago’s Collins High School (in the North Lawndale community) to Lane Tech High School (selective enrollment forever), and suddenly they were relieved of all the worries about having their school subjected to “turnaround” etc., etc., etc.

The Big Step then is to wrangle a job in the suburbs — say at New Trier High School, where Rahm Emanuel and his brothers went to school. (I know: Rahm’s a Chicago guy — not). If you become a New Trier teacher, as two people I knew in Chicago did, then you become one of the best teachers in the USA.

Forever.

The only downside is that you have to teach bratty kids like a young Rahm Emanuel, and deal with parents who will remind you in a pinch (say, when their kid gets an “F”) that they are smarter than you and that if you had any brains, ambition or talent you would be in business and not teaching…