Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Arne Gets Angry at Georgia

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2013 //
70

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.

Categories Duncan, Arne, Georgia, Merit pay, Race to the Top, Teacher Evaluations

Bruce Baker: Why He Won’t Use the Term “Corporate Reform”

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2013 //
69

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.

 

Categories Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reformers, Privatization, Teacher Evaluations

George Schmidt: How to Become an Excellent Teacher

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2013 //
4

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…

Categories Chicago, Teacher Evaluations

Connecticut Policy Institute Responds to Critical Comment

By dianeravitch
July 28, 2013 //
58

In one of the comments on the blog, a reader posted critical comments about the Connecticut Policy Institute.

The executive director of the institute, Ben Zimmer, asked me for the opportunity to respond. I agreed.

I checked the webpage of the CPI, and note that it is in favor of charter schools in poor districts, using test scores (“effectiveness”) to evaluate teachers, using an A-F grading system for schools, and imposing a third grade reading exam and a graduation exam. Most of these are policies that I have criticized on this blog. Charter schools do not get better results than public schools except when they skim the best students and exclude those who might lower their test scores; evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students is a very poor measure of teacher quality that I have called “junk science” because of its recognized inaccuracy and instability; the A-F grading system introduced by Jeb Bush in Florida is incoherent and constantly reshuffled, but still incoherent; after a dozen years of NCLB, I conclude that reliance on testing is a demonstrated failure if the goal is either excellence or equity. The fact that CPI holds up not only Massachusetts as a model but Jeb Bush’s Florida and Mitch Daniels’ Indiana is a strong indication of the policy goals of the organization.

But as readers know, I post entries that I don’t necessarily agree with, and even entries that I clearly disagree with.

I am happy to post Ben Zimmer’s response here.

Zimmer writes:

Dear Readers of Professor Ravitch’s Blog,

This morning Professor Ravitch posted a blog entry reproducing a comment from an online forum. The comment critiqued a recent op-ed I wrote on teacher certification in Connecticut (http://www.ctmirror.org/op-ed/2013/06/30/vallas-certification-debacle-reveals-shortcomings-education-reform-efforts). I welcome and appreciate Professor Ravitch drawing attention to my op-ed and the work of the Connecticut Policy Institute. But the comment she reposted does not accurately represent my position and puts forward unfounded critiques. Professor Ravitch has kindly offered me the opportunity to respond.

Amidst a barrage of all-caps tirades and ad-hominem insults (“assclown” was my particular favorite), the post appeared to make three actual points: 1) That my opposition to teacher certification laws means that I support lowering standards for educators; 2) That my opposition to teacher certification laws is grounded in “bogus” studies; and 3) That I am a hypocrite for opposing teacher certification laws when I hold a B.A. and J.D myself. I will respond to each point in turn.

Point 1

The notion that I support lowering standards for educators is a complete mischaracterization of my position. Indeed, in order to make this point the author literally fabricates quotes – for instance, the author quotes me as stating that degrees in education are “worthless,” a word that never appeared in my op-ed (nor did anything approximating it). On the contrary, I believe education degrees can be a very valuable credential for teachers. But I do not believe that they are the only valid credential.

The teaching profession is enhanced when professionals from a diverse set of backgrounds are eligible to apply for positions. Right now, in Connecticut, someone with a PhD in physics or history with experience teaching college-level seminars in their field would be prohibited by law from teaching an equivalent seminar at a public school. I do not believe this restriction or ones like it further the goal of promoting the highest quality teaching possible.

Furthermore, when state laws require individuals in any profession to obtain a degree from a particular department in a particular university, that department becomes insulated from competitive pressures and accountability. Departments of education have an important role to play at higher education institutions. But the quality of those departments would be enhanced if they had to compete for aspiring teachers based on the quality of training they provide.

Point 2

Research suggests that paper certifications are not valuable predictors of teachers’ effectiveness. Rigorous studies confirming this include studies put out by the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf) and labor economist Tim Sass (http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/pdfs/Alternative%20Certification%20and%20Teacher%20Quality%2011.pdf).

Point 3

It is perfectly consistent to oppose teacher certification laws while holding advanced degrees myself. I fully support teachers obtaining advanced degrees and I also support schools / districts encouraging teachers to obtain advanced degrees – insofar as those degrees actually help teachers teach more effectively. What I oppose is legal requirements limiting teachers to certain particular advanced degrees. In most professions – even ones where possession of advanced degrees is the norm and it would be difficult to get a job without one (e.g., university professors, engineers, business executives, government officials, non-for-profit administrators) – there are no laws limiting professionals to particular degrees.

That said, teaching is not the only field where state laws mandate particular certifications or licenses. In many of those other fields, the laws are similarly problematic. This is something that the Connecticut Policy Institute has studied and written on at some length: http://www.ctpolicyinstitute.org/content/CT_Policy_Institute_Regulation_Paper.pdf.

One other profession where state laws limit applicant pools to individuals who hold a particular degree is the law. Though I hold a J.D. myself, I would be the first to say that licensing laws for lawyers have many of the same problems as they do for teachers – they are less about actual qualification and more about insulating established bureaucracies from outside reform and protecting the economic interests of existing lawyers and law professors. Aspiring lawyers are forced to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to attend law schools that often teach things unrelated to the practice of law. Meanwhile, law students’ debt-financed tuition heavily subsidizes the salaries of law professors who earn more than their peers in the rest of academia even though they produce articles that are equally abstract and infrequently read. This New York Times article offers an interesting exploration of these problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Conclusion

I know that teachers have at times felt vilified by the “education reform” movement. Personally, I firmly believe that teachers are part of the solution, not part of the problem. But we also should acknowledge that the teaching profession – like all professions – is not perfect. There are certain structural features of the teaching profession as currently constituted that limit its ability to realize its full potential. I believe we should reform those features.

I welcome constructive dialogue with any of you on these issues. You can email me at ben.zimmer@ctpolicyinstitute.org, or call the Connecticut Policy Institute office at 203-404-0235.

Best,

Ben Zimmer
Executive Director
Connecticut Policy Institute
Categories Charter Schools, Connecticut, Corporate Reformers, Teacher Evaluations

NYC Educator: Making Big $$ in Bloomberg’s NYC

By dianeravitch
July 23, 2013 //
30

Arthur Goldstein, who teaches English language learners in a high school in Néw York City, realized he is missing out on the way to get very rich in Mayor Bloomberg’s education system.

Certainly not by teaching because the mayor doesn’t care for teachers.

It is not by teaching in a charter but by operating a charter like Eva and Geoffrey. The teachers turn over rapidly but the CEOs do very well indeed.

They have figured out that the secret to success is not accepting many ELLs or kids with disabilities.

Works like a charm.

Categories Bloomberg, Michael, Charter Schools, New York City, Teacher Evaluations

Bruce Baker: One of the Dumbest Ways to Evaluate Teachers

By dianeravitch
July 23, 2013 //
5

Bruce Baker here examines a “graduate school” created by charter schools where their inexperienced teachers train new teachers how to produce high test scores.

The model is a charter in New Jersey called North Star that gets great “growth scores” but has remarkably high attrition rates, especially among black boys.

Baker writes:

“But is a school really successful if 50 enter 5th grade, 1/3 are gone by 8th grade and only a handful ever graduate?

“Is this any indication of the quality of teaching, or pedagogy involved? I won’t go so far as to suggest that what I personally might perceive as offensive, demeaning pedagogy is driving these attrition rates (okay… maybe I just did).

“But, at the very least, I might argue that a school that loses over half its kids from grade 5 to 12 is a failing school, not an outstanding one. Whether that has any implications for labeling their teachers as “failing” and their preparation programs as “failing” is another question entirely.

“It is quite simply completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that Relay GSE is an outstanding graduate school of education as a function of measured test score gains of the few students who might stick around to take the tests in subsequent years.

“No secret sauce here… just a boatload of bogus policy assumptions creating perverse incentives and taking our education system even further in the wrong direction.”

Categories Charter Schools, Teacher Evaluations

EduShyster Welcomes You to Lake Wobegone Academy!

By dianeravitch
July 17, 2013 //
10

Read EduShyster as she takes you to the Lake Wobegon Academy of Excellence and Innovation.

That is a school where every single student is excellent!

Why?

Because every single teacher is excellent!

No more Bad teachers. No more “good” teachers.

And that is why every student is excellent!

No more median. At last, a school where No Child Is Left Behind, where every child Races to the Top and wins!

Don’t just take EduShyster’s word for it.

President Obama says it can be done. Secretary Duncan agrees. So does Jeb Bush. And Bill and Melinda Gates. And Eli Broad. And the Walton Family.

And they know, right?

Categories Corporate Reformers, Humor, Teacher Evaluations

Tennessee: The State Makes a Slight Mistake

By dianeravitch
July 17, 2013 //
16

This notice went to first- and second-grade teachers across the state of Tennessee. The state made a little error. This little error will count for 35-50% of each teacher’s evaluation.

My first thought when I read it was that I was appalled that teachers of first and second grade are being evaluated by the test scores of their students.

My next thought was to wonder whether anyone in the Tennessee Department of Education would be held accountable for this error.

And then I remembered that accountability is not for those in charge, only for those in the schools.

 

Subject: Important Notice Regarding Your 2013 TVAAS Teacher Report

1st and 2nd grade teachers:

The department has discovered an issue that required us to recalculate TVAAS teacher-effect scores for all 1st and 2nd grade teachers. We learned that, due to incorrect labeling by our external vendor within the SAT-10 claiming file, teachers who taught Mathematics during the 2012-2013 school year received Language teacher-effect scores for their Mathematics students, and vice versa. The issue did not involve the TVAAS model itself, nor the EdTools claiming process.

Many of the teacher-effect scores for 1st and 2nd grade will look very similar, especially for teachers that taught all of the same students in all subjects. However, some teachers may have only taught Mathematics or Language and they would have received a report that was for the wrong subject. Due to these changes, many of the teachers in Mathematics and Language will see shifts in their index measures in grades 1 and 2.

If you are receiving this email, your TVAAS Evaluation Composite Score (Level 1-5 scores) was not impacted. However, you may see slight revisions to your previously reported index scores (used to determine level 1-5 scores). For this reason, we do recommend that every teacher visit the TVAAS website using the username and password already provided by SAS to view updated information.

Please note that this situation will not impact school or district level scores in any capacity. The issue is strictly limited to individual teacher-effect scores for 1st and 2nd grade teachers and affects around three percent of those teachers’ TVAAS Evaluation Composite Scores (Level 1-5 scores).

We apologize for the inconvenience this situation has created. However, we want to ensure that teachers receive scores that accurately reflect their students’ progress during the 2012-2013 school year.

Please e-mail team.questions@tn.gov with any questions (replies to this message are not monitored).

To access the TVAAS reports go to

https://tvaas.sas.com

Categories Accountability, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Tennessee

NJ Teacher to Booker: Change Before It’s Too Late

By dianeravitch
July 15, 2013 //
14

A reader writes:

yes, yes! As a black educator and unfortunately a TFA alum who has now been a teacher for 15 years, I don’t understand why Obama and Booker have embraced this corporate style of reform. I worked tirelessly to elect Obama but I continue to find his governance particularly his stance on education and civil rights disappointing. I will not do the same for Booker and I hope that the teacher’s union does not endorse him. Booker does not have grassroots support, many Newark residents see the destruction he has wreaked on their schools and do not support him. He is the darling of the media and white liberal/moderate crowd as well as hedge funds and business community. We all know that TFA and the privatization movement it has spawned is directly responsible for the decline in the black middle class. Black female educators have been disproportionately impacted by layoffs and “evaluations.” Obama as the first black president and Booker as the heir to this legacy and possible contender for higher office should recognize this and change their position on what’s right for schools before it is too late. They should support public schools, community schools and educators. Sometimes it feels like we (anti-reformers) are screaming at people like Obama and Booker through a sound proof glass door. They can see us, we can see them but they can’t hear us and they won’t open the door because they don’t want to hear the truth.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, New Jersey, NYC, Privatization, Teacher Evaluations

Bravo, California!

By dianeravitch
July 15, 2013 //
35

The Los Angeles Times explains today that California has stubbornly resisted Arne Duncan’s demand that teachers be evaluated by junk science.

Despite the fact that researchers overwhelmingly agree that “value-added assessment” is flawed and unstable, that it reflects whom you teach, and that good teachers may be rated ineffective, Duncan blithely insists that it is essential.

Was Duncan successful in Chicago? Is Chicago a national model of school reform? Did Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 create a renaissance?

Why is this man allowed to tell every state in the nation how to evaluate teachers?

How awkward for California Democrat George Miller, one of the lead authors of NCLB, a favorite of DFER, and senior Democrat on House Education committee

Bravo, Governor Jerry Brown!

Bravo, Tom Torlakson.

Stay strong. Don’t let Arne bully you.

Categories California, Chicago, Duncan, Arne, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Teacher Evaluations
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »