Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

Lisa Fleisher of the Wall Street Journal reminds us what investigative reporting looks like.

In New York City, we nearly forgot, especially since Michael Winerip of the New York Times was taken off the education beat.

Fleisher filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out whether top officials at the New York City Department of Education receive job evaluations. As we know, the Bloomberg DOE evaluates everyone in its reach.

Except those at the top of the DOE.

“Top administrators at the city’s Department of Education haven’t been subject to formal evaluations during the Bloomberg administration, a break from past practice and an unusual occurrence among school districts across the U.S.

“The disclosure follows the culmination of a yearslong battle by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to implement tougher teacher and principal evaluations in the district.

“Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, who has been on the job since April 2011, said formal job reviews weren’t necessary because he informally evaluated his staff daily, and he was evaluated daily by the mayor. Teachers, he said, were in a different position.

“They’re in front of the classroom and teaching our children, and we need to have a sense of how well they’re doing,” he said. “With us, we’re not teaching children directly, we’re setting policy. And I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all.”

As Leona Helmsley once famously said, “Only the little people pay taxes.” Apparently, under Bloomberg, only the little people get job evaluations.

The following officials are exempt:

“In a response dated June 11, the department’s public-records officer said no evaluations had been created since at least 2001 for the following positions: chancellor, chief of staff, chief academic officer, senior deputy chancellor, chief schools officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, deputy chancellor and general counsel. Mr. Bloomberg has appointed three permanent chancellors.”

Angela Danovi’s mother taught in the Memphis public schools for 29 years. She just retired.

Angela knows how many lives her mother changed, how many daily acts of kindness shaped her students.

And she knows that William Sanders, the statistician who invented value-added modeling or VAM, has never been able to create a measure that would accurately reflect what her mother accomplished.

This is what she sent me:

Dear Diane,

My mother retired today. I am both sad and pleased. Yesterday, I wrote the following piece on my facebook page as the daughter of a single parent who taught school in Memphis City Schools. I wanted to share my post with you.

This evening, my mom will be retired from Memphis City Schools after 29 consecutive years. She also taught in Arkansas and Mississippi as well as worked as a daycare director prior to working for MCS. Yes, I’m going to go political now. As you can imagine, I have found the “ed reform” movement highly and personally offensive. The paycheck she brought home financed me to do ballet, play sports, go to camp, go to UT (University of Tennessee). In turn, I have assisted in teaching ballet, assisted in coaching sports, had the opportunity to walk on as a shot put thrower at UT, worked for 8 summers as a camp counselor, and ended up receiving 2 degrees in the environmental sciences and now serve as a projects manager for a nonprofit. Yet, somehow being the daughter of a single parent teacher has in many people’s minds disqualified me from having a credible opinion or legitimate argument on the matter. I just want to say, I have read the original paper on the Tennessee Value Added Assessment Model that was originally written in 1984 and unabashedly touted from my alma mater! The authors were statisticians, not educators, and their original model was applied to three elementary schools in East Tennessee, which is a very very different scenario from an urban high school setting! Yet, even in the original model each teacher’s “value added score” was based on at least 6 different variables per student, resulting in over 180 variables to determine the “value” a single teacher in a single classroom in a given year added to those students’ experience. Over the last 30 years this model has been expanded and increased in complexity to include every conceivable educational environment including special ed and high schools where teachers see their students less than 1 hour per day or less than 1/24th of their day or less than 4% of each day in a student’s life! Yet this model has been applied towards firing and destroying the lives and families of professional educators. Meanwhile, numerous articles have been published statistically and scientifically demonstrating the inherent flaws, misuse, and abuse of this model. I have argued that the variables that are input for climate and weather models are less complex and rely on fewer and more stable variables to predict or measure outcomes than what has been inputted into the value added education models!

The last few years I was deeply concerned that my mother was one tweaked evaluation formula and one set of tweaked test scores away from being named a “lemon” and on her way out the door. Teachers, especially teachers who have worked in the settings in which my mom has worked, have become demonized as moochers, takers, and a boil of society turning out products useless for today’s economy. However, I have been with my mom when meeting her former students who were working for Memphis Police, Memphis fire, construction, professional managers for Starbucks, workers in dry cleaners, workers in Walgreens, and others in a myriad of locations and professions earning paychecks, contributing to the tax base, and making the Memphis and Shelby County area businesses and organizations run every day. When you hear Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Michelle Rhee, Oprah, representatives of the Walton Family Foundation, and others talk about “ineffective” teachers or having only “highly effective” teachers in the classroom what those people are really saying is career educators are not worthy to be in the classroom today. They are saying people who are educators and their families are not worthy of a stable paycheck, health insurance, sick leave, or a retirement in their personal and professional lives. To be clear, these issues, along with due process, are what teachers’ “unions” (which if you can’t strike it’s hardly a union) and professional associations were fighting for. This uncertainty coupled with constant professional attack is not a way for any individual or family to have to live.

My mother was lucky, in this emerging Ed Reform movement, to have landed at a school that tested well. She could have easily been at a different school in a different part of town working with an entirely different population of students who came from even far more adverse backgrounds, and she could have just as easily been “evaluated” at the bottom rather than top. She definitely taught in those schools, just not at a time when those kids were being tested and those scores being perversely used against the teacher in the classroom, or in other words, likely the only person in those students’ lives who had educationally accomplished what the ed reformers say we are expecting and demanding all students to accomplish regardless of any other circumstances.

I am proud of what my mother accomplished in her time in teaching in Memphis City Schools. I saw her teach to classrooms filled with the urban youth of Memphis. I listened to her tell stories of teaching girls in high schools who have escaped from countries of war and famine to hold a pencil for the first time and try to navigate the high school educational system when they had never before been to school. A statistician such as William Sanders, one of the originators of the Value Added Model, may not find a very high value in the body of work or the thousands of students my mother taught based on those students’ ultimate educational attainment or their paychecks or the paychecks of their children, but she has certainly had a profound an immense impact (for many years in un airconditioned classrooms) on the city of Memphis and the students of Memphis.

Thanks,
Angela Danovi

http://www.angeladanovi.com

Anthony Cody has a piece of good advice for Bill Gates: You can’t buy the respect of teachers. You have to earn it. You have spent hundreds of millions of dollars coercing teachers to do what you want. Teachers know that you know less about teaching than they do. And they are tired of having you not only criticize them but use your fortune to control the conditions of their work.

To prove that he is definitely not over-reaching, definitely not telling states what to do, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is giving states more time to meet his deadlines to tie Common Core test results to teacher evaluation.

He is apparently responding to Randi Weingarten’s request to postpone “high stakes” until teachers have curriculum and professional development.

I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but I think it is wrong to attach high stakes to testing.

There is very little evidence to support the value of high stakes testing–after all, we have had a dozen years of No Child Left Behind– and plenty of evidence that it is harmful. If it were so great, why aren’t other nations evaluating their teachers by their students’ test scores.

But now states may ask Duncan’s permission to defer the axe. Some members of Congress are beginning to think this is arbitrary and capricious. They don’t remember writing legislation putting the Secretary in charge of every public school in the nation. They don’t remember when they approved national standards and tests.

Duncan doesn’t seem ever to doubt that test scores matter more than anything else. He doesn’t care if value-added modeling narrows the curriculum or mislabels teachers or demoralizes teachers. That’s not his problem.

Remember, he is the guy who reformed the Chicago schools.

This is an astonishingly moving and candid website where teachers write a personal letter to Bill Gates, explaining how his ideas and policies have influenced their lives and classrooms.

Add your own experience if Bill Gates has changed your life too.

Florida has an unusually nutty teacher evaluation program. Jeb Bush and Bill Gates determined some years ago that teachers cause low test scores, so the way to fix education is to fire teachers who don’t get high test scores from their students. There was this little problem: most teachers teach non-tested subjects. So Florida addressed the problem by assigning scores to teachers of students they had never taught.

I mean, really, if your goal is to punish and beat up on teachers, this method makes sense.

But the legislature realized it would have to change this little anomaly because teachers started suing the state. It is kind of hard to defend terminating a teacher who was fired when the scores of students she didn’t teach didn’t go up.

Here is a report from a reader in Florida:

On a slightly higher (mixed blessing) note, the Florida Legislature and Governor have seen fit to fix a huge, gaping flaw in the ALEC/Jeb Bush written teacher evaluation law after the state was widely ridiculed and derided over the ridiculous tenets of the law:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/16/new-florida-law-teachers-cant-be-evaluated-on-students-they-dont-have/

Valerie Straus reported Sunday in the Washington Post that the state decided to fix the part of the law that required teachers (like me) to be evaluated on the test scores of students they had never taught and may have never met for the last 2 years.

Like New York City’s new teacher evaluation program, in Florida you can receive “highly effective” or “effective” ratings on the entire eval but if the school’s average test scores are low you are rated “ineffective” overall and face firing and loss of your teaching certificate after 2 consecutive “ineffective” ratings.

Each of Florida’s 67 counties had to come up with their own way to implement and score the evaluation plan so there is no real standardization at all nor is their consistency and fairness, with the exception of test scores really being 100% of the evaluation.

The VAM formula chosen by the state of Florida is so confusing and scattered that the first year’s evaluations weren’t even released to the teachers until the following year in most districts. My own district gave us 2 sets of evaluations — their own and the state’s because they weren’t sure which was more accurate or acceptable. We haven’t received this year’s evaluations yet; I don’t know if we’ll receive them around Halloween again or when school resumes in August. Know one seems to know.

The law doesn’t address what to do about the deeply flawed evaluations of the last 2 years, however, so the NEA/FEA lawsuit brought by 7 teachers against the state DOE continues.

The bad news is that the state will simply work that much harder and faster to invent untried, unscientific, and unmanageable testing regimes for all the teachers who don’t teach math, reading, writing, or science in grades 3 -12 (the current FCAT 2.0 test’s purview).

I dread seeing what they come up with in haste and without piloting to test Kindergarteners, 1st and 2nd graders, music/art/PE classes, etc. It is destined to be outrageously expensive, be riddled with problems and inaccuracies, and it will fail.

It is also guaranteed that the new system will be punitive and punishing to the teachers who dared object to the hair-brained eval scheme in the first place. That’s how the legislature and Jeb Bush “No Longer Governor But Running for President, So Still In Control” roll down here in the Sunshine State. Jeb has never forgiven the FEA for twice (once, and then again when he and the legislature did an end-run to ignore the law, which was slapped down by the Florida Supreme Court) defeating him on the state’s class size amendment by having voters approve it twice and having it written into the state constitution. He vowed revenge and boy, is he getting it. In spades.

Michal Weston, a teacher in Hillsborough County, Florida (at least for now), is running for the local school board. Regular readers know that he was recently fired by his principal for speaking out too much. Since Hillsborough County was one of the few that received a big Gates grant, it is heretical to question the idea that teacher evaluation is the very biggest problem in the world and that the right model will make all students proficient and college bound. Weston displays his heretical views here:

He writes:

Don’t get me wrong – teaching can and should be practiced and improved. My point is that teachers are not the BIG problem. We are not a mid-sized problem. Some of us are a small problem. The BIG problem is what we are doing about the “achievement gap”. I quote “achievement gap” because it is really an income gap. Neither gap is the problem.

The BIG problem is:

*Dumbing down the curriculum so everyone can succeed.
*Increasing rigor so everyone will be challenged.
*Testing kids until they cry. This is the name of holding accountable those who do not make them excel.
*Punishing schools and teachers who cannot magically make the “achievement gap” go away – in spite of all the excellent support being provided.
*Teaching the test to avoid punishment (teachers) or to amass treasure (administrators).
*Re-writing the textbooks so there are more balloons, insets, practice tests, pictures and web links than information.
*Encouraging EDUIndustry to create the next magic curriculum to sell us.
*Encouraging the notion of failing schools so as to sell them off (read give away) to for-profit institutions.
*Eliminating the arts in favor of STEM.

The list goes on.

What should we be doing. Easy. First, do no harm. Stop all of the above.

Next – get to work on the income gap. How? Graduate employable kids. We have to abandon the notion of one-size-fits-all education. We must abandon the requirement that all kids be prepared for college. We have to place kids in educational settings where they can succeed. For some that means AP Physics. For some that means Creative Writing. For others that may mean auto shop. For some it is carpentry.

99 times out of 100, you will not succeed in taking a high school freshman (a 16 year old freshman), with fourth grade math skills, and get that kid into AP Physics. It seems like 100 times out of 100, that is our goal however. Most of these kids drop out; never to pay a dime of income-tax in their often short lives.

We must redefine high school, and what we intend to do with kids for four years of their lives. College is grand; we must provide a high quality path; one where 50% of kids do not require remediation. Trades are grand; a graduate with a career in masonry will earn a good living; provide for his children; and provide a a greater respect for education. His son may go into trades, or may choose the college route. They are both available because mom and dad will not allow him to be left behind in fourth grade. This family WILL have a college graduate someday.

Just not tomorrow.

That is the piece we refuse to accept, That it will not be tomorrow. Instead, we seek the Holy Grail, the silver bullet, the magic elixir, SOMEONE TO BLAME!

The achievement gap will be closed with the income gap. It will take generations, because there is no silver bullet. The BIG problem with education is that as long as we are hunting the Holy Grail, we have yet to begin the real work.

This just in from an advocate for children who live in poverty:

This week the Cleveland Plain Dealer has a new series, “Grading the Teachers.” It is basically an endorsement of the new Ohio Value Added Measures (VAM) program by which teachers will be rated. Scores are being made available on-line. Ohio’s VAM formula, according to the news account, does not consider the socioeconomic information about the children.

Here are the articles thus far in the series:

· Grading the Teachers, Part I ‘Value-added’ ties teacher ratings to pupils’ test scores.
· Grading the Teachers, Part 2” Value-added scores show no link between performance and salary.

I just sent the following to the paper for use as either a letter or op-ed. I suspect it won’t be published, which is why I’m sending it around now. Usually I would wait to see if it gets published, but this time I’m not going to, because this is so important.

Fifty years ago Johns Hopkins sociologist James S. Coleman documented the most powerful factors affecting student achievement: the socio-economic background of children’s families and the concentration of poverty in particular communities.

Two years ago Duke economist Helen Ladd wrote: “Study after study has demonstrated that children from disadvantaged households perform less well in school on average than those from more advantaged households. This empirical relationship shows up in studies using observations at the levels of the individual student, the school, the district, the state, the country.”

A year and a half ago Stanford educational sociologist Sean Reardon documented that while in 1970, only 15 percent of families lived in neighborhoods classified as affluent or poor, by 2007, 31 percent of families lived in such neighborhoods. Reardon documents a simultaneous jump in an income-inequality achievement gap between very wealthy and very poor children, a gap that is 30-40 percent wider among children born in 2001 than those born in 1975.

Surely we can agree that poverty should not be an excuse. But blaming school teachers for gaps in scores on standardized tests, as the Plain Dealer does in “Grading the Teachers,” is not only cruel to the teachers singled out when scores are published—for example, Euclid’s Maria Plecnik, a previously highly rated teacher who will leave the profession this year— but foolish as public policy. Who will want to teach in our poorest communities with the system of Value-Added Measures that the Plain Dealer acknowledges, “do not account for the socioeconomic backgrounds of students as they do in some other states.”

Massachusetts Secretary of Education Paul Reville critiques the logic of those who would blame school teachers: “Some want to make the absurd argument that the reason low-income youngsters do poorly is that, mysteriously, all the incompetency in our education systems has coincidentally aggregated around low income students. In this view, all we need to do is scrub the system of incompetency and all will be well.”

Blaming teachers certainly gets the rest of us off the hook. If we can just fire teachers, we won’t have to fund schools equitably or adequately. We won’t have to address the impact of economic and racial segregation or the shocking 22 percent child poverty rate in America, the highest in the industrialized world.

Ms. Jan Resseger
Minister for Public Education and Witness
Justice and Witness Ministries
700 Prospect, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
216-736-3711
http://www.ucc.org/justice/public-education
“That all citizens will be given an equal start through a sound education is one of the most basic, promised rights of our democracy. Our chronic refusal as a nation to guarantee that right for all children…. is rooted in a kind of moral blindness, or at least a failure of moral imagination…. It is a failure which threatens our future as a nation of citizens called to a common purpose… tied to one another by a common bond.” —Senator Paul Wellstone, March 31, 2000

Now it is teachers in Ohio that have been rated by a secret value-added formula.

Teachers in affluent schools were twice as likely to score well as those in low-income schools.

Here is the key language:

“The details of how the scores are calculated aren’t public. The Ohio Department of Education will pay a North Carolina-based company, SAS Institute Inc., $2.3 million this year to do value-added calculations for teachers and schools. The company has released some information on its value-added model but declined to release key details about how Ohio teachers’ value-added scores are calculated.

“The Education Department doesn’t have a copy of the full model and data rules either.

“The department’s top research official, Matt Cohen, acknowledged that he can’t explain the details of exactly how Ohio’s value-added model works. He said that’s not a problem.”

Think of it. The person at the Ohio Department of Education in charge of the ratings doesn’t understand how the model works. He says it is not a problem.

Well, it is a problem for excellent teachers who were told they were “least effective.”

These models,based on standardized tests, are inaccurate and unstable.

Do not trust the ratings. They are garbage. No high-performing nation is rating teachers this way. It is mean-spirited, mechanistic, and meaningless.

The politicians won’t rest until they can fire more teachers. John King is their man. He has the system that mo one undestands but that is guaranteed to find some teachers to fire.

The politicians know that if they fire a bunch of teachers, it will surely lead to higher achievement and will close the achievement gap. The fact that it has never happened anywhere doesn’t faze them. What has evidence got to do with it? The important thing is to fire enough teachers to satisfy the politicians.

I have said it before and I will say it again: evaluating teachers by test scores is junk science.

When Sidwell Friends and Fieldston and Exeter do it, then we will know it has merit. Until then, it is politically motivated nonsense.