Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

Anthony Cody has written a crisp analysis of the differences between what corporate reformers want and what supporters of public education want.

People like Anthony and me are often told to be accommodating, to be more receptive of the corporate style ideas.

But, as Anthony shows in this article, there are genuine differences.

Public education is facing an existential threat to its existence from people who support privatization.

They do this in a clever way, by talking about civil rights while advocating privatization.

They say it’s “for the children,” but somehow there are adults who seem to benefit more than the kids.

“They can’t wait,” but it’s not their life and career that is sacrificed while they impose risky schemes.

Yes, there is a dichotomy, and we cannot quietly acquiesce.

Earlier today, I posted Wendy Lecker’s article, in which she said she was in search of one brave superintendent in Connecticut, who would stand up against the data-driven, test-obsessed climate of the times.

I have found him.

He is Thomas Starice, the superintendent of the Madison, Connecticut, public schools. Superintendent Scarice consulted with his school board, parents and the local community. He has shown leadership in responding to the state’s recently passed legislation about linking teacher evaluations to test scores.

I am happy to add Thomas Scarice to the honor roll as a champion of public education.

Like Superintendents Heath Morrison in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, and Joshua Starr in Montgomery, Maryland, Scarice has courageously stood up for the best interests of children as well as his educational ideals. His leadership has made it possible for parents and the local community to express their own concerns and values about what is best for their children.

The Madison community wants its students to be prepared to think and be creative, not just to be good test takers.

One parent in Madison, who teaches in another district, said, “We are lucky [in Madison] to have a superintendent who is pro-active, with a vision,” he said.

According to the article from the local press, Scarice’s vision “holds teachers accountable, while at the same time encouraging and supporting them to help nurture creative, adaptive thinking, was reinforced by a Madison Education Summit held Nov. 28 at the Madison Senior Center. Dozens of community members, including librarians, pre-school teachers, business leaders, moms and dads, coaches, town and state officials, and one nun, gathered to talk about the future of education in Madison.”

Here are the minutes of the December board meeting where the state evaluation system was discussed.

Two days ago, the New York Daily News published a beautiful tribute to the heroes of Sandy Hook, both the dead and the living. The newspaper called them its Heroes of the Year. The editorial was written with such eloquence and feeling that it brought me to tears.

I admit I was surprised by this editorial because the Daily News is known for its stridently anti-teacher, anti-union editorializing. (On the other hand, its reporters are unfailingly fair, and the newspaper publishes the amazing Juan Gonzalez, whose column has exposed numerous scandals.)

Today, the New York Daily News resumes its regular flaying of teachers and their union with one of the world’s dumbest opinion pieces. This one was written by a teacher who belongs to Educators4Excellence. She says she moved from Denver, where test scores count for 50% of educators’ evaluations, to NYC because of the Big Apple’s reputation for innovation. The Colorado law was written by a young state senator who is an alumnus of Teach for America.

Based on this teacher’s opinion piece, we may safely assume that Denver was not innovative enough to keep her there nor was the lure of its fabulous teacher evaluation program.

She says that she really, really wants to be a better teacher but she can’t be unless she is evaluated by her students’ test scores. Does she not know her students’ test scores now? This is puzzling indeed.

Please, someone, send this young woman the report by the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association on the inaccuracy of value-added assessment. Or the statement by leading researchers published by the Economic Policy Institute.

For the uninformed, here are a few details about Educators4Excellence. The organization is two years old. In its first year, it had grants and contributions of $339,031.00. That’s pretty amazing for a start-up.

Even more amazing, E4E had receipts last year of $1,926,028. About one-quarter of the total came from the Gates Foundation.

I wish E4E would share its secrets about how a small group of teachers raised nearly $2.4 million in only two years. Inquiring minds want to know. Think what we could do to support public education if we had their fundraising secrets.

Its mission seems to be to demonstrate–in testimony before legislative bodies, advertisements, and opinion pieces like this one–that teachers want to be evaluated by test scores, and they don’t want tenure. And above all, don’t pay any attention to experienced teachers. Listen to the kids who have taught for a few months or a few years. They know best.

Dennis Sparks has written a powerful post about the narrative of failure and decline that is now being cynically employed to privatize public education. Many of those now telling this story stand to benefit by taking over schools, firing teachers, and replacing them with computers, or selling the computers and software that replace the teachers. Or selling the tests that prove that no one knows anything and then sells the test prep materials to do better next time, and then sells the test security to make sure no one is cheating on the tests.

A little known group called Educators for Shared Accountability designed a rubric for evaluating Secretaries of Education. It incorporates multiple measures.

By its metric, Richard Riley was our best national leader.

Check out Secretary Duncan’s value added rating.

In response to an earlier post about the escalating cost of teacher evaluation programs, a reader submitted this comment. I wish that our elected officials in Washington and in the state legislatures and departments of education would read it.

This voyage is beginning in Connecticut. Every hour that teachers and administrators focus on the new Teacher Evaluation system, and every dollar they spend on training, materials and systems to keep it working means less for students. Now throw in NEW standards, and new books to match the standards, and more training for teachers, and then a new online test in a year, and the corresponding technology requirements again mean less for students. Lastly, add the fact that in 2014 teachers will set goals and compare them to an entirely different test/standards in 2015. The chance for success is very slim. Again, who loses? That would be every single child in the state of Connecticut who senses the anxiety, stress, confusion, pressure to do well on a test, pressure to deny their developmentally appropriate needs to be children all to feed into a poorly designed and completely non-child centered plan. Who wins? Book publishers, technology companies, professional development trainers, administrators, policy makers….but not children.

A reader who is a veteran teacher suggests incorporating the Mayan calendar into VAM evaluations.

It could be one of the multiple measures that everyone talks about and would very likely improve the overall accuracy of the VAM ratings.

Bruce Baker has written an illuminating and disturbing post about how New York is underfunding its highest-need schools.

Governor Cuomo likes to complain that the state spends far too much on education but sees little improvement. Baker demonstrates that the formula hurts the neediest students. The governor goes on to say that he will take money away from those districts if their teacher evaluations are poor. In effect, he is punishing them for enrolling students with high needs and threatening to make things worse.

Here is a small part of this very disturbing analysis of how New York State cheats and punishes the poorest districts:

“Riding the national, Duncanian wave of new normalcy (which I’ve come to learn is an extreme form of innumeracy) & reformyness, the only possible cause of lagging achievement in New York State is bad teachers –greedy overpaid teachers with fat pensions – and protectionist unions who won’t let us fire them. Clearly, the lagging state of performance in low income and minority districts in New York State has absolutely nothing at all to do with lack of financial resources under the low-balled aid formula that the state has chosen to not even half fund for the past 5 years? Nah… that couldn’t have anything to do with it. Besides, money certainly has nothing to do with providing decent working conditions and pay which might leveraged to recruit and retain teachers.

“And we all know that if New York State’s average per pupil spending is high, or so the Gov proclaims, then spending clearly must be high enough in each and every-one of the state’s high need districts! (right… because averages always represent what everyone has and needs, right? Reformy innumeracy rears its ugly head again!).

“So it absolutely has to be the fact that no teacher in NY has ever been evaluated at all, or fired for being bad even though we know for sure that at least half of them stink. The obvious solution is that they must be evaluated by egregiously flawed metrics – and we must ram those metrics down their throats.

“In fact, the New York legislature and Governor even found it appropriate to hold hostage additional state aid if districts don’t adopt teacher evaluation plans compliant with the state’s own warped demands and ill-conceived policy framework.

“As I understand it, legislation passed this past year actually tied receipt of state general aid to compliance with the state teacher evaluation mandate. That, in order to receive any increase in state general/foundation aid over prior year, a districts would have to file and have accepted their teacher evaluation plan.

“That’s it – we’ll take away their general state aid – their foundation aid – the aid they are supposed to be getting in order to comply with that court order of several years back. The aid they are constitutionally guaranteed under that order. I’m having some trouble accepting the supposed constitutional authority of a state legislature and governor to cut back general aid on this basis – where they’ve already failed to provide most of the aid they themselves identified as constitutionally adequate under court order? But I guess that’s for the New York Court system to decide.

“If nothing else, it is thoroughly obnoxious, arbitrary and capricious and grossly inequitable treatment. I hear the reformers (who understand neither math nor school finance) whine… But why… why is it inequitable to require similarly that poor and rich districts follow state teacher and principal evaluation guidelines. Setting aside the junk nature of that evaluation system and the bogus measures on which it rests (and the fact that the reformers’ fav-fab-charters have largely rightfully ignored the eval mandate), it is inequitable because districts serving higher poverty children stand to lose more money per child as a result of non-compliance. And they’ve already been squeezed.”

Connecticut was the scene this year of a bitter battle over legislation that was intended to diminish teachers’ tenure and to impose a punitive evaluation plan tied to test scores. In efforts to promote this legislation (SB 24), There was a great deal of hostile talk about greedy, lazy teachers, protected by their union and tenure, getting paid just to show up.

Jonathan Pelto puts the events of this past year into perspective here.

 

Pelto is one of those people who follows the money, always a good place to begin any investigation.

This is how he begins:

It started with Achievement First, Inc., the charter school management company co-founded by Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor.

Then came the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN), the Connecticut Coalition for Advocacy Now, (ConnAD), Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst (calling itself the Great New England Public School Alliance, GNEPSA) and Students for Education Reform (SFER, an off-shoot of 50-CAN, which, in turn, grew out of ConnCAN)

When Governor Malloy proposed his “education reform” legislation earlier this year, these groups, funded by millionaire and billionaire hedge fund owners, along with the Gates, Walton and Broad Foundations, engaged in the most costly lobbying, advertising and public relations effort in Connecticut history.

Since then, many of the same organizations funded Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch’s record spending effort to eliminate Bridgeport’s elected board of education and replace it with one appointed by the mayor.

Now, with the next session of the Connecticut General Assembly only a few weeks away, comes that news that a group called “Educators 4 Excellence” is opening operations here, as the corporate reformers seek to continue their efforts to privatize and undermine Connecticut’s public education system.

Educators 4 Excellence is a two year-old organization, funded by the Gates Foundation (among others) and set up by the corporate education reform trifecta of Education Reform Now (ERN), Education Reform Now Advocacy (ERNA) and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER).

 

For the past year and more, the New York State Board of Regents has spent a huge proportion of its time designing and debating a test-based educator evaluation system. The system was developed by AIR (American Institutes for Research) and has been criticized as inaccurate by Bruce Baker, who says that even AIR recognizes how flawed the system is. Yet Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Tisch say “full speed ahead.”

Regent Roger Tilles, who represents Long Island on the state Board of Regents, wrote the following letter and distributed it to many people. He asks the right questions:

Last Thursday, Chancellor Tisch and I had a chance to tour some of the schools most affected by Hurricane Sandy. We met with teachers, principals and superintendents, hearing stories of how teachers, many of whom had lost their own homes, had gone door to door in an effort to determine where their students were living and trying to insure that their one constant, their school, would continue as best it could.

 

Friday, we were all witnesses to the horror of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. As the story unfolded, we learned of the selfless devotion of the teachers and administrators, putting themselves in danger while trying to protect their students, their children.

 

In trying to put these events in a context that we, as policymakers must try to do, I asked myself these questions:

1.      What kind of algorithm measures the kind of devotion that we saw and I am sure we would see in crisis after crisis in all of our schools?

2.      How do you establish a pre- and post-test for the kind of personal responsibility that these professionals demonstrated?

3.      How do we measure the trust that these children and their parents have placed in us as educators “in loco parentis”?

4.      What kind of virtual teacher would be able to foster the communication needed to create a trusting atmosphere where learning can take place?

 

Let us remember these questions as we are asked to develop policies that insure the future of our children and our country.

Roger Tilles, Member

New York State Board of Regents