Archives for category: Teacher Evaluations

Long ago there was an organization called Stand for Children that advocated for children and their public schools. Unfortunately, the organization jumped on the money train and joined the corporate reform movement. Now it is flush with cash. It still pretends to care about children but it uses its clout to strip teachers of any rights and to advocate for privatization. It is anti-teacher, anti-union, and anti-public education. Some of its former supporters now refer to the organization as Stand on Children.

In Colorado, where there is a heated contest for control of the Legislature, Stand on Children removed the mask. It has endorsed five Republicans who support privatization. Corporate money is bolstering the GOP campaigns, along with Stand on Children and Wall Street hedge fund groups devoted to privatization of Colorado’s public schools.

If you live in Colorado, please support these five Democrats:

Evie Hudak (SD 19)
Andy Kerr (SD 22)
Daniel Kagan (HD 3)
Brittany Petterson (HD 28)
Max Tyler (HD 23)

Public education advocates also urge a NO vote on Bond 3B, which allocates disproportionate funding to charter schools while neglecting the needs of students who are poor, black, and Hispanic and attending overcrowded schools.

Opponents of the bond say:

• A zip code shouldn’t determine the quality of a child’s education. This bond reinforces that race and class still largely determine which children are prioritized depending on where they live.
• Though SW Denver’s low-income children have suffered years of chronic overcrowding, there is little money allocated through the bond to address the needs of the 12 SW Denver schools which are over 100% capacity.
• Lincoln High School will remain overcrowded. Lincoln is the only high school designated by the district for English Language Learners. Many students must travel from throughout the district to attend this program.
• Charter schools will get millions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of neighborhood schools. Nearly 40% of non- technology monies will go to select charter schools. Of the $119M for new facility capacity, $80.6M will go to charter schools directly or through co-locations.
• Nearly $40 million or 32% of the new facility bond funds will go to Stapleton even though there is space in nearby schools. Manual High (4.4 miles from central Stapleton) and George Washington High (4.9 miles) have a combined 1500 open seats, and Smiley Middle School (2 miles) has 381 open seats. The planned location of the proposed Stapleton high school, at 56th and Spruce St, is 3.8 miles from central Stapleton.
• The amount to build a Stapleton high school is more than all bond monies allocated for the high schools of East, George Washington, North, South, Kennedy, Lincoln and TJ combined.

TeachPlus is one of those Gates-funded teacher organizations that is supposed to provide a different perspective on teaching than the teachers’ unions. It can be counted on to advocate for the interests of new teachers who allegedly want merit pay, don’t care about job protections, and want to be judged by the test scores of their students. The teachers for whom it seems to speak are part of the New American Economy, where jobs are short-term, not seen as part of a career.

TeachPlus has just conducted a survey of teachers. Its first startling discovery is that “For the first time in almost a half-century, teachers with ten or fewer years experience comprise over 50% of the teaching force. We refer to these teachers as the New Majority.” This “new generation” of teachers–unlike, we may suppose, the older generation of veterans–have “high expectations for their students and a strong desire to build a profession based on high standards.”

The “new generation” wants student growth to be part of teacher evaluations (the veterans do not); the new generation wants students growth to count for at least 20 percent of their evaluation (the veterans do not); the new generation wants to change compensation and tenure so younger teachers (themselves) can get higher salaries (the veterans do  not). The veterans want licensure tests to cover the skills needed in the classroom (the new generation does not).

Both generations agree they need more time to collaborate with their peers. Both agree on the importance of clear and measurable standards.

And here is the interesting part:

Both agree that current evaluations are not helpful in improving practice (what are current evaluation? Using test scores to measure teacher quality.)

Both agree that a longer school day would not be helpful “to support students more effectively.”

Both agree that increasing class size to pay some teachers more would be a mistake.

The takeaway: Teachers, young and old, agree and disagree on various “reform” proposals.

On two issues they are united: They do not see the value of a longer school day, and they do not want larger class sizes in exchange for higher pay.

But a matter that should concern us all: Current “reform” policies are driving experienced teachers out of the nation’s classrooms. This cannot be good for anyone. It is certainly not good for the young teachers, who need senior teachers to help them improve.

How can a profession become “great” by demoralizing and ousting those who know the most?

Who would go to a hospital in an emergency and insist on being treated by an intern, not a senior physician?

Who would want their legal affairs to be handled by a lawyer who just graduated law school if they could get a senior partner instead?

When will President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and all the other people driving current policy realize that they are inflicting harm on the nation’s education system?

Jonathan Raymond, superintendent of the Sacramento City school district, has some lessons for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Friedman recently raved about the success of Race to the Top, claiming that it was preparing students for the high-skill jobs of the new economy.

Raymond says this is wrong. Race to the Top is divisive and subjects schools to derision.

It is top-down, heavy-handed and undermines the collaboration needed to make genuine improvement.

States that promise to comply with Duncan’s heavy handed mandates are “winners” while those making progress without Duncan’s script are losers.

He adds:

Meanwhile, school districts that are making real, tangible strides to increase student learning are left behind in this “race.” In Sacramento City Unified, we are turning around seven low-performing schools (called Priority Schools) through research-proven strategies for raising student achievement. Six of the seven schools have shown dramatic increases in student achievement and dramatic improvements in school culture and climate. These strategies include relevant professional development for principals and teachers; collaborative teacher planning time; data analysis and inquiry; and building strong family and community engagement. With federal funding, we could take this pilot program to scale statewide. California districts could build on each other’s successes and the gains of districts across the country. This is exactly what federal dollars should be spent on.
Yet Race to the Top’s scripted approach effectively discounts these reforms because they do not fit into the neat categories created by the prescriptive program. Moreover, forcing school districts to compete for badly needed resources is like offering a starving man food but only if he agrees to whatever strings may be attached. This is certainly the choice that school districts like ours face in California.

Chris Lehman has written an excellent post pulling together solid data about the “reformers'” solutions and the issue that refuse to address: poverty.

What is the problem in U.S. education? What is the cause of low test scores? Is it bad teachers, as the reformers claim?

Or is it poverty, where the U.S. leads the advanced nations of the world?

Can school reform cure poverty? Has it?

If you don’t address the causes, you will never solve the problem of low academic performance.

Nice job, Chris.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles has steadfastly refused to allow its members to be evaluated by the test scores of their students. Unlike the district leadership, UTLA understands that scholars have found that value-added assessment is inaccurate, invalid and unstable. By this method, excellent teachers may be labeled “ineffective,” and poor teachers who teach to the test may be labeled “effective.”

Despite intense pressure by the Los Angeles Unified School District leadership and the federal government, UTLA has insisted that its members should be evaluated by evidence-based methods, not by “value-added assessment” that has not been proven to work anywhere.

UTLA refused to sign off on the district’s request for $40 million in Race to the Top funding, which would have subjected its members to value-added assessment.

UTLA recognizes that accepting $40 million for RTTT would eventually cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the federal government’s mandates. This has been the experience of other districts, where teachers have been laid off and class sizes have increased solely because of compliance with RTTT requirements.

Because it has remained true to principle, because it insists on evidence-based evaluation, because it insists on honest accounting for the public’s dollars, UTLA is a hero of public education and joins the honor roll.

The Los Angeles Times (!) has an outstanding article by reporter Teresa Watanabe about the new teacher evaluation system. It is based on growth in test scores and on computer modeling. The focus is on one teacher who seems to do all the right things: last year, he got a good rating but not this year. What changed? Nothing.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles has been fighting the LAUSD’s efforts to impose this flawed system on all teachers.

Eventually, after we have spent billions of dollars on these mechanical systems, the policymakers will figure out that the experts were right: the ratings reflect who is taught, not teacher quality.

Remember: no other nation in the world is judging teacher quality this way. This is our own nutty idea. It’s main accomplishment: demoralization of teachers.

Valerie Strauss has a good post by Michael Pons about vouchers in Chile. The main effect seems to have widened the divide between rich and poor.

One correction I would offer to Pons. The testing and accountability framework for federal policy (No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top)  is no better than the voucher approach (Romney). In fact, the testing and accountability framework sets the stage for vouchers by the following scenario:

1) set an impossible goal of 100% proficiency or every child must raise his/her scores every year to the extent that the computer predicts

2) grade every school A-F based on test scores

3) convince the public that American education is failing because it can’t meet unreasonable targets

4) privatize the schools that are graded C, D or F

This is actually a process, not a choice of one policy or the other.

Choosing between NCLB/RTTT or vouchers is like choosing whether you prefer to be hung or shot.

The testing regime is part of the privatization plan.

This is an excellent article, written by NYC charter school teacher Allison LaFave.

It was prompted by Bob Schieffer’s off-hand remark during the last Presidential debate that “We all love teachers.”

Do we all love teachers?

Why don’t we trust them to manage their classrooms?

Why must they be evaluated by the test scores of their students?

Why do so many politicians want to take away their collective bargaining rights?

Why are legislatures reducing them to voiceless robots whose sole job is to raise test scores?

While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.

I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.

I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)

The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.

I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.

Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.

Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.

I understand all that.

And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.

Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.

In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.

Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.

This is a golden oldie. Imagine reading something written long, long ago, like three whole years.

This was written by G.F. Brandenburg, retired DC teacher. His blog is skeptical of Rhee and her misguided fixes. Here he questions the claims of Jason Kamras, who was named US Teacher of the Year in 2005 and became a favorite of Michelle Rhee. He designed Rhee’s IMPACT system, which has thus far produced no test score gains and is still under construction.