Group items tagged

Jindal applauded state lawmakers for their quick passage of his legislation rewriting laws dealing with teacher tenure, charter schools, school administration and a statewide voucher program that funnels state money to private and parochial schools. Superintendent of Education John White said he will immediately start working on implementing the bills by soliciting private schools to determine capacity and develop lists to distribute to parents so they can file applications for vouchers next fall. But the part calling for local charter operators could take longer since there's a lot of preliminary work that has to be done. Jindal said he is "not declaring victory, mission accomplished" because "we've still got a lot of work in this session," like a bill that grants rebates to individuals and corporations that contribute money for vouchers.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) targeted substantial School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to the nation's "persistently lowest achieving" public schools (i.e., up to $2 million per school annually over 3 years) but required schools accepting these awards to implement a federally prescribed school-reform model. Schools that met the "lowest-achieving" and "lack of progress" thresholds within their state had prioritized eligibility for these SIG-funded interventions. Using data from California, this study leverages these two discontinuous eligibility rules to identify the effects of SIG-funded whole-school reforms. The results based on these "fuzzy" regression-discontinuity designs indicate that there were significant improvements in the test-based performance of schools on the "lowest-achieving" margin but not among schools on the "lack of progress" margin. Complementary panel-based estimates suggest that these improvements were largely concentrated among schools adopting the federal "turnaround" model, which compels more dramatic staff turnover.

In the debate over school improvement, individuals and groups advancing agendas with little or no evidence to back them up have somehow claimed the mantle of education "reformers," while teachers, their unions and others with actual education expertise often are portrayed as obstacles to reform--despite their desire to be involved in an improvement process that frequently shuts them out. In this upside-down approach to school "reform," teachers are required to implement top-down policies made without their input, often in an austerity environment, with little more than an exhortation to "just do it," and then are blamed when the policies fail. Not surprisingly, these "strategies"--such as mayoral control, school reconstitution, misuse and overuse of standardized tests, vouchers, merit pay, or simply stripping teachers of voice and professionalism--haven't moved the needle. The American Federation of Teachers has promoted a better way.

Slides: Public Hearing on the Implementation of Race to the Top and Federal School Intervention Models in New York City

Although most new teacher evaluations are still in various phases of pre-implementation, it's safe to say that classroom observations and/or value-added (VA) scores will be the most heavily-weighted components toward teachers' final scores, depending on whether teachers are in tested grades and subjects. One gets the general sense that many - perhaps most - teachers strongly prefer the former (observations, especially peer observations) over the latter (VA). One of the most common arguments against VA is that the scores are error-prone and unstable over time - i.e., that they are unreliable. And it's true that the scores fluctuate between years (also see here), with much of this instability due to measurement error, rather than "real" performance changes. On a related note, different model specifications and different tests can yield very different results for the same teacher/class. These findings are very important, and often too casually dismissed by VA supporters, but the issue of reliability is, to varying degrees, endemic to all performance measurement. Actually, many of the standard reliability-based criticisms of value-added could also be leveled against observations. Since we cannot observe "true" teacher performance, it's tough to say which is "better" or "worse," despite the certainty with which both "sides" often present their respective cases. And, the fact that both entail some level of measurement error doesn't by itself speak to whether they should be part of evaluations.*

Teachers often say they don't do their jobs for the money, but surely financial incentives are a factor in just about any career decision. Would you work harder at your job if there was a cash bonus on the line? More importantly, would the extra money alone somehow make you a more effective employee? Under a new law being implemented over the next several years in Indiana, student test scores will now be used as a factor in whether a teacher receives a pay increase. The Indianapolis Star, in partnership with The Hechinger Report, is closely monitoring the state's reform measures aimed at boosting teacher effectiveness. The state's teachers are questioning whether the law can be fairly applied, and whether merit raises will ultimately result in students learning more, according to the recent entry in the newspaper's series. There are also fears among educators that the unpredictability of the pay scale will discourage people from considering teaching as a career.

A popular history of vouchers suggests that they are a "new" reform tool and a product of free market ideas. They captured national attention relatively recently when they were implemented in the Milwaukee and Cleveland schools in the early 1990s.  In 2002, the Supreme Court resolved the constitutional questions concerning Cleveland's voucher program. This history typically cites Milton Friedman as the intellectual father of vouchers. Not so fast, says Professor Jim Carl. The origins and purposes of vouchers in American education are closely tied to our social history, he argues. In Freedom of Choice: Vouchers in American Education, Carl skillfully traces the origins of vouchers back to the segregated South in the 1950s. In this context, they were used to combat desegregation post- Brown.  However, through their history, civil rights advocates, free market economists, and policy makers all have embraced vouchers, seeking solutions to urban education. In other words, vouchers have been pliable and appealed to different groups, for different reasons. But, importantly, they began as a product of a social agenda in the South.

The SAS Educational Value-Added Assessment System (SAS® EVAAS®) is the most widely used value-added system in the country. It is also self-proclaimed as "the most robust and reliable" system available, with its greatest benefit to help educators improve their teaching practices. This study critically examined the effects of SAS® EVAAS® as experienced by teachers, in one of the largest, high-needs urban school districts in the nation - the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Using a multiple methods approach, this study critically analyzed retrospective quantitative and qualitative data to better comprehend and understand the evidence collected from four teachers whose contracts were not renewed in the summer of 2011, in part given their low SAS® EVAAS® scores. This study also suggests some intended and unintended effects that seem to be occurring as a result of SAS® EVAAS® implementation in HISD. In addition to issues with reliability, bias, teacher attribution, and validity, high-stakes use of SAS® EVAAS® in this district seems to be exacerbating unintended effects.

The state education commissioner found himself thrust before a grouchy convention of statewide teachers in Buffalo, where local union members are locked in an acrid dispute over proposals for teacher evaluations. Not only did New York State United Teachers members from across the state blast King and state plans to implement teacher evaluations on criteria that include attendance, the commissioner could only stand by as approximately 60 Buffalo teachers walked out of the Buffalo Niagara Convention Center in protest.

A while back, I noted that states and districts should exercise caution in assigning weights (importance) to the components of their teacher evaluation systems before they know what the other components will be. For example, most states that have mandated new evaluation systems have specified that growth model estimates count for a certain proportion (usually 40-50 percent) of teachers' final scores (at least those in tested grades/subjects), but it's critical to note that the actual importance of these components will depend in no small part on what else is included in the total evaluation, and how it's incorporated into the system. In slightly technical terms, this distinction is between nominal weights (the percentage assigned) and effective weights (the percentage that actually ends up being the case). Consider an extreme hypothetical example - let's say a district implements an evaluation system in which half the final score is value-added and half is observations. But let's also say that every teacher gets the same observation score. In this case, even though the assigned (nominal) weight for value-added is 50 percent, the actual importance (effective weight) will be 100 percent, since every teacher receives the same observation score, and so all the variation between teachers' final scores will be determined by the value-added component.

Teachers can expected unannounced observations to factor into their annual ratings under the terms of the evaluations agreement that Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced today. The unannounced observations are one of several ways that the State Education Department and state teachers union, NYSUT, agreed to flesh out the state's 2010 evaluation law, seen as so open-ended as to stymie implementation. The agreement, which Cuomo is set to turn into law through the state budget amendment process, resolves some major points of contention while continuing to leave many elements of districts' evaluation system subject to local collective bargaining. Districts and their unions have until the end of 2012 to turn the framework into a local evaluation system, or risk losing state aid.

Scapegoating is a powerful tool to sway public opinion. That's why I'm not surprised that teachers unions are consistently being singled out for the shortcomings of public schools ("Can Teachers Unions Do Education Reform?" The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 3). After all, they are such an easy target at a time when the public's patience over the glacial pace of school reform is running out. The latest example was an essay by Juan Williams, who is now a political analyst for Fox News ("Will Business Boost School Reform?" The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28). He claims that teachers unions are "formidable opponents willing to fight even modest efforts to alter the status quo." Their obstructionism is responsible for the one million high school dropouts each year and for a graduation rate of less than 50 percent for black and Hispanic students. Williams says that when schools are free of unions, they succeed because they can fire ineffective teachers, implement merit pay, lengthen the school day, enrich the curriculum and deal with classroom discipline. These assertions have great intuitive appeal to taxpayers who are angry and frustrated, but the truth is far different from what Williams maintains.

Elmore's edited text illuminates a rarely discussed yet important aspect of school reform efforts: the critical reflective analysis of one's perspective (personal bias), or the connection between our experiences and our interpretations of those experiences. The volume's title and theme draw from a professional development exercise requiring conscious reflection on old points of view drawn from the experiences of educational reformers, theorists, leaders, researchers, and policy makers who have been on the front line of K-12 school reform. Contributors include Howard Gardner, Rudy Crew, Larry Cuban, Jeff Henig, Deb Meier, and Mike Smith, among others. This collection offers an insightful examination of some challenging educational issues of our time, including standardized testing; the role of special education; performance pay; the relationship between social theory and practice; teacher unionism; program development, implementation, and evaluation; the social role of education; and community involvement. The result is timely, as present educational policy is being reassessed on state and national levels.

Here's a look at some of the principals who gathered on Long Island this week to be photographed for a new ad protesting the implementation of a new teacher evaluation system. All together, almost 100 principals from around the state showed up at South Side High School in Rockville Centre on Monday afternoon to pose for the ad, which will be published in the Legislative Gazette and other publications next week. The ad is the latest tactic in a grassroots movement that started on Long Island, when principals there objected to the way the state was moving ahead with a teacher evaluation system.

Though Colorado is more than a year away from implementing its new teacher-evaluation system, doubts have surfaced about the state's ability to launch such a sweeping initiative on time and with adequate resources for professional development. Educators from some of the 27 districts piloting all or part of the new system say that effort has turned out to be a complex and time-consuming task heaped upon demands of other education reforms.

Scores of professors and researchers from 16 universities throughout the Chicago metropolitan area have signed an open letter to the city's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, and Chicago school officials warning against implementing a teacher evaluation system that is based on standardized test scores. This is the latest protest against "value-added" teacher evaluation models that purport to measure how much "value" a teacher adds to a student's academic progress by using a complicated formula involving a standardized test score. Researchers have repeatedly warned against using these methods, but school reformers have been doing it in state after state anyway. A petition in New York State by principals and others against a test-based evaluation system there has been gaining ground.

The February 23 release of proposed school aid for 2012-13, backed by Acting Commissioner of Education Chris Cerf's "Education Funding Report," has now made it clear: Governor Chris Christie is attempting to do an end run around the Legislature in order to impose reductions in school funding for the third year in a row. As outlined in the Cerf Report, the Governor's proposed FY13 Budget, if adopted by the Legislature, would implement major changes in NJ's school funding formula - the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) - that will trigger substantial cuts in funding for districts across the state in 2012-13. The Governor has made clear that he intends to impose these changes to the SFRA formula not just next year, but for the following four years. Put simply, the Governor intends to use the annual budget bill to make these changes permanent, bypassing the legislative process of amending the SFRA formula law.

If you think there is too much emphasis on testing now take a look into the future. A couple of years down the road both the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the PARCC assessments will drop down out of the clouds.

I have written much on this blog about problems with the use of Value-added Estimates of teacher effect (used loosely) on student test score gains on this blog. I have addressed problems with both the reliability and validity of VAM estimates, and I have pointed out how SGP based estimates of student growth are invalid on their face for determining teacher effectiveness. But, I keep hearing two common refrains from the uber-reformy (those completely oblivious to the statistics and research of VAM while also lacking any depth of understanding of the complexities of the social systems [schools] into which they propose to implement VAM as a de-selection tool) crowd. Sadly, these are the people who seem to be drafting policies these days.

When the Richmond and Louisville metro areas reached a school desegregation crossroads in the 1970s, they went in different directions. After the Supreme Court prevented a plan to consolidate Richmond's schools with those in Henrico and Chesterfield counties, the city was left to pursue a futile desegregation plan on its own. White and middle-class flight continued unabated. Meanwhile, a court-ordered consolidation of the Louisville-Jefferson County, Ky., schools produced Ku Klux Klan opposition. But the fuss eventually died down and the region took ownership of its desegregation policy without court supervision. Metro Louisville ultimately implemented a voluntary student assignment plan based on the geographic distribution of students by race and poverty. The benefits have extended beyond education. From 1990 to 2010, black-white residential segregation in Louisville-Jefferson County fell at nearly twice the rate as in metro Richmond, according to research by Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, an assistant professor in the Department of Education Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University.