Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Alert readers (as Dave Barry likes to say) will have noted that I haven't blogged in a while. The reasons are multiple: heavy travel schedule, writing for the newest book, and full days of work on two large projects. But the key reason is anger. I have been so angry about the head-long rush into untested and poorly-thought-out value-added accountability models of schools and teachers in various states all around the country that I haven't found a calm mental space in which to get words on paper. Let me now try. Forgive me if I sputter. Here's the problem in a nutshell. Value-added Models (VAM) of accountability are now the rage. And it is understandable why this is so. They involve predictions about "appropriate" student gains of performance. If results - almost always measured via state standardized test scores - fall within or above the "expected" gains, then you are a "good" school or teacher. If the gains fall below the expected gains that you are a "bad" school or teacher. Such a system has been in place in Tennessee for over a decade. You may be aware that from that test interesting claims have been made about effective vs. ineffective teachers adding a whole extra year of gain. So, in the last few years, as accountability pressures have been ratcheted up in all states, more and more of such systems have been put in place, most recently in New York State where a truly byzantine formula is being used starting next year to hold principals and teachers accountable. It will surely fail (and be litigated). Let me try to explain why.

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.

This NBER report concludes that teachers whose students tend to show high gains on their test scores (called "high value-added teachers") also contribute to later student success in young adulthood, as indicated by outcomes such as college attendance and future earnings. To support this claim, it is not sufficient for researchers to show an observed association between teacher value-added and later outcomes in young adulthood. It is also necessary to rule out plausible alternative explanations-for example, that parents who did the most to promote their offspring's long-term success also endeavored to secure high value-added teachers for their children. This review explains that, for the most part, the evidence needed to rule out these alternatives is missing from the report. Thus, policy-makers should tread cautiously in their reaction: the case has not been proved.

If rating teachers based on standardized test scores was such a brilliant revelation for improving the quality of the teacher workforce, if getting rid of tenure and firing more teachers was clearly the road to excellence, and if standardizing our curriculum and designing tests for each and every component of it were really the way forward, we'd expect to see these strategies all over the home pages of web sites of leading private independent schools, and we'd certainly expect to see these issues addressed throughout the pages of journals geared toward innovative school leaders, like Independent School Magazine.  In fact, they must have been talking about this kind of stuff for at least a decade. You know, how and why merit pay for teachers is the obvious answer for enhancing teacher productivity, and why we need more standardization… more tests… in order to improve curricular rigor?  So, I went back and did a little browsing through recent, and less recent issues of Independent School Magazine and collected the following few words of wisdom

The New York City teachers' union has long called the process used by the city's Education Department for reviewing and dismissing struggling teachers partisan and unfair. But now, as part of an agreement reached Thursday, the Education Department and the United Federation of teachers will put into effect an evaluation system that will bring independent observers into the city's classrooms to monitor the weakest teachers.

On the Schoolbook blog of the New York Times, Philip Weinberg takes issue with my two Edwize posts (Part 1 and Part 2) on New York's new teacher evaluation law. Weinberg is a principal of a New York City public high school and a supporter of the widely circulated Long Island principals' letter criticizing the New York teacher evaluation law, and he writes that my posts are a response to that letter. On this point, he is simply wrong: even a cursory reading of the posts makes it clear that I did not discuss the letter, but rather set out to provide a comprehensive explanation of the more important and complex features of the new teacher evaluation framework. But Weinberg's reading of the issues involving teacher evaluation is nonetheless worth addressing, as it brings much needed clarity to the underlying agenda of the principals' letter. And since the UFT's stance toward the Long Island principals' letter is a frequent matter of speculation, it provides an opportunity to explain where we stand.

This second report from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project offers ground-breaking descriptive information regarding the use of classroom observation instruments to measure teacher performance. It finds that observation scores have somewhat low reliabilities and are weakly though positively related to value-added measures. Combining multiple observations can enhance reliabilities, and combining observation scores with student evaluations and test-score information can increase their ability to predict future teacher value-added. By highlighting the variability of classroom observation measures, the report makes an important contribution to research and provides a basis for the further development of observation rubrics as evaluation tools. Although the report raises concerns regarding the validity of classroom observation measures, we question the emphasis on validating observations with test-score gains. Observation scores may pick up different aspects of teacher quality than test-based measures, and it is possible that neither type of measure used in isolation captures a teacher's contribution to all the useful skills students learn. From this standpoint, the authors' conclusion that multiple measures of teacher effectiveness are needed appears justifiable. Unfortunately, however, the design calls for random assignment of students to teachers in the final year of data collection, but the classroom observations were apparently conducted prior to randomization, missing a valuable opportunity to assess correlations across measures under relatively bias-free conditions.

Although it's become conventional wisdom that the process for firing substandard teachers is too cumbersome, an NBC4 investigation found that the Los Angeles Unified School District has had little difficulty firing more than 1,000 teachers in recent years. Within the past year, LAUSD has terminated 853 teachers, and only a fraction are pursuing appeals. Records show that since 2009, no fired teacher who went through the entire appeals process to a ruling has been reinstated.

Most teachers I know went into the profession because they wanted to bring about change. They wanted to work with young people and help them realize their full potential. They wanted to influence students by exposing them to resources they wouldn't otherwise encounter. Despite what policy makers want you to believe, most teachers didn't choose teaching as their profession because they have summers off or covet what policy makers deem as an inflated paycheck. Recent policy changes send mixed messages regarding the importance of experienced teachers in the classroom. On the one hand, everyone is saying that an effective teacher is the most important factor in a child's success. But they're doing everything within their power to push experienced teachers out of the classroom.

Education officials lacked confidence in the controversial ratings of teachers who oversaw the city's highest- and lowest-performing students, cautioning schools about considering them in tenure decisions, the Daily News has learned. The city Education Department called superintendents last spring about the shakiness of ratings for teachers at the very top and bottom of the spectrum, which 33% of all ratings, including those of teachers not up for tenure, fell into. And all of the teachers at more than 30 schools fell into this category, a News analysis finds.

As demonstrated by recent survey data, job satisfaction within the profession is at its lowest since the Reagan years. What's at stake is the future of an entire generation, one that's growing up to face a new economic reality that requires a new set of skills. But because of circumstances the students don't control, they might have disaffected teachers carrying them there. According to MetLife, which interviewed 1,000 K-12 teachers by phone, the number of teachers who reported they were "very satisfied" dropped by 15 points between 2009 and 2011, from 59 to 44 percent. Two surveys that gauged teacher sentiment were commissioned by MetLife and Scholastic/The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, respectively.

American teachers deal with a lot: low pay, growing class sizes and escalating teacher-bashing from politicians and pundits. Federal testing and accountability mandates under No Child Left Behind and, more recently, Race to the Top, have added layers of bureaucracy while eliminating much of the creativity and authentic learning that makes teaching enjoyable. Tack on the recession's massive teacher layoffs and other school cuts, plus the challenges of trying to compensate for increasing child poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity, and you get a trifecta of disincentives to become, or remain, a teacher.

In the near future my article with Preston Green and Joseph Oluwole on legal concerns regarding the use of Value-added modeling for making high stakes decisions will come out in the BYU Education and Law Journal. In that article, we expand on various arguments I first laid out in this blog post about how use of these noisy and potentially biased metrics is likely to lead to a flood of litigation challenging teacher dismissals. In short, as I have discussed on numerous occasions on this blog, value-added models attempt to estimate the effect of the individual teacher on growth in measured student outcomes. But, these models tend to produce very imprecise estimates with very large error ranges, jumping around a lot from year to year.  Further, individual teacher effectiveness estimates are highly susceptible to even subtle changes to model variables. And failure to address key omitted variables can lead to systemic model biases which may even lead to racially disparate teacher dismissals (see here & for follow up , here) .

Freed - perhaps - of presidential daydreams, freed - perhaps - of desire for another term as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg sounds unburdened by inhibition and convinced that Americans hunger for his insights. Last week he journeyed to M.I.T. to talk entrepreneurship and to distinguish between the private sector (muscular and unsentimental) and the public (flaccid, filled with protesters waving placards and legislators who want only to spend). Then he turned to public school teachers and the silly preoccupation with class size. Most teachers, he said, come from the lowest quarter of their college graduating classes. If he could effect change, he said, "you would cut the number of teachers in half but you would double the compensation of them, and you would weed out all the bad ones and just have good teachers. "Double the class size with a better teacher is a good deal for students."

Congratulations to the 6000-plus teachers who achieved National Board Certification recently. In this Era of Bad Feelings about teacher effectiveness, National Board-Certified teachers are the real deal. A significant slice of them will receive some kind of annual bonus, from a modest $1K to a percentage salary increase, for their recognition as exemplary practitioners--and I say bully for them. They deserve it for demonstrating, via the best available standards-based measure, their commitment to student learning and a willingness to critically examine and fine-tune their own practice.

It goes without saying, as Nicholas D. Kristof makes clear in "The Value of Teachers" (column, Jan. 12), that good Teachers make a lasting difference in the lives of students. And there is no question that education and the economy are intertwined; one can't be strong if the other is weak. But it is not the case, despite what he asserts, that Teachers' unions resist a focus on Teacher quality.

In this weeks' program we look at the attempt by education reformers to impose value added measures on teacher evaluation as an example of how neoliberal forces have used the economic crisis to blackmail schools into practices that do not serve teaching and learning, but do serve the corporate profiteers as they work to privatize public education and limit the goals of education to vocational training for corporate hegemony. These processes constrict possibilities for educational experiences that are critical, relational and transformative. We see that in naming these processes and taking risks both individually and collectively we can begin to speak back to and overcome these forces. In this program we speak with Sean Feeney, principal from Long Island New York, about the stance he and other principals have taken against the imposition of value added measures in the new Annual Professional Performance Review in New York State. We also speak with Celia Oyler, professor of education at teachers College Columbia University, and Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago teachers Union, about the impact of value added measures on teacher education and the corporate powers behind these measures.

I work at one of the thirty-three PLA schools Mayor Bloomberg has publicly stated that he wants to close.  As part of this plan, he is also seeking to replace up to 50% of the teachers.  I have worked in the same school for the past nine years.  I can dismiss the sensationalistic claim from Mayor Bloomberg that 50% of teachers are ineffective, because it is simply not true.  Likewise, when I hear defenders of educators claim that all teachers do great work, I know this is not correct either.  The answer lies somewhere in between-in this case, much closer to the defenders of teachers. 

Suppose your child is about to enter the fourth grade and has been assigned to an excellent teacher. Then the teacher decides to quit. What should you do? The correct answer? Panic! Well, not exactly. But a landmark new research paper underscores that the difference between a strong teacher and a weak teacher lasts a lifetime.

There's horrific news in today's Daily News: that NY State Education Commissioner King is likely to approve the mayor's proposal to fire half of all of  teachers at 33 struggling schools:"That's a pretty aggressive teacher evaluation system," the state insider said. "We believe the switch meets all the federal requirements." Firing a fixed and arbitrary quota of  at least half of all teachers, regardless of their ability, is not a real teacher evaluation system; it's a meat cleaver approach. This proposal reveals Bloomberg's phony hypocrisy and any supporter who  claims to care about the importance of "teacher quality."