Tag Archives: teacher evaluation

It’s not that we don’t believe in bad teachers, it’s that we don’t believe in you

Peter Greene said:

I think there are faux tin hat physicists who are closer to building a cold fusion generator and a perpetual motion machine than reformsters are to building a reliable and accurate system for identifying bad teachers.

Do I think there’s a valuable conversation to be had about less effective teachers and how to best deal with them in a school system? Oh, boy, do I. But we aren’t ready for that conversation, because you aren’t ready to admit that you don’t have a clue how to tell a great teacher having a bad day from a good teacher with a tough class from a bad teacher who probably should be a shoe salesman from a great teacher who just got randomly swept up by whatever mangled metric you loosed upon the teaching world.

You keep saying you want to raise the bar when mostly you’re just swinging the bar wildly around with closed eyes and every time you randomly clobber something you cry out, “There– it’s another bad teacher!” As long as you are swinging bad metrics around like so many long-dead cats on a ten-foot pole, no teacher is going to be comfortable getting anywhere near you and your super-secret method for weeding out the riff from the raff.

It really is not that we don’t believe in bad teachers, or that we think they should be enshrined and preserved. What we don’t believe in is you, and your cockamamie untested unvalidated unproven evaluation systems.

via http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2014/06/yes-virginia-there-are-bad-teachers.html

If new teacher evaluation systems were really about growth and constructive feedback

Anthony Cody says:

while Gates and his employees constantly talk about growth and constructive feedback, they always seek to embed these systems in the evaluation process, where there will be huge consequences for those involved. 

I asked:

If I am wrong, and the new evaluation system described by Bill Gates really is all about feedback and collaboration, then why not remove the model from an evaluative framework? Make the sharing of videos voluntary and low-stakes. Provide teachers dedicated time for collaboration. Offer a variety of structures such as Lesson Study, Critical Friends, and Teacher Inquiry that have been proven effective at generating authentic reflection and growth.

If I turn out to be right, then smash those cameras, boycott those tests, opt out of the data systems, and refuse to be standardized and scripted.

via http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/12/2013_in_review_part_3_gatesian.html

Does StudentsFirst deserve a seat at the policy table?

StudentsFirst

In August I blogged about the intersection of money, politics, and educator evaluation here in Iowa. Today, reporter Mike Wiser quotes me in his Sioux City Journal article about the growing presence of StudentsFirst, Michelle Rhee’s advocacy organization, in our state:

We have seen the rise of influence of outside advocacy groups that are essentially buying access to the political process. There are lots of good ideas out there in the marketplace of ideas, but what worries me is when those ideas come attached to a big donation check, well, we know money talks in politics. [this should not be read as me saying that StudentsFirst has good ideas!]

During my interview with Mike, he asked me if I thought StudentsFirst deserved a place at the policy table. Brain-fried from a long day of working with principals, I think I mumbled that I don’t know how organizations get selected for statewide committees or what the criteria are (or should be). But maybe it’s best to turn the question around…

If an outside advocacy organization

but is more than willing to lavish large contributions around so that it floods local school board elections with unprecedented monies and is the biggest contributor to state legislative races, do you think it deserves a seat at the policymaking table?

5 big questions for the Iowa Council on Educator Development

Iowaflag

The Iowa Council on Educator Development meets tomorrow for the first time. This is the statewide group that is supposed to make recommendations to the Iowa legislature about how to better evaluate teachers and school administrators. Given many of the practical and policy insanities that have occurred in other states around this issue – massive swings from year to year in individual teachers’ ratings, educators evaluated by test scores of students they didn’t teach, Teachers of the Year being rated unsatisfactory, teachers being evaluated by student assessments for which there is yet no curriculum / teacher training, etc. – this will be important, highly-visible, and highly-controversial work. Members of the Council include teachers, principals, professors, educator association staff, Department of Education personnel, and, yes, the state director for the Iowa chapter of Students First (whom for some reason the Department of Education insists on referring to primarily as a ‘parent’ rather than her professional role).

As I think about the work ahead for this group and the changes that it may recommend, five big questions come to mind that will need resolution…

  1. First and foremost, will the purpose of any changes in our current educator evaluation systems be for educator improvement or for educator ‘accountability?’ The primary philosophical orientation of any proposed changes is paramount and will shape all other conversations, decisions, and design considerations. For instance, systems designed for educator improvement won’t be punitive; will focus on educator learning, growth, and remediation; will be less consequential to teachers’ incomes, employment, and reputations (i.e., lower stakes rather than high stakes); and will do everything possible to minimize year-to-year volatility and unreliability because they’re focused on an ethic of care, not on perspectives of shame, blame, or disdain.
  2. Iowa revised its educator evaluation systems just a few years ago to give educators much better feedback on their performance. Are there big flaws in those recently-changed systems that warrant major new changes?
  3. When teacher differences only account for about 10% of the variance in student achievement, will this statewide committee work on educator evaluations (and potential policy/funding changes) be placed in proper context given other potential legislative actions?
  4. If, as I don’t hope, the Council decides – despite an overwhelming wealth of statistical, policy, and legal reasons against such systems - that educator evaluation in Iowa should be changed so that it is high stakes AND that student statewide assessment scores should be a component of such a system, how will we remedy the deficiencies that have resulted in other states related to operational unreliability, massive unfairness, legal concerns, and a lack of confidence in the accuracy and validity of resultant educator ratings? In other words, can we identify states or districts who are actually doing this in ways that work? (and, if not, are we somehow smarter than every other state that’s tried this?) If the Council goes down this path, issues that will arise include year-to-year volatility of test scores and educator ratings, inappropriate uses of assessments and statistics that are designed for purposes other than educator evaluation, the lack of standardized statewide assessments for most students, inherent systemic biases of so-called ‘value-added’ systems against educators that work in particular settings, long-term impacts on the perceived desirability of education as a profession (and thus educator supply), Constitutional equal protection and due process rights, etc.
  5. If, as I hope, whatever changes the Council may recommend are focused on educator improvement rather than ‘accountability,’ will we be able to get the federal government to approve them? And if we can’t, it is more harmful to Iowa education to stay with the current NCLB scheme or receive a NCLB waiver? In other words – when both options have serious consequences, substantial drawbacks, and significant negative impacts on students, educators, and communities – whom are we willing to sacrifice and what will be our moral, ethical, professional, and legal justifications?

This work is going to be difficult and complex. What other big questions do you think the Council will have to address?

Image credit: Iowa flag, Chuck Thompson

Money, politics, and educator evaluation in Iowa

Timeline

Some observations

I am not aware of any mention in any Iowa news outlet of…

  1. the fact that the reforms advocated for by Students First (and others) have resulted in smaller, not larger, student achievement gains;
  2. the corporate profit motive behind many of Students First’s proposed policies;
  3. Students First’s anti-gay ‘Reformer of the Year’ in Tennessee;
  4. the D.C. Public Schools’ cheating scandal under Rhee’s leadership and the fact that DCPS schools are worse off now than before her arrival;
  5. Rhee’s belief that communities should not be democratically involved in their schools (so much for local control);
  6. the fact that virtually none of Students First’s policy proposals have any peer-reviewed data, research, evidence, or other supports behind them; or

any of the other controversies (of which there are many) surrounding Students First and its proposed policies.

I’m also not aware of any state- or district-level systems that tie educator evaluations to student test scores that are deemed to be statistically stable, operationally reliable, and proportionately impactful (if you’ve got ‘em, please share ‘em!).

Some questions

  1. Why aren’t the journalists in our state doing a better job of investigating the claims and backgrounds of groups like Students First instead of simply reporting on them and/or passing along their press releases as ‘news?’
  2. Should Students First have a seat on Iowa’s new educator evaluation council?
  3. So far Iowa has resisted many of the educational policy insanities that have infected other states. Will this council focus on evaluation measures for lower-stakes educator improvement purposes or higher-stakes educator accountability purposes? If the former, will such a scheme be approved by the federal government if/when Iowa applies (again) for a NCLB waiver? If the latter, will Iowa become just another of the many states that “pretend that mathematical models can do something they cannot?
  4. Will this council think smartly when considering ‘multiple measures’ of teacher quality?
  5. Will we decide as Iowans what our educational policies should be or will we allow ourselves to be bought by outside advocacy groups?

UPDATE: In case there was any confusion about whether Patty Link is in this role as a ‘parent’:

StudentsFirstIA

Student achievement and teacher evaluations: The math doesn’t add up?

1+1=3

Many states are applying for NCLB waivers. But they are adopting teacher evaluation criteria that are statistically, professionally, and morally inappropriate. As Education Week notes:

Federal officials say they have generally approved systems in which student growth counts for between 20 percent and 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. But also acceptable is a “trigger” mechanism, like one in Arkansas, where a teacher can’t be rated as effective if he or she fails to meet expectations for student growth.

Another acceptable method is a matrix system, like one in Massachusetts, in which student growth doesn’t receive a specific weighting but is coupled with other measures, such as unannounced teacher observations.

This would be fine if 20% to 50% (or more) of student achievement could be attributed to teachers. But decades of peer-reviewed research show that teachers are responsible for 10% to 15% of student achievement at best. The remaining influences on student achievement are other school factors (another 5% to 10%), non-school factors (60% or so), and random error (about 20%). As Matthew Di Carlo states:

though precise estimates vary, the preponderance of evidence shows that achievement differences between students are overwhelmingly attributable to factors outside of schools and classrooms.

Let’s simplify this even further:

  1. Decades of research show that teachers are responsible for 10% to 15% of student achievement
  2. State laws hold teachers responsible for 20% to 50% (or more) of student achievement
  3. Teachers thus are held responsible for 5% to 40% (or more) of student achievement over which they have NO CONTROL and negative consequences ensue under so-called ‘accountability’ schemes

Does anyone want to argue that this is fair or reasonable or valid?

This can’t be said enough: It is morally inappropriate (and probably illegal) for policymakers to evaluate teachers and hold them ‘accountable’ for factors beyond their control. But that’s exactly what appears to be happening in state after state after state.

In Iowa, lawmakers and our new Commission on Educator Leadership and Compensation are working together over the next year to formulate teacher evaluation criteria. Even if we somehow can become the first state in the nation to overcome all of the other statistical volatility and operational unreliability issues associated with tying teacher evaluations to numerical student learning outcomes, will we do what’s right and ensure that the student achievement component of teacher evaluations is at most 10% to 15%? If we do, will the federal government even let us? If we don’t, how long until the first due process lawsuit is filed?

[UPDATE: Be sure to see the 4 scenarios below. Which seems most fair to you?]

Image credit: 1+1=3, Austin Kleon

Tony private schools aren’t paying their teachers based on test scores

My child should not be responsible for anyone’s pay based on one test on one day. . . . I keep checking the tony private schools to see when they are going to pay their teachers based on test scores and I have yet to find one that thinks this is credible nor do any believe in this data-driven model of high stakes testing for their students.

Rosemarie Jensen via http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2013/the-seattle-map-flap.html#comment-781024577


Switch to our mobile site