Posts
Kevin Carey on same.
Daily News.
NYTIMES says "no."
So that's a clean sweep.
And here is Randi Weingarten explaining why a law forbidding school boards from looking at student test scores when granting tenure does not "take away local control":
Opponents are arguing that the legislation takes away local control from school districts. In fact, it does nothing of the kind. Nothing precludes districts from making tenure decisions based on myriad criteria —just not student test scores.
Right Way to Grade Teachers
Randi Weingarten
New York Sun, April 7, 2008
And these are the people teaching our kids "critical thinking."
Meanwhile, my own district uses scores of "3" on the state test to refuse 7th grade students a place in 8th grade algebra. Yes, the 8th grade algebra class has any number of kids with scores of "3" on the state test currently enrolled and doing well, but never mind.
Life-altering decisions for kids, not teachers, can be based on these tests.
one more nail in the coffin
The union's advocacy for this legislation strikes me as a misstep.
Few parents are aware that student achievement is not factored into teacher evaluations. I certainly wasn't. Just the other day, a parent I know who spends every evening reteaching his child's h.s. science course at home asked me, "Are teachers ever evaluated based on how well their students learn what they're teaching?"
The answer is no. Student achievement doesn't enter in. No data on student achievement inside a particular teacher's classroom as compared to any other teacher's classroom are collected, and no such data are used in tenure and promotion cases.
This is deadly for kids and families in two ways:
- first, ineffective teachers are granted tenured
- second -- and perhaps more importantly -- when ineffective teachers receive tenure and students fail to learn in their classes, the student is blamed for the problems. The student has failed to prepare for class, the student has failed to Seek Extra Help, the student has failed to develop inferential thinking and/or conceptual understanding, and on and on. [see Galen Alessi]
Obviously, there are lots of other problems, too, one being the fact that highly effective teachers have no special protection from the whims of administrators and precious little authority outside the four walls of their classrooms. If an administrator wants to treat a star teacher like a pawn on a chess board, he can.
But that's a story for another day.
In a "standards-based era," the trouble with this system -- and it is everywhere the system -- is that it only works as long as parents and the broader public are kept in the dark. This is why schools are managed via loose coupling:
....the administrative superstructure of the organization – principals, board members, and administrators—exists to “buffer” the weak technical core of teaching from outside inspection, interference, or disruption.
Administration in education, then, has come to mean not the management of instruction but the management of the structures and processes around instruction. That which cannot be directly managed must, in this view, be protected from external scrutiny. Buffering consists of creating structures and procedures around the technical core of teaching that, at the same time, (1) protect teachers from outside intrusions in their highly uncertain and murky work, and (2) create the appearance of rational management of the technical core, so as to allay the uncertainties of the public about the actual quality or legitimacy of what is happening in the technical core. This buffering creates what institutional theorists call a “logic of confidence” between public schools and their constituents. Local board members, system-level administrators, and school administrators perform the ritualistic tasks of organizing, budgeting, managing, and dealing with disruptions inside and outside the system, all in the name of creating and maintaining public confidence in the institutions of public education. Teachers, working in isolated classrooms, under highly uncertain conditions, manage the technical core. This division of labor has been amazingly constant over the past century.
Building a New Structure for School Leadership
by Richard Elmore
Albert Shanker Institute
The purpose of loose-coupling is to protect the core function of the school -- instruction -- from "outside" scrutiny and interference: "outside" meaning parents and taxpayers. Most of the time this goal is achieved by keeping things secret, either directly, e.g. by refusing "comment," or indirectly, by speaking and writing in acronyms and buzz-words. Acronyms & buzz-words serve their protective purpose extremely well. For instance, I would estimate, conservatively, that 9 out of 10 parents cannot tell you what the words "balanced literacy" mean. If nobody knows what "balanced literacy" means, nobody's going to squawk because his school is using a balanced literacy curriculum. No one's even going to know. Unless a parent has spent years immersing himself in the edu-world, he has no clue what's going on. True of school board members, too.
However, the whole scheme starts to come undone once you have the president of the teachers' union publicly lobbying for legislation making it illegal even to consider objective measures of student achievement in awarding tenure. It comes as news to your basic parent and taxpayer that the schools are not now, and never have been, using test scores and the like as part of tenure decisions.
Plus which, while 9 out of 10 parents have no idea what an SBRR reading curriculum is, no one is going to have a problem working out the meaning of a statement like, "teachers shouldn’t be evaluated on student test scores."
It's a short step from there to voting down school budgets.
death by data redux
That said, I should add that I can see why Randi Weingarten & c. would want such a law on the books. Death by data can't be any more more fun for teachers than it is for students and parents.
Still, I would appreciate some recognition from Ms. Weingarten that just as a teacher can be blamed for a student's educationally impoverished home life when statistics are used incorrectly, millions of American school children are blamed for their teachers' failings each and every day of the school year.
31 comments:
"Nothing precludes districts from making tenure decisions based on myriad criteria —just not student test scores."
This is going to come out snarky, but I don't intend it to be.
I can only think of two reasons to take something off the table when considering things like tenure, raises, etc.
(1) The thing in question isn't relevant to the job.
For example, my employer should not consider how often I wash my car when deciding whether to promote/fire me (NOTE: I am not in sales).
(2) The employee doesn't have any control over the thing in question.
Again, as an example, the profitability in other divisions is relevant to my job, but I don't have a lot of control over it. It makes more sense to make these decisions on things I have some control over.
So ...
My question is this: Is the argument against using student test scores as part of the tenure/no-tenure decision (1) student test scores are not relevant to the job, or (2) student test scores are not something that the teachers have any control over?
I am *NOT* suggesting that student test scores be the only thing used in the tenure/no-tenure decision.
But ... it seems like a very strange argument to make that the score are either something that the teacher has *NO* control over (in which case it suggests that the quality of the teachers doesn't matter ... so lets go for cheap) or that the student test scores are something that are not relevant to the job (in which case it suggests that the teachers believe that measurable gains in knowledge are not part of the job ... again, lets just go for cheap then).
Can anyone make more sense of this than I can? This position seems to be a long-term strategic mistake for the teachers and/or their union.
-Mark Roulo
Very nice comments.
The problem is difficult because student learning is not just dependent on what the teacher does. It's dependent on the basic assumptions, curricula, and expectations of the school. The only reasonable basis for teacher evaluation is a relative one. How do these teachers compare with the others, given the same conditions. I can't imagine that there would be enough of a difference in most cases to trigger a no-tenure clause. What happens if there are several tenured teachers who have worse records? I also expect that schools have ways to justify the no-tenure decision if they really want.
This is really not just a getting-tenure issue. There are many older, tenured teachers who really should have retired years ago. They don't becuase it's easy for them to go through the motions and still receive their top tier pay. I was talking to a member of our school board this past weekend and she commented that there are a number of these teachers in our schools.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this.
This is all about whether school administrations have the control to do what needs to be done. (It's another issue whether they will do the right thing.) The school board member also commented that it's tough to get teachers to change what they have been doing for years, even if the administration has the authority to demand it.
I told her that I wanted to see a specific syllabus for each class, not just vague frameworks. She didn't think that would ever happen. At least with TERC or EM you can see something tangible (as bad as they are), but for any other class, forget it. My son has Social Studies and he does stuff, but I can't go into school and see details about goals, books, assignments, and expctations. I see the work that comes home, but I can't put it together into any meaningful approach to the subject. The quality is highly dependent on the teacher.
So the question is why do school committee members seemingly protect and hide these practices? This school committee member seemed to share many my own concerns, but why did she casually make the comments about the older teachers? Because there is nothing that can be done. She said that the school committee can fight only so many battles.
I told her about my son's very poor experience in first grade. When I told her who the teacher was, she just nodded her head. Apparently horrible teaching is just an accepted part of the system.
The problem is that school administrations don't have the authority to do what is needed, and unions want rules to protect the teachers from bad or arbitrary school administrations. It's a disfunctional system and the kids are the losers.
The only solution is to break the system with choice.
The problem is that school administrations don't have the authority to do what is needed, and unions want rules to protect the teachers from bad or arbitrary school administrations. It's a dysfunctional system and the kids are the losers.
yes
This position seems to be a long-term strategic mistake for the teachers and/or their union.
I think this is a long-term strategic mistake.
Elmore says that a standards-based accountability system threatens the "buffer" -- the buffer being administration & school boards.
The thing is....when you put this together with the fact that teachers are constantly grading our kids, you have a big problems.
I had an interesting experience this morning. C. and I went to the high school to sign him up for next year's courses. The guidance counselor - who is great; universally loved & highly competent -- looked at his middle school transcript and, noting a C+ in algebra in his first marking period, said, "Math is a challenge for you."
I got balled up trying to explain that while math isn't C's strength, it is not his weakness, either.
But there's no category for that. There's no category for "math is easy for me when I'm well taught."
This is a kid who's come through 3 years of a horrifically mismanaged curriculum & 2 years of extremely ineffective teaching and everyone in the district knows it.
And yet there was the freshman guidance counselor defining C. as a person for whom math is a "challenge."
The only kids who've successfully gotten through this 3-year marathon are kids for whom math is demonstrably not a challenge.
Parents moving toward the high school years need to be looking VERY closely at the grading policies of their school.
The only reasonable basis for teacher evaluation is a relative one. How do these teachers compare with the others, given the same conditions. I can't imagine that there would be enough of a difference in most cases to trigger a no-tenure clause.
There is.
Value-added research is finding huge differences amongst teachers.
There are teachers routinely producing 1 1/2-year gains in their students; there are teachers routinely producing half-year gains in their students.
I read an interview with William Sanders, who created value-added measurement. He said that at this point you can't use value-added to make judgments about individual teachers in the broad middle.
You can identify stars and you can identify teachers who should not be given tenure. (He wasn't talking about tenure at the time; what he said specifically is that you can identify teachers who are doing an extremely poor job.)
Even with poor curricula and administrative practices there are enormous differences in teachers.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this.
The new Aspen report recommends schools informing parents that their child has been assigned an ineffective teacher.
(at some point along the way...)
Steve - you can file FOIL requests for curriculum maps, syllabi, etc.
(Freedom of Information Law)
All of these things are public documents.
I would just politely request copies & then keep on politely requesting them.
There's one place where test scores are inappropriate measure, and that is in districts/states where testing is done during the first half of the year (so you are really testing what the students learned last year).
Other than that, surely the state of statistics is good enough that we can require that use of student test scores be adjusted for SES, performance the previous year and stuff like that. If not, then the whole test scores thing is on pretty shaky ground all over.
"... you can file FOIL requests for curriculum maps, syllabi, etc."
As far as I know, they don't have these things. When I ask, they tell me to make an appointment with the teacher, who will explain. I asked a few questions during the very brief parent-teacher conference, but it surprised her. Her tone changed. Imagine if I started to take detailed notes.
"There are teachers routinely producing 1 1/2-year gains in their students; there are teachers routinely producing half-year gains in their students."
I can't imagine that schools will ever apply this sort of technique. What happens when some of the tenured teachers stop meeting the tenure criteria?
Remember back in KTM-1 talking about "lost" years? And unions think that what's best for them is best for kids. I don't think so. Our town is now in the middle of an argument over job fairs where senior teachers have first choice over vacancies, and they can bump any other teacher if their class section is eliminated. The administration has no say in this process at all.
There are lots of things schools could do, ... but they won't.
As I say whenever tenure comes up, I don't think any teachers below the University level should have tenure.
Elementary and High School teaching should be about effectively transmitting a set of specifically defined skills. It's not a research position.
Guaranteed jobs for life are being phased out in Japan, and are not a fact of life in the U.S., except in odd niches, like public sector schools.
Will this change soon? I don’t think so. But it sure makes the whole system much more inflexible.
Other than that, surely the state of statistics is good enough that we can require that use of student test scores be adjusted for SES, performance the previous year and stuff like that. If not, then the whole test scores thing is on pretty shaky ground all over.
I don't know the politics behind the scenes, but I'm sure a huge part of NYC teacher motivation is going to be the certainty that if Joel Klein & c. use "test scores" to make tenure decisions they'll do it all wrong.
I don't trust the Bloomberg administration with statistics at all.
I agree with Ben.
Tenure is an antiquated --- although there are plenty of times when tenure protects kids.
Basically, we have a lousy, irredeemable system, and we're all trying to think of some INTERVENTION that would work.
I've finally learned the lesson that all good things can be bad things locally.
That is, in an well-run organization statistics and measurement would be used to maintain and improve performance.
In public schools.....
It's another story.
I can't imagine that schools will ever apply this sort of technique. What happens when some of the tenured teachers stop meeting the tenure criteria?
As I understand it, a number of schools in TN and OH are already doing it.
The idea isn't, actually, to use value-added scores to fire people.
The idea is to use value-added scores to see where teachers are falling down on the job and to then provide oversight, support, professional development, etc.
There's no reason why this shouldn't work -- at least, work better than anything else has worked (imo, obviously).
My favorite story is a TN teacher who told William Sanders, the inventor of value-added statistics for education, that she had started crying when she saw her value-added scores.
He looked at them and said, "Those scores aren't bad."
She said, "That's the point. I thought I was a great teacher, not an OK teacher."
It turned out she was making some elementary and simple-to-fix errors in....review, I think. iirc, she wasn't giving kids review before moving on. (I really don't remember - but I do remember that her classroom aide told her what the problem was!)
Value-added scores, used correctly, should be information you can act on.
In other words, the idea of value-added measurements is that they would be formative assessments for teachers.
As far as I know, they don't have these things. When I ask, they tell me to make an appointment with the teacher, who will explain. I asked a few questions during the very brief parent-teacher conference, but it surprised her. Her tone changed. Imagine if I started to take detailed notes.
uh.....I can pretty well imagine what happens once you start taking notes....
Seriously, though, the drip-drip-drip approach works.
Go ahead and make the appointment with the teacher. Be cheerful, polite, etc.
Just keep asking your questions.
That approach is actually quite effective. You have to have the discipline to do it, but it can be done.
You need the curriculum map.
I'm sure they have one.
If they don't, they need to tell you so.
Of course, I did learn this week that in fact we don't have an updated curriculum map for Math A (or probably for any other math course 6-12).
They bought new books, it's April, and they have not updated the curriculum map.
The map they sent me (after I formally threatened to file a FOIL request) has the old Amsco chapters.
I think I've mentioned this before, but when we were in the process of relocating I actually took the time to compare curriculum guides. We chose a district based on it's grand reputation, impressive test scores, and curriculum guides that we thought were accurate. It was all for naught.
Unbeknownst to us, we chose a district whose curriculum guides been updated in years and were just plain wrong on numerous accounts. The math, in particular, was extremely innacurate. It didn't mention anything about Everyday Math and said that there were levels of grouping by ability. Neither turned out to be true.
I never thought to ask if the curriculum guides were accurate when I met with the principals of the various districts. It didn't occur to me that they would provide prospective parents with anything but the truth. I trusted them then.
It wasn't until a couple of months into the school year that I realized we'd been duped. By then it was a little complicated to change the scenario since we had already purchased a home and moved our family thousands of miles to be in a "good" school district.
Districts don't seem to get just how much documents like this matter. They really should be held accountable-- it's just common decency and good practice. But I suppose that when it comes to public schools, that's prcecisely what takes it out of the realm of possiblity.
o.m.g.
Just a month ago, I gave our 3rd Quarter District Assessment. One of my students took about 15 minutes to take a test that took most of the other students in the class most of the period and then some.
When she gave me her test, I took a quick glance at it. It was blatantly clear to me that she hadn't read any of the test and just randomly bubbled in her responses. I asked her if she wanted to take another look at her test and she said, "no."
The next day, a few of my other students came up to me and said that this girl was bragging about the fact she just bubbled in the answers. When I asked her about this, she agreed that this is what she had in fact, done.
When this student chooses to work, she is a B/C student. So I know that she was capable of taking and understanding the test.
Of course, when I got the results back from these tests, she scores far below basic and below basic (which would call for more remediation than what she's currently getting).
Then I have another student who everytime I have given him any type of test, he doodles all over the paper and most days, absolutely refuses to work. He has been tested for learning difficulties, but does not qualify for any type of special education services.
Do you still think that my evaluations should be based on the scores of these two students?
So let's say you have a classroom >50% with Ed Plan and 25% illiterate in Spanish and English. Then you get sped support for about 2 hours per week and no ELL support. Throw in the fact that your kids have about a 35% turnover every year and have come through some terrific program (ycccccccch) like Investigations before they get to you.
A lot of the above is illegal and some of it should be.
Still want to fry the teacher?
Before you answer, know that I've been there done that on this scenario for a long time.
Oh, anon, that's almost what my child's elementary does. Our SPED support though is tremendous - 2 full time teachers and 2-3 aides for the section that is half mainstream. ELL and LD are well supported too - they actually get direct instruction in LA that is never offered to reg. ed. (Math is DI for everyone and so watered down that we don't get past adding fractions in Gr. 5)
The twist is that there are 2 students who are untutored, engaged, and routinely earn '4's on state testing in each section of grade 4 and 5. They are the markers for the admin. and serve to show the parents of the nonclassified wanderers that the teacher is not a nutcase. The parents who receive this wake up call usually truck their kids about 20 miles to Sylvan each week to do the catch up. The rest are placed in Academic Intervention in Grade 6 up (remedial LA and Math in lieu of study hall and electives).
Do you have any ideas to engage the wanderers? In K, it seems to be a lack of language plus lack of inquiring habit of mind type of problem. We've gone to using kinesthetic and sensory small group activities and directly asking the children to think about their observations. It's tough as they resist and want to go back to sleep. I wonder that we should add back a.m. and p.m. recess, as well as a Chinese style morning stretch (some are in daycare from 6 am until 8:30 am, many have 45 minute bus rides, so that means they do need to move).
So let's say you have a classroom >50% with Ed Plan and 25% illiterate in Spanish and English. Then you get sped support for about 2 hours per week and no ELL support. Throw in the fact that your kids have about a 35% turnover every year and have come through some terrific program (ycccccccch) like Investigations before they get to you.
So compare your performance to another teacher in the same situation.
Still want to fry the teacher?
No one wants to fry the teacher. Now a question for you - are you saying that teacher quality doesn't count?
No, absolutely, teacher quality is huge. The problem is inept management. I wouldn't want them to have a 'tool' that could be spun into a glorious, one size fits all, measurement system because sure as the sun will come tomorrow, they'll find a way to abuse it.
Never put a tool in the hand of a tool! Read the whole post. An administration that is willfully skirting the law isn't going to nuance a club if you hand it to them.
"No, absolutely, teacher quality is huge. The problem is inept management."
So, we have a huge problem with teacher quality AND a huge problem with management. Since we want to be fair to the good teachers, kids get screwed. Unfortunately, good in union-speak, is seniority.
Good schools can't be created from union rules. Management HAS to be management, for better or worse. If it's for the worse, then teachers and parents have to have the power to go elsewhere. You can't have it both ways: a monopoly with union protection and quality schools.
How do you think it makes parents feel to know that there are tenured teachers who should be forced out and that many of the other teachers know it too? All it takes is one bad teacher to really screw up a child, especially in math.
When I told one of our school committee members about my son's first grade teacher, she shook her head and said that the teacher should have retired long ago. She said that there are many more.
Teachers are protected, but not kids. Maybe that's what bothers me the most about union talk; the presumption that there are no trade-offs between seniority rules and what's best for kids.
The solution, however, is not defining some teacher quality criterion applied by schools. It's school choice. Let parents decide on the quality of both the teachers and the administration.
Unions protect teachers, guaranteeing them certain rights. Where are the unions for the students, guaranteeing them a right to receive adequate instruction?
The problem is inept management. I wouldn't want them to have a 'tool' that could be spun into a glorious, one size fits all, measurement system because sure as the sun will come tomorrow, they'll find a way to abuse it.
However, at the moment schools are abusing students by ignoring any evidence on how effective teachers or aren't when making decisions on teacher tenure.
So are you really arguing that children should be abused rather than teachers? Teachers can go elsewhere if they are mistreated by their employers. Kids are stuck.
First off, I'm not arguing and I'm probably not writing enough on a very complex subject. Let me have another go......
I am for abolishing all forms of union protection, tenure, contracts, or any other artifice that locks in poor performance. I spent 40 years as an engineer and manager on the bleeding edge of technology and my only protection, ever, was performance. That was true for me and the people that worked for me.
I'm also a realist. If you are a teacher you have to work in a system that is totally antithetical to that attitude. My observation is that the system I work in is pervaded with poor managers who are enabled by 'contracts' to bail out on the tough qualitative decisions that are part and parcel of good management. Union contracts attempt to write down objective measures for an extremely complex, subjective system.
If you give these managers a tool that lets them objectify even more than they already do, then they get to be even worse managers. Given a really nasty teacher that deserves to be fired they hide in the contract and do nothing that would be controversial. With a really good teacher they get to hide in the same contract and don't go to bat for them when they should.
If you want to measure me, have at it. But when you find out I'm good reward me. When you find out I'm bad fire my sorry ass. The system can do neither at this juncture so measuring is moot.
The most likely outcome from measuring in my world would be the hiring of an army of consultants to come in and create one more annual reform program.
Post a Comment