TeachMoore

What If Teachers Designed Teacher Evaluation?

[Sharing a letter I wrote to my TLN friend and recent guest blogger, Susan (Ernie) Rambo].

Hey Ernie,

I'm fairly impressed with the work of the work of our colleagues in the Denver New Millennium Initiative on their new report on teacher evaluation. The report couldn't have come at a better time for me, as I'm involved with work on teacher evaluation right now on several levels both within my state and nationally. This is one of the most articulate and most provocative set of teacher views on this topic that I've seen so far. Clearly, the group is working with an eye to the political realities of their own state, but also with their hearts towards what's best for students, and their thinking grounded in the wisdom of practice informed by carefully analyzed research.

For example, the four issues (p.6) they identify as critical to developing an effective teacher evaluation system, to me highlight the practical wisdom teachers bring to this discussion, especially, item #2: Qualifications and training of the evaluators. Their treatment of this point later in the report reminds me of how evaluators are trained for the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards scoring process, and I suspect they drew heavily from that model.

As teachers, the group also recognizes the dual role of an effective evaluation system (p. 10), and this is a point that needs more stress in the current education reform discussion. Schools and districts cannot use a "fire-and-replace" approach to reach the goal of consistently high quality teachers for all children. Helping teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses and providing ongoing support to address those weaknesses and share those strengths should be the primary focus of our teacher evaluation systems. Doing so would not only lessen the possibility of incompetent teachers remaining in the profession, but significantly reduce the amount of mediocre, overly scripted, or trial-and-error teaching occurring in schools across the country.

Also, as a member of the Teaching 2030 TeacherSolutions team, I especially appreciate the Denver group's suggestion about the role of "professional guilds" in the teacher evaluation process. One of the reasons I pursued National Board certification myself was to get serious feedback from highly accomplished peers on my work, and their suggestions for how I could improve my work. I love Vinnie Basile's projection (p.10) of how such a guild might work. This is one of the key roles I envision for teachers' unions as they reconfigure themselves to serve our profession in the new century.

I wonder how many policymakers or others will understand just how powerful The Goal Attainment Process described on pg. 8 is for actually reaching the goal of putting a quality teacher in every classroom? The suggested evaluation process would require teachers to demonstrate a critical professional pedagogical skill: the ability to develop, analyze, and use assessments at the classroom level. In this step, teachers would have to demonstrate how they connect what's going on in individual classrooms to the larger school and district goals. Also, the suggestion for a statewide assessment database (p.8) of teacher made assessments and how to handle the use of that database, particularly in the non-standardize tested areas, is brilliant and squares with practices from our most advanced competing nations in the area of education.

Of course, the most contentious issue around teacher evaluation is the use (or not) of student standardized test data to determine teacher performance. I've noticed how many teachers not only don't oppose, but expect the use of student test data as part of their professional evaluations. This contradicts many of the media-touted education reformers who claim teachers are afraid of these tests for our own selfish reasons. However, like most teachers, the Denver NMI also point out the very real dangers and limitations of excessive testing and over-reliance on test data, even as they (and I) look forward to "more robust student assessments" (5). The group seems to take the position that neither the tests nor the data is the problem, but rather how both are being misused.

The group's response to current attempts at using value-added measures in determining teacher performance, also, shows how thoughtful and fearless these teachers are. Despite the clearly documented flaws in these measures, the group doesn't advocate throwing out test data completely, but rather calls for more appropriate and effective ways to use it, and they emphasize that can only be done in partnership with teachers. It's a professional and principled stance; after all, standardized tests have been around a long time and some educators have found them more useful than others. Unfortunately, such student-centered logic may be hard to hear over the racket of racing to reform and the cheering of a billion-dollar testing industry.

Just as I finished writing this, I noticed fellow TLN blogger Bill Ferriter had posted his take on the report, so I hope this signals the start of much more discussion both within TLN and around the nation on the ideas Denver NMI has put forward. As many states and districts rush to "do something" about teacher evaluation, it's truly important that professional teachers step up and bring much needed light to this heated debate. Can't wait to hear what you see in the report, and where you think it might take us.

Best,

Read This: Connect the Dots

Add these to the summer required reading list for members of Congress, U.S. Dept. of Education staff, and other policymakers attempting to make critical decisions about education quality and reform in America (care of my friends at Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching):

1. Report from the National Center on Education and the Economy showing that the direction of popular U.S. trends in education reform are headed in the wrong direction and may further reduce the performance of American students against that of their peers in competing nations.

2. Nearly a decade of America's test-based accountability systems, from "adequate yearly progress" to high school exit exams, has shown little to no positive effect overall on learning and insufficient safeguards against gaming the system, a blue-ribbon committee of the National Academies of Science concludes in a new report.

Yes, this material will be on the test.

Read This: Ed Groups Urge Duncan to Curb NCLB

I knew I couldnt' be the only person who realizes there is SOMETHING the U.S. Department of Education can do to mitigate the harmful effects of NCLB while continuing to work towards a full reauthorization of ESEA.

Sixteen education organizations, part of the Learning First Alliance, have sent a letter to the Secretary urging him to do just that.

The Alliance has urged Secretary Duncan to exercise his authority and address the act’s current flaws that tie up scarce resources with unnecessary regulatory compliance, counterproductive sanctions, and reporting that does little to contribute to student success.

Read the full text of the letter here and share your thoughts.

Attacks on Teacher Seniority Off-Target

Encouraging news from Chicago where students are fighting the removal of their teachers.

All over the country, schools are being closed / teachers are being mass fired or laid off under the guise of either edreform or necessary budget cuts; urged on by federal competitive grants that give brownie points for such actions as proof of their seriousness to break with the status quo. Adding to the irony of these heart-wrenching events is the sobering fact that most of these teachers probably do not deserve to be fired or replaced. In some places, administrators decide which teachers go and which are allowed to remain or return based solely on seniority (commonly called last-in/first-out LIFO policies) as in recent highly publicized incidents in Nevada, Iowa, and Providence.

This scenario is disturbingly reminiscent of the post-Brown vs. Board of Education closings of Black schools and mass firings and demotions of Black teachers under the guise of ending desegregation [I'll be publishing more on this point in a book chapter coming next month].

Opposing LIFO sounds impressively forward-thinking on the surface; but in the reality of actual schools, districts, students and teachers' lives, it begs a huge question. We would not be relying on seniority if we had functioning, effective teacher evaluation systems. Giving building or district administrators unrestrained hiring and layoff powers in the absence of such systems does not correct the problem. The main reason seniority or due process policies appear to protect poor teachers is the lousy or incompetent evaluations which fail to reveal not only which teachers are weak, but why; or for that matter, how every teacher is truly performing and how each of them could be better. In fact, it has become embarrassingly obvious that one of the main reasons our educational system is at a disadvantage compared to those in some other countries is how we so unevenly evaluate and support our teachers.

If the evaluations were effective, those teachers with the greatest longevity would be the most highly effective ones. In a professional practice, such as teaching, experience does matter. Being good at something once is commendable, but we need professionals who can consistently provide quality education to a wide-range of ever-changing students. We know from historical examples and from the research that it is possible for a teacher to do a stellar job one year, in one school or setting; but not be able to repeat that success the next year with a different group of students due to a variety of factors. However, even in some of the most dysfunctional schools, we have teachers who consistently bring out the best in their students, or could with administrative and collegial support.

Teaching and learning are social, contextual, and fluid. Highly accomplished teachers:

• Are committed to students and their learning.
• Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
• Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning--regularly and through multiple methods.
• Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
• Are members of learning communities--working with other professionals, parents, and community resources.

   

You may recognize this list as the Five Core Propositions of the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Those basic beliefs are why more and more teachers are pursuing National Board Certification, often at their own expense. Teachers who earn National Board Certification have demonstrated these abilities in their own classrooms with real students. The rigorous, valid certification process also helps teachers identify, some for the first time since student teaching, where their practice could be improved. Time and again, National Board candidates--those who achieve certification and the many who don't, at least not on the first attempt--testify to the value of the process itself on strengthening their teaching practice. This is exactly what an effective evaluation system for teachers should do. Unlike standardized test results for students that give limited information about barely 30% of the current teaching force, valid and reliable NBPTS standards exist for almost every educator in every subject area and grade level. The NBPTS process is designed to measure teacher performance and effectiveness without having to go through convoluted and controversial statistical contortions such as the value-added measures (VAM) that must be applied to students' standardized test data. Where student test data is available, it may be included in a teachers' National Board portfolio (with important narrative interpretation from the teacher) as one piece of evidence, but we know that piece by itself is insufficient proof of teacher effectiveness.

I've written before on what really good teacher evaluation should include, so I won't repeat those criteria here.

Apparently, it can't be said enough: Stop wasting precious time, energy, and most important--people's lives and livelihoods on the side issues, and focus first on the pivotal one--developing and implementing high quality educator evaluation systems for teachers and administrators.

What Really is “College Ready”?

As a community college teacher, I and my colleagues have seen many students who have technically completed their high school requirements, yet they lack both the academic skills and the maturity to handle college level work. This includes students from public and private schools (contrary to the persistent myth that all private schools are great, and all public schools are horrible). We've seen high school valedictorians crash and burn in their Freshman level core courses; meanwhile, other students whose transcripts and placement scores say they are not ready, make astounding progress and graduate.

Those of us who value and understand student learning have long argued that student progress along the educational continuum should be determined by demonstrated knowledge, not age, seat time, or test scores. Although most systems still try to convey students through school on a linear assembly line, each student experiences the teaching/learning processes differently. These individual differences are generally not picked up by traditional standardized tests which are not designed for that level of specificity, particularly if those test results are not properly analyzed in a timely way by classroom teachers familiar with the student.

Colleges usually determine readiness with placement tests that are often not aligned with the curriculum actually taught in PK-12 schools, and certainly not with many state high school exit exams. For example, the skills most needed for success in a class such as Freshman English Composition, are those most likely to have been reduced or eliminated at the high school level in favor of more generic ones that show up on state tests. My own college's study of incoming freshmen over a five year period found that the deeper our feeder schools moved into the state testing program in English, the poorer students' writing ability and grammar usage had become. The question is not when should students be allowed to leave high school; it's what should they know and be able to do when we declare them ready to move on to the next phase of their lives.

Everything in education for the past century has been time-based in an effort to apply a factory-efficiency model to the academic preparation of children. As my colleague and co-author, Shannon C'de Baca noted in our book, Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Our Public Schools Now and in the Future:

Our knowledge of how people learn continues to expand exponentially. We have significant data and instruments that can help us determine individual learning preferences. And yet we adhere to a system of assembly-line education delivery that requires all students to resent their thinking every 50 minutes, all the while expecting them to master increasingly complex content that does not chunk easily into small boxes of time. It just doesn't work. (p. 93).

I currently teach dual enrollment high school students [high school students taking college courses], most of whom are the top students within their local schools. Sadly, many of the skills and habits that have brought them success at the secondary level, lead to frustration and even failure in their college courses. Yet, they have done everything they've been asked to do.

One step towards correcting this misalignment is to treat education, particularly what we now consider secondary (middle school/high school) and college levels as a continuum both pedagogically and fiscally. Rather than diverting funds, as Gov. Daniels suggests, merge the resources, the curriculum, and the instruction to produce a more coherent, individualized, and rigorous educational system for all children.

Originally posted May 9, 2011 at NationalJournal.com, Expert Blogs: Education

The courage to change | Powerful Learning Practice

"Instead of a teacher-centered, textbook based Biology classroom, I shifted mine to a collaborative learning network. Instead of lectures, my students researched each unit. Sometimes individually. Sometimes in groups. Often they were responsible for teaching their peers. For in-class assignments, they often had to apply their knowledge to solve problems. Additionally, we created our own on-line textbook. How did it turn out? I’ll let you be the judge"

via plpnetwork.com

 

Take the time to read and think REALLY hard about the ideas being put forward over at Powerful Learning Practice Network by real teachers on the true cutting edge of education reform.

Then share it.

Read This: Students Tackle Budget Deficit

AARP ran this wonderful little editorial about what happened when a group of college students tackled the Federal budget--doing what our political reps in D.C. can't seem to find the heart or mind to accomplish.

"Here's the bottom line: Faced with the same options that have paralyzed Washington, the students worked to find success. They weren't selfish."

Government Spending, Closing Budget Gap; Classroom Wisdom: Students Share Responsibility - AARP Bulletin

I Know A Teacher...

...who taught me by example to arrive early and stay late (Hint: That's what good teachers were doing long before TFA). Thank you Mr. Tolliver.

...who well past 60 could still jump desks and bust misbehaving 6th graders.  Thank you Mrs. Tregear.

...who after teaching for 40 years, became the go-to edtech guru for her rural high school. Thank you Mrs. Harris.

...who is part of a group of teachers that designed and runs their own public school based on the Five Core Propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.  Thank you Lori Nazareno.

...who has dedicated over 38 years to working with students of poverty.  Thank you Jon Hanbury.

...of teachers who has transformed how we teach writing by reminding us to keep students at the center. Thank you Dixie Goswami.

...who always brings the edreform discussion back to what does this mean for the students. Thank you Susan Graham.

...who keeps helping other teachers [like me] grow in our thinking and use of digital tools with students. Thank you Bill Ferriter.

...who is absolutely fearless about speaking truth to power in defense of students and teachers. Thank you Anthony Cody.

...who pioneered teaching paperless English classes in the 80s and has consistently issues of power and equity in education.  Thank you Ted Nellen.

...who not only does an amazing job working with students who are ELL, but has also authored three important books, is a 24/7 educational resources curator (and the fastest retweeter I know). Thank you Larry Ferlazzo.

...who excels at asking the most challenging questions and pointing out the many glaring contradictions in U.S. education policy. Thank you Nancy Flanagan.

...several dozen, actually, who are former students of mine and now teachers themselves bringing me hope for our profession. Thank you Angela Towers, Ronda Rimmer, Archie Mitchell, Pamela Jones.......

To all the teachers I know personally and know about who every day, year-after-year, do so much, for so many, with so little....

                                                Thank you.

 

More #IKnowaTeacher celebrations can be found at:

  The Future of Teaching Blog

  IKnowaTeacher Facebook Page

(Thanks to John Holland for this great campaign to change the public narrative about teachers).