Swift & Change Able

Charlie,

You make this sound so simple, but its far more complicated.

I personally would like a negotiated agreement, or agreements, that STARTs with the words, "teacher tenure shall be granted based on student performance data and other relevant factors." But then the lawyers would need to nail down a lot of "trust but verify" language.

The so-called Firewall is like a trigger lock. If all trigger lock laws were repealed, most people would not start leaving their loaded and cocked guns on the dining room table, but still the number of tragedies would increase.
The same appplies here. The changes you seek would not require destructive policies, and many districts and their unions would work out better systems and their students would benefit. But districts, if they chose, could take something like the Florida Merit Pay law and apply it to evaluations and tenure.

What would prevent districts from taking growth models that are appropriate only when students have been randomly assigned and applying them to schools that don't do that? What would prevent districts from using models that have been tested in elementary and low poverty districts and applyinng them to high poverty secondary schools?

Now your maverick distrcit leader as opposed to the entire state is interesting. These things have to grow organically, and that requiring trusting relationships. How could a state decide regarding tenure if a teacher's data was produced by a system with integrity or a system of garbage in, garbage out?

But I'd like you to respond to this. Is the follwoing a minor issue?


"Tests should be used only for the purpose for which they were developed. If they are to be used for some other purpose, then careful attention must be paid to whether or not this purpose is appropriate. This position was developed jointly by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education in their document “The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.”

Um, so it sounds like you agree that AFT misrepresents what the law says and does, and that you agree that NY does not meet the RTTT criteria laid out by Secretary Duncan.

Correct?

Re: your question: since these tests are developed for the purpose of evaluating students, and teachers are responsible for educating children, consider careful attention to have already been paid.

Charlie,

I'm certainly not an expert on NY law if that’s what you are asking. I pay dues to the AFT to represent me on the details. Neither do I know the details on the Long Beach district and whether they are as good as touted or the details of California laws. But I’m confident in contributing this.

As you wrote, the RttT regulations preclude “any” restrictions on linking test scores to individual teachers. Ideally, we should remove or change restrictions that do not serve teaching and learning and keep those that do. Although I’ve never met Randi or any other AFT leaders, I’m confident in my union’ effort to “work in partnership with government officials, and not be dictated to” But the protections that we need to deter destructive use of test scores is not “specious and disingenuous.”

There is a big difference between something not being the “sole” measure and being an appropriate measure. If districts took a normative approach of adopting an existing model, say Florida’s 60% for merit pay, and applied it to teacher evaluation, urban schools like mine would soon be empty of qualified teachers. I can’t imagine a self-respecting teacher who would put up with that. (I can explain further on that concrete point if you like).

Just as important is the process. If data-mining of test scores provides the first cut, that can never be acceptable. It must be explicitly prohibited. If failure to meet goals for growth means that a teacher then is presumed to be lacking and has to defend themselves with other measures, then that is unacceptable. I’d borrow from basic scholarly methodology. You use observations, and use the teachers behaviors as the first step. Then data could enrich and inform and confirm or refute those observations.

I know you don’t want to hear this, but the reality in many urban schools was illustrated by Casey Stengel’s statement “doesn’t anybody here know how to play this game?” Just as the original Mets had ballplayers who weren’t incompetent, even our most dysfunctional schools have some of our best teachers.

Real world, there are a lot of middle schools where it takes a heroic effort to slow the decline in student performance during those horrible years. As I’ve explained, one day I’m runner-up district Teacher of the Year (which is awfully rare for someone in a real hardcore school) and the next day I am transferred to freshmen classes that drove a very good teacher out of the field. I can assure you that I’ve repeatedly replayed that semester in my mine. I had never been defeated before - even by freshmen in the middle of a gang war. But UNDER THE POLICIES THAT TEACHERS HAD TO OBEY, I could have never increased student performance.

And that is the fundamental problem that you ignore. Teachers don’t hire the principals or set the policies.

Again, not every district would abuse power, but enough would.

And again, it would be so easy for you guys to meet us half way. For instance, delete the word “any” and add words like supplement, complement etc. ...

Real world, allowing growth models to drive evaluations would be worst than “at will” contracts in many places. If a teacher questions excessive test prep, for instance, just transfer him to a class where its impossible to raise test scores.

I hope you understand that this is crucial to my arguments. I can not accept a system where teachers are THE second class citizen. Its one thing to fire people at will. Its another to allow the system to manufacture bogus evidence so that you are a de facto “at will” employee. (As we’ve debated, I disagree with some of the special ed laws you support but I’m going to obey the law. If I privately believe a student on an IEP should get LTSed, I’m not going to lie and claim that his behavior is not related to his disability if I don’t know that’s true, but you know that happens on ALL sides)

If everyone in was an at will teacher, then the award-winning AP teacher/coach who is fired because he doesn’t play the PTA president’s daughter on the soccer team would be on the same footing as the award-winning teacher fired for teaching Evolution and as the urban teacher who is assigned classes from hell. Then quality teachers would go to the schools with principals with the highest moral character regardless of income levels. But, of course, at will employment nationwide would be a disaster.

I just don’t think that you realize how harmful it would be to our poorest students if you turned neighborhood teachers into de facto at will employees.

Lastly, I didn’t understand your point on tests. If you are going to measure growth for evaluation, you need Value Added Models that are competent for the task they are given. None of those models are competent at this time. At this time, we couldn’t even inventory the problems with designing models for secondary schools where choice and selectivity create problems that are much bigger. How would you get random assignment of teachers which these models require?

These problems shrink dramatically if you use those models for incentives. If one out of three or fours years, I get a smaller bonus then my bonus is smaller, but that doesn’t ruin my career. In districts that adopted a model where test score growth was too big of a factor, in the tough schools every hall would have an effective teacher whose career was under threat through no fault of their own. After watching this colleague losing his job this year, and that colleague narrowly dodging a bullet that year, and other good teachers sleepless due to the stress, who wouldn’t throw in the towel, leave the profession or transfer to the suburbs?

Like I said, not every system or school would be so mercenary, but look at the way that NYC’s accountability regime, for instance, has brought out the worst in many of its people. Look how many schools already loose 1/4, 13rd, or even ½ of their teachers every year due to arbitrary actions of stressed out administrators.

And again, I want to get rid of bad teacher efficiently. I want data linked to my ID for diagnostic purposes. But I want the laws of the United States of America to protect the rights of all teachers. I’m hoping that the arrangement in Long Beach is effective as reported today, but that again is a reminder that using data for evaluations and other purposes is an organic process that requires trust. Perhaps, all three can’t be done in this combative atmosphere. But that’s just another reason for you all to realize that we won’t commit suicide even as we offer to compromise.

John says: "If districts took a normative approach of adopting an existing model, say Florida’s 60% for merit pay, and applied it to teacher evaluation, urban schools like mine would soon be empty of qualified teachers."

This is a disturbing statement, because it derives from an assumption that even a "qualified" teacher, by whatever means one wants to make that determination, cannot reasonably be expected to teach students in urban schools. Even adding the phrase "in urban schools" softens the meaning beyond that which is typical, as the emphasis is far more often on the students than on the
school.

We can construct scenarios of abuse of teacher evaluation until the cows come home, but until we are seriously willing to examine this belief, I think that it is critically important that we think about the ramifications of policies that serve to protect teachers from any responsibility for teaching outcomes.

By what means ought tenure be granted? Are there any criteria beyond that of survival in the system that ought to be considered? Should the criteria be different for teachers in urban districts? Maybe they should be granted earlier tenure in order to keep them from fleeing their students. What is the purpose of tenure? Does it accomplish that purpose? My understanding has always linked tenure to protection of intellectual freedom in the classroom. And yet I do not see teachers as a group engaging in serious wrestling with questions of how best to ply their craft based on intellectual study and competent research. I do not see much interest in developing teaching methodology that will inch forward the achievement of students in urban areas--as measured by tests or any other way under the sun. Instead I hear that teachers are held under the thumb of idiotic requirements of others who require that they do stupid things (drill students, narrow curriculum, consider disabilities, whatever). If tenure isn't successful in granting a mutually beneficial space in which teachers can explore and expand upon knowledge, perhaps it is time to rethink it anyway.

What if tenure, instead of being regarded as an automatic bestowal on all, was regarded as an earned priviledge? What if all could agree that tenure was a benefit intended to allow teachers a degree of freedom within which to take risks intended to improve the craft, or to adhere to unpopular principles nonetheless needed to ensure the social good in some way. By what criteria ought we make such a determination? What kinds of data (for lack of a better term) would we want to see before granting such a protected status? How might we move in a direction that would make tenure a mutual benefit?

My guess is that if we began to wrestle with these kinds of decisions in any serious way, teachers would be among the first to say, "can't we just look at student test scores?"

Margo Mom - You're amazing, as usual, in bringing some much needed perspective. Sometimes I am not even sure whether John is serious or just yanking our chains, to be honest. Either way, let's hope policymakers go at this with as much reason and concern for students as you do. Missed you here of late. Welcome back.