Protecting teachers who refuse to give standardized tests.

In the past year we have seen a number of parental groups, student groups and teacher groups opt out of, or refuse to administer, standardized tests. While controversial, in some instances we see this as something that is protecting children and enhancing their education. Check out this article that covers what NEA and AFT think about teachers refusing to administer standardized tests and how they will defend them! 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/10/06/unions-say-they-will-back-teachers-who-refuse-to-administer-mandated-standardized-tests-to-students/

Good teaching, poor test scores: Doubt cast on grading teachers by student performance

Today's Washington Post ran an important story reporting on new research calling into question the use of high-stakes student testing in teacher evaluation.

"In the first large-scale analysis of new systems that evaluate teachers based partly on student test scores, two researchers found little or no correlation between quality teaching and the appraisals teachers received.

The study, published Tuesday in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association, is the latest in a growing body of research that has cast doubt on whether it is possible for states to use empirical data in identifying good and bad teachers..." (read more)

This comes on  the heels of a policy statement last month from the American Statistical Association recommending against the use of standardized tests in teacher evaluation.

When will the politicians and policy makers put the rhetoric aside and start paying attention to the research?

Gates Foundation Gets It Right This Time

Vicki Phillips is the Director of Education at the Gates Foundation, and a key decision-maker in the Foundation's education reform agenda; helping to guide the hundreds of millions of dollars the Foundation invests in education reform. Phillips recently posted a commentary on the Common Core that calls for caution before attaching high-stakes to the new standards and evaluation systems. She said:

• "The key principle is giving teachers and students time to adjust to new expectations before they face serious consequences for not meeting them" 
•   "Teachers should benefit from the insights that come out of the evaluation systems as soon as they are available, but districts should ensure that there is a baseline and several years of data before using these systems to make personnel decisions" 
•  "...test scores shouldn't be used to make consequential decisions, such as whether students should graduate, until we are sure we understand how to interpret the results". 
•  "...no new schools should be singled out (as needing improvement) based on new assessments until teachers have had a few years to get used to the new ways of working". 

 It's not often that teachers, parents, and the big ed reform foundations like Gates all agree. Let's hope the Maryland State Department of Education is listening.

How to evaluate teachers

The following letter to the editor was printed in today's Washington Post:

The debate over teacher evaluations is not about whether to include student data but how to do it and whether it makes sense to use state tests that are not aligned with the Common Core State Standards that Maryland and 44 other states have adopted. New tests aligned with these standards will be implemented starting in the 2014-15 school year. The Montgomery County Public Schools have begun implementing curricula that align with these standards, but as Superintendent Joshua P. Starr pointed out in his Feb. 8 op-ed, “Time out on standardized testing,” we need time to roll out the new curricula.

Holding teachers accountable in a prescriptive way for tests that do not match what we are teaching is not fair and works against effective implementation of these standards statewide. Our Teacher Professional Growth System, which has been in place for 13 years, already holds teachers accountable and results in high student achievement. Should we agree to a system that impedes progress?

Doug Prouty, Rockville
The writer is president of the Montgomery County Education Association

Take the 2013 TELL Maryland Survey

Take the 2013 TELL Maryland Survey

The 2013 TELL Maryland Survey is an online, statewide, confidential survey for school-based certificated educators which begins on February 4 and ends on March 1. It is different from the Gallup Survey you took earlier this school year. This year’s survey will employ the same questions as the 2011 TELL Survey, which received nearly 46,000 responses, representing more than 51 percent of the state's educators. Please take the time to participate in this important survey. All information can be found by clicking on the TELL Maryland Survey link above. The completely random and anonymous codes provided by the state will be distributed by school administrations soon.

If you have not received yours, contact the Maryalnd TELL Help Desk at helpdesk@tellMaryland.org, by toll free phone at 1-855-258-2818 (between 7:30am and 4:30 pm) or use the instant message feature on the www.tellMaryland.org website during Help Desk Hours (7:30am - 4:30pm).

"Ed reform" and our PGS

Today, The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) is at risk of losing millions of dollars in Federal aid due to continued revisions the state keeps making to its Race to the Top plans. The big issue is how will the state roll out and implement it's new teacher evaluation program. The U.S. Department of Education has expressed it's concerns with MSDE and has threatened the possibility of fines of near $38 million.
The state will be implementing a new and unproven evaluation system across the state this fall and it seems as if it is not ready to go.
Yet, MCEA and MCPS who did not sign on to participate in RTTT are in the position of being forced to change our Professional Growth System to comply with the revised laws spurred on by the state's RTTT participation. MCEA President Doug Prouty emailed members last week (see below) and MCPS Supt. Joshua Starr emailed employees yesterday about our efforts to limit the damage these changes will do the PGS.
Our PGS is nationally and internationally recognized as a model educator evaluation system. In the last year, educators and administrators from Kentucky, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and China visited us to see how the PGS works and how they could implement it. The PGS has been written about in The New York Times and Rethinking Schools. USDE even featured it on it's website.
So this is what the "ed reform" movement has brought us; the state meddling with a proven and respected evaluation system while trying to hurry up and finish their own unknown system for the rest of the state.


Message from MCEA President Doug Prouty about the evaluation controversy:

January 3, 2013

Dear Colleagues,

Happy New Year and welcome back! We want to be sure that you know the most current information on teacher evaluation. As you know, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP have been working to meet the requirements of the new state regulations brought on by Maryland’s Race To The Top (RTTT) grant and the Maryland Education Reform Act of 2010. This work has been ongoing for the past year and a half. [Please note the focus in the work of the Maryland State Department of Education is on classroom teacher and principal evaluation and not other certificated educators - thus the use of the term teacher throughout this document and the submission to the state described below].

Recent events

Last spring, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP submitted a proposal to the Maryland State Department of Education about how we believed our existing Teacher Professional Growth System complied with new state regulations and the Education Reform Act of 2010. That proposal was rejected. Just before Winter Break, we submitted a new proposal to meet a deadline of December 26th. This response details how we plan to meet what is required of us regarding three aspects of our evaluation system:

·       the use of student achievement data

·       a three tiered rating system, and

·         a three year evaluation cycle

This response will be discussed by the Montgomery County Board of Education at its meeting on Tuesday, January 8th.

The State Dept. of Education required each local school system and teacher union local to provide information as to whether we had reached agreement on how we would be sure that we were in compliance with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and the applicable portions of regulations that were passed to implement Maryland’s Race to the Top program. Since MCPS and MCEA did not sign on to RTTT, the section of the regulations that stipulates a percentage system in which student achievement data must comprise 50% of a teacher’s (and principal’s) evaluation does not apply to MCPS.

We are required by the Education Reform Act of 2010 to utilize student achievement data as a “significant component”’ of the evaluation measured “from a clearly articulated baseline to one or more points in time‘’. Some guidance as to how we might meet the state’s requirements was provided in a letter sent by the state superintendent in late November. This letter included an analysis of the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook as well as several redacted evaluations which were sent to the Maryland Dept. of Education in June as a part of our work with the state on our PGS and state law and regulations.

The guiding tenet of our work to meet the state law and regulations has been to maintain the integrity of our Teacher Professional Growth System, which was designed and has been implemented to provide meaningful and timely feedback on performance, structured support for areas of concern, and a holistic rating of a teacher’s job performance that is fair, transparent, and not numerically driven. There are numerous examples of systems in other places in which a teacher can be considered for dismissal strictly on the basis of test scores. Dr. Starr, the leadership of MCPS, the other leaders of MCEA and I are committed to keeping our system intact. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the fact that failure to demonstrate that we are willing to comply with state law could result in the state model of evaluation being forced on us, which is a 50/50 split between observations and student achievement data. We believe that the state model is dramatically worse than our system.

What we have proposed

A multi-stakeholder group, including Chris Lloyd, MCEA Vice President and co-chair of the PAR Panel, two former members of the PAR Panel, a current Consulting Teacher and me, has been meeting over last year to analyze how to thread the needle of maintaining our system but complying with the state law and regulations. This group also included building principals and central office staff. In addition, meetings of the three union presidents and members of the executive leadership team occurred periodically to discuss events and strategies. The MCEA Board of Directors reviewed the proposal prior to its submission.

In order to meet the student achievement data requirement, we have proposed to bolster a part of the current evaluation system, specifically in Standards I and IV. In Standard I, one of the current criteria is, “The teacher sets quantifiable learning outcomes for students and holds him/herself accountable for ensuring students meet those objectives.” This process will be implemented more consistently, with teachers expected to set two or three outcomes each year (either individually or in grade level or course alike teams). The data to be used to measure these outcomes would be decided by the teacher(s) and must include data that can be tracked periodically from a starting point over the year. The teacher may decide which groups of students would be included in each outcome- it need not be the entirety of a teacher’s student load. The outcomes would be approved by the principal and would be discussed during post observation conferences and at a meeting prior to the completion of the evaluation at the end of the year. Progress on these outcomes would be a ‘significant component’ of an evaluation, but would not and could not be a sole determinant of the rating of the evaluation, nor will it be quantified with a percentage.

The evaluation report itself would be modified to list the outcomes on the introductory page. In addition, the narrative portion of the evaluation in Standard I would include reflection on the outcomes based on discussions during the post observation conferences and year end meeting.

In Standard IV, teachers are expected to use student achievement data to reflect on, plan, and differentiate lessons. The narrative portion in Standard IV would continue to reflect the teacher’s ability to accomplish this using a variety of data sources, as currently described in the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook.

Many of the counties in Maryland are using similar outcome setting processes as a part of their revised evaluation systems. Information and training on designing, setting, and monitoring student learning outcomes will be implemented during the spring of 2013 in preparation for the 2013-14 school year, depending on the state response to this proposal.

From its beginnings, the MCPS Teacher Professional Growth System has included student achievement as important sources of data in the evaluation process (see TPGS Handbook page 11). The modifications discussed above are intended to clarify our existing system. The TPGS Handbook says, and will continue to say, that “Standardized test scores provide one important source of data, but they cannot constitute a judgment, in and of themselves, about the performance of a teacher or the success of a school” (TPGS Handbook page 12).

We have proposed including a new rating of ‘Emerging” in our evaluation system to achieve a three-tiered rating system by differentiating those teachers who are currently rated ‘below standard’ but meet one of several criteria indicating progress toward a ‘meets standard’ rating. These criteria are already in place and have been used by the PAR Panel in determining whether or not to provide a teacher in the program a second year of CT support.

We also proposed implementing the Career Lattice program over the next several years, which gives each teacher the option of voluntarily seeking ‘Lead Teacher’ status through a process based partially on the National Board Certification process. The application would include a videotape with analysis of a lesson, recommendations from the building principal, EFR or building rep, and a colleague of the teacher’s choosing, as well as two brief essays documenting leadership demonstrated by the teacher in the school and/or school community. These applications would be assessed by a newly formed Career Lattice Panel, with equal numbers of MCEA and MCPS appointees. Once implemented, Lead Teacher status would then be a gateway for a range of career opportunities. Lead Teacher status would be added to the evaluation document as an additional rating beyond ‘meets standard’. We would then have a four tiered system. The state wants each local to adjust their ratings to a uniform system of Highly Effective, Effective, and Ineffective, but we have proposed these changes as an alternative.

We have also proposed a one year study of a change to a three year evaluation cycle from our current differentiated cycle of evaluations in years one, two, five, nine, and every five years following. We have indicated that we believe our current system allows for a more meaningful and rigorous evaluation than would a uniform three year cycle because it allows for greater attention and support for beginning MCPS teachers and teachers in need of assistance.

Next Steps

The Maryland State Department of Education is expected to respond to our submission in January. This same process/timeline is true of each local school system in the state. Based on the nature of the response, we will judge where we are and what the next step will be. If our system with the adjustments mentioned above is found in compliance with state law and applicable regulations, we will begin designing and implementing the necessary information and training programs for teachers and principals to incorporate these changes for next year. A part of this will be a number of Q & A sessions so that teachers can clarify their understanding of the changes to the system. Please keep an eye out for more information.

I firmly believe this work and the proposal we submitted maintains the integrity of our system and also demonstrates to the state our willingness and desire to be in compliance with state law and regulations.

Thanks for all you do every day for our students and each other. We will continue to keep you informed of developments as they unfold.

In Solidarity,

Doug

Doug Prouty, MCEA President

Washington Post debates Dr. Starr and the call for a national testing moratorium

The pages of The Washington Post provided for some interesting and disparate reading over the last few weeks regarding Superintendent Joshua Starr and his comments about standardized testing. If you remember, Dr. Starr called for a three year national moratorium on standardized testing. This led to several articles, including ones in the Post by Robert McCartney and by Valerie Strauss praising the idea of stepping back from the over-testing of students, the implementing of too many "reforms" at one time and Dr. Starr's belief that linking teacher evaluations to student test scores is a bad idea.

However the Post's editorial board couldn't let the occassion pass, and choose to publish an editorial calling Dr. Starr's ideas a "recipe for classroom failure."

On the heels of this editorial, Ms. Strauss published a piece by New York City principal Carol Burris, which supported Dr. Starr and defended his position on test score based evaluations.

For the first time since passage of the federal "No Child Left Behind" law, we are finally seeing the beginnings of a national discussion over whether the standardized testing obsession of the so-called "education reformers" is really what our students need today. Student achievement in the United States is often ranked poorly compared to international "high flyers" like Finland, Singapore and Hong Kong; yet none of those countries rely as heavily on standardized testing as we do.

Perhaps we could learn something from their focus on high quality curriculum, respect for the teaching profession, good professional development and extensive time for teachers to prepare for and individualize instruction.

Don't lower our certification standards

Below is a letter submitted by MSEA President Betty Weller to the Maryland State Board of Education on the "Option Four" amendment to the regulations covering teacher certification. There are currently three options (Master's Degree, Master's Equivalency, and National Board Certification) to renew or qualify for your Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) in the the state of Maryland. The State BOE wants to add an "Option Four," which would make qualification for, or renewal of, your APC based on your evaluation. 

Distinct from the other three routes to an APC, Option Four requires no professional development and no ongoing coursework. Unfortunately, teachers may choose Option Four as a quick and less rigorous method to secure or renew an APC, unaware that it may be the most difficult route in the end. The highly effective rating may be impacted by a change in assignments, grade level, content areas, new administrative staff, and the accuracy and validity of the evaluation system itself. Adopting "Option Four" would be premature since Maryland has not even adopted a uniform standard for highly effective teachers. Each local school system will define the standard differently.

The Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB) is still deliberating the issue and the fact that the State Board of Education is about to take action with those deliberations still ongoing, is unprecedented.  

MSEA is working with other state educational organizations to oppose this change in certification regulations and to preserve the high standards and credibility of our profession, and stands ready to work with MSDE to identify other alternatives for strengthening the profession.

RE:      Proposed Amendments to COMAR 13A.12.01.02

Maryland State Board of Education:

            As you know, for more than a year a certification workgroup has undertaken an examination of the current certification regulations with the intent of proposing regulatory changes.  This workgroup passed its recommendations to the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB).  In its consideration of the recommendations, PSTEB engaged in extensive study and sought stakeholder input regarding the practical applications of the proposed changes and the impact those changes would have on student growth and teacher effectiveness.  As a result of this time and effort, PSTEB unanimously voted to reject Option 4, the Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) option that ties teacher certification to evaluation ratings.  MSEA supports PSTEB's decision and requests that the members of the State Board do so as well.

            MSEA strongly supports the strengthening of the current certification process, but in doing so we believe that rigorous and relevant professional development must continue to be a requirement for renewal.  As such, MSEA strongly supports the continuation of the Master’s Degree, Master’s equivalency, and National Board Certification as options to receiving an APC since each of these routes require teachers to engage in ongoing professional development and course work beyond the receipt of their undergraduate college degrees.  Studies have shown that such a requirement only serves to improve a teacher’s professional practice, which is essential in the development and maintenance of a more rigorous learning environment for students.

            Despite PSTEB's unanimous opposition to Option 4, the State Board has moved forward in its consideration of it. This option as currently written requires no professional development and no ongoing course work; it is entirely dependent upon the stroke of an evaluator’s pen.  Even with the new evaluation system, this process is prone to subjectivity, especially if the evaluators are not highly trained and skilled in how to conduct observations and gather data needed for the evaluation.  We have been working hard with our locals to recruit highly trained educators, upgrade the profession with higher standards, and collaborate with the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a highly effective evaluation system. Yet this evaluation system still needs to be tested for validity and reliability. Creating a new certification route that is dependent on an ambitious, but unproven, evaluation system invites subjectivity, unreliability, and potentially lowered standards into a process that is critical to ensuring the ongoing high quality of our schools.

            We share your goal to increase student achievement and to make sure every child is taught by highly effective teachers; however, we don’t believe that we can get there by making changes that have not been tested for validity and reliability.  Option 4, as currently proposed, devalues the profession and lowers standards, which is clearly contrary to our goals. We want Maryland to remain the number one school system in the nation.  To that end, when creating policies on which our schools and depend, we must take the time and care necessary to ensure those policies move us forward. 

            As president of the Maryland State Education Association and co-chair of the Council for Educator Effectiveness, I am requesting that we do as PSTEB recommended and reject Option 4, continue the dialogue, and utilize research and data prior to amending the certification structure.

            Thank you for your consideration.

Betty Weller

President, Maryland State Education Association

Submitted on behalf of MSEA

School superintendent to Thomas Friedman: Why you are wrong about Race to the Top

Excerpt from a great story on Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog yesterday:

But I do not believe test scores must be tied to evaluations to reach this goal. The Peer Assistance and Review program operating in Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools is a perfect example of an innovative initiative that provides support for struggling teachers and a road out of the profession for those that cannot improve. In the 11 years of the program, hundreds of poorly performing teachers have left Montgomery County schools. Yet Montgomery County Superintendent Jerry Weast told the New York Times in June 2011 that his district will likely never receive Race to the Top funds because test scores are not part of the evaluation equation. “We don’t believe the tests are reliable,” Weast said. “You don’t want to turn your system into a test factory.”

MCEA member Lisa Farhi had this article posted in Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog on the Washington Post website yesterday.

Great job Lisa!

Teacher: What school reformers don’t know

By Valerie Strauss

Policy makers and pundits don’t stop giving their opinions but we don’t hear enough from teachers in the debate about school reform. Many teachers ear their jobs may be jeopardized if they express their opinions; others say they have no time sit down and write a thoughtful piece.
One who accepted my invitation to write about the most pressing issues is Lisa Farhi of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, who has worked as consulting teacher within the school district’s professional growth system, a kindergarten classroom teacher and now a staff development teacher.

By Lisa Farhi

“We’re citizens and teachers—and neither is easy. Good luck.”

— Deborah Meier, 2002, inscription in my copy of “In Schools We Trust”


Back in 2002, I approached the microphone at the Washington D.C. bookstore Politics and Prose and told the author of “In Schools We Trust” that as a teacher degreed in human development, I was feeling
muzzled by the burgeoning high-stakes standardized testing movement. I said that in 10 years we would be slapping ourselves, saying, “OMG, we forgot about poverty” in our driven pursuit for so-called “accountability” of teachers and schools. We were choosing to ignore the conditions in which children live and how they affect their achievement in school.

Deborah Meier, still one of my lifelong heroes in education, told me to fight poverty as a citizen, not as a teacher.

That turned out to be good advice, considering that my schools superintendent at the time was a hard-liner who insisted that great teaching could overcome poverty, and because in the ensuing 10 years, proponents of No Child Left Behind hurled accusations of low expectations bordering on racial bias toward any teacher who raised concerns about economic struggles in the lives of children. I was heartened to read Helen Ladd’s and Edward B. Fiske’s comprehensive New York Times op-ed piece “Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?”, which chastises us as a society for ignoring the effects of poverty on student achievement.
Daniel Pink, author of “Drive,” recently expressed disbelief that those purporting to reform education through pay-for-performance think that a student’s test score represents solely the influence of the teacher, not any other variables in the student’s life. He is astounded by the lack of logic in this argument.
Since Montgomery County’s new superintendent, Joshua Starr, invited Pink to a public book club discussion of “Drive,” I feel that the muzzle has been loosened by a couple of notches.

I am now almost brave enough to fight poverty as a citizen AND as a teacher. Through these years of standardized testing domination and de-facto gag orders on my concerns about the effects of poverty on student achievement, I have served as a consulting teacher within the Montgomery County Public Schools professional growth system, a kindergarten classroom teacher and now a staff development teacher.
Linda Darling-Hammond’s March 20th Huffington Post piece about a recent Met Life survey, which found the lowest level of teacher satisfaction in 20 years, was entitled, “Maybe it’s Time to Ask the Teachers?” Well, since someone asked. . .
As a mentor, trainer of teachers and classroom teacher, my most profound conflict has been to convince detractors, pockets of the teacher-bashing media and random cocktail party guests that it’s possible for me to hold the highest of expectations for every student who crosses the schoolhouse door, while also caring mightily about whether or not they’re fed, clothed, housed and healthy.

In my own training and in the training I deliver, equity is paramount; I actively coach teachers in how to engage every student, every moment for optimum teaching and learning. In those same sessions, poverty has been taboo for fear that if teachers discuss it, we will AUTOMATICALLY lower our expectations for student achievement. I find this mutual exclusivity insulting to our intelligence and an assault on our freedom of speech. Why are we not trusted as professionals to be capable of holding high expectations for student achievement while also caring about whether or not families need support?

It’s hard to be an informed citizen and sustain teacher morale these days. Value-added, a method of using student standardized test scores to ealuate teachers, is the new, unwieldy way reformers are rooting out perceived poor teachers.

Some of my colleagues in New York didn’t make the value-added cut by a percentage point, despite their glowing observation reports by administrators. Good luck replacing all of the dedicated New York teachers willing to work in settings where the neediest students toil. Transiency, varied content areas, out-of -control class size and unaccountable upper management affect value-added scores more than my dinner party mates will ever acknowledge.

But who is paying attention to whether or not local, state and federal agencies are dealing withour 22% child poverty rate? We all know that countries such as Finland out-test us on international exams. Finland has a child poverty rate of about 5 percent.

If I were not in favor of evaluating teachers, I never would have participated as a consulting teacher in the peer assistance and review program in Montgomery County Public Schools. Like employees everywhere, we teachers need to be evaluated. I support MCPS’ professional growth system because it has built-in checks and balances that, when challenged, can be brought to hearing through due process. The program provides one year of intense support for improvement prior to any dismissal decisions.

To use Pink’s terminology, teaching is a heuristic, complex task. Teaching cannot be codified enough to be rewarded like widget making. I’m glad to work for a school system that understands the difference.
Yet since I read and advocate a lot, it hasn’t been easy being the recipient of widespread condescension. It seems that the most respected thinkers in education reform are those with the least experience in my field, yet with the most money. Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Business Roundtable and the Governors’ Association are heard way above the din of harried teachers, trying to lesson-plan their way to continued employment, while spending their daytime hours reaching students with a set of variables so differentiated that these teachers are making up to 1,500 decisions per day.

What we do know is that the schools demonstrating the most success in closing the achievement gap are addressing families’ struggles outside the schoolhouse. I will gladly open my mind to programs that wrap services like health care, psychological support, nutrition programs, employment counseling, adult literacy support and parent advocacy around the school. I will fight as a teacher and as a citizen to get these services paid for within our public school system via local, state and federal funding.

But why privatize and then tout what is known to work, while simultaneously abdicating a societal responsibility for putting such services in place in all public schools? From the perspective of a public school employee, it feels like a bait and switch: here’s what works but you can’t have it; look over here, doesn’t it look nice? Too bad, it’s not for everyone.

Finally, if Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama wish to keep the good (closely examining subgroup achievement) and throw out the bad (narrowing of the curriculum, lack of creativity) of No Child Left Behind, then why have they created Race to the Top, which relies heavily on test scores to evaluate teachers? The curriculum will be no broader, no more creative and no more focused on subgroup achievement, if teachers’ personal livelihoods hinge on individual student scores. It’s contradictory, demeaning and it’s also a deterrent to equity. Will the finest among us want to teach struggling students under that type of algorithmic pressure? Instead, we should be using student data to make better daily instructional decisions, not as cut scores for continued employment.

I encourage any education reformer to spend a month in our shoes. They’ll soon see that teaching is not only rocket science, but also an art. It is complex and human. It should be measured humanely and supported by programs that elevate students out of poverty. 

Another article citing the MCPS Teacher Evaluation System as a rationale alternative.

Here's yet another article published this past week that cites the MCEA/MCPS Peer Assistance and Review Program as a rational alternative to the reductionist student test score scheme being advocated by the neo-reformers. This article was published in the New Republic - hardly a bastion of pro-labor liberalism.

Can the Chicago Teachers’ Strike Fix Democratic Education Reform?
by Richard D.Kahlenberg

NY Times Editors Recognize MCPS Professional Growth System for Teacher Evaluation

Today's New York Times published an editorial on the current teachers strike in Chicago - and in the process recognized MCPS for a "rigorous" evaluation system "based on the idea that teaching is difficult to master and that high-performers tend to get that way through intensive feedback and help from colleagues".
    The MCEA/MCPS Professional Growth System demonstrates that it is possible to include student performance in teacher evaluation without resorting to the kind of reductionist numbers game tied to student test scores that is being promoted by the corporate neo-reformers in Chicago and elsewhere. For more information on the use of student data in the MCPS PGS system, go to this article, published by Research for Better Teaching in 2005.
   Last year, the Times wrote a story specifically about the MCEA Peer Assistance and Review Program, entitled Helping Teachers Help Themselves, describing it as a "a highly regarded program for evaluating teachers, providing them extra support if they are performing poorly and getting rid of those who do not improve".

New York Times
Editorial

In Search of Excellent Teaching

The Chicago teachers’ strike was prompted in part by a fierce disagreement over how much student test scores will weigh in a new teacher evaluation system mandated by state law. That teachers’ unions in much of the country now agree that student achievement should count in evaluations at all reflects a major change from the past, when it was often argued that teaching was an “art” that could not be rigorously evaluated or, even more outrageously, that teachers should not be held accountable for student progress.

Traditional teacher evaluations often consist of cursory classroom visits by principals who declare nearly every teacher good, or at least competent, even in failing schools where few if any children meet basic educational standards.

As a result of this system, bad things can happen. High-performing teachers who have an enormous impact on student achievement go unidentified, and they often leave the district. Promising, but struggling, young teachers never get the help they need to master the job. And disastrous teachers who have no feel for the profession continue as long as they wish, hurting young lives along the way.

The more rigorous evaluation systems that have taken root in several states and districts around the country are intended to change that picture. These systems, which take student achievement into account in various ways, are still in their formative years, but they have already opened the door to a different way of doing business. At their best, these evaluation systems are based on the idea that teaching is difficult to master and that high-performers tend to get that way through intensive feedback and help from colleagues.

The school system in Montgomery County, Md., established its evaluation and mentoring system more than a decade ago. The system does not specify exactly how much weight student test scores and other data should receive. But depending on the circumstances, the evaluation may include scores from state tests, student projects, student and parent surveys and other data.

It is an intensive program that aims to help both novice teachers and experienced teachers who receive a “below standard” evaluation. The system, which has required a considerable investment of time and money, assigns consulting teachers who work full time assisting a number of colleagues. These master teachers help their charges plan lessons, review student work and also arrange for them to observe other teachers on the job. After a year of support, a panel of teachers and principals can recommend dismissal or another year of support.

The widely praised evaluation system in New Haven also relies on a complex mix of factors. It takes into account year-by-year improvement in student learning, as measured by progress on state and local tests and attainment of academic goals. The system also examines the teachers’ instructional abilities, judged by frequent observations by principals and other managers. Teachers receive regular face-to-face feedback so that they are fully aware of what they need to do to improve.

Some systems give a specific weight to so-called value-added test scores, which try to account for socioeconomic differences by tracking students’ improvement year to year, rather than looking just at their absolute scores. That approach, though, has come under attack by critics who argue that these scores are too often statistically flawed.

Reasonable school officials understand that test scores, while important, do not reflect the sum total of what good teachers provide for their students. In Washington, D.C., where the evaluation system is now in its fourth year, school officials have decided to change the weighting of tests. Originally, value-added scores accounted for 50 percent of teacher evaluations; that has been reduced to 35 percent, with an additional 15 percent consisting of other goals (like the students’ mastery of certain skills) collaboratively arrived at by teacher and principal.

Officials there say they reduced the importance of value-added scores after some of the most successful teachers expressed anxiety about the measure and argued that it might not give some teachers full credit for their work because they teach subjects not covered by the state tests.

Many of these new programs are better than the slipshod evaluation systems they replaced. But they are far from perfect. States and cities, like Chicago, will need to keep working at them to ensure fairness, accuracy and transparency.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on September 17, 2012, on page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: In Search of Excellent Teaching.

The best way to retain good teachers

Kudos to Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, for writing this opinion piece in the Washington Post (published 8/20/12) 

 
Keeping the best teachers in the classroom requires a more comprehensive plan than the oft-used, yet naive and unsuccessful, “just fire the bad ones” strategy. Both The Post’s Aug. 17 editorial “Letting good teachers get away” on the New Teacher Project’s report on teacher retention and the report itself ignored the things that teachers consistently say they need to make teaching a long-term career, not a short-term job: evaluations that include regular feedback and continuous professional development (which have yielded positive outcomes where they are in place); resources to help them do their jobs and help all students learn; collaboration and shared responsibility among teachers, administrators and the community; safe and vibrant schools; and effective parental engagement.

Until lawmakers, school officials and others talk and work with teachers to fully understand what is required to retain great educators, we’ll continue to have the expensive turnover crisis, in which more than half of all new teachers leave within their first five years and other frustrated teachers, who have so much to offer our students, give up and quit.

How about talking to the teachers?

Following up yesterday's post about the Metlife Survey of the American Teacher, we came across this post from Linda Darling-Hammond.  In it she points out that the internal and external disincentives that educators face are causing more to struggle with staying in the job and will undoubtedly impact recruiting new educators. 

"We have never heard more policy rhetoric about the importance of developing, recruiting, and retaining strong teachers, especially in our most troubled schools. Ironically, our policies have also never done more to ensure that good teachers will have little incentive to serve and stay in those schools."

Further reliance on standardized tests as the end all, be all measure of what a student has learned and how well a teacher has taught it, will not solve this problem.  Ignoring the impacts of poverty and other social issues on students and their ability to learn will not help recruit and retain the best possible educators.

So maybe it's time to gather more input from the teachers.  Give them the opportunity to have authentic participation in looking at how to deal with the affects of poverty in their schools and giving them more latitude in providing instruction in deeper and more meaningful ways.  The politicians and pundits need to start talking with educators, rather than talking at them. 

Washington Post features MCEA

Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a story featuring MCEA Vice President Chris Lloyd. The story looks at how union/management collaboration can be be effective in forging a high performing school system.

The main article is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-teachers-union-wields-power/2012/02/13/gIQAMojD2R_story.html

You can see the photo gallery here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-teachers-union-emphasizes-collaboration/2012/03/09/gIQAkvV61R_gallery.html

‘Creative ... motivating’ and fired

More on the misuse of testing in evaluating teachers from today's Washington Post. This is a the story of a teacher, who by all accounts was a model professional, but ended being fired because of her test scores:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/creative--motivating-and-fired/2012/02/04/gIQAwzZpvR_story.html

More on NYC rankings and VAM

Last week we posted about the release of teacher rankings in New York City.  There have been several pieces that were worthy of sharing that have come out since.

The first comes from Julie Cavanagh, a NYC teacher who was rated highly by this scale.  While she rates in the 95th percentile, she sees the folly of using such measures to rate teachers.

Linda Darling-Hammond looks at the issue from the perspective of Pascale Mauclair, the teacher who was singled out to be the worst teacher in NYC based on these rankings.  Ms. Darling-Hammond writes that the principal of the school backs the teacher and that Ms. Mauclair has received high ratings in her evaluations.  What seems to continue to be dismissed is:

"Most troubling is that the city released the scores while warning that huge margins of error surround the ratings: more than 30 percentile points in math and more than 50 percentile points in English language arts."

That is the the problem with releasing such complex data without the proper context being provided and a layman's explanation of the data and formulas.  


Others feel that the release of the data will ultimately undo the plans of ed "reformers" like Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee.  This article shows graphically how this data cannot show that an educator will be consistently good or bad.  Pretty heavy math, but a could plain English explanation. 

Gates makes a funny (but probably didn't mean to)

Last year, the Los Angeles school district released the ratings of their teachers based on standardized test scores. Last week, the New York City school district did the same and the results were published by the New York Times.

Interestingly, the same day that this story graced the front page of the Times, a letter to the editor penned by Bill Gates was published in the paper as well. The topic? The importance of not shaming teachers as a method of trying to improve their work. He also says naming names and ranking teachers is not a good thing.

Ironic, no?

Valerie Strauss weighed in on this topic with a well written piece about why this does not work. She even points out:

"According to the New York Times, even one of the economists at the University of Wisconsin who designed the city’s ranking system, Douglas N. Harris, said that releasing the data right now “strikes me as at best unwise, at worst absurd.”

Many questions linger about the efficacy of Value Added Measurements as something to be highly weighted or even included in a teacher evaluation. Too much of what a student learns in a class is not completely reflected in a standardized test score, even if the student aces the test.

Even with states seeking waivers to get out from under NCLB penalties, they will just be swapping one set of standardized tests for another. So there will be more teaching to the test as educators work, not to improve learning, but to keep their name from being at the bottom of a list. Or maybe they won't want to teach at all...

Statewide Teacher Town Hall 2/27

In partnership with the Marc Steiner Show, MSEA is helping to organize a Teacher Town Hall which will be broadcast live on WEAA 88.9, Delmarva Public Radio, and other outlets. The event will be held at the Governor Calvert House in Annapolis from 5-7 PM on Monday, February 27 and will be moderated by Marc Steiner.

The Town Hall will feature a discussion between educators and a panel of policymakers and elected officials about our schools and priority education issues. It is very important that we fill the room with educators ready to participate and share their stories and viewpoints.

The event should provide for a robust, interesting dialogue and a prime two-hour window when we can communicate our message to legislators and thousands upon thousands of listeners. Please come to the event, and please encourage activists in your school to attend as well. This is a great opportunity, and it’s up to us to make the most of it. Please register to attend the event here: https://marylandeducators.wufoo.com/forms/register-for-the-teacher-town-hall/

Light refreshments and snacks will be served.

The war on teachers

Over the weekend there were a few articles of note about the war on teachers and the profession itself. Over the last several years, we have seen more and more attacks leveled by the corporate "reformers" and their celebrity endorsers at teachers as being under worked and overpaid. Just ask Bill Gates and some researchers at the Heritage Foundation. 

Anthony Cody and Eric Shieh penned two great pieces that highlight the need for teachers to get even more organized and to look deeply at what is happening around them. The many schemes that states and school districts are developing to use student test scores as part of educator evaluations and even in determining budget based lay-offs is alarming. A lot of these schemes are results of securing Race to the Top funding and/or applying for NCLB waivers. 

You can also read this piece that highlights how teachers seem to be ignored in the reform debate.