By Tamara

First, thank you Rob for inspiring the title of this post in one of your recent comments.

Last weekend I attended OSPI/CSTP’s symposium on Teacher Principal Evaluations and Common Core Standards implementation. I walked away with the overall sense that most teachers want an evaluation system that validates their efforts and provides opportunities for professional growth. There was also an overall sense of anxiety about how these new evaluations will be implemented. Who is doing the evaluating? How and when are they being trained to evaluate? Will my evaluator be knowledgeable about my content area or grade level? Or about goals and standards for special populations (hello, I teach English Language Development-I can assure you my students are not going to be meeting standard as defined by Common Core any more than they are with EALRs and Power Standards now)?

The overwhelming theme in my small group session was the need for implementation to be approached with positive intent by all involved. No wants to feel trapped in a game of “Gotcha”. At the same time the only positive thing I heard about our current evaluation model was that it doesn’t involve student data.

That is the ultimate sticking point. Everyone seems to see new teacher and principal evaluation as a positive until we get to the part about using student performance data. I agree this issue needs to be approached with caution and careful consideration. But I also think, what is the ultimate outcome of our work supposed to produce? Is it not improved student performance/learning over time? How often do we bemoan that the public does not see teaching as a bona-fide profession? All other “professionals” are evaluated to some degree or other as to how their work directly impacts achieving specific outcomes. Granted children are complex packages of multiple variables that make their growth as learners difficult to quantify. But going through the National Board Certification process opened my eyes to the fact that learning (as defined by growth demonstrated over time) is absolutely quantifiable. And because student learning is the core of what we do, we should not shy away from having that data as a part of our evaluations.

But student data can not be used as a “one shot” snap shot of teachers’ performance. And it cannot be based on a single measure (like MSP, HSPE, pick your alphabet soup high stakes test) especially if we can all agree that student learning is defined and growth demonstrated over time. We talk about portfolio assessment being a more accurate measure of student progress than individual on demand performance assessments or tests. Why not a portfolio assessment model for teachers when it comes to the student data portion of our evaluation? That would bring us far closer to the balance of accountability and flexibility I hear so many of us pining for.

By Tamara

When I first started hearing the RTI (Response to Intervention) drumbeat I didn’t think much of it. My district is quick to adopt the latest education silver bullet to solve all that ails us. Even after reading Rena’s Post, I figured it would come and go like so many other “models”, “plans”, “curriculums” with little impact on my day to day life as an English Language Development teacher. Well I have been hit by the RTI bus. Hard.

As implemented in my building, RTI stipulates that “intervention specialists’ (Special Ed, Literacy & Numeracy Coaches, Reading Recovery, ELD) can only work with served students during “non-instructional time”. Obviously we also can’t work with them during Library, PE, Art, Music, Lunch or Recess. So certain “sacred” windows of time have been identified by grade level during which I can work with English Language Learners. Which works out fine…on paper. But then a teacher changes their schedule and is suddenly doing direct instruction. Or one member of the grade level team has their day scheduled completely opposite that of their other team members. Or it is Art and Band day which blows my “windows” right out the door.

This has been far more of a nightmare for Special Ed as they attempt to comply with required IEP minutes. But a program that is apparently designed to provide more intentional instruction to struggling students is making it exceptionally hard for me to work with said students.

What is happening other places? How is RTI impacting your instruction and how are you making it work?

By Tamara

Last week I was notified of my acceptance to participate in the Washington State Policy Symposium discussing Teacher/Principal Evaluation and the Common Core Standards. Then I came across this article in the New York Times describing a teacher evaluation system with promising results in New Haven. The article describes a protocol that “holds teachers accountable without crushing morale and wrongfully dismissing teachers.” It goes on to detail how the New Haven system gives teachers regular, actionable feedback and provides support for those who are struggling.

I have been thinking a lot about teacher evaluation over the last year. Especially since the current system in my district rates the vast majority of us as “satisfactory”. Oh yay. That tells me what? I want an evaluation system that offers me usable feedback so I can improve my craft and grow professionally. I want an evaluation system that offers genuine support to new and struggling teachers so they can build confidence and improve or, if not, be counseled in pursuing a different career path. Such a system would make me feel that my efforts are worth something.

Now there are many aspects of teacher evaluation systems that jerk chains. Like how to include student progress and by what measure.  What about the potential for abusive administrators to have it “out” for certain teachers. All valid concerns.

Personally, I think student progress is non-negotiable. Since it is supposed to be the ultimate result of what we do, it absolutely must be a (not the) factor in our evaluation. After all, if the NBPTS can ask us to demonstrate student learning of stated objectives in every entry, shouldn’t our evaluators? On the subject of evaluators: Just as our evaluation should entail multiple and varied measures, so should our evaluators be multiple and varied. I would like to see my evaluation team consist of my principal, a master teacher or instructional coach, and a fellow teacher who teaches a similar subject and grade. And I would expect each of them to observe me multiple times through the year. Spreading evaluation out this way provides a check on those who could potentially abuse power.

There are plenty of other hot points such as tying evaluations to merit pay or promotions I don’t care to get into now (but will likely address in a future post). No teacher/principal evaluation system is going to be perfect. But I want to see an evaluation system that acknowledges I am an individual with strengths and areas to improve rather than just one more indistinguishable face in a “satisfactory” herd.

By Tamara

Imagine: You are fifteen years old, recently in arrived in the U.S. from Bhutan, just enrolled in the tenth grade at the local high school and HAVE NEVER ATTENDED SCHOOL BEFORE. By the way, the district expects you to meet all requirements to graduate in four years. The state expects you to exit the transitional-bilingual program in three years. Yes, you will get to attend survival English classes and learn how to hold a pencil for a semester. Yes, you will receive sheltered instruction for your English and Social Studies classes. We would love to offer you primary language support in Integrated Math and Physical Science, but we don't have a translator for you language, so you are on your own. But don't worry, if you don't pass you can make up the credit either in summer school or online. In the mean time time your well-meaning math or science teacher finds you a dual language English-Bhutanese dictionary. Oops, you never learned to read in Bhutanese…

Recently the English Language Development program in my district has landed in the hot seat because we have a critical mass of students not passing the HSPE or graduating on time (contributing to an already dismal graduation rate). This wasn't always the case. Ten years ago most of our English Language Learners came from former Soviet Block countries or Bosnia. Most were well educated in their primary language. Many were already bi or tri-lingual. Their acquisition of English mostly consisted of skill transfer between languages. But over the past five years we have had an influx of students from Central and Southeast Asia, East Africa and the Victoria Lakes region and Iraq. Many of these areas are war-torn. All experience profound poverty. School doesn't make it onto Maselow's heirarchy.

Educating adolescents who have experienced the horrors of war and hunger with no opportunity to go to school is a patently different ball game. It often feels like a fool's errand trying to lay the foundation for literacy while simultaneously imparting grade-level content knowledge. Oh, and explaining the weird things Americans do-like Halloween. But my students are hungry for knowledge and desperate to communicate. And they work at it with urgency.

Over the summer there were rumors of talk about developing five and six year graduation plans based on a student's age and literacy level on arrival to the country. I hope it goes beyond talk. These kids (and their family's lives) depend on their being able to navigate a literate English-speaking society. That takes TIME. Well established research holds it takes SEVEN to TEN years to develop cognitive academic language proficiency in a second language. How can we justifiably expect graduation in four years from students who arrive pre-literate at fifteen?

By Tamara

On the heels of two posts about Washington state's adoption of the common core standards comes an article in the New York TImes decrying those standards as the wrong way to improve U.S. students' math skills and "quantitative literacy". Sol Garfunkel (executive director of the Consortium for Mathmatics and its application) and David Mumford (emeritus professor of mathmatics at Brown) posit a more applied "real-life problem" approach to math would better equip students for 21st century careers and life in general.They argue a course of math study based on finance, data and basic engineering would improve basic skills and more realistically prepare students for work because "how often do most adults encounter a situation in which they need to solve a quadratic equation?" Such an applied math curriculum in their opinion would create what they call "quantitative literacy".Whereas in their estimation the Common Core Standards are, as Mark pointed out, a re-wording of what we have been doing for decades. According to Garfunkel and Mumford what we have been doing is not producing "quantitative literacy" and thus we are falling behind.

It is no secret that higher ed and industry find high school graduates woefully ill prepared for both upper level and applied math. So I have to wonder along with Mark, if the folks that get our graduates are questioning the value of Common Core standards, why have 40+ states signed on? Now full disclosure: I am a fan of nation-wide standards. Finland, Singapore and South Korea have completely turned around their education systems and achieved profound proficiency from their students in all disciplines after adopting national standards. We as teachers complain we are not consulted enough about decisions impacting what we do in the classroom. But do we in K-12 education seek to consult with higher ed and industry about decisions we make that impact their ability to work with our students? Perhaps the time has come for a sincere effort at "vertical alignment". Otherwise Mark may be on to something about the real winners in the Common Core Standards adoption being the test/textbook publishers.

By Tamara

We currently have a 65% graduation rate in my district. Raising that rate has rightfully become the district’s top priority. Yet after my experience teaching summer school at the high school with the lowest graduation rate in the district, I question how administrators are pursuing increased on-time graduation.

My summer school students were mostly upper-classmen needing to retrieve freshman English credits. I was given a packet the students were to complete with the stipulation that as soon as students adequately finished said packet, I could pass them (all summer courses were pass/fail) and send them on their way. This was the expectation for every course offered regardless of subject. Check the box, pass go, collect your credit/diploma.

This approach to credit retrieval raised huge questions and flags for me:

1. If they struggled with the content/concepts the first time around, how was independently completing a packet with the same assignments going to produce success let alone learning or acquisition of skills?

2. If students know they can complete a semester’s worth of credit by completing a packet in a week (this was happening in a number of classes) why should they bother coming to class for 40 weeks during the regular school year? Especially in a neighborhood whose zip code is one of the poorest in the state. Their families often need them to work.

3. What does this kind of “box checking” do to the value of a diploma? We already have businesses and colleges screaming about kids not having adequate skills.

Because I wanted my students to gain confidence and experience success in an area they had struggled, I altered the packet and added additional assignments and assessments. I shared my rationale with them that if they struggled the first time, why do the exact same thing again. Let’s try a different approach to success. Their response was resigned at best, pissy at worst. One student said to me, “I was really looking forward to just completing the packet and getting on with my summer.”

And the real kicker? If they didn’t get the work done and pass the summer session, they could complete those packets in a special after-school “detention” class this fall. Um, accountability? When my eyebrows raised at this, the acting principal quickly pointed out that they needed to do whatever it took for kids to retrieve their credits, graduate on time, and get central administration off their back.

But I ask, at what cost? When expectations are no higher than completing a packet will any of these kids actually graduate with college or work ready skills? Have we given them the opportunity to develop the quality of perseverance or to value critical thinking? Has our (teachers and administrators) transparent goal of graduation by the most minimum standard foster a sense of achievement or even learning? Or have we sold them the idea that “success” is earned by checking a box.

2012-13 will be my twelfth year teaching English Language Development at the middle school. I am the wife of a middle school science teacher (just imagine what our dinnertime conversations revolve around), mother of two children just beginning their journey through K-12, and second language learner who can find every possible route around the subjunctive.
Education policy issues that get under my skin tend to revolve around what 21^st
century education should include and look like, how our decisions as adults
support (or not) kids’learning, and how we as an institution and as a
nation address the challenge of educating an evermore ethnically and
linguistically diverse student body.