By Mark
So, we got a warning.
The Feds have sent a letter to the state of Washington indicating that we aren't quite doing what they want when it comes to teacher and principal evaluation. Aside from our crazy approach of taking time to learn, train teachers and administrators, and implement the system thoughtfully rather than quickly, one sticking point appears to be that we are a little too willing to differentiate when it comes to how student data is used to evaluate teachers.
In my opinion, we're right, they're wrong. As it stands, the state law…
- Does not require districts to use state test scores in teacher evaluation; this option is a district choice. (In most districts, only about 12-15% of teachers actually teach tested grade levels and content… oh, also see #2 and #3 below that clarify the limits of state assessments.)
- Emphasizes evaluating the teacher's professional ability to choose the right assessment sequence to determine student growth, and then set meaningful growth goals for classes and subsets of students based on student needs, entry skills, as well as appropriate content standards. (This is actually weighted more heavily than whether "all the kids pass" the assessments.)
- Requires multiple points of data all aligned to the same learning or skill standard, rather than a single snapshot assessment. (Multiple points show a trajectory, whereas a single point captures a moment.)
Like too much policy, the further the "deciders" are away from the classroom, the more out-of-touch the policy is and the more focused it becomes on what is easiest to administer. Which is easier… looking a a once-a-year matrix of test data OR tracking each individual student using targeted skills assessments over the course of time? Duh.
But the right question is which is better?
That, to me, is just as obvious.
Washington: we're doing the right thing. It may not be perfect, but it is better for kids, teachers, schools and communities than hinging everything on a single moment in time.
The problem is the perception that DOE holds all the cards. Federal funding is a hair on the dog’s tail but it wags everything. The dollars sound significant; the percentages are not. Duncan/Obama have sided with the big money reformers against the interests of kids, educators, and society. We gain little by supporting Dems who promote bad education reform ideology, take only half-measures in health reform, fail to prosecute banks and investment firms that wreck the economy, and continue spending billions on wars and questionable domestic spying programs.
Utah has actually forgone many federal funds. I’m not suggesting we follow Utah’s lead, but it has been done.
What really needs to happen? Change ESEA!
Great post, Mark. I was actually writing on this same topic when you posted!
(probably not much, but just thinking…)
I hope there can be some middle ground in terms of how data is used. I don’t know what that would be, though.
I do know that tying my evaluation to test scores that I have no influence upon (since I don’t teach a tested grade level) would be exactly what would push me out of the profession. Either that, or I’d dive into the tested level and find myself unemployed when I have a crew that struggles more than others.
On one hand, there is a piece of me that would love to hear state leaders and policymakers take a strong stand and develop a long term plan to make us not so dependent upon that 11-12% of our budget that comes from federal funds… I wonder how much of our functional budget we’d recover when we get rid of the cost of the efforts to comply with the feds?
Yes, that’s exactly what they want. And there’s no way around it. We’re not picking poison here, we’re choosing between sour milk and arsenic. Sorry, Mark, but we have no realistic choice but to comply with the Feds.
My question, and this is probably for another post, is how did it come to this? Don’t these people communicate? Don’t they read emails? How could an entire state devise an evaluation system without knowing that it was out of compliance?
Pick our poison, then: stick with what is best and right and risk losing funding, OR roll over and end up investing hours and money into a system that will not do what it is intended to do.
It is surely not that absolute. I’d be curious what the feds “want.” Is it as simple as they want state test scores tied to teacher evaluations?
And by disastrous I mean a loss of about 13%, far more than we could realistically afford. Here’s some background:
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance
I agree. The problem, though, is that the DOE holds all the cards. If WA doesn’t get the waiver then we have to comply with NCLB, which is impossible. Which means we lose federal funds, which would be disastrous.