By Mark

Now that fear-inspired changes to teacher evaluation law (to include "must include state tests" rather than "can include state tests" under the ominous threat of losing our NCLB waiver) are effectively "dead" in our state legislature, Governor Inslee will be meeting with Arne Duncan in D.C. this Monday, February 24th, to seek some sort of agreement that keeps the two Washingtons copacetic.

Regarding our teacher evaluation law, this is what I hope Governor Inslee communicates to Secretary Duncan:

1. Our current teacher evaluation law, though it does not require state test scores, does something better: as written it holds every single teacher in the state of Washington accountable for demonstrating student growth. State test scores, at the very best, could "hold accountable" roughly 16% of teachers. The current law sets a higher bar.

2. Our current teacher evaluation law recognizes the reality of the learning process, and thus requires that teachers do not simply demonstrate student achievement, but instead must demonstrate a change in student achievement between two points in time; change that must be based on multiple measures (RCW 28a.405.100:2f). The current law demands more from our teachers.

3. Our current teacher evaluation law includes language that requires that student growth data not simply be used for data's sake–student achievement data must be "relevant to the teacher and subject matter" which helps ensure that data used to evaluate teachers is actually reflective of that teacher's impact on student learning; this is unlike other states where, say, the PE teacher's evaluation is based on the building's state reading test scores. Washington's current law holds teachers accountable for what they are actually charged to teach.

The simple conclusion: We deserve the waiver.

But I'd love it if he went further:

Yes, it would be "easier" from an external standpoint to use some easy to understand test score to measure a teacher. This, though, is another example of where "what is easiest to administer" and "what is best practice" are not the same. In this case, they are not even close.

What school systems need is the freedom to innovate without fear of being threatened.

This is exactly what our system of teacher evaluation is doing when you compare us to other states. We are innovating (some might say we are "Distinguished" since we are a "recognized leader" for other state systems). 

Innovation is how improvement happens. When a system threatens those that innovate by, let's say, threatening to take away freedom, control, or $44 million, that system has just tipped its cards: innovation isn't welcome. Where innovation isn't welcome, there must be some other motive than a drive to improve. And it's too easy for the crazy conspiracy theorist in me to simply follow the money; standardized testing sure seems to be a big-money industry and years of test-obsession have not brought about the promised improvements to anything other than the profit margins of that testing industry. 

Our teacher evaluation system may not be perfect (though I think the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses), but including a "must" around test scores would not have held more teachers accountable, would not have impacted student learning, and would not have improved the profession.