Welcome Back – from our homegrown National Teacher of the Year

The following entry is a guest-post from Jeff Charbonneau, 2013 National Teacher of the Year, 2013 Washington State Teacher, NBCT, and Chemistry, Physics and Engineering Teacher from Zillah HS. 

***********************************************************************************************************

 

Image001

What will this year
hold?

For me and so many other teachers, the start of the school
year is a magical time filled with energy, new plans, ideas, and instructional
strategies.

A great many of us have spent the summer reading up on a
vast array of educational trends. 
Ranging from flipped classrooms to keeping cursive in the schools, we
have been knee deep in professional communities, conferences and followed
#edchat tweets until late into the nights.

With all these new tools hanging from our belts, I have to
ask, what will be different this year?

My hope is that this year will be the year that (among many,
many other things):

1.  We maintain an emphasis that education goals
are more important than the tools.

Don’t get me wrong, as a STEM
teacher who uses a smart phone, tablet, laptop, and a traditional pc daily (if
not all in the same hour), I strongly advocate for tech tools to help improve
instruction.  However, there are
times when paper and pencil are simply the best tools for the job. The past few
years there has been a trend to value tech integration for the sake of
technology integration.  However,
the tools are not the goal!

We, as a community of educators,
need to ensure that the tools we employ are used to improve learning.
Certainly technology can do that. 
However, I have seen far too many purchase technology and then try to
make it work; rather than determining the learning goals first, followed by
selecting the right tool (tech or non) for the job. 

I am an early adopter of technology
in both my personal and professional life, but sometimes there is nothing
better than paper and pencil.

Pick the goal before the tool!

2. We celebrate and communicate the success of
our students and staff.

 As a profession, we do an excellent job at
pointing out issues and problems within our system.  I do not deny these issues; they are
real and it is vital that we improve in several areas if we are going to meet
the needs of all of our students.

However, if we are to move forward, we must be willing to acknowledge the
successes that are all around us!

When one of my physics students incorrectly
answers a problem, I do not label them as failures, publicly ridicule, or place
blame. Instead I look for what that student did correctly, then help them to
understand the key places for improvement and work side by side in order to
help them succeed. 

As teachers, we know how to motivate our
students, let’s do the same with our profession.

Let’s make a conscious decision to showcase
the abilities and the progress that our students are making.

I fully admit that we have our problems, and
we need to continue to identify and communicate them with our parents and
community at large.  All I am
asking is that we put the same effort into identifying and sharing our success
too!

Now it’s your turn, as a teacher, what will you do to make
this year personally and professionally exceptional? 

Myth and Misunderstanding about TPEP

File5220b00b5c523The History Channel recently ran a series called Your Bleeped-Up Brain, and if you can get past that staggeringly stupid title, there are some interesting tidbits to be found about how our minds work.

In particular, I caught a snip the other day about how humans define "truth." The main salient points: first, we are wired to believe the first information we see, hear, or learn; second, it is incredibly difficult for us to unlearn that "first" and replace it with new information. This is essentially the "primacy effect," where we are inherently more apt to trustaccept, and maintain belief in the first thing we hear or read. Add this as well: we are far more apt to believe information that confirms feelings we already hold, regardless of the veracity or validity–or even logic–of that information.

I have been fighting a slow and constant battle within my district to help implement our new evaluation system (TPEP, though I hate acronyms) and empower teachers to understand and use the framework not just when thinking about their performance review but moreso when thinking about their own practice. In our district of roughly 400 certificated staff, it is obviously difficult to communicate to everyone in a personal, meaningful, and clear way. It is also a challenge to accurately and authentically monitor what they really do and don't understand. 

Because we are human beings, we often look to one another first for information, before digging into things such as legalese about what is actually policy. The clear problem with this? It is easier to chat in the staff room and spread hearsay than to actually look it up. Sadly, we're then more likely to use unsubstantiated hearsay as the foundation for our feelings and opinions–and then refuse to accept new information when confronted with fact that contradicts what we thought we knew.

Case in point: recently I was told that it states unequivocally in the state RCWs that teachers are required to compile an eight-section portfolio of evidence to support their performance on each of the eight state evaluation criteria (and in areas of focus, cross-referenced with framework elements). I know the law, and it states absolutely nothing that could even be stretched to construe such a directive. Yet, this colleague of mine was certain she was right and I was wrong. Why? She heard it from a friend who teaches in another district. 

Continue reading

A Teacher Looks At Thirty

ThirtyBy Tom

I’m heading back to the classroom tomorrow for the thirtieth
time. Although I’m not big on looking back, it’s hard not to notice the numbers
that end in zeros. When I started we were still using ditto machines. The
school secretary (not office manager) and the principal were the only people
with telephones. Computers? Our whole staff shared one IBM Selectric.
We also had real chalkboards, real chalk and reel-to-reel film projectors.

Although my own teaching has evolved, I’m pretty sure the
1984 Tom would recognize the older guy. I’m still strict, I’m still structured
and I still write out every lesson plan. I’m also still learning how to do this
amazingly complex job.

And speaking of learning, if I had to pick three experiences
that had the biggest impact on my career and life as a teacher, I would start
with 1993, when my wife and I went on a teaching exchange to Australia. Besides
the weather, the beaches and the kangaroos, what I remember most was the fact
that I went down there with absolutely no materials. I found out what grade I
would be teaching the day before school started. And I did fine. I learned that
teaching isn’t about what you use and what you have in your room; it’s about
the connections you make with the people in that room. It’s not about telling a
kid which page to open to, but it’s about showing that kid what happens when
she opens her mind. A teacher is the person who brings the learning, not the
guy who runs off the papers and assigns the work. I came back home and threw
most of my materials away.

The next big moment came in 1996, when my first son was
born. It was then that I realized exactly what this job is all about. It’s not
that I didn’t already understand how precious and amazing each child is, but it
wasn’t until then that I actually felt it.
Holding that little kid for the first time made me realize what an awesome
responsibility each of us have. And how important it is for a teacher to
connect with the whole family, not just the students.

The third moment came in 2000 when I went through the
process of National Board Certification. Not only was the process itself the
best professional development I’ve ever experienced, but certifying was immensely
validating: I was being told by people who knew what they were talking about
that I actually knew what I was doing. Besides all that, National Board
certification marked the point in my career when I began to reach out and lead
other teachers; a mixed blessing as it turned out, since ever since then I’ve
had to work very hard to prevent leadership activities from impinging on my
true love: teaching.

So now what? I’m thinking twenty more. Seriously. Teaching is
one of the few professions in which you get to take your retirement on the
installment plan. And I’m very good at retiring for about eight weeks at a time. But now it’s time to put the toys away, get the room ready for the kids and get
back to work.

Again.

Test Scores and Teacher Evaluation: Now What?

File521431c138930There are few things worse than being fired up and not knowing what to do next.

That is where I find myself with the recent discussion about student growth, teacher evaluation, and the federal government. (Chances are you've already read a little about this from me, Tom, Maren and Kristin.)

But here's where I get stuck. It is easy for me to sit here at my desktop and engage in discourse with my peers about how misguided is the federal position on using one-shot test scores to evaluate teachers. In discussion here, on facebook, on other blogs, and even in old-fashioned face-to-face conversation, I've discovered that there are a lot of very intelligent people talking about this issue. (CSTP even noted that the traffic on this blog has spiked by a couple thousand pageviews in the last few days alone.)

For other issues, I've known to whom to go: my local leadership, state legislators, and so on. With this one, though, I truly don't know what to do next. Conversation needs to continue, for sure. At some point it needs to translate to action, or else this is all just a bunch of cached webpages.

Brainstorm with me, if you will: What can you and I do next? Who do we talk to? Is there hope? And what do we do once we've ignored the people who answer "no" to that last question?

If nothing else, let's keep the conversation going–and invite others to join in.

How to Measure Student Growth

Height

By Kristin

The last three posts on this blog have responded to the Federal Government's warning that unless Washington uses test data as part of a teacher's evaluations, we no longer meet the waiver requirements for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA or No Child Left Behind).

In no moment of my professional or academic life has one test been used to measure my growth.  The biggest assessments I've sat in my life – the SAT, the GRE, my National Board tests – were used to measure whether or not I was ready for the next step of my career.  

Why are some groups still insisting this is the best way to measure a teacher's impact on student growth?  It is so misguided.

Continue reading

Taking One For The Team


Ap-jeter-hit-by-pitch-beckettjpg-0ef5486e5d7606e8_largeBy Tom

Mark and Maren have both written about the news that
Washington State is in a little trouble for failing to follow the Department of
Education’s guidelines for the use of state tests in teacher evaluations. Here's a small example of how using state tests to evaluate teachers
can have some negative side-effects.

Last spring I was in a meeting with the other fourth grade
teachers in my school, along with our principal and the support staff. We were
planning for this coming year. Our principal made the suggestion that we might
want to place all six students who are on an IEP (Individualized Education
Plan) into the same classroom. The reason was simple: if they were all in the
same room, we could deliver support service more efficiently; the support
teacher could come into the room and help those kids, all of whom would be
working on the same lessons, and she wouldn’t have to coordinate with three
different teachers, who may or may not be focusing on the same learning activities.

It made sense to me, and I volunteered to be the teacher
into whose rooms those six kids would be placed. I was willing to “take one for
the team,” knowing that I would have way more than my share of high-needs
students, each of whom performed poorly on their state tests, but also knowing
that those six kids would have a more relevant support experience and the whole
fourth grade would be better off.

Under Washington State’s current (albeit illegal) teacher
evaluation system, I wouldn’t be penalized for having more than my share of
high-needs students. I’m planning to use a classroom-based reading, math and
writing assessment at three different points throughout the year, and I expect
all of my students to show growth, including those six kids who are on an IEP.
I’m not worried at all about collecting this data and showing it my principal
as part of my evaluation. It makes total sense.

However, should the Department of Education get their way,
forcing Washington State to capitulate to their demands, I would be a fool to
do next year what I did this year. Next year I will be evaluated based in part on
a comparison of the number of my kids who met state standard in third grade
with the number who met standard after a year with me.

And that means that those six kids would compromise my
evaluation. It’s more likely than not that those six kids will lower the
percentage of students in my class that pass the state test. Remember, they
didn’t pass their tests last year, when they were in third grade. This year
they’ll be taking the fourth grade test, which is harder. Even if they make academic
gains, they will be taking a harder test, and more than likely they’ll have some
problems. I don’t say that because I have low expectations of these kids. I say
that because all the data that’s ever been collected shows that kids who struggle
one year tend to struggle the next year.

Under next year’s evaluation system (assuming Washington State
bows down to Washington, DC) it will behoove me and every other teacher to start
the year with the strongest class possible. Think about it: high achievers have
already shown that they learn faster than their peers; that’s how they got to
be high achievers in the first place. On the other hand, low achievers have shown that it takes them more time to learn. Sometimes it takes them more than a year to learn what their classmates learn in a year. And if they start out behind their classmates, they can make a year's worth of progress and still not be at grade level when they take their state tests. 

These are not excuses. This is not the "soft bigotry of low expectations." This is simple cause and effect. When a teacher evaluation system is based on state test scores, those who teach struggling students will suffer unfair consequences.

Which means that this is the last time I take one for the team.

Washington State Teacher Evaluation: At High Risk?

by Maren Johnson

So educators don't get the summer off. Yes, it can be a time of rest and relaxation, but it's also a time for preparation, training, and study. This summer, in particular, educators around our state have been getting ready to implement our new teacher evaluation system, with framework instruction, calibration trainings, and local bargaining.

After all this, what sort of news do we get, now, at the end of the summer? Well, we're at risk. The Department of Education sent our state a warning letter saying that our state teacher evaluation system does not comply with the waiver requirements for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA or No Child Left Behind)–our state has been placed on "high-risk" status.

So what's the problem? Well, the U.S. Department of Education is not satisfied with the way Washington state law ties teacher evaluation to state tests. Current state law (5895) reads as follows: “Student growth data…must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.”

The issue? The word "can" as it relates to the state-based tools. Instead of "can include" state tests, this warning letter is looking for something more along the lines of "must include" state tests.

How could our state address this?

If state tests were required for evaluation, one possibility is that we could end up with two separate teacher evaluation systems in Washington state, one system for teachers with state tests, one system for teachers without them. I teach tenth grade biology. I don't know how student growth could be measured by the Biology End of Course Exam, since it is only given once at the end of the year, but if it were, that could mean that my teacher evaluation score would depend on state tests while the history teacher's evaluation, just next door, would not, as there is no state test in history. The possibility exists that a value added measure could be attached to end of course exams through a multivariate model—this is a controversial idea.

Another alternative? Evaluate teachers in teams. What's this all about? Here's the language from the high-risk warning letter:

"Since under Washington state law student growth data elements may include the teacher's performance as a member of a grade level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school, along with the amended request, Washington must provide business rules defining these teams of teachers and explaining how student growth is calculated for a team. Washington must also provide data to demonstrate that Washington's use of shared attribution of student growth does not mask high or low performance of educators."

Again, our state assessment system just won't work for this. Should the physical science teachers in my school be evaluated based on my biology students' test scores? What about the PE and band teachers? Should they be evaluated based on overall school or grade level student scores on state tests? This has actually happened in other states, and it makes little sense!

Requiring teacher evaluation to be tied to student sores on state tests is not a system that will work well in Washington state (or probably any state for that matter!). Our state student assessment system just doesn't fit with our state teacher evaluation program, nor should it. Forcing an alignment between the two will neither improve state education nor result in an increase in student learning.

 

Ignore the Feds on Student Growth

File520e39cc23477By 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…

  1. 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.)
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.

My Depressing MSP Results

ImagesBy Tom

I went on-line this week to see how last year’s students did
on last year’s state test and it got me depressed. It’s not that they were low
– my  students did better than the other
fourth graders in my school, my district and the state – but what made me
depressed was who scored low.

I had twenty-eight students last year. Each of them took
three tests: math, reading and writing. Altogether, that’s 84 tests. Of those
84 tests, 23 did not meet standard.

But here’s the part that bothers me: twenty-one of those 23
low scores belong to students who live in what New York Times columnist David
Brooks
would call “disorganized households.” These are homes where little or
nothing is done to support what I do at school. Bedtime and meal time is
random, homework is not checked or even acknowledged, school attendance is not
a high priority, reading doesn’t happen, and families don’t regularly attend
evening school activities.

Dysfunctional families are common fodder for TV sit-coms.
Think Arrested Development, Roseanne, etc. But there’s nothing funny about really
growing up in a home in chaos.

Children who grow up in these homes tend to enter
kindergarten behind their peers, and it only gets worse. By the time they get
to high school, many are so far behind and so disillusioned by school that they
simply drop out. When I see them in fourth grade, there’s still hope. So I do
what I can to “light their fires,” to get them excited about school or at least
see the importance of school. And to some extent, I’m successful.

But then I look at the data and see that I can only do so
much.

And that’s the great unspoken truth about American
education. We can talk until we’re blue in the face about teacher quality, and
there’s no denying how important that is. But at some point someone needs to
lay out the cold, hard facts: it is nearly impossible for a child to succeed
academically without the concerted effort of a competent teacher and an
organized, supportive household.

And that’s what depresses me.

 

Why Grading Schools Takes Your Eyes Off the Ball

O_real_madrid_iker_casillas-2352189By Kristin

I played coed indoor soccer at one point in my pre-mother life and was hastily made keeper so that we could have a (faster, more skilled) guy on the field.

I had to learn to tend goal quickly.  The most important thing, I realized, was to keep my eyes on the ball, not the game.  It's more interesting to watch the game, more terrifying (or reassuring) to watch the clock, and hopeful to watch the score, but the important thing is to know where the ball is.  It doesn't matter where the ball used to be.  What matters is where it is now, and where it's going.  Grading schools is like watching anything but the ball while tending goal.

Continue reading