By Mark
The current law regarding teacher evaluation states that all teachers must demonstrate impact on student growth as part of their evaluation. Growth (in RCW 28A.405.100 2f) is defined as the change in student achievement between two points in time, and presently states that assessment data for determining growth can be drawn from classroom, school, district, or state based tools.
This terminology did not sit well with the USDE, who labeled Washington's NCLB waiver status to "conditional" last August. Last week (November 12, 2013), OSPI issued a press release that included the following (bold emphasis mine):
Dorn’s second major request involves a change in state law. Paragraph 2(f) of Revised Code of Washington 28A.405.100 states, in part:
“Student growth data … must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.”
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction secured a waiver from some requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act in August. But the Department of Education termed the waiver “conditional” because it objected to the word “can” in 28A.405.100.
“When the Legislature was debating this back in 2010, I said the language didn’t go far enough,” Dorn said. “The Department of Education wants state-based tests to be a required measure, not a voluntary one. I’m introducing legislation that will basically replace the word ‘can’ with ‘must.’ Test scores should not be the sole measure used to evaluate teachers, but they must be one of the tools we use in our new accountability system.”
This is not a simple syntactical switch.
What complications do you foresee from a "can" to "must" switcheroo? Or is it the right path to take?
I get you, Tom, but I am holding out hope that there will not be asinine mandates about how to USE that SBAC test data. If I teach a tested subject/level, I still want to be in charge of defining what “growth” looks like for my learners. I’ve taught intervention program classes or special education inclusion my whole career–and growth needs to be about appropriate change…movement from a point A to a point B… not about getting every one of my learners to an externally determined cut line that disregards what they come in capable or not-yet-capable of doing.
Mark, I couldn’t agree more. In theory, that is. My point is that the ship you’re talking about has sailed.
At this point, there WILL be a state test produced by a test-producing company, and students and teachers WILL be evaluated by it.
Subordination! Embrace it!
The only option is to forgo the waiver and recede back to NCLB. And no one wants that.
I would still rather see it be a local choice to use SBAC assessments in teacher evaluation, and since we haven’t seen those in action yet, I’d hate to see it be made a “must” before we even get to try them out. Further, one thing that I value in the current law is that the teacher is credited with being a professional–part of our evaluation on student growth includes the quality of the goals we set and assessments we choose for our learners, because we know our learners. As soon as the “must” gets established, then there will be arbitrary growth numbers established (i.e., every kid in the state of Washington scoring an X at the formative SBAC must score a Y at the summative) when the law as is currently gives teachers the professional charge to set those goals based on what they know about the learners.
Perhaps a middle ground…how about this:
>All teachers can use classroom-, building-, district-, or state-based tools based on their professional discretion to assess achievement at multiple points in time (what the current law states). State test data may NOT be used to evaluate the performance of teachers in non-tested subjects or grade levels.
>Teachers in tested subjects must use state test data (SBAC), if and only if the following conditions are met by SBAC:
>>The assessments are capable of showing a change in student achievement on specific standards between two points in time during that teacher’s contact with the student,
>>The scope of change (growth) and skills/standards emphases assessed for classes or subgroups of students is wholly determined by the teacher…since it is the teacher who knows the most immediate needs students with whom he/she works; the “quantity” of growth shall not be mandated by the state nor tied to a evaluative rating (unless you want a bunch of less-than-ethical teachers to sandbag the formative assessment),
>>Growth goals can only be set by the teacher, and only after baseline formative data is returned to the teacher from SBAC,
>>Data from baseline or formative assessments is accessible to the teacher within one week [or some other SHORT time frame designated in the law] in order that action may be taken by the teacher to adjust instruction based on formative information,
>>Summative data from assessments is provided to the teacher within the same time frame [one week] or before May 15th of a school year.
If it is going to be in law, I’d like to see the law serve the STUDENTS and the TEACHERS, not the TESTING COMPANY.
The whole issue is essentially moot. Next year Washington will be moving to the Smarter, Balanced Assessments. These are tests actually written to measure student growth, unlike the MSP/HSP, which as Mark states is designed to measure achievement.
The other nice thing about the SBA is that the results will come in by the end of the school year.
I think it’s important to remember that any discussion about high-stakes assessments has to be predicated on the fact that they are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. And along those lines, teacher evaluation based on student achievement is also here to stay. The only thing that’s negotiable is the nature of the assessment we use, and it looks like Washington is headed in the right direction.
drpezz, you are right. This is why when any talk of opening the evaluation law for revision is made, we are diligent and quick with proactive measures, not just reaction. There is a lot more right than wrong with the law is it currently stands (IMO), and if the door is opened to meddling, we HAVE to be there lest it get massively screwed up and I have to find a job outside of education.
The damage this could do is beyond measure. This is opening the gate to allowing percentages of the overall teacher summative rating to be directly tied to test scores. I worry that we’ll next see proposals to make test scores 10, 20, 25, 50% of an overall rating score.
Open the gate a crack, and someone will kick that gate open.
That’s my gut reaction too, Kristin. I believe that state tests are about “achievement” not growth, and therefore are not the tool that “must” be used. “Could” they? I say sure IF they can meet the other aspects of the law: multiple points in time and relevance to the teacher and subject.
The sticking point is what the waiver grants schools in Washington. The question might be better phrased as not “can” versus “must” as “wavier” versus “no waiver.”
“No waiver” means all schools in Washington fall back unter the rules of NCLB, where every school would be “failing” according to that policy, and subject to the consequences therein.
“Yes waiver” means the ramifications of “must.” When Dorn drops the proposed changes (January, maybe?) we’ll have a better idea of how that “must” figures in in his imagination. Simply changing the word won’t suffice; there will need to be clarification.
I worry that this all could be a huge step backward. Despite Dorn’s press release, it is FAR more complicated than degree of auxiliary verb.
Well, I see two glaring problems. The first is that not every teacher is held accountable by state tests. The second is that we have no reason to believe the state tests are a reliable measure of a student’s abilities.
In my district, I’m given a rating based on how many points of growth my students earned on the reading MSP. This is problematic, because the MSP is not designed or graded as a tool to determine whether a child is a 345 or a 346. It is in no way reliable to assume that one test-reader’s 345 is the exact same as another test-reader’s. The MSP is meant to measure whether or not a child is performing at a grade-level standard. It is NOT meant to determine a teacher’s impact on a child who went from a 345 one year to a 350 the next, and yet that’s how my rating is decided.
We have lost sight of what we’re supposed to be doing here.