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.
Hi Luann,
Yes, interesting that Washington and Oregon are together on this!
This article was pretty good–it seems to be pushing Oregon to find a progressive solution involving educators, but recognizes that takes some time and effort:
“Oregon can turn ‘high-risk’ status of teacher evaluations into an advantage”
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/08/oregon_can_turn_high-risk_stat.html
Washington is far ahead of Oregon, as usual. We are just as risky. http://www.registerguard.com/rg/opinion/30336226-78/oregon-teachers-evaluation-teacher-scores.html.csp#.UhOjBeSc-5M.twitter
Yes. Washington state is in a clumsy place of implementing reform-minded accountability measures while using assessments that take a temperature of where a child is on test day, but in no way measures growth as caused by one teacher.
As a reading teacher, I am evaluated using the reading MSP, which students take once a year in spring. Given that I don’t get my final class lists until October 1st, and kids take the test in early May, I have 7 months minus 4 weeks of vacation in which to get my kids to grow one year.
Ridiculous.
Another option for meeting this federal requirement is definitely to start testing all content areas and grade levels, as Kandi mentions. This was actually tried in North Carolina with 52 new tests for students to take! The purpose of all of these tests? Not to improve student learning, but rather to evaluate teachers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/school-district-field-tests-52-yes-52-new-tests-on-kids/2011/04/20/AFFbGXFE_blog.html
This massive testing effort was abandoned due to public protest over the cost and time involved.
Here in Washington state only about 16% of our teachers could be evaluated with state tests (see p. 47 of this document.) http://tpep-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/TPEP_Module-Student_Growth.pdf
When only 16% of a state’s teachers can be associated with a state test, then requiring teacher evaluation to include state test results makes no sense!
A huge factor here is that we are supposed to be measuring student growth, which means there MUST be a benchmark assessment. If you are simply using test scores, it does not show growth (or lack of). The only way this will work is if we start testing every subject in every grade at the beginning and end of the semester/year. And that all translates into more money from our education budget into the pockets of the curriculum/testing companies. The same ones who are buddy-buddy with the politicians making these policies…. Coincidence? I think not.
I don’t see portfolios as a good option, for one, who will write them? Who will read them? The model that is presently developing offers up meaningful conversation about teaching, learning, and other evidence, to accomplish an evaluation. I think that is enough. If we had a workday akin to Finland or other countries to which we are compared (where teachers have up to half of their work day dedicated to planning, collaborating, and evaluating student work) then I’d be more open to portfolios.
The issue isn’t the evidence a teacher would show, it is the Feds infatuation with Pearson or whichever other testing company has its ear. When teachers track their own students’ growth, the test mills don’t stand to profit… but when all the kids have to take a test AND teachers fear losing their jobs (because the tests measure a moment, not growth) might result in teachers or schools buying up curriculum “aligned to the test” then what we have is a focus on money-making, not professional development, student growth, or teacher evaluation…
I think there could be several different student evaluations that are Not tied to how well they do on tests. That does not serve students any better than it does teachers. What ever happened to the idea of portfolios for evaluations, highlighting student strengths and accomplishments?
Another main reason that tying teacher evaluation to state tests will not work is that it is simply poor practice. The tests were designed to measure what students have learned, not how well they’ve been taught. The two are NOT the same.
The goal should be to improve the service that our students receive.
The way our current law is written, it requires professionals to know their students, know the students’ skills and needs, set meaningful goals, and monitor progress toward their goals. That fosters growth. If we shift the focus BACK to test-obsession (wherein the data is manipulated to simulate growth) rather than a focus on actual growth that kids would benefit from.