By Tom
Washington State will not be applying for a waiver next month from the regulations of No Child Left Behind. As I’m sure you’ve heard, The Obama Administration has responded to the inevitable collision between reality and NCLB by offering waivers to those states who agree to certain school reform measures.
Although Washington isn’t among the first seventeen to apply for a waiver, they’re keeping their options open by declaring their intent to do so early next year.
The main problem for Washington is that the Federal Administration’s school reform measures don’t seem to match ours. Specifically, we don’t have a teacher evaluation system that uses student test scores. We don’t have anything like that right now, and the new evaluation system – currently being piloted – doesn’t have it either. According to last summer’s report on the pilot, they’ve appointed a task force to look into using student achievement scores, but that’s it.
It doesn’t seem to me like there’s any point in even applying for a waiver. We have the “wrong” evaluation system, our new system will still be wrong, and there’s nothing else in the works.
Meanwhile, most of our kids aren’t passing the math test, a lot of them aren’t passing the reading test, and 2014, the point in time in which everyone has to pass everything, is fast approaching.
What to do? It looks like our only hope is a new ESEA bill; one without the ridiculous demand that every child everywhere performs at grade level.
Not so fast. Senator Tom Harkin, in his draft of the new bill, calls for teacher evaluation based on student test scores, and since there’s no question about which way the Administration is leaning, we’d essentially have the same problem we have now.
Personally, I’m not in favor of using student test scores to evaluate teachers. I think there are too many issues involving validity, reliability and fairness. That seems to be the prevailing view among educators in this state; a state that by and large is functioning pretty well.
So here we are, faced with the fact that our brand new teacher evaluation system isn’t good enough for the feds. Should we change it? Adding a requirement that we use student test scores? Or should we sit tight and hope the feds somehow change their minds?
It doesn't really look like we have much choice.
Given the legislation that just went through the senate regarding NCLB this week, it looks like the waivers issue is moot. The use of student permormance data (be it test scores, classroom based assememts, or other artifacts) as one measure of teacher evaluation however is not going away. In fact I think it is going to be the defining issue that shapes how education reform is going to play out over at least the next ten years. Therefore I think we as teachers need to be proactive in helping determine what pieces of student performance data over the course of a school year best reflect how we guide them to meeting standards. As NBCTs we did this in our portfolios (mostly with measures other than tests). Is it challenging and time consuming? Yes. But it is not something we need to shy away from either. The outcome of our day in and day out work is ultimately reflected in levels of student learning and we should be evaluated as such. But because measuring student performance is also central to our daily work, we should have tremndous say as to what measures of student performce are used.
I believe that using test scores as the primary method to evaluate teachers in unfair. Several years ago, my husband and I took in a foster child. Before living with us, he frequently spent nights under the overpass of a busy freeway. After living with us for a week, his teacher commented that he was a “different child” – engaged in classroom discussions and eager to learn. This was most likely due to having a warm bed in which to sleep, a reasonable “bedtime”, healthy meals, wearing clean clothes that fit comfortably so as to not be self-conscious about his appearance and for the first time in his life, caregivers that showed genuine interest in his academic performance. Teachers cannot be held responsible for the effects of poverty or poor parenting. But these issues do impact a student’s performance in school.
I agree with what I think I’m reading from Kristin about one facet of testing: my students do better when I am in the room with them. There is the aura of class-ness, of my continued expectations. The last few years I taught sophomore English, I had two sections, so for the HSPE, the admin allowed my two classes to be tested in adjoining rooms…which happened to be separated by a partition wall that I opened, so it was me, another teacher, and my 60 HSPE’ers. I had a very good pass rate, and I think it is as much about that test environment as it was how I and their previous teachers prepared them.
Perhaps that’s a factor that means I’m a measurably good teacher? But I believe that if those kids had tested in a looser environment, the sense of “expectation” may not have been as great, and thus their performances may not have been as focused. Does that reflect on my classroom instruction? Have I inadvertently cultivated kids who only perform when I’m there? Maybe that means I’m a failure.
Kristin, I had the same experience last year with one of my third graders as he finished his MSP:
Student: I’m done! Can I draw?
Me: No. You can either check your work or read.
Student: But I want to draw!
Me: That’s why I won’t let you.
In theory, using student test scores to evaluate teachers is a great idea. It’s as good an idea as using the quality of a cabinet to evaluate a carpenter. Unfortunately, students don’t cooperate as predictably as wood.
I have a question for you: What makes you think that Washington’s experience with student testing is any different than anywhere else? From what I’ve heard, the same problems occur elsewhere.
I’m still in favor of looking at test scores, but I’ve become increasingly frustrated with their unreliability. There’s so much at play. The parents’ support of effort on tests, the student’s interest in using tests to gauge progress, the teacher’s ability to read data and adjust curriculum to each child’s needs, and the school’s attitude toward testing. Because the student has no incentive to do well on any of Washington’s tests except the 10th grade HSPE, it’s asking a lot of a teacher to overcome all of those unreliable factors and rock the test.
Last year, when I was “rah rah rahing” the tests, I proctored the spring MAP tests of two of my three classes that took it. On average, those students improved by about 6 points over their January test. Someone else proctored one period because I was out of the building. On average, those kids did about 8 points worse. Why? Because when they were done with the test, they were allowed to go out into the library and play cards. Guess how much time they spent on the test?
It’s clear that two of my three periods worked hard simply for me, because I was there to remind them that it mattered, to me if not to them. When I wasn’t there, the only incentive they had was gone. They don’t care about the MAP test – the only test given numerous times a year and the only one that can gauge one teacher’s impact.
So now I don’t know. I think testing can be a GREAT measure of a teacher’s effectiveness, but Washington prefers to do a lousy job of creating and using tests, and Washington chooses to leave the worth of a test result up to whimsy, mood, and affection. Ridiculous.
I have faith in our federal government…at least to choose what is the easiest and cheapest rather than the best way to evaluate teachers.
Why listen to the experts or look at what’s already working when everyone can use the same system no matter where they are, no matter their needs, and no matter how well they are doing?
However, I hope our state is wise and controls how student achievement and student growth data (there is a difference between the two) is used.