Annual Professional Performance Review
The Governor has been quite vocal about the failure of districts to adopt a teacher evaluation system. The current iteration of the plan issued by the State is fraught with problems- most notably the number of times children will be tested in order to grade adults. I wrote this opinion essay to offer a different viewpoint as a way to fix the problem.
How do we solve the problem of ineffective teachers?
The debate over teacher evaluation attempts to close the barn door after the horse has fled. We have ineffective teachers because we promote and encourage the notion that anyone can teach; this simply isn’t true. Four years of coursework, one year of student teaching and passing some exams does not qualify people to teach children, let alone be successful doing it. College schools of education play a critical role in developing highly effective teachers; but by and large once a student graduates a college there is no accountability for whether the student was properly prepared to be a successful teacher.
Politicians point to high performing countries like Singapore and Sweden as exemplars of superior educational systems. In those countries the best and brightest students are encouraged and recruited to be teachers. The teaching profession is revered. “Teach for America” is based on this notion and we have learned that intelligence alone doesn’t make for highly effective teacher either. Nor has there been high retention rates for these highly sought after prospects. So what is the answer? I believe the answer lies in how we train and certify teachers. As a State we certify more teachers than there are jobs and the requirements are minimal.
I believe that in order to see meaningful systemic change in the quality of teachers – we need to transition the theory taught in classrooms and the practice of teaching in classrooms. Student teaching is NOT sufficient. The answer lies in the certification process for teachers. We must start to acknowledge that in order to become good at any profession one needs to perfect their craft. Four years of coursework with a year of student teaching doesn’t work. Novice teachers need to demonstrate a proficiency in the classroom before they become certified. The only requirement for certification after you graduate with a Bachelor’s degree is to earn a master’s degree, which again requires no practicum in actual teaching. Every profession requires some type of ongoing professional development credits to keep abreast of best practice. Could you imagine a surgeon using techniques and equipment from 10 years ago? Or an accountant not briefed in the latest tax law? Why should it be different for the teaching profession? Do you think a teacher educated 20 years ago is prepared to handle today’s digital learners? How can teachers prepare students for 21st century skills when most teachers don’t have them? We need to adopt the medical model of professional residency to earn teacher certification.
The State must change its certification process. A limited number of certifications should be issued each year based on need, which in turn makes them highly coveted. Actuaries are more than capable of predicting the need for certain certification areas. The need must be coordinated with colleges and a highly selective process must be implemented for enrollment into these programs. Medical schools do not accept every applicant. The puppy mill process that currently exists produces more teachers with certifications than are necessary and in turn overwhelms the already saturated market place. But having highly qualified candidates isn’t enough. Colleges must commit to ensuring these candidates are successful. They must follow them into the workplace. There should be teaching schools created that put theory into practice. Ample support from accomplished teachers and college professors are needed to ensure that we produce highly effective teachers. Moreover, we support and develop novice teachers with those professionals that are already deemed highly qualified.
Schools of Education need to create profession residency programs in coordination with the departments of educations in the big 5 cities. No teacher should be certified without an urban experience in teaching. Since the most glaring deficiency is highly talented teachers in low performing districts, why not make these schools the training grounds for future teachers. The old adage “if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere” is most appropriate. After candidates receive their Bachelor degrees they should automatically be enrolled in a 4 year paid residency program. Upon successful completion of 4 years and corresponding coursework, the candidates receive a master’s degree. At the conclusion of each year of the program the college and school administration will determine if the candidate is on track to continue ( become a highly effective teacher). If they pass they receive credit and move to the next year of the residency, if they fail they either drop out or repeat the year.
In addition, an independent body must be created to review the candidates. Videotaping technologies such as TEACHSCAPE can capture the teacher and more importantly the students as lessons are taught. This committee of educational professionals must review the videos and agree with the candidates merit to continue the residency program. This would also be an appropriate forum to enhance inter-rater reliability amongst administrators and administrative candidates. After candidates ‘graduate’ the residency program they will have completed Stage one certification, but the commitment doesn’t end.
Continuing educational credits are still necessary in order to obtain certification; staying current in best practice is critical to remain highly effective. Think about how quickly technology changes; it should be a certification requirement to take coursework on the latest technology and best practice. This coursework should be the basis of longitudinal movement across the salary schedule rather than a hodgepodge of course work that doesn’t end in a degree. Certification candidates should continue to be reviewed by for 10 years before the certification becomes permanent. Colleges should continue to have a role in this process by provided a meaningful continuing education credits that will earn candidates additional degrees. At any time during these ten years the candidate’s performance is unsatisfactory (based on student achievement and independent review) they should be placed in an improvement track. Enrollment in an improvement track adds an additional year of probation before permanent certification.
This idea requires that a new partnership among colleges, State Education Department and the State legislature is forged. The State government should commit to this recruitment effort by backing the program financially. Not only should the teacher residents be paid but if they successfully complete the residency their college tuition for the master’s degree should be reimbursed. In addition, merit pay could be explored for these teacher candidates. These incentives should ensure an ample candidate pool. In addition, teachers may be less apt to “suburban flight” to pursue more lucrative pay in less challenging circumstances.
The NYS Department of Education oversees college Education programs and the certification process. Every school of education should be re certified by the State and specifically address how they plan to not only provide candidates with a solid foundation in theory but more importantly ensure highly effective teachers when they but their knowledge into practice.
http://www.schoolleadership20.com/forum/topic/show?id=1990010%3ATopic%3A90361
If the NYSUT sued because the State gave the “option” to districts to use State test scores as their additional 20% model, thus making those tests count as 40% of a teachers evaluation, and won their case. It’s seems simple, at least to me, that the NWEA, which gauges “GROWTH” as opposed to “at grade” levels is the perfect model. Mineola already has it in place. It should satisfy NYSED and could serve as a model for others. Certainly, getting it agreed with the MTA and approved by the state could mean a windfall on the competitive grant distribution.
The MTA could come out looking great having settled the issue at the local level and avoid the risk of a State mandated system. The district looks great for being able to settle the issue at home. In the end, the MTA is protected from the State. The district comes out looking proactive and the kids are saved from hyper testing all year.
All it takes is a few reasonable people sitting down and taking care of our business, in our own house.
There is a forum scheduled for February 15, 2012 at 4:30pm, where the APPR will be debated. It will be held at C W Post, in the Tilles Center.
Tickets are free but people must register at the following site: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2630562082
Cohen: The trouble with test scores
Originally published: January 20, 2012 6:39 PM
Updated: January 20, 2012 6:42 PM
By FRED COHEN
Photo credit: Illustration by Christopher Serra |
Fred Cohen, retired deputy superintendent from the Bellmore-Merrick CHSD, is a data analysis consultant with Nassau BOCES and is training county administrators and supervisors on new requirements for evaluating teachers.
With these five words — “No evaluation, no money. Period” — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has raised the stakes in the teacher evaluation controversy. Unless districts and teachers agree to base 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on student test scores, promised increases in state aid will be denied.
But are test scores a fair measure of a teacher’s performance? Proponents say that better instructors get better results and, even if this measuring tool is imperfect, the state Education Department will still weigh supervisor observations as 60 percent of a teacher’s rating.
Proponents also claim that measuring teacher performance by students’ assessment results is objective — it’s fair and accurate. Further, though state assessments may not be perfect measures of student performance, they do include both multiple choice and extended-response questions and are based on state curriculum standards. And most important, teacher evaluation scores will be based not on student achievement, but on the growth of each instructor’s students compared to the growth of similar students with the same initial scores statewide.
This certainly sounds like a level playing field. So why have approximately 700 New York State principals — 500 from Long Island — signed a letter protesting the use of this growth measure for evaluating their teachers? Why have leading groups of educators and researchers on the national scene claimed that teacher growth or “value added” measures are flawed and unstable — varying so widely from test to test or year to year that they cannot be accurate?
These researchers cite numerous factors or variables beyond teachers’ control that may upset test results. Factors may be as obvious as student demographics — family income or educational level of parents — or as seemingly innocuous as the time of day of the instructional period. Imagine a teacher, perhaps in an affluent school district, who is so weak that parents hire tutors to provide the instruction missing in the classroom. Who’ll be credited with the students’ growth on the state tests? Will this teacher be fairly evaluated?
Similar examples of random error — what researchers call statistical “noise” — abound, but state Education Department experts claim that complex statistical formulas can account for these variables. As someone who has spent a decade analyzing standardized test results for school districts looking to improve instructional practices, however, I can say with some surety that there are indeed unaccounted for irregularities.
Consider these two examples, which I have seen with some frequency.
The first is inappropriate assistance during the proctoring of an exam. Under current regulations, teachers — especially in elementary school — may be alone in their rooms with students for the entire test. Any assistance, whether overt or subtle, not only contaminates results for the offending teacher, but it also affects the growth score for the instructor unlucky enough to teach those students the following year. Improvement will be highly unlikely because the previous year’s test scores were achieved using the equivalent of instructional steroids. Depending on the amount of inappropriate assistance, test scores may drop precipitously the following year. And as test scores now become part of a teacher’s evaluation, will these higher stakes provoke greater temptation to improve test scores?
A second more innocent practice also creates an uneven playing field. Most districts do their best to grade essay-type questions according to the Education Department’s established guidelines. Yet, at times, teachers — with the best of intentions — grade students’ responses with greater rigor than required. The result can be a district whose students outperform their peers on every multiple choice question, yet who appear to underperform on every extended-response question. Although it’s theoretically possible that teachers in the district taught only those skills related to the multiple-choice questions, it’s far more likely that an overly strict interpretation of the rubric — the state’s recommended grading guidelines — was the cause of the imbalance in test results.
In the past, grading anomalies like this have affected student scores but not teacher ratings. Now they will have unintended effects on teacher ratings, too. Imagine a district that graded the 2011 seventh grade English Language Arts extended-response questions too severely. If the 2012 eighth grade ELA assessment is now graded with the same rigor as everyone else’s, undeserved growth will be credited to the eighth grade instructors. And, of course, the reverse would be true if the 2011 teachers had been too generous. The teacher evaluation score will actually be measuring a change in grading practices, not measuring effectiveness in the classroom. An entire grade level of teachers in this district will receive inappropriate evaluation scores.
This is not random statistical error; rather, it is built-in systemic error — an unaccounted-for variable — that calls for correction.
As a longtime supporter of the concept of using student growth as one part of evaluating teachers, I trust that the state Education Department will eventually tighten procedures to control the inequalities that add to the instability of teacher growth measures.
One fix seems easy — adding another proctor to the room for exams, for example — but is not feasible under current staffing and budget constraints. The second fix — regional scoring of tests by teams of teachers from multiple districts — was once a common practice and will likely be considered again in the future.
These problems are solvable, but we’re not there yet. Until these systemic issues are resolved, translating teacher performance to a numerical rating will only produce further resistance by thoughtful people. At present, results should be viewed as purely advisory. The governor’s and public’s urgency to get teacher evaluation in place immediately should not outweigh the need to get it right.
Dr. Nagler has written an excellent article on the issue. There are so many good ideas in it. We all understand the imperatives coming from the governor, but as a district we must do what is best for our students and their teachers.
I agree with Patricia on the ideas of peer observation as the way to go on teacher evaluations. Students should not spend time on this, or be subject to more/other testing to evaluate their teachers.
Higher Ed does use this peer-review model very successfully. In most cases, it takes a few years longer to earn tenure, so there is more time for mentoring and growth of the new teacher, and then, rank and promotion is done in 5 year increments. At CUNY all faculty (even those of us who are there 25+ years) are supposed to be evaluated by the chair every year, and observed in the classroom too. We do more formal documentation or portfolios for the 5 year promotion applications, or for sabbaticals, etc. As Patricia says, it is not a big deal. In my department, we share tests, lessons, etc. A lot of colleges have a center for excellence in teaching where a faculty committee plans professional development workshops and presentations and folks of all ranks offer workshops on best practices,etc. This is the kind of model that I think would work really well in a school district and results could be gathered rather quickly.
I am torn about the student/parent evaluation. We do not want to promote a consumer type mentality which I have seen come from this very often. Parents do know a lot about their children’s teachers, but there are so many variables in evaluating someone. The pressure can be very onerus on the teacher–I have seen new faculty give away grades for fear of negative student evaluations, etc. When I was in college, professors could submit the names of several students whom the dean would contact to speak to confidentially about the faculty member being considered for tenure or reappointment or whatever.. Perhaps something like this could be incorporated. Perhaps the principal could also select a few students or parents to be involved.
Above all, the evaluation system that gets put into place cannot interfere in the classroom experience of the students. A holistic, peer review system seemst o make the most sense.
Ms. Sweeney — yes, student testing has created learning behaviors that are counterproductive. And yes, higher ed has many working models worth considering; many energize departments and encourage collegiality. And our teachers and administration are familiar with them. The trouble with CTRs (Course Teacher Ratings) and very young people, to include underclassmen and certainly younger students, is that students have no basis for judgement. (Favor is always given to good-looking people, and, of course, easy graders.) Asking students to rate professionals encourages students (and their families) to be consumers rather than citizens; it treats teachers as service workers rather than professionals. My daughter now has some of the “meanest” teachers in MHS, that is, the best.
Peer evaluations honor the profession and capitalize on (rather than oppose) the strength of its union. In colleges, evaluations happen through the DPC (Department Personnel) committees, comprised of colleagues and the Chair (the equivalent in our schools would be an IL). They take on the entire responsibility of classroom observation, evaluation and promotion, and then make committee recommendations to the Dean (the equivalent, I would estimate, of the Asst. Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum). Nothing is perfect, but this system works. It brings out the best in everybody.
Kathy, I agree the last thing we want is a state imposed evaluation system. However, since Cuomo has “intervened” at least to the point of saying, “you fix it, or I will” things have stirred up a bit. Suddenly, both John King and Rich Iannuzzi are reporting progress in settling some of the differences.
While I wouldn’t term the Gov.’s words as idle threats, I believe he made it clear this must get done. For all involved, the closer to home each districts evaluation system is settled, the better for all involved.
I think your plan is outstanding and I agree with the subsequent comments about how valuable evaluations can be obtained without relying so heavily on test scores. I’m sure every parent can tell you which teachers helped to advanced their child’s educational experience and those that didn’t. This is the crux of the current issue. Even if your powerful plan were adopted, it would be years for the positive results to be seen. For now, the school districts, which are the employers of teachers, need to figure out how to evaluate their employees to identify the outstanding, effective and ineffective performances and be decisive in corrective actions. Every employer performs this function periodically to keep its staff at its best. I believe that if the districts had embraced this reality in the past, the State would not have to be involved now. I’m not in favor of State intervention because each district is unique and state-wide standards are hard to apply to each situation, but it seems to be the only way to get everyone’s attention and force movement toward the goal of making real improvement.
I like you thinking Ms. Navarra! More testing is definitely NOT the answer. You cite the college and university models of evaluation as an effective model. When I was in college we had to fill out surveys at the end of every course. Student feedback could be a valuable component in teacher evaluations as well. Our kids spend a lot of time with their teachers and would be able (along with parents assistance of course) to give an accurate picture of how a teacher’s approach is working out.
I showed this article to my Daughter Melissa who is now teaching in Las Vegas through Teach for America and she thinks this article is awesome and loves your idea’s.
More student testing is not the answer. Schools — especially all high schools — have become test prep. The real effect of this is that students compartmentalize. Rather than connect what happens in courses, one to another, in crucial and critical ways, students see their work as a series of performance tasks. They emerge not knowing what they think, or even knowing that their thoughts matter at all.
If teachers are to be evaluated, what about peer observations, just as they are conducted in colleges and universities? We are evaluated all the time. It’s just part of our workplace culture, no biggie. We apply for promotions in rank by documenting our accomplishments in five-year increments, and develop and deliver workshops for our colleagues. We share assignments in the hallway, walk into each other’s classrooms, it’s collaborative. It does not have to be the Spanish Inquisition.