by Diane Ravitch 3/19/2014
What a mess in Connecticut!
Robert A. Frahm writes in the Connecticut Mirror about how teachers and principals are struggling with the state’s test-based evaluation system. Teachers waste time setting paperwork goals that are low enough to make statistical “gains.” If they don’t, they may be rated ineffective.
Every principal spends hours observing teachers—one hour each time—taking copious notes, then spending hours writing up the observations.
Connecticut, one of the two or three top scoring states in the nation on NAEP (the others are Massachusetts and New Jersey), is drowning its schools and educators in mandates and paperwork.
Why? Race to the Top says it is absolutely necessary. Connecticut didn’t win Race to the Top funding, but the state is doing what Arne Duncan believes in. Stefan Pryor, the state commissioner, loves evaluating by test scores, but that’s no surprise because he was never a teacher; he is a law school graduate and co-founder of a “no excuses” charter school chain in Connecticut that is devoted to test scores at all times. The charter chain he founded is known for its high suspension rate, its high scores, and its limited enrollment of English learners.
Researchers have shown again and again that test-based accountability is flawed, inaccurate, unstable. It doesn’t work in theory, and it has not worked in five years of experience.
The article quotes the conservative advocacy group, National Council for Teacher Quality, which applauds this discredited methodology. NCTQ is neither an accrediting body nor a research organization.
Our nation’s leading scholars and scholarly organizations have criticized test-based accountability.
In 2010, some of the nation’s most highly accomplished scholars in testing, including Robert Linn, Eva Baker, Richard Shavelson, and Lorrie Shepard, spoke out against the misuse of test scores to judge teacher quality.
The American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education issued a joint statement warning about VAM.
Many noted scholars, like Edward Haertel, Linda Darling Hammond, and David Berliner, have warned about the lack of “science” behind VAM.
The highly esteemed National Research Council issued a report warning that test-based accountability had not succeeded and was unlikely to succeed. Marc Tucker recently described the failure of test-based accountability.
But the carefully researched views of our nation’s leading scholars were tossed aside by Arne Duncan, the Gates Foundation, and the phalanx of rightwing groups that support their agenda of demoralizing teachers, clearing out those who are veterans, and turning teaching into a short-time temp job.
The article cites New Haven as an example:
“Four years ago, New Haven schools won national attention when the district and the teachers’ union developed an evaluation system that uses test results as a factor in rating teachers. Since then, dozens of teachers have resigned or been dismissed as a result of the evaluations. Last year, 20 teachers, about 1 percent of the workforce, left the district after receiving poor evaluations.”
Four years later, can anyone say that New Haven is now the best district in Connecticut? Has the achievement gap closed? Time for another investigative report.
I am truly in favor of standardized testing and the Race to the Top policy by the Obama administration. Standardized testing is a perfect way of testing our students on the material that they learn in school. By consistent testing constantly throughout our student’s academic career, this will allow us to regulate and constantly monitor that our students are measuring up and meeting the academic standards. It is an effective way of evaluating our teachers as well. Teacher’s jobs is to help our students learn to the best of their capabilities. The better the students do, the better the teachers who are instructing them. The worse students do must be based on the teachers as well. Testing allows us to make sure that students are having the best instructors possible. Our students deserve the best educational opportunities. It would be unfair to the children to have a terrible teacher, which makes their education suffer. Another aspect I agree on is the rewarding of the schools that do meet the standards. Rewarding schools that meet the academic standards motivates them to best educational system they can be. They work harder to make sure that the students have the best instructors, best classes, and best opportunities to learn. Even if some schools do not receive any of the funding, they still will have bettered the school to the best possible standards for its students. For the states that do receive the funding, they will be able to use that money to improve the school in any way they see it necessary. Even though some people may frown upon the idea of competition, especially in education, it is the best way to make sure states are constantly trying to improve their learning conditions. If the government simply just asks its states to improve their academics, some may and some may listen. However, if you make it rewarding for them, they will. Everyone loves money and it can be really useful. If that is what it takes for states to focus on improving learning conditions for students, then I say why not. The best way to determine the "winners" is through standardized tests.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the Connecticut’s evaluation standards are flawed for using test results as a basis for determining a teacher’s effectiveness. Standardized tests are meant to set a standard for what students should be learning—it’s literally in the name. Why shouldn’t teachers be held responsible for their students failing to meet the standards? Clearly, there is an issue in the classroom if there is an insufficient amount of test scores that meet district or state standards. It was right of New Haven schools to use these tests to evaluate teachers because it makes sense. If a teacher can’t effectively communicate to their students the material that they should be learning, then it is obvious they aren’t suitable to teach.
ReplyDeleteMy question is what is the “better way” to evaluate teachers? Through likability, or classroom presence? It shouldn’t matter how much the students like them or the class. As long as the students effectively retain the information, then the teacher is doing their job. Standardized tests are the only way to tell that students are learning the crucial information they need to know. Therefore, it is only logical to evaluate teachers based on their students’ performance.
I am from Connecticut, and both of my parents are teachers. My father works in a correctional center, and my mother works as a speech pathologist in a public school. My father does not have to worry about Common Core and meeting smart goals and the likes, whereas my mother does. Honestly, I think that may father enjoys working in a prison more than my mother enjoys working in a public school. It’s gotten to the point where the testing is too much stress for her.
ReplyDeleteAs Diane Ravitch said, the practice of evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores is “clearing out those who are veterans.” My mother, who has been at her school for over twenty years, worries that she could be the next veteran to be cleared out, all because her students, many of whom have special needs, do not meet standards set by people who have never taught at all, let alone taught an intellectually disabled child. RS, you say that test scores are a valuable way of assessing teachers, and that “the better the students do, the better the teachers who are instructing them. The worse students do must be based on the teachers as well.” In theory, this is how these tests work. But in actuality, some kids may do poorly on tests because the standards are higher than they will ever be able to achieve, due to factors that are not their fault, or the fault of the teacher, or anyone, for that matter. On the other end of the spectrum, some students who are perfectly capable of taking the test and meeting standards might not be doing so just because they don’t want to and they have no respect for the test. Two years ago, my high school had my class do a test run of the Smarter Balance exam. Knowing that it didn’t count for anything, very few students took it seriously. An entire class made a pact to write “pickles” as their response to all of the open ended questions, and one boy I knew simply handled the open ended section by copying and pasting the theme song from “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” a handful of times for each question. Suddenly, the test which was supposed to give a baseline of the students’ abilities on the Smarter Balance was little more than a testament to their immaturity and disrespect for standardized testing. Had that test been real, some people would have lost their jobs. You may be thinking that if it were a real test that would count for something, these students would not take it so lightly. But maybe knowing that their performance on a test could get a teacher fired would make these students want to act out even more.
Ideally, standardized tests can measure the effectiveness of teachers and how well students are learning. In the ideal world, I would agree with your question, Katie: “Why shouldn’t teachers be held responsible for their students failing to meet the standards?” If the standards were made by someone who was actually a teacher and had more of a grip on what is reasonable to expect of students, I would agree that teachers should be help accountable for their students test scores, as long as they reflect no obvious sings of apathy toward the testing process. But the fact of the matter is that right now, teachers should not be held responsible for students failing to meet the standards because there are so many reasons why failure would occur which have nothing to do with the teacher’s effectiveness.