Secretary Arne Duncan spoke at the NEA's annual convention in San Diego.
Secretary Arne Duncan spoke today about educator effectiveness at the annual NEA conference. He discussed, among other things, the important link between student achievement and teacher effectiveness. He said:
“Let’s talk about data. I understand that word can make people nervous but I see data first and foremost as a barometer. It tells us what is happening. Used properly, it can help teachers better understand the needs of their students. Too often, teachers don’t have good data to inform instruction and help raise student achievement.
“Data can also help identify and support teachers who are struggling. And it can help evaluate them. The problem is that some states prohibit linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.
“I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.
See his full remarks. Tell us what you think:
Should students’ test scores be considered when evaluating teachers?
ED Staff
125 Comments
There are some nice sounding phrases in that speech. Underneath, though, I hear alarm bells ringing. Here are some of my thoughts:
I oppose linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.
Until and unless a teacher controls every factor that affects student achievement, it is a misuse of the data.
Teachers are never going to control calendars, schedules, class sizes, curriculum mandates, health issues, or home influences. All of those are factors that affect student achievement.
I support tenure, and I oppose merit pay. Tenure protects teachers from politically motivated actions against them. There are procedures in place to deal with poor performance; strengthen them, and use them, but don’t remove the protections necessary for a free intellectual culture to thrive.
To improve teacher evaluations, and to grow and improve the professional practice of all teachers, I would point to Charlotte Danielson’s work. This can be done in a way that honors the profession, and the professionals.
Collaboration is essential in the teaching profession. We never want to put teachers in competition against each other. The way we reach out to struggling students is to work together. A school and district climate and structure built on teamwork and collaboration makes effective use of leadership skills and will help grow and improve the practice of weaker members. Collaboration with teachers across a district, and between districts, as well as on their own school sites, is a powerful tool for improvement. More powerful than seeing who can run through a performance maze fastest for the cheese at the end.
Frankly, experience counts. It’s valuable, and should not be dismissed. The current step and column pay scale recognizes the importance of continuous education and experience. We don’t need merit pay. It would be nice to be paid for all the time above and beyond our contract that we put in.
No, because the state standardized tests are VERY flawed. We need to use GOOD assessments, not BAD, to make informed decisions. Also, if a state standardized test is used, it will inevitably be used as the primary weight for evaluation. (This is the case in NYC, which issues an annual school progress report grade. 85% of the grade for elementary and middle schools is based on the state test scores.) When there is so much weight placed on a single indicator, teachers teach to it to save their jobs. As a result, students get lousy teaching and a lousy education, e.g., test prep. Test scores may go up, but it’s not due to improved learning – it’s due to artificial test score inflation.
As a parent, I have seen the downfall of focusing on the test. My oldest daughter stopped doing her work in class because “she passed the test.” My youngest daughter’s 5th grade Language Arts teacher didn’t teach basic grammar or spelling “because it’s not on the test.”
Instead of a single test result determining a child’s education, there should be a wide range of skills that are measured for teacher performance. And any teacher that says “I’m not teaching that because it’s not on the test” should be fired immediately and never teach again.
B”H
I am a college professor of writing, and I have seen writing ability go downhill for the past ten years–why? Because, if its not on the test, the schools don’t teach it.
You can’t test the writing of an in-depth analysis, a research paper, or even a beautifully written personal essay in the 45 minutes they give for a test. These are skills that take years to master and weeks to complete, so they aren’t being taught.
Tests are driving education, and it is no wonder that textbook companies are in the test-making business. You need to pass a test? Make sure you order your books from the same company! No one benefits from these tests but the test-making companies and their educational cronies who are out to make a buck from them.
These tests are short-changing our taxpayers, our teachers, and, most importantly, our students.
You want accountability? Where is the accountability for those who create these tests? Where is the accountability for those who grade these tests? Are we sure these tests are even testing what is important for our kids to learn? There is no excuse for the type of quick and dirty educational outcomes we have been reduced to. This is a travesty!
The US was test-crazed in the late 1800s and early 1900s too. By the late 1920s, it was clear we had made a very big mistake, and we scrapped the tests. Too bad THAT history never made it to a test–perhaps someone would have learned it!
Merit pay plans have been tried in several places, but according to a May article in The Nation, none have yet to succeed that address the needs of the students. The merit pay premise assumes that if a teacher is paid to raise scores, instructional quality will increase. However, the only way to determine scientifically if the method works is to have the teacher teach a class using their current salary for an entire year and then assess them. Then the teacher needs to take the same class, reteach them a second year, but this time with merit pay attached to the results of their assessment. Then you could compare the scores from each year and see if they improved. Here’s the catch: if there was an increase you wouldn’t be able to tell if it was because of teaching the same curriculum a second time or because of the money enticement. No two class clienteles will ever be the same because of their individual human experiences, and no two sets of teaching methods will repeat exactly.Truly, the performance pay concept is impossible to implement accurately because every contaminating variable must be eliminated except for the teacher’s monetary incentive. This trivial concept is not justifiable in our school system and is in and of itself, indefensible.
Sec Duncan-Thanks for addressing the issue. Those providing education to students should be excited on using the now available longitudinal data within state and local information management system to monitor student progress. As Gen. Powell (Ret.) stated on CNN this past Sunday, the nation must address the growing problem of students graduation rates being unacceptably low in many urban centers. Keep pushing the system to be accountable for all kids! Support the good teachers and administrators, cut the others free.
Thanks.
Below are some extended remarks in response to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s July 2, 2009, speech to the National Education Association. The text of that speech is available at http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07022009.html. Monty Neill
Duncan: But sometimes, despite our best efforts, these methods don’t work. Today, America has about 5000 schools that continue to underperform year after year, despite our best efforts.
Comment: The number apparently represents those schools not making AYP for 5 years or so. Some of those schools may well be in very bad shape, others may have been making steady progress but started so far behind as to never make AYP. Some may be dysfunctional, others functional but needing more help for the school and in the communities from which the students come. How do we know the difference?
And how do we know they have received “our best efforts,” especially since until a year ago the improvement fund for Title I was essentially non-existent? Whose best efforts, how are we to know they were the “best”? Were they strong efforts to do things Duncan listed immediately previous to this point (e.g., “we have tried boosting support for teaching staff and making other changes around curriculum, school day, etc.—and sometimes it has worked. I always favor more support, collaboration, mentoring and time on task”)? Is it therefore necessary to take an extreme action, like privatize control of the school, or is it simply time to finally help schools get better on their own?
I am not opposed to extreme measures if a school really is dysfunctional after serious efforts at assistance. The Forum on Educational Accountability, which I chair, has stated that in the end states are responsible for their schools and students don’t deserve perpetually non-functional school (see “Empowering Schools and Improving Learning,” at http://www.edaccountability.org). But before generally untried nostrums – ones with only anecdotal evidence to support them, ones that seem to fail as much or more than succeed (e.g., charters, on average) – far more careful thought must go into what it takes to improve seriously troubled schools, what kinds of in-school and in-community supports are needed, etc.
Duncan goes on to cite the urgency of the situation. But doing something that has no evidence it will work in terms of improved student learning (more than test scores, however) and completion rates, and that simultaneously undermines democratic control over schools (which turning schools over to private operators very fundamentally does), is to respond via panic not thoughtful action — if the agenda is systemic, sustained improvement.
Duncan: Now let’s talk about data. I understand that word can make people nervous but I see data first and foremost as a barometer. It tells us what is happening. Used properly, it can help teachers better understand the needs of their students. Too often, teachers don’t have good data to inform instruction and help raise student achievement.
Data can also help identify and support teachers who are struggling. And it can help evaluate them. The problem is that some states prohibit linking student achievement and teacher effectiveness.
I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.
It’s time we all admit that just as our testing system is deeply flawed—so is our teacher evaluation system—and the losers are not just the children. When great teachers are unrecognized and unrewarded—when struggling teachers are unsupported—and when failing teachers are unaddressed—the teaching profession is damaged.
Comment: There are many problematic points here. While he describes the current testing system as “far from perfect” and “deeply flawed,” he criticizes prohibitions on linking that data to teachers as a way to judge “performance.” He seems to equate “data” with test scores, since he at no points suggests data is anything else. Indeed, “teachers need good data,” but that must be far more than scores on the mediocre to lousy tests that now exist, from state exams to “benchmark” tests to travesties such as DIBELS.
So when he says, “But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible,” he means that part of evaluating teachers should be their ability to raise test scores. As Alfie Kohn phrased it so sharply, this leads to “raising the scores and ruining the schools.” And if some schools are already “ruined,” focusing on test scores won’t lead to a situation in which, to again cite Duncan, the nation can “give children the very best education possible.” Schools that focus on boosting test scores do no such thing. (FairTest regularly summarizes this evidence in our quarterly Examiner newsletter and various reports; http://www.fairtest.org.)
Duncan then moves on to payment by results – “When great teachers are unrecognized and unrewarded.” He has made clear on other occasions he very much supports payment by results, though he regularly cautions he wants to do this with teachers. But what if the teachers refuse? Meanwhile, Duncan has echoed Eli Broad in claiming that payment for performance is common in other fields. As the recent EPI book by Rothstein makes clear, it is not common among professions, and where implemented it brings about goal distortion, gaming the system, and bad consequences. George Madaus has looked at paying teachers for results in Ireland, others have looked at England, and the situation is the same: it does not work.
Again, we are in a situation in which Duncan insists that due to the dire situation, we must “do something.” But the something, in this case, not only has no evidence it will not work, it has clear evidence it will not work.
Two points are here inter-twined: payment for results, and using test scores to define the results. The first has not worked in other fields, the second compounds the damage and will further intensify the score inflation now seen across the states (and that will plague a national test as well).
Teachers and their unions should flat out refuse payment for results. They will of course be attacked as protecting themselves at the expense of their students — but the truth is, they are also protecting the children from the systemic malfeasance of allowing standardized tests to control curriculum and instruction.
Duncan is correct, as many people have pointed out, that evaluation of teachers is largely a farce – for many reasons. It should be greatly improved, first of all in order to help teachers get better. It must be tied to very different forms of professional development than the trivial time-wasters that have given PD a bad name among teachers. And assessment must be overhauled, not to have “better” ways to institute payment for results, but to have good information about student learning that students, teachers, administrators and other professionals, parents, communities and states can use to improve real learning (guide, not drive, action, as Deborah Meier puts it). FEA has much to say about most of these points in our various reports such as Redefining Accountability and the report of the Expert Panel on Assessment, at http://www.edaccountability.org (not teacher or principal evaluation, however; but see the National Staff Development Council materials).
So there is much to do, and the stimulus funds as well as an overhauled ESEA can be used to improve assessment in line with FEA and FairTest recommendations, to overhaul professional development in line with FEA recommendations, to make data mean something far more than test scores, to focus on improving school capacity to serve all children well, to educate the whole child, and to pay attention to the consequences of racism and poverty that plague so many communities and their schools. Payment for “performance” is ultimately a distraction, as are national standards and a national test, from the real work of improving schools. It is time to re-focus and move in more useful ways.
Every time I hear the concept of merit pay linked to state testing results it frightens me. We who teach understand the wide variety of factors that affect test results: parent involvement or lack of; parent concern or apathy for their child’s test results; the student population which covers everything from discipline problems, the number of students who are gifted, SPED, ADHD, on 504 plans, etc.; class size; home situations; and when the tests are taken to name a few. (This year, we administered the test in our district the week students came back from Easter break!) These are all factors we cannot control, but they certainly impact test results.
Is there any possible argument to suggest that this is the standard by which teachers should be evaluated for merit pay? There are a plethora of characteristics that make an exceptional teacher, some measurable and some not. Certainly with the myriad specimens of obtainable evidence which attest to a teacher’s merit, we need not resort to test results as evidence of anything but how we were able to rise above all of the countless issues and distractions we face in education every day and still show progress.
Children should be taught to be life-long learners. As adults, we learn new skills and acquire new knowledge on a daily basis. If we didn’t, how would we do our jobs, make decisions about our family’s health or our finances. If we focus on the test, then after taking the test children would feel as if they were finished. I’m a teacher, once our standardized test has been given, the students routinely ask, “What are we going to do the rest of the year?” They feel like the last 6-8 weeks of school should just be game days because they have “finished the test”. Paying so much attention to the test takes away from the practice of living to learn and finding value in KNOWING.
In addition to that, there are a multitude of variables which may change test performance. These variables can’t be controlled by the teacher, and sometimes not by the students either. In middle grades particularly, children’s ability and mood change quickly because they are still dangling from the concrete stage of development. Each day is a bit of a surprise when talking about ability and focus. If a child has a family issue which preoccupies their mental energy, or gets nervous about a test, has a stomach ache or headache while taking the test, was called an ugly name by their best friend or not invited to a birthday party…it sounds trivial, but to children of all ages, all of those issues are emergencies and could change test performance. For any teacher who is in the classroom with children day in and day out, worried children are children who can’t perform. Whether we like to admit it or not, US children have a lot of emotional baggage that they are carrying around with them. How do you make concessions for those types of issues if you are using a test to judge teacher performance? The teacher has no control over those things even though they may have a huge effect on test scores. It is just as hard to judge a teacher on one test as it is to judge a child on one test.
I have just a couple of thoughts.
Under the current testing program, those of us who teach seniors in high school who have already “passed the test,” have absolutely no criteria to be judged by using current merit-based assessments. So I am echoing remarks made by others here that the issue IS the test as it is now.
I would also add, in support of others’ comments, that unless the accountability for student performance is placed on the student and the parent as well as on the teacher, then there can not be any accountability at all for anyone that could reasonably be deemed fair or appropriate. Duncan can talk about data all he wants, but unless the data includes socio-economic factors such as home-life income, language,
parental involvement and buy-in, cultural background and student accountability, data can be screamed to the heavens, but there will be no ears that hear it.
Drop-out rates and low test scores make schools and teachers the scapegoats for all our social problems. Schools are only one factor in a community and reflect the struggles and successes of that community. The valuable comments on this web page show a deeper understanding of students and education than the comments of the education secretary. The press needs to start listening to teachers to understand why schools are ‘failing’.
I oppose the use of student standardized test scores in teacher evaluations and the substitution of test preparation for curriculum content.
NO! an absolute no way should teacher evals. be based on test scores from one standardized test.
Teachers who KNOW what they are doing and are trained to do it well with the students in their classrooms have the expertise to make the decisions how to move each child forward in their learning.
Standardized testing does not measure the growth of the child from where they came in to a grade level and how they progressed … only against a norm from which they should not be compared… every child is different~
“I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense. But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible.
SO… in response to this.. it sounds like double speak…
If the complex task of teaching cannot be reduced to a score on a test, then this is NOT the only way a teacher should be held accountable for how well they do their job!
bk
Having had Arne Duncan at the helm of Chicago Public Schools, and remembering his agenda while in that position, I feel he’s using the same set of lyrics set to a different musical score. Imagine if you will, that you are on a production line. Your “product” is an educated child. The producers on that line are the parents, the teachers, the students’ peers, society, and the students themselves; however, the problem is that the parents are on one section of the line, the students’ peers on another, teachers on another, society on another, and last but not least, the students themselves are on another section. Each section may have its own quality control but in most instances, none of the other sections has any control over any of the other sections. Occasionally there is a confluence of the sections, i.e., open houses, communication among parents, teachers, and students, administrative influences, and cultural and societal influences. But how can one group–in this case, teachers–be responsible for the final product when they only have a “section” of the product to work on?
I think tying teacher performance to student performance is a ludicrous notion. Because business leaders look at schools as businesses, they believe that treating schools and educating the students in those schools as if they were products, they’ll be able to predict a positive outcome.
I challenge any business leader, and Mr. Duncan himself, to come into my classroom and tell me how to run it like a business to get the optimum product–an educated student. I can have my students adhere to classroom and school policies in regard to punctuality, attendance, uniform dress code, and even homework and classwork tasks; but when it comes down to actually asking them to learn something, my policies have no weight. I’ve had students who attend class daily, are always on time, yet never do any work that can be measured for the almighty data that Mr. Duncan speaks of. In my gradebook, no assignments plus no classwork, in addition to no daily participation or attempt to pass a quiz or test, or turn in a project, adds up to an “F” meaning failure. Is it my fault? I think not.
I’ve made the analogy with my students that I prepare this lavish meal for them on a daily basis; nevertheless, there are those students who do not attend class, and miss the meal; there are those who attend but pay no attention, so they do not reap the benefits of the meal. In addition, there are those who show up, nibble at the tasty morsels served to them, awaiting a response regarding the meal, yet they are apathetic and show little interest. It’s not the cook’s fault and neither is it the teacher’s fault if students fail to partake in their education, parents refuse to support the idea of education and do little to encourage their children, and students would rather go to a day time party than attend classes.
Arne Duncan is asking too much. If he really wants education to change, he needs to work on the other partners on that production line and give teachers a break.
The only way scores should be used in evaluation of teachers is if you take into accout gains, not whether or not a student passed a test. The problem is that we are comparing this years 9th graders with last years 9th graders, we look at pass failure and then we blame everything on the teachers. We are comparing apples and oranges and come up with sour grapes. The data that would be helpful would be to compare this years scores with last years scores for the same student, compare where a student starts at the beginning of the year with where he/she ended up at the end of the year, and then consider other factors such as students motivational level, is there something going on in their personal life (i.e. a parent, sibling, in prison, gang involvement, drug/drinking problems. support at home, etc, things that affect a students basic ability to be a student. All those factors being equal, the rest can be affected by the teacher, and could be considered as part of a teacher evaluation. The problem as I see it is that students are complex people, not products like those produced in industry, and therefore, not always a “fit” into a data file. WHile that is uncomfortable for administrator “types” that is a reality.
Unfortunately, most employees in the world are rated at least in part on performance. And most of their compensation is linked in part to that performance rating.
Thus, I think we must all understand that ANY argument asking not to link OUR performance to compensation–no matter how well it is constructed– is going to be perceived by MOST of the employees in the world today as not just unfair, but unreasonably unfair.
I have enjoyed the current methods of teacher evaluation, and I’m as scared as the rest of you about the tidal wave of new methods and standards of evaluation that I see approaching. But in the current geo-cultural labor environment I just don’t believe that it is either completely fair or completely possible to avoid that wave. It’s washed over just about every other industry on the globe.
A silver lining: My years spent in several industries other than teaching have taught me that–while every evaluative system is flawed–even relatively unregulated industries establish relatively fair criteria for evaluation. It’s just sound business practice.
No!! The exact problem with the whole approach to assessment today and NCLB is that so much rides on the score of one test (a test which is often flawed, particularly for the many English language learners I teach). We need to diversify our assessments and incorporate alternative and informal assessments in our evaluations (including anecdotal records and portfolios, for example). Linking teacher performance/pay/evaluations to student test scores is like trying to find a shortcut method to telling whether a teacher is bad or good. There is no shortcut!! Stop wasting time and money looking for one!! Okay, so maybe student scores could be a small factor in a teacher’s evaluation. There is information to be gleaned from the scores, but only within the context of a variety of other assessment tools. A single students score cannot tell you whether the teacher is strong or not. So many other factors play into the results of each score, including issues like administration, the educational system and standards, and the design of the test. But no one wants to take those into account or blame those because that would make fixing them and it is far easier to blame the teacher and deal with the teacher.
I support using testing data to evaluate teachers- depending on the test. In Utah, we’ve been through several state tests so far and some have been better than others. I don’t believe that any of them are as good as an assessment that teachers would write themselves. I think the problems with the test come from buying end-of-level tests instead of having teachers write them. Teachers are perfectly capable of writing a comprehensive and effective end-of-level exam, and such ownership would go a long way in alleviating teachers’ concerns. If it’s a teacher-created test based on teacher-created standards, then by all means, use it to gauge teachers’ effectiveness.
Sec Duncan isn’t really willing to discuss the true issues with testing. The tests themselves are fundamentally flawed. They are biased in terms of SES. So the middle class and upper class do fine on the test; the poor do not. No where in all his remarks does he mention or address this or suggest how to correct it. Merit pay will drive teachers from poorer districts to richer ones. Before you tie pay to these scores, you have to fix the test.
Secondly, why don’t we ask Sec Duncan how many times his district hit AYP while he was there. The answer would be zero. So he’s gone from the leader of an “underperforming” (his words) district, to being the biggest advocate for keeping the current system. Do as I say not as I do??
As a teacher, professional developer, and consultant for low-performing schools, I strongly believe that student achievement and test scores should be a part of teacher evaluation. As with all data collection, we should not rely on one test or one type of data collection to determine a course of action. The same is true with using student data to determine teacher effectiveness. We need to include student data as one source of evaluation along with other sources such as evidence of effective teaching practices evidenced through observation and artifacts along with demonstration of on-going professional development and other sources of data linked to research on effective teaching.
I also support the concept of merit pay. Our current system rewards teachers for longevity — not on good teaching. What other profession continues to reward employees just for staying put?
No, do not evaluate a teacher’s performance solely on test results. Ditto to Kelley Messina’s comment.
Professional development is crucial to any improvement in the schools. It must be effective, not a time filler, and there must be time to work together to implement what is learned. The problem is that a new system is brought in every couple of years before anyone has given the previous one a chance to work.
Another problem is with the ineffective teachers, with friends in high places, that will never get fired. Because they can trick a system like the National Boards into showing that they are a good teacher they are revered as a role model when they cannot teach.
There has to be an element of anonymous peer evaluation in the teacher evaluation process. The teacher that follows a teacher with the same students knows whether the students have learned. As a profession we need to stop protecting every teacher just because they are a member of our profession. We have to weed out the bad teachers ourselves. Every school has a couple and everyone knows who they are. Check for the teachers who have never taught another teacher’s children. Tenure was not intended to protect poor quality teachers, only those with a different political point of view.
Test scores shouldn’t even be included in student evaluation. Urban students are not invested in high stakes tests. These tests do not affect their grades and so in the school where I teach we’re lucky if students show up and blindly fill in the circles. More accurate assessment of student learning and progress is best demonstrated through observation and portfolios – too expensive and time consuming for the people who claim to care.
For years political leaders at all governmental levels have been trying to instill “merit pay” using test scores as a basis for their evaluation. As well, they continue to ask teachers to reform, reinvent, and reevaluate their instructional delivery systems and curriculum focuses. As stated by my colleagues, the problems with doing this are overwhelming and some are insurmountable.
Educators (and please make the distinction between educators and those who just show up to get the pay check) are vested in their classrooms. They understand the myriad of problems facing them: lack of positive parental influence (at all economic levels), lack of hope among students, lack of relativity between the student’s role and their larger global impact. Educators continue to search for methods of reaching a student body that becomes further away from them and some of this is created by the over-testing phenomenon behind NCLB. If merit pay should be given, give it to those teachers who, through personal portfolio, make an academic/intellectual impact in their students. And do not reward those who may be on the inside circle of an administrators chosen group, or those who refuse to change, or those who misinterpret that old school only refers to the curriculum delivery method and not the curriculum.
Then, perhaps as Gen. Powell stated, cut those who don’t show professional development loose!
I am just wondering if the teacher evaluated will include the teacher each student had the year before the test was taken? I teach all English 11, which is supposed to be American Literature (and I try to teach literature when I can avoid administrative pressure), but it is each year getting to be American SOL Prep instead. I have great test scores over all (96%), but this year I had some particularly low students. That happens, sometimes I have kids who come to me very low, and I do what I can to get them ahead. I can’t control how they come to me, but evidently I will be the only one measured for their performance.
If teachers of SOL courses are to be measured so strictly, will we be able to decline teaching those courses? Will the SOL courses be evenly distributed among staff, thus increasing all the preps for each teacher in the name of fairness? Will people who want to take the risk for extra incentive pay be willing to take on all the SOL classes even if they may not be the best teacher for the job, since the smartest teachers certainly know the perils of school politics?
Will we take each student’s attendance record into consideration when reflecting on their test scores? If they have poor attendance is that the teacher’s fault, and will the teacher be held accountable still?
Quite a few of my students have substance abuse issues. Can we institute drug testing as part of regular ed classes and as requirements to receive special education accomidations? Getting through the haze of drug use can be a huge misuse of time, and eliminating that behavior (drug use) can allow even a decent teacher to appear as a great teacher when the students learn more. If a school doesn’t have an effective drug use intervention/prevention program is it right to hold the teacher accountable for a drug user’s low performance? Whose fault is it that the child is doing drugs? I once had a child come to the SOL drunk! How will the merit program account for that kind of stupidity when they make a measure of my worth based on that drunk fool’s failing score? Why didn’t the court system fix that child the first time they had him? The second? The third? Shall we merit pay judges?
I have had as many as six languages in the room. Compound that with low attendance, illiteracy in the original language, poverty, lack of sleep, competing with the after school job, the girl friend/boy friend, taking care of siblings . . . is the teacher supposed to fix all that in order for the child to perform well on the test? When you have all perfect outside the classroom, all my students legal citizens who speak English when they come to me, have them fed, clothed, sober, well-rested, free of family stress, living in a stable home . . . when the politicians and politicos have all that fixed in society then I can give a perfect test score every time.
The test score measure the minimum. Why is there so much worry about the minimum? Perhaps it is time to change how we look at education when the most those in charge can do is focus on meeting the minimum standard. Sorry, but that’s not what we do in my classroom and personally, I am insulted to think people less intelligent than I am would hold sway over my financial and professional stability. I got out of the Army because I couldn’t control that, and I can just as easily get out of teaching.
I find it interesting that people who know how to fix teaching and schools are not in the classroom. Maybe they have taught, but they are not in the classroom. Distance from the room tends to make one only remember the ideals, the good things, the perfect teaching and perfect students. But the daily reality is vastly different–I am amazed at the humans in front of me in my classroom. Perhaps if I can get them all to meet the minimum standard, then they should make good politicians.
I measure the success (or failure) of my ability to teach by the progress made by my students based on beginning, middle, and end of year assessments. This data, combined with district dictates, guide what I teach. Since NCLB testing has evolved into what was never intended and has put fear in the hearts of many teachers and districts. Linking test scores to monetary gain for teachers is not the solution to a better education. Each year, every group of students, is different. Multiple factors determine whether or not each one be successful on the “test”. Often times, extremely challenging students are placed with the most qualified teachers. These students do come around and become successful students but not always by “state” standards.
We participated in a D.A.T.E. Grant at my present school last year which allocates additional funds to teachers based on the test performance of different groups of their students (ethnic, socioeconomic, etc.). I did not agree with the program but would not begrudge any teacher of additional income. What I did hear by years end was grumblings of discontent because some content teachers (with non-tested groups of students) were not eligible for the same number of students, thus the same amount of money, as others or not at all.
If we could somehow stay focused on the children, reduce class size significantly so we are able to meet their needs, and only accept academic progress for all, state dictated tests would become what they should be: one measure of progress.
As a first-year teacher, I have had a brief classroom experience when it comes to testing. However, I have seen enough to know that so many students do not take these tests seriously, knowing that their grades are not affected. Test scores for our school look like roller-coaster rails for each student. They ability in the classroom is often clearly more advanced than what test scores prove. Frankly, I see excessive testing as more a waste of instructional time, let alone something that should certainly NOT be used to gauge teacher efficacy.
I’d like to thank Secretary Duncan for addressing this “elephant in the dining room.” As a fifth grade teacher and Instructional Interventionist, I have seen far too much consentration on “the test” to the detriment of the other standards required to be taught and mastered. This is the teacher and administrator’s fault. Although standards are minimimum essentials they still must be taught and mastered and then levered upon for real education. I have never been bothered by the idea that my performance would be and has been gagued by my students’ performance; although the series of assessments is flawed it is still the best normalized assessment tool available for district, state, and national norms. If I cannont motivate, if I cannot teach, if I cannot get my students to master the minimimum the state proclaims they need to master – then I should seek employment elsewhere. Education is both art and science – if I am not a master of my art and science then I don’t deserve the title “teacher” or the pay connected with it. I have little use for teacher unions and ineffective teachers who moan about standards – folks they are minimum essentials – if you can’t teach to them and lever your students past them – you’ve got no business in education.
I agree that many students need a longer day, for tutoring or homework support. I agree that some professional development classes are a scam to boost teachers’ salaries.
But a am very concerned with linking teacher evaluation to students’ performance. I say this as a suburban high school teacher who teaches predominantly honors classes to students with all sorts of family support. My students do brilliantly on the exams — but their success on these tests are because of many factors far beyond the curriculum and instruction I provide. All the teachers in past years, all the parental involvement and effort, all the benefits of being upper middle class…those factors mean much more. To pay me a bonus for my students’ successes would be unjust.
I realize that in particular when I teach that rare student in the suburbs who is very poor, works 40 hours after school to help support the family, has perhaps one parent only, and that parent is poorly educated and perhaps fluent in a language other than English. If we extend the school day for these students, they can’t stay: they feel they have to work.
If we suggest, as I did to an administrator, that a student in this situation needed to stretch high school over five or six years, with more study hall support during the day, I learned that that would make the school “look bad;” our graduation rates would go down. It would “look better” for a student to graduate with a D average “on time.”
We need to fix that too!
Should doctors be judged on the health of their patients?
I am opposed to tying student test scores to teacher evaluations. The variables are too great. Students who don’t care, vindictive students, or even a student who is sick on test day could affect a teacher’s career. In Alabama, students only have to pass 3 of 5 sections on the graduation exam, so what happens if a student intentionally blows off the test in my subject because he has already passed 3 sections? Sure, most kids will do their best and want to receive a score that correlates to their ability and achievement. But what percentage don’t feel that way? 1%? 5%? 10%? More?
Too many other factors affect this, too. State tests grade all kids alike, regardless of adequate access to textbooks, number of mainstreamed 504s and IEPs, and other factors. How would we evaluate a teacher with 20 textbooks for class of 30 kids, 12 of whom have 504s or IEPs? Would you evaluate that teacher by the same standard as one with plenty of books and few or no mainstreamed special education students?
Testing and state report cards at my school have led to shameful practices. We put students who can’t control their tempers or who don’t feel like sitting in class for nine months in special “computer-based” courses where they can finish a year’s worth of credit in a week. Students know that all they have to do is threaten to drop out and they can get flexible schedules (read “go home early”). Why do we do this? Because our district wants the points on the state report cards so that we can attain the highest rating. Are we really serving the kids well? No way. But gosh, we look good on paper.
Data-driven instruction? I can tell sooner and react more effectively by using the formative and summative assessments that are already part of my classroom instruction. Assessments are meant to do just that: give the teacher and the student feedback on learning progress. If the state tests were just one measure in a spectrum of assessments that included multiple forms of assessments, I might be okay with them. As it is, it becomes the sole focus that drives everything we do. Shouldn’t the students’ learning be our driving force? We no longer serve the kids’ needs, we serve the rules set down by legislators who couldn’t survive a week teaching in my high school. Shame on all of you.
I’m deeply troubled by the data-driven nature of today’s education world. We measure students and teachers by flawed standardized tests a mile wide with absolutely no depth.
Politicians and bureacrats need to read Kelly Gallagher’s book “Readicide: How Schools are Killing Reading and What You Can Do About It” and take heed of the research cited that argues our current reality with its focus on stadardized testing and standardizing is not only surreal and ridiculous, but also destroying education in this country. Ironically, while our major competitors China Singapore, South Korea, and Japan institute educational reforms to foster innovative thinking, and China, recognizing how standardized testing smothers creative thinking, has minimized the consequences of standardized testing (Gallagher 114), the United States moves backwards with its test and data-driven focus.
Yes, we need better accountability in schools; and yes, there are teachers and even administrators that need to go. But the federal government cannot micromanage education to that extent; it’s not physically possible.
I confess my disillusionment with our current “system” of education has led me to conclude: Perhaps it’s time to take government, particularly federal government, out of education and support states and districts developing educational models that work for their populations rather than a cookie-cutter, one size fits all, factory approach to education.
National Board Certified Teacher
Merit pay, wow, no other profession is asked to do such a thing. How will the merit pay be linked, will I be responsible for the years of teaching before the student got to me, will I share my merit pay with all the teachers the student has had before me? Will the merit pay be linked directly to standarized testing, so my pay will be determined by one moment in time, one time of the year. Well this just will not work.
I wonder when there will be a test that measures the whole child. I want my pay to be tied to child development, not merely how they perform on a stressful, high-stakes standardized (read: biased) test.
First off, I had students who were failing my class but passed the CAHSEE and other standardized tests with really high scores. When I asked them about it they said they had just straight up guessed on most of the questions and that it really wasn’t that hard. These are the same students who in my class, couldn’t distinguish a subject in a sentence, couldn’t identify the main topic of an informational or literary text. On the other side of the issue, I had honors students who didn’t pass the tests because they actually took the time to think about the question and give what they thought was “the best” answer (per language in the tests). These are honors students who may as well have guessed the same as their lower achieving peers and passed the test. Students told me afterwards that they just should have guessed on the tests and saved themselves the agrivation. To say that these students’ test scores are indicative of how well we, as teachers have done our job is insane! I say save money, get rid of all of these so called “standardized tests” and go back to the old fashion method of determining both student and teacher success GRADES!
As most of the comments here reflect teacher opinions, I also have the perspective of a 25 year veteran teacher who has seen a lot in those years in the classroom. While many of Mr. Duncan’s statements I can agree with, many I cannot. As a public education supporter, I cannot and never will support charter schools or vouchers. I had a student a few years ago who took tax payer dollars to attend a private school for 3 years, and then returned to public school in the 6th grade not being able to read, write or work a basic math problem. Over $20,000. was spent on this student “not” being taught much of anything for 3 years. This is the worst case scenario, I know, but it does happen and it happens every day where I come from.
The other one of Mr. Duncan’s reforms that I cannot support is the standardization on a national level of what skills must be mastered at each grade level in order to pass a grade or receive a high school diploma. I have also seen these work in reverse to penalize students from graduating from high school. I have seen thousands of students denied a high school diploma because they could not pass one test, a test that is so flawed and so skewed to testing one sort of student ability, that I doubt I could pass it, and I have a Master’s degree.
I also oppose Mr. Duncan’s premise that test scores should be used for teacher accountability and merit pay. Here where I live in the state of Florida, many districts, mine included, rejected Gov. Bush’s plan a couple of years ago to receive millions of state dollars for merit pay when it was tied to one test, the FCAT, as a means of determining who would receive the funds. I would have received possibly $3,000. in merit pay. That would have been an insult to me for one thing, as it would only have been a reduction in my annual salary due to taxes I would have had to pay. But even more than that, it would oppose a fundamental belief that I have that the FCAT is no test of ability for students; it is a test to see how long you can sit in a seat and correctly answer ambiguous questions about a passage that you may or may not be interested in.
While I am a Democrat and supporter of Pres. Obama’s agenda for the most part, I feel he has not chosen wisely in the area of his advisors on education. I have been in the classroom and seen what NCLB has done to the quality of teaching in the classroom, and it has not been positive. I remember a day when I had the freedom to teach what my students were interested in and when I could take them 2 grade levels beyond their reading, math, science and social studies “testing” abilities. I now have as many as 9 administrators come in my room and tell me my walls don’t have the right posters to look like the “program” they bought for me to teach without any input from me, at a cost I might add of $9 million. I now have administrators that have never even taught a class, tell me how and what I should teach. This is the result at a local level of what a federal mandate such as NCLB can do the education of our children and the decision making process of the classroom teacher.
While I would love to believe that good intentions are all it takes from federal law makers, I know it is not the truth. That is why my efforts of going to Capitol Hill every April for the last 4 years is now shifting to the state and local levels. I will be retiring soon, but every ounce of strength I have left after teaching all day long will go into grass roots advocacy for teachers. No matter what you pass at a national level, no matter how much money you throw at education, what happens on the local level is appalling. Until the federal laws have teeth enough to make sure funds are spent and initiatives implemented the same way in every state and in every district, it is all a moot point to me and most other teachers in this country. What we need is a reform of how we can best support the brightest and best students coming out of college as teachers for the next generations through financial and mentoring programs that reward their efforts, not punitive measures to weed out ineffective teachers. We need reform at the administrative levels that will embrace creative and innovative programs throughout this country that don’t try to “measure” their students’ abilities with one state or national test. When we have that mentality, we will have success in our schools.
Thanks for listening. I’m sure I was preaching to the choir but maybe Mr. Duncan will actually read some of these blogs from teachers as he has stated he does in his speeches.
NO MERIT PAY! PROTECT TENURE!
Anyone who would even consider the application of ‘test data’ in evaluation or retention of a teacher shows a lack of information (I’m being kind) about how schools are organized. Perhaps in elementary one teacher has a great expanse of
influence on the education of each child in his/her “class” in the areas where a room/class is still self-contained. However, that would not be true in ANY upper grade, probably starting as low as 5th, and definitely up through high school. So what do we do with keyboarding teachers, band directors, health teachers, etc., etc. Then there is the area of Special Ed. teachers. They already have the students identified as struggling to learn. Also, it would be ridiculous to compare teachers’ scores in poverty/at risk schools with others that are more advantaged. YES, that makes a difference, even within one bldg. quite often.
Those who have excellent nutrition, study areas at home, and all possible resources available to them (like new computers) just seem to flourish in the classroom.
FURTHERMORE, and this is probably my biggest pet peeve, when do we begin to take into account that not all students are equally motivated? Yes, a teacher should struggle to try to reach & motivate his/her students, but anyone who has been in the trenches of a classroom know that there are many distractions today. Also, not all homes are 100% the educational experience and encouraging the student to put education/school work first. Many are not “in control” of their youth and send them off tired and poorly fed for us to work with.
Merit Pay?? The very advocacy of it shows a great lack of knowledge… a working knowledge of day to day lives of our young teens. Surely their lives must boil down to more than one test, on one half of a day, in one room, at one moment.
Student test scores should not be a part of teacher evaluations. Every year the scores are going to change because you have different students coming through. Teachers should be evaluated on collaboration and the changes they have made to become a better teacher.
The current focus on teacher ineptitude is rather analogous to blaming cooks for cholera in pre-Haussman Paris. Master teachers abound at any given moment, but the conditions that permit their work to result in meaningful results among children are restricted, as much in communities with too many resources at hand as in those with too few.
If the major factors affecting each child’s academinc progress are quantitatively assessed (key factors are already well described in the education, public health, mental health, and social work literatures, and they are routinely measured in these arenas), these findings linked with that child’s educational testing outcomes, and the results statistically analyzed according to established multivariate techniques, the composite result will yield a meaningful indicator of classroom teacher outcome, as well as other measures of use in ameliorating potential problems before they sabotage the ability of a child to function well as an adult in a democratic society.
The problem is complex; the solution, honestly appreciated, difficult. Whether the courage to face that fact or the wit to make addressing it seem exciting within a culture that prefers to demean educators (even after the debacle brought about by the single-minded, business-first vision of the so-called “best and brightest” in Wall Street financial houses) is not clear.
What is clear to me is that women and men who gave years of their lives, despite unreasonable conditions in the classroom, financial penalty and general public disregard, will be penalized for the general disinclination of communities to support schools in any number of meaningful ways that we know can work. We know what is needed; we don’t want to pay for it, nor are we keen to admit that we must undertake the protracted reorganization needed to implement, link, and assess comprehensive services for children. Until we do, not just individual children, but huge swaths of children, will end up producing poorly for our society, rather than richly, and well.
I am no longer a classroom teacher, I am not in education, this comment has no affect on my professional standing or income.
The above comments illuminate the complexities of standardized testing, tenure, teacher evaluation, and merit pay. I sincerely hope that Mr. Duncan will carefully consider the views posted here and not dismiss them simply because they come from educators. I’m not clear on why they aren’t the first group consulted when considering far-reaching policy changes. Mr. Duncan’s argument that educators resist change simply doesn’t hold up–especially given all the changes that have been made in the past 8 years (a few generated by teachers in their classrooms and on their campuses, many more imposed). The sincerity and passion in the above comments testifies to a deep commitment to students,
to colleagues, and the teaching profession and a shared goal of creating an educated democracy where students have the skills they need to contribute and to flourish.
A real life outcome of merit pay will be those with the most experience leaving the most needy students. A teacher with seniority in my high school gets to pick the courses he/she teaches. What would motivate an experienced teacher to teach lower achieving students, learning disabled students, troubled students…? if the pay is going to go to those who teach the cream of the crop??? Aren’t we leaving the neediest students to those with the least experience?
As a newer teacher with now five years of experience and a former manager who worked with entry-level employees, my comments are based upon the opinion that K-12 education should prepare students thoroughly for what comes after high school whether it is a full-time job or further education. In the real world, I was paid for my performance and productivity of my team. You can be assured that I was highly selective of the employees I hired, trained and retained as my own livelihood depended upon it.
For the past two years I have been working with students who elect into honors classes and the students who have failed their exit exams taken as sophomores and now, as seniors, must master the skills necessary to pass the tests to graduate. Unexpectedly, both these groups of students have one main thing in common; neither see high school education as a relevant stepping stone from the present to future.
Sure the honors students know they must earn good grades to get into the university of their choice, but few see beyond the “A.” They are points-oriented, not learning oriented and so are their parents. I have had across-the-board excellent quiz scores after teaching a unit only to have failures on the same material two weeks later. “But, Mrs. B., that was two weeks ago, why do I have to know that now?” My remedial seniors see high school as only a place to check in with friends on an occasional basis. Their jobs, that don’t follow child-labor rules in hours or working conditions, and family drama take a front seat to learning. No employer is going to ask whether or not they passed their exit exams in the jobs they are working. They don’t see the present jobs as dead-end as they are also working with adults and senior citizens who also need the money for extras.
Perhaps the high-stakes tests are not high enough stakes. If I am to be paid for my students’ performance, perhaps all high stakes tests should be exit exams over the material covered in classes and students cannot move to the next course, or phase in their education, or be issued a work permit without earning passing scores. Perhaps then the emphasis for students would be on learning the skills and content for that specific course and students without the pre-requisite skills wouldn’t be allowed to move into the course until they are ready to learn the higher-level material and skills. That way I am not evaluated on what my students didn’t master in earlier grades and my colleagues know that students who move from my courses are ready for theirs. And students, who need to learn to perform and compete in a challenging global economy, will see that mastering skills and information leads to promotion from course to course, grade to grade, high school to higher education or career position to career position.
Of course, to make this system work, all courses need to be relevant to students’ lives after high school. And that is a different problem and debate for another time.
If by student achievement, you mean growth over time, then I would agree that student achievement is most certainly connected to teaching. When you talk about data, though, it always sounds like test scores simply because those “numbers” can easily be converted into percentages and so forth and it is pretty easy to do an item analysis with such numbers. But it is patently unfair to judge teaching based on standardized tests, especially those that rely on multiple choice questions. It also unfair to compare teachers with difficult/struggling kids to those who teach basically motivated kids.
There is a way, though, to gather data and to use that data to inform instruction, especially using portfolios and other evidences of student work. The data can be gathered based on daily record keeping on both the teacher and the students’ parts (the students keep up their portfolios and notebooks and the teachers record the daily decisions students make and/or how much students worked on a particular assignment and what difficulties they encountered). The portfolios and projects will be evidence of what students were able to do and can serve to help students and teachers decide what needs to be done next. It is the growth over time concept developed by Lev Vygotsky (zone of proximal development)and is a more realistic evaluation of what a student can do and what a student needs to do.
There are great advantages to such an approach but often class size and external achievement pressures get in the way. The advantage is that the data show what a student can and has been able to achieve and can point to further needs without using some kind of “standard” that can make a student feel inadequate at best and stupid at worst.
One last thought: as an experienced teacher I know that the easiest students to work with no matter what the ability or socio-economic level are the students whose parents are invested in them, K-12. The reasons are pretty obvious, but when parents work with me (they help their children with their portfolios and notebooks, for example) and determining where the child is at and where the child needs to go, magic things can happen. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the affective aspect to learning is paramount but often ignored because it’s not a linear thing that one can analyze with “data.”
Why would educators be punished for students who do not want to be in a testing situation? I teach one of the grades that is required to pass a test before graduation. Too many students are disinterested in the standardized tests, especially if they don’t mean anything to them, or that they may take the test several times before graduation. So, no matter how well the teachers prepare the students, if the students are not interested, it is NOT the teacher’s fault. Lastly, I would just like to get a raise or step increase. It has been three years at the same pay.
Student test scores are about students, not teachers. It would be a more productive use of time and effort if we focus on the goal at hand, providing the best we can for the students that we teach. If we become divided then we are less likely to achieve our goal.
Perhaps we should use student scores as part of teacher evaluation, but only slightly – perhaps as only one tenth of the total evidence for teacher effectiveness.
Putting great weight on student scores only encourages teachers to teach to the test. That means much more “skill and drill,” a strategy that may help kids pass the test, but certainly does not address authemtic learning and most definitely has nothing do to with authentic assessment.
Teacher evaluation is much more complex than student scores on a multiple choice test. If we are going to tie teacher pay to teacher performance, lets invest in the development of an authentic, multifacited evaluation instrument that accurately shows a teacher’s expertise – portfolios, observation in the classroom, evidence of preparation, instruction, and student evaluation.
Although it will be expensive, the model used by the state of Tennessee when the State Dept of Ed. evaulated teachers for the Career Ladder in the 1980’s is a good place to start. Certainly Senator Alexander, who was governor of Tennessee at the time, can offer substantive information on that model.
If the Feds are not willing to spring for the cost of such genuine assessment, forget simply using test scores as the cheap and inaccurate way of evauating teachers!!
Suellen
Perhaps we should use student scores as part of teacher evaluation, but only slightly – perhaps as only one tenth of the total evidence for teacher effectiveness.
Putting great weight on student scores only encourages teachers to teach to the test. That means much more “skill and drill,” a strategy that may help kids pass the test, but certainly does not address authemtic learning and most definitely has nothing do to with authentic assessment.
Teacher evaluation is much more complex than student scores on a multiple choice test. If we are going to tie teacher pay to teacher performance, lets invest in the development of an authentic, multifacited evaluation instrument that accurately shows a teacher’s expertise – portfolios,evidence of student work, observation in the classroom, evidence of preparation, instruction, and student evaluation.
Although it will be expensive, the model used by the state of Tennessee when the State Dept of Ed. evaulated teachers for the Career Ladder in the 1980’s is a good place to start. Certainly Senator Alexander, who was governor of Tennessee at the time, can offer substantive information on that model.
If the Feds are not willing to spring for the cost of such genuine assessment, forget simply using test scores as the cheap and inaccurate way of evauating teachers!!
Suellen
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s words are the exact antithesis to what teachers need to hear. His track record in Chicago sends shock waves through the profession. Educators need to hear words that recognize the enormous role that socio-economic status plays in a child’s education. So many children come to school poorly fed, with health and dental problems so devastating to a learning ambience. It would be so refreshing to hear the head of the Department of Education talk about restoring local control to our school boards and converting the Department of Education into a resource which recognizes our infinite human diversity.
Even after 30+ years of teaching I still know that all classes of learners are not made the same. Some years the stars must have smiled because children born that year seem more interested and able to learn. Other years, the stars take a vacation. Most are in between.
And when does the teacher work hardest? With those whose stars were dim or missing. AND that is when teachers should be praised. On the constellation years (aah, we hope for plural here) why should the teacher be rewarded? The year is reward enough.
I recommend Herbert Kohl’s small but powerful book, “I Won’t Learn from You!: The Role of Assent in Learning.”
Teaching is a second career for me, having seen manufacturing decline as a quality manager. I used data for corrective action and to monitor THE PROCESS, not necessarily the operator or employee. Data is very rarely analyzed in Education for corrective action or for any reason other than results from a single test or inspection after the fact. I often plot my students scores to identify the CAUSE of my students low or high scores. My goal is to continuously improve all of my students by eliminating or utilizing the out layers on a control chart. Merit pay reminds me of when I worked for a company who had a bonus system based on “Time Trials”. In the late eighties, this was deemed inefficient and often resulted in poor quality. It did increase productivity but lost business in a competitive market which strived for quality and reliability. Big business fought this new philosophy of quality improvement because it affected the bottom line. They were short sighted. As we see today, although the American worker is the most productive in the world, it products are inefficient and unreliable. Management refused to use statistical methods and the cost of quality to control processes. Instead they use marketing strategies to sell poor quality and lay-off or downsize the workers. Thereby big business plans on doing the same thing with education. We must use the data to improve the process of education, not as an inspection after the fact, it’s too late. Merit pay will result in more students being graduated who can’t make change or fill out an application. It will become a marketing strategy used by big business to push their products and destroy the last, vital to the middle class and all workers, labor union. America must become the world leader in Education, not with marketing new big business programs and test scores which are short sighted. Give control back to the teachers, but give them the ability to utilize the data along with their ability to know what their students need. The number one job of a teacher is to know their students. They consider many factors, along with the methods of data analysis, nothing can match this ability nor measure it. If more observations of teachers were done, no one would ever blame a teacher for the state of education today.
Are any of these educational “leaders” willing to tie THEIR pay to the results of one test? I don’t see Mr. Duncan putting his paycheck (which, I’m sure, is a bit more substantial than mine) where his mouth is. When these folks are ready to lead the way by actually doing what they want me to do, then they can tie my pay to any standard they wish.
Having given or proctored standardized (who’s standards??) tests for many years, I can tell you I do not want my pay tied to kids who sleep during most of the test, bubble in butterfly designs, refuse to take it, or are too stressed to keep their breakfast down. During every test I proctored last year, over half of the students didn’t even bring a pencil!
Frankly, I’m tired of being the bad person. Education is a four-point structure: parents, students, teachers, and administrators. When one of the points refuse their share of the work, then where does that leave the other three??
If educators can choose the “natural resources” we receive, then yes, it is fair to assess according to student performance. However, parents currently send us the “best resources” they have; educators don’t have a choice nor quality control to deny these “resources” access.
I am very alarmed by this speech. I work in a school in which the majority of incoming ninth grade students read at or below third grade level, with a large number of those actually reading at or below kindergarten level. Yet, these students are expected to pass a ninth-grade English/Language Arts exam that tests their reading. The fact that all of my students increased their reading levels by an average of five to six years in one year was not considered success because the majority of them failed the exam…many by only one to three points. On paper, I look like a failure, but in reality, I feel that I was a success. When I see a child who can’t read simple words leave my class reading newspapers, magazines,manuals, short stories, and young adult books (although they are usually very short), I feel a sense of pride. However, in the eyes of a remote government agency that only looks at test scores, I am a failure, my students are a failure, and my school is a failure. If we are going to judge according to test scores,then let us judge how much individual students progress from point A to point B. Let us take into consideration the number of days that student has missed school (absenteeism is a problem at my school), how many days that child is late to class causing him/her to miss half of a lesson, and also consider how many days that child is so tired from being kept awake by home situations that prevent proper rest that he/she cannot keep their eyes open. The speaker admits to not having been in front of a class. Until you are in front of a class, and preferably one in a proverty ridden inner city school such as mine, you don’t have the right to say what needs to be done to improve education.
When doctors are paid solely by those patients who are healed, and lawyers are paid only for the cases they win, it may be possible for teachers to be paid according to test results.
Student test scores should be considered in teacher evaluations ONLY if the teacher has had a direct input in creating and implementing the assessment.
No. It is a ridiculous idea to tie teacher performance to test scores. One of the many reasons centers around the highly inadequate tests. Additionally, these tests literally destroy the educational process by forcing teachers and students to concentrate on the tests and by preventing the teachers from really attending to the true educational needs of the each individual class. No one holds the parents, with their attitudes and influence responsible for their own children. No one holds the community at large responsible. There is simply the fact that everyone in the country is blaming all teachers for all problems. Both government and business are trying to run the educational system; they are collectively ruining the system. Teachers have not created this problem; the huge mass-produced schools constantly interferred with by the government have. If people would allow teachers to teach, and stop intefering, things might have a chance of working again. First, however, get rid of the interminable, time-wasting tests.
I agree with the group of respondents who believe that NCLB- inspired, standardized tests are useless if not actively harmful. I agree that they should not even be used to evaluate students.
I do believe, however, that assessment of both students and teachers is necessary in this world. However, just as the “real world” generally doesn’t rely for evaluating performance on a single instrument based on ridiculous standards; neither should the world of education. In both arenas, performance should be evaluated based on standards that reflect knowledge and skills that are truly needed.
In addition, teachers and students should be evaluated based on the progress (whatever THAT is) made from the beginning of a class or semester. It is entirely irrational to assume that all 9th grade students, for example, begin a school year having the same knowledge and skills. A student and her teacher should be rewarded for how far they have come from where they really were, rather than from some imaginary and fallacious starting point.
Is anybody listening to us teachers?? It seems like so many of us keep telling policy-makers the same thing over and over!
If linking student achievement to merit pay and evaluations are to be successfully negotiated we need to appeal to both sides of the issue and truly compromise. Because of the great influence of teachers on the general public, those blessed with the jobs must be qualified and capable.
Teachers must be protected by a reasonable salary base and termed contracts (2-6 years, like in politics). The achievement must be measured by mastery level that will demonstrate that the teacher’s students are capable to an acceptable level, with merit pay being earned for high achievements. At the same time, poor performance will be considered in contract renegotiations with the schools providing high quality professional development and post-graduate education for teachers (especially, those who need assistance in boosting student performance–grades for these classes could also reflect on the evaluations).
We cannot reasonably support tenure, because tenure is next to nepotism. The schools need teachers who can teach properly and guide the students towards success.
It is reasonable to be weary of unmotivated students. However, if a teacher accepts the responsibility to develop these skills within the students, then that teacher must live up to that responsibility. Nonetheless, this could also be reflected in the evaluations as not to skew results too greatly–although, I find it personally demeaning to the children in question. (Special Education teachers would possibly even be exempt from such standards as they are working with students who truly may be physiologically incapable.)
I hope these suggestions do not fall upon deaf ears. Public education was built on ideals of equality, but if it is to compete with private institutions, we must make critical improvements in how we educate America’s youth.
It’s July ninth. I just came back from my classroom with about 30 pounds of teacher edition texts so I can prepare for the new grade level I will be teaching in the fall. Will I get paid for the hours I spend during my vacation for this preparation?
Next week I am taking a technology course that I will pay for myself, so I can better use my classroom “Smartboard”. Will I be repaid?
Last Tuesday I purchased $45 worth of educational materials…a mere drop in the bucket. My annual expenditures will undoubtedly be over $1000, as they are every year. (I shouldn’t complain however. I will get a big $200 tax credit after all.)
The real question is, does all this uncompensated time and money make me a better teacher? The answer is: I don’t care. I also don’t care if I get merit pay or not. In my opinion the very idea of merit pay is an insult.
Yes, I need to be paid. I, like the vast majority of my colleagues, work hard for my salary. And thanks to my school district’s negotiated pay schedule, I don’t have to compete with my fellow teachers for my paycheck. I can share my materials and the things that I learn with them without fearing they might show me up. I don’t have to butter up the principal for a good evaluation. I don’t have to fear having hard-to-teach students in my class because they might bring down my test scores.
So then, why am I motivated to spend my summers and my money to get ready to teach my new students in the fall? It really is no mystery. In the fall there will be thirty reasons for my motivation who will walk into my classroom, take their seats and begin to learn.
When will politicos realize that certain professions draw people who care more about making a difference than making a buck?
Tests are the constant in academic performance equations. Students are the variables. Everyone seems to think that teachers have the one solution.
We don’t. We can’t control all the variables…we can’t make students perform–they have to want to.
As I read through the comments already posted, I found that we all share the same frustrations. As educators, we are being forced to fit the business/industry mold that was shaped nearly a century ago. Sadly, little has changed.
Public education began as a means of preparing students for the world of work — this meant conditioning children to attend formal schooling (designed to simulate the work day) where they would receive instruction in valuable life skills (which translates to the ability to follow written and oral instructions, work with others, and extend critical thinking, etc.) so that they could become model citizens and employable, typically in blue-collar factory jobs or secretarial positions, depending on gender. **Note, while the institution hasn’t changed much, expectations certainly have. Teachers are now expected to prepare children for the 21st century, which requires a completely new set of skills and knowledge, but are hands are tied by mandates that don’t take into account a holistic approach to teaching and learning.
Consider, too, that as late as the mid-60s, it was not atypical for administrators and parents of junior high students (kids aged 12 – 14) to withdraw a struggling/failing student so that he/she could seek employment. Obviously, this is no longer permissable. Yet, sadly, I have heard more students express an utter frustration with the current state of education than ever; often, they lament the fact that they cannot, legally, quit school to begin a trade or seek full-time employment. **Note, today, all students are (generally) expected to attend some post-secondary institution of higher learning. The high school diploma no longer suffices.
Sadly, I spend an inordinate amount of time talking with disenfranchised high school students who simply go through the motions each day — they’re putting in their time to attain the diploma that we have hyped as the crucial component in attaining “real world” status. For some, college is a necessary evil; others, a goal that seems financially impossible to attain. Regardless, most feel the pressure to perform (and conform). However, not all of them share the sentiment; and, watching them struggle with self-realization as they often undermine their own success is painful and emotionally draining. As others have mentioned, I’ve seen the “best and brightest” breakdown over a standardized test; I’ve seen classic underachievers score well on “the test” and then slump back into complete apathy. And, as others in this blog have mentioned, we recognize that there is no simple fix, no quick solution. But we all recognize the huge disservice to our nation’s kids.
Until policy-makers realize that children are not products, but people, we will never begin to correct the problems faced by American children today. They know, all too well, that the job market and economy are on shaking ground as they watch family, friends, and even teachers, lose their jobs. So how important is a standardized test, or even that high school diploma, to those kids who feel the future is bleak? Given this consideration, is it any wonder that educators are concerned about student “data” on standardized tests being tied to performance?
Having worked in the private sector prior to embarking on a teaching career, I recognize that those on the oustide of public education haven’t a clue. No other profession is so closely scrutinized, or publicly mocked. There are so many variables that most CEOs, CFOs,and HR people would throw their hands up in dismay. We deal with human lives and emotions on a daily basis, along with navigating the waters of zero-balance budgets and on-going federal cuts to vital school programs. Those on the oustide need to take a closer look. Simply deciding that a model will be developed and implemented isn’t a guarantee of success. Look at NCLB! As educators, we give so much of ourselves — our time, our energy, our compassion — to those whose lives we mold. No amount of merit pay can adequately compensate us, nor would we want it.
Merit pay tied to test score performance is not a practice President Obama proposed in his campaign for President of the United States. I recall Obama speaking about high stakes testing NOT being the goal of education in this country, but rather education as preparation of students for their adult role as US citizens. That would mean to teach them skills fostering: A) the creativity which prompts new ideas to effectively face and deal with current and future challenges, B)problem solving, and C)cooperation among peers to get a job done. These skills are not a menu of multiple choices from which a student can choose one right answer, but instead a compulsary skill set for success. Arne Duncan and President Obama need to revisit this academically devastating idea and look beyond the simplistic solution of “Choose A, B, or C ” to educate our,and their very own, youth.
Good teachers are driven out of the profession by rigid Praxis testing. Many of these teachers could teach math, science and technology to our nation’s students that is above and beyond anything mandated in state benchmarks.
Absolutely NOT! (For many of the above reasons.) Children are not commodities produced in factories — the change that needs to be made is for teachers, who are the experts, to make diffentiated decisions about students AND how they are assessed, based on a variety of variables that Duncan and many others would not begin to understand.
The classroom culture is not that of the 1950s, and Duncan and others who believe it is need to go back to school, literally. Student success depends on parents, teachers, and community working in tandem, with the experts, teachers, leading the way — and parents and administrators standing right beside and behind them asking, “How may we assist you in your work?”
I recall reading an article that made a great deal of sense to me. The author pointed out that doctors are not judged by the actual success of their treatments but instead on whether or not they utilized what is recognized as “best practice” in their field of medicine. If they were judged on sucess, oncologists in general would probably be considered ineffective doctors, because a significant percentage of their patients would die.
The author suggested that now that we truly do have so much research-based evidence on what is best practice in the classrom we should use the same approach to judging the merit of a teacher. Just as oncologists will not have as high a success rate with patients as an obstetrician will, due to the types of patients and cases they treat, teachers who deliver the same quality instruction will not necessarily have the same success rate due to the many factors outside their control. Their populations will differ.
I do not know that I am absolutely opposed to the concept of using test scores as a measure of teacher merit, but I believe that there need to be a number of other measures as well, at the very least. To give an example, I am a reading specialist. I work with the lowest-achieving readers in my school, and I only get to see them for 30 minutes every other day. Research is very clear in supporting the fact that in order for interventions to truly accelerate achievement, students must received it daily in very small groups or one-on-one, and ideally for at least 60 minutes a day. I would love to implement that research, but that is not a decision I am permitted to make. The frequency and duration of my interventions is dictated by our administration, and the size of my groups is determined by the total number in my caseload. Given that, my chances of significantly raising test scores are medium at best. Would it be fair, then, to say that I am an ineffective teacher because I only succeeded in significantly raising the test scores of 50% of my students, or because only 75% of my students scored proficinet on the state test? In reality, I think achieving those results would be an enormous accomplishment.
There are so many factors that need to be considered when we talk about merit pay and test results. As I stated, I will not say that I am adamantly opposed, but I have a hard time imagining how it could really be done fairly and justly.
I honestly think that one has nothing to do with the other–teacher effectiveness is what it is and so is testing of students–and teachers can’t control how well a student will do on a test on any day–as Dawn said above–too many variables. As far as merit pay is concerned, again, too many variables tied to human behaviors of the inappropriate kind–favoritism–which could ultimately lead to bitterness and lack of collegiality in the educational workplace.
I am constantly embarrassed by my fellow teachers’ excuses for their unwillingness to have their students’ test scores used as a means of determining their effectiveness as a teacher. I am amazed at our fear of merit pay initiatives, vouchers, school choice, and most other reform ideas that might introduce competition into the education system.
Teachers, please understand that our positions against reforms, specifically those against merit pay and competition, undermine our desire to be seen and respected as professionals. We cannot continue to argue for the status quo or unreasonable reforms (particularly in regards to spending ever growing sums of money on education) simply because a program may not be perfect. Are the criterion tests used today perfect? Of course not, and they need to be improved. Should these tests be the only measure of a teacher’s effectiveness or the only determinant of a teacher’s pay? No, but it should be one component of that equation.
Some teachers are better than others at improving test scores. This is a fact. Teachers can use the same techniques, put in the same number of hours, etc. and still achieve different results. We must finally admit that this is not simply because of the students we teach. We must admit that we teachers are not equally effective. Every teacher will tell you that the single most important factor in student achievement and test scores is teacher quality, but those same teachers are unwilling to admit that teacher quality can be measured (in part) by test scores. This makes no sense!
Until we personally take the challenge of getting all of our students to achieve at a passing level (which is admittedly a minimal achievement on most criterion tests), we will continue to have students who are unsuccessful on these tests. We can no longer live behind excuses.
How many times will I have to be whipped because I am not a teacher who teaches “core” subjects? So much of what Secretary Duncan advocates not only narrows and limits a child’s education, but it also advocates the elimination of electives. It fails to acknowledge not only the many basic challenges expressed in the previous posts, but it also ignores and therefore dooms teachers of electives to no hope of receiving extra pay since our subject matter is not “on the test”. As a departmentalized educator and therefore one of seven teachers assigned to each student in my classes, I cannot even expect to be up for consideration for pay rewards because I am not the sole teacher for any of my students as an elementary teacher might be. There isn’t even a test that allows me to be “in the mix”. In my state, there are only four core subjects: English language arts, math, social studies, and science. The elective teachers such as languages, arts, music, home economics, business and vocational, physical education teachers and any others who are not teaching core subjects are totally ignored. The next logical step is for elective teachers to disappear for the educational scene because we refuse to be the “low-paid stepchild” or university students even consider degrees in these areas of education because they (we) can’t be paid on par with other “core-subject” teachers. Talk about dumbing down education!!
Research validates that electives are important in the educational development of children; yet, we aren’t even are part of the equation here. we engage students in an appreciation of life and the world, but aren’t deemed important. If cuts are necessary, we are the first programs to go. If Secretary Duncan proposes to ignore half a child’s educational development, how is that fair or equitable? In fact, what about the “pay for performance” proposals makes any sense what-so-ever?
Secretary Duncan is barking up the wrong tree for all the reasons listed in all the posts prior to mine. Sometimes what seems like a good idea when inspected more closely turns out to be a false assumption. Secretary Duncan’s false assumption is that “teachers are the problem”. We aren’t. Dedicaion, sacrifice, and commitment are all synonyms for the teachers who work in classrooms around this country. Not many other professionals work the hours we do for the kind of pay we receive; yet, we are persecuted for problems that we did not create and over which we have little control.
In fact, nothing about what Secretary Duncan is fair or equitable. He proposes a “silver bullet” solution to a problem that is multifaceted and cannot be “fixed” by any one proposal.
I caution Secretary Duncan of the unintended consequences that may accompany his proposals for “pay for performance”. Big ideas always seem attractive and desireable; however, I wish to advise Mr. Duncan that the “Devil is in the details”. Be careful, Mr. Duncan, what you wish for (or in this case mandate). You may not like the true results.
After my own ‘Listening to Arne Duncan Tour’, I have come to think that Secretary Duncan has no idea what he is talking about. That makes me very sad…sad for teachers, sad for education, and sad for our public school system which DESPERATELY needs a leader who understands what is REALLY wrong with our schools.
It is NOT the teachers. That is a much oversimplified answer. He’ll never be able to fix what he doesn’t see or understand.
This second comment comes after reading so many wonderful comments from my education colleagues. These comments are very insightful and it is my hope that both Secretary Duncan and President Obama will read them and take them under serious consideration.I completely concur with JoAnn, Rebecca and Jane. JoAnn said:
“What is clear to me is that women and men who gave years of their lives, despite unreasonable conditions in the classroom, financial penalty and general public disregard, will be penalized for the general disinclination of communities to support schools in any number of meaningful ways that we know can work.”
She is right. This is already happening. It has forced early retirement of MANY teachers already.
This link has more important ideas to consider:
http://www.ed.gov/blog/2009/05/secretary-arne-duncan-takes-listening-tour-online-invites-comments-on-raising-standards/
Something to try that WILL work:
Publicly apologize to teachers for scapegoating them in recent years. For the last eight years, NCLB has done nothing but blame public school problems on ineffective teacher. There has been almost NO recognition for eight years of the job teachers do. The general public has NO IDEA what the job entails and our leaders have worked to make that WORSE for eight years.
Make a HUGE and LOUD public apology to the teachers of this nation who have dedicated their lives to teaching kids. Most with little support, either financial or in respect.
Ask teachers what they think, and make THAT public. (The asking part is happening.) What a difference that would bring! Much of the public and many politicians (who rightfully want to improve public schools) have no real idea of what is wrong with them. (So they try ‘canned solutions’…like merit pay…most of which are the wrong thing to do. JMHO. Merit pay is divisive…just like NCLB was.) That doesn’t mean it can’t be a tool for improvement if done in the right way, but it HAS to be done fairly. Example: NCLB has good things in it, but it became bogged down because it used AYP to pit schools and districts and teachers against each other..instead of helping us to work together toward a goal we all share: Improving education for kids.
ANY workable solution will require input and support from teachers…not just unions…teachers. In all the talk of fixing public education and schools…which I wholeheartedly support…the idea of involving teachers in this process is never brought up by anyone in a position of authority.
Regard among policy makers for test scores and testing companies so far exceeds what their performances and contributions warrant that any use of standardized test scores in teacher evaluations should be considered, much less approached, with extreme caution. Before teachers started filling the gap with subjective but systematic observations and accumulated student work samples, leaders in the Iowa Testing Program used to say their scores should count for 5% of the information considered in making informed decisions about curriculum and instruction. If policy makers were similarly realistic about the role of such “information,” teachers might feel differently about due consideration of test scores – as no more than 5% of the appraisal of their work! JSD
To paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, “If the general (teacher) does not give explicit commands and the soldiers (students) do not follow them, then it is the general’s fault. If the general gives explicit commands and the soldiers do not follow them, then it is the soldier’s fault.”
The teacher can do everything but take the test for the student.
Test scores and teacher evaluations are difficult to qualify and quantify.
Even with the huge education stimulus, teachers and substitutes with math and science backgrounds are shortchanged while unreasonable sums are misdirected to “at risk” programs. Everyone should get a fair share of the pie.
Those who advocate more business involvement in our schools are changing the atmosphere of one of education to a corporate mindset of hard driven efficiency. When technology takes over poetry, philosophy and science to the detriment of human civilization and America in particular, we all lose.
High-priced athletes and university sports programs have caused a skewing of education payroll. Teachers in social programs get huge bonuses for a few days work, while people who have dedicated their lives to the rigors of math and science are simply left out of the equation because of a missed point on a teacher test. One B-rated teacher in Calculus or Quantum Mechanics will yield more than an A-rated teacher in sociology.
The problem with education is structural, and none of the reformers really want to address the REAL problem, and that’s the fact administrators have absolute control over teachers. Tenure, contrary to widespread belief, doesn’t really protect teachers from politically-motivated terminations; in fact, school districts use all kinds of tools at their disposal, legal and illegal, to ruin teachers, who, once fired, can never work in any school district ever again. The problem is administrator abuse of teachers and NO accountability whatsoever for their actions. School boards are merely puppets. But don’t expect Arne, Eli Broad, Bill Gates, and all the rest to address the real problems, for the filth that permeates school administration is just what they look for to implement their dubious “reforms.”
I personally feel that merit pay should not be an issue when teachers are not even getting their yearly salary step increases or cost of living raises. Most teachers in the state of MD have been affected by the recent economic crisis and I would like the government to simply allow me the raises I am entitled to before they try to give out merit pay. I do not need an “extra” reward for my students’ success or lack there of, I simply want what I believed I would receive when I first signed on to teaching in my county. Also, I do not believe that merit pay motivates those who actually need motivation. I am a highly qualified teacher who uses effective teaching strategies, but there are many other factors to student achievement that are beyond my control. Parents need to be involved so that they can help their children succeed – merit pay is not the answer.
As my peers have so eloquently stated, standardized testing should never be tied to teacher evaluations. It is unfortunate that our profession is held to such ridicule by so many who have never taught in the classroom. We do not control every moment of a child’s day! Students are in my class approximately one hour per day wherein I do my best to deliver the best instruction possible. I have had students who were sleepy because the parent partied all night long and the child was unable to sleep. I have had student whose mother was only 14 years older than her child, and she had her own agenda, which did not include advocating education! Sadly, in our school, we have many students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds, and they have not been reared in a home environment that values education nor respects educators! We never give up the fight to win our students over to valuing education; but, attitudes and behaviors learned at home generally prevail for the majority.
Politicians are intent upon making education a “one size fits all” factory. I believe that this erroneous thinking stems from their own world experiences as business executives, lawyers, and career politicians. There is not an easy fix! Education needs to offer children so much more than punitive standardized testing.
In Texas, for instance, the political body has included the Student Success Initiative (SSI) along with No Child Left Behind and IDEA. School districts must comply with all three pieces of legislation even though they are not compatible. The commonality is that they have punitive consequences. Additionally, high school student must pass 4 years of English, Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics. Teachers lesson plans must include ELPS and College Readiness. Now consider the child in high school who has a very low IQ who would like to learn trade skills. If he is in a small district, he will have to take and pass the 4X4 core classes; if he fails science one year, he must take it the next year along with the 4 core classes. Pressure! And, no courses are available to meet this child’s real needs — the attainment of his goal to work in building trades. He will spend time retaking classes and going to tutorials.
Teachers have been turned into scapegoats. It is the design of the delivery system that is flawed; it does not meet the needs of this population. It seems that politicians would rather continue testing students and pointing fingers at teachers rather than get down to the business of genuinely revamping a broken system.
Politicans need to look in the mirror to see who is to blame for what they call a fiasco! Politicians design education! Teachers have not created this mess, and teachers should not be held as scapegoats.
I see many repetitions of the word “data” but few of the word “information.”
For test data to become information, there at least must be a reason for acquiring that particular data (requirements to be tested). There must be an analysis or evaluation of the results in the particular environment for the data acquired (are there trends, etc). Only then can the data even come close to becoming information (data with meaning), and therefore potentially useful.
No! No! No! How are we to enhance our students’ (and our own) creativity when teachers are constricted this way? I want my students to be able to think “outside the box” in addition to developing their character/self-esteem. Yes, stories can help with this, but if I’m too rushed to cover everything, then it’s ineffective. I want more for my students than a thin spreading of content.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Secretary Duncan and others who have never taught in a public school classroom are so obsessed with merit pay, particularly when they are repeatedly told by those with experience that it is a bad idea, and that it won’t work. When doctors, lawyers, and engineers give their professional opinion on a subject, non-experts listen intently and usually follow their advice. Why is teaching the only profession not accorded the same respect?
Ignoring for a moment the blatantly obvious—that test scores in no way indicate teacher performance—the simple fact of the matter is that performance-related pay does not work. If you won’t listen to teachers on this matter, Secretary Duncan, then perhaps you will listen to those in the business world, whose opinions you seem to value far more:
Does Performance-Related Pay Boost Performance?
http://blogs.bnet.com/bnet1/?p=2160
Pay for Performance Can Be a Terrible Idea
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-pay-for-performance-into-a-bad-idea-2009-4
If you want the advice of someone with 15 years of classroom experience, the best way to improve education in America is to actually listen to the people who are doing the educating. And if you don’t want the advice of those of us who have been on the front lines of this problem, then you have no business calling yourself an educator.
Forgive my hostility, but it is *my* students who are suffering as a result of decisions made by those utterly ignorant of the realities of public education in America. It would be nice if someone who *doesn’t* work in a classroom finally opened their eyes and acknowledged that fact.
Interesting how the comments got shuffled around…
The best analogy I’ve heard about this issue of not linking teacher performance to test is this. You don’t fire the dentist because you get a cavity. Teachers can’t do it all. As a college instructor, I have seen writing skills diminish. THE TESTS AREN’T WORKING.
Dominique’s statement is very forthright and “spot on”.
The additional question that I wish to add is this: Other than the extreme emotional damage that has been done to our students who do not pass these standardized tests, what is the overall COST IN DOLLARS for testing? I have inquired multiple times, and I have yet to receive an answer.
In Texas, schools “benchmark” at least twice. Students take the state test up to three times. What is the cost?
Our desks are ancient — from the 1950s. I have one out-of-date teacher computer; I have a 20 year old overhead projector. We have roaches, termites, ants, mice, and rats. And, there’re the mystery spots that ooze on the ceiling tiles. This is the environment in which I teach all day long, and our students come into for their learning experience. Where does this factor into the evaluative process?
Praxis testing inflicts “extreme emotional damage” to potential teachers too!
Of course teachers are responsible for their students’ PROGRESS. However, the more germane question is if the tests give an accurate and true picture of student achievement. I maintain that they do not. That is the real problem; the measurement vehicle is WRONG. Consequently, we continue – as we say in these parts – “spitting into the wind.”
As a teacher, I chose to work with students in a vocational high school. Many of these students were disadvantaged. Had I chosen to teach in a school across town where most parents had college degrees, I am 100% positive that my students’ test scores would have been higher. Furthermore, as a grandparent, I am tired of my granddaughters being taught the tests, spending weeks being tested, and getting the impression that education is all about testing. My granddaughters told me that most of their friends did not even try on the end of the year tests because those tests measured the effectiveness of the school and the teachers and had no effects on the students themselves. Those in charge of linking test scores to teacher performance seem to be clueless. I am encouraging my granddaughters to choose careers other than teaching.
Standardized testing must be factored into Teachers evaluation.
The data should not be judged over a semester or single year but on an anual bases over 3 or more years. If a teacher’s students consistently score below there peers there is a problem.
It defies all logic to think that testing can not assist in evaluating teachers. It is clearly one of many indicators that need to be included. Why are the Unions and teachers so afraid fearful of it’s inclusion.
Mr. Duncan speaks of the need for good data -which is exactly what our current test-them-til-they-drop system does NOT provide. Tying teacher salaries to bad data is ridiculously inappropriate. Back in the “old days” students took one test, twice a year. You could actually measure student progress from the beginning to the end of the year. Today you get scores half a school year out of date, from a test you never saw, administered to a class that is not your own. How in the world can that “inform instruction”???
First we need to overhaul the testing system to get accurate and appropriate data. Then we can talk about how we should use that data. If our educational “leaders” cannot grasp that, they are in the wrong profession.
My first choice would be to get rid of the tests completely. Instead of paying teachers, why not pay the students to pass them. Or have them earn points towards a new computer.
Who is responsible for a rise or decline in test scores? A whole team educates a students: PE teacher, librarian, etc. Who will want to teach the struggling students if money is tied to performance?
I am all for pay based on job performance–that is what happens in other careers. If you are successful, you are rewarded either with a booming business, a promotion, or a bonus. Teachers are not given this treatment. An educator who brings out the best in their children is rewarded in many ways, unfortunately not monetarily–which I believe has added to an attitude of disrespect for the profession as a whole. Having said that, other careers are not rewarded based on how they perform on one day in isolation. The formulaic testing rut we find ourselves in leads to this narrowing of what success means. Even athletes are judged often in the context of a tournament–not an isolated event. Standardized testing is wrong on so many levels–creating a false sense of equity for our disadvantaged youth, making schools into testing factories, and lowering the bar for all children as our scope narrows and we focus on just being able to pass the test. Our children deserve better.
I teach in a Detroit suburb. Last year I had 29 kindergartners in my class. 4 of the families lost their homes to forclosure during the school year,many of the parents were jobless and some were homeless. Whole families were living in grandma’s basement. How are you going to assess them or me when all they can think about is where the next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep. Do you think they are thinking about a test? Doing school reform without doing social and economic reform is not giving these families hope. Where is the hope President Obama promised when I voted for him? He is still continuing the educational polices of George Bush. I want the same educational opportunities for my students that he is making sure his daughters are getting.
Sec Duncan has shown us the way to fix the nation’s health care system!
First, we track individual doctor, medical insurance companys, and also individual hospital death rates: how many of their patients die in the course of the year. We also set a criteria for death rate proficiency, which should be no higher than 5%. Those with a death rate higher than 5% then will have all their fees and charges cut, on a sliding scale that matches in reverse the death rate; the higher the death rate, the lower the fees and charges.
All death rates would be published. Those with death rates above 10% need intervention, the serious of which depends on how many years in a row the doctor, company or hospital had a death rate exceeding 10%. After 5 years of this, the hospital or insurance company would be taken over by a state led team of pharmaceutical specialists. Doctors with 5 years would be sent back to medical school to start over.
The new low fees will make medical care available to everyone!
Thanks, Arne.
I am a high-school classroom teacher who will begin my forty-fourth year of teaching in one month.
I teach second-language learners at the high school level who enter with a third-grade literacy level.
At the end of the year, in almost all cases, I am able to bring their literacy level to grade six.
If Arne, however, is going to base my pay on test-scores, then I will abandon teaching my students in favor of teaching advanced-placement students, who are going to excel regardless of who teaches them.
My present second-language learners may be poorer because of this, but I will be richer.
This is what merit pay will accomplish, Arne.
I do not believe assessment test scores should influence evaluations of teachers. How can my career depend on a classroom of students who take one test, and whose scores depend not only on how well they are prepared, but how much they care about doing well, and what moods they are in at such given time. I agree assessment data can be helpful but with caution. A generic test used for many different intelligent and emotional levels of students should not determine the outcomes of the school or the teachers involved. Too much emphasis is placed on assessments (teaching to a test) and not enough on learning a wide variety of ideas and information in the classroom.
No, test scores should NOT be part of teacher evaluation. We should wake up and eliminate standardized testing from public schools.
NCLB has put a straight jacket on schools and undone many of the authentic reforms teachers themselves were advocating to make education more relevant, accessible and engaging. The false accountability of standardized testing must be slashed. If each child is unique, then standardized testing in a few subjects gives us little useful information from the point of view of an individual child with a complex of interests and abilities. Nor does a collection of data from these tests give more information about a school or a school district than would be learned more easily by analyzing the socio-economic information for the region.
Only students who have the same teacher from one year to the next will have test scores that reveal much of anything about specific teachers.
In the two decades that I was a public school math teacher, there was never a time when test results were useful in guiding instruction. Nor did the results ever inform my school or district about anything of note relative to curriculum or planning. This is because standardized testing data simply has no real significance relative to authentic teaching or learning.
Real learning — the stuff that is experiential, creative, or relating to critical thinking and problem solving — leads to discussion, analysis, presentations, debates and collaborative efforts. The focus on standardized testing pulls in the opposite direction: solitary memorization of facts…and this will increasingly be the focus of education so long as raising test scores is a school’s primary goal. How sad. Why do so many education leaders fail to see this? There should be a test to measure common sense.
Only 10% of our public school students can score in the top 10% on these tests. This may make them feel even more terrific about themselves, as they are undoubtedly already successful on many academic fronts. (For the record, some “big headed” kids are not so much fun to be around.) However, 50% of our students will score in the bottom half … and these kids are likely to take it hard. Many just give up and drop out. Many have the wonderful gift of bilingualism, but that is not tested. In fact, it is a quality that pulls down standardized test scores! Blows to self-respect like these are hard to surmount, especially if the “message” on testing is always on “high alert”.
Kids who drop out are most at risk for future incarceration. The cost per year per inmate is almost exactly the same as the cost of one new teacher’s annual salary.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, makes me more agitated than high school exit exams. Children now carry many school burdens: content standards, measurable objectives, rigor, accountability, school-wide pacing, subject breadth (mile wide, inch deep), proficiencies in bunches-of-facts, homework in the primary grades, skill’s drills and practice tests, fewer high school electives but more math support classes, heavy backpacks and, the worst of them all: exit exams.
As in many other states, the High School Exit Exam is given to all of California’s sophomores in early March. Most of our students will “pass.” The ones who do not pass are likely to have a different first language, have testing anxiety, or have a learning disability. Sure, they have more chances to pass, but even the College Board will tell you that scores on standardized test generally stay the same; more “tries” don’t really help all that much. There will still be hundreds of thousands of great kids in California who will not receive a diploma and will not walk at graduation. Tragically, these are the students who will be most devastated by failure. And, of course, it cannot be a real test unless someone fails; the “cut” scores are always the result of political ploy, not sound educational reasoning.
When school administrators and members of school boards keep saying their main goal is “improving student achievement,” that is the first clue that they have uncritically accepted fear-based education. The joy of learning and creativity are not measurable. Basing “achievement” almost exclusively on standardized test scores is astonishingly nearsighted. The percentage of public school children whose first language is not English is steadily increasing, which alone skews the average scores on tests that are given only in English.
Honestly, I have seen hundreds of these test questions, and educated people would be appalled by their quality. That the testing companies regularly rack up errors in scoring is also a little known facet of the industry that is taking countless dollars away from our classrooms.
Standardized testing hurts kids (for proof just google that phrase). Teacher friends have repeatedly told me about kids of all ages who cry during these tests out of fear and frustration. I have witnessed it myself. Most students and teachers would find relief in never again hearing the phrases “no child left behind” or “high school exit exam.”
Let us strive for authentic school accountability. Good schools have high scores on parent and student satisfaction surveys, high graduation rates, and highly nutritious cafeteria foods that support brain function.
True educational leaders will be advocating for changes like these, and they will increasingly be pushing back against Federal and State programs involving standardized testing.
Merit Pay? That means I get more pay for the easy to teach; kids to whom I need only “blink my eyes at” in order to see jumps in readinglevels, while those I struggle and agonize over daily (sit through more team meetings,spend more time analyzing running records and differentiating instruction)would result in less pay or even loss of pay.
There’s enough information out there on merit pay to know it doesn’t work. Wall Street and the bank bailouts are a stellar example – they rode this country into obscene debt while raking in merit pay. Other formal studies indicate little impact on performance. If we apply the same approach with education student learning will become bankrupt. We don’t pay cops for each criminal they catch, we don’t pay firemen for each fire they put out. We don’t pay doctors for every patient they save. Why do we insist on singling teachers out? Education is not a race to the top. Once you get there, there’s no place to go but down. Plus “everyone” else becomes a loser. No thank you. Education is a lifelong journey that makes you a better person and contributes to the common good. President Obama keeps reminding us about community service as part of his platform. He needs to remind Arne Duncan this means the educational sector as well. Who our children and grandchildren are and what they are capable of cannot be determined by standardized testing. Profit-driven education tests what is easy to measure rather than what is important to learn. We want to see a system of assessments that illustrate what the student is capable of doing with what they’ve learned and understand. Knowing and understanding are not the same thing. I know what mc2 = e is. I even know what the symbols represent. But I don’t come close to understanding the equation let along how to use it effectively. Merit pay based on high test scores encourages knowledge at the lowest levels at the expense of true understanding and learning. Like I said, no thank you. Are you listening, President Obama?
This is a terrible idea. Paying for test scores ensures even more intense teaching to tests. It is exactly the wrong direction for improving education.
Please read my article on Pay-per-score: http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=268
Amen to Charles and Cindy. Bob, use your spell/grammar check, please!
I have just retired after teaching since 1978. I don’t think a student’s test scores should be tied to a teacher’s work. Many classrooms are made up of a range of abilities because of language barriers, social and economic barriers as well. Some of the test questions would only be understood by a middle class student. Poor children don’t have those experiences to draw from and your most qaulified teachers should be working with our most at risk. Rewarding teachers who teach in upper socio economic areas to mono -lingual children (all English speakers since birth) pits the teacher who is in the “trenches” doing her/his best to teach basic skills. Charter schools do weed out those whose behavior and abilities don’t match what they want in their campuse and public schools continue to try to do their best with limited support.
I challenge a congressman to spend at least two weeks in a public school in a disadvantaged neighborhood and then decide if teachers need to be rewarded or punished for test scores.
Before there is any more talk of merit pay–which, by its very nature could never be equitable, we need to address the NCLB culture which has caused ever-less prepared teachers to come out of universities through no fault of their own. First, they have had inadequate training in high school because of what the tests don’t require,then they often are taught by adjunct professors who are not nearly as well versed in their areas as the professors who used to be full time, full professors and finally it is nearly impossible to get high quality student-teaching experiences as schools do not want to risk test scores going down due to practicing novice teachers. It needs to be a positive collegial atmosphere with lofty goals not short-sighted flawed tests as goals before any talk of merit pay continues–and i will argue to the death that it could NEVER be even close to fair and equitable–WAY TOO MANY VARIABLES..please read PUNISHED BY REWARDS by Alfie Kohn
It seems to me that linking pay to test scores assumes at least two things:
(1) That test scores are true measures of student learning, and
(2) That by linking pay to scores society is effectively holding teachers accountable for student learning.
For anyone who believes a test can give us a worthwhile window into student learning, I would simply suggest taking the actual test. Then ask a group of students, parents and teachers what they think that test is assessing, and what is left out.
I also wonder if proponents of test score-based merit pay have fully considered the undesirable incentives that such a scheme would set up. I’ve taught for 20 years in a wonderfully-diverse urban high school. By choice, I teach the neediest students. If I wanted to maximize my students’ test scores, I would choose a very different schedule – and a very different school. If I wanted to maximize my students’ test score improvement, I would narrow my curriculum and teach to the test. Are these really the incentives we wish to create?
One last detail: in my state, there are many, many students who do not take a standardized test of any sort, creating a nightmare of disparities. For example, an 11th grade English teacher would be accountable for the scores of a different group than, say, an 11th grade Algebra II teacher, who would only have those students who have successful in math and so continued taking it. And what to do about fine arts teachers, whose students are (thankfully) not tested by the state?
There is no evidence that this kind of program works to improve student learning or teacher effectiveness.
Why, then, is it being promoted by the Department of Education?
It seems that an educated person could look at the facts and see that the proposal has already failed. To continue to push it is, at best, foolish, and at worse, potentially harmful.
Further, pay for scores ignores the fact that scores aren’t the best measure of student learning and by focusing on this weaker measure the whole effort puts attention on what should be minimized and diverts attention from better measures of learning such as performance exhibitions, portfolios and learning records.
All of this can be placed along side the fact that the teacher is only one of many factors affecting student performance.
Teacher pay should be based on what professionals in other fields make based on comparable training and job requirements. On that basis alone a responsible approach would be to call for increasing teacher salaries across the board.
If Duncan were to lead real reform he would be advocating for this approach, one that has never been pushed on the national level. In addition he would be challenging policy makers to find sources of revenue to upgrade teacher pay across the board.
Once teacher salaries are raised to levels of other comparable professionals, only then might you consider proposals for differentiation. However, you would need to include in your decision making the fact that merit pay in practice subverts intrinsic motivation and undermines staff cooperation.
I LOVE that book, Lynne! You are both right on, Marie and Carlos! So much thoughtful, authentic dialogue going on here; I love my fellow teachers! Arne, are you listening? You need to. The future of our country hangs in the balance.
Are you “listening” yet, Secretary Duncan?
If you are, you’ll notice that there is an overwhelmingly negative response to your suggestion about merit pay, with plenty of substantive reasons to back it up.
Does the Obama administration really listen, and allow what is heard to inform policy, or is this all about appearances, and is your mind already made up?
Time will tell.
In my current position as a full-time gifted communication arts 6th grade instructor, I would love merit pay! Why? Because my current salary is $42,260.00, and over the past 5 years, my students consistently test in the 96 to 99 percentile range on our state’s yearly test. Districts are constantly calling our coordinator asking what we are doing for our students to consistently score that high.
Just gather a group of children with IQ’s over 125 together in a classroom and watch them soar, but as we who have spent our professional lives in the classroom all know, it’s what walks through our doors that we are charged to teach…
What is that old saying? You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear?
“Standardized testing must be factored into Teachers evaluation.
The data should not be judged over a semester or single year but on an anual bases over 3 or more years. If a teacher’s students consistently score below there peers there is a problem.
It defies all logic to think that testing can not assist in evaluating teachers. It is clearly one of many indicators that need to be included. Why are the Unions and teachers so afraid fearful of it’s inclusion.”–You have no understanding of the reality public school districts are POLITICAL institutions. They are ostensibly about the kids, but in reality they are not. They are plagued with the same problems other governmental entities have, which at bottom has to do with the total lack of accountability.
When I mention “accountability,” I am not referring to testing or academics; I am referring to unethical and downright criminal behavior done by administrators, including many principals, who are not answerable to anybody. You, Bob, have no idea how easy it is for administrators who you think are infallible to easily destroy teachers’ careers. Most terminations have nothing to do with “incompetence” or danger to students; they are political in tone, whether it is to silence a whistle-blower, get rid of somebody a neurotic principal doesn’t get along with, or just a way to save money on pensions and health care costs while committing age discrimination. These things are rampant, and until the rot infesting school administrations is recognized, let alone dealt with, reform will never happen in schools. But Arne and people like Gates and Broad aren’t interested in reforming the abusers in charge; those are exactly the people they want running and ruining the schools.
There is no mystery in schools and school districts about who is talented and who is not. Site administrators that are quality do not need test scores to tell them someone has what it takes or does not.
Step one : get rid of poor administrators…districts should not be beat up for getting rid of bad admins. Then we’re left with good admins who can follow process of getting rid of poor quality teachers. Right now, that process is very time consuming and unions are sadly, very protective of even the worst teachers. As a teacher, I was always amazed that some of the worst teachers were also the biggest union supporters, even the union leadership!!
Step two: make the process of terminating poor teachers easier. Most principals don’t want to hassle with the years of paperwork currently required or the public/union backlash. Admins do have to do a better job of saying no to weak teachers during the probationary years.
But please, forget merit pay. Just increase funding for public schools (get rid of poor performing charter schools that drain funds from local public schools- yes, they do in California). Feds could even earmark $$ for teacher/ admin salary. But forget merit pay. Bad idea.We already know who doesn’t deserve it.
I hope Mr. Duncan chooses to listen as Obama promised all those who voted for him that he would.
Please understand that teacher quality is not determined by testing. Nations that lead the world in education are not forcused on test results. Finland is among them.
The teacher quality folks in Washington believe that no exceptions or changes in standards are required even though they acknowledge that some exceptional teachers cannot demonstrate content mastery.
Being the best in education is not simply residing in the upper tier of percentiles. It is about applying general knowledge and specific knowledge to original thought. This is not achieved simply with computer files, interactives and answers on a wall to drive academic results.
The best and brightest come in a multitude of packages. Think tanks, scholars and reasoned citizens should not be quick to judge real knowledge by a narrow criteria.
Don’t forget, that while we have some fine people who’s scores are exceptional, history has shown that low scorers also leave great legacies and marks on human civilization. Those in academia should be the first to appreciate that fact.
I taught for several years, but left because of the ridiculousness of it all. In college we are bombarded with the phrase “every child learns differently”. We study multiple intelligences and differentiate learning styles. Then teachers throw it all out the window and teach all kids the same- to pass the test.
I have seen the test from both sides- as a teacher and a test scorer. After I left the classroom I spent a brief time working as a scorer for a state’s high school exit exam. I scored the two long essay questions. It was a real eye-opener. It was obvious which kids were over-achievers, because the essays contained long drawn out arguments and all the key words for maximum points. Some kids drew pictures, and they had a special score for that. Some kids answered the questions with one or two words, and if they were the right words, they got points. I scored several essays in a row that had identically worded essays. Upon checking previous responses I found that every answer was the same. When I took the essays to the supervisor to report cheating, I was told “Sometimes the teachers write the answers on the board. Don’t worry about it.”
First of all i won’t to talk about all subjects. The main problem in high school is the math. Only test’s score may be used for math to evaluate students and teachers.The computerizing tests are the brilliant idea. But i don’t listen more about this idea. Fair tests and fair results are keys to good teaching and good education. Who is a good teacher in math? I suppose if the 80% of his or her students pass entrance tests in colleges it means that this teacher is excellent.We can consider results of three years or more, we can compare results with the similar teachers using statistics and significance level and so on. We need to use student’s opinion as one of many factors in high school.
I hope that the Obama administrators are listening to the thoughts posted here.
I taught for 15 years, am a parent of two, and am now an administrator. I believe a few things are needed for any educational initiatives at the federal level to make real change for education:
1. Large numbers of educators (mostly teachers) need to be part of the dialogue. No more single “token” teachers on large committees of “other folks.” It is like forming committees of pharmaceutical company members, business people, tax revolt groups, policy makers, and politicians and including only one doctor to discuss medical issues. Publishers, researchers, and policy makers should listen to experienced classroom teachers. That is the beginning of respect, a missing ingredient for educators in this country. Respect for educators is the one constant in high performing countries, but we in the USA do not seem to hear that message (or sometimes we make commercials and annual awards that say we respect teachers, but we do not walk the talk as a society–beginning with teacher inclusion in decision making).
2. Money needs to be directed at site-level professional development that is teacher designed and directed. Teachers say what they will focus upon (in terms of student learning), how best to improve it, and how improvement will be measured. Administrators help teachers with the measurement and give feedback on observed progress. Teachers look at their predetermined measurements (student work, tests, whatever teachers deem “real” and valuable for feedback) and make changes accordingly. If you want merit pay–tie it to that and make it “group merit pay” so teachers receive pay for the extra hours that such professionalism requires.
3. We need to change the perception that one of the roles of schools is to provide baby sitting. When teachers need time to dialogue and plan, it should be put before child-supervision in terms of education budgets. To do this, our society will need to separate child care issues and parent-convenience issues from educational issues.
4. Testing and textbook companies should have less power and say. They can be given a seat or two at the table–they should not BE the table.
I’m a performing arts teacher. There are no tests for what I teach and if there were then tests would not accurately measure my students creativity and growth. Why am I and teachers like me being pushed out of the curriculum?
Stanford scholar Larry Cuban once suggested that nothing will ever be accomplished in education without the cooperation of teachers. He was right. Teachers make almost 100% of the decisions regarding their students. If they don’t like the dictates coming from above, they are very adept at finding 1001 ways to be creatively noncompliant. This is not “good” or “bad”; it just “is.”
So please do your best to include teachers. We believe in testing, but we want it to be fair. We want only excellent teachers in the classrooms, but we want to have a part in deciding who these people are. The job is much too political to leave hiring and firing to one person.
One day while I was opening the door to my classroom at 7:00 in the morning, I thought to myself: “This job is like being self-employed, only without the overhead.” As long as teachers are alone with their students, they will continue to make almost all the decisions. So if you want to improve education, these professionals must be included. Good luck.
Student performance needs to be linked to teacher evaluation — what is the teacher there for if not to influence student performance — but standardized testing is not even close to being a good measure of performance. It takes a lot more work to judge on the basis of portfolios, but we are going to have to bite the bullet and devise a fair and workable system of doing so. We’re also going to have to let go of the notion that everybody should know the same things. There’s too much information, and information is so easily looked up that we don’t need to keep most of it in our heads. We should be assuring that students can retrieve the knowledge they need for their own unique purposes, and can think an act creatively. It’s time to stop educating drones for industry and start educating entrepreneurs, artists, and independent thinkers.
Keep in mind that most states do not require voucher/charter/private schools to take standardized tests. IF they do, they do not have to report them. So when we’re talking about accountability, remember that Secretary Duncan. You would be wise to read the wonderful comments here Mr. Duncan, and President Obama, and if you think you’ll get “merit pay” without a fight, think again.
The Federal Goverment is notorious for coming up with programs and then dumping these programs on the states with out payimg for these programs.Lets just cut more teachers to keep the school open 24 hours. We want to lower class sizes? Well wonderful, then stop cutting teachers. If This goverment wants to save teachers, then why was I laid off? Where is the stimulus money for me to keep my job? All my district has done is purchase 800.00 desks for the principlals of my district. Why has Industrial Arts not been mandated in our schools? Every little subject has been mandated,except for Vocatioal ED. If you think that every child is going to go on to college,lets not be stupid, lets not be fools. If Arne fired teachers in Chicago, then someone is missing the boat. Has anyone heard the saying, I can bring a horse to water but I can’t make them drink? This is the same for humans! Just because a student doeasn’t want learn doesn’t mean it is the teachers fault. You politions need to wake up. If you want result from our kids then start going after the parents. If parents lost 50.00 for every F their children crancked out. If this money was lost through taxes or services then you watch how fast kid’s grades improve. we need to stop this hammering of the teachers because students do poorly. we also need to a better job screening our administrators and school board members that get elected because they have a grip with our schools. I see alot of politions talking of the same thing, but we refuse to solve the problems of education. Get on the parents who have 12 kids that run free and have kids that have nothing to give to society but crime.
A far better source of data would be to observe classrooms for evidence that children are being encouraged to engage in play. The following link provides numerous reasons for including play in the classroom. Play is essential for healthy mental, social, and emotional development.
An Interview with Dr. Stuart Brown, MD
Dr. Stuart Brown
Amazon.com
0000-00-00
http://susanohanian.org/show_yahoo.html?id=463
Dr. Stuart Brown is the co-author of Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the
Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul.
“Student performance needs to be linked to teacher evaluation — what is the teacher there for if not to influence student performance — but standardized testing is not even close to being a good measure of performance. It takes a lot more work to judge on the basis of portfolios, but we are going to have to bite the bullet and devise a fair and workable system of doing so. We’re also going to have to let go of the notion that everybody should know the same things. There’s too much information, and information is so easily looked up that we don’t need to keep most of it in our heads. We should be assuring that students can retrieve the knowledge they need for their own unique purposes, and can think an act creatively. It’s time to stop educating drones for industry and start educating entrepreneurs, artists, and independent thinkers.”
Unworkable, especially for special education teachers. Many other factors are tied in to student performance, and students’ home lives are far more important in this than anything a teacher does. Many students are from transient families and don’t even have enough stability in the first place. Teachers can’t control what is outside the classroom. I am sick and tired of people who pontificate about things they know little or nothing about.
Besides, the administrators are the real problem in public education, and unless people understand there are mentally unstable and crooked people running too many schools, no reform can even be possible.
Test scores should be taken into account when evaluating teachers. I’m an inner-city teacher in South Los Angeles. These children are being cheated out of an education because the schools are hamstringed by the union that protects bad teachers. For some mystical reason, UTLA thinks every person that is a teacher deserves the right to remain as a teacher even though they cannot do the job. I worked in the hospitality business for 1o years before becoming a teacher. Corporate America does not accept subpar performance – why should the school districts? Looking at data is part of the answer. This means looking at how individual teachers and their students perform, along with classroom observations.
Student test scores cannot be used accurately to evaluate teachers. The influence of teachers on student achievement is profound, but it is far from absolute. Education is a human endeavor, not a mechanistic process in which every outcome has an undisputed cause.
Variables over which teachers have no control affect student performance with alarming frequency. Divorce, violence, addiction, job loss, and foreclosure touch families in every American classroom, yet no formula for academic accountability considers these issues. Students preoccupied with intense, personal distractions concentrate less, learn less, and remember less than their peers, even when taught by the best instructors.
Public teaching is the only profession in America from which perfect outcomes are demanded, under circumstances over which perfect control cannot be exercised. It is widely accepted that even doctors — the most brilliant caregivers of our society — cannot willfully control every aspect of health in their patients. Why, then, is this asked of teachers?
Teacher salaries should not be tied to student test scores. Teachers and schools do much more than can be reflected by tests.