Article

Linking Student Data to Teachers a Complex Task, Experts Say

As more and more states push legislation tying teacher evaluations to student achievement – a policy incentivized by the federal Race to the Top program – many are scrambling to put data systems in place that can accurately connect teachers to their students. But in a world of student mobility, teacher re-assignments, co-teaching, and multiple service providers, determining the roster of students to attribute to a teacher is more complicated than it may sound.
[...]
Jane West, vice president of policy, programs, and professional issues for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, stressed that while there's a need to track the performance of teacher-education graduates, "we have a long way to go" before the data can be considered reliable.

Teachers who leave the state, teach out-of-field, or move to private schools are nearly impossible to track, she said. And teachers in non-tested subjects and grades are out of the mix as well. Last year, the University of Central Florida was only able to get student-achievement data for 12 percent of its graduating class, yet that information was reported publicly. "What's the threshold?" West asked. "Where's the check to ensure that's a valid and reliable measure? It needs to be more than 12 percent."

In all, the Data Quality Campaign’s conference was tightly managed and left little opportunity for audience participation, offering attendees a controlled (though still controversial) takeaway: that improved student achievement hinges on improving the teacher-student data link.

[readon2 url="http://aacte.org/index.php?/Media-Center/AACTE-in-the-News/linking-student-data-to-teachers-a-complex-task-experts-say.html"]Read the entire article..[/readon2]

Trust the Evidence, Not Your Instincts

Consider this scenario. You have a serious illness. Your doctor prescribes an intrusive, painful, and expensive treatment— and you have to pay for it. What she doesn’t tell you—because she has not consulted the research – is that most studies show the treatment is ineffective and fraught with negative side-effects. You go through the procedure, suffer severe pain, and spend a lot of money. Unfortunately, as with most patients, the procedure proves ineffective. You later uncover the research your doctor failed to consult. When you ask why she didn’t use this evidence, she answers, “Who pays attention to studies? I have years of clinical experience. Besides, the protocol seemed like it ought to work.”

Does that sound like malpractice? It does to us. Fortunately, pressures to practice evidence-based medicine are reducing preventable errors. Not so in most of our workplaces, where failure to consider sound evidence repeatedly inflicts unnecessary damage on employee well-being and organizational performance. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

No workplace practice is as important—and apparently vexing—as pay. Many people believe that pay for-performance will work in virtually any organization, so it is implemented again and again to solve performance problems -- even in settings where evidence shows it is ineffective. Consider the recent decision to end New York City’s teacher bonus program after wasting three years and 56 million dollars. As this newspaper reported in July, a Rand Corporation study found this effort to link incentive pay to student performance “had no effect on students’ test scores, on grades on the city’s controversial A to F school report cards, or on the way teachers did their jobs.” This bad news could have been predicted before squandering all that time and money.The failure of such programs to boost student performance has been documented for decades. A careful review of pay for performance in schools in the 1980s showed these programs rarely lasted more than five years and consistently failed to improve student performance. The 300 page Rand report emphasizes that (although exceptions exist) evidence against the efficacy of teacher incentive pay in U.S. schools continues to grow stronger and is especially evident in the most rigorous studies.

This practice doesn’t just waste money. As Chicago economist Steve Levitt and others show, strong incentive programs can entice – or scare -- teachers and administrators to “cheat” on the tests, either by providing students with questions and answers in advance or changing student’s answer sheets to increase apparent performance. Recent well-publicized cheating scandals in Atlanta, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and elsewhere could have been foreseen by anyone who read and heeded this research. Building a culture of cheating in schools corrupts both students and teachers for no good purpose.

[readon2 url="http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/09/our-new-york-times-piece-on-evidence-based-management-the-uncut-version.html"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Charters omitted from evaluation

When it comes to charter schools the playing field isn't just unlevel, there are 2 different fields. A report from Gongwer

Majority Republicans imposed new requirements in the budget bill for public schools to regularly evaluate teachers and principals, but in a little-noticed twist to the hotly debated policy change, many charter schools ended up with an exemption.

The budget language, which is supported by Gov. John Kasich, gives more than 130 charter schools a pass from instituting teacher performance evaluations, which critics say creates unequal accountability among public schools.

So what are both sides saying about this?

Ohio Association of School Business Officials Associate Executive Director Barbara Shaner said the performance evaluation requirement should be applied uniformly.

"We feel like there does need to be the same level of accountability, and if the evaluations are meant to improve student achievement and improve the effectiveness of school districts then I guess our view would be that it should apply to all schools," she said.

That would seem like the common sense response. We hear continually from corporate education reformers how imperative it is that teachers are accountable for their results, and that the continued lack of accountability is causing a crisis in education.

Apparently, when it is suggested to corporate education reformers and their benefactors that charts should be held to similar standards, the story changes

Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools President Bill Sims said he understands the motivation for the budget language. "I think that the rationale there was that in keeping with the original intent or precepts of charter schools was to give them as much autonomy as is possible," he said.

Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols agreed, saying the language reflects that charter schools operate under different oversight than traditional schools do.

But, but but, charters are different!

Yes, yes they are. Let's compare the 2011 state report card for traditional schools and charters. We'll note in red the worst performing of the two

Designation Charters Traditional Schools
Academic Emergency 20.9% 4.4%
Academic Watch 16.8% 5.6%
Continuous Improvement 28.9% 12.1%
Effective 11.8% 23.2%
Excellent 7.4% 40.1%
Excellent with Distinction 1.5% 8.7%
Not Rated 12.7% 5.9%

The governor's spokesperson continued

"From the administration's perspective, charter schools by definition operate outside the tentacles of state regulation, which is in part why they've been very, very successful; unsuccessful ones are simply shut down," he said.

That's a lot of red for something that's been very, very successful, don't you think? So much red you might be excused for thinking more oversight is needed, not less.

State Board struggles to develop plan

This article in the Plain Dealer doesn't inspire confidence.

The state school board is fine-tuning parts of a model plan for evaluating teachers across Ohio, but has barely started on what promises to be the most controversial half -- measuring and using student academic performance in a teacher's rating.
[...]
"Let's do the best we can on this initial one," said Thomas Gunlock, vice president of the state board and chairman of the board's Capacity Committee, which is working on the plan. "Call it Teacher Evaluation 1.0. The idea isn't that we think it's perfect. It would be an organic thing."

Organic. Moving on.

Representatives for Gov. John Kasich have also been meeting with teachers to discuss ways to evaluate teacher performance. Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said the governor's teacher liaison Sarah Dove has met with teachers 19 times this year, but has not yet presented any findings.

Nichols characterized the effort by the governor's representatives as a collaboration with the state board. Dove, he said, attended July's Capacity Committee meeting and plans to attend meetings this fall.

They are working at crossed purposes, because their purposes are not aligned. The Governor's office has been chasing a clear ideological agenda from day one, as is evidenced by this report from StateImpact.

We continue to advocate for major stakeholder inclusion in the design of a teacher evaluation system. Anything less will result in a system that has little buy-in, lacks credibility and will not have the sustainability everyone is seeking.

It all comes down to purpose!

A guest article by Robert Barkley, Jr., Retired Executive Director, Ohio Education Association, Author: Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents, Worthington, Ohio – rbarkle@columbus.rr.com

So much of the current attacks on public education have been framed inside a concept called the “business model.” As it turns out, many uniformed elected officials, and even many education-bashing business leaders themselves, apparently don’t understand at all the fundamentals of effective businesses.

The centerpiece of effective organizational practice, whether in the private or public sector, is clarity as to purpose. And it’s precisely there that those many critics don’t get it. Ask them what the purpose of education is, and you’ll likely get answers such as, “master the basics…prepare students for work…raise test scores…improve graduation rates…encourage life long learning…get more into college,” and the list goes on.

These are all commendable but they are the results and not the purpose. A well-conceived purpose will achieve all such objectives and more.

So let’s turn to defining the purpose of education. I devoted a full chapter to that topic in a book I self-published about 10 years ago. Following is the primary discussion pulled from that book:

Educators and public policy leaders do not always agree on purpose. Here are some different visions of purpose that illustrate a wide-ranging view and are pulled from some top theorists and resources.

W. Edwards Deming: “The purpose of education is to preserve and nurture joy in learning.” Schools must “increase the positives and decrease the negatives so that all students keep their yearning for learning.” The mission of schools is to maintain enthusiasm while increasing learning.

Based upon fundamental Hellenic philosophy: The purpose of education is to develop students—who are comfortable in meeting their survival needs, who have an increasing capacity and desire for rational thought, who can conduct themselves productively and virtuously and can distinguish what matters most—both in regard to their own interests and those of their community, and who can constructively contribute to the most effective governance of the society in which they find themselves.

Myron Tribus building upon Deming, advocated “creating joy in learning” as the chief aim of education. He then states the criteria for judging educational programs. He says, “A good educational program will emphasize: Knowledge – which enables the learner to understand how what is learned connects to what is already known and permits the learner to analyze new situations; Know-how -- which enables the learner to actually do something with the knowledge thus gained; Wisdom -- which enables the learner to decide when, where or whether to actually use know-how in a particular situation; Character -- which makes the learner capable of being trusted with knowledge, know-how and wisdom.” Tribus adds, “When I look at a program I look for evidence that the teachers are aware of these four aspects of education and can demonstrate the efforts they are making in all four dimensions of good education.”

Marion Brady: “Each of us has acquired from our society a comprehensive model of reality. The most important task of general education is to help us understand that model, the models of those with whom we interact, and the range of alternative models from which we might choose.”

Paul Woodring: “The goal of a liberal education is to free individuals from the limitations of ignorance, prejudice, and provincialism; to enable them to see the world clearly and in perspective; to develop their intellectual capabilities, increase their sensitivity, and prepare them to make wise, independent judgments.”

Maurice Holt: suggests that we currently have competing needs which he describes as: “To deliver the knowledge and skills that business needs,” versus, “To equip students with the capacity to address the unpredictable problems of adulthood and to establish themselves in a world of growing complexity.”

It is clear that establishing educational purpose is not simply an academic or organizational and managerial process. It is a public policy issue given the level of societal interest, the political nature of education, and the level of public investment.

My own espoused purpose for education—obviously taken from Deming: “Engendering increasingly enthusiast learners who continuously seek and achieve the skills necessary to advance their learning, satisfy their natural curiosities, and become contributing citizens.

Step two in organizational effectiveness is to establish how progress toward the adopted purpose will be measured. And here is why I have brought this topic to the fore. Think of what the policy makers of both major political parties and well-meaning many critics of educational have chosen as their measurement tools. Think standardize tests! Once you reflect upon that you will quickly realize why we are headed in absolutely the wrong direction and why the international leaders in education have abandoned exactly what those in the US are advocating.