Fordham Exposed Part I

Since the blistering repudiation of SB5 by Ohio's voters last week, supporters of the extreme measure have wisely fallen silent. Whether it's the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Ohio CPA's, or even the legislative architects themselves, all have decided that the best course of action after this stinging rebuke is to instead return to silently seeking ways to undermine working people.

That is, all except one. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a conservative corporate education reform organization.

In one post on their website, only a day after the election, their Vice President for Ohio Programs & Policy, Terry Ryan proclaimed "You’d be crazy to see SB5’s defeat as a defeat for Ohio school reform". He is of course talking about corporate education reform - the very thing voters rejected the day earlier.

Mr. Ryan tries hard to minimize the loss, and pass all credit to safety forces for causing the rejection of SB5. But even while mentioning the $30 million spent, he fails to recognize that teachers and education support professionals contributed over 1/3 of the campaign funds used to defeat SB5, provided thousands of the volunteers who made calls and knocked on doors, and featured in a number of widely broadcast ads, ads such as this one

You'd be crazy to believe voters didn't reject corporate education reforms.

The Fordham Foundation has decided to double down on its undemocratic opining, with a new article from Michael J. Petrilli their Executive Vice President. This new article, designed to be incendiary is titled "Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts". Despite being an uncharacteristically offensive piece of writing published by the Foundation, it's also disgraceful in its call for voter nullification. As if voters had not rejected SB5 by a wide enough margin, Mr. Petrilli pushes further to join with the far right tea party in his calls, perhaps even betraying the cause of his organization.

So where do reformers go from here? One option is to be even more radical: To go after not just collective bargaining but school boards too. Make all of the key decisions at the state level. Negotiate with the teachers around a statewide approach to pay and benefits, the whole kit and caboodle. (Marc Tucker’s “New Commission” made such a proposal several years ago.) That’s an attractive long-term strategy, but voters—averse to big, sudden changes—will need some time to get used to the idea.

Indeed. The push to eliminate collective bargaining has been going on since 1958, and voters are still rejecting the idea overwhelmingly. Mr. Petrilli might have a very long wait.

Perhaps these petulant responses from a conservative organization immediately after such a big loss should be expected, but this is not what surprises us.

What surprises us about the Fordham Foundation's response to SB5 is the simple fact that of all the supporters of SB5, they have always been in a position to prove its merits, but have failed to do so.

You see the Fordham Foundation sponsors 8 Ohio charters schools.

Here at JTF we have posed the question to charter operators and SB5 supporters many times - if you believe SB5 and its education reform tools are so effective at producing quality educational outcomes, why is it that charter schools in Ohio that already have all these tools at their disposal fail, consistently, to produce these results today? We have yet to receive an answer.

Join us in part II of Fordham exposed as we take a look at the failures SB5 like policies have had at Fordham sponsored schools and the hypocrisy of its most vocal boosters.

Rethinking Teacher Evaluation in Chicago

The Consortium On Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago Urban Education Institute just released an interesting report on the Chicago teacher evaluations rubric. We bring this to our readers attention because their process includes elements such as observations, that will surely be included in the forthcoming Ohio evaluation rubric. The conclusion begins

Our study of the Excellence in Teaching Pilot in Chicago reveals some positive outcomes: the observation tool was demonstrated to be reliable and valid. Principals and teachers reported they had more meaningful conversations about instruction. The majority of principals in the pilot were engaged and positive about their participation. At the same time, our study identifies areas of concern: principals were more likely to use the Distinguished rating.

Our interviews with principals confirm that principals intentionally boost their ratings to the highest category to preserve relationships. And, while principals and teachers reported having better conversations than they had in the past, there are indications that both principals and teachers still have much to learn about how to translate a rating on an instructional rubric into deep conversation that drives improvement in the classroom. Future work in teacher evaluation must attend to these critical areas of success, as well as these areas of concern, in order to build effective teacher evaluation systems.

Though practitioners and policymakers rightly spend a good deal of time comparing the effectiveness of one rubric over another, a fair and meaningful evaluation hinges on far more than the merits of a particular tool. An observation rubric is simply a tool, one which can be used effectively or ineffectively. Reliability and validity are functions of the users of the tool, as well as of the tool itself. The quality of implementation depends on principal and observer buy-in and capacity, as well as the depth and quality of training and support they receive.

We would add that this kind of tool could be very dangerous absent due process collective bargaining protections.

Rethinking Teacher Evaluation in Chicago

Research doesn’t back up key ed reforms

Via the Washington Post

There is no solid evidence supporting many of the positions on teachers and teacher evaluation taken by some school reformers today, according to a new assessment of research on the subject.

The Education Writers Association released a new brief that draws on more than 40 research studies or research syntheses, as well as interviews with scholars who work in this field.

You can read the entire brief (written by Education Week assistant editor Stephen Sawchuk), but here are the bottom-line conclusions of each section:

Q) Are teachers the most important factor affecting student achievement?

A) Research has shown that the variation in student achievement is predominantly a product of individual and family background characteristics. Of the school factors that have been isolated for study, teachers are probably the most important determinants of how students will perform on standardized tests.

Q) Are value-added estimations reliable or stable?

A) Value-added models appear to pick up some differences in teacher quality, but they can be influenced by a number of factors, such as the statistical controls selected. They may also be affected by the characteristics of schools and peers. The impact of unmeasured factors in schools, such as principals and choice of curriculum, is less clear.

Q) What are the differences in achievement between students who have effective or ineffective teachers for several years in a row?

A) Some teachers produce stronger achievement gains among their students than others do. However, estimates of an individual teacher’s effectiveness can vary from year to year, and the impact of an effective teacher seems to decrease with time. The cumulative effect on students’ learning from having a succession of strong teachers is not clear.

Q) Do teacher characteristics such as academic achievement, years of experience, and certification affect student test scores?

A) Teachers improve in effectiveness at least over their first few years on the job. Characteristics such as board certification, and content knowledge in math sometimes are linked with student achievement. Still, these factors don’t explain much of the differences in teacher effectiveness overall.

Q) Does merit pay for teachers produce better student achievement or retain more-effective teachers?

A) In the United States, merit pay exclusively focused on rewarding teachers whose students produce gains has not been shown to improve student achievement, though some international studies show positive effects. Research has been mixed on comprehensive pay models that incorporate other elements, such as professional development. Scholars are still examining whether such programs might work over time by attracting more effective teachers.

Q) Do students in unionized states do better than students in states without unions?

A) Students tend to do well in some heavily unionized states, but it isn’t possible to conclude that it is the presence or absence of unions that cause that achievement.

What Studies Say About Teacher Effectiveness

Would you blame the architect if you accidentally burned your house down

The Plain Dealer has a comprehesive article on teacher level value add, that's worth reading in full. We pulled out the following excerpt to highlight the problem with having a secret forumla no one understands, and which might not prove stable over time

Former Cleveland State University professor Douglas Clay said the complicated formula and a calculation process that SAS keeps secret are a concern, especially if pay is eventually tied to ratings.

"It will go to court the first time someone is denied a raise," he predicted.

SAS' White said a simpler calculation of subtracting students' scores on the state achievement tests from the previous year's scores would be easy to understand, but would be so simplistic it would ignore many factors and misclassify many teachers.

Kenston Superintendent Bob Lee is among the educators who are hesitant about applying value-added to individual teachers because of constant shifting or "stabilization" of test scores by the state and changes to the range of scores that meet, exceed or fall short of the standard. He said most legislators and even fellow superintendents do not understand all those details.

"I'm worried it's being rolled out with very little understanding at the state level of how it behaves," he said.

What is interesting about this article is the response in the comments, overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of teacher level value add as a means of evaluation.

cognitiveguy November 13, 2011 at 6:47PM

Value added seems like a fundamentally good idea but this story points to a significant problem with it, which is that it's far too complicated for most educators and parents to understand and, therefore, few educators and parents are likely to buy into it or trust it. ODE needs to explain how progress is measured in a way that everyone can understand. For example, I read in a previous story and on the ODE Web site that multiple regression analysis is used to calculate student progress. Really? Multiple regression analysis? Say that to a parent, teacher, or superintendent and watch their heads spin. By the way, good story.

petre November 13, 2011 at 7:07PM

I pity the teacher who gets students whose parents don't give a ____(fill in the blank). What will they be forced to do to get chronic truants to come to school? To get those from families who don't value education to do anything at all? Teach to the tests only? What about classes like science and history if the measurement is English and math?

Pirate November 13, 2011 at 7:10PM

What do we want to teach our students? Do we want it to be measured with the same bubble tests which have little to do with learning and much to do with measurement so that teachers and students can be defined as smart, or not, with learning disabilities, or not, creative or not, and all these determinations are made by who? Bubble tests which have given the measurement people what they want so that they can define our entire education process from the governors mansion. Fire this one because of poor tests, fail this one and label them a failure for the next five years. It is fact that operating an educational system based upon bubble tests places an identity on children which follows them through school. 'The looking glass self' has harmed many and still does. Only a joyful learner can learn or teach (which is one in the same thing to you who are not educated in education). It is a process which goes on all of the time and the roles can and should switch. Learning is a joy when done right. We are not doing it right and if we get politicians involved in hire and fire of teachers we are dead. The conservative is always bad for freedom in education and seeks to punish and control all in their path. There is already enough of them in education making education a bore and a numbers game like profit and business and selling and marketting worthless junk to the masses. Teachers need to help kids think, and reason and make choices based of helping others and not competing with them and envying them...Our system needs much change, but more bubble tests is not the answer.

heyfrank25 November 13, 2011 at 7:11PM

Hopefully with the regression they will be controlling for socioeconomic factors, student's attendance, parent's negligence, etc. Otherwise these teachers are just screwed. And 40 percent of teachers are failing in the "excellent" rated Perry SD? Obviously these tests have no criterion validity.

susiecat November 13, 2011 at 7:15PM

This is a very bad idea for two reasons. First of all, who will want to work with students who have low ability? If teachers are rated based on student performance, all teachers will want to work with the more capable students. Also, it will create an atmosphere where teachers will no longer share their ideas and methods freely. Right now, teachers share ideas for the betterment of the entire school community. With value added, who will want to share? Who will want to work together for the common good of ALL students, not just those in their own personal class? Teachers will just shut their doors and keep to themselves the wealth of information that they could share with new teachers. There will be a DECLINE in student performance.

CityontheLake November 13, 2011 at 8:12PM

This won't work. If a kid doesn't want to learn something, they're not going to learn it. A teacher's skill in teaching doesn't matter. Now, our education system does have problems, but I think teachers are causing very few of them. This is coming from someone who was a mediocre student all through high school.

Would you blame the architect if you accidentally burned your house down?

djkorn1 November 13, 2011 at 9:11PM

I feel bad for teachers that have high populations of Special Education students. How are students with learning disabilities supposed to get 'more than a years' worth of growth?? According to No Child Left Behind and the Ohio Acheivement Assesment, they are supposed to... (and they count double), if they are poor, they count triple.

This is like trying to win the Superbowl with the Chess club.

kmark92s November 13, 2011 at 10:13PM

Will the state publish the names of the parents who don't show any interest in their children's education? Will the state grade them on how many unanswered phone calls, unattended conferences or how many days their children have missed school? I would love to see that in the same report.

Shu71 November 13, 2011 at 10:24PM

I would like to know if this means that teachers will be able to draft the students in their class? Otherwise all you would need is 1 principal with an ax to grind and poof, you get all of the behavior problems, home problems and family problems in a classroom.

I would also like to know if the legislation includes identical mandatory testing and student service requirements for all Charter and Private Schools that receive a single cent of tax money. After all, those schools (with their controlled student populations) will crow loudest if permitted to cherry pick the best of the best kids. If this is going in to effect in Ohio, then ALL educators/school that receive state dollars need to play by the same rules.

american November 13, 2011 at 10:40PM

I feel bad and unlucky that we have ignorant political leaders who consider teachers enemies of their political party. This cold war is not only against teachers but it is 100% against students. If our leaders take their time to develop our state standards to meet standards in England or Germany or Japan, or France, or China, or India, our children and parents will appreciate their great work. For Politicians to spend their time just to attack teachers instead of thinking to improve the economic situations in Ohio is an evidence that our leaders in Columbus must go.

howardbeale November 13, 2011 at 11:51PM

So, if the State fails to maintain facilities or equipment, doesn’t buy new books or teaching materials, will not hire the required number of educators and lays-off new teachers, and not only ignores the Ohio Supreme Court when it rules that the financing of education in this state is unconstitutional it actually puts up the money to replace the judges, then we should grade the teachers who survive all this junk? Why don’t we begin to grade these administrators and legislators who have been failing us for thirty years? I’m not asking the Plain Dealer, I’m asking you the posters. It is time we rebelled, withheld campaign contributions, and voted against these idiots.

There's an awful lot of confusion, complexity and very good points in just these comments.

Subtraction by Distraction

With the ever increasing generation and use of value added scores - that is, scores primarily based on student test results, there will be a increasing desire by some to inappropriately use these scores in a public way.

The Ohio Department of Education recently conducted a session on this topic with Ohio's media to try to inform them on the proper use of value add, its complexities and limitations.

Such is the red hot nature of this topic, the Center for American Progress has just released a report on the subject of publishing value add scores tied to teachers names. It concludes with this warning.

Value-added scores give us important information, so they should continue to be used as part of teacher-evaluation systems. Parents and the public have a right to transparent information about teachers, but teachers’ privacy needs to be protected. Public identification of teachers with value-added estimates will undermine efforts to improve schools by hamstringing efforts to make actual classroom performance the basis for decisions affecting the career prospects of currently practicing teachers, and by hoisting red flags of caution for college graduates and career changers inclined toward the profession.

The bottom line is this: Teachers need to be part of reforms but releasing names in this way only leads to conflict and runs counter to the need for collaboration. We note also that parent notification is a particularly tricky issue that needs considerably more thought than we were able to devote to it in this brief.

Releasing value-added scores at the school level is appropriate, however, and this could serve valuable purposes related to transparency and accountability. Districts could aggregate value-added scores and evaluations by grade, or by school, as a component of a robust accountability system that could then be folded into the requirements of state or national accountability laws. Publicly releasing such aggregate information could play an important role in documenting whether or not highly effective teachers are equitably distributed among schools in a district and among districts in a state.

If journalists attempt to do their own analyses of value-added data, they should follow the same standards that researchers do when protecting human subjects. "is means that data are de-identified and individual names are never published.

Furthermore, datasets should continue to be available to researchers whether in academic institutions or in media outlets. Such research is absolutely critical in order to develop a deeper knowledge base about value-added scores, their potential uses, and misuses that should be avoided.

Battele for Kids, who are heavily involved in the design and creation of value add and teacher evaluations had this recent warning

Those who deal with statistics recognize that using a single data point, like value-added, in a single point in time is not a responsible use of that data. Although it does provide utility to assist us in aligning curriculum, course pacing and resource allocation, a three year rolling average of value-added data would provide a clearer picture of a teacher’s effectiveness.

As we increasingly rely upon data in the persuit of corporate education reform policies, we need to be vigilant in holding those who use this data to a high standard of analysis, and not allow the misappropriate or intepretation of data to drive ideoloigcal or profit driven agendas.

Performance Index Ranking for Districts and Schools – A Preview

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has just released a preview of its new ranking of Ohio public school buildings’ performance.

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is giving parents, educators and taxpayers a preview of a new approach for comparing academic performance among schools and districts. Effective September 2012, House Bill 153 requires all school districts and school buildings to be ranked using the Performance Index (PI) score. Such rankings will provide parents and taxpayers a new way to evaluate how local schools are performing while allowing educators to compare their performance with peers.

The school district list will include all city, local and exempted village school districts as well as joint vocational school districts, community schools and STEM schools. The school building list will include all schools that are part of city, local or exempted village school district as well as community schools, joint vocational schools and STEM schools

Preliminary Rankings
Buildings	Districts
All school buildings	All districts
High schools	Traditional districts only
Middle Schools	District Notes
Elementary Schools
Community Schools
Building Notes

Each school building in city, local and exempted village school districts, as well as joint vocational school districts, community schools and STEM schools are ranked using a Performance Index (PI) score. PI scores combine individual students’ results on all tested subjects in grades 3-8 on Ohio’s Achievement Assessments (OAAs) and on the 10th-grade Ohio Graduation Test (OGTs). The Performance Index score has been widely used and endorsed by Ohio educators since its adoption in 2003.*

The PI scores are not new, and it has been possible to create ranking lists with them using existing interactive tools on the ODE website. Such district and county rankings have been done frequently by independent groups, but this is the first statewide ranking completed and released by ODE.

The rankings are required under House Bill 153. The final ranking list is required to be released by September 2012.

*Calculating the Performance Index All assessments have five performance levels, which include: Advanced; Accelerated; Proficient; Basic; and Limited. The percentage of students scoring at each performance level is calculated, and then multiplied by the point value assigned to that performance level. The points earned for each performance level are totaled to determine each school’s Performance Index score, where applicable.

2011 District Preliminary Ranking List - All Districts