The use of shared attribution is highly dubious. In Tennessee it is leading to lawsuits(c) Beginning with teacher evaluations for the 2015-2016 school year, if a teacher’s schedule is comprised of grade levels, courses, or subjects for which the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code or an alternative student academic progress measure if adopted under division (C)(1)(e) of section 3302.03 of the Revised Code does not apply, nor is student progress determinable using the assessments required by division (B)(2) of this section, the teacher’s student academic growth factor shall be determined using a method of attributing student growth determined in accordance with guidance issued by the department of education.
In Ohio as Greg Mild at Plunderbund points out, even ODE questions its useTwo accomplished teachers will file a lawsuit today in Nashville, Tennessee, to challenge the evaluation of most teachers in the state based on the standardized test scores of students in courses they did not teach. The teachers are joined by their representatives from the Tennessee Education Association and the Metropolitan Nashville and Anderson County Education Associations in the lawsuit, which is being prosecuted by the National Education Association and TEA. The lawsuit argues that these arbitrary, irrational and unfair policies violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “Students in Tennessee are being shortchanged because of the state’s arbitrary and irrational evaluation system that provides no meaningful feedback on their instruction,” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “This unfair broken system conditions the teacher’s employment on the basis of standardized test scores for courses they do not teach, including some from students they do not teach at all. The system is senseless and indefensible but, worst of all, it doesn’t help kids.” More than half of Tennessee teachers are being evaluated in the same arbitrary and irrational manner. While most teachers do not teach courses that use standardized tests, a Tennessee statue still requires that all teachers be evaluated substantially on the basis of student growth estimates calculated from student test scores using the state’s value-added model.
Stepping back from the dubious nature of using shared attribution, one really needs to ask what's the point of it all? If a cohort of educators in a school district, say music teachers, are all going to receive up to 50% of their evaluation based on some global shared attribution number, then only their observations performed by the district are going to differentiate their performance anyway. Why even bother using shared attribution in the first place? Once again OTES, rather than measuring an educators performance will be measuring a school, or districts, demographics and making high stakes decisions based off of it. It's time the legislature simply scrapped OTES and rubrics trying to tie student growth to individual teachers. Instead, the legislature should once again empower the Educators Standard Board to develop a simple, effective and fair evaluation system - Or - they could just leave the whole evaluation process under local control and stop meddling.The Ohio Department of Education recommends careful consideration and collaboration regarding the use of shared attribution data for teachers of kindergarten through grade 12, as the intent of the new evaluation system is to capture the truest picture of an individual teacher’s impact on his or her student population. Ultimately, the use of a shared attribution measure, including the percentage of weight designated within guidelines set in law, is a district decision. Student growth measures should collectively represent each individual teacher’s impact on student learning for his or her particular student population. Therefore, choosing to use shared attribution at any level should not be taken lightly.
Via One Ohio Now
Their full report with tables showing specific losses to each distrcit can be seen here.The Basics
Gov. John Kasich's proposed two-year, $72 billion state budget provides only a modest overall net increase in education funding of $464 million, with fewer than half of Ohio school districts (301 of 609) seeing increased funding in 2017. However, when funding to charter schools is factored in, one in three of those districts will see their increases erased. After charter school deductions, just 200 out of 609 Ohio public school districts see actual funding increases in year two of the proposed budget. In the last year for which data is available, $380 million in state funding was redirected from higher-performing traditional public school districts to charter schools with poorer performance grades on the state report card. Over a biennium, that’s $760 million going to worse options for kids, or two-thirds more than the Governor’s proposed $464 million increase in K12 education funding. By the Numbers
- 301 Districts receiving an overall increase in FY 2017 compared to FY 2015
- 101 Districts where the increased funding is less than the amount the district lost to charter schools in the 2013-2014 school year
- $760 million Minimum amount of money sent to worse performing charter schools from higher performing districts over a biennium, based on 2012-2013 school year data
- $464 million Net increase to school districts through the state’s foundation funding formula in this budget