Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

May 18, 2012

Using test scores to evaluate teachers can work

Sometimes I agree with Jay Mathews and sometimes I don’t. Either way I always have the utmost respect for his opinion. The same is true when it comes to his recent blog on teacher evaluations where he argues that rating teachers based on test scores will never work. While I disagree with his conclusion, I do agree they will not work if teacher evaluations:

  • Are based on only one year of data (even if value-added measures are used).
  • Do not include multiple measures of teacher performance.
  • Scoring is not transparent.
  • Do not encourage teamwork.

As a matter of fact I make the same points in my Building a Better Evaluation System report.

Where I disagree with Jay is his implicit assumption that these are not part of most teacher evaluation systems. As matter of fact they are. Most teacher evaluation systems based on student test scores that I am aware of include each of these elements. Jay is correct to bemoan the fact that DC teacher’s are evaluated on only one year’s worth of value-added scores. I would much rather see those scores averaged over 2 or 3 years like many other evaluations system do. But a teacher’s individual value-added score is just one part of DC’s evaluation system. Teachers are still evaluated on their instructional techniques and abilities as well as their contribution to the school community, so multiple measures are used to evaluate teachers.

Furthermore, DC as well as many other districts use their evaluation systems to encourage teamwork by evaluating teachers on how well their school performed as a whole. By giving credit to all teachers when the school improves, that gives incentives for teachers to work as a team. So basing teacher evaluations on student test scores can actually encourage rather than discourage teamwork within a school.

Finally, I have to take issue with Jay’s comment “New value-added assessments in the District, New York and elsewhere carry a whiff of Stalinist economic planning: secretive measures immune to review or logic.” Of course he is referring to a lack a transparency. However, with just one quick Google search I found a DC document clearly defining how teachers are measured. In the document I found it clearly spelling out how teacher evaluation scores are calculated:

  • Individual value-added scores: 50%
    • Student test score improvement
  • Teaching and learning frame work: 35%
    • Observations and other qualitative measures of teacher abilities
  • Commitment to the school community: Up to 10%
  • School value-added scores: 5%
    • School’s test score improvement

Furthermore, the same document provided more detail into how each of the categories is calculated. Not exactly Stalinistic. Maybe there isn’t enough detail for Jay because it doesn’t provide the code used to calculate the value-added measures. But most non-statisticians wouldn’t have a clue what the code said anyway. That’s why DC had their value-added model examined by two well respected experts who have worked extensively with value-added models. Again, I don’t think Stalin would have asked for second or third opinions.

What Jay may not realize is that the lack of transparency may have less to do with the teacher evaluation system itself and how it was developed, but about who runs DC public schools. DC, or New York City for that matter, doesn’t have an elected school board, so DC residents likely didn’t have as much of a say in the development of the evaluation system as residents in districts run by elected school boards.

So my response to Jay is that teacher evaluations based on test scores can and do work but they have to be done right, including public input through their local school boards. – Jim Hull

Filed under: Growth Models,School boards,Teacher evaluation — Jim Hull @ 9:15 am




May 17, 2012

The Common Core: still a state initiative, not a federal one

Well, I suppose it was inevitable. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on backlash against the Common Core standards in its article, “School Standards Pushback.” Apparently some states, including South Carolina, are claiming that the voluntarily-adopted, state-developed, consensus-driven math and reading standards represent an unfair federal intrusion into local and state territory.

Excuse me?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, these are some of the concerns: Adopting the standards could create a national curriculum that would dictate more controversial subjects like science. The standards won’t work to raise achievement and are weaker than they should be.

Excuse me again, but I fail to see how voluntary standards can somehow morph into a nationally-dictated curriculum. Especially when those standards were created through the states working together.

I also fail to see what stops local school boards, or states, from adopting additional standards that go beyond what is set in the Common Core, if they want to. Isn’t that what the name implies, anyway? A common core, not a common curriculum?

I firmly believe that local control helps produce the best student outcomes. Besides being an example of our democracy, having the community involved in its children’s education is often the best way to develop solutions that work. Local people understand local needs.

But anyone who’s spent as much time as I have looking at the huge variation between schools (for instance, the number of high schools that don’t even offer Algebra II) can’t help but feel that core standards, especially when developed by the states themselves, would be a useful benchmark for local communities to use.  Ignorance of what other schools can, and are, doing with similar students is detrimental to both students and their communities. 

So the use of these arguments both confuses and discourages me. Quite honestly, they simply seem to coincide with the reality of implementing the standards starting to hit. If that’s true, I’d rather these states bring up honest concerns about how to implement the standards well. Poorly-implemented standards will help no one. Hiding behind ignorance and calling it independence, however, won’t help anyone either. – Rebecca St. Andrie

Filed under: School boards,standards,Uncategorized — Tags: , , — rstandrie @ 10:30 am




October 21, 2011

The local crunch

I came across an interesting report the other day entitled “The Local Crunch.” Written by the Pew Center on the States,  it argues that states are both cutting funding to, and passing more responsibilities on to, local districts.

In light of the Center’s “Cutting to the Bone” report on funding, it made me wonder what the recession will mean for the balance of money and power between state, local, and federal governments — especially with programs such as “Race to the Top” spurring specific reforms (in some cases, with or without the money).

What kind of changes have you seen in local funding and reponsibility? How has your district handled any changes? And how do you think this affects participation in federal programs such as Race to the Top? –Rebecca St. Andrie

Filed under: funding,Public education,School boards — Tags: , — rstandrie @ 4:40 pm




June 9, 2011

Success story: From 53 percent to 83 percent

Seven years ago, the school board in Everett, Washington found out that their graduation rate was 53 percent. By using data to uncover students’ stumbling blocks, increasing (not decreasing!) the rigor curriculum, and supporting late graduates, they now have an on-time graduation rate of 83 percent and an extended (five-year) graduation rate of over 90 percent.

Interested? Read the whole story here.

Filed under: Data,Dropouts,Graduation rates,High school,School boards — Tags: , , , — rstandrie @ 4:53 pm




February 18, 2011

School boards keep charters out of their districts? Not exactly

Jay Mathews over at the Washington Post is one of my favorite reporters. Do I agree with him on all the issues? No, but he is one of the all too few voices in education whose opinion is not driven by ideology. Don’t get me wrong – he has strong opinions – but you certainly can’t box Jay into an ideological box. I think he truly does his best to search for what is best for students.

However, his recent post about the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board’s refusal to accept two charter school applications spreads the myth that school boards are more resistant to charter schools than other charter school authorizing agencies.

There is just no data to back up this common claim. As a matter of fact, when looking at the data from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), the data actually shows school boards are more likely to approve a charter school application than any of the other six agencies allowed to authorize charter schools across states. School boards do decline 60 percent of charter school applications, but independent chartering boards (such as the DC Public Charter School Board Jay highlighted) reject an even greater percent of charter application at the rate of 68 percent. Only non-profit organizations have a lower rejection rate than school boards, at just 52 percent.

Not only are school boards less likely to reject a charter school application, they are also much more likely to provide or assist charter schools in finding and/or financing a facility for charter schools within their district. That doesn’t really sound like school boards are inhospitable to charter schools.

However, there may be a very good reason for why this myth stays alive. One is that many of those who promote charter schools are not big fans of school boards to begin with, and whenever they reject a charter school application they just assume school boards are trying to keep charters out of their districts instead of believing the charter school submitted a weak application. Another reason, though, is that the public (including the media) are much more likely to see a school board reject a charter school application because school boards operate in a more public forum than other authorizing agencies. While other agencies hold public meetings, school boards gather much more attention.

So the perception may be that school boards are resistant to charter schools, but, as we say in all our Learning Center videos, before you make a decision you need to look at the data first.  The data clearly shows that school boards are not the enemy of charter schools. As we know from the Center’s Charter Schools: Finding out the facts report, there is a huge variation in the quality of charter schools nationwide, with the vast majority no better than traditional public schools (although there are some great charter schools like KIPP that the report highlights).

When a school board rejects a charter school application, it may be because they know what it takes to run a school and see that some charter schools are destined for closure. Certainly, the school board should give feedback to the charters as to why their applications were rejected so they could resubmit a stronger application. – Jim Hull

Filed under: Charter Schools,Data,School boards,Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Jim Hull @ 2:18 pm




Older Posts »
RSS Feed