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


The EDifier

September 19, 2014

Proposed changes to TFA program are response to criticisms

Teach for America is responding to widespread criticism of its controversial teacher preparation program which attracts recent college graduates, provides a six-week summer training program, places them in high-needs schools across the country and requires a two-year teaching commitment. Critics have argued that TFA has encouraged high levels of teacher turnover by requiring only a two year commitment and has irresponsibly placed unprepared teachers into communities vastly different from their own. However, it seems that TFA is listening to and using these critiques to better their program and the education of the students they serve. Two new TFA co-CEOs, Matt Kramer and Elisa Villanueva Beard, are beginning to implement major changes to the well-established TFA model. Here are some highlights of the reforms:

  • Providing a full year pre-training program for early decision applicants: This full year pre-training program will mainly consist of online sessions focused around the history of inequality in the United States, classroom training techniques and may give these prospective teachers opportunity to visit classrooms in high-poverty communities.
  • Placing teachers in communities where they have personal ties
  • Encouraging teachers to commit to five years instead of two
  • Continuing instructional coaching during the five year commitment and providing stipends to pursue graduate studies in education

While it is admirable that TFA is responding to criticism, the main question is whether or not these changes will lead to more qualified and better prepared TFA teachers. Will this year of online preparation with some classroom visits be sufficient preparation for these teachers? Learning about poverty and classroom techniques online is surely different from knowing how to apply this knowledge in a classroom filled with underserved children. Parents of public school children believe the answer lies in more rigorous and longer teacher preparation and training. In the recently released PDK/Gallup poll “The Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools,” 75% of public school parents replied that teachers should spend one year or more “practicing teaching under the guidance of a certified teacher before assuming responsibility of his or her own classroom.” TFA needs to continue to make changes in its program but should work to align these changes with the wishes of public school parents who demand better prepared teachers for their children.

Filed under: CPE,teachers — Tags: , , — Courtney Spetko @ 7:00 am





September 18, 2014

PDK/Gallup poll Part 2 shows teachers matter

The folks at PDK and Gallup apparently had so much to report in this year’s annual poll of public attitudes toward public schools, they had to release it in two parts. Part 1, which we summarized here, addressed the Common Core state standards and perceptions about public schools more generally. Part 2, released this week, focuses primarily on public attitudes about the teaching profession. What they have to say should provide comfort to beleaguered teachers.

First, nearly two-thirds of the public expresses “trust and confidence in the men and women teaching children in the public schools.” The study’s authors note that this represents a decline from previous years. Nonetheless, it must be a refreshing show of support for teachers who have many reasons to feel beat up by the punditry.

The public also recognizes the key role teachers play in student learning and by large margins would welcome policies to bolster their preparation and training. A full 81% believe prospective teachers should be required to “pass board certification” similar to that for other professionals like doctors and lawyers on top of their college degree in order to be licensed to teach. Likewise, 60% thought that there should be higher entrance requirements into teacher prep programs at the front end. The majority also support the idea of requiring a longer period of supervised practice before teachers take charge of their own classrooms. A plurality of 44% thought such a bridge period should last one year with 27% saying new teachers need two (see chart).

 

PDK2

 

Political affiliation had almost no effect on opinions about teacher preparation. Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike called for increasing rigor. Not so when asked about teacher evaluation, however, possibly in response to growing political controversy over new evaluation policies that are based in part on teachers’ impact on student learning. Nationally, 61% of the public opposes evaluations that include “how well a teacher’s students perform on standardized tests.” Yet only 50% of Republicans were opposed compared to 68% of Democrats. Interestingly, overall opposition to using evaluation in this way is much higher now than it was just two years ago when slightly less than half of the overall public thought it was a bad idea.

Similar party-affiliation gaps were evident when pollsters asked about the purposes of evaluation: 86% of Democrats said using evaluation to help “teachers improve” was “very important” compared to 71% of Republicans. In contrast, Republicans were much more favorable to linking evaluation to salaries or bonuses: 51% of Republicans said this was “very important” compared to only 41% of Democrats.

Other questions explored whether the public thinks their schools need to change “to meet today’s needs” and if so, how. More than half (58%) said that schools need to change compared to 47% who though so in 2006. The biggest needed change the public would like to see is a greater emphasis on career-technical education: 60% “strongly agreed” that “high school students should receive more education about possible career choices” while 32% said the same about placing “more emphasis” on college preparation for all.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the public thinks career education is more important than college readiness. It could indicate that they think high schools are doing ok with college prep but they need to do more to get students ready for work. But either way, the message is clear that the public is looking toward high schools to make sure all graduates are able to thrive in the new workplace.

Along those lines, CPE’s Jim Hull has been analyzing work and other outcomes for the group of high school graduates who do not go to a two- or four-year college. His findings should produce some valuable insights into what career-readiness should look like. His first report will be released in the next two weeks so stay tuned. – Patte Barth






September 9, 2014

Myths About Teacher Evaluations

While teacher evaluations haven’t garnered as much media attention as the Common Core, in the education world it has been nearly as controversial. And just like the Common Core there are a number of myths about teacher evaluations that impede important discussions on how evaluations can best be used to improve student performance. Even this insightful EdWeek essay by a Philadelphia high school math teacher included some popular myths such as:

            Value-added systems provide precise percentile rankings of teachers

While value-added models certainly can provide percentile rankings of teachers this is typically not the case. The objective of most value-added measures is not to create rankings—which wouldn’t be very precise—but to determine if a teacher is more or less effective than an average teacher. Value-added measures cannot, should not, and typically are not used to rank teachers from best to worst in any teacher evaluation system.

The impact of a given teacher on student performance is too small to accurately quantify

Because there are a number of factors besides teachers that impact students’ test scores, this is exactly the reason why value-added measures should be used. It is the only quantifiable measure that even attempts to isolate the impact of the teacher from other factors that influence student achievement. As this video shows, teachers have a tremendous impact on the academic success of their students.

The differences between schools are too great to accurately quantify

It is true that large differences between schools have an impact on teacher effectiveness which is why high quality value-added models are designed to minimize the impact of such differences. A good value-added model will compare teachers within the same school or similar schools to control for the differences between schools. These controls are not perfect but they provide a more accurate assessment of how a teacher would perform in a typical school.

Teachers are blindly fired due to flawed data that doesn’t provide context

While the other three myths had some nuggets of truth, this one is totally untrue. As I found in my Trends in Teacher Evaluation report, no state relies solely on value-added (or any one measure of student achievement) for more than half of a teacher’s overall evaluation. Even in states where half of a teacher’s evaluation is based on measures of student achievement, most of these states require that multiple measures of student achievement be used, such as student learning objectives, formative assessments and teacher developed exams.

Furthermore, in just about every state evaluation system, the lowest-performing teachers are provided additional professional development, mentoring, or other assistance to help improve their performance. Only if the teacher fails to improve after multiple years of low performance do they become eligible to be fired. And in most states the district still has the final say on whether a teacher is fired or not. So while teacher evaluation systems are used to identify low-performing teachers, it is still up to district leaders in most states to determine what to do with that information. – Jim Hull

Filed under: CPE,Teacher evaluation,teachers — Tags: — Jim Hull @ 2:32 pm





August 28, 2014

Success of new teacher evaluation systems in districts’ hands

In just the past few years just about every state has revamped how their teachers are evaluated. In 2010 the vast majority of teachers were evaluated by being observed for 45 minutes every couple years. Now, most teachers are evaluated annually based on multiple measures of their effectiveness. Although these new comprehensive evaluation systems have the opportunity to significantly impact the overall quality of our nation’s teachers, a new report from Bellwether Education Partners shows that they are still in need of improvement.

While these new evaluation systems are superior to previous evaluation systems, the report points out there is still room for improvement and provide five major findings with lessons for policymakers:

  1. Districts are starting to differentiate between poor, fair, and great educator performance, rather than treating all teachers as interchangeable widgets.
  2. Schools are using higher-quality classroom observation rubrics to provide teachers with better, timelier feedback.
  3. Despite state policy changes, many districts still don’t factor student growth into teacher evaluation ratings.
  4. Districts have wide discretion even under “statewide” evaluation systems—meaning that evaluation systems within the same state may look very different from one another.
  5. Districts continue to ignore performance when making decisions about teacher hiring, compensation, tenure, and dismissal.

 

As you can see “district” is explicitly mentioned in four of the five lessons and the fifth lesson about classroom observations typically falls under the domain of districts as well. This pretty much means the success or failure of these new evaluation systems depends in large part on our nation’s school boards as they are the policymakers at the district level.  As the report points out, even in states that mandate the use of a statewide evaluation system school districts have significant discretion over how their teachers are evaluated.

As I argue in our report Trends in Teacher Evaluations it is imperative that districts have flexibility in how they evaluate their teachers. And it is good to see that this is the case, as the Bellwether report stated, “Evaluation reform has not meant the end of local discretion.”

While flexibility is necessary, districts also need support too. Few districts have the resources and expertise to implement an accurate and effective teacher evaluation system on their own. Districts need support from their states to help them align these new evaluation systems to the unique needs of their district.

While responsibility for designing teacher evaluation systems was originally placed on states, this new report clearly shows that these new teacher evaluation systems will only be successful if school boards are provided the resources not only to implement these evaluation systems but also to provide professional development opportunities that are aligned with the results of each teacher’s evaluation. Without proper support for districts, teacher evaluations are unlikely to have much of an impact on the quality of our nation’s teachers. – Jim Hull

Filed under: Teacher evaluation,teachers — Tags: , , — Jim Hull @ 10:37 am





August 21, 2014

Test scores aren’t perfect— and neither are classroom observations

Classroom Observations Critics of using student test scores to evaluate teachers often point to research that shows there is a limitation to using student test scores to evaluate teachers. Due to such limitations, critics argue, student test scores shouldn’t be used to evaluate teachers. Critics typically go on to argue, if teachers are to be evaluated they should be evaluated based on how well they teach by conducting classroom observations. The problem, however, is this argument is based on the assumption that classroom observations are a more accurate measure of a teacher’s true effectiveness.

To this end, researchers at the American Institutes of Research (AIR) recently attempted to determine how accurate classroom observations were at measuring a teacher’s effectiveness. What they found is contrary to popular belief. In fact, classroom observations are not better at evaluating teacher effectiveness than using student test scores—when used within quality value-added models.

Now, this doesn’t mean classroom observations shouldn’t be used to evaluate teachers. In fact, it is critical, as they not only provide information on the quality of a teacher’s instruction but they also provide valuable feedback to teachers about the strengths and weaknesses of their instructional practices which test score can’t provide. However, it is not only important to measure how well a teacher teaches, it is just as important to determine what impact they have on their students as well. Just as in baseball, a player may have the most technically sound swing but if he can’t hit the ball they’re not going to remain on the team for very long.

This is why teachers must and are being evaluated on multiple measures, not just test scores or classroom observations.  As I laid out in Building a Better Evaluation System, to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of teachers their evaluation should be based on multiple measures such as student test scores, classroom observations or other measures. No single measure, whether classroom observations or test scores, can possibly provide a full and accurate picture of the quality of the instruction a teacher provides. By incorporating multiple measures into a comprehensive teacher evaluation program, districts can not only evaluate the quality of teachers, but more importantly identify those areas where teachers can improve.

While neither test scores nor classroom observations are perfect measures of teacher quality when used in isolation, when combined they work together to provide a valuable tool in evaluating and supporting our nation’s teachers. – Jim Hull






Older Posts »
RSS Feed