Loading ...
T.J. Chandler is the founder of EdZapp, Oregon’s statewide online employment application, and is now the Regional Director of Operations for Netchemia, LLC working with K-12 teacher and administrator evaluations. T.J. was formerly the Director of Business Applications for the New York City Board of Education, and has worked with over one hundred school districts across the country on operational and human capital issues. T.J. holds degrees from Willamette University and Princeton University.
As some celebrate the 10th anniversary of NCLB and others curse it, I ask, “What have we learned from it?” In particular, I am intrigued by certain parallels between evaluating “student achievement” and “teacher performance.”
Some Parallels
Like the discussions 10-15 years ago about students “falling behind” and “dropping out,” policy-makers realize that there is a problem with teacher effectiveness and attrition. The tough part for both problems, of course, is specifying–in meaningful and legally-defensible terms–which individuals are having trouble, and even more importantly how to help them improve.
For example, it is well documented that standardized test scores are more highly correlated to the student’s parents’ characteristics (income and education level) than that student’s own efforts (school attendance, classes taken, discipline record) or any other factor for that matter. While some adjustments have been made to standardized tests to “level the playing field,” the debate still rages over how effective such tests are in measuring student achievement–let alone prescribing interventions to boost that achievement. The loudest and most consistent criticisms of NCLB are that high-stakes tests distort the educational process.
Similarly, a review of teacher evaluations at virtually any district in the State reveals that the summative scores are rarely indicative of a teacher’s actual contributions to student learning. Whether or not you accept the “Widget Effect” promoted by The New Teacher Project, I have been in enough classrooms to be convinced that some outstanding teachers are not given the recognition or opportunities to grow that they deserve, while some incompetent teachers remain in the classroom to the detriment of our children. Most discouraging, the “Satisfactory” teachers (like “Average” students) are not given meaningful feedback to act upon in order to grow. Increasingly rigorous standards, such as InTASC, and sophisticated evaluation rubrics, such as Danielson’s Framework for Teaching are elevating the discussion–and the contentiousness–surrounding teacher evaluation, much as the Common Core Standards and various student assessment tools have over the past decade for student achievement. Indeed, the loudest and most consistent criticisms of teacher evaluation are that high-stakes summative evaluations distort the educational process.
In principals’ offices, the problem is in the implementation. Whether standardized tests or standards-based evaluations, highly prescriptive methodologies imposed by State and Federal authorities can be burdensome and unmanageable, with complicated forms and reporting requirements that may or may not resonate with the principal’s leadership style or local culture of the school. In the absence of prescriptive guidance, however, many schools will do nothing at all.
Some Lessons
I am sure there are many lessons from NCLB, but a few components that I have found most compelling include: early childhood intervention through programs such as Head Start and student nutrition services, differentiated instruction and thoughtful curriculum, and comparative data collection.
How are these applicable to teacher evaluation?
First, we should approach the educator’s “career lifecycle” more holistically. Just as Head Start promotes literacy in early childhood, the development of a teacher should begin before she enrolls in an MAT program. We should nurture the skills, characteristics, and competencies that we seek in teachers by encouraging prospective teachers to enter the profession, and then continue to develop those traits throughout the preparation programs, the licensure/certification process, the recruitment and hiring process, ongoing professional development, and yes, even formative and summative evaluations in their jobs. There currently seem to be significant disconnects between these stages of a teacher’s career, and a lack of coordination between the various partners that manage each stage. We need to nourish these aspiring educators throughout their careers as though they were hungry children!
Second, we should provide differentiated and thoughtful professional development for educators. An interesting article on differentiating teacher evaluations makes the important point that a new music teacher and an experienced math teacher have very different styles and needs, and therefore should not be evaluated in the same way. In my experience, the best educators are those who take an active and interested role in their own growth and development. They are excited to learn and to become better teachers. Which, not surprisingly, is exactly what we want to inspire in students! Unfortunately, too many great teachers feel “suffocated” or get discouraged by the lack of professional growth opportunities in their schools, and “dropout” from the profession. I am encouraged by some of the models emerging around the State that provide more latitude for professional development and career paths for educators.
Finally, we should collect–and publish–data on teacher effectiveness. In 2010, the Los Angeles Times published student achievement data for all of the teachers in the L.A. Unified School District, as part of a “Value Added Model” (aka VAM) analysis. Although highly controversial, it has been an outstanding reminder that no single measure defines educator effectiveness, and has opened up meaningful conversations about data, student learning, and accountability. Ideally, we should have an environment where data are readily available and explained, so rather than being a threat, it is seen as an opportunity to recognize and understand trends and anomalies.
If we have learned one thing from NCLB, it is that “one size does not fit all.” The tough work ahead, of course, is finding a size that DOES fit and that brings the best educators into the profession and keeps them here.
Mr. Chandler,
You are correct “one size does not fit all”. Actually, 43 years of teaching at several dissimilar schools, teaching a wide variety of classes, and working in several vastly different communties has shown me that not only does “one size not fit all” but that people outside of education who are trying to profit from the reform movement most often don’t have it straight. Just as one example, the best teachers I have known don’t get suffocated by the lack of professional growth opportunities but by the plethora of supposed professional inservice opportunities. There are too many required — they are often not relevant to what actually takes place in the classroom and they are seldom initiated by teachers, but by people such as yourself who are trying to make some money, get a job as a consultant, have a job as a consultant, make their name as an educational organization, or be used as a cover up by administrators for the previous inservice suggestions which didn’t work.
In my last school, with about 60 faculty, there was not a really poor teacher. And the reasons why some were better in some ways (and that is a terrific distinction in how this all works) than others, but were worse in some ways than the same ones, were practically infinite. While I really like the work of Danielson and think it has a lot to offer, it does not address the quirks of personality, the way a teacher can be very good for one child and not so good for another, nor the meshing of a teacher with his or her environment which creates a huge portion of a teacher’s success or failure.
I knew a person who was one of the best first grade teachers I have ever seen, was a fabulous (one of the best in the state easily) special ed teacher, an ordinary middle grade teacher, a terrific elementary administrator and a not too good upper grade administrator. So, how do you evaluate that? The key was getting her, and keeping her, in the right position.
Then take myself. I have had a parent tell me that my sixth grade class was the singular reason for her son’s successful life and without me he would not have been successful. This was years later. For her, I was the greatest teacher she could imagine. Then I have had parents remove their kid from my classroom because they didn’t like me. So which was I? The best teacher there was, or a rotten teacher with no sensitivity to racial backgrounds?
Then there is the evaluator problem. One of the best 10 teachers I have known was gotten rid of by her previous administrator who didn’t like her.
Then there is the problem that a small number of teachers are just beyond everyone else. It isn’t so much the way they teach, but who they are as people and this coupled with where they are teaching makes them incredibly stand out. People want to use them as the standard, but you can’t anymore than you can use Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan as the standard for all basketball players. You don’t tell the freshman kid on your second team that he should be Michael Jordan.
So there are serious problems with thinking teacher evaluation methods will substantially change education. A teacher is good for some children, not so good for others, is good with some classes, not so good with others, is good with some subjects, not so good with others, is good working with one administrator, not so good with others, is good when his or her homelife is going well, maybe not so good when it isn’t, and is defined by an infinite myriad of other attributes, experiences, or surrounding environments.
So where does all this complexity leave us? Three main places. Teachers need to be evaluated by their administrators or their peers under the guidance of the school board, not from some general outside system set up by the state or some organization or by test scores, value added or whatever. Then, let inservices be initiated by teachers themselves asking for help in the areas they need (as if they are real, respected professionals similar to how they are treated in Finland), and we need to quit spending huge amounts of time, energy and money on the adults in the system and spend that money instead on things that directly affect kids.