State assessments are always good as an educational conversation-starter. We like to talk about high-stakes tests, teaching to the test, and whether such exams are a true measure of learning in the classroom. Like it or not, we take such exams seriously, seeing them as a measure of the student … and the teacher.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was told a story of a Northern Virginia student and a Northern Virginia teacher. The student is your typical pre-teen boy. He’s smart, but he lacks focus. From an immigrant family, his parents are limited in their English language ability, so many notes and instructions home fail to have maximum impact.
This week, the student took a practice test for Virginia’s SOL in history. Regardless of the reason, he only got about 60 percent of the questions right. He should be doing better, particularly after nearly a year studying the subject in class. The teacher was naturally worried, so sent a note home.
The note was classic passing of the buck. The teacher informed the parents of the poor performance on the practice test. Then the teacher informed the parents that the student had a notebook full of study materials he was required to bring home every night. The teacher reminded the parents he is to “study every night.”
At face value, the conversation seems pretty basic enough. Yes, parents need to take responsibility for their children’s performance. Yes, parents need to make sure their students are studying and successfully completing their assignments. And yes, parents should care about their children’s achievement on state assessments.
But there are two other issues here. The first is shared responsibility, the second the intention of state assessments. Teachers administer pre-tests so they know where their students stand. Such tests allow teachers to administer targeted interventions to address student learning needs. It allows for adjustment in classroom instruction, letting teachers see what lessons have sunk in and what lessons have not.
Students succeed in the classroom when parents, students, and teachers all take responsibility for learning. Teaching is not merely assembling a notebook of study materials. Requiring a notebook go home each night doesn’t translate into learning. Such materials are designed to enhance classroom learning. They can’t replace instruction.
Which gets us to the larger point — the intent of state assessments. In Virginia, we assume the SOLs will measure what a student has learned over the course of the academic year. While some may say teachers teach to the test, SOLs (or similar tests in other states) are not meant to be an exam we cram for. To suggest that SOL success comes from students studying sample questions at home undoes the intent and purpose of the state assessment.
It’s no wonder people have such issues with state assessments. It cheapens the value of the test when teachers give the impression and all-nighter will result in passing marks or students will learn through notebook osmosis or when parents think the responsibility is all on them to prepare their kids for the state exam. At the end of the day, state assessments should never be the vocal point of the classroom. The academic year should be about good instruction. If teachers teach well, students will succeed. And they will achieve on any independent exam the state or nation want to throw at them.
I wish my young friend luck on his history SOLs. And I hope his teacher experiences success with applied instructional methods. It’s good to encourage parents to get involved, as long as the teacher shares the responsibility, instead of passing potential blame.
AYP
A Nation in Transition
Virtually everyone in the education community seems to be celebrating the 25th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk.” For many of us, 25 meant two things. First, we got to rent a car without special surcharges. Second, parents and their friends could start asking us the question, “So what are you going to do with your life?”
For more than a decade now, I have heard educated folks — those far more educated than I am — ask the latter, lamenting the future of “A Nation at Risk.” We throw the term around all of the time, but fail to really delve into its deeper meaning. I can try to explain it, but Eduwonk said it far better earlier this week — http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/04/timepiece.html.
So after two and a half decades, where are we … really? We’ve spent a lot of time fighting the status quo, those folks who believed the schools simply needed more time and more money to fix what ailed them. We went through a magic-bullet stage, where schools adopted anything and everything that vendors claimed could boost student performance or improve learning. And we’ve spent the last seven years in the era of scientifically based learning, where research and “doing what works” is supposed to trump all.
I’ll be honest, I am not a true believer, and I don’t drive the Kool-Aid. Eduflack believes in conspiracy theories and things that go bump in the night. I’m a natural cynic who doesn’t worry if the glass is half full or half empty. I want to know who took my damned water. So it is very easy to see flaws and problems in a Nation, 25 years later.
But as I look across the landscape, I’d like to believe — to paraphrase Ronald Reagan — that we are better off now than we were 25 years ago. Today, we are talking about student achievement and student ability on state standardized tests. Today, we are putting research-based instructional models into the classrooms that need it most. Today, we are focusing on high-quality teaching, giving our educators the support, PD, and such they need to succeed in their classroom. Today, we are talking about a common national graduation rate, allowing us to effectively measure high schools across the city, the state, or the nation. Today, we are focused on outcomes, not just caught up in the inputs and processes of education. We look for a return on investment, and we measure that return based on student success.
Don’t get me wrong. We still have a LONG way to go. “A Nation at Risk,” along with other reports that have come after it, provide us a collaborative blueprint on how to improve our schools, and more importantly, how to improve the quality and the impact of our schools. We’re seeming select successes in pilots and programs across the country. We’re seeing Reading First raising the test scores of young readers. We’re seeing STEM programs engage all students in critical thinking. We’re seeing teachers take a greater pride in their craft and defend their field with a zealousness not found in decades.
One author has opined that “A Nation at Risk” should be renamed “A Nation in Crisis.” Based on what I’ve seen in the field, based on what I’ve heard and read from the experts, even this certified cynic has more hope than that. We may be “A Nation in Transition” now, with the possibility of become “A Nation of Opportunity.”
ED’s Back in the Game
In the hit baseball movie “Major League,” the Indians’ supposed slugger — Pedro Serrano — has a problem. He “hit straight ball very much,” but he just can’t seem to hit a curveball. The problem comes to a climax in the bottom of the eighth inning of a one-game playoff to decide whether the Indians or Yankees win the division. The Tribe is down by two runs, Pedro is up with a runner on first.
All season, the slugger had been praying to his voodoo god — Joboo — to help him hit the curve. Nothing works. Finally, with two strikes, Pedro steps out of the batters box, and speaks to Joboo for a final time. “I go to you, I stick up for you,” Pedro says. “If you no help me now, then [forget] you Joboo. I do it myself.” He then goes on to tie the game with a rocket home run, and the Indians win in the bottom of the ninth. All because of Pedro.
Anyone who knows Eduflack knows he is a die-hard baseball fan (Go, Mets!) and an education reform advocate. The two share a great number of characteristics. We usually swing for the fences, and we often fail. And we are considered an all-start if we can manage to succeed a third of the time.
These commonalities were even more clear yesterday, when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced her proposed regulations to strengthen NCLB. Essentially, Spellings has assumed the role of Pedro Serrano (which is not so bad since he goes on to become U.S. President David Palmer on “24”). For years, the field has been throwing a number of NCLB curveballs at Spellings. She’s fouled many off. She’s swung and missed on quite a few. And up until her last at bat, she hasn’t made good contact on any pitch that wasn’t straight and easy down the plate.
Yes, she’s embraced NCLB. She’s defended the law. She’s believed in it. But she left it to others to improve. The Miller/McKeon draft was a deep fly ball that landed foul. Kennedy’s revision of NCLB still hasn’t made it into the game. And there’s Spellings insisting the NCLB was going to win it come the end of the game.
She started making contact earlier this spring, when she announced her flexibility measures in Minnesota. This week, she finally parked one of those curveballs over the leftfield wall. Just as everyone had written NCLB off as dead, just as we had declared that the status quo would win at the end, Spellings has tied up the game and left NCLB in a position to win in the final inning.
Some of her proposed regulations look remarkably similar to ideas floated by Buck McKeon and others. That’s a good thing. She’s learned from both her friends and opponents, and has demonstrated she is listening. Her performance yesterday focused on the issues we wanted to hear. Flexibility on AYP. Strengthening school restructuring. Establishing the NGA’s universal high school graduation rate. Strengthening parental engagement. All individuals hits. Combined, they can win the game.
Of course, Spellings is now playing in a hostile park. She’s not only facing tough critics from legislators and the education blob, she’s also hearing it from the crowd as many hope for a swing and a miss. But she’s now showing she has the potential to knock in the winning run.
How? She needs to build public support for these administrative changes. She needs to demonstrate a commitment to improving the law, not just protect it. She needs to show that she is collaborating, both with her friends and enemies, to make the law better. And she needs to communicate, communicate, communicate with any and all who may be involved in the implementation.
“Major League” is but a movie. Spellings is playing in real life. And this isn’t just a one-game playoff. These changes are for her legacy and for the domestic policy legacy of this Administration. But that doesn’t mean she can’t have that Hollywood ending, and leave ED with a new, stronger NCLB.
Eight-Dollar Words
Secretary Spellings’ big national NCLB policy announcement came yesterday in Minnesota. And the closely guarded secret was exactly what Alexander Russo and others thought it would be — greater flexibility in determining student achievement and AYP.
We all know it was an important step, and one that was a long time in coming. The Commonwealth of Virginia is aggressively looking at pulling out of NCLB over the issue, willing to refuse its federal education dollars because of issues involving AYP and ELL students (among others). For years now, the states have been clamoring for additional flexibility, noting unique demographic and data circumstances in their states.
Such flexibility is not an excuse for avoiding federal requirements, rather it is a recognition that some states have to take different paths to reach proficiency and to get every student achieving. While we’re all heading to the same ultimate goal, it may take some longer and it may require more work and more innovation from others.
The U.S. Department of Education should be commended for finally offering this lifeline to those states trying to do the right thing when it comes to AYP. And we likely have groups like CCSSO for helping push it forward. Now, the spotlight will be placed on which 10 states will gain this newly found flexibility (and from the speakers list yesterday, it seems Minnesota and South Dakota are likely to be in the pool. And Spellings also singled out Maryland, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts. Here’s hoping that Eduflack’s home state of Virginia makes the cut as well.
But in all of the excitement of a major education policy announcement, I can’t help but notice the need by some to secure a triple-word score on the announcement. For years now, the talk has been on flexibility. Yet if we look at all of the headlines from the “official” documents coming out of the Minnesota announcement, we’ve decided to rebrand flexibility as a “differentiated accountability pilot.”
If the goal is to win over the research professors in our schools of education and public policy, then the rebrand is genius. But if our intent is to demonstrate that ED is listening, and has answered the call for greater flexibility, we are falling a little flat.
Over the past few years, one of the greatest criticisms of this Department of Education (and this Administration) is that it is inflexible. It is their way or the highway. And that has been particularly true of NCLB. It is enforced the way those on the seventh floor intend it to, and there is little (if any) room for interpretation or flexibility. That is why you have seen so many states (along with ed organizations like AASA, NEA, and the others) grouse about the law and its implementation for the last seven years.
We blunt that criticism by showing we are flexible. We scream from the rooftops of our ability to recognize and adapt to the needs of our constituencies. At this stage of the game, we should become virtual Gumbies of public policy, doing whatever it takes to reauthorize the law and recommit to boosting achievement in all students. These last 10 months are all about legacy, after all.
Instead, we fly such flexibility under the banner of “differentiated accountability pilot.” After reaching for our latest copy of Webster, we may figure out that ED is demonstrating flexibility. Or we may just move on, seeing it as just the latest in policyspeak and education gobbledygook. Worse, we may think there is something unknown and hidden in such a complicated term, fearing there is an enforcement shoe to drop that we don’t see or don’t understand.
Don’t get me wrong. A differentiated accountability pilot is a good step, particularly if ED selects the right states — those who need the flexibility the most and those who can demonstrate that, with a little help, improved achievement is just around the corner. But we should look to use common-sense words to describe complex issues.
We don’t need eight-dollar words when a 50-cent one will do. The name of the game here is flexibility. Hopefully, educators and policymakers will overlook our Scrabble-speak and recognize the opportunity and possibility behind the actions. After all, this is what they’ve been calling for for years.
The Standard Approach
It’s a standards-based world, and we’re all just living in it. We all are looking for improvement in our schools. We want to see real results. To get there, we need strong standards by which to measure the results. As Yogi Berra said, if you don’t know where you’re going, you’re never going to get there.
Whether they be state, national, or international, standards are necessary to school improvement. We need yardsticks to know how our kids and our classrooms are doing. And we need to know how we compare to schools, both across the state and around the globe.
Personally, Eduflack would like to see a common national education standard. Yes, local control of schools is an important part of both our history and our future. But with a constantly evolving population, one that is more and more transient, it is just as important to ensure a quality education for all. From our urban centers to our rural heartlands, from New England to Appalachia to the Badlands to the Pacific Northwest, all children should succeed. A fifth grader is a fifth grader, wherever she is studying. A high school graduate is a high school graduate, wherever he receives his diploma. National standards ensure that equality, putting equally strong instruction and curriculum in classrooms across the country.
So why don’t we have such standards yet? Some still question why standards are needed. Others can’t see how to develop and implement them effectively. And still others see it as infringing on the rights of educators across the country.
The urban legend tells us that teachers are opposed to such standards, believing they stifle creativity and true instruction in the classroom. We hear that teaching is more art than science, and standards simply reduce us to teaching to the test. To some, teachers are one of the greatest obstacles to adopting meaningful education standards.
That’s the fiction, but let’s take a look at the facts. Good teachers actually embrace standards, seeing them as goals on which to focus. They ensure that curriculum and data collection and training and learning materials are being chosen wisely. They work to leave no child behind. And they empower teachers to strengthen the necessary linkages between meaningful standards, classroom content, and student performance.
Case in point is the latest issue of American Educator from the American Federation of Teachers.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/index.htm
American Educator has focused its spring 2008 edition on the need for clear, content-specific state education standards. Offering perspectives from both educators and researchers, it is an interesting read. It reminds us of the AFT’s commitment to standards, while helping us erase the fiction that has blamed teachers for blocking standards.
If our goal is national standards, then meaningful state standards are a necessary step. Today, we can look at standards like those developed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and say, “that state gets it.” Imagine if we had such strong standards in all 50 states. Imagine if those states then all got together, and agreed to a common national standard. And imagine if AFT was a part of such a discussion. It’s enough to instill just a little bit of glee in the heart of an ed reformer.
Wither NCLB?
It has been a rough couple of weeks for our federal elementary and secondary education act. During a recent road tour, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings speculated that it is unlikely that NCLB will be reauthorized this calendar year. We’re still waiting on Ted Kennedy’s new version of the law. Buck McKeon is just as skeptical as Spellings about the 2008 future of new legislation. The future ain’t too bright in our nation’s capital.
It’s been just as interesting in the states. Most of us know about the long-pending NCLB lawsuit waged by the National Education Association and many states. Now we have new action and new rhetoric in the Mid-Atlantic adding to NCLB’s poor grades.
In Virginia, the state’s legislature this weekend voted to mandate that the Virginia Board of Education explore opting out of NCLB. Citing concerns about ELL students and exceptions (or the lack thereof) made for Virginia students with regard to AYP. It’s a bold move. Pulling out of NCLB would cost the Old Dominion millions upon millions of dollars. And that comes at a time when Gov. Tim Kaine is pushing hard to add universal preK, expand high school pathways, and boost the state’s college-going rates. With such aspirations, it says a lot that Virginia officials are saying it is worth more to refuse the NCLB check from the feds than it is to pay for all of the mandates that come with the law.
Across the border, West Virginia educators told Spellings that NCLB’s mandates are crushing teacher morale. Standardized tests and the scripted curriculums that come with them are destroying the teaching profession. We’ve heard about teaching to the test for years now and its impact on students, but Mountaineer teachers gave Spellings an earful on its long-term impact for teachers.
So what does this all mean? For years now, Eduflack has been saying that reauthorization of NCLB (with improvements) only comes when Main Street USA buys into it. Credit to Spellings for trying to do just that, but it may be a day late and a dollar short. The time to promote the value and impact of NCLB was two or three years ago, when its impact was just coming to light. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education froze, fearful of IG investigations and such. For the past 18 months, NCLB opposition has been banging and banging and banging away on the law, throwing a bright light on every flaw, blemish, and problem. And that light hasn’t dimmed,
Whatever the name, whatever the logo, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reauthorized. Isn’t it time we look at the good of NCLB and preserve those benefits, while identifying the shortcomings and building real, meaningful solutions that can make up those gaps and improve the law?
NCLB or its offspring should be seen as a benefit for states, not as an overwhelming obstacle that hinders states from boosting student achievement across all demographics. With its investment in PD, it should be seen as a boon for teachers, not a destroyer of morale. It should be about what the feds can do to improve state and local public education. And at the end of it all, isn’t it supposed to be about student learning?
Readin’ in the Sunshine
Tomorrow, Eduflack heads down to Tallahassee for the annual Florida Association of School Administrators conference. So imagine my pleasant surprise to see today’s Tallahassee Democrat article on the establishment of a first-grade reading academy in Leon County, Florida. (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/NEWS01/803030316/1010)
For much of the past year, it seems that school districts have been frozen in place when it comes to strengthening reading instruction. Chalk it up to a host of reasons — the 2006 IG investigations into Reading First and subsequent proposed cuts to the federal reading program, uncertainty about expected NCLB requirements and funding, satisfaction with current reading efforts, or budget struggles that place priorities elsewhere. Whatever the cause, reading just hasn’t been on the educational frontburner these past 18 months.
So let’s hand it to Leon County for putting their money where the research is. This summer, first graders unable to read at grade level will gain extra reading help for six weeks, four days a week, for six hours per. The program is similar to one the school district had previously launched for third-graders.
Why is this so significant? It may just be that we are seeing the rhetorical pendulum swing back again. In Leon County, they are talking about the research-based components of reading — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. They are discussing the need to have all kids reading at grade level by fourth grade. They are taking about curriculum based on the findings of the respected Florida Center for Reading Research. After a two-year hiatus, we are again talking about scientifically-based reading research.
Sure, this could be the exception. But Leon County is embracing what many school districts rallied to just a few short years ago. We’re talking about kids and their reading skill levels. We’re talking about research-based interventions to get kids reading at grade level. We’re talking about doing what works. What could be more effective than doing what works, particularly when it comes to reading?
Hopefully, this is a sign of good things to come down at FASA. Florida’s long been a leader in reading instruction. These academies could be just the model we need to jumpstart reading instruction in 2008.
Dropping Out in the Windy City
Just how bad is the drop-out problem in the United States? For years, we have heard the Manhattan Institute talk about urban drop-out rates of 30 percent, 40 percent, and even 50 percent. At the same time, many superintendents would counter with rates a fraction of that, citing circumstances that Manhattan wasn’t accounting for. Last week, Eduflack heard a tale (still to be verified) that until very recently one state was calculating their graduation rate based on the number of 12th graders who managed to graduate that year. As to be expected, they had a pretty good grad rate.
Today, the CPS Graduation Pathways Strategy is to be released in Chicago. Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the report cites recent Chicago drop-out rates of nearly 50 percent. The most recent data shows a dropout rate of 44 percent. The full story is here in today’s Chicago Tribune — http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-dropout_25feb25,0,1248671.story. Thanks to www.educationnews.org for flagging it.
Why is this study so important? We all know our large, urban school districts have long had a drop-out problem. Heck, it was only a few months ago that many of their schools were dubbed drop-out factories. While such rates are indeed alarming, they have long been part of the drumbeat of the need for reform. We know kids aren’t graduating from high school, and we’ve known it for decades.
No, the important issue here is that Chicago is standing behind some very ugly numbers. They recognize that the first step to improvement is strong data collection and strong data analysis. Working with BMGF, they now know the true scope and size of the problem. They aren’t trying to hide the numbers. They aren’t trying to develop an alternative approach to convert that 44 percent to 32 percent or 26 percent. They are laying out the cold hard facts, using them as a launching pad for substantive, meaningful reforms.
It isn’t often that we see a large school district go naked like that by choice. Data is often a closely held secret, and one might need dual degrees in statistics and computer science to dig out meaningful information from a district website or state education database. This study, though, seems to lay out a frank and open discussion of seven years worth of graduation data for the Windy City. And it serves as a model for other urban districts who recognize the drop-out crisis is a major education and economic issue.
As communication goes, CPS deserves a gold star here. If the goal is school improvement, one needs to generate a genuine demand for change. You need to demonstrate that is a significant problem, we know what that problem is, and we have the people and resources to fix it. And that’s just what Chicago is doing this week (and hopefully well beyond). They’ve identified the problem, and a 44 percent drop-out rate is definitely a problem, and acknowledge the softer spots such as male drop-outs and a high school population that is older than the norm. They’ve assembled a team of educators, representing the central office and the high schools, to get to work. They’ve partnered with BMGF to both study the issue and implement solutions. Now they just need to convince parents, teachers, and the community at large to back their proposed course of action.
It seems straightforward and common sense. But we don’t always see that in education reform communications, do we? Yes, we have a while to go before we know if CPS’ approach is effective. From the cheap seats, it definitely seems like their thoughts, words, and actions are pointed in the right direction.
“Reading is So Hot!”
A year ago, virtually everyone had left reading instruction improvement for dead. Massive cuts to Reading First seemed to trump whatever data the states or the U.S. Department of Education were putting out on reading scores. The appearance of flat NAEP reading scores only added to the sentiment. And even those optimists looking for NCLB 2.0 to be passed this year haven’t spent much time talking about the RF component of the law.
But over the weekend, The Washington Post put reading instruction clearly back on the reform frontburner. Saturday brought an op-ed from E.D. Hirsch, Jr., the chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Hirsch’s premise is simple — if we expect schools to meet AYP on reading, we need to provide greater focus and gain greater understanding of comprehension skills. But more simply, we need a national commitment to building vocabulary and reading comprehension in all students.
Today’s Post has op-eds by Howard Gardner and Susan Jacoby, both discussing our national need to read. Gardner talks of the end of literacy. Jacoby of the dumbing of America. Both embracing a similar theme that reading skills lead to success.
All three, of course, are correct. Reading skills are the core to student achievement and successful lives. While critics of Reading First have dubbed the program a “phonics” program, the initiative was always based on an approach that included equal priority to phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. So what does this renewed attention on reading comprehension and ability tell us?
First, reading skill acquisition is not limited to the reading or English/Language Arts classroom. Reading skills are also acquired through content areas like science and social studies. That is why such a focus has been paid to reading at grade level by fourth grade. Students need those reading skills to achieve in their science, history, and even math classes.
Second, reading instruction is a team sport. Yes, teachers need to do whatever they can to build reading skills — particularly comprehension — in all students. Parents and families bear a similar responsibility. They need to model good reading behavior. They need to encourage their kids. And they need to be aware of their kids’ strengths and weaknesses, and do what they can to improve on the latter.
Finally, comprehension is king. Hirsch is correct. We can get kid to memorize vocabulary words, but if they don’t understand what they are reading, what good is it? As we get more sophisticated in our reading assessments, student reading skills are measured on their ability to independently read a text and demonstrate they understand what they read. Knowing letter sounds and vocabulary words are important components to reading. Successful reading, though, can only truly be measured through comprehension.
Where does it all leave us? Reading skills are just as important today as they have ever been. Such skills are successfully obtained when instruction is focused on all five of the key components to research-based reading. And we can’t let anyone forget either. Reading instruction should still rule the reform roost. Comprehension skills should be the measure of effective instruction.
Unlike Gardner and Jacoby, Eduflack isn’t ready to proclaim the end of literacy or the dumbing of America. There are too many good educators, too many good researchers, and too many good minds committed to improving reading instruction in the United States. But if Eduflack is to hold that optimism, we must redouble our efforts to get scientifically based research, proven-effective instruction, relevant professional development, and good ole good books into every classroom.
If we are to be a nation of readers, we need the skill, the passion, and the texts to prove Gardner and Jacoby wrong. And we have miles to go in that regard.
Mis-assessing Teacher Assessment
How, exactly, do you grade a teacher? For years now, the education community has debated the value of measuring teachers based on student achievement. The concept is a simple one — teachers succeed when kids achieve. Students score well on district, state, or national assessments, and the teachers are effective. Good teaching aligns with student achievement.
In Polk County, Florida, policymakers decided to take it a step further by requiring an additional way to rate teacher achievement beyond student performance on standardized tests. The result? Use teacher-determined student grades to grade our teachers.
Huh? Let Eduflack get this straight. Teachers are evaluated based on student classroom grades. Teachers hand out those grades. So “A” teachers just need to give their students As. “C” teachers are those foolish enough to give their students C grades. And let’s not even talk about those “F” teachers.
In Florida, teachers seem to be taking issue with this scheme because they don’t have control over the students they receive. Teachers with a significant number of at-risk students run a higher risk of failure than those teaching honors classes. But shouldn’t we have a greater concern?
If this is the path our collective thinking is headed down, then we clearly don’t understand assessment, its intention, or its benefit. We wouldn’t dream of letting students grade their own assessment tests, would we? Is this really that different? Grading teachers on the subjective grades they hand out? What teacher would ink in that C or D for an underperforming student? This heads toward social promotion and grading on a curve, only on steroids.
What’s next? Licensing doctors based on customer satisfaction surveys, instead of board scores? Pilot’s licenses based on high scores on the latest PS3 game?
In the perfect world, assessments are scientifically based and replicable. We expect it to be third-party administered. We need to understand both the inputs and the outcomes, recognizing that we are assessed by our performance. We show what we know. We demonstrate learning and our ability to use it.
We want to assess our kids to ensure they are learning what they need to to continue to succeed in school. We assess them to ensure they are gaining the building blocks to achieve in life. ANd we are looking to assess teaches to know that they are teaching our kids the right things. We want effective teachers. And good teachers want to make sure their colleagues are effective as well.
Florida policymakers mean well. They are seeking to reward teachers with performance-based bonuses, and they need to find an effective way to measure that performance. But good intentions don’t make good policy. Instead of looking at the alphabet grades of students, Florida administrators might be better off looking at recommendations like the NCLB Commission’s effective teacher criteria or the legislation proposed by Coleman, Lieberman, and company last year on effective teaching.
What message do we send about student assessment issues when we communicate such a poor message on effective teacher evaluation? If we expect our teachers to get the job done, we should know what to look for. We shouldn’t just know it when we see it. Effective teaching can be both quantified and qualified. And if legislators don’t know how to do it, I’m sure the AFT can provide them some counsel.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 