Teachers sit in the middle of the muddle strewed around by California and Congress and the U.S. Department of Education.
November 1 means a rush of teaching in the school days before Thanksgiving and then three weeks of instruction before winter holiday vacation. What units can be completed in that timeframe? Very few teachers have a moment to consider the legislation passed in the state, much less the fixes that the Senate has supposedly made to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) or the conditions of the waivers offered by the U.S. Department of Education.
To many in the education world, the waiver and its conditions seem to be a program worth attending to. It asks for growth data, requires goals to take the place of the lock-step NCLB yearly progress; and encourages data-driven accountability systems for both students and teacher evaluation.
The main problem is using the standardized or criterion-referenced tests to measure growth during the year. There are too many qualifiers as related in the San Francisco Chronicle, November 1, 2011, article “Test scores a poor measure” by David B. Cohen of Accomplished California Teachers. Assessing the improvement of students or teachers depends on more than one test a year.
On the other hand, the revisions approved by the Congressional Senate Education Committee have gone too far in relaxing accountability for schools. The language leads many disparate groups to worry about the most under-served kids. It’s a bill with deregulation at its core that allows state departments of education to set their own rules, that is, back to the old ways.
The state of California, with a legislature ever ready to stick its fingers in every small muddle, has come up with seven pieces of education legislation to fuss over in the Senate and Assembly-only two of which come even close to addressing the problems with student and teacher accountability. Concerns about head and neck injuries in sports and rules about administering emergency medical assistance to students with epilepsy are important, but guaranteed to cause unforeseen consequences.
The two bills that actually address instructional and learning issues concern the Common Core Standards (CCS) that the state’s Department of Education has approved. Align the English Learning Development curriculum to the CCS (AB 124) and approve additional instructional materials to go with the changed standards (AB 140)–a money issue.
Finally, the California Teachers Association (CTA) stand against an “unfunded top-down approach” by the U.S. Department of Education seems intractable. The CTA is leery of any premise that includes accountability by testing only. A detailed report on evaluation for teachers has been written by the Accomplished California Teachers called A Quality Teacher in Every Classroom: An Evaluation System that Works for California (2010). A clue-the report advocates teacher input in an evaluation system.
