Posts Tagged ‘teacher evaluation’

« Older Entries

Summertime

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

When the days are long and fruit and flowers bloom, an abundance of articles about various school issues pop up in the newspapers and on websites.

USA Today (6/7/10) had a brief synopsis of reports saying that black students have moved to suburban schools in the Dallas, Texas, area.  Hispanic students have filled their places in the Dallas school district.  Another example of families who have become knowledgeable and made decisions to help their children.  Such a demographic move has happened many times all over the country and stands for one reason it is difficult to stick to the same old program forever.

The New York Times (7-3-10 “World Focus Is Gaining Favor in High Schools” by Tamar Lewin) described the International Baccalaureate (IB) program favored in several high schools as an alternative to the more common Advanced Placement (AP) programs.  The IB is a rigorous model to capture the attention of students who may want a balanced curriculum in a small group setting that also impresses college admission officers.  The emphasis is on philosophies worldwide, not separate academic subjects like AP courses.  Interesting that the article did not describe the variety of high schools across the nation that have instituted the IB model for many years, like California’s San Jose High School with many Hispanic students and some Denver schools with an IB program from upper elementary to high school.

The Nation (6-14-10) brought out its education issue “A new vision for school reform” with fact and opinion by a number of well-known education writers.  For this blog writer, the most unsettling conclusion came from Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University, who, in her view of the legislation in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) emphasizes “competition and sanctions as the primary drivers of reform rather than capacity building and strategic investments.”

Perhaps the despair of the teachers unions, both AFT and NEA, is the outcome of the quote above.  At their recent combined convention in New Orleans both union presidents seemed vexed about charter schools, teacher evaluation, and anti-union comment mainly made by conservative legislators.  The vote in the House of Representatives to commit $10 billion more dollars to reduce teacher lay-offs and other delays in school budgets, but the US Department of Education’s unhappiness in taking money from Race to the Top funds to pay for it, infuriated the unions.  See The New York Times “New Tension in Obama’s Ties to Teachers” by Sam Dillon, 7-5-10.

Closer to home, San Francisco is in the process of closing a middle school and overhauling 9 other schools, all hit by California’s determination to transform its low-performing schools-the good thing about the federal reform effort.  If only the school transformations will emphasize Darling-Hammond’s “capacity building and strategic investments.”  See San Francisco Chronicle “S.F. to shut school, overhaul 9 others” by Jill Tucker (7-3-10).

Now what about the litigation sent to court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Los Angeles in February and by the California School Boards Association et al (CSBA) in May, also known as Robles-Wang vs. California?  The ACLU suit was to hold off Los Angeles teacher lay-offs in low-performing schools, and the CSBA suit was written to force the California legislature to restructure school funding to finance the requirements of education legislation.

Nothing has happened since the May 13, 2010, injunction in Los Angeles (see 6-2-10 post).  The California Assembly is proposing a California Jobs Budget which will stave off shortages in school funding for a year and still make up the $19 billion state budget shortfall.  We’ll see how long it takes to pass this year.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in American Federation of Teachers, ESEA, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, National Education Association, school finance reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Standards We Can Believe In

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

The entire education world stands behind consistent core content standards to use as benchmarks for student evaluation.  But, what about teacher evaluation?

another California elementary school

another California elementary school

At this moment most school districts in the country are frozen by the disarray in state budgets and taxpayer angst, preferring to blame teachers when students aren’t doing well just as the oil execs pointed fingers at everyone but themselves for the latest catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

So with the uncontained controversy over funds for schools-think about it, we’re talking about money to make sure students are educated.  What would it be like to live in the countries where children don’t go to school at all, aren’t educated, struggle through life with little to sustain them much less lift themselves out of their hard scrabble existence?

Here in the U.S. the latest way we value our students is to not approve school district budgets, vote not to pass parcel taxes, exact wage freezes and higher insurance premium concessions from teachers, and require furlough days–to name a few of the cutback options pervading not only urban districts but upscale suburban districts also.

On top of such turmoil, state legislatures are passing new education bills that feel to teachers like another slap.  Why?  Before common core standards for students are put in place, and no matter what the states say, teachers are being evaluated by one tool–analyzing the improvement in test scores for the teacher’s students.  For many states improvement in this area would mean SPENDING funds and time to make those test scores valid and available.

Here it is: the cart before the horse.

This is how academic standards for student achievement should affect the teacher evaluation goal.  Follow this path: consistent standards and benchmarks, preferably throughout regions of the country if not nationwide; then tests that actually assess those standards and for which proficiency is equivalent region-wide; after test analysis, provisions made for each school to support those students who need intervention; next yearly evaluation, non-threatening, designed collaboratively with teachers in a school, test scores being one aspect; yearly evaluation of the school as a whole and of the district as a whole, including the superintendent and school board; money set aside to provide professional development for aspects of academic achievement not met by teacher, principal, school, and district.  REPEAT EACH YEAR.

This process is not on the agenda.  Instead, teacher tenure, anathema for most lay people, drives the process, especially for those fixated on turning schools into businesses, which they aren’t and won’t be even if run for profit.  Why would anyone wish to make a profit on the backs of little kids just doing what their parents want and the state requires?

The tenure aspect of teacher evaluation ought to be seen as an outcome of consistent, agreed upon standards and benchmarks for student achievement.  The teacher’s standards must be clear, unequivocal, based on objective statements of good teaching.

In addition, an agreed upon framework is needed for how the school community works together to meet student achievement goals.  If one teacher can’t or won’t support that goal, then steps to lay off the teacher make sense.

If you are interested in details of national student core standards, part of the federal Common Core State Standards Initiative to make assessment and proficiency consistent and achievable across the country, you can go to the National Governor’s Association or the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Both groups have overseen the development of and recently set out a draft of national core standards K-12 from which the process outlined above would lead to results that teachers may feel adequate for successful evaluation.  Don’t forget the principal and school district administrators must be evaluated also.

You can go directly to look at the core standards and take a survey.  Do so.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governor's Association, low-performing schools, public schools, school accountability, school community, school reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Colorado’s Big Bet

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Colorado has placed a big bet on how to improve student testing outcomes through more frequent teacher evaluation.  Senate Bill 10-191 sets in motion a vast assessment system of annual performance appraisal for all teachers.

Probationary teachers must receive three consecutive satisfactory reviews to move to non-probationary, or tenured, status.  Tenured teachers will drop to probationary status with two consecutive years of unsatisfactory performance.

The legislature put no new money into the system to pay for expanded evaluation, yet alone additional compensation for superior performance.  After all, Colorado is so broke that the legislature reduced education spending by $260 million for 2010-2011.

So what’s a school district to do?  Why of course… apply to the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant program!

So far, the U.S. Dep’t of Ed has funded 33 TIF plans.  According to Jonathan Eckhart, Wheaton College, only six are currently deemed successful in their impact on student learning.  The typical plan drops bonus dollars on teachers on top of the traditional steps and levels compensation system.

Jefferson County School District, the 37th largest district in the country and largest in Colorado, may attempt something else.  Jeffco is looking at tying its whole compensation system to student outcomes by eliminating steps and levels in their traditional format.

Essentially, the District is exploring the idea of paying teachers on a goal-based system.  SB10-191 declares that 50 percent of each teacher’s evaluation is based on student test outcomes.  Districts have some flexibility in choosing the assessments, but about 40 percent of teachers will receive 50 percent of their performance rating based on the state’s CSAP test.  In Jefferson County, the remaining 50 percent of assessment may be based on team and school goal-setting.

Teachers may also gain more pay by providing added value to the district through their contributions to student success, teacher mentoring, curriculum improvements, professional development, and serving on teacher appraisal teams.

The new system envisions a four tier set up.  The first tier includes new teachers.  The second tier includes teachers who work primarily in the classroom.  The third tier requires additional certifications and expanded teaching and professional development responsibilities.  The fourth tier will probably be a hybrid of teacher/administrator.

Teachers will receive additional pay within tiers as their work with students produces positive results.  As teachers move across tiers, taking on more responsibility for leadership and professional development, they may receive additional jumps.

But the District cannot afford this program without help.  The Teacher Incentive Fund grant program, if the district’s proposal is accepted, will provide the additional dollars for at least five years for up to 10 schools in a pilot program.

After the pilot program, there’s the great unknown. If the program succeeds, will the district be able to scale it up, as it also tries to keep current with other program innovations necessary for a 21st century education?  If the program succeeds, will the Jefferson County taxpayer and the state of Colorado reward the district for its success?

These are big questions as the district moves into untested territory to see if a non-steps and levels compensation system can kick start and sustain significant improvements in student academic outcomes.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Jeffco Public Schools, TIF, Teacher Incentive fund, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Colorado’s Race to the Top app foundered

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Colorado’s Race to the Top application foundered, as expected, on its lack of progress on teacher evaluation and tenure.  To give Colorado a second chance at RTTT funding, State Senator Michael Johnston has introduced SB10-191 to change the state’s evaluation and tenure process.

Tenure hit with new bill

Currently, teachers get tenure with three years of satisfactory probationary teaching, and it’s very difficult (at least three years) to remove teachers with tenure.  With SB10-191, new teachers must show three years of “highly effective” teaching in their first three years, and if tenured teachers receive two years of unsatisfactory reviews, their tenure can be yanked.

The state will define “highly effective” teaching.  Fifty percent of teacher evaluation will depend on student performance, based on annual yearly progress on state tests.  Sixty-six percent of principal evaluation will depend on student performance.

Teacher evaluation goes from once every three years to once a year

The bill will change the current evaluation system from once every three years for tenured teachers to once each year.  The bill also will “reward” excellent teacher performance with career development and compensation.

No new state dollars for the program

What the bill does not do is provide extra dollars for compensation.  It assumes, apparently, that those dollars will come from RTTT.  At some point, however, Colorado, and all states, will need to get serious about compensation if they expect teachers to play to the new tune.

In the Denver metropolitan area, new teachers make roughly $35,000 per year.  That’s about the same as a retail store manager.  A starting engineer will make somewhat north of $65,000, depending on the engineering field.  A starting lawyer will make about $75,000, depending on the size of the firm.  A new physician can make up to $100,000, depending on the practice.

Teachers will get paid less at least through 2011

The incentive for new teachers to become “highly effective” based on compensation is nil.  The only incentive is pride and love of the job because the opportunity for a raise in the current economic environment is not what it was even two years ago.  Right now, most school districts in the state are cutting their budgets, telling staff that they will make the same in 2011 as they did in 2010.  In fact, they will probably have made more in 2009 than they’ll make in 2011.

The state legislature is cutting about $250 million from the 2010-2011 school budget.  That’s the wrong direction if the state intends to implement a system that puts a teacher’s employment at risk each year.

State hopes for RTTT to add to compensation

If the state is serious about implementing a new evaluation system, it also needs to get serious about compensation.  Offering a new teacher at least $45,000 seems reasonable.  That’s the only way school districts will be able to attract and retain highly competent new teachers after firing all those incompetent old teachers.

State doesn’t fund evaluation program

The state also needs to come up with a support system for the increase in teacher evaluations.  The main complaint from principals is that they don’t have time for frequent evaluation.  If that’s the case, then schools may have to create a whole new class of educator, the teacher evaluator, which may be a good thing.  This person theoretically can be an instructional leader.

But the teacher evaluator position does not currently exist in Colorado.  Will this position be supervisory or licensed?  Will it be a part of the new “career ladder” envisioned in the law, or one more trend that eventually is discarded.

Democrats will fight over the bill; GOP just needs to stay out of it

Many in Colorado support education reform.  A huge fight is already heating up between Democrats who want schools to get better faster and Democrats who receive much of their candidate funding from the Colorado Education Association.  Republicans can just stay out of the way and watch the pots boil over.

But more money?  To get more money, teacher supporters have to come up with a 2/3 majority of legislators who are willing to put an initiative on the ballot.  That’s not likely.

So if teacher evaluation goes forward, and nothing changes related to compensation, the state may get the opposite of what it wants:  a system with fewer teachers, doing less with less, facing an evaluation program requiring them to do more with less.  It’s difficult to figure how that scenario can lead to anything but complete breakdown in the entire system.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Colorado Budget Crisis, Colorado Education Association, Race to Top, public schools, school finance reform |
2 Comments »

Pink, Pink, Red, Pink

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

It’s February and that means everything is pink and red hearts and flowers on worksheets, corridor walls, and windows facing the playground.  Whether learning Paul Lawrence Dunbar’s famous poems for Black History Month or receiving tooth brushes to encourage every child to brush his teeth and keep his gums pink for Dental Health Month, it’s still cheery pink handouts that are taken home.

Looks like all is fine and dandy.

However, as my BTSA (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment) consultant says when I ask for advice, it’s year 2 problems of which suddenly you are aware.  The first year was such a rush.  Now you worry about the girl who won’t finish her work and keeps begging for help without following the steps you’ve laid out and reviewed over and over to avoid this problem.  It seems I’ve tried every ‘trick’ in the book.  For instance, I ask how she’s feeling when I see her working well with her partners, but the one that has worked best is the old-time stickers on a card for specified behaviors that goes home weekly for reward time at the computer and so on.

I’ve mentioned the money difficulties for my district and they are not any better.  At every budget meeting, in fact, more funds disappear.  The second year teachers have all been told to expect “pink slips” and it’s only February.

I’ve been reading about the lickety-split passage of education legislation by the legislature in order to pick up federal funds as if $700 million is going to save California.  We know schools need every penny, but the teachers in my district have been warned that the money will not appear at our door.  Our students are high-achieving and most of the money is for the lowest of the low-performing schools.

It is amazing though.  My father passed on that an acquaintance in Los Angeles, well-versed in education issues, said that so many states have already revised their education legislation, it’s one of the biggest positive moves brought on by the Obama Administration in the past year.  I wonder how long before such news hits the media.  Or is it only the complainers who will be heard.

Still some of the legislation and some of the money will foster changes to teacher evaluation and changes to the pay structure I’m already used to.  Honestly, in these days of recession one advantage of teaching is a salary and benefits that can be counted on.

I know that several large school districts like Washington DC have had completely new evaluation plans handed out by the superintendent with no negotiations from the teacher’s union.  I can’t imagine that will happen in California.

There is, however, the plan to revise California standards and benchmarks which is a good idea.  But when we talk at lunchtime, we all know it will not be next year that the standards are ready or that evaluation changes will be negotiated, much less that pay will be determined by how high your evaluation ‘number’ is.  And who decides, the state, the district?  That’s a red hot issue.

June?  With the pink construction paper already gone from the supply room in February, is that an omen of where I’ll be?  One of 102 teachers from my school district standing in the unemployment office, laid off, pink slip in hand?

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, low-performing schools, public schools |
Be the first to leave a comment »

« Older Entries