How we measure and use effective teachers - making improvements or encouraging uniformity?2 Comments
Last week I received a letter from the DOE advertising two new positions within “transformation” high schools in the city. These positions offer increased pay for increased responsibilities at schools that are struggling and in need of improvement.
The letter announces positions of Master Teachers (30% pay increase) and Turnaround Teacher (15% raise) for people willing to work in designated “transformation” schools. Both jobs include extra time (100 and 30 hours, respectively) and a willingness to participate in professional development and collaboration. I applaud the DOE’s admission that certain schools need highly effective teachers and that those teachers deserve “combat pay,” if you will, to serve in tough situations. Offering incentives for teachers –in salary and in responsibility and status– to teach in these schools is great. The caveat is that the teacher only retains his position as long as “he/she maintains a rating of highly effective.” I know there is a new rating system, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t even know what the criteria are.
Searching the DOE website with keywords “highly effective” “teacher rating” and “teacher rating effective” yields no relevant results. The posting I received is the first result, followed by others, none of which relate to teacher rating. The UFT website provides a Q&A on the rating system. The system is a 100-point rubric with, “20 percentage points based on student growth on state exams where applicable, and another 20 percentage points based on locally selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms (to be locally negotiated with the UFT).” (I’m not sure which standardized state tests would be used for me, a high school English teacher, since there is only one Regents exam administered – usually junior year.) Finally, 60% of the rating based on “multiple measures such as observations and peer review (locally negotiated with the union).” I don’t think these have been settled. I am curious to see what the final review looks like. I’ve always been frustrated that I’m “satisfactory” or not. That doesn’t address the range of teachers I’ve met or the effort I (and many of my colleagues) put into teaching on a daily basis.
I am, however, excited at the prospect of engaging effective (read: experienced, reflective, hard-working and well-respected) teachers to help students and struggling schools as a whole improve. In addition, the three-year commitment encourages longer-term growth of the neediest schools and may reduce the high turnaround rate found in many. However, I think the missing part of the equation is administrators and the rating system – a benchmark for what effective means. Even the best teachers with the interests of students at heart may be deterred, driven away, subverted or alienated by an inexperienced or dogmatic principal. Who are we endowing with the leadership for the “transformation” of these schools? Offering incentives to teachers is a great start, but not the whole solution to the puzzle. I applaud the union for agreeing to this plan and rating system, admitting that not all teachers are equal. I hope that both will lead to better instruction and schools. I do have an underlying fear that it will lead to standardization that alienates creative teachers and emphasize test scores that may not measure all that much. Let’s all lobby for a rating system that takes into account measures besides standardized tests and values different approaches to teaching.
Comments
On a related noted about standardized tests and evaluating teachers, here’s a quagmire for you. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan was quoted in the Washington Post
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/article/2010/08/28/AR2010082803319.html\
“We want to hold you accountable for high standards” he said, “but give you the room to get there”…” Our job is support you” Duncan said. “Our job is give you a chance to make a huge difference in children’s lives.”
Can teachers feel SUPPORTED when they are penalized directly for students’ test scores? Where is the personal accountability in that? Where is the “CHANCE” for teachers in that? Do test scores = high standards?
The Secretary is giving it everything he has to “take reform show on the road” but it’s not a road show and there is no magic bullet to educational reform.
Teaching reform begins with teachers feeling they are not pawns in a political game.
Making a difference in children’s lives is what matters.
How do we get there without demanding that teachers as well as administrators fix it all and then penalize them if they don’t?
What might happen if we encouraged teachers to be accountable by examining their teaching with the support of colleagues?
Things that are most worthwhile do take time.
They especially necessitate that we are honoring and supporting the work that teachers are/ and CAN DO through reforming in the first person through a self-study of their practice.
Anastasia at
teaching-insideout.com
I completed the process for National Board Certification last year and found it was the most valuable, most "real" teacher development I've ever done. It focused on the things that Duncan emphasizes in that quote, accountability and making a difference in students' lives, AND what you advocate for, examining our practice with other teachers.
I'd encourage this type of accountability to be a part of our new teaching standards. It's tied to reflection, a set of standards for good teaching that uses test scores, among other measures to examine our practice.