Ed Reform 101 Part 2 - Teachers

Everyone knows that teachers are important (even if politicians like Chris Christie don't always show it.). Everyone knows there are great teachers and bad teachers. Everyone knows that a teacher can change a child's life. But some corporate "reformers" take this notion about the importance of the teacher way too far. They claim the teacher is the most important factor in determining students' success, ignoring the role privilege, poverty, and parents play in a child's life. And they foolishly believe figuring out who teaches well is a simple matter of test scores:it isn't. One of the consequences of Christie's war on the NJEA is a false view of teachers and the processes used to evaluate them. If we are ever going to have a serious conversation about education in New Jersey, we need to get past the myths he perpetuates about teachers. What you should know about teacher quality: Teachers are important, but they are NOT the most important factor in student learning.  Using test scores to evaluate teachers is extremely error-prone.  Because of these errors, test scores should not be used to make decisions about hiring and paying teachers; even basing part of the decision on test scores is disastrous.  The "three good teachers in a row" myth is exactly that: a myth.  Far more than 17 teachers have left their New Jersey schools in the last decade due to incompetence.

Myth: Teachers are the MOST important factor in a student's growth and achievement. The Truth: While teachers are important, years of research confirms that teachers are not the most important factor in student learning. - About 60% of a student's achievement is explained by student and family characteristics; 20% pertains to school (with 10-15% being the teacher); 20% isunexplained (error). This has been confirmed in many studies. - The correlation between poverty and test scores is nearly perfect. - Funding gaps can account for half of the difference in test scores. Myth: We can determine which teachers to fire or pay more by using standardized test scores. The Truth: The overwhelming consensus among researchers is that test scores should not be used in high-stakes decisions like firing and compensation. - There is a 35% chance a teacher will be misidentified as poor in any given year, and a 25% chance in two years. This is functionally the same as rolling dice. - Research organizations against the heavy use of test scores in high-stakes decisions include the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, ETS's Policy Information Center, the RAND Corporation, and the Economic Policy Institute (p.2). Myth: Well, if we only base 50% of a teacher's rating on test scores, that will be fine. The Truth: Using test scores for any significant portion of a teachers rating is biased and prone to enormous error. - A rating based on test scores will inevitably take on unwarranted importancecompared to other evaluation tools. - Only 10-20% of teachers can be feasibly evaluated by test scores; the other 80-90% teach subjects and grades that aren't subject to test score analysis. Myth: But using test scores to evaluate teachers is better than doing nothing!  The Truth: Using test scores to evaluate teachers will undoubtedly make our schools worse. - Evaluations of teachers based on test scores assumes students are assigned randomly to classrooms. Parents, teachers, and principals will not be able to have a say in which students to assign to which teachers. - Because of the high error rates, teachers will have strong cases to challenge terminations in court - even teachers who should be fired! - Contract negotiations will be severely affected. Myth: Three good teachers in three consecutive years can erase all the deficits of a child who is behind in school. The Truth: The "three good teachers" myth is pure conjecture and has never been proved. - The assertion is made mostly based on projection of single-year differences; it is not based on any actual policy outcomes. - An analogy from Diane Ravitch: This is akin to saying that baseball teams should consist only of players who hit over .300 and pitchers who win at least twenty games every season; after all, such players exist, so why should not such teams exist. The fact that no such team exists should give pause to those who believe that almost every teacher in almost every school in almost every district might be a superstar if only school leaders could fire at will. Myth: Firing the "bottom" 5-10% of teachers would lead to big learning gains. The Truth: This is, again, pure conjecture with little evidence to support it. - There is no guarantee we could replace the "bottom" teachers with anyone better - especially when teacher salaries are in decline. - Due to the high unreliability of identifying the "bottom" teachers, this policy would certainly dismiss good teachers and retain bad ones. Myth: In New Jersey, only 17 teachers have been fired over the past 10 years. The Truth: Without question, many more teachers have been removed for incompetence. - This figure only includes tenured teachers dismissed in a formal tenure hearing. - "Hundreds of teachers who receive the first tenure charges resign..." - 40% of non-tenured teachers do not have their year-to-year contracts renewed,or voluntarily leave their schools; undoubtedly, many of these teachers realize they should not teach. ADDING [9/2/11]: Bruce Baker has recently posted about the problems with Student Growth Percentiles, part of the recently announced NJ Teacher Evaluation Pilot Program. For more information on teacher quality, we recommend: Dr. Bruce Baker's School Finance 101 blog, especially his writings on Value-Added Teacher Evaluation.  The Economic Policy Institute  VAM: A Primer For Teachers

Part 1: Testing

In the world of the corporate reformer, standardized testing drives everything. Judging teachers, principals, schools, and students; merit pay, tenure, and layoffs; allocating money; granting charters... it all starts with standardized testing. And it's an article of faith among the corporate "reform" set that standardized tests are fair, accurate, inexpensive, and good for students. The people who actually study this issue and work with children, however, know that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a place for standardized testing in New Jersey, but it is inappropriate to use standardized tests in high-stakes decisions that affect teachers and students. We can't measure a child's learning or a teacher's effectiveness when we put so much emphasis on secretive tests that are flawed in their construction, administration, and grading. Yet almost every proposal put forward by the corporate reformers relies heavily on children filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper. So let's start this series by taking apart the myths about standardized testing. What you should know about standardized testing: Standardized tests are typically imprecise, unreliable, and biased against the poor and minorities.  Too much emphasis on testing makes teachers focus only on what's tested and encourages cheating.  Standardized tests are expensive, but they are graded by low-skilled, low-paid workers.  Student test scores are a poor way to evaluate teachers.  and worst of all.. Too much standardized testing is bad for kids.

Myth: Standardized tests are very accurate measures of student learning. The Truth: Standardized tests are incomplete and often inaccurate measures of learning. Psychologists and education researchers agree: even the best standardized tests can only measure a small fraction of a child's learning. Multiple-choice tests are especially "poor tools for measuring the ability to synthesize and evaluate information or apply knowledge to complex problems." Myth: Standardized tests aren't biased; they treat all students equally. The Truth: Standardized tests are often biased and unfair. As FairTest, a national testing research and advocacy group, points out: "The damage created by high-stakes testing compounds rather than ameliorates the huge inequities caused by poverty and continuing racism." A Stanford University study shows that standardized tests unfairly reinforce stereotypes minority and female students have of their intellectual ability. Myth: Standardized tests don't change the way teachers teach. The Truth: Standardized tests lead to "drill-and-kill" teaching. As the stakes get higher, teachers are prodded to "teach to the test." Teachers agree that standardized testing is taking time away from teaching important lessons in civics and other topics that are not - and could not be - covered by tests. Myth: Standardized tests are graded by well-trained professionals. The Truth: Tests are often graded by poorly trained and low-paid workers. Standardized tests are usually written and graded by low-paid, low-skilled amateurs. Testing companies have advertised for item writers at the rate of $8 a question on Craig's List. Other reports confirm that test scorers usually make between $11 and $13 per hour. Myth: Standardized tests are inexpensive, they don't drain dollars away from classrooms, and we have a good idea of what they cost. The truth: Standardized tests are expensive and NJ has never run a cost/benefit analysis to determine their worth. The nationwide state-testing business is a billion dollar industry. The Interim Report of the NJ Educator Effectiveness Task Force does not include a cost/benefit analysis of its implied plan to expand testing. Only about 20% of the current teaching corps could be evaluated using current tests. Myth: Cheating on standardized tests is a small problem that can be contained with a few extra measures. The Truth: Cheating on standardized tests is running rampant, and even a huge investment of money into test security won't stop it. Reports of cheating include New York City, Atlanta, Washington D.C. (while the district was run by the darling of corporate reform, Michelle Rhee), New Jersey, Texas, California and Pennsylvania. It will undoubtedly cost much more than the current $18 million yearly contract to secure these tests, and local districts will face yet another unfunded mandate. Myth: Standardized tests are useful even for the youngest children. The Truth: Children under age eight should NOT take standardized tests. Experts agree that standardized tests for children younger than eight areunreliable, unnecessary, and counterproductive (p.41). The National Research Council cautions: "In general, large-scale assessments should not be used to make high-stakes decisions about students who are less than 8 years old or enrolled below grade 3." Myth: Standardized tests are an excellent way to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness. The Truth: Standardized tests are a terrible way to evaluate teachers. More on this later in this series. For more information on standardized tests, we recommend: www.fairtest.org