Why I support AB212 And Say No To Using Student Standardized Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers

What if we were to evaluate the performance of police officers based upon the crime rates of the neighborhoods they patrol? Or if we rated firemen on the number of fires in their station’s jurisdiction? How about if we calculated the effectiveness of doctors and nurses based on the health of their patients? Sound crazy? But that is exactly what we are doing when we tie a student’s test score to a teacher’s evaluation. In all of these examples, there are variables of which the practitioner has very little if no control over.

Recently the Nevada Education Association hosted a Teacher Assessment and Evaluation Town Hall meeting, in which teachers had the opportunity to weigh in on the controversial topic of using student test scores to evaluate teachers. In attendance was Assemblyman Ozzy Fumo who is sponsoring a bill this legislative session to prohibit the use of pupil achievement data in teacher evaluations and removes the requirement that pupil achievement data must account for at least 40% of a teacher’s evaluation. In this post I will outline why I agree with Assemblyman Fumo’s AB212, and believe that student test data should never be used in evaluating teachers.

In an attempt to improve American education, reformers have targeted teaching quality as the single most impactful variable affecting student learning. That by holding teachers accountable, and weeding out the weak and ineffectual teachers, American education will improve. Stanford University economist, Eric A. Hanushek estimated that top performing teachers helped students gain more than a year’s worth of learning, and those students taught by an underperforming teacher only grew by half a year. We obviously want the best performing teachers teaching our students, but the question becomes, how do we empirically know who the best teachers are? In an influential 2009 report, the TNTP found that 99% of teachers in 12 districts were ranked satisfactory on evaluations and that tenured teachers were almost never fired. The report called into question the validity of traditional administrator observations of teacher performance and raised the valid question, how can 99% of teachers be ranked satisfactorily when student’s achievement data suggests that students were not making significant educational progress? As a result, policymakers sought a more objective way to evaluate teachers, one that would be free from the personal bias that may taint traditional approaches. Using student achievement data to evaluate teachers seems like a reasonable approach, good teachers teach well, their students learn the material, and then take a test to measure mastery of a subject. Good teachers can be separated from bad teachers based on their student’s scores. Except as all classroom teachers know, there are a number of variables that may influence how a student performs on a standardized test. Some examples of variables outside the teacher’s control include students with special needs, students whose native language is not English, students from economically disadvantaged households and neighborhoods, parental abuse, gangs, drug and alcohol use, food and shelter insecurity, student lethargy and many others. In 1966 James Samuel Coleman, a sociologist, theorist, and empirical researcher published the Equality of Educational Opportunity Report, or Coleman report. This report concluded that “socioeconomic status, home life, and peer culture had a greater impact on student learning than did curriculum and instruction.” According to Stanford University Education Professor, Edward Haertel, “out-of-school elements account for 60 percent of the variance in student scores while the influence of teachers was responsible for around 9%.” Yet, the Nevada legislature wants to use these test scores to account for 40% of teacher evaluations. Based on the research, this is fundamentally unfair to our teachers.    

     

The National Education Association contends that teacher evaluations today operate on a rewards-and-punishment system that aims to measure the effectiveness of teachers, categorize and rank them, then reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom. As a current classroom teacher, I see other problems with using student test data to assess teacher performance. The most egregious use of test data to evaluate teachers is when the test data comes from a student you never taught. In the upper grades, only about 15-30 % of teachers instruct in subjects that are directly evaluated by standardized tests. For the rest of the teachers, they receive a rating based on how well students did across the campus regardless of whether that student was a pupil or not. In other words, 40% of a teacher’s evaluation could be based on students they don’t even know. In addition, the data produced by the test is not usually available to the teacher until the next year, by that time the students have all moved on. Teachers would much rather use a standardized test as a formative assessment, or assessment for learning rather than an assessment of learning. Furthermore, assessments of teachers using standardized tests will restrict the curriculum to only those topics that are “tested” significantly narrowing what teachers teach and children learn. Standardized tests are inherently limited, and cannot measure everything that makes education meaningful. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard teachers lament that they would love to do a hands-on project with their students, but they don’t have the time, they have to get through all of the testable material first. This should be of great concern as we try to transform the old Nevada economy based on service to the new Nevada economy. Students need to master the skills and dispositions that will make Nevada a technological and innovative leader, skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity, these “soft” skills are more important than ever but are being pushed out of the curriculum due to the emphasis on testable knowledge.      

In addition, despite the fact that Standardized tests have been in use for quite some time, there has not been a significant increase in student achievement. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 the US slipped from 18^th in the world in math on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) to 31^st place in 2009. Similarly, there was a drop in science scores while reading scores remained the same. In May of 2011 the National Research Council report found no evidence that test-based incentive programs are working: “despite using them for several decades, policymakers and educators do not yet know how to use test-based incentives to consistently generate positive effects on achievement and to improve education.” Furthermore, a 2001 study published by the Brooking Institute found that 50-80% of test scores improvements over several years were temporary and “caused by fluctuations that had nothing to do with long-term changes in learning.” Never mind that the multi-billion dollar testing industry has made many costly scoring errors, unnecessarily resulting in increased stress for all stakeholders including students, teachers, and administrators.   

Teacher evaluations based on their student’s test score’s will result in the unintended consequence of teachers teaching to the test. Drill and kill test preparation will replace sound pedagogical approaches in this new high-stakes testing environment, especially if student performance on standardized tests is tied to compensation. Furthermore, teachers and administrators will be placed in an unenviable position where they may feel compelled to cheat to raise student test scores for fear of punitive actions taken against them. There have been numerous cheating scandals crossing six states and the District of Columbia as revealed by a 2011 USA Today investigation. In one of the most egregious examples of school cheating, 178 Atlanta public school teachers and administrators in 44 schools across the state were found to be involved in cheating on standardized tests, the stick and carrot approach is not appropriate for the education field and should not be tolerated.

These are but a few of the arguments why student test scores should not be used to evaluate teachers. I do believe that standardized tests should be used as formative assessments to guide practice and to help identify teachers who need assistance in the classroom. I do believe in teacher accountability, but we already have that with the Nevada Educators Performance Framework (NEPF) a fourteen-page rubric covering five standards of performance. The standards are as followed: new learning is connected to prior learning and experience, learning tasks have high cognitive demand for diverse learners, students engage in meaning-making through discourse and other strategies, students engage in metacognitive activity to increase understanding of and responsibility for their own learning, and assessment is integrated into instruction. Furthermore, teachers are evaluated based on their professional responsibilities. This is accomplished by an additional fourteen-page rubric (28 pages for anyone keeping track) looking at things like commitment to the school community, reflection on professional growth and practice, professional obligations, family engagement, and student perception. 

Clearly, the NEPF holds teachers to the highest levels of accountability and obviates the necessity of using questionable student achievement data as part of a carrot and stick approach to teacher evaluation. Oh and by the way, remember the police officers I mentioned at the beginning of this post, people who make life and death decisions on a daily basis, guess how long their performance review is… 1 page.            

   

      

Do student test scores provide solid basis to evaluate teachers? (n.d.). Retrieved February 27,

            2017, from https://ed.stanford.edu/news/do-student-test-scores-provide-solid-basis-

            evaluate-teachers

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2015, September 3). Issues A-Z: Teacher

            Evaluation: An Issue Overview. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from

            http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/teacher-performance-evaluation-issue-

overview.html/

Katz, D. d. (2016). Growth Models and Teacher Evaluation: What Teachers Need to Know and

            Do. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52(1), 11-16. doi:10.1080/00228958.2016.1123039

NEPF Rubrics. (2012). Retrieved March 04, 2017, from

            http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_Support/NEPF/Rubri

            cs/

Standardized Tests - ProCon.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2017, from

            http://standardizedtests.procon.org/

Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The NEA's Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26,

            2017, from http://www.nea.org/home/41858.htm

Teacher Evaluation Should Not Rest on Student Test Scores (Revised 2016). (n.d.). Retrieved

            February 27, 2017, from http://www.fairtest.org/teacher-evaluation-fact-sheet

No Compromise on Educational Savings Accounts

In a recent blog post, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita wrote that Two Agendas Can’t Coexist, where he outlines the necessity of compromise regarding the Educational School Account (ESA). Mr. Vellardita’s sees vouchers as inevitable, he writes “over the last few decades, the private sector has made a market presence in education. Its growth in the education market continues to see a rise in charter schools and vouchers (33 states have some form of a voucher). With the ascendency of the Trump administration, this trend will continue.” Mr. Vellardita suggests that since the voucher movement is growing in momentum, the CCEA might as well accept the unavoidable, and support the voucher program, he notes that “Choice’ will be at the heart of any resolution.” I reject this approach. This is the moment when we should have the political courage to take a stand on the issues we believe in, and stopping the corporate takeover of our public schools is the issue we need to rally behind, regardless of national trends and local politics.    

As a proud association member, I applaud most of CCEA’s legislative efforts. I believe that the Clark County School District should be compelled to pay teacher salary advancements regardless of negotiations. Student test scores should not be used in evaluating teachers, the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) teachers provide valuable support to our new and struggling teachers. And a weighted funding formula is good policy and should be implemented throughout the state. However, the CCEA should never compromise on the core principle of adequately funding our public schools. Under no circumstances should we allow citizens to take money out of a school system that is at the bottom of national rankings and apply it to private for-profit schools. As a result of the 2016 election, and the recent conformation of Betsy DeVos  for Secretary of Education, public education is under attack, and we must fight with everything we have to prevent our public education system from being preyed upon by Wall Street investors. Retreat is not an option and the CCEA is wrong on the ESA issue. This is an association of teachers, and policy must reflect the will of its members, not just the few seated around the executive board’s table. Because the CCEA did not ask its members how they felt on the issue of ESAs, it is up to us to let the CCEA officers and executive board know where we stand. Contact your representative today, they work for us, and remember, we must stand for something, or we stand for nothing.

Why I Oppose DeVos and the Privatization of our Public Schools

One of President Trump’s most controversial cabinet appointments has been Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Despite her experience as a businesswoman, philanthropist, activist and noted political campaign contributor, Secretary DeVos has no experience in public education. She did not attend a public school, her children did not attend public school, she has never worked in a public school, and as her disastrous Senate confirmation revealed, was seriously lacking in even the most basic understanding of public education policy. As a professional educator, I felt bewildered, let down, and angry that the President would appoint such an unqualified person to lead the Department of Education. But, as we all know too well, elections have consequences, and certainly those who are committed to the mission of public schools to educate all students regardless of their zip code, feel that Trump and his Secretary will try to undermined our schools with disastrous voucher programs, designed to steer money away from public schools into the pockets of private, for profit, investors. As a candidate, Trump stated “There’s no failed policy more in need of urgent change than our government-run education monopoly." Much to the chagrin of many, President Trump has been resolute in keeping his campaign promises, and he warned us that “As president, I will establish the national goal of providing school choice to every American child living in poverty. If we can put a man on the moon, dig out the Panama Canal and win two world wars, then I have no doubt that we as a nation can provide school choice to every disadvantaged child in America.” Except that we already have choice in public education. Open enrollments, magnet, career & technical academies, public charter schools, and virtual schools are all examples of choice. However, Trump and DeVos don’t want just choice, they want to destroy our public schools for ideological and political reasons. Many on the right believe that public schools, colleges and universities are bastions of liberal thought that “indoctrinate” their students to hate America. They have taken God and school prayer out of the classroom, shown tolerance to LGBT people, and practice multiculturalism and inclusion. In the political realm, public schools employ teachers who belong to teacher unions, who overwhelming use their due to support Democrat candidates for office. Dismantle the public schools, destroy the unions, and no more political support for Democrat candidates.

My home state of Nevada is a microcosm of the debates swirling around education policy. In the 2015 Legislative session, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, with bipartisan support, passed the largest education package in state history. In fulling his vision of a “New Nevada,” Governor Sandoval understands how important properly funding and supporting education is to include expansion of full day kindergarten, Zoom schools for English learners, Victory Schools for chronically under-performing schools. In addition, AB 394 has given schools and their leadership teams, enhanced autonomy and budgetary discretion. The education reforms are not without controversy as the legislature passed the most lenient voucher program in the nation known as the Education Savings Account (ESA). Essentially parents will be able to apply and receive a percentage of their education investment placed in an account, approximately $5,200 that they can then use for educational expenses such as private school tuition, tuition at eligible institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, fees, transportation, specialized services or therapies for students with a disability. The argument for this program is that parents should be able to choose where their student attends school, whether it be a public school or private school. They argue that students would vote with their feet forcing underperforming school to improve, or face closure, free market capitalism at its purest. Arguments against the program is that parents will drain already chronically underfunded public schools of valuable resources. The 2016 Quality Counts report, for example, puts Clark County per pupil funding at $7,745, while the national average is about $10,763. States like New York and Massachusetts, two of the highest performing states, each having numerous districts that spend close to $20,000 per student. Of course the price tag for attending private school can be prohibitively high even with the ESA, for example the Meadows School, for the 2015-16 school year, charges high school students $25,775, while faith Lutheran charges $11,500, not counting books, uniforms, and additional fees. It is not surprising then that of the 8,000 ESA applicants, most come from the wealthiest parts of the Las Vegas valley. It should also be noted that a neighborhood school serves a social function, particularly in communities of color, they are anchor points as one generation after another pass through their corridors, passing on history and tradition. Because of this, most students, even in under-performing schools, choose not to be bused out of their neighborhoods to new unfamiliar neighborhoods. Luckily, the Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily put a halt to ESAs on the grounds that legislators would have to find alternative funding outside of school budgets.  

It is my opinion that Secretary DeVos’s plan to privatize American schools is shortsighted. Our public schools are our best hope to ensure that all students, regardless of zip code, have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. In addition, our schools are our best defense against the tyranny of ignorance, and threat of demagoguery. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out  "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."