Tightening the screws on teachers: What's behind the latest round of teacher bashing?

Parents and students: Important parts of the equation

Texas teachers: Collateral damage in the war against teacher unions

The increasing challenges in your classroom

The student population of the average Texas classroom

An expert’s view of education: TCTA talks with Dr. Darvin Winick

Results confirm that Texas educators do more with less

What you can do to help in the advocacy effort

What TCTA is doing: TCTA’s advocacy efforts

What started as a fairly marginal and benign emphasis on teachers as a factor in students’ academic success has, over recent years, turned into an intensive and increasingly punitive focus. The cover of a recent Newsweek magazine screams “WE MUST FIRE BAD TEACHERS” as “the Key to Saving American Education.” The centerpiece of the Obama administration’s education reform proposals is to identify whether teachers are effective based on student test performance, and then use that information to terminate the employment of “ineffective” teachers.

Texas interim legislative hearings have superintendents calling for an end to unfunded mandates, including laws that they say make it too time-consuming and expensive to fire teachers. Still, surveys have shown that parents consistently rate their children’s teachers highly, and polls of the general public show that teachers are more trusted than any other profession, including clergymen and doctors. So is there really an epidemic of bad teachers out there? Or are teachers the scapegoat as increasingly frustrated education reformers try to find the magic bullet to solve public education’s perceived ills? And just how did we get to this level of teacher-bashing so fast?

One answer might best be explained as a series of shifts in education policy over the last several years.

The shift to teacher “effectiveness”
Although certain factions of the education reform movement have long advocated focusing on teacher effectiveness as a key lever in increasing student achievement, it wasn’t until the current presidential administration took office that educator effectiveness became the focus of mainstream education policy nationwide. It’s hard to make an argument against looking at teacher effectiveness in the context of improving education, but it turns out it’s harder to define and measure just exactly what an effective teacher is. Unfortunately, in their zeal to latch onto this newest silver bullet in the arsenal of weapons against the perceived decline of public education in the United States, some reformers have gotten ahead of the research-based evidence.

It started with performance pay

The country is littered with examples of disastrous results from failed educator performance pay systems built on the premise that current methodologies can successfully identify and measure teacher effectiveness, and programs in Texas are among them. From the failed career ladders of the 1980s, a newer incarnation of “performance pay” has arisen. In 2006, Houston ISD became the largest school district in the nation to adopt a merit pay program, which subsequently devolved into a spectacular failure, and the statewide Texas Educator Excellence Grant program was hurriedly dissolved by the state after numerous problems in the program were exposed.

These plans relied on student standardized test scores and “black box” statistical formulas to determine whether one teacher should receive an award and another shouldn’t. This use of standardized test scores was unfortunately inherited from a corollary movement in education to rely on standardized test scores as THE measure of accountability at the state and school district levels. This alarmed researchers and experts alike, who raised concerns that standardized tests were designed and validated to measure student, not teacher, performance.

Equally alarmed educators pointed out that basing teacher pay on student test scores was inherently flawed because some students come into the classroom starting at lower levels. However, it didn’t take long for reformers to come up with a way around this issue and voila! - factoring in student growth became the new answer.

Akin to the old snake oil salesmen of the past, various enterprising vendors claimed that they could isolate the effects of a teacher on a student’s performance and thereby identify the “value added” by that teacher. This was eagerly seized upon by some school systems wanting to be ahead of the curve. All of this despite repeated and consistent warnings from research experts that value-added formulas have not yet been scientifically validated for use, and certainly not for high-stakes decisions such as compensation, evaluation and employment decisions.

It all comes down to the test

Recently, more state and national policymakers have started to realize the limitations of standardized testing in measuring what students have actually learned, much less the effectiveness of the student’s teacher. Promising signs of movement away from standardized tests as the be-all, end-all measure in education are emerging in several forms, most notably in recent federal grant programs (includes footnotes 1-3).

Teacher evaluations a joke?
Regardless of these promising signs of improved student assessments, challenges to the notion that effective teachers can be fairly and accurately identified continue to mount. Even so, the focus on identifying which teachers are effective and assigning consequences accordingly has done nothing but intensify, with the consequences becoming even more high-stakes. Once teacher performance pay started to take hold in a number of districts and states, the rhetoric turned toward a call for “better” annual teacher evaluations due to mounting criticism over teacher evaluation systems that failed to truly differentiate among the teachers being evaluated.

Studies like one conducted by the New Teacher Project in various cities found that a disproportionate percentage of teachers (in some cases, almost 100 percent) are given positive evaluations, while another by Education Sector found that teacher evaluations are more like “drive-bys” than anything else – short, vague, and based on indicators unrelated to student learning. In April 2009, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan suggested in a speech that districts report the percentage of teachers rated in each evaluation performance category.

Despite increasing recognition and criticism of the limitations of standardized testing, reformers, in arguing for keeping test performance as a significant part of teacher evaluations, smoothed over this bump in the road with fervent assurances that multiple measures of student performance would be used in teacher evaluations.

Yet by requiring that these multiple measures meet criteria like “quantifiable,” “measurable,” and “comparable across schools, districts, and states,” the reformers essentially ensured a doubling back to standardized testing, given the lack of development of other measures of student performance that could meet those criteria. Interestingly, Texas, via its longstanding Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), was recognized as a stand-out among states for incorporating student performance as a part of the PDAS. (4)

Feds take it to the next level

Following this trajectory to its logical conclusion, some of the more extreme reformers have called for schools to base decisions about whether to terminate teachers on evaluations that include a heavy component of student test scores. Attacks on teacher tenure began in earnest when the New York City school system’s practice of reassigning poor teachers out of the classroom and paying them to sit and do nothing all day in a temporary reassignment center (better known as the “rubber room”), instead of pursuing what was characterized as an expensive and lengthy process to try to fire them, was prominently featured in an August 2009 article in the New Yorker magazine (Texas does not provide tenure for teachers).

Until then, although several school districts and even states experimented with these ideas (Texas did not), most of them danced around the issue, illustrating the discomfort that even these most fervent education reform-minded entities had with the notion of firing teachers based on student test performance.

Much of the reluctance to hold teachers accountable for student test scores vanished when Duncan was chosen as Education Secretary by the Obama administration. A noted education reformer, Duncan hailed from the Chicago public school system as its former superintendent.

Before arriving in Washington, Duncan had implemented extensive changes in the Chicago school system, closing underperforming schools, opening 100 new schools, and implementing a pay-for-performance teacher compensation program. He has carried these same themes forward in his work as Education Secretary, most notably in a series of grant programs emanating from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, commonly called the “stimulus funds”), including the highly visible $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) grant.

There was no dancing around the issues with the highly prescriptive requirements for teacher evaluation and subsequent employment decisions in these programs. Although each of the programs had slightly different areas of focus, it soon became clear that this marked an unprecedented level of prescriptiveness and federal intrusion into areas of education that have always been a function of states and local school districts. Joining in these efforts and working closely with the Obama administration is the Gates Foundation, which recently changed direction in its education investments to focus more closely on teacher effectiveness.

Race to the Top: Over the top?

RTTT called for teacher evaluations to differentiate effectiveness among teachers using multiple rating categories taking into account data on student growth (meaning the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time) as a significant factor. It defined student achievement as a student’s score on a state’s assessments under the Elementary and Secondaryago public school system as its former superintendent. Before arriving in Education Act (ESEA, also known as NCLB) for tested grades and subjects; and, as appropriate, other measures of student learning (like student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests, and student performance on English language proficiency assessments), provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Additionally, these evaluations must be used to inform decisions about compensating, promoting and retaining teachers and principals, granting tenure to teachers, and removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers – all to be measured in the future by the number and percentage of teachers in participating school districts who were evaluated as effective, the number whose evaluations were used to inform tenure decisions, and the number who were removed for being ineffective. Shocked by the implicit assumption that finding and firing bad teachers was the way to proceed, TCTA submitted pages of concerns and comments (see 01.26.11 Comments below); however, in the end few changes were made in the final program.

Texas says “no thanks”

Despite the fact that few, if any states, had laws in place to accomplish the prescriptive requirements of RTTT, almost all lined up to turn in hastily completed applications in the hopes of snagging education funding that was in desperately short supply. Texas was one of the few exceptions.

In a rare convergence of policy positions, TCTA joined Gov. Rick Perry in a press conference days before Phase 1 of the RTTT application was due to announce that Texas would not be applying. At the time, anti-federal sentiment was growing among some sectors given the active role the Obama administration had played thus far in using federal funds to influence state policies, and the governor was locked in a tough primary election struggle with Texas’ popular senior senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Given that one of the key requirements of RTTT was for states to participate in a consortium to develop and adopt common curriculum standards and common assessments, and that 48 states had already joined a consortium to do so (Alaska and Texas chose not to participate), this proved to be an insurmountable stumbling block for the governor. In announcing his decision not to participate in Phase 1 of the RTTT, Perry took exception to the common standards requirement, saying that this seemed to be coercing states to abandon locally established curriculum standards in favor of national standards and a national test, which Texas was not interested in doing.

TCTA had its own concerns about the prescriptive requirements for teacher evaluation and the punitive consequences that would follow. Although many of the governor’s reasons for refusing to participate in RTTT were different from TCTA’s, his appointed Commissioner of Education, Robert Scott, made the important observation that requiring school districts to report the number of teachers and principals who were removed for being ineffective raised many eyebrows and would have “shifted the responsibility for defining staffing policies from local school districts to the state and federal governments.”

It is true that even though Texas was the first state to institute the largest teacher performance pay program in the country, student performance has been used to reward and not punish teachers. Clearly, top officials in Texas were not keen on allowing the federal government to replace the state and local school districts in dictating teacher employment practices.

It is worth noting that since the USDE has announced that only two states (Delaware and Tennessee) received Phase 1 RTTT grants, many states that applied for Round 1 are re-thinking whether to apply for Phase 2, while others are overtly deciding not to apply.

Will ESEA/NCLB reauthorization be another bite at the apple?

The Obama administration has made no secret that the reforms contained in the voluntary RTTT competitive grant program would serve as the blueprint for its reauthorization proposal for the mandatory ESEA/NCLB. In fact, when the administration released its ESEA reauthorization blueprint in early March, many of its “improving teacher effectiveness” proposals looked very familiar.

One requires both states and districts to put into place statewide definitions of “effective teacher,” “effective principal,” “highly effective teacher,” and “highly effective principal” that are based in significant part on student growth and also include other measures, such as classroom observations of practice. The proposal calls for maintaining the “highly qualified teacher” provisions of current law, but with additional flexibility, as states transition to using these measures of effectiveness. States and districts must also publish report cards at least every two years that provide information on key indicators, such as teacher qualifications and teacher and principal designations of effectiveness; teacher and principal attendance; and retention rates of teachers by performance level.

Additionally, the blueprint requires district-level evaluation systems that meaningfully differentiate teachers and principals by effectiveness across at least three performance levels and are consistent with their state’s definitions of “effective” and “highly effective” teacher and principal. Finally, the proposal also provides for a series of competitive grant programs related to this reform area, including a Teacher and Leader Innovation grant, to be used to reform compensation systems to provide differentiated compensation and career advancement opportunities to educators who are effective in increasing student academic achievement, among other things.

What’s more interesting about these teacher effectiveness provisions, though, is the context in which they are proposed. While clearly keeping the pressure on teachers, the administration’s blueprint seems to ease pressure for schools at the same time by proposing to eliminate Adequate Yearly Progress tracking and to focus only on those lowest-performing schools ranked in the bottom 10 percent in each state. The proposal also eliminates the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient on state assessments, instead substituting a provision that calls for states, districts and schools to aim for the ambitious goal of all students graduating or on track to graduate from high school ready for college and a career by 2020.

Performance targets, based on whole-school and subgroup achievement and growth, and graduation rates, will guide improvement toward that ambitious goal, and those that are meeting all of their performance targets will be recognized and rewarded. This leniency for states/schools juxtaposed against the increased prescriptiveness for teachers prompted one staunch education reformer to comment that “even as he (Secretary Duncan) eases up on school accountability, he would double down on teacher accountability.” (5)

Whether the administration’s blueprint gains any traction with Congress remains to be seen – there are several important factors working against it – timing, for one. After focusing intensely for more than a year on health care overhaul legislation, Congress barely has time to finish this year’s business before midterm congressional elections. When presented with the administration’s accompanying fiscal 2011 budget proposal, key members of Congress also expressed skepticism about moving ahead with education reform proposals with the economy in such pressing need of attention. Finally, as with most major legislative proposals, there’s something for everyone to love or hate.

One example is the administration’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal that emphasizes competitive grants, rather than aid formulas, in new education funding. The proposal would essentially fund Title I grants at current levels, transform several other formula streams into competitive programs, and cut the Title II teacher-quality state grants by $500 million. It would also consolidate 38 smaller programs into a number of new competitive programs. So rather than the predictable stream of Title I funding Texas is accustomed to, states and districts will have to compete for grant funding. Many of the major education groups in the country, including the American Association of School Administrators, voiced serious objections to the proposal.

What’s ahead in Texas?

Our own state Legislature meets in 2011, and teacher effectiveness issues will most likely be on the agenda. However, timing may be an issue here as well, with the state budget and redistricting promising to take center stage.

Of course some independent-minded school districts in Texas aren’t waiting for the Legislature to act before taking on some of these controversial teacher reform issues. Case in point is Houston ISD, which after getting out ahead on teacher performance pay several years back, is determined to again lead the charge by voting recently to base teacher contract nonrenewals on student test performance.

A wide-ranging discussion on education reform also cropped up at a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Public School Finance Weights, Allotments and Adjustments. TCTA was slated to address school finance issues such as teacher salaries, but ended up also defending teacher legal protections, such as basic contractual and due process rights.

Crystal ball

As has seemed to be the case with education reform in recent years, zealous endorsement of the latest, greatest silver bullet for improving public education inevitably results in overshooting the mark, leading to an eventual pulling back to a more reasonable approach. Whether the same happens in the area of improving teacher effectiveness is something that likely cannot be answered at this point, but what is clear is that teachers are dead-center in the crosshairs of the education reform debate.

Sources

1-3 mentioned in linked story "Better tests in the works?"

4 “So Long, Lake Wobegon? Using Teacher Evaluation to Raise Teacher Quality,” by Morgaen L. Donaldson, Center for American Progress, June 2009.

5 “Fickle on Federalism,” by Michael J. Petrilli, The Education Gadfly, Volume 10, Number 11. March 18, 2010, Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Updated: 06/10/10