School Closures: A National Look at a Failed Strategy

Carol Burris

by Carol Burris

Twelve community activists on the south side of Chicago are capturing national attention by putting their health on the line to save their school. It is their third week of a hunger strike designed to force Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel to keep Dyett High School open.

Dyett serves the community of Bronzeville on Chicago’s south side. Bronzeville was the cultural hub for African Americans who fled the south during the Great Migration. The school’s significance in the community runs deep.

The struggle to save the school is part of the growing pushback against neighborhood school closures both within and beyond Chicago—closures that slam poor communities who find beloved institutions shuttered and yanked away. In just one evening, in May of 2014, the Chicago School Board voted to close 50 public schools. A 2014 report by Journey for Justice, entitled Death by a Thousand Cuts, describes the devastating effects of school closings and maps the march of school privatization in communities of color across the United States.

Poor test scores and low graduation rates are the excuse for closures, but the reasons for academic failure that lie beyond the schoolhouse are never addressed. NPE Board member, Jitu Brown, who is part of the hunger strike, summed up the frustration when he said, “We’re tired of our children and our communities being demonized and being blamed for being underserved.”

The schools that are closed

The story of Dyett is a familiar story in underserved urban communities across the United States. As far back as 2011, closures in New York City were criticized for their disparate impact on schools that served the largest numbers of disadvantaged students and were located in communities that needed the stability of a school the most.

A 2011 report by the New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO) recognized that the demographics of the 14 schools slated for closure served a disproportionate number of homeless students, black students, special education students, low income students, and students who were overage for their grade. Ironically, one third of the schools on the list had replaced another school that had been closed before it—repeating a cycle of disruption for neighborhood kids. In a 2013 report, the same patterns emerged— schools on the chopping block served a more disadvantaged student population, and students entering the school had lower scores.

Even as the identified schools were set up for failure, the schools that often replaced them were set up for success. When the schools were reconstituted as smaller schools, they generally served populations of students with less need and higher entering test scores. One report issued by New York City Communities for Change referred to the shutting and opening of schools as nothing more than “a shell game.”

In a beautiful tribute to the once great Jamaica High School, alumni Jelani Cobb, tells the history of the school and how its final demise was brought on by the policies of the Bloomberg administration. In the end, school choice, which dramatically disrupted the demographics of the school body, pushed the school over the test score brink, thus leading to the closing of the school. Cobb writes, “In the battle over the school’s future, many came to see those changing demographics not as happenstance but as a purposeful way of insuring that the creation of small schools in the building would be a fait accompli.”

Although Bloomberg is gone, not much has changed. NPE board member, Leonie Haimson, has been fighting New York City closures since 2011. She was hopeful that school closures would stop when Bloomberg exited, yet now these same schools are being threatened by takeover from the state. “Every neighborhood school that is closed is a tragedy for that community. All efforts should be taken to preserve and strengthen them rather than close them down. Sadly, I’m not sure that even this administration [DeBlasio] is implementing the right policies to ensure these schools improve and survive.”

The human impact of school closures

Cobb begins his story of Jamaica High with the commencement ceremony of its last graduating class, the Class of 2014. Twenty-four graduates were pushed out of their school auditorium for that ceremony, as what remained of Jamaica High School competed for space with the new, co-located school.

Such sad events are not unique. The New York Times featured photographs from a Philadelphia art show that captured the raw emotions felt by community, students, and staff in one of the 31 city schools that were shut down. School ‘closings by the numbers’ exact a human toll when students and teachers lose their place. Some scramble to find spots in other schools once the decision to phase out the school is made. Many students become “over the counter” enrollees in schools where there is space, which is often another school that is spiraling down. The school slated for closure withers away until only a few dozen students remain. It begs the question, are school closings worth the price?

Do school takeovers work?

Reformers will tell you that school takeovers work miracles, and they will point to New Orleans as their proof. While it is true that New Orleans’ state test scores are higher, the complexity of what occurred in that city (including the mass migration out after Katrina) has added variables that are unique and impact results. Doug Harris, the Director of the Research Alliance for New Orleans,speaks not only of the complexity of measuring achievement, but also of the unevenness of improvement. He makes it clear that New Orleans’ lessons “can not be summed up in a headline.”

Takeovers in 2012 in Indiana have resulted in little improvement in achievement and steep drops in enrollment in takeover schools. Of the schools taken over that year, only one had its grade improve from an F. Meanwhile, Tindley Schools, a charter school organization that managed one of the schools, pulled out. They wanted more money to continue.

In 2012, six schools joined the Tennessee Achievement School District, headed by reformer, Chris Barbic, who was charged with turning them around. Three were run by the district; and three were privately run by charter operators using public funds. For two years scores were stagnant. In the third year, math scores in the district-run schools improved, but in the charter-run schools scores declined. Mr. Barbic announced his resignation as of December of this year.

None of this should come as a surprise. In 2002, the state of Pennsylvania began what was called “the nation’s largest experiment in the private management of public schools” in Philadelphia. A 2007 study by the independent, non-profit research organization, the Rand Corporation, found no increases in achievement from the private management of Philadelphia schools, but small gains in restructured schools controlled by the district. Those district-controlled schools that improved were given extra resources and intensive staff support.

The same failed strategies replayed

And yet, despite the dismal results of private control of public schools in the state’s largest city, the same bad playbook was used in Pennsylvania’s York City School District in 2014. NPE President, Diane Ravitch, lamented the loss of citizen voice in the community. “There will be no ‘choice’ for the families of York City. Their children will have to attend a charter school whose headquarters are in Florida. Yes, it is the death of local control and democracy in York City.”

Since Governor Corbett’s defeat, the York City model has softened. David Meckley, whose plan was to turn the district over to charter schools, resigned citing the new Governor’s hostility to his charter takeover plan. The new chief, Carol Saylor, is a veteran educator who is taking a public-school friendly approach. But without adequate resources, improvement will be tough.

NPE board member, Mark Miller, is the Vice-President of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. He sums up the problem faced by Saylor and her counterpart in Chester Upland, where employees are working without pay, this way. “York City and Chester Upland receivers, Carol Saylor and Francis Barnes, are trying to bring about positive change. Unfortunately, nothing can change without more money or fewer unfunded mandates. The unjust enrichment of charter/cyber charter operators is at the crux of the problem.”

And so in Chicago the hunger strike continues—twelve brave souls carry the pain not only for Dyett, but for so many schools who are blamed for conditions out of their control. They are becoming physically weaker by the day, but their spirit is strong. And that hunger for justice will continue until the cycle of shame, shutter, and student displacement and neglect finally ends.

(Note: The city announced it would keep Dyett open as an “arts” school to attract students from across the city. The hunger strike is continuing.)

Please support the Dyett School hunger strike by calling the Rahm Emanuel’s office (312) 744-3300 and tell him that you support the Dyett Global Leadership and Green Technology High School. On Twitter, send out support at #fightfordyett.

Jeanette Taylor-Ramann

In Chicago, Hunger Striking To Save a School
Why are Chicago parents on a hunger strike to save a neighborhood school? Because after five years of fighting, they’ve run out of options...

By Jeanette Taylor-Ramann

LINKWhat’s happening in Bronzeville isn’t just about Dyett High School. There’s an agenda to push out black and brown low income and working families in the city of Chicago. If you look at the big picture, that’s what this is about. You don’t only have police brutality. You don’t have only have a decrease in public housing in the city and the closing of public schools. The neighborhood school is the last stable institution that we have. When you have good neighborhood schools, they service the neighborhood. They keep kids off the street; they help parents when they’re struggling and having issues in the home. That neighborhood school is a support system for the community, and the powers that be know that.

This isn’t the life I chose. It chose me.

I’m a forty year-old mother of five, soon to be a grandmother. I was a teen mom, and I’ve been on the Local School Council (LSC) at Irving C. Mollison Elementary since I was 19. I’ve always had to participate in my children’s education. My mother did it for me, and when I became a mother, she pushed me to be responsible. She said *that’s your child. You’ve got to be a part of the school culture.* My grandmother was one of the first teacher’s assistants at Mollison, DYETT my auntie is a teacher there, my mother was on the PTA. She’s been a clerk at the school for 20 years. This isn’t the life I chose. It chose me.

For almost my entire life—34 years—I’ve lived in Bronzeville. I’ve recently been pushed out because of gentrification. I can’t afford the rent in the neighborhood, so for the last three years I’ve resided in Woodlawn. The transformation in Bronzeville started back in the 1990’s when they knocked down the public housing and began to build up the neighborhood. But what I started to notice was that when they put up replacement housing, it wasn’t for the people who’d lived in the neighborhood for years. So you’re pushing out the people who can’t afford to live there. If you’re not making $50,000 a year or more, you’re not able to afford to live in Bronzeville.

A line in the sand
There are currently 12 people on a hunger strike. Every day more people join us from around the city who’ve decided to go on a fast with us. We have a pastor, a Latino brother, we have a white brother whose community said *we don’t want a Noble Street charter in our neighborhood* and they left. He’s joined up despite the fact that this isn’t touching him. School closures haven’t really affected some of these other communities the way have us, but they took the charge to say *if these parents and community members can do it, I’m going to join them.* I have two other of my Local School Council members hunger striking with me, another active parent from my school, and an ex parent who helped me fight off two previous attempts to close Mollison Elementary. You’ve got people who’ve been in the community working and fighting for years who’ve said *enough is enough.* The line in the sand has been drawn and people have to answer for mistreating our young people.

You’ve got people who’ve been in the community working and fighting for years who’ve said *enough is enough.* The line in the sand has been drawn and people have to answer for mistreating our young people.

Part of the problem
Charter schools aren’t the solution, they’re part of the problem. Don’t get me wrong. There are some good charter schools, but most of them aren’t doing any better than neighborhood schools. And they have no accountability. They have no Local School Councils. LSCs at schools are the people who hire and fire the principals and oversee the budgets. Nobody does that at charter or contract schools. These people are able to charge parents $10 or $20 when their kids don’t have a belt or a tie. Then at the end of the year when your grades aren’t good enough to make their profile look good, they get to kick you out and then you’re sent back to the neighborhood school.

We’ve got to look it in the face and call it what it is: racism. It’s only happening to a certain group of people. Period.

No stake in the community
Why should these people be allowed to set up shop? Because that’s what it is. They come. They’re here for four or five years. They have no stake in the community. They do nothing with the community. And then after they’ve made millions and millions of dollars but without educating our children, they leave. Charter schools are a way for bankers and billionaires to make money off of the poor. It’s racism. We’ve got to look it in the face and call it what it is: racism. It’s only happening to a certain group of people. Period. And I don’t care who that’s uncomfortable for, and who thinks I’m going too far by saying that. It’s the truth. I can’t find another reason. I pay my taxes like everyone else, I go to work everyday. I send my kids to school. So what is it? There’s no other factor. This is based on the color of my skin.

Connecting dots
I’m very discouraged that in 2015 parents have to go to this extreme for a neighborhood high school. People have to answer for that. What did Martin die for? What did Malcolm die for? How can we get the next Barack Obama? How can we get any of those folks if our kids can’t even be educated? They want to make everything private. I’m not crazy. I’ve been to New Orleans. I’ve seen the kids still attending schools in trailers while they got billions and billions of dollars. I’ve been to Philadelphia. I’ve been to Detroit. I’ve been to New Jersey to see the parents who are fighting in Camden. The connecting dot is that there is an attack on black and brown low-income working families.

Jeanette Taylor-Ramann is a member of the Local School Council at Mollison Elementary on Chicago’s South Side. She is one of twelve parents and community members on a hunger strike to keep open the last open-enrollment high school in Bronzeville.

 

Klein-Clone Jean-Claude Brizard Now Tries To Stop A Strike of The Teacher's Union In Chicago

National Public Voice: Carol Burris on the Sham Teacher Evaluation Using Student Test Data

Re-posted from National Public Voice:

Carol Burris on Using Test Scores and Common Core To Evaluate Teachers

Carol Burris

 

Principal’s last advice: Let’s move beyond the rhetoric and really question the Common Core

Value-added scores are a sham metric. They give top teachers negative scores!

Core Debate by Carol Burris, July 2, 2015

LINK

Dear Jayne,
I am writing this letter the day after my last graduation ceremony. The past week has been difficult—full of tearful goodbyes. Although I am certain that my decision to retire was the right one, leaving a school that I love so much has been very painful. But, as I said to the Class of 2015 in my address, quoting Winnie the Pooh—“how lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.”

Your last letter acknowledged our mutual concern about the evaluation of teachers by student test data. Even if it were a perfect measure, and it is far from perfect, the unintended consequences of using test scores in this manner would never be worth the price. Back in 1976, social scientist Donald Campbell predicted what would happen if standardized tests became high-stakes. He wrote, “When test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.” Certainly, that is a worry you and I share.

You asked what accountability system produces a bell curve in which teachers are measured against each other. It’s called the “VAM” — for value-added model — and each teacher receives a score that is generated by comparing the scores of his or her students with students across the state of Florida, who take the same test and have similar characteristics. That comparison then produces a “bell curve” because scores cluster around the average score, which is converted into the five Florida categories of teacher VAM performance. It may sound reasonable but it produces some inexplicable results where excellent teachers receive bad scores. This was the case of the 2014 Hillsborough Teacher of the Year, who was judged so bad by VAM, his score was negative! We use a similar process in New York, although growth scores are only generated for 3-8 tests.

Jayne, while we both disagree with using student test scores to evaluate teachers, I am wary when you suggest that “multiple measures” and “dashboards” are the solution. Would you be comfortable with test scores being 30% of a teacher’s evaluation? I would not. If using them as a metric comes at the cost of narrowing curriculum and teaching to the test, why would we want to include them at all?

I am not discounting the importance of using student achievement in assessing teacher quality and in helping teachers improve. Prior to the mandated use of scores, I used achievement results to help guide my observations, review teacher lesson plans and design professional development. I worry that vague terms like “multiple measures” lead non-educators to conclude that, if more than one test were used to produce VAM scores, or if you also included observations, using test data is sound practice.

Related: Blended learning emerges as a leading trend in education technology, report says

Now back to the Common Core. I am not sure what you mean when you say that I “personified” the standards and that I believe the Common Core is “the root of the problems we are facing in education.” The Common Core is but one part of a failed reform strategy. The Common Core, teacher evaluation using student tests scores, Common Core tests, the expansion of charter schools and other disruptive change strategies were pushed by the $4.35 billion competitive grant known as Race to the Top. All are presented as interconnected parts of a school improvement plan.

I do agree that other policies associated with the Common Core have negatively impacted the implementation of the standards. I also am (and have always been) a big believer in college and career readiness as our goal. Where we disagree is that I don’t believe that the Common Core standards, even without bad policy, will do the job.

Here is an example that we in New York are living through now. The Common Core algebra test was given in early June. New York students generally take algebra in eighth grade (accelerated students) or ninth grade. Some of our very best students were in tears as they struggled to complete it. Concerns went far beyond our district. Eric Cunningham is a veteran algebra teacher from upstate New York. He wrote an email to parents explaining how difficult the test was and how illogical the curve against which the tests were scored.

First, let’s look at the level of difficulty. Eric refers to question 24, a compound inequality problem which you can find here. Eric is correct when he says this topic was previously taught in New York’s Algebra 2/Trigonometry course, the third course in the high school sequence. Question 24 is now fair game on the Common Core algebra test, which is the first course in the high school sequence, because it tests the Common Core standard CED.A1, which you can find here.

Our students also had a lot of difficulty with question 18 which involved a quadratic equation. The solution included a fraction. My math teacher told me that not only was the topic previously taught in Algebra 2 Trigonometry, but that the inclusion of the fraction made the question inappropriate for even the Algebra 2 course. Could the question be considered an assessment of a Common Core standard? Yes, because there are Common Core math standards that require Algebra 1 students to solve quadratic equations by completing the square.

Related: With Common Core tests, a lot at stake for first-year principal

This level of detail is necessary to help readers understand the problem. We do our students a terrible disservice when we fail to recognize the inappropriateness of many of the standards and accept them in the name of “college readiness.”

The problems with the test go beyond these two questions. Let’s look at the college readiness score bands. It is not difficult to pass the test. For a score of 65%, students need to get 30 of the possible 86 points—which represents getting less than 35% of the exam correct. Given that most of the exam is multiple choice, a good guesser who can do the simpler questions will pass. To get to the Common Core “college readiness” passing (level 4) a student must get 65% of the test right. That “college readiness score” will be the new score needed to graduate high school in just a few years. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But let’s look at the outcome.

Only 48% of Rockville Centre first-time test takers achieved that score. That excludes students who previously took and failed the test—if they were included the percentage would be lower still.

This year South Side High School had no dropouts and our four-year graduation rate was 98%. Should we conclude that only about half of the graduates of my high school are college-ready, and that in the future, only 48% should graduate based on the results of this test?

Related: Are new Common Core tests really better than the old multiple-choice tests?

Every other indicator contradicts that conclusion. Every year, over 70% of our graduates pass an International Baccalaureate exam in mathematics. When I checked last fall, 92% of our entire Class of 2012 was successfully enrolled in college two years after graduation. My summer survey of whether students were required to take remediation resulted in only a handful of students. All were either English language learners or students with disabilities.

So, Jayne, what should I believe? The Common Core test results, which say over half of our students are not prepared for college, or over a decade’s worth of evidence that tells me nearly all of them are? I understand that my school is well-resourced with only a 16% poverty rate. But surely the juxtaposition of Common Core scores with my school’s longstanding track record of producing college-ready students indicates that there is something wrong with the Common Core standards as measured by Common Core-aligned tests. It is time we move beyond the rhetoric and critically question the assumptions on which these reforms rest.

I thank you so much for your willingness to enter this dialogue with me. I have no doubt that you and I both deeply believe in school improvement and our responsibility to create well-educated, caring and thoughtful young adults. While we disagree on the value of the Common Core, my guess is that our core values are far more similar than different. Good luck to you, Jayne, and the very best to you and your wonderful school.

Carol

Carol Burris: The "New" Teacher Evaluation Process is Nonsense

Sunday, December 2, 2012

The newest rhetoric on teacher evaluation — and why it is nonsense

Posted by Valerie Strauss on November 13, 2012 at 6:00 am

LINK

Carol Burris is the award-winning principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre, New York, and a frequent Answer Sheet blogger. She just underwent an ordeal as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Here’s what she wrote:

(Mike Stobe/AFP/Getty Images)

Physically we are fine…we evacuated. I am one mile from the bay, but when it surged, about 6 feet entered my home.  All in the finished basement.  Lost a lot–heating system for the house, hot water and we have no electric. Walls and staircase have to come down.  House smells awful.  Lost lots of furniture, but also pictures, my husband’s Lionel train set from his Dad and all my research from my dissertation. Stuff you can’t get back. Some leaks, a fence down but because we left we did not lose our cars.  We are pretty lucky compared with others.

 Yet even while dealing with all of this Carol Burris still keeps writing about the negative effects of school reform. Here she looks at the newest popular rhetoric on teacher evaluation — and explains why it is nonsense. Burris is theco-author of the New York Principals letter of concern regarding the evaluation of teachers by student test scores, which has been signed by more than 1,500 New York principals and more than 5,400 teachers, parents, professors, administrators and citizens. You can read the letter by clicking here.

 By Carol Burris

As a high school principal, it is my job to evaluate teachers. I take this responsibility very seriously — it helps ensure that our students receive the rich opportunities to learn that they deserve. With strong teachers, evaluation may entail reaffirming good practice, supporting innovative practice and facilitating ways for them to share their expertise with their colleagues. For novices or those who struggle, we work to improve their practice and, when necessary, to counsel them out or let them go.

  It is because instruction is so important that the sweeping generalizations and false assumptions that have fueled recent teacher evaluation policies are of such concern to teachers and school leaders alike.  The waves of misinformation about evaluation undermine confidence in our schools and result in “solutions” based on opinion and gut-level hunches, not research evidence. The recent Phi Delta Kappan opinion piece, entitled “Million Dollar Baby,” is an example of the misguided critiques that appear all too often.

Let me begin by saying that I have always been a fan of the Kappan, which skillfully takes scholarly research and makes it accessible to educators who do not have time to pore over academic journals. Despite that fine track record, the generalizations that form the argument in this month’s editor’s note cannot go unaddressed.   It is time to get the record straight and address three common fallacies that dominate the new rhetoric on teacher evaluation:

            1. Every former teacher evaluation system was the same and that unitary system was terrible. To quote from the opinion piece, “Unfortunately educators must bear the bulk of the blame for allowing such a lousy system to exist.” In reality, there was never one evaluation system nor was every system “lousy.” Rather, each school district has had its own system of teacher evaluation, and some of those have been better than others. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we don’t have substantial room for improvement. But it does mean that it’s ridiculous to start a reform discussion with the contention that all districts should abandon their evaluation system regardless of its track record. I would wager, for instance, that Kappan’s editor would agree that theMontgomery County Maryland School System has a nationally acclaimed system, and that Cincinnati Schools had a system, before Race to the Top, that has been shown to not only improve the craft of teachers but to increase student achievement. Neither system incorporated test scores. In the small districts on Long Island, most of us did an excellent job evaluating teachers—dismissing probationers who do not merit tenure, helping teachers continue to develop, working with and counseling those who needed to improve or to leave the profession, and building on the strength of even our most expert practitioners.  Among Long Island principals, you will find few fans of New York State’s new evaluation systems, based on APPR.

       2. Tenure is the problem. It is a job for life and it is unique to teaching. The Kappan editorial states that tenure is one of the “unique privileges that teachers enjoy.” But in truth due process before dismissal (tenure) is not unique to teaching. In fact, it is more difficult for a principal to dismiss a custodian due to civil service protection than it is to dismiss a teacher. Civil servants enjoy seniority rights, probation periods, salary schedules, and due process rights for dismissal just like teachers. Civil servants, who are broadly defined as those who work for government, include librarians, police officers, firefighters, transit workers,  secretaries, and accountants.  Due process should not be understood or practiced as a “job for life,” but it should remove the threat of political or arbitrary dismissals.

 There are excellent reasons for such protections. The civil service was established in the late 1800s because prior to its establishment, government jobs were given to political supporters as spoils. The protections were put into place to make sure that public employees were hired on merit and could not be dismissed on the whims of the incoming administration. This remains a concern. Public schools are run by politicians—in some cases by mayors, in other cases by elected boards of education.

 As an alternative to tenure, the Kappan editorial suggests that teachers “should receive a contract for a limited period of time, say three or five years”.  Although this may sound reasonable, consider the clear consequences. Without the protection of tenure, educators could be dismissed for not pleasing the interests of powerful parents. They could be dismissed in order to bring in friends and relatives of newly elected mayors or board members.  Teachers could be pressured to pass students who did not deserve to pass a class or be pressured to not discipline a student when warranted. Presently, there is one person in every district who works on a renewable contract: the superintendent. Nationally, the average time that a superintendent stays in a district is seven years. For an urban superintendent it is fewer than three years. And the constant turnover of superintendents does not serve students or schools well.  Tenure promotes stability and community in our schools.  Teacher turnover, even when it is the less effective teachers who leave, has a negative effect on student achievement. Likewise it has been found that churn in the principalship is not good for schools. Such instability does not  promote excellence and the courage to make the tough decisions that are not politically popular but serve the best interests of students. Again, this isn’t an argument against pursuing ways to streamline the dismissal process; it’s an argument against poorly thought through changes.

        3. High-stakes evaluations are fine as long as they do not rely on a single measure.  This is the new popular rhetoric. It is a partial acknowledgement of the many problems associated with using students’ test scores and growth models in teacher evaluations, problems that have been repeatedly documented. And yet the Kappan editor and others still insist on the inclusion of students’ test scores in teacher evaluation. Multiple measures are indeed wise, but the effects of including any given measure need to be understood. Current policies do in fact place test scores in a prominent role, one for which they are not valid or reliable and because of which school districts can expect to be (justifiably) challenged in court by dismissed teachers (as explained in another article in the same November issue of the Kappan). The troubling reality is that these policies will promote teaching to standardized tests and a narrowing of the curriculum

 The editorial suggests that we also include other untested ingredients, such as student surveys, in the evaluation mix. We should do this, apparently, even though there is as of yet no reliable research base to support the idea. As a high school principal, I thoroughly enjoy working with teenagers. I find their opinions to be frank and refreshing. But I do not think it is fair or wise to give 14 year olds a formal role in teacher evaluation. It is bad enough that we are undermining the student-teacher relationship by basing evaluations on those students test scores.

 The magazine’s editor concludes by asserting that “every classroom should have excellent teaching every hour of every day.” I would add that every child should also have an excellent parent who serves them excellent food and provides them with an excellent home in an excellent neighborhood. Let’s also add excellent healthcare and excellent supervision every hour of every day as well. If we could accomplish all of that, we would have the highest achieving students on earth. But the rhetoric itself accomplishes little. What we need are research-based policies supported by lawmakers willing to provide the necessary resources.

 In the meantime, while we wait for those wise lawmakers to emerge, perhaps we all could back off and allow teachers to enjoy the same humanity we seem to graciously grant to others. Teachers aren’t perfect, but I must tell you that nearly all of the teachers that I have met over the years are darn good at what they do. And the variation in their skill is no wider than the variation that I have observed in other professions whose evaluations we never seem to discuss. Let’s look to improve evaluation systems as well as other parts of our schools. But could we stay within reasonable bounds of critique based on fact and research? If we do not stop this constant drumbeat of criticism there will be no one left to evaluate with our new excellent-every-hour-every-day evaluation systems.

New teacher evaluations start to hurt students

By Valerie Strauss, The Answer Sheet

LINK

Much of the discussion about the use of student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers has centered on how unfair the “value-added” method is to teachers because it is unreliable and can — and does — label effective teachers as ineffective too often. But there are consequences for the students too, and they are just starting to be seen. This is explained by in this post by Carol Burris, the award-winning principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre, New York. She is the co-author of the New York Principals letter of concern regarding the evaluation of teachers by student test scores, which has been signed by more than 1,500 New York principals and more than 5,400 teachers, parents, professors, administrators and citizens. You can read the letter by clicking here.

By Carol Burris

The first “growth scores” for the teachers of students in Grades 3-8 have arrived in New York State and they are even more problematic than expected. What is happening in New York is happening across our country. The question that those who love our public schools and their students must confront is what credence will we give them and how will we respond.

We know that of all of the many factors that account for the variance in student scores, the teacher is the greatest in-school factor — she contributes more for example, to student test scores than does the principal or the school size. However, factors other than the teacher account for roughly 85-90% of the variation in students’ test scores. Teachers account for only 10-15% of the variance in scores. Some researchers have argued that even that percentage is too high due to the conflation of teacher contribution with class size and peer effects. What that means is that the urban legend that three excellent teachers in a row will close the achievement gap is not grounded in research but rather in speculation.

The shortcomings of evaluating teachers by test scores were apparent in the recent report of the American Institute for Research (AIR), which developed the New York growth score model. AIR, in its BETA report, shows how as the percentage of students with disabilities and students of poverty in a class or school increases, the average teacher or principal growth score decreases. In short, the larger the share of such students, the more the teacher and principal are disadvantaged by the model. I predict that when the state results are made public, you will see a disproportionate amount of teachers of students with serious learning disabilities and teachers in schools with high levels of poverty labeled ineffective on scores. And that label will be unfair.

Likewise, in the model used this year, teachers who have students whose prior test scores were higher were advantaged, while teachers whose students have lower prior achievement were disadvantaged. This phenomenon, known as peer effects, has been observed in the literature since the 1980s. There is no control for peer effects in the model. We will see patterns of low scores for teachers of disadvantaged students. Over time, the students who need the best teachers and principals will see them leave their schools in order to escape the ‘ineffective’ label.

Perhaps the best critique of the model comes from AIR itself. The BETA report concludes that “the model selected to estimate growth scores for New York State represents a first effort to produce fair and accurate estimates of individual teacher and principal effectiveness based on a limited set of data” (p. 35). Not “our best attempt,” not even a “good first attempt,” but rather a “first effort” at fairness.

And yet, across the state, teachers and principals have received scores telling them that they are ineffective in producing student learning growth.

During the first two weeks of September, Principal Harry Leonadartis surveyed principals around the state to find out if the growth ratings they received for their teachers appeared to be an accurate reflection of their teachers’ skills. More than 500 New York principals responded.

Seventy three percent of respondents said that the “ineffective” label assigned to some of their teachers was either not a very accurate or an inaccurate reflection of that teacher based on their observations and the performance of that teacher’s students. A majority said that the scores overall were not a very accurate reflection of teacher ability. Regarding APPR, the state-imposed evaluation system, 81% regarded it as a tool of limited or no value for the evaluation of teachers. Only 19% had a positive attitude toward APPR with minimal concerns. Over 81% described themselves as either reluctant participants or opposed to APPR. More than 1510 New York principals have signed a letter of opposition to APPR which can be found here.

In the comments section of the survey, several principals reported having excellent special education teachers labeled as “ineffective.” One principal wrote: “Two excellent teachers who volunteer to take on my toughest students got an ineffective. Their hearts were broken. So was mine.” Another principal remarked, “The teachers who were identified as ineffective…have been teaching for more than 15 years, and have cared for students in ways that no test can measure.”

Other principals remarked that teachers who received poor ratings were teacher often praised by students and parents alike. Some principals stated that they would change their teacher’s assignment next year and assign them less needy students so that they could protect these excellent teachers from the ineffective rating. The unintended consequences to students are beginning.

How can an evaluation system in which the evaluators themselves have little faith possibly be productive? The question is, what will we collectively, and individually as school leaders do?

There are principals who are bravely standing up. One of them is Don Sternberg, the leader of the Wantagh Elementary School on Long Island. You can read his letter to parents here.

Don wrote:

Of additional concern to me is the relationship between children and their teacher as we move into an era where teacher job status is based upon student assessment scores. Guess what, some children will become more desirable than others to have in class! And, conversely, others will be less desirable. There, I wrote it! That concept is blasphemy in our school where teachers live to prepare children to be productive learners and members of society. Teachers state-wide are worried that their relationship with students might change when they are evaluated based upon their students’ test scores. Teachers want to educate students, not test prep them for job security.

Additionally, what should be shocking to you as a parent is that state and national databases are being created in order to analyze and store students’ test scores – your child’s assessment results and your child’s school attendance! Do you realize that the state has mandated that classroom teachers must take attendance during every math, ELA, social studies and science lesson – everyone, every day for the entire school year! Those records are sent to the state and become statistically part of the teacher evaluation process. It will no longer be enough that your child ‘was in school.’

Rather, if he or she was at a band lesson or out of the room for extra help in reading and a math lesson was taking place in class, he or she will be noted as absent from that instruction. That will be factored into the teacher evaluation….This is all part of the massive, multi-million tax-payer dollar teacher evaluation processes started by our Commissioner of Education, our governor, and our state legislators and fully supported by statisticians employed by the state and assessment-making companies. No one in Albany is selecting to see the end of the journey; that 98 percent of the students graduating from Wantagh Schools go on to two- and four-year colleges. Their myopic view is focused on the ‘parts’, not the whole. Who will eventually suffer? Your children!

Further upstate New York, an outstanding principal, John Mc Kenna, worked with the Niagara Regional PTA to create a resolution against high-stakes testing and teacher evaluation by test scores to be presented at the New York State PTA convention later this fall. You can read their resolution here:

Poverty matters. It does not seal the fate of a child, but if we are to overcome the disadvantages that it brings, we must level the playing field by providing effective supports to poor students and the teachers who serve them. The “no excuses” philosophy which seeks to blame teachers for the burden our entire society must bear is a cold and shameful response to our most disadvantaged students. The waste of billions of taxpayer dollars on testing, test security, test shredding, intrusive data systems and test-score teaching ratings is a violation of the public trust.

How many more brave educators and parents will stand up, speak and say “no more?”