The less people know about teaching and learning, the more sympathetic they're likely to be to the kind of "school reform" that's all the rage these days. Look, they say, some teachers (and schools) are lousy, aren't they? And we want kids to receive a better education -- including poor kids, who typically get the short end of the stick, right? So let's rock the boat a little! Clean out the dead wood, close down the places that don't work, slap public ratings on these suckers just like restaurants that have to display the results of their health inspections.
On my sunnier days, I manage to look past the ugliness of the L.A. Times's unconscionable public shaming of teachers who haven't "added value" to their students, the sheer stupidity and arrogance of Newsweek's cover story on the topic last spring, the fact that the editorials and columns about education in every major newspaper in the U.S. seem to have been written by the same person, all reflecting an uncritical acceptance of the Bush-Obama-Gates version of school reform.
I try to put it all down to mere ignorance and tamp down darker suspicions about what's going on. If I squeeze my eyes tightly, I can almost see how a reasonable person, someone who doesn't want to widen the real gap between the haves and have-nots (which is what tends to happen when attention is focused on the gap in test scores), might look at what's going on and think that it sounds like common sense.
Unfortunately, the people who know the most about the subject tend to work in the field of education, which means their protests can be dismissed. Educational theorists and researchers are just "educationists" with axes to grind, hopelessly out of touch with real classrooms. And the people who spend their days in real classrooms, teaching our children -- well, they're just afraid of being held accountable, aren't they? (Actually, proponents of corporate-style school reform find it tricky to attack teachers, per se, so they train their fire instead on the unions that represent them.) Once the people who do the educating have been excluded from a conversation about how to fix education, we end up hearing mostly from politicians, corporate executives, and journalists.
This type of reform consists of several interlocking parts, powered by a determination to "test kids until they beg for mercy," as the late Ted Sizer once put it. Test scores are accepted on faith as a proxy for quality, which means we can evaluate teachers on the basis of how much value they've added -- "value" meaning nothing more than higher scores. That, in turn, paves the way for manipulation by rewards and punishments: Dangle more money in front of the good teachers (with some kind of pay-for-performance scheme) and shame or fire the bad ones. Kids, too, can be paid for jumping through hoops. (It's not a coincidence that this incentive-driven model is favored by economists, who have a growing influence on educational matters and who still tend to accept a behaviorist paradigm that most of psychology left behind ages ago.)
"Reform" also means diverting scarce public funds to charter schools, many of them run by for-profit corporations. It means standardizing what's taught (and ultimately tested) from coast to coast, as if uniformity was synonymous with quality. It means reducing job security for teachers, even though tenure just provides due-process protections so people can't be sacked arbitrarily. It means attacking unions at every opportunity, thereby winning plaudits from the folks who, no matter what the question, mutter menacingly about how the damned unions are to blame.
And of course it means describing as "a courageous challenge to the failed status quo" what is really just an intensification of the same tactics that have been squeezing the life out of our classrooms for a good quarter-century now. That intensification has been a project of the Obama administration, even though, as Rep. John Kline (R-MN) remarked the other day, in its particulars it comes "straight from the traditional Republican playbook."
We can show that merit pay is counterproductive, that closing down struggling schools (or firing principals) makes no sense, that charters have a spotty record overall (and one much-cited study to the contrary is deeply flawed), that high-stakes testing has never been shown to produce any benefit other than higher scores on other standardized tests (and even that only sporadically). To make these points is not to deny that there are some lousy teachers out there. Of course there are. But there are far more good teachers who are being turned into bad teachers as a direct result of these policies.
How do such strategies get to be called "school reform" -- as opposed to "one particular, highly debatable version of school reform"? Partly, as I say, because those in the best position to challenge them have been preemptively silenced, but also because the so-called reformers are expert at framing the issue. They know that if the focal question is "Don't you agree that a lot of schools stink?" or "Shouldn't we hold teachers and schools accountable?" then they have the advantage. They can present their slash-and-burn tactics as "better than nothing" (as if nothing were the only alternative) or as "tough medicine" (even though what they're peddling is worse than the disease it's supposed to cure).
What if we asked other questions instead? We could do so about any of the policies I've mentioned, but for now let's consider the idea of judging teachers with a "value-added" method.
Question 1: Does this model provide valid and reliable information about teachers (and schools)? Most experts in the field of educational assessment say, Good heavens, no. This year's sterling teacher may well look like crud next year, and vice versa. Too many variables affect a cohort's test scores; statistically speaking, we just can't credit or blame any individual teacher.
Unfortunately, many of the experts who point this out tend to stop there, even though the problem runs far deeper than technical psychometric flaws with the technique. For example. . .
Question 2: Does learning really lend itself to any kind of "value-added" approach? It does only if it's conceived as an assembly line process in which children are filled up with facts and skills at each station along a conveyor belt, and we need only insert a dipstick before and after they arrive at a given station (say, fourth grade), measure the pre/post difference, and judge the worker at that station accordingly. The very idea of "value-added measures," not just a specific formula for calculating them, implicitly accepts this absurd model.
Question 3: Do standardized tests assess what matters most about teaching and learning? If not, then no value-added approach based on those tests makes any sense. As I've argued elsewhere -- and of course I'm hardly alone in doing so -- test results primarily tell us two things: the socioeconomic status of the students being tested and the amount of time devoted to preparing students for a particular test.
Regarding individual students, at least three studies have found a statistically significant positive relationship between high scores on standardized tests and a relatively shallow approach to learning. Regarding individual teachers, let's just say that some of the best the field has to offer do not necessarily raise their kids' test scores (because they're too busy helping the kids to become enthusiastic and proficient thinkers, which is not what the tests measure), while some teachers who are very successful at raising test scores are not much good at anything else. Finally, regarding whole schools, if test scores rise enough, and for long enough, to suggest a trend rather than a fluke, the rational response from a local parent would be, "Uh-oh. What was sacrificed from our children's education in order to make that happen?"
It won't do to fall back on the tired slogan that test scores may not be perfect, but they're good enough. The more you examine the construction of these exams, the more likely you are to conclude that they do not add any useful information to what can be learned from other, more authentic forms of assessment. In fact, they actively detract from our understanding about learning (and teaching) because their results are so misleading.
Notice, by the way, that everyone who declares that we ought to reward good teachers and boot the bad ones is assuming that all of us agree on what "good" and "bad" mean. But do we? I'd argue that a dipstick, test-based model is endorsed by newspapers, by public officials, and by billionaires who have bought their seat at the policy-making table (seat, hell; they own the table itself) precisely because we often don't agree.
Imagine a teacher who gives students plenty of worksheets to complete in class as well as a substantial amount of homework, who emphasizes the connection between studying hard and getting good grades, who is clearly in control of the class, insisting that students raise their hands and wait patiently to be recognized, who prepares detailed lesson plans well ahead of time, uses the latest textbooks, gives regular quizzes to make sure kids stay on track, and imposes consequences to enforce rules that have been laid out clearly from the beginning. Plenty of parents would move mountains to get their children into that teacher's classroom. I'd do whatever I could to get my children out.
Of course people disagree about good education, just as they may not see eye to eye about which movies or restaurants are good. We may never change each other's minds, but we ought to have the chance to try, to discuss our criteria and reflect on how we arrived at them. As Deborah Meier likes to point out, disagreement is both valuable and inevitable in a democratic society. Undemocratic societies attempt to conceal the disagreement, imposing a single, simple standard from above -- and, worse, use that standard to make decisions that can ruin people's lives: which teachers will be humiliated or even fired, which kids will be denied a diploma or forced to repeat a grade, which schools will be shut down. A productive discussion about who's a good teacher (and why) is less likely to take place when the people with the power get to enforce what becomes the definition of quality by default: high scores on bad tests.
I don't expect the founder of a computer empire like Bill Gates, or a lawyer like Joel Klein, or a newspaper editor to understand the art of helping children to understand ideas, or of constructing tasks to assess that process. I just expect them to have the humility, the simple decency, not to impose their ignorance on the rest of us with the force of law.
To fight back, an awful lot of teachers who have been celebrated for their students' high scores -- those teachers who can't be accused of sour grapes -- will have to stand up and say, "Thanks, but let's be honest. All of us who work in schools know that you can't tell how good a teacher is on the basis of his or her kids' test results. In fact, by being forced to think about those results, my colleagues and I are held back from being as good as we can be. By singling me out for commendation -- and holding other teachers up to ridicule -- you've lowered the quality of schooling for all kids."
Alfie Kohn (www.alfiekohn.org) is the author of 11 books, including The Case Against Standardized Testing and The Schools Our Children Deserve. Follow him on Twitter at @alfiekohn.
Follow Alfie Kohn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@alfiekohn
Todd Farley: Teacher Merit Pay: Why Test Scores Shouldn't Dictate Salaries
I have been through this system, so I know of what I speak.
Needless to say, I was stunned, considering that many of my other students were not even meeting the passing grade of 65%, for various reasons. Needless to say, the parents of those students did not appear at our meeting. Out of a class of 40, only a handful of parents showed up to meet with me.
As you said, Mr. Chapman, PARENTS are the most important driving force in education for their children. The so called "education reformers" can blame teachers all they like, but without parent involvement, there will always be an "achievement gap".
I’ve been teaching 20 years in grades 5 to 12, and I know that the absolutely most powerful, effective way to create an excellent learning environment for students is for teachers to work together. If you want excellent schools, teachers have to collaborate as much as possible and share everything.
If my performance is going to be ranked by how much I improve my students’ results from previous years, am I going to want to work to help the teachers in the grade levels before me? If I am going to be ranked in comparison to other teachers teaching the same subject, am I going to want to collaborate with them to build excellent learning experiences? There are always a few good lone wolf teachers that do their own thing and have great results, but they add nothing to the learning anywhere else in their schools if they won’t share what they are doing. And if they were being ranked, why would they share? It will only make them look worse in the future.
I am an excellent teacher with excellent so-called results, and I love teaching. But, if teaching becomes a competitive, ranked profession, it will be the end of what brings out the best in schools – teachers helping each other out. And at that point I will definitely want out.
From the howling and whining I have seen, I have got to say, Lord help us parents of school-aged children.
What I am hearing from critics is basically that until the mythical "perfect" method of objectively comparing teachers' performance is discovered, no method should be used to judge teachers' performance, because any flaws "could" lead to "some" unfairness to some teachers. This is just silliness, and it is why so many teachers' leaders have lost the respect of parents (and many of the teachers who they are supposed to represent).
The paper I refer to is
Darling-Hammond L, et al. Does Teacher Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach for America, and Teacher Effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 13, No. 42, Oct 12, 2005
You think you can control for every intervening variable? Or even come close?
What arrogance. Or just ignorance.
In any case, the assumption that the "bad teachers" are the cause of low scores is a guess. And a bad one at that.
Currently, the Department of Education (NYC) has been brought to court regarding the proposed closing of nineteen "underperforming" large high schools. So much for putting "children first" by these educational reformers".
Later on, I spent thirteen more years as superintendent of a high poverty rural district. In the early grades our students' test scores were low, but they rose gradually over the years to respectable levels for most students. I guess we added some value there. But more important, we had few instances of drugs, alcohol, bullying, or teen pregnancy, and our campuses were largely graffiti free. Maybe some things are more important than test scores.
I'm concerned that you seem to think that students' voluntary good behavior, consideration for other students, and respect for their school are not evidence of teacher competence.
I must not be in the field of education because looking at this I would wonder how you could describe the former as spotty and seek to perpetuate and expand the latter.
The latest Pennsylvania assessment test scores show that more charter school students are underperforming than students at traditional public schools.
Among charter school students, about 20 percent didn't meet basic academic standards in reading and math, compared with about 12 percent of district students, according to 2009 Pennsylvania System of Student Assessment test results.
I see you offer no rebuttal concerning the increased expenses with diminished results. It is obvious that the status quo is a failed system, and that more money is not a solution.
Whether it is charters, vouchers or educational tax credits, putting educational choice back in the hands of parents has led to better educational results academically and in terms of satisfaction, and it achieves those results for a fraction of the price.
And the charters are STILL not achieving the results that they claim to be doing so.
A Disconnect
Gerald W. Bracey George Mason University
Executive Summary
This report argues that evidence exists for the case that the charter school
movement is largely a failed reform. The report puts the charter school movement in the
context of dissatisfaction with public schools and the public sector in general. It then
describes the claims for charters made by the early charter school advocates, emphasizing
the advocates’ promise of increased achievement. From there, the report reviews
evaluations of charter schools in Arizona, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, North
Carolina, and Texas, as well as several national evaluations.
The review shows that charters have not lived up to their promise of increased
achievement. This failure is surprising given that charter schools are small (most have
fewer than 200 students) with small classes, two factors known to increase achievement.
This failure becomes even harder to understand given the advantages that charters enjoy
in their freedom from the rules, regulations, and contracts that are said to bureaucratically
burden the public schools.
It appears that charter school advocates who believed that charters could increase
achievement and should be held accountable for doing so have lost control of the procharter
movement to those for whom deregulation is a sufficient condition for declaring
success.
Furthermore, the time to begin intervention is at 12 months or less--by age 3 a poor child is already at a significant disadvantage, and the public schools won't even get the kid for 2 more years.
Not all teachers are charismatic; most are just competent, caring, and kind. Teachers are, except for the very rare bad egg, happy to be held accountable for what teachers control. Make sure we know our subjects, make sure our lesson plans are organized, make sure we provide immediate feedback. We love it.
We do not, however, control who does the assigned homework. We cannot make every child fall in love with our subjects--and we cannot be expected to dress like Big Bird or present our lessons in rap just to get students attention.
I think they(feds) should only publish results and not be in the decision making process. Funds should be provided equally among the states based on student counts. 100,000 students = x number of dollars. The parents can apply to any school they wish and the money follows the child. Schools and teachers are rated by parents, teachers, and administrators as well as some testing to create an apples to apples comparison. But the tests are only informational and not limiters on funding. A lot of freedom needs to be given to the communities to develop plans and change as the population changes.
I'm not sure how to encourage these values other than to make education a community priority.