Grading Teachers

National Review ^ | 16 Sep 2009 | Marcus A. Winters

[AreaMan]

---

September 16, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Grading Teachers
We must distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers.

By Marcus A. Winters

In 2007, only 57 percent of fourth graders in New York City and 44 percent of fourth graders in Chicago could claim even basic literacy according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Yet, in the same year, less than 2 percent of New York’s teachers and less than 1 percent of Chicago’s teachers were deemed “unsatisfactory” in their official evaluations. Clearly, something is missing here.

Current public-school evaluation systems do not distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers. We can dramatically improve these systems by thoughtfully incorporating information gained from student performance on standardized tests.

But union opposition to measuring teacher quality makes even the most obvious policy reforms frustratingly difficult. In fact, thanks to union pressure over the years, it is actually illegal in some states — California, New York, and Wisconsin — to evaluate teachers based on standardized test results. To his credit, President Obama has insisted that states abandon such restrictions in order to qualify for part of the $4.3 billion in discretionary funds under the administration’s Race to the Top initiative. The president and his education secretary Arne Duncan deserve praise for (so far) sticking to their guns despite outcry from these states.

A wide body of research confirms what everyone already knows: Teachers are the most important factor (within a school’s control) for developing student proficiency. This research suggests that teacher quality varies dramatically — a student assigned to a high-quality teacher learns about a grade-level’s worth more material in a year than if assigned to a low-quality teacher. This should make improving teacher quality the primary objective for any education reformer.

The most promising ideas for improving teacher quality — such as paying more effective teachers higher salaries or loosening tenure restrictions that make it impossible to fire ineffective teachers — require that we meaningfully and systematically measure a teacher’s contribution to his student’s learning. Current evaluations are not up to the task.

Most current teacher-evaluation systems rely heavily — and sometimes entirely — on classroom observations. The principal observes the teacher and makes a subjective assessment of her classroom-management techniques. The observation can last less than a single class period — according to the union contract, in Miami, Fla., the annual evaluation need not last longer than 20 minutes — and usually occurs at a time known beforehand by the teacher, allowing him or her to fix the scene. I personally remember a teacher in the public school I attended — who was mediocre but by no means incompetent — pleading with us to be on our best behavior the next day when “guests” would be visiting our classroom. I realize now that those guests were evaluating her.

These teacher observations are too infrequent to be informative. Recently hired, untenured teachers might be observed two to three times a year. But a U.S. Department of Education study of teacher evaluations in the Midwest found that in more than half the districts studied tenured teachers were only evaluated once every three years.

The subjectivity and infrequency of teacher evaluations makes them essentially useless. Further, principals are reluctant to rock the boat by publically deeming a teacher “unsatisfactory,” particularly since (1) they can’t remove a tenured teacher, no matter how unsatisfactory his performance, (2) the rarity of the distinction implies the teacher is not only “unsatisfactory” but egregiously incompetent, which is often a stronger message than the principal intends to send, and (3) the principal himself is not directly accountable for the school’s performance, giving him little incentive to enrage his teaching staff by pointing out the poor performance of a colleague.

We can greatly improve teacher evaluations by using modern standardized testing and econometric tools to create objective measures of a teacher’s classroom performance. Datasets matching student test scores to their teachers allow us to measure the influence of a teacher on student performance. Such analyses are not reliable enough to use in isolation to make any employment decisions about a teacher. But, they can certainly be used to raise a red flag when a teacher’s students are performing poorly.

Thanks to the ubiquity of standardized testing, all states produce yearly data on student proficiency. However, only 21 states have developed sophisticated data systems useful for teacher evaluations. Mr. Obama and his education Secretary Arne Duncan say they will use Race to the Top dollars to encourage more states to follow this path. Their decision to withhold funds for states that outlaw this important practice deserves an A+.

— Marcus A. Winters is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His new report with Jay P. Greene, “How Special-Ed Vouchers Keep Kids From Being Mislabeled as Disabled,” can be read online here.

— Marcus A. Winters is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

---

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzZlZTZhNzE0ZDAwODQxZDg1ZTllY2QwM2Q0OThkMmM=

[DYngbld]

ping?

[nmh]

Many teachers have English as a second language.

MOST teachers do not have the expertise to teach. For example, Math, Science or when it is an ESL teacher - forget reading and grammar etc.. Also the expectation of the TEACHER will be reflected in the student. A HIGH standard will push them. A LOW standard, which they have does what you expect to do.

[nmh]

I psecifically point to NYC and Chicago and other hell holes when I state that MOST of these teachers are NOT educated here but get a pass and have English as their second language. Good teachers typically don’t want to work in hell holes with unmotiated teachers. Even giving them cars or perks does NOT keep the “better” teachers there.

[Alberta's Child]

In 2007, only 57 percent of fourth graders in New York City and 44 percent of fourth graders in Chicago could claim even basic literacy according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Yet, in the same year, less than 2 percent of New York’s teachers and less than 1 percent of Chicago’s teachers were deemed “unsatisfactory” in their official evaluations. Clearly, something is missing here.

There is a serious logical disconnect here. There may be little correlation at all between the reading levels of public school students and the quality of their teachers. Even the best teachers cannot be expected to educate children whose subnormal family and cultural roots are completely at odds with the notion of self-improvement.

[AreaMan]

Even the best teachers cannot be expected to educate children whose subnormal family and cultural roots are completely at odds with the notion of self-improvement.

Parochial, KIPP, Green Dot and other schools seem to be able to do it and many of them in the worst neighborhoods in the country.

I believe many good teachers are undermined by their own Union and the local/district administration.

[VOA]

bump

[Dilbert San Diego]

I think you are making a good point. Unfortunately, political correctness prevents us from being able to openly and honestly discuss topics such as the family backgrounds of the kids. We’re not supposed to talk about whether certain backgrounds or family situations make education more difficult. We’re not supposed to talk about things such as some parents not being partners in making sure their kids do homework, or whether the parents are involved with their kids schools in any way.

Since we can’t discuss certain issues, we’re left to debate topics such as the quality of the teachers, or the physical condition of some schools. And then we blame the kids not learning on old run down school buildings, or lack or air conditioning, or the lack of the best teachers in troubled schools.

[Alberta's Child]

You're actually making my point.

In most (if not all) of the cases you've cited, enrollment in those schools requires a level of interest and a diligent attention to education on the part of the PARENTS and not just the teachers.

[metmom]

ANOTHER REASON TO HOMESCHOOL

This ping list is for the “other” articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)

The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.

[metmom]

This has been an issue in Buffalo for years, decades even.

And every time the test is administered and the results show that many high school teachers cannot even pass a basic high school proficiency test, the first thing you hear is cries of *racism*. What’s more, is that nobody who administered or reported on the test, ever mentioned the race of the teachers who took the tests.

That was the knee jerk reaction from whoever was representing the teachers.

That said volumes about who passed and did not pass the test.

[wintertime]

There is a serious logical disconnect here. There may be little correlation at all between the reading levels of public school students and the quality of their teachers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Have the home habits and school habits of academically successful children been studied? How much learn really takes place in the institutional classroom, and how much learning is happens due to the parent and child's efforts in the home? Do we really know?

I could be that **little** learning is occurring in the classroom and the nearly all of the learning happens in the home. Maybe the only thing a government school does is send home a curriculum for the parents and child to follow. Maybe nearly all of the success is due to the “afterschooling” done by the child and the parents!

As I ask parents of academically successful children to describe their home lives, I find **no** difference between what these instiutituionized children are doing in the home and what my homeschooled children did.

If the parents and the child are doing nearly all the work at home, then why on earth would we ever expect the typical model of government education to help children from dysfunctional homes. It is insanity to believe the typical government school would be of any help whatsoever!

It very well may be that:

1) The academically successful child would do better to spend **less** time in the institutional setting and more time at home where most of the learning is happening. Government schooling may actually be **retarding** the academic progress of the academically successful child.

2) The child that does not have family support might do better in highly structured institutional schools that attempt to compensate for the lack of parental guidance. KIPP schools are an example. George Will calls them “paternalistic” schools.

[wintertime]

And every time the test is administered and the results show that many high school teachers cannot even pass a basic high school proficiency test, the first thing you hear is cries of *racism*.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All government teachers should be required to take the GED for high school drop outs. Give them a month's notice. If they can't pass that exam with an 80% or better, they should be fired. If they can not add, subtract, multiply, divide fractions and convert them to decimals and percentages they should be fired immediately!

Every Tuesday evening my husband and I tutor Spanish speaking children. Last week one of the tutors ( a government teacher) announced to all the kids in the room that she didn't know arithmetic beyond addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. I was appalled! Can you imagine anyone announcing that she couldn't read?

[wintertime]

We’re not supposed to talk about whether certain backgrounds or family situations make education more difficult.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please read post #12.

So?...When parental involvement is lacking then modify the system of delivery of education to address this lack! Duh!

Children from dysfunctional homes would likely do better in a highly structured school like KIPP. George Will calls these school paternalistic schools.

Why on earth to we continue to apply a model that depends on parent tutoring and supervision to children who do not have parents that can ( or will not) apply tutoring and supervision. This is a complete and utter exercise in INSANITY!

Also...What about the kids who do have parents that supervise and tutor with their homework?

Maybe, nearly everything a children learns in a functional home is **entirely** due to his parent's and his own “afterschooling”. Maybe the current model of government schooling is wasting this child's time, is merely sending home a curriculum for the parents and child to follow, and has little or NO effect on what this child is learning. Maybe, the institutional school is actually **retarding** this child's progress, and the child would do better if he spent less time in the institution and more time at home doing what he does best: Afterschooling!

[JenB]

It certainly can’t be helpful for a teacher to be incompetent or ignorant. Seeing as we are paying their salaries I think we should get to see that sort of info.

[mountainbunny]

To benefit children in public school classrooms, teachers should:

* Undergo comprehensive formal testing annually.
* Face immediate suspension of license and removal from the classroom for any teacher who doesn’t take the test or who fails the test.
* Undergo remediation at the teacher’s expense.

Since public schools don’t operate for the benefit of children, this has not one single chance of ever happening.

[jacquej]

You are correct, Alberta.

Our basic assumption that all children can learn, if only they have a “good” teacher, fails to consider that not all children come to school ready (or able) to learn.

Should we have “ability grouping” in our classrooms? Should we educate the lower ability children differently, with different diplomas? Should we have different kinds of schools for those of lesser academic talent?

And, finally where should we place our very best teachers? In the classrooms of the less talented, figuring that the more talented can do with the less talented teachers?

And what do we do about the underperforming parents?

Instead, we have the system we have, and everyone expects that all children are, or should be above average, and should be able to master higher math and science, reading at a 12th grade level.

When teachers fail to produce the desired results, we blame them. We theorize that if we could get the “superior” teachers to teach in classrooms full of uncivilized threats to their physical well-being, all would be well in our urban schools.

Who was it that said that insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting different results?

[metmom]

The comprehensive formal testing should only be for those who score under a certain percentage.

Any teacher who gets above a 90%, for example, shouldn’t need it done annually. Maybe every five years.

For teachers who get below about 80% at least, SHOULD get it done annually.

I think it would be reasonable to allow teachers who demonstrate proficiency to not have to do it so frequently.

[PapaBear3625]

Parochial, KIPP, Green Dot and other schools seem to be able to do it and many of them in the worst neighborhoods in the country.

You can turn schools around with two simple measures, to make them more like private schools:

(1) Have the principal be dismissible for failure to achieve.

(2) Give the principal the power to fire teachers for failure to achieve.

A principal who fires teachers for any reason other than competency would be slitting his own throat, and so would have every incentive to be as objective as possible.

[mountainbunny]

I think it would be reasonable to allow teachers who demonstrate proficiency to not have to do it so frequently.

You're right, of course. My concern is that some people are really not suited to teaching, but it may take more than a single year to discover it.

How about: Every year for the first X (3? 5?) years, then every 5 years after that?

Still, it is distinctly possible that teachers would manage to pass tests and still perform poorly in the classroom.

If testing became mandatory, teacher's unions would jump on the bandwagon with classes and seminars meant to help their members pass.

Because that would happen, it then makes sense to consider including student testing trends in the evaluation equation.

On the one hand, if scores drop consistently, it probably indicates a problem. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you'd factor in teachers who teach students with various issues that make learning difficult. The changing mix of students with special needs could make year-to-year test trends almost meaningless.

If special ed teachers were given a pass, more teachers would then strive to get their students labeled to avoid the tests.

This has already happened, but for different reasons.

When it was percieved in the last decade or so that there was a benefit in labeling students ADD/ADHD, those numbers exploded in schools across the country.

It's a shame that all this has to be considered, but we know that bad teachers will go to great lengths, with the full support of their unions and often their schools to remain in the classroom.