los

Shaming teachers

The efforts by corporate education reformers to shame teachers by publishing value-add scores and evaluations is coming under mounting pressure. First Bill Gates penned an op-ed in the NYT titled "Shame Is Not the Solution, now comes 2 new pieces. The first is research from the National Education Policy Center, that finds the LA Times controversial efforts to shame California's teachers was grossly error ridden

In its second attempt to rank Los Angeles teachers based on “value-added” assessments derived from students’ standardized test scores, the Los Angeles Times has still produced unreliable information that cannot be used for the purpose the newspaper intends, according to new research released today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder

Dr. Catherine Durso of the University of Denver studied the newspaper’s 2011 rankings of teachers and found that they rely on data yielding results that are unstable from year to year. Additionally, Durso found that the value-added assessment model used by the Times can easily impute to teachers effects that may in fact result from outside factors, such as a student’s poverty level or the neighborhood in which he or she lives.

“The effect estimate for each teacher cannot be taken at face value,” Durso writes. Instead, each teacher’s effect estimate includes a large “error band” that reflects the probable range of scores for a teacher under the assessment system.

“The error band . . . for many teachers is larger than the entire range of scores from the ‘less effective’ to ‘more effective’ designations provided by the LA Times,” Durso writes. As a consequence, the so-called teacher-linked effect for individual teachers “is also unstable over time,” she continues.
[...]
These failings have rendered the Times’ rankings not merely useless, but potentially harmful, according to Alex Molnar, NEPC’s publications director and a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

“The Los Angeles Times has added no value to the discussion of how best to identify and retain the highest-quality teachers for our nation’s children,” Molnar says. “Indeed, it has made things worse. Based on this flawed use of data, parents are enticed into thinking their children’s teachers are either wonderful or terrible.”

“The Los Angeles Times editors and reporters either knew or should have known that their reporting was based on a social science tool that cannot validly or reliably do what they set out to quantify,” Molnar said. “Yet in their ignorance or arrogance they used it anyway, to the detriment of children, teachers, and parents.”

Their full report can be read here. Meanwhile in New York, which has long been at the cutting edge of corporate ed reform efforts has passed legislation that would eliminate this kind of teacher shaming

Senate Republicans agreed to take up Cuomo’s bill on the final day of the session. The bill will make public all teacher evaluations, without names attached. Parents would then be able to obtain the specific evaluations of their own child’s teacher. Assembly Democrats had already agreed to pass it. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says it’s a reasonable compromise.

“It strikes a good balance between parents’ right to know and some form of confidentially,” Skelos said. Some GOP Senators were concerned that the bill would inadvertently result in the disclosure of the identities of teachers in small rural schools.

Senate Education Chair John Flanagan calls it a “work in progress,” and says the message of intent accompanying the bill will attempt to make clear the need to protect teacher privacy. “I’m hoping that if you’re in a small school and they release data by class, subject and grade that there’s some type of interpretation to protect people’s privacy,” said Flanagan.

Ohio's legislature should pass similar efforts in Ohio.

A difficult year

The Shanker Institute has a very comprehensive look at the year in corporate education reform research. It covers 3 basic areas

  • Charter schools
  • Performance pay
  • Value-added in evaluations

All topics we have covered in some length at JTF. You can view a lot of the research we have brought forward at our document center at SCRIBD.

If 2010 was the year of the bombshell in research in the three “major areas” of market-based education reform – charter schools, performance pay, and value-added in evaluations – then 2011 was the year of the slow, sustained march.

Last year, the landmark Race to the Top program was accompanied by a set of extremely consequential research reports, ranging from the policy-related importance of the first experimental study of teacher-level performance pay (the POINT program in Nashville) and the preliminary report of the $45 million Measures of Effective Teaching project, to the political controversy of the Los Angeles Times’ release of teachers’ scores from their commissioned analysis of Los Angeles testing data.

In 2011, on the other hand, as new schools opened and states and districts went about the hard work of designing and implementing new evaluations compensation systems, the research almost seemed to adapt to the situation. There were few (if any) “milestones,” but rather a steady flow of papers and reports focused on the finer-grained details of actual policy.*

Nevertheless, a review of this year’s research shows that one thing remained constant: Despite all the lofty rhetoric, what we don’t know about these interventions outweighs what we do know by an order of magnitude.

Alas, the piece concludes with much the same problem we have been documenting all year long, the headlong, unreasoned, non collaborative rush to implement corporate education reform policies whose impacts at best are unknown and at worst are highly damaging to student achievement and the public education system

Overall, then, it was a productive research year in the three areas discussed above, and it might have been even more productive but for the fact that, in too many cases, the policy decisions this work could have guided had already been made.

It has been a difficult year for those seeking to defend public education from the plethora of corporate reform policies, and next year is bound to see the continuation of this struggle. But once where there were few voices opposing these damaging policies of privatization, there are now many more.

The corporate education reformers are going to have to work a lot harder and be more accountable than they have ever have.