A recent article in the Baton Rouge Advocate points out that the Education Bureaucracy at the State Department of Education just keeps on growing despite serious state budget shortfalls. The article (click here to view article) points out that the State Department of Education has approved more than 6000 contracts for outside services over the last 6 years. This fiscal year alone the outside contracts amounted to 342 million dollars with $175 million of that going for test related agreements that span 12 years. Appropriations Chairman, Jim Fannin, said he would like to see reductions in the 20 million dollars of professional services contracts for educational services funded from the state general fund.
In addition, State Superintendent Pastorek has steadily increased the number of very highly paid unclassified positions in the State Department of Education. Since he assumed the position of State Superintendent, it was noted in state records that he has added over 20 unclassified positions, some with salaries up to $140,000 according to news reports. Very recently positions were added in the Department to help pursue the Race to the Top federal program. The state was unsuccessful in the first round of this application for federal dollars yet the bureaucracy continues to grow. All this is happening at a time that local school systems are being urged by the State Superintendent to implement plans to reduce central office costs and shift more funding to the school level.
House bill 1033 which would establish value-added teacher and principal evaluations is moving through the legislative process with no fiscal note attached. (Such a note is usually required to indicate the cost to the state of implementation of legislation) This legislation is based on part of the Race to the Top application that would have set up a new state mandated teacher and administrator evaluation system based on growth in student achievement as measured by state tests. The as yet unfunded application included approximately 30 million dollars over a 4 year period for implementation of this program. Such costs would have included more contracted services, but also the employment of more State Department employees. If the program is funded, possibly in the second round of the R2T competition, the federal government requires that any programs started by the federal funding must be continued by state and local agencies after the federal grant runs out. This means that sooner or later Louisiana will have to pay for this as yet untested scheme.
There have been some cuts in the past year, mostly in the areas providing actual educational services such as the regional service centers. One other notable cut was the cancelation of the contract with JBHM Education Group of Jackson, Miss. For the past couple of years this outside contractor had been employed to monitor and audit low performing schools in the Recovery District at a cost of more than $1 million dollars a year. Its contract was cancelled after it issued an extremely critical report on 4 new charter schools in the Baton Rouge area. This contract was canceled in favor of a new in-house school monitoring process that's being developed.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Value Added Teacher Evaluation Bill Approved by Committee
Strong support by the Governor's office was instrumental in gaining approval of HB 1033 by the House Education committee Wednesday. Prior to approval, the bill was amended by the author to specify that student scores would be limited to 50% of the teacher's evaluation. This had been proposed in the past but had not been in the original bill. Also the legislation was amended by the author, Rep. Hoffman, to provide for a 2 year trial period where the evaluation system would be tested in a limited number of local school systems. Testimony by State Dept. officials indicated that the two year trial period would apply to approximately 27 parishes and the Recovery District and Charter schools.
Expected performance by a particular classroom of students would be calculated using an index that would take into account such factors as free lunch participants, prior student attendance, and discipline or suspension records. The apparent aim of the program is to put in the hands of each administrator evaluating a teacher a report showing the average growth of student performance during the year they were in the charge of that particular teacher.
Even though the legislation would make the evaluation of all teachers and administrators theoretically based on student performance, there are many teachers at present for which such a system could not be applied. All teachers with self-contained classes where basic skills tested by LEAP are taught would be included, but many teachers particularly at the Middle and High School level who do not teach LEAP or GEE tested subjects would not initially be affected. Superintendent Pastorek testified in committee, that Federal funding may make it possible to develop testing or methods of applying student performance to these other areas.
Part of the support for the bill from the education community came from TAP school principals who have been using value added student performance as part of their teacher evaluation and promotion system. “TAP” stands for The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. As I understand it, TAP schools are schools supported by the Milken Foundation who adopt an extensive faculty and student improvement model that includes mentoring and assistance of beginning or regular teachers by successful Master and Mentor teachers. This system seems to be producing good student performance results by using a team approach that constantly focuses on strategies for finding and fixing student deficiencies in the basic skills.
It remains to be seen if using primarily one element of the TAP program (student growth as a teacher evaluation tool) can be fairly and successfully applied in regular schools that have not had the benefit of the other teacher supports included in the TAP program.
There is no question that the technology now exists for tracking and correlating student performance directly with each individual teacher. My experience has been that when technology exists it will be used whether for good or for bad.
My biggest concern continues to be that particularly in schools serving economically depressed communities, the outside factors may have a greater effect on student performance than that of individual classroom teachers. These teachers and principals may be punished for low student performance even though they may be working harder than staff in more privileged schools. These schools need a broader approach focusing on positive parental involvement to change the entire educational climate of the school if the teachers are to be successful. Another major concern is that when teacher evaluations depend heavily on student performance on state tests, we will see an increasing trend of simply teaching the test .... or worse. Many teachers complain that the emphasis on teaching for the test has resulted in more superficial teaching of subject matter with less emphasis on in depth knowledge. Under these pressures teaching and learning can become a grueling, boring process that destroys creative teaching approaches. There is evidence of this in recent testing results of Louisiana public schools. Even though student test scores have steadily improved on LEAP, the NAEP test (which is the National test measuring basic skills) has shown almost no improvement for Louisiana in the last 6 to 8 years.
Expected performance by a particular classroom of students would be calculated using an index that would take into account such factors as free lunch participants, prior student attendance, and discipline or suspension records. The apparent aim of the program is to put in the hands of each administrator evaluating a teacher a report showing the average growth of student performance during the year they were in the charge of that particular teacher.
Even though the legislation would make the evaluation of all teachers and administrators theoretically based on student performance, there are many teachers at present for which such a system could not be applied. All teachers with self-contained classes where basic skills tested by LEAP are taught would be included, but many teachers particularly at the Middle and High School level who do not teach LEAP or GEE tested subjects would not initially be affected. Superintendent Pastorek testified in committee, that Federal funding may make it possible to develop testing or methods of applying student performance to these other areas.
Part of the support for the bill from the education community came from TAP school principals who have been using value added student performance as part of their teacher evaluation and promotion system. “TAP” stands for The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. As I understand it, TAP schools are schools supported by the Milken Foundation who adopt an extensive faculty and student improvement model that includes mentoring and assistance of beginning or regular teachers by successful Master and Mentor teachers. This system seems to be producing good student performance results by using a team approach that constantly focuses on strategies for finding and fixing student deficiencies in the basic skills.
It remains to be seen if using primarily one element of the TAP program (student growth as a teacher evaluation tool) can be fairly and successfully applied in regular schools that have not had the benefit of the other teacher supports included in the TAP program.
There is no question that the technology now exists for tracking and correlating student performance directly with each individual teacher. My experience has been that when technology exists it will be used whether for good or for bad.
My biggest concern continues to be that particularly in schools serving economically depressed communities, the outside factors may have a greater effect on student performance than that of individual classroom teachers. These teachers and principals may be punished for low student performance even though they may be working harder than staff in more privileged schools. These schools need a broader approach focusing on positive parental involvement to change the entire educational climate of the school if the teachers are to be successful. Another major concern is that when teacher evaluations depend heavily on student performance on state tests, we will see an increasing trend of simply teaching the test .... or worse. Many teachers complain that the emphasis on teaching for the test has resulted in more superficial teaching of subject matter with less emphasis on in depth knowledge. Under these pressures teaching and learning can become a grueling, boring process that destroys creative teaching approaches. There is evidence of this in recent testing results of Louisiana public schools. Even though student test scores have steadily improved on LEAP, the NAEP test (which is the National test measuring basic skills) has shown almost no improvement for Louisiana in the last 6 to 8 years.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Teacher Evaluation Legislation and Report on New Orleans Schools
House Bill 1033 as we explained in an earlier post, is similar to legislation in Florida designed to link teacher evaluations with student improvement on state tests. Senate bill 6 in Florida was vetoed recently by Governor Crist, according to news reports because of a major outcry in opposition to the legislation by parents, teachers and students. Many citizens in Florida pointed out the same concerns we have expressed in this blog; mainly that such a scheme ignores other critical factors affecting student performance over which individual teachers have little control.
The Louisiana “value added” teacher evaluation legislation has not yet been heard in committee, and there are reports that the bill is still undergoing changes by the bill authors. It is important that educators and school board members study this legislation carefully and express their opinions to their legislators on this critical issue while there is still time. The following are some of the key provisions of HB 1033:
1.HB 1033 establishes a new teacher and school principal evaluation system monitored by the State Department of education which measures teacher and principal “effectiveness” based primarily on student performance and improvement on state tests. These annual evaluations would determine whether or not an educator would be allowed to retain his/her job and certification to teach or serve as a school administrator in Louisiana.
2.In effect the State Department of Education would control the employment of teachers and principals in local school systems based on the state designed evaluation system. The legislation would require the firing of any teacher or principal who is classified as “ineffective” by the new evaluation. “Effective” or “ineffective” performance would be determined by student test scores.
3.All teachers and principals without regard to successful past performance would be constantly at risk based on the annual evaluation. The grievance procedure in present law which provides an opportunity for educators to challenge errors in their evaluation would be repealed and a new procedure would be adopted by BESE. Educators classified as ineffective would be placed on an intensive assistance program for no more than two years. If at the end of this assistance program, the educator is still determined to be ineffective, the local school board would be required to initiate termination procedures.
4.To make matters worse, the legislation removes the present law requiring assistance and mentoring of new teachers by experienced educators during their first years of teaching. It removes the formal Assessment process in present law that is designed to properly prepare a new teacher with the skills necessary to succeed in the teaching profession in Louisiana.
Comment: (or why I think this legislation is naive, impractical and disrespectful of the teaching profession and the rights of local school boards)
HB 1033 would dismantle some of the most critical support and assistance programs for new teachers; particularly the mentoring by experienced teachers as part of a teacher's induction into the teaching profession. It puts all teachers and principals at the same level professionally whether they are just out of college and hired with no training in education (such as Teach for America recruits), or 30 year professionals who may have been recognized over the years for teaching or administrative excellence. All of them would be judged primarily by one standard: that students in their classroom or in their school show a certain quota of “value added” improvement on state assessments. The authority of school boards to retain educators they judge to be effective would be mostly nullified.
When the only thing that matters in judging a teacher or principals' effectiveness is student performance on tests, the teaching process could become a grueling, boring process for teachers and students. Principals, instead of functioning as educational leaders for students and teachers could be forced to transform their schools into test rehearsal factories. We have already seen too much of this trend with the implementation of No Child Left Behind. I believe this approach generally devalues the teaching profession and will drive our best and most experienced teachers to early retirement. Also, many dedicated teachers who have made a commitment to teach in some of the most difficult schools with the most challenging students would be motivated to transfer to the “country club” or magnet schools where students are more motivated and receptive to instruction.
Instead of this repressive and punitive system, Louisiana should respect teachers for the professionals they are. Instead of making teachers the scapegoats for the failures of education policy makers to design an education system that is attractive and motivating to students, we must find ways of helping teachers and principals in working with the community and parents to develop a positive and exciting learning environment in each school. We must recognize that student motivation and engagement in the learning process is at least as important as the performance of each teacher, and that it comes as much from the ideals taught in the home and community as from a bag of tricks the teacher brings to the classroom. I urge teachers, administrators and school board members to talk with their legislators about these critical issues.
Cowen Report On the New Orleans Recovery District Ignores Key Measures of School Performance
The Cowen Institute at Tulane recently issued an update of earlier reports on the progress of New Orleans schools since the takeover of much of the school system by the Recovery District. This report gives results of voter and parent surveys that express generally favorable opinions on the progress of the New Orleans public schools since the takeover. The report also cites improvements on state assessments by students in Recovery District and Charter schools serving a majority of the students. The general conclusion of the report is that while there remain important challenges, the schools have improved significantly. But the report ignores two critical factors used by the state to measure effectiveness of Louisiana school systems.
An important factor not addressed by the Cowen group is a comparison of the school performance scores of the schools in the Recovery District with all other school systems in the state. The stated reason for the Recovery District as expressed by the architects of this plan is to close the performance gap between New Orleans students in takeover schools with other schools in the state. In the 2008-2009 school year, schools in the Recovery District had an average growth of 2.6 points on School performance scores, while all other public schools in the state had an average increase of 4.7 points. (the school performance score is calculated by the State Department of Education based on student test scores, school attendance statistics and graduation rates) This slow growth in the last year is even more concerning when we note that the Recovery District is by far the lowest performing system in the state. It would need to show a greater rate of growth to catch up.
The other important factor ignored by the Cowen report is the abysmal graduation rate of the Recovery District students. This is arguably the most significant factor in judging the progress of the school system. Unsatisfactory scores on the critical components of the Spring 2009 graduation test (the GEE); 40% failure on the English test and 38% failure on the Math test, either of which prevents the student from being awarded a diploma is over three times the state average. When this failure rate is combined with the alarming dropout rate, my calculations produce an estimated graduation percentage of less than 40% for the students who made it past the 7th grade in Recovery District schools.
To add insult to injury, a report released by the Texas Department of Education last week claims that New Orleans students who transferred to Texas have been preforming remarkably well on their state tests.
The Louisiana “value added” teacher evaluation legislation has not yet been heard in committee, and there are reports that the bill is still undergoing changes by the bill authors. It is important that educators and school board members study this legislation carefully and express their opinions to their legislators on this critical issue while there is still time. The following are some of the key provisions of HB 1033:
1.HB 1033 establishes a new teacher and school principal evaluation system monitored by the State Department of education which measures teacher and principal “effectiveness” based primarily on student performance and improvement on state tests. These annual evaluations would determine whether or not an educator would be allowed to retain his/her job and certification to teach or serve as a school administrator in Louisiana.
2.In effect the State Department of Education would control the employment of teachers and principals in local school systems based on the state designed evaluation system. The legislation would require the firing of any teacher or principal who is classified as “ineffective” by the new evaluation. “Effective” or “ineffective” performance would be determined by student test scores.
3.All teachers and principals without regard to successful past performance would be constantly at risk based on the annual evaluation. The grievance procedure in present law which provides an opportunity for educators to challenge errors in their evaluation would be repealed and a new procedure would be adopted by BESE. Educators classified as ineffective would be placed on an intensive assistance program for no more than two years. If at the end of this assistance program, the educator is still determined to be ineffective, the local school board would be required to initiate termination procedures.
4.To make matters worse, the legislation removes the present law requiring assistance and mentoring of new teachers by experienced educators during their first years of teaching. It removes the formal Assessment process in present law that is designed to properly prepare a new teacher with the skills necessary to succeed in the teaching profession in Louisiana.
Comment: (or why I think this legislation is naive, impractical and disrespectful of the teaching profession and the rights of local school boards)
HB 1033 would dismantle some of the most critical support and assistance programs for new teachers; particularly the mentoring by experienced teachers as part of a teacher's induction into the teaching profession. It puts all teachers and principals at the same level professionally whether they are just out of college and hired with no training in education (such as Teach for America recruits), or 30 year professionals who may have been recognized over the years for teaching or administrative excellence. All of them would be judged primarily by one standard: that students in their classroom or in their school show a certain quota of “value added” improvement on state assessments. The authority of school boards to retain educators they judge to be effective would be mostly nullified.
When the only thing that matters in judging a teacher or principals' effectiveness is student performance on tests, the teaching process could become a grueling, boring process for teachers and students. Principals, instead of functioning as educational leaders for students and teachers could be forced to transform their schools into test rehearsal factories. We have already seen too much of this trend with the implementation of No Child Left Behind. I believe this approach generally devalues the teaching profession and will drive our best and most experienced teachers to early retirement. Also, many dedicated teachers who have made a commitment to teach in some of the most difficult schools with the most challenging students would be motivated to transfer to the “country club” or magnet schools where students are more motivated and receptive to instruction.
Instead of this repressive and punitive system, Louisiana should respect teachers for the professionals they are. Instead of making teachers the scapegoats for the failures of education policy makers to design an education system that is attractive and motivating to students, we must find ways of helping teachers and principals in working with the community and parents to develop a positive and exciting learning environment in each school. We must recognize that student motivation and engagement in the learning process is at least as important as the performance of each teacher, and that it comes as much from the ideals taught in the home and community as from a bag of tricks the teacher brings to the classroom. I urge teachers, administrators and school board members to talk with their legislators about these critical issues.
Cowen Report On the New Orleans Recovery District Ignores Key Measures of School Performance
The Cowen Institute at Tulane recently issued an update of earlier reports on the progress of New Orleans schools since the takeover of much of the school system by the Recovery District. This report gives results of voter and parent surveys that express generally favorable opinions on the progress of the New Orleans public schools since the takeover. The report also cites improvements on state assessments by students in Recovery District and Charter schools serving a majority of the students. The general conclusion of the report is that while there remain important challenges, the schools have improved significantly. But the report ignores two critical factors used by the state to measure effectiveness of Louisiana school systems.
An important factor not addressed by the Cowen group is a comparison of the school performance scores of the schools in the Recovery District with all other school systems in the state. The stated reason for the Recovery District as expressed by the architects of this plan is to close the performance gap between New Orleans students in takeover schools with other schools in the state. In the 2008-2009 school year, schools in the Recovery District had an average growth of 2.6 points on School performance scores, while all other public schools in the state had an average increase of 4.7 points. (the school performance score is calculated by the State Department of Education based on student test scores, school attendance statistics and graduation rates) This slow growth in the last year is even more concerning when we note that the Recovery District is by far the lowest performing system in the state. It would need to show a greater rate of growth to catch up.
The other important factor ignored by the Cowen report is the abysmal graduation rate of the Recovery District students. This is arguably the most significant factor in judging the progress of the school system. Unsatisfactory scores on the critical components of the Spring 2009 graduation test (the GEE); 40% failure on the English test and 38% failure on the Math test, either of which prevents the student from being awarded a diploma is over three times the state average. When this failure rate is combined with the alarming dropout rate, my calculations produce an estimated graduation percentage of less than 40% for the students who made it past the 7th grade in Recovery District schools.
To add insult to injury, a report released by the Texas Department of Education last week claims that New Orleans students who transferred to Texas have been preforming remarkably well on their state tests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
