[Vision2020] In Search of Excellent Teaching

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=6c46ff2e/878a3ce7&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787510c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Aug20_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>

------------------------------
September 16, 2012
In Search of Excellent Teaching

The Chicago teachers’ strike was prompted in part by a fierce disagreement
over how much student test scores will weigh in a new teacher evaluation
system mandated by state law. That teachers’ unions in much of the country
now agree that student achievement should count in evaluations at all
reflects a major change from the past, when it was often argued that
teaching was an “art” that could not be rigorously evaluated or, even more
outrageously, that teachers should not be held accountable for student
progress.

Traditional teacher evaluations often consist of cursory classroom visits
by principals who declare nearly every teacher good, or at least competent,
even in failing schools where few if any children meet basic educational
standards.

As a result of this system, bad things can happen. High-performing teachers
who have an enormous impact on student achievement go unidentified, and
they often leave the district. Promising, but struggling, young teachers
never get the help they need to master the job. And disastrous teachers who
have no feel for the profession continue as long as they wish, hurting
young lives along the way.

The more rigorous evaluation systems that have taken root in several states
and districts around the country are intended to change that picture. These
systems, which take student achievement into account in various ways, are
still in their formative years, but they have already opened the door to a
different way of doing business. At their best, these evaluation systems
are based on the idea that teaching is difficult to master and that
high-performers tend to get that way through intensive feedback and help
from colleagues.

The school system in Montgomery County, Md., established its evaluation and
mentoring system more than a decade ago. The system does not specify
exactly how much weight student test scores and other data should receive.
But depending on the circumstances, the evaluation may include scores from
state tests, student projects, student and parent surveys and other data.

It is an intensive program that aims to help both novice teachers and
experienced teachers who receive a “below standard” evaluation. The system,
which has required a considerable investment of time and money, assigns
consulting teachers who work full time assisting a number of colleagues.
These master teachers help their charges plan lessons, review student work
and also arrange for them to observe other teachers on the job. After a
year of support, a panel of teachers and principals can recommend dismissal
or another year of support.

The widely praised evaluation system in New Haven also relies on a complex
mix of factors. It takes into account year-by-year improvement in student
learning, as measured by progress on state and local tests and attainment
of academic goals. The system also examines the teachers’ instructional
abilities, judged by frequent observations by principals and other
managers. Teachers receive regular face-to-face feedback so that they are
fully aware of what they need to do to improve.

Some systems give a specific weight to so-called value-added test scores,
which try to account for socioeconomic differences by tracking students’
improvement year to year, rather than looking just at their absolute
scores. That approach, though, has come under attack by critics who argue
that these scores are too often statistically flawed.

Reasonable school officials understand that test scores, while important,
do not reflect the sum total of what good teachers provide for their
students. In Washington, D.C., where the evaluation system is now in its
fourth year, school officials have decided to change the weighting of
tests. Originally, value-added scores accounted for 50 percent of teacher
evaluations; that has been reduced to 35 percent, with an additional 15
percent consisting of other goals (like the students’ mastery of certain
skills) collaboratively arrived at by teacher and principal.

Officials there say they reduced the importance of value-added scores after
some of the most successful teachers expressed anxiety about the measure
and argued that it might not give some teachers full credit for their work
because they teach subjects not covered by the state tests.

Many of these new programs are better than the slipshod evaluation systems
they replaced. But they are far from perfect. States and cities, like
Chicago, will need to keep working at them to ensure fairness, accuracy and
transparency.




-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120917/d82ee4bb/attachment.html>