Teacher Report Cards

Excuse me while I step onto my soapbox.

On Monday, as an upper grade team, we spoke about the new "teacher data initiative." This initiative uses students' standardized testing scores in English Language Arts and Math to determine teacher effectiveness.

A few points of clarification:

1) Last year, it was clear that these scores were to have NO impact on teachers. According to an agreement between the UFT and Chancellor Joel Klein in October 2008. This means they were not intended to be used for hiring, firing, or tenure decisions

2) This February, Bloomberg made the top-down decision (I assume based on Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative) to use these reports as a component to making tenure decisions, effectively reversing the agreement single-handedly.

How is this report determined?

-According to the 2008 Teacher Data Initiative Report:

TVA mathematically isolates individual teacher contributions to student performance gains on the State tests. Teacher reports predict each student’s growth in student achievement based on characteristics of students, classrooms and schools that are outside of the teacher’s control. The Predicted Gains are compared to the Actual Gains for each student in a teacher’s class. Value-Added: the difference between Actual and Predicted Gains.

Essentially, an algorithm predicts what my students should get in my classroom if they had a "generic" teacher. This prediction is based on two years of testing, 3rd grade and 4th grade, by the time the students get to 5th grade. When they actually take the test, their actual data is compared to what they were predicted to get with this "generic" teacher. If they did better, I get "value-added" points! If they did worse, I get "minus" points.

This data is then compiled together and I am compared to my colleagues within the New York City, and am assigned a percentile in ELA and a percentile in math to tell me how I compare to the rest of the teachers in NYC.

What's wrong with this?

1) Tests are not reliable: Tests are magically easy during campaign years. The grading system is different based on how much money is in the budget for summer schools (since students that fail are required to take summer school).

2) Predictions are arbitrary:  A "generic" teacher doesn't exist. Deeming this number the appropriate number based on essentially 2 tests in each subject doesn't seem statistically sound.

3) Only 4-8 teachers are held accountable: Since testing starts in grade 3, the algorithm can only produce predictions for 4th grade and up. This means that teachers who are already in high-stress, high-stakes testing environments are the ones who then have this extra added pressure of producing high results. This teachers already feel that pressure from administrators since funding is so directly tied to test results. On the other hand, teachers who might need more accountability, such as intervention teachers (AIS, ELLs, SETTS), coaches, do not have teacher data reports since they are not tied to a specific class. Additionally, lower grade teachers also do not have a number tied to their teaching practices.

4) All upper grade teachers are measured the same way: Teach a special education class? Who cares. Teach English language learners? So What. Teach in a low-income school? So. This is your 1st year teaching? And. The list goes on. If I am teaching in a failing school, I am expected to make the same progress with my kids that a teacher teaching in a school with high-income kids would be expected to make on those tests. If I am teaching a general education population, my colleagues teaching in Special Education classrooms will be rated in the same way I am. Which brings me to my next point...


5) Drives teachers away from teaching in challenging environments: It's easier to be deemed successful in a high-income classroom. It's easier to be deemed successful if you teach general ed students. Why are we creating incentives for teachers to leave low-income, high-need areas?

6) Success is ONLY based on ELA and MATH on your grade level: If a student comes to my classroom not knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and I teach them to do all of that, they are still only tested on 5th grade standards, which go well beyond that work. This means their academic growth in math is not accurately measured through the 5th grade test. Additionally, we are meant to teach 5 subjects a day in our classrooms: Reading, Writing, Math, Social Studies, and Science. 

7) Creates the Wrong Incentives:
Teachers are more likely to test prep their kids all year in ELA and math instead of providing genuine instruction. Teachers are also much more likely to CHEAT on tests since their asses are on the line if their students perform poorly. Does that sound like a good incentive structure?


8) Creates a distrustful dynamic: Because of the above, these tests create a negative dynamic within schools. Firstly, teachers will look to the previous year's teacher and question how the kids received the results they did. Was it fair? Did the teacher test prep all day? And, the thought no one wants to admit is, could the teacher have cheated on proctoring the test? Also, teachers now have a percentile attached to their teaching. So, where before you worked colleague to colleague as equals, now, theirs a sense of competition factored into a team dynamic, which is not constructive in a collaborative teaching environment.


9) Ultimately, it hurts the kids: At the end of the day, the kids are worse off. They already have the pressure of testing starting at the ludicrous age of 8. Now, not only do they have that pressure, but they also feel a much greater pressure from their teachers because their teachers want them to perform at a higher level than their prediction. The teacher's job is on the line, so the kids better step up. The kids are more likely to receive less genuine instruction and more test-prep instruction, which in the end, hurts the child.

My question is: has anyone who was responsible for this brilliant idea been inside a school for more than a day? Has anyone actually taught in one?

I will now step off the soapbox. Thank you for humoring me.