You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Critique’ category.
The verdict is in and the punishments have been meted out for the teachers and administrators at the heart of the Atlanta cheating scandal. The scandal rocked the education community with its depth and severity.
In all, 35 Atlanta educators (including the district’s superintendent, who died before the trial began) were charged under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, a statute originally intended to prosecute mobsters and drug cartels. The educators were accused of erasing student answers on state exams, providing students with test answers during the test and a number of other nefarious actions. Evidence of cheating was found in 44 schools. Of the 11 educators who were convicted on April 1, eight have been sentenced to prison time, with harshest punishment — seven years in prison — reserved for three senior administrators. While appeals are in motion, the verdict is unequivocal.
I consider myself an educator and both my parents spent their professional lives doing this work, so my reaction might be more severe than most, but when this story broke I had a revulsive reaction that mixed feelings of shock, anger, sadness, frustration and embarrassment.
This cheating scandal was so wrong and disappointing on so many levels that it is difficult to even begin, but let’s start with the individuals and work our way up to the larger and more systemic concerns.
Clearly and without condition, the actions of those involved in the Atlanta cheating scandal are despicable. During the trial, they made arguments around things like the pressures they were under to improve test results (as well as the incentives they would receive for doing so) and the struggles their students faced.
No doubt, all of these pressures, incentives and student challenges were real. Ultimately, however, each of these individuals made a conscious decision to take part in this testing scam and this is an inexcusable professional affront. These individuals besmirch the reputation of the millions of professional educators in our country who make the future of our nation’s children their daily concern. Beyond just the criminal consequences to their actions, there will also be professional consequences — the education profession will reject these individuals like a virus, and it is extremely unlikely they will ever work in a school setting again.
But while the actions of these individuals are reprehensible and they deserve the punishments they are getting (at least in my opinion), we do not fully understand this situation unless we have the courage and honesty to go further and ask the systemic questions.
There is a sociological concept known as Campbell’s law which states, “The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”
More directly, the more consequences you hitch to any measure, the more likely that measure is to become corrupted and less useful.
At a systemic level, the Atlanta cheating scandal is Campbell’s law in motion. Donald T. Campbell, the sociologist for whom this effect is named, spoke directly to its implications for student testing: “Achievement tests may well be valuable indicators of general school achievement under conditions of normal teaching aimed at general competence. But when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.”
We are fooling ourselves if we believe, as a nation, that this incident is isolated to Atlanta. Again, while the actions of the individuals in this case are deplorable, we must also acknowledge that this is a case of reaping what we have sown.
The knee-jerk reaction is to punish the individuals involved and then work to create a more omniscient test monitoring system so that we can identify other instances of testing fraud and then punish those individuals as well.
But we must also ask the bigger and uncomfortable question — are not we, as a nation, at least in part culpable for building this system of tests and their related accountability measures, which has led us to this untenable outcome?
* A version of this piece ran in the Vail Daily on 4.22.15.
Over the past couple of weeks (1/22 and 1/29, specifically), the Centennial state’s largest newspaper, the Denver Post has run guest editorials written by paid hacks funded by billionaire ed-reformers with a clear and ideologically driven agenda.
In Kelsey Moskitis’ story from 1/22, she argues that Colorado needs to provide greater access to charter schools. While resisting the temptation to carve up Kelsey’s arguments (some of which are built using data from Colorado School Grades, which I offered a critique of yesterday), the main issue for the Denver Post is that they allow her to bill herself as “a graduate student at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs.”
Yet, the Walton Family Foundation, who have a not-so-hidden agenda of expanding charter schools, clearly identifies Kelsey as a member of their staff.
Similarly, Chad Adelman and Leslie Kan, in their story published on 1/29, argue for expanding social security to Colorado teachers. Again, refraining from a critique of their arguments, at issue is the larger agenda Adelman and Kan are hocking and who is really behind their efforts.
The Denver Post story identifies Adelman and Kan as “authors of “Uncovered: Social Security, Retirement Uncertainty, and 1 Million Teachers.” Actually, they are paid staff at Bellweather Education Partners, a group funded (in part) by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The Arnold Foundation is (among other activities) a financial player in the Colorado effort to dismantle public employee pensions. John Arnold is a former Enron exec and hedge fund billionaire, using his wealth to influence the media and public policy.
Again, this isn’t so much about Moskitis or Adelman and Kan as it is about the Denver Post. In this era of people like the Koch Brothers seeking to take over the country via election marketing and public relations spending, news organizations like the Denver Post are supposed to protect the public from these kinds of biased shams.
The Post, as a professional journalistic organization, has a public responsibility to us, the people, to identify these kinds of hidden agendas and call them out for the shams they are.
So please, please Denver Post, do your #$&! job and have enough professional integrity to ask some basic questions about the information you are printing. Otherwise, you become just a pawn for big money to use in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Coloradans who depend on you for an honest story.
Denver Post writer Eric Gorski wrote up a story on the best performing (alleged) schools according to Colorado School Grades when their latest rankings came out in December.
As I looked over the (supposed) best performing schools, I suspected a systemic bias to be present related to the kinds of students these schools served.
Acknowledging this bias is important, as we have literally decades of evidence telling us that overwhelmingly the largest determinants of the variance in student achievement outcomes (as measured on standardized tests) are related to out-of-school factors.
As a quick analysis, I looked up the percentage of students on Free/Reduced lunch at the top rated schools according to Colorado School Grades and then compared those percentages to the Free/Reduced lunch percentages in the district that school was located within.
Because of the propensity for Free/Reduced lunch reporting to be under-represented at high school, I restricted my analysis to just those (allegedly) top performing elementary and middle schools.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the difference between top schools according to Colorado School Grades and those communities in which they are located is quite large.
The top schools, according to Colorado School Grades, average 13.1% students who are eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch.
By contrast, the average for their communities is 32.6%.
Apparently, one major secret to being a high scoring school (using the Colorado School Grades methodology) is to systemically exclude disadvantaged students from your student population.
*Note* – this is not a personal vendetta against the folks at Colorado School Grades, or the slew of edu-non-profits that support them.
In fact, as Superintendent of Eagle County Schools, I’m particularly proud (although a little confused) of the 2014 “B+” grade given to Minturn Middle School, which has been closed since 2011 (D’oh!).
*Edit* Ben Degrow, with the Independence Institute, noted that MMS hadn’t had a “grade” since 2010. That is accurate – however, they still appear in the search when you look up our district. You can see the results of the search I did here, which clearly shows the now closed Minturn school still showing up, with a B+. Mea culpa – I made the mistake in assuming they received a current “grade” when I searched on this year’s results. However, I would humbly suggest that Colorado School Grades revise their search system to avoid such confusion in the future.
The point is this: we should be asking some critical questions about this data, how it is being used, and what it means.
We might also consider how we can really identify the real pockets of excellence; instead of just identifying pockets of affluence.
In a previous post, I mentioned that I had the opportunity to visit with the HB 1202 committee to discuss assessment. I followed Grant Guyer, Denver’s Executive Director of Assessment, as well as representatives from Harrison District 2.
So I could get a feel for the HB 1202 group, I arrived early to listen in on the conversation. I was impressed with the learning and reflective stance I heard the committee members take. Rather than asserting or defending positions, the committee members were (for the most part) asking really good questions and thinking together.
The contrast of the thoughtful and open approach that the committee had in comparison with advocacy oriented approach Denver took was jarring, at least to me. DPS came in with a clear agenda: influence the committee to (basically) preserve the status quo when it came to state accountability testing.
Because DPS chose to take such a forceful position, I feel it is appropriate that position be critiqued and vetted in public format so that their thinking can be considered and fully vetted. Clearly, DPS’s intent was to influence public policy in a strong way. As this policy impacts every public and charter school in Colorado, examining their claims and thinking is important.
The overarching DPS position is that they (the administration at least) do not support “specific aspects of the shift to minimum federal (assessment) requirements, primarily due to the impact on high schools.”
I’ve attached the report that Grant gave here (DPS Assessment) so readers can review it for themselves (apologies for my scribbles on the scan). However, here are some of their claims and my critique:
Claim #1 – “Standards implementation could be jeopardized as there would not be a consistent, well-constructed assessment to measure of (sic) student performance at the end of a given grade/course.”
What evidence exists to support the claim that standards implementation would be jeopardized if there were no standardized, summative assessments at the end of each grade? Some of the best performing education systems in the world do not test core subjects at the end of each grade, yet they seem to be able to consistently teach to high standards. Further, what evidence or assurances do we have that a machine scored, large-scale, summative assessment is necessary in order for a classroom teacher to teach to high standards? If we are to subject literally hundreds of thousands of Colorado students to an assessment (spending millions in taxpayer dollars to do so), should not the purpose and impact of that assessment be well understood and proven?
Claim #2 – “This would reduce the amount of formal data available to accurately identify where shifts in instruction are needed.”
Large scale, machine scored summative tests are woefully inadequate for the purpose of “shifting” instruction. Primarily, these tests are for accountability purposes and not for guiding formative instructional practices. This is not to criticize the tests themselves – but they were not primarily designed for this purpose. The thinking that summative TCAP, CMAS or PARCC test results will result in effective and responsive classroom level shifts in instruction is hopeful theory with a vacuous evidence base.
Claims #3 & #4 – “Less information available to track student progress toward college and career readiness,” & “Less information available for families to make informed decisions about which high schools are the best options for their children.”
The DPS position assumes (wrongly) that an assessment system at federal minimums (or even fewer assessments) would be devoid of student assessment information in those areas where there is no mandated accountability exam. Clearly, DPS’s approach to improvement is founded on test-based accountability and school choice. In theory, for those two approaches to work you need assessments to shame and punish and big data to create a more perfect school choice “market.” Nothing would preclude DPS from heaping all the assessments they want on students to feed their theory of change. However, if we did not mandate such measures we would not be forcing every other school district in the state to follow DPS’s logic model.
Claim #5 – “Eliminating these data points at the high school level could shift the accountability system to focus too much on status. This distinctly disadvantages urban districts that have students with low levels of preparedness.”
DPS assumes (wrongly) that whatever growth, accountability, and accreditation system we currently have in place would just continue but without some high school assessments. The current accountability framework was designed with one set of assumptions about available test data. In a world with fewer accountability tests, a different model would need to be designed. This different model could conceptualize growth in a number of different ways and could also recognize student poverty demographics and “preparedness” in different ways and it should. Here, DPS just wrongly assumes we would continue the same system we’ve been operating. Further, the report states that “DPS strongly values growth data.” That’s great! But, if this is indeed true, there is no basis to believe DPS could not continue to assess and measure growth without having a mandated state test in place. In fact, dollars currently used for large scale assessments could be provided directly to districts for the very purpose of locally determined measures and analysis.
Claim #6 – “Less external data available to assess student growth for teacher evaluation.”
Besides there being no credible, peer-reviewed evidence that using student testing data to evaluate teachers actually improves instruction and the fact that no high performing system on earth uses this approach, the DPS claim is also flawed. As has been previously discussed, if DPS wishes to have machine scored, large scale assessment data to evaluate its teachers there is no prohibition from them doing just that. The DPS claim seems to infer that without this standardized testing data, our state-wide effort to evaluate teachers using assessment data is in peril – but we already have some 70% of teachers in untested subjects and grades. It is not clear (at least to me) that the presence or absence of summative statewide assessment data does much in helping us solve the significant technical questions related to using testing data to evaluate teachers.
Claim #7 – “…districts would have to take on the additional burden of creating/purchasing products to ensure that schools are meeting student learning expectations (and) the development of local growth measures to assess the performance of schools and teachers.”
As has been previously discussed, dollars currently appropriated for state level accountability assessments could, at some level, be re-purposed to districts for locally determined and more formative measures so its not clear that there would be an additional burden. Further, there are a number of growth measures available for districts to use (student growth percentiles, value-added measures, catch-up/keep-up systems) so it also not clear that a district would need to “develop” these measures.
Again, DPS is following a theory of change for improving their organization built on test-based accountability and school choice. While refraining from a critique of these two approaches to school improvement, I will just say that these are not the only two methods by which a system might build great schools. In fact, the best performing school systems (based on PISA results or equating studies) were not built using these models.
Regardless, it is up to the community of Denver to decide which model is most appropriate for their community and then hold their school leaders accountable for the results.
The larger problem with DPS’s jarring advocacy stance with the HB 1202 committee is that it effectively forces that theory of change on every other school organization in the state – whether we want it, or if there is any evidence to support it, or not.
Of note, in the course of these discussions I have heard no one arguing for the complete abolition of testing and accountability. The better question is how we can have an accountability system that is as efficient and balanced as possible, without over-burdening students and schools with testing. A review the testing approaches in high performing global systems reveals that such a system can be effectively implemented with far fewer tests than we currently use in Colorado.
I encourage further dialogue and discussion on this issue and welcome a response from Grant Guyer (a very nice person, based on my brief interaction with him) or others from DPS. For convenience, I have also posted my presentation materials to the HB 1202 committee for a similar critique, if anyone feels so inclined.
Colorado’s recently released TCAP results landed across the state with a soft thud. Overall, scores were flat or down in most subjects and grades. Even among charter schools, the ballyhooed darlings of the reform movement, results leaned toward the disappointing accented by wild fluctuation.
Reactions from pundits, state education leaders and the state’s largest newspaper, the Denver Post, ranged from somber to puzzled, but ideas about next steps quickly emerged: stay the course or even accelerate the reforms Colorado has been aggressively pursuing. Namely, that the state should continue with the hyper-accountability (more tests and consequences, even considering extending some form of accountability to the children) or market-based approaches (more charter schools or even expanding to private school voucher schemes).
What is most troubling about the reactions of our state leaders and resident non-profit policy wonks is how completely disconnected their reactions and proposed solutions are from what is really happening in schools across our state.
How quickly we have forgotten that Colorado has cut education funding by over a billion dollars annually for the past four years. In many schools, resources went in reverse nearly 20%, resulting in massive layoffs, pay freezes, and the loss of essential school resources like curricular materials and instructional supports for the state’s neediest kids.
All across the Centennial state, our teachers and principals were and are working to achieve more with less. If any of the so-called or self-proclaimed experts had thought to descend from on high and ask a classroom teacher, then the answers to flat TCAP scores would have been plainly clear.
In spite of this historic gutting of public education in Colorado, our educators – for the most part – held the line on statewide student achievement results. But instead of standing up for those who stood in the breach for our kids, Colorado’s educators received more blame and shame, more disruption and disparagement.
As our schools struggle to piece together and implement the blizzard of disconnected, often unfunded, and frequently nonsensical state reforms, we should ask: is it rational to expect any endeavor to become more complex and to produce better outcomes while the means of production are financially devastated?
Yet our state’s “no-excuses” leaders turn on their reality distortion fields and wonder why statewide scores are flat. Why aren’t our testing, evaluation, and market reforms – that brought such national attention and recognition to Colorado – working as planned?
The answer, quite simply, is that they’ve never worked anywhere at scale and the body of evidence to support these approaches is scientifically anemic and ideologically biased.
There are no high performing education systems in the United States, or anywhere in the world for that matter, that have achieved systemic and sustained greatness through the means Colorado now aggressively pursues.
Instead of working to de-professionalize education by cutting teacher wages, vilifying unions, and allowing practically anyone who isn’t a felon to become a teacher – the high performing systems have worked to make education a high status and very selective profession. There are no stories of mass shaming, firing, and disenfranchisement among those systems that have actually achieved sustainable greatness.
The best performing education systems on earth aren’t having discussions about opening more charter schools because they don’t have any. This is not to say we should eliminate Colorado’s charter schools -many of them do a fine job. It is to say that the work of genuine greatness requires extraordinary effort and execution put behind proven practices. Handing over the management of public education to some non-profit entity and calling it a charter school does not, by this action alone, make the education better and does not further the goal of system-wide genuine quality.
The best education systems on earth also aren’t discussing the privatization of their schools through voucher schemes. This is because they are focused on supporting and continuing to make their public schools even greater – instead of intentionally dismantling and disrupting them.
The best education systems are also judicious in their use of assessments. They test only at key transition points, relying on practitioner developed assessments that measure high level skills and concepts. Here in Colorado, our kids must take literally dozens of standardized tests over the course of their academic careers. Yet we can’t seem to let go of a single test because the theory of test-rank-punish as a means of improvement is far too ingrained.
Parents ask, “Why are we testing my child from February to May instead of teaching them?” Assessments are important; especially those that help educators tailor instruction to help kids learn. But the parents and the kids know – standardized testing is not the same thing as learning.
The problem with years of TCAP staleness starts and ends with the foisting of disconnected state-level reforms that have no basis in evidence. State-level policies that ignore and supersede the intricate art and science of instruction are too broad and generic to work, resulting in the unintended consequences of overloading schools with rules and regulations handed down without any funding to offset their administrative costs.
The Denver Post’s editorial about Colorado’s TCAP scores ended with a plea to continue the path our state is already on in terms of accountability and market-based approaches. According to the Post, we need to get these reforms fully implemented and give them time to work.
In the end, I expect the editorial board at the Post will get their wish. Colorado probably has too much ego, political capital, and careerism invested in these policies to change course now. But we should also expect many years of future editorials – all with an eerily familiar lament – wondering why, systemically, things just aren’t working out as planned.
Yesterday, Bellwether Education Partners, “a national non-profit dedicated to helping educational organizations,” released a new report entitled “Genuine Progress, Greater Challenges: A Decade of Teacher Effectiveness Reforms” by Andrew J. Rotherham and Ashley LiBetti Mitchel. The report can be accessed here.
This report is national in scope, but popped up on my radar when Colorado’s Donnell Kay Foundation tweeted out a link to the report under the Colorado education policy hashtag “#edcolo,” which I review for state news on a regular basis.
After reviewing the report, I added some (admittedly cheeky) commentary on the report via Twitter. Specifically, I criticized it as pseudo research parading as empirical evidence. I also noted that no high performing education system has achieved greatness pursuing the strategies recommended in the report.
One of the authors of the report, Andy Rotherham (a known national education policy wonk), replied to my tweet, stating “When U actually read report & engage w/ what’s in it (rather than playing to crowd) we’ll be here @COJasonGlass @bellwethered.” Almost immediately, Donnell Kay (or whoever handles their account) favorited the tweet and Andy Smarick (another national policy wonk on education reform and a partner at Bellwether) retweeted it. *Profuse apologies for those unfamiliar with “twitter-speak!”*
Given that the report itself is a re-cycle and re-hashing of the same usual suspects and policy positions when it comes to educator quality and all these individuals/groups have an extreme propensity for citing one another’s writings and hyping each other up, I find the accusation that I’m the one “playing to the crowd” downright amusing!
But, I digress.
Andy did have the courtesy to send me a very respectfully worded email, asking if we could talk about the report and the issues therein and suggested that there was room for common ground. I sincerely appreciate the civility and spirit of that message and I do think Andy is a quality writer and good thinker. My critique of the report is in no way personal toward him or his co-author.
I do think that Andy deserves a more full explanation of my concerns with his report and I do apologize for the abruptness and lack of depth in my tweets on this matter – thus is the inherent drawback of using Twitter for complex conversation!
Rather than respond privately to Andy via email, I am choosing to critique his report via this public forum. The reason for this is that Andy and the Bellwether Foundation have put forth this document in the public realm, ostensibly with the goal of influencing public policy when it comes to educator quality. As such, a critique of the report also belongs in the public realm.
So, in the spirit of respectful public dialogue and a commitment to a free-market of ideas (which I am sure Andy equally supports), below is my critique of the Bellwether report.
One last thing before I begin – I apologize for the free flowing form of my thoughts in the writing below. I am a working Superintendent and father and my time is precious. Forgive me if this lacks the flow and organization of a more professional piece.
AREAS of SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT
Instructional quality is of great importance – the Bellwether report makes this statement early and prominently and I could not agree more.
Teachers matter a great deal to student outcomes – with the qualification of “within school factors,” I strongly agree with this statement. The Bellwether report does acknowledge this qualification. To be more clear, outside of school factors actually matter more when it comes to student outcomes. This is not noted as an “excuse” for why our system of education cannot and should not be better, it is noted to say that one cannot reasonably expect to systemically and at-scale improve student outcomes if one ignores the out of school factors.
The industrial union model has been, to a degree, a detriment to the teaching “profession” – While teachers’ unions adopted an industrial and confrontational approach to bargaining for good reason (low wages, discriminatory practices, inhuman working conditions) and have historically gained in these areas as a result, holding on to this model in today’s era is a detriment. Unions must evolve to be guardians of of quality and of the profession. In my professional opinion and to the credit of unions, this transformation is underway in the United States – but it has been and continues to be a process.
Educator quality has a long and interesting history – The report notes that efforts to improve educator quality through mechanisms such as licensure and efforts to define “highly qualified” have been underway for several years. I would also add educator preparation program accreditation and prospective teacher testing as other levers, which are touched on in the report – if only briefly.
Pension reform is necessary – To which I would add two qualifications. First, this is not true in all states. Some states have over-promised and mis-managed their pension systems and created massive unfunded liabilities. However, other states have been conservative and pragmatic with their systems and they are quite sustainable. Second, we must be cautious about the motives and plans of those wishing to reform pension systems. While there are some who genuinely wish to shift the funds to public employees in the form of defined contribution plans and increase direct compensation, there are others who wish to “reform” pensions as a back-door way of de-funding public education and intentionally harming public servants. Similarly, we must also be suspicious of the motives of Wall Street firms who wish to destroy and privatize pensions so as to create opportunities for profiteering.
Personalize professional development – While I take a bit of exception that this must be in some way hitched to evaluation, to the degree that we empower and provide autonomy to our front line educators to determine and customize professional learning to their context and needs, we are in agreement.
Focus on recruitment – The best performing education systems in the world are damned selective about whom they allow to enter the teaching profession. Generally, this is accomplished through a combination of raising the prestige of the profession, raising the initial compensation levels, and treating the profession with reverence and respect. If the United States approached the teaching profession in the same way many high performing global systems do (and the way the best performing systems in the U.S. historically have), the thinking that we need to rank and fire people would diminish tremendously.
AREAS of SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENT
A one sided historical narrative – The report attempts to tell the story of educator quality in the United States. While this is indeed a worthwhile and interesting topic (at least in my judgment!), the report relies on a tired narrative of unions and comatose school administrators as the villians and education reform groups and their “get tough” leaders as heroes. How can anyone expect a historical review of educator quality to be taken seriously as a scholarly piece without even a mention of John Dewey?
Unions are the problem – As previously mentioned, this story needs a villain and teachers’ unions serve that role in this report. However, the highest performing education systems on Earth are (for the most part) highly unionized. In these systems, unions serve as professional guilds and important partners for educator quality. Using this report as yet another frontal attack on unions does not help us make the transition to that professional and collegial model. Using the lens of international benchmarking to best systems, dismantling and disenfranchising the union does not seem to be in the playbook.
Evaluation is a mechanism for improving educator quality – This report repeatedly leaps to the conclusion that improving evaluation systems will improve teaching and improve student outcomes. This causal link has no empirical basis and giants from the field of business management (notably Deming and Herzberg) have been telling us for decades the practice is an ineffective means of improvement. Yet, the education reform movement has swallowed whole this approach of evaluate/rank/punish as a mechanism for improvement and now we have national education policy build on this unproven and potentially detrimental assumption.
Achievement gaps exist; and teachers are the answer – As discussed previously, teachers are really, really important and on this point we agree. Yet, by this report’s citations teacher effects account for 7% or 8% of the variance when it comes to student outcomes. Much of this variance, we know, comes from societal issues relating to student poverty. Any systemic effort aimed at closing the achievement gap must include a commensurate systemic effort at mitigating the effects of poverty on learning.
“The last few years have produced real progress on teacher effectiveness and more generally in American schools…” – This statement comes directly out of the report and makes the classic logical fallacy of “post hoc, ergo proptor hoc.” More simply, Y followed X, so Y must have been caused by X. In spite of the constant attacks and shaming of the American education system in an effort to beat the drum of reform, American schools are better performing now than ever and achievement gaps are narrower than ever. To make any sort of claim that this improvement (which has been underway since the 1960’s) is the result of relatively recent “educator effectiveness” reforms is bogus. While often maligned as unresponsive and overly bureaucratic, the American education system has actually been very adaptive to the shifting demands our society has placed on public education. Rather than a system which has been resistant to change, the American education system has been very successful at meeting change. See Clayton Christensen’s Disrupting Class for a lengthy discussion on this point.
Removing ineffective educators is the key to large scale improvement – I am unaware of any organization or system, public or private, which achieved systemic and sustained greatness via the creation of large scale, complex and Rube Goldberg-ish attempts to rank and fire employees. Even in the so-called cut-throat world of American business, firing people is a relatively rare occurrence. Focusing on firing people is more likely to create alienation and fear in an organization than large scale improved performance. This is not to say that individual accountability isn’t important – some people need a lot of it! Rather, it is to say that we have other higher leverage strategies more likely to produce the outcome we want, such as more effective recruiting and empowerment of our professionals.
Performance-based compensation is a key element for improving educator quality – The report does acknowledge that the research is “mixed” on this point, but I’d more characterize the evidence to indicate that performance-based compensation has no impact on student outcomes. I’d urge Rotherham and Mitchel to more closely read the Vanderbilt POINT study, which they do reference. The “no effect” finding should come as no surprise. Researchers like Frederick Herzberg and Deci & Ryan have clearly told us that the most important aspects of a compensation system is that it is adequate and fair and that money is not a strong “motivator” for quality. The simple behavioristic approach of offering merit pay to educators so they will work harder for kids has no basis in evidence and is professionally insulting.
Transparency and choice will lead to improved teacher preparation – This statement comes right out of the report as the authors recommend creating more of a free market for teacher preparation, allowing more groups to prepare teachers, and removing barriers to entering the profession. Rather than a recipe for quality, this is a recipe for increased variability. Higher performing education systems actually restrict educator preparation institutions and demand higher quality to get a systemic impact. No high performing system has used a Teach for America or “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to educator preparation.
Traditional education “interest groups” have too much power and are the problem – While it is clear that the authors did put some considered thought into this report and their writing, this claim borders on laughable and is, at a minimum, self serving. The traditional interest groups (of which I would include those groups which represent teachers, school boards, and school administrators) are the only groups representing the large scale voices of practitioners in the field. It is groups like Bellwether (and Donnell Kay here in Colorado, for that matter) who have worked to shove out these traditional groups and the voices of practitioners and replace them with a parade of of ideologically-minded nonprofits who are all advocating for some vision of an American education system built on test and punishments, the deconstruction of public schools, and the destruction of community-based decision making. The traditional interest groups are not the problem; the hijacking of education policy by big money philanthropists and their nonprofit fronts are precisely the problem.
I’d like to again thank Andy Rotherham for calling me out on my Twitter criticisms of his report. It is a lengthy piece that deserved more attention than 140 characters could provide. I hope this blog posting makes my concerns with the report more clear and I look forward to engaging with Andy (or others) in the spirit of open and respectful discussion.