Depending on your point of view, the teacher identifier is either a valuable new tool for improving student learning or just another way to punish teachers. One thing’s for sure, we’ll all be hearing a whole lot more about it in the coming weeks and months.
The teacher identifier is the central component of data systems that connect information on teachers’ preparation, their work and, most important, their students. At a recent symposium hosted by the Center for Education Policy Analysis and the Colorado Children’s Campaign, state and national presenters described how it can help teachers learn about incoming students, how it can map the progress of students in the classroom, and how it can help determine the effectiveness of district or state policies. (You can see slides, notes, and links to recordings of the symposium webinar here. )
Most Colorado districts have teacher identifiers, and some have invested in technology to use them for educational improvement. The teacher identifiers offer insights into which teachers can help us learn about effective practice, if we have the right teachers, and help reward teachers who are working in challenging places. Teacher identifiers have also helped state policymakers (outside of Colorado) answer such questions as: Is Teach for America a good source of teachers? Does our licensure test work to improve our teacher workforce? And do all students have access to effective teachers?
House Bill 1065, which would create a state teacher identifier, contains limits on using it to “sanction” teachers or programs (e.g. preparation, professional development, etc.). But sanction is a slippery word. What constitutes a sanction may lie in the eye of the beholder, and sanctions (however they are defined) are only one tool offered by teacher identifiers. (Another is identifying, supporting and learning from success.). The limits on sanctions in this bill present two problems.
First, this bill would prevent a district from sanctioning a teacher when the data help show his students consistently leave his classroom behind where they were when they entered. So why would a district participate in the state teacher identifier program if doing so would reduce its authority to use data that some are already using?
Second, the value of a teacher identifier to the state would be to help evaluate teacher induction, teacher preparation, large professional development initiatives and other programs. This bill would prevent the state from closing a teacher preparation program that consistently produced ineffective teachers or from forcing a district to invest in new teacher induction when its second-year teachers are consistently behind those in other districts. These limits on sanctions would inhibit state and district leaders from forcefully acting when they identify teachers or programs that are detrimental to student learning.
The federal stimulus package has increased pressure to create a teacher identifier since having an identifier is one criterion for selecting winners in the $5 billion Race to the Top grant competition. I don’t know if the limits in the current legislation will reduce our chances at this opportunity to invest in Colorado’s education system.
But I do know these limits place a priority on protecting adults over student learning. They represent fear of knowledge and information instead of hope that we can work together to improve student learning.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I applaud the movement toward greater accountability (for both teachers and students) and the use of data to drive instruction, but the accountability systems must be fair. I have many students in my high school classes that began the year at a 1st-4th grade reading level and I am very nervous that a system such as that discussed in this article will unfairly punish teachers with students significantly behind grade level. I enjoy working with these students and have implemented many interventions in my classroom that help these students make significant progress, but how will I compete with a teacher that has a classroom full of students who read and write at or above grade level? I will put my teaching practice up against any other teacher any day of the week, but the results are not always compared in a fair way.
I agree wholeheartedly with Robert’s assessment of teacher identifiers and the questionable limitations of HB1065. When the Alliance for Quality Teaching (full disclosure: I worked for AQT) undertook the serious push to bring an identifier to the state back in 2005 (has it been that LONG!), the goal was always to bring more data-driven decisionmaking to education. Of course, care must be taken to not inappropriately sanction teachers simply due to student test scores, but not being able to use data gleaned from linking teachers to students to improve outcomes hurts both students and the teaching profession. To respond to William, the key to using these data to drive decisionmaking is through value-added assessments of progress – not merely reaching grade level. If your students enter your high school class at a 1st-4th grade reading level and you bring them to 5th-8th grade reading level – as determined by linking you to your students – then you should be commended. The key should not be pitting teachers against each other, but rather examining the individual student progress and making decisions – appropriately – based on this progress.
Looking back on it, I would give higher ratings to some of my teachers now, than I would have then. The fact they irritated me into performance seems more valuable, and necessary, in hindsight than it did at the time. Also, the fact they were willing to sacrifice their own comfort to accomplish this is something I can also appreciate a little more now.
My main concern is that “teacher accountability” not become another euphemism for “popularity contest.”