With Mike Johnston’s teacher evaluation bill headed towards a vote later today, the heightened rhetoric has now eclipsed the likely impact. For while I wholeheartedly support this bill, I also think the fevered opinion has given it a prominence that overshadows its relative ability to produce significant change.
With the rising antagonism between supporters and opponents, both sides went for the jugular: CEA publicly attacking Commissioner Dwight Jones and flexing its substantial lobbying muscle, while supporters enlisted the cumulative wisdom of the past 36 years of Colorado governors as well as district superintendents from Mapleton, Harrison, Denver and Aurora. In order to pass/block the bill, both sides must argue to its greatest possible impact. The end result is to inflate SB 191 to an elevated importance that no single proposal could possibly merit.
For if the bill passes (without too much change), it is both unlikely to be either a panacea leading to better educational outcomes for students, or the sudden arrival of nuclear winter for teachers. In truth, SB 10-191 is only one part of the institutional changes we need concerning teachers in public education, and in my view is probably of lesser importance than some related areas. If this is the only evolutionary step we make for education reform, we are unlikely to crawl out of our current muck and rise to our feet.
To improve the quality of teaching, we need three primary changes (and a lot of secondary ones): First, find a way to move bad teachers out of the classroom. Second, retain the outstanding teachers who voluntarily leave the profession. And third, widen the pool of potential hires so that we can recruit the best possible candidates into the classroom. Now don’t misunderstand, there are a lot of other tasks — many of these district-related policies that prevent current teachers from being able to do their best work (I have long believed that we have better teachers than we have teaching, due to various impediments). But at a macro level, we need to address these three issues first.
Even rough numbers should help us gauge relative importance. Colorado hires between 6,500 and 7,000 new teachers annually. Of these, roughly 50 percent do not progress beyond their 5th year. In contrast, the number of teachers who are likely to be “evaluated” out of the classroom is far smaller than the number of either better candidates that we might attract, or retaining the best teachers who leave. For without the ability to replace bad teachers with better ones, evaluating teachers out of the classroom will accomplish virtually nothing. While SB 191 may be a substantial change to the teaching profession, by itself it is unlikely to have significant change on educational outcomes for students.
SB 10-191 — laudable and important as it is — only directly tackles the problem of removing bad teachers (although it might help marginally with retention). Now we all know there are teachers who should not be teaching, but in comparison to recruitment and retention, I think these numbers are fairly small. My guess is that even if this bill is applied as aggressively as possible, the percentage of teachers affected will be in the small single digits. The impact of SB 10-191, by itself, is unlikely to move the needle of student achievement across the State.
What else should we do? I’d posit two approaches.
To retain the outstanding teachers who leave the profession, we need to start by abolishing the collective bargaining agreement’s single salary schedule. In no other profession are the best performers in an industry confined to being compensated at the same rate as their average (or below-average) peers. Most of the people testifying in support or against 191 have achieved professional distinction, and are both recognized and compensated for their accomplishments. We need to extend to our best teachers the same respect. SB 10-191 may help us better recognize these top performers, but they are unlikely to remain in the profession without accompanying incentives (and this should start with, but not be limited to salaries).
In addition, we need to phase out teacher certification, which serves primarily as an artificial barrier that discourages potential teachers and diverts resources that could be better applied. Programs like Teach For America and the New Teacher Project have shown no substantive difference between traditional teacher certification and alternative (and usually far less extensive and expensive) methods.
Other avenues of preparation should be offered – both TFA and NTP programs, and expanded teacher residencies, which provide hands-on experience and mentoring. The requirement for teacher certification, and the related increase in pay for advanced degrees with no correlation with teacher quality, primary results in tuition dollars and a transfer of wealth to schools of education that provide little to no value to K-12 students. While it has been a few years since Art Levine’s seminal report on teacher education, little has changed.
Funding these changes will be hard, but not impossible. Districts spend considerable amounts on new hires; reducing attrition will eventually have a positive impact on budgets. But to start, redeploy the salary dollars we have away from fixed raises for seniority and professional certification to instead recognize outstanding teachers as determined by school leadership (which would incorporate, but not be limited by the evaluation procedures in SB 10-191).
Secondly, pursue policies that shift the substantial dollars provided to schools of education into residency and alternative training programs. Meaningless academic educational programs – most at private universities — suck millions of dollars in tuition and valuable time directly from teachers. This is a billion-dollar industry that provides limited value — a remarkable waste of resources in the struggle to improve public education.
Prospective teachers should be given a choice between paying for these programs – often highly expensive, particularly given teacher starting salaries – and contributing to residency and other programs (which would also provide jobs upon successful program completion).
So, in the heightened shadow of SB 10-191, here is a modest proposal: migrate teacher preparation from mandatory certification to alternative and residency programs, shifting tuition dollars that enrich private universities to public school systems. Abolish the single salary structure, using the premium formerly paid for advanced degrees to reward outstanding teachers for the achievements in the classroom.
And in the wake of what I think will be the successful passage of a mostly-whole SB 10-191, do not, for one minute, think that the effort to improve public education in Colorado has taken more than a small step forward, with a long distance still to travel.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Anyone interested in this or related issues should read “Transforming Professional Development into Student Results” by Douglas B. Reeves, 2010, an ASCD publication. Reeves gets to the bottom of why teacher quality is too often lacking, and what to do about it. Our greatest power lies in the capacity to make ineffective teachers effective, and mediocre teachers great. Without quality professional development we will be relying on a model where we force out “bad” teachers, and reward those who seem to be simply born to quality, and there simply are not enough of the latter.
I can’t disagree with Kevin on making average teachers better – this would have an enormous impact on students. I do question making ineffective teachers effective if it is easier to replace an ineffective teacher with a better one (or a candidate who will become better). But these are differences of degree, not of kind. We need the ability to remove the many obstacles that stand in the way of teachers. Figuring out who is effective and in which way is a critical start.
I’m interested in hearing from teachers as to what PD they need, and helping figure out a way for them to get it. Enterprise PD systems don’t work well. What should we do instead?
Here’s what works for me: subject area experience. In science, that means working in a lab, going on a field excursion, consulting with museums and anything that allows us to do some real science for a change. Require the teacher keeps some kind of log or diary of the experience and reflect on how the real world science will affect their pedagogical techniques and contribute to the education of students. Enterprise PD–mostly a waste of time. And for experienced teachers, you hear the same tired, trite presentations over and over and does no one any good. Also, pd is often just admin trotting out the latest feel-good, non-researched-based make-work.
Send me back to a college grad department of education for a class in theory and debate the latest research findings. Send me to another teacher’s classroom. Send me to a regional and/or national professional conference and require I deliver a pd session at school or podcast to my colleagues of what I learned and how it will affect my work.
Alex, I think you have taken the CEA bait. The bill’s purpose is not to get rid of bad teachers. Perhaps you do not mean to generalize the bill in this manner. I do agree that looking at this bill as the silver bullet is misguided. I do believe we may begin to see a confluence of other issues that will, together, make substantial change. The Cap4K work may now take on a more urgent and vibrant path as it may be involved in teacher/principal evalaution. Reform is taking place at the micro-level–Harrison District and others you mention. I do not want to characterize it as a movement, but I hope we start to connect some of these changes and mobilize it into the will for reform.
I agree it’s not the central purpose, but clearly it is intended to make it harder for low-performing teachers to receive tenure, and to give districts the ability to remove them. A better evaluation system might make some teachers better — but I’m personally suspicious of that as a legislative solution, or one that will be effectively implemented by large Districts.
I’m intrigued by jj’s comment, and wondering: if a group of HS Science teachers put forward a proposal for PD that incorporated field work (or similar), could they do so under the Innovation Bill? Clearly you can’t have a different PD path for each teacher, but why not some alternative by subject and level taught? I bet you could raise funds for it if needed.
I firmly believe that teachers are the best judge of effective PD — is there no way to enable them to create these programs on their own?
I’ve never worked in a school that did PD well, so I can only imagine. The best PD for me has been reading the journals and other publications of relevant associations, like ASCD or NMSA…
Reeves argues that quality PD is a matter of focus; a matter of implementing vision and moving from “intention to evidence.” He explains “four essential implications:
“First, test scores alone are not a sufficient reflection of student learning, but we must base our conclusions on the evidence of student success…students must explain, interpret, apply, have perspective, have empathy for the views of others, and possess self-knowledge of their own understandings…
“Second, the fundamental purpose of assessment is not merely to evaluate students but to teach them. Stiggins (2007) thoughtfully distinguishes between assessment of learning and assessment for learning.
“Third, assessment is most effective as a preventive rather than a remediating or punitive strategy…
“Fourth, the purpose of assessment in a standards-based environment is not only to provide feedback to students for improvement but also to improve the performance of teachers and leaders…
How?
“First, we wouldn’t use a test score as evidence of proficiency for a teaching professional any more than we would accept the score of students on their bar exams as evidence that they are ready to represent a defendant in a capital murder case. We would…require a broad range of evidence…
“Second, we would provide feedback to professionals that not only assesses their present level of competence but also is designed to help them grow and learn… It is therefore essential that school leaders distinguish evaluation – a process bounded by the constraints of legal precedent and collective bargaining – from assessment…
“Third, schools can provide…information and support before poor decisions adversely influence student achievement…
“Fourth, we would provide low-risk, frequent, and constructive feedback that is designed to be formative…the feedback is consistent and purposeful, designed solely to improve performance.”
Indeed, it seems that Reeves is arguing that the research suggests best practices for teaching and learning with students applies to PD with teachers and administrators. I’m not sure SB 191 will result in an environment that supports professional growth and learning, especially in this current atmosphere and what Reeves calls “the law of initiative fatigue.”
“The Law of Initiative Fatigue states that when the number of initiatives increases while time, resources, and emotional energy are constant, then each new initiative – no matter how well conceived or well intentioned – will receive fewer minutes, dollars, and ounces of emotional energy than its predecessors.”
There is something to be said for morale.
In his book Reeves also uses two quotes that I find support the general intent of SB 191:
“We need to elevate the status of public school teachers and transform the profession into one that is truly prestigious, wildly competitive, and finacilly atractive.”
We need to recognize that currently the consequences for failure in education now fall on students, but stakes for educators are highly diffused throughout the organizational structure in which we work, so it is relatively easy for accountability systems, in the absence of countervailing pressures, to ratchet up stakes on students–the unrepresented constituancy–and allow stakes for institutions and educators to become increasingly diffuse.”
I appreciated your article, Mr. Ooms. Without a definition of what “good teaching” is, we are simply spinning our wheels. Additionally, teacher preparation programs (and “professional development”) frequently lack the relevance and application necessary to create any change in the classroom. And even if a teacher was willing and able to implement these practices, there is no guarantee that the school would support him/her in the transition (and yes, there is a transition there.)
Still, there is some hope. Go to http://www.schoolview.com and check out the new ratings for each school. There are a few refreshing surprises like Beachcourt Elementary, a low-income school showing up in High Status and High Growth–an area normally reserved for the educated-before-they-entered-the-school types. This gives us people to talk to, and interviews to have, questions and maybe, just maybe real answers. What are they doing that we aren’t doing? How did they get there? And what can they tell us that will help us get there too? When these questions are answered and answered well, then I think we will start to see some improvement.
The fact that schools are rated on their status and their yearly growth changes the game, just a little. I was disappointed to see so many educated-before-they-entered-the-school types show only 70% yearly growth. If your population is so already reading and writing well, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect they show 90-100% growth? And do you think they are asking themselves the same questions? Because everyone can see it, maybe they are and maybe next year, they will improve in annual growth….
I don’t think this bill will do much for education. This bill scares teachers, continues to polarize an already ready-to-break system and makes everyone feel they have to take sides. I think it will do some damage. More fear. Less real talk. Silence. Scared. And trying to teach… yikes, that’s ugly.
Instead of blame and fear and more blame and more fear, maybe we could look at defining success (www.schoolview.org) and figuring out how to get everybody there.
That’s a bill I would like.
here is the correct website:
https://cdeapps.cde.state.co.us/growth_model_public/
SB 191 is not in the best interest of Colorado’s students or Colorado’s educational system. I have serious concerns about this bill and the consequences it will bring to Colorado students and to Colorado’s educational system. The bill attempts to address a major problem in Colorado’s schools. The problem? Ineffective teachers. Ineffective teachers should be removed from Colorado’s schools. However, this bill is not the way to achieve that end. This bill will create more problems than it attempts to solve. How?
For one, the bill will place unfunded mandates on local schools and on local districts at a time when Colorado’s schools are facing $260 million dollars in cuts. Colorado schools are laying off teachers, cutting programs and making serious budget decisions because of Colorado’s and the nation’s economic woes. This bill will add insult to injury and will further burden our schools at a time when they are already struggling. School districts already are functioning under unfunded mandates from the state (CSAP) and federal (NCLB) government.
Secondly, this bill will increase the number of tests and assessments that students will be required to take. We are already seeing the negative affects of too many tests. Students already lose three to four weeks a year from their curriculum for CSAP and district tests. Over twelve year, our students lose one full year of instruction. No wonder we cannot compete in the global market. This bill will require additional testing in all subject areas. More testing will lead to less instruction and less time on task. Is this the best thing for Colorado students? Do we really want tests in every class?
Additionally, this bill will unfairly affect school districts and effective teachers in lower socioeconomic districts. New teachers will pursue successful schools and schools in higher socioeconomic districts. Why? These schools and districts already have high scores. What teacher would want to work with students who struggle with learning or who do not have the support from home? All students can learn. All students can achieve. However, to pretend that all students come into the educational process with the same opportunities is not only ludicrous, it is a lie. This bill will reward teachers and principals in districts where student come ready and excited to learn. Who will want to teach in districts with students that are not ready for school and not excited to learn? Who will want to work in communities where parents are not involved in their child’s educational process? Under this bill there is no incentive. Instead, there is punishment. Low evaluations and firings. Schools that currently require more effort and more work to improve, will see a revolving door of teachers and principals. This bill builds no real incentive for improvement.
Furthermore, I believe this bill is partially designed to lower state teaching salaries and save the state educational monies. The bill gives districts broad powers to let go of older, more experienced and higher paid teachers. The bill assumes that older teachers are more likely to be ineffective than effective. This is not only counterintuitive, but is a ridiculous and illogical assumption. Older teachers have more instructional and discipline strategies. Younger teachers lack basic classroom discipline techniques and questioning strategies. They need good mentors and help to improve. This bill will reward youth and inexperience. Youthful enthusiasm does not equal skill or knowledge.
Finally, this bill will make competition the only focus. Cooperation will die within departments, schools and districts. Professional learning communities and best practices will be sacrificed. Teachers will no longer collaborate. This bill’s focus is on the individual teacher. Each teacher is responsible for their students and their classes. They are not responsible for other teachers, other classes, or others within their school. This bill will not encourage cooperation or collaboration among teachers. It will not encourage the sharing of instructional best practices. Each teacher will be mainly concerned with their kids and their classes. If teacher vs. teacher is what you want, then that is what you will get. You are eliminating the incentive for sharing. Why share your lessons, tests, instructional strategies, or management ideas with other teachers? Each teacher will be competing with other teachers for the “effective” label. New teachers need help and mentoring to grow in the profession. In a teacher vs. teacher system why would an older more experienced teacher want to help younger inexperienced teachers? New teachers become competition not colleagues.
Effective teachers move their students to higher levels of achievement by providing engaging teaching strategies, multiple assessments, and differentiated instruction. Effective teachers care about their students whether they receive incentive pay or not. Effective teachers are paid to make a difference in the lives of their students and their student’s progress is what ultimately motivates them. Effective teachers teach struggling students because they care. Effective teachers teach in lower socioeconomic areas because they believe the American dream should be open to all people, not just the rich or the advantaged.
I love my job as a teacher. I am not afraid of this bill because I know I will measure up to and exceed its requirements. My kids will perform and will succeed even under this complicated and potentially dangerous bill. My students will succeed because I am caring and competitive. I believe all kids can learn. If this bill passes, I will take the necessary steps in my classroom and during my summer break to provide the best instruction for all my incoming students. I would do that anyway. I go the extra mile because I care, not because of incentive pay or high stake tests.
This bill will change how I look at my profession. For twenty years I have cooperated and collaborated with other teachers. I share all my lesson plans, ideas, and management strategies. I have mentored new teachers, guided student teachers, and collaborated with experienced colleagues. In twenty years I have moved between several buildings in my district. With each move I brought my “best practices” and ideas. I have made each new building I have taught in better. Cooperation not competition is what motivated me. I am afraid that this bill will change my focus. My focus will not be on improving teaching and instruction in my building, but on making sure my students are better than yours. My goal will be to improve my students, not to help you improve yours. Is this what we want?
This bill reminds me of what happened recently with health care. Instead of reforming elements within the health care system our federal government brought massive and dangerous changes to everyone’s health care. This bill has a similar focus and will have similar negative effects. This bill aims at the 10% of ineffective teachers in our schools. This bill places additional burdens on effective teachers for the sake of a small number of ineffective teachers. This bill will take away additional instructional time for all students in order to replace a small number of ineffective teachers.
This bill will create too many unintended and negative consequences. In the long run, Colorado and our nation will see lower test scores, lower graduation rates, and unprepared graduates because of this type of legislation. Broad test-oriented legislation will not create more “effective” teachers. Please look to other models before voting yes on this bill.
A yes vote will destroy Colorado’s education system.
Should the state of Colorado sell its educational soul for federal money?
I hope not.
This lengthy monologue isn’t really a comment on the original post — or if it is, it should be considered ample evidence of the point, since it both offers opinion as fact and claims that “A yes vote will destroy Colorado’s educational system” — precisely the hyperbole that stops this from being an honest debate.
How to you assess teachers that have truancy problems in the classroom? How do you teach what isn’t there? I have 35% absenteeism every year.
Why should a teacher’s career be jeopardized by poor performing students? Students don’t try on tests that don’t count for them.
Why would you want to teach in Colorado once this bill passes?
The people passing this bill just care about getting federal money, the don’t care about anything else. Senator Johnston can’t even explain the logic behind his bill or explain the impacts on the schools. Maybe he should move back to Lake Wobegon and pass bills there.
So I’ll assume that Jacob is thirsting for answers here and not just being rhetorical:
1. One would normalize results by comparable geography and SES. If your absenteeism is far higher than comparable groups, it should be a huge red flag, and hopefully someone will try to solve a problem of 35% absenteeism instead of using it as an excuse for low performance.
2. A teacher’s evaluation should be based in part on student performance because every serious study has found that teacher quality is one of (if not the) highest correlated factor.
3. I expect probably 95% or more of current teachers will continue to want to teach in Colorado (5% are probably just going through the motions anyway). I suspect very few will be so disinherited that they will quit the profession or move states just because someone will connect them to how their students perform academically.
I expect that some teachers may feel so betrayed by this bill that they will quit or do a worse job. But I think that will be a really small number. But if you feel that you cannot honestly continue to serve your profession, students and school — well, please tell your principal let’s get on with the hard work of trying to close the achievement gap in schools like (I presume) the one you serve.