pre-dom-i-nant (adj.) having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.
Gotham Schools quotes the Obama administration in charge of the $4+ billion education innovation fund saying that unless New York’s legislature allows teachers to be evaluated based on test data, the state won’t be getting a slice of cake.
“Joanne Weiss said the Obama administration aims to reward states that use student achievement as a ‘predominant’ part of teacher evaluations with the extra stimulus funds — and pass over those that don’t. New York state law currently bans using student data as a factor in tenure decisions. Test scores aren’t everything, Weiss said. “But it seems illogical and indefensible to assume that those aren’t part of the solution at all,” she said, echoing nearly word-for-word Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks last week to the National Education Association.”
So tests scores aren’t everything. Just the most powerful, authoritative and influential thing. Sounds like Dan Willingham’s memo failed to find its way to the White House.
I think they’re bluffing.
If Obama had the time to read Willingham and the other science, I’d be extremely confident of the outcome. But even if we just consider politics, I’m still cautiously hopeful.
All Duncan NEEDS is performance pay like Denver and peer review like the Toledo plan. If we stand firm, that’s what I think we’ll get.
There’s not much evidence for performance pay, and the evidence against merit pay is overwhelming. But I gladly support performance pay as a part of a compromise. And with TAP and the Denver model, collaboration is built in. Now collaboration, that’s a real idea.
I don’t want my union to make a big deal about it, and I sure wouldn’t sue the Obama administration, but I want us to build a huge litigation war chest so that districts know that they will pay more in litigation fees than they will get in Race to the Top funds if they try to fire teachers based on test scores.
But we need to take the high road, and #1 focus on the welfare of students, and that means that we also need to be tough-minded in firing bad teachers in an efficient and fair manner.
#2, federal funds should focus on the poorest schools. Who would make a career in poor schools (and buy a house and start a family) if some primitive model could end your career at any time?
#3 we must educate “reformers.” Its like George Soros’ criticism of today’s toxic assests on Wall Street (that were created by the same data-driven mentality that created the EEP) If you have 10 or 20 bottles of water, and only one is poisoned, they are all worthless. I could be the best teacher in the world but if I get a lousy principal or the district gets some stupid new theory, or if I get too many mentally ill or chronically disruptive kids in class or if the gang war turns bloodier or if its my year for the statistical models to mis-fire, especially if I’m on probation or my school is on probation,then my career could be over. Or even if I survive will I ever have peace of mind on the job?
We must always welcome compromises. But this is a fight for the soul of education. If we make it clear that teachers won’t back down on this one, Duncan will settle for a compromise that’s good enough for all of us.
Comment by john thompson — July 10, 2009 @ 11:58 am
I want to be in John Thompson’s army when the war begins. I agree–it’s about educating the so-called reformers. Reformers need to understand that the purpose of performance pay is not incenting teachers to get off their duffs and start working. It’s to build a culture where excellent, exemplary teaching becomes a universal goal, something to be admired and replicated. Where creativity and problem-solving (even the worst problems, like classrooms full of gangbangers) are rewarded. Test scores are merely one indicator, not the goal– the point is using test scores as a guide to improve the work.
Three years ago, eighteen teacher leaders released a report providing a framework for thinking about differentiated pay (my label of choice). (Full disclosure–I was one of the 18.) We didn’t back off from using test data. There are lots of reasons to differentiate pay for teachers (and reasons to pay them well).
http://www.teachingquality.org/tsp4p
Weiss’ remarks are indicative of the utter lack of trust that makes the issue a war, rather than a dialogue.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — July 11, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Nancy,
The feeling is mutual. Your comment reminded me to get back to your blog. Its noteworthy that a veteran teacher pointed out the contradictions between Johnaton Alter’s logic in his last two opinion pieces.
Speaking metaphorically, I think teachers are “born” and they are “made,” and we need both. In a true democracy which produces a lot of both types, though, its easy to see all of those “born teachers” and overlook the obvious – that they were made into “born teachers” by our dynamic culture.
The GI Bill, which Alter praises, was one of democracy’s and public education’s greatest victories. But its wonderful legacies are largely the UNINTENDED benefits of the law. Neither was our great education experiment the result of social engineering or planning.
I’m glad the Obama administration has so many smart people. But we need smart people with modesty who recognize that education is a people process.
We need all types of reformers, including charter schools, incentives. data-informed decision-making, and technocratic engineering. We don’t need the arrogance of some technocrats trying to dictate to educators all over this diverse nation.
Comment by john thompson — July 11, 2009 @ 6:51 pm