Who out there believes that value added scores actually measure how well you are teaching? If only you had differentiated more. If only you had been more engaging. If only you had used more group work, done less direct instruction, and used more rigor. Many people within the education field, and even more outside of our profession, believe that student test scores tell us the whole story. They don’t.
Unfortunately, everyone today has an obsession with test scores, benchmark scores, pre and post-test scores, and more baloney. Not that all of these are horrible, there is just too much of it taking time away from teaching and planning.
Many of us have started to “set targets” for our students’ growth for our Student Learning Objectives. How shall I determine these targets? Should I take into consideration each individual student’s past history with similar tests, see if they have ever “grown a year” in a year’s time? Should I look at their work habits? Absence rate? Parental education level? Family income? Scores on aptitude tests? Health issues and disabilities? Do they speak English? Setting these targets is guesswork, but it ends up being a factor on our evaluations.
One convenient solution to setting these targets is to use the “Austin Formula,” even though it has no basis in research. This formula takes a pre-test score and then calculates a post-test target. It takes nothing into consideration outside of the pre-test score. What other profession sets targets without taking into account any of the variables that could change the outcome of a situation. That would be like the owner of a grocery store deciding how much fresh produce to buy in a particular week based on the number of red cars that pass the store in on a Tuesday morning because someone thought that it would be pretty easy to quantify the number of red cars and perhaps there is a correlation with how much fresh produce will be sold.
Being a math guy, I like formulas. I believe there might one available that could help us determine a range of targets that are reasonable, minimum expectations for student growth. Developing this kind of formula with real data makes sense to me. The difference is that developing a formula based on our data might better reflect our reality whereas using a random formula to set targets drives teaching and testing based on a wish list. I believe that all of us want our students to excel, but we don’t have control of all the variables that might make that possible. To back up this opinion the American Statistical Association came out with research last year showing that teachers account for about 14% of the difference that students score on tests.
Now for a reminder. Based on our contract, for this year and next year, your rating makes little difference unless you are “ineffective.” Evaluation ratings can affect your employment when there is a reduction in force or if you are “ineffective” and don’t improve after getting support. If there were a reduction in force for a secondary math teacher, for example, the administration would look at all non-tenured teachers with that license. If any are rated “ineffective” then they would be first to go, otherwise teachers would be laid off based on hire date. If there are no non-tenured teachers then the same process would be used for those with continuing contracts. At the time we negotiated the contract everyone at the table knew that the student growth measure part of evaluation was not reliable. The Board actually suggested this kind of language to help us get through this tough time because districts were being forced to use student growth as part of evaluation through the coercion of the US Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan (as part of the waiver for the National Testing Law “No Child Left Behind”).
Hope this shows why we need everyone’s voice to be more involved in the politics, including influencing people to vote our collective interests, and by making connections into our community. Our opponents are playing for keeps with our profession while many of us are locking the door to our classrooms hoping someone comes and gets us when things settle down. Look for chances to make a difference in the November election. Two opportunities are still available in September – sign up with your steward for:
Saturday, September 20: 10:00-1:00. North Shore Federation Labor Walk – meet at our office, 2490 Lee Blvd, and get materials to door knock at Union and other “friendly” households to encourage voting by mail.
Sunday, September 21: 2:45-6:00. We will be staffing a beautiful house for the Heights Community Congress’ annual house tour. Email Tina Reynolds (T_Reynolds) to volunteer and get a ticket for the other houses before our shift.
In Union,
Ari Klein
CHTU President