Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


Essential Elements in Teacher Policy in ESEA: Effectiveness, Fairness, and Evaluation


Ohanian Comment: I've warned you about Center for American Progress and Education Trust before. Put them into a 'search' on this site. The plan below is so bizarre it defies discussion. I just post some info on current grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--as a warning of where they are going with regard to teacher evaluation. And what a coincide: two big grant recipients are the Center for American Progress and The Education Trust.

Grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Center for American Progress
Date: July 2010
Purpose: to fund anchor Empowering Effective Teachers advocacy grantees and an additional leading organization to communicate the imporance of reforms and support progressive states to implement them
Amount: $1,000,561

The Education Trust
Date: January 2010
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount: $1,000,000
Term: 5 years and 7 months
Topic: College-Ready Education

The Education Trust
Date: September 2010
Purpose: to support a group of major university and community college system heads to build better data systems, financial aid policies, and student support services
Amount: $1,060,000
Term: 2 years
Topic: Postsecondary Education

New Schools Venture Fund
Date: November 2010
Purpose: to support the planning and implementation of a data system for Newark Public School District that will support accountability and include measures for data driven instruction, teacher evaluation and growth models
Amount: $3,000,000
Term: 2 years

Jobs for the Future Inc.
Date: November 2010
Purpose: to create effective pathways to college and careers for adult learners using evidence-based instructional and organizational models
Amount: $9,633,537
Term: 5 years and 2 months
Topic: Postsecondary Education

MDRC
Date: November 2010
Purpose: to support a research project
Amount: $168,691
Term: 3 years and 8 months
Topic: Postsecondary Education
Region Served: North America, Global
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, New York
Grantee Web site: http://www.mdrc.org

Brookings Institution
Date: October 2010
Purpose: to create a model that will enable policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and foundations to better assess the likely success of any strategy designed to improve the life prospects of children and youth
Amount: $1,000,000
Term: 2 years


Educause
Date: October 2010
Purpose: to support a digital learning initiative, market it to the field, recruit applicants and advisors, and process applications
Amount: $18,362,322
Term: 3 years and 3 months
Topic: Postsecondary Education
Region Served: North America, Global
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Boulder, Colorado
Grantee Web site: http://www.educause.edu


Fund for Public Schools Inc
Date: October 2010
Purpose: to support operational planning for New York City's Department of Education's Innovation Zone, a potential incubator for College Ready tools
Amount: $293,344
Term: 3 months
Topic: College-Ready Education
Region Served: North America, Global
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, New York
Grantee Web site: http://www.fundforpublicschools.org


The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education

Date: October 2010
Purpose: to plan a community of practice and knowledge management system to connect our grantees to us, one another, and resources that are critical to the strategy
Amount: $650,000
Term: 1 year and 2 months
Topic: Postsecondary Education
Region Served: North America, Global
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Half Moon Bay, California
Grantee Web site: http://www.bigideasfest.org/


Nellie Mae Education Foundation

Date: September 2010
Purpose: to identify and fund local education agencies and networks to advance acceleration tools in proficiency-based pathways environments
Amount: $1,750,000
Term: 1 year and 8 months
Topic: College-Ready Education
Region Served: North America, Global
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Quincy, Massachusetts
Grantee Web site: http://www.nmefdn.org

Teach for America, Inc.
Date: September 2010
Purpose: to establish a Teach For America Puget Sound regional office
Amount: $2,500,000
Term: 3 years

New America Foundation
Date: August 2010
Purpose: to produce a number of related papers, blog posts, and convenings on the effectiveness of federal K-12 funding and to promote expansion of plans to lower-income families to provide additional resources and evaluate impact on student behavior
Amount: $1,300,000
Term: 2 years
Topic: Advocacy & Public Policy

And so on and so on.

In late 2009, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bribed Memphis with $90 million, to fund the Teacher Effectiveness Initiative (TEI), a focused plan to improve teacher effectiveness in order to empower teachers for student success. For "empower," read earbuds.

In Florida, Hillsborough got $100 million, and now a few people are beginning to question the wisdom of welding teacher rating to student test scores. Even Mike Petrilli at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, finds this Center for American Progress/Education Trust Plan beyond the pale: CAP, Ed Trust, and federal policy foolishness. His comment is: Are you freakin' kidding me?




To: Honorable Members of the 112th United States Congress

From: The Center for American Progress and The Education Trust

Re: Essential Elements of Teacher Policy in ESEA: Effectiveness, Fairness, and Evaluation

Date: February 21, 2011

Dear Honorable Members of the 112th United States Congress,

Our nation does too little to ensure that all students have the strong teachers they
need and deserve. This must change if our country is going to remain a global
economic leader, and we believe the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) offers a seminal opportunity to provide all students with
effective teachers.

Please see our recommendations on how ESEA can improve teacher equity and
effectiveness. They focuses on two key topics:

  • Collecting and reporting on teacher-quality indicators in an actionable way, to
    provide much-needed information about the distribution and assignment of strong
    teachers among schools; and


  • Developing new teacher evaluation systems, to give educators the information,
    support, and tools that they need to improve teacher effectiveness.


  • We hope you find these recommendations insightful, and we are happy to answer any
    questions you might have.

    Sincerely,
    Cynthia Brown
    The Center for American Progress

    Kati Haycock
    The Education Trust

    ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TEACHER POLICY IN ESEA: EFFECTIVENESS, FAIRNESS, AND EVALUATION | FEBRUARY 2011 1

    Effective teachers are critical to raising achievement
    and closing longstanding gaps among
    student subgroups. Indeed, the research on this
    point has become absolutely clear: Students
    who have three or four strong teachers in a row will soar
    academically, regardless of their racial or economic background,
    while those who have a sequence of weak teachers
    will fall further and further behind.1
    Research also, unfortunately, demonstrates that access
    to effective teachers is not equitable or fair. Although there
    are strong teachers in many schools, research shows that
    students in high-poverty schools are more likely than
    students in more affl uent schools to have the least effective
    teachers.2

    Despite the importance of teachers and the overwhelming
    need to match our struggling students with
    our strongest educators, few states or districts have good
    information on teacher performance. Fewer still use that
    information to ensure that low-income students and
    students of color gain access to the teachers they need and
    deserve. If we are going to ensure that all students receive a
    rigorous K-12 education, we must get serious about accurate
    ways to evaluate teachers based on their performance
    in the classroom and their individual impacts on student
    learning, and use that information to improve the practice
    for all teachers.

    States, districts, and schools will have to do the hard
    work of developing and implementing teacher evaluation
    systems and ensuring that students have access to great
    teachers. But federal policy can and should support this
    work.

    Specifically, federal policy should challenge states to set
    big goals for teacher effectiveness and fair teacher distribution--
    and to assess both through meaningful evaluation.
    These goals will embolden leaders who are already moving
    down this path and will spur others to action.

    This work is made more difficult by the need to move
    far and fast in an environment of incomplete and rapidly
    changing information. But if we fail to address the critical
    issues of teacher effectiveness and equal access to strong
    teachers, then there's little reason to believe that other
    reforms will have much impact. That's an outcome our
    nation can ill afford.

    As the 112th Congress considers the reauthorization
    of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
    it must revamp Title II of the ESEA and target additional
    dollars toward improving teacher effectiveness and equity.
    States and districts must engage in important reforms as a
    condition of receipt of their Title II funds. We call on Congress
    to consider the recommendations outlined below: to
    collect and report school-level teacher-quality measures,
    implement new evaluation systems, and hold states and
    districts accountable for ensuring that all students have
    access to strong teachers.

    1. COLLECT AND REPORT SCHOOL-LEVEL
    TEACHER QUALITY MEASURES


    We recommend a specific set of timelines, incentives,
    and sanctions for states to implement robust evaluation
    systems that incorporate measures of teacher impact on
    student growth. Building these systems is a critical step
    toward ensuring a fair distribution of teachers. But, at the
    same time, we cannot afford to wait until every state has a
    new evaluation system before moving forward. Therefore
    we further recommend that, while we build stronger evaluation
    systems that include information on student achievement,
    Congress continue to require states to collect, report,
    and act upon measures of teacher quality to ensure a fair
    distribution of teachers among schools.

    Specifically, we recommend that states collect and
    report on the indicators included in current law for equity
    purposes:

  • Percentage of teachers beyond their first year of
    teaching;


  • Percentage of course sections taught by
    in-field secondary
    teachers; and the


  • Percentage of certified teachers.


  • We define an in-field secondary teacher as an educator
    teaching a course in the core academic subjects in grades
    7 through 12 who has either a major in the subject area or
    passed a relevant subject-matter exam.

    To make this information more readily actionable,
    states should be asked to create a Teacher Quality Index
    (TQI) combining the collected data. By creating a composite
    index, states can more easily measure progress on
    inequities within and among districts.
    To keep data collection burdens to a minimum, states
    should be allowed to use an index composed only of the
    three measures outlined above--that is, the ones they
    are required to collect and report on under current law. If
    states have data on the percentage of teachers in the top
    quartile of teacher impact on student growth, however,
    they should include those data within the index as well.
    In addition, states that have additional measures of
    teacher quality should be allowed to include any of the
    additional measures below:

  • Percentage of teachers prepared by a high-performing
    teacher preparation program;


  • Percentage of teachers with fewer than ten absences;


  • Percentage of teachers hired before the
    first day of
    school;


  • Percentage of teachers with a passing score
    significantly above the minimum on the state's
    professional licensure exam for basic skills; and


  • Percentage of teachers in the top quartile of teacher
    impact on student growth.


  • For these indicators, we define a high-performing
    teacher preparation program as one in which at least 75
    percent of graduates in their first or second year of teaching
    have demonstrated impact on student achievement
    that is significantly higher than the average of first or
    second-year teachers. The U.S. Department of Education
    would provide guidance on how to define what counts as
    a passing score that is significantly above the minimum
    passing score on the state's basic skills professional licensure
    exam, as well as how to define what counts as the top
    quartile of teacher impact on student growth.

    In the index, states must weight each indicator equally.
    States must also annually report data for each element
    in the index for each school and district within the state.
    And in order to monitor progress, the selected indicators
    within each state's index should remain consistent until
    the state's new evaluation system has been in place for at
    least two full years.

    2. IMPLEMENT NEW EVALUATION SYSTEMS

    There is widespread need for better information on teacher
    performance. School leaders need good information to
    make important decisions about staffing, compensation,
    and tenure. Teachers need good information so that they
    can improve their practice. And parents need good information
    about teacher performance to inform their decisions
    about their child's education. Our recommendations
    aim to address these needs by requiring states to develop
    new teacher evaluation systems that identify effective
    teachers based on student achievement and other rigorous
    measures of practice.

    Part A: Principles for Creating Evaluation Systems

    To ensure that fair and accurate information about teacher
    performance is available, Congress should require that
    states do the following as a condition of receipt of their
    Title II funds:

  • Develop a statewide method for measuring teacher
    impact on student growth in tested subjects and
    grades as well as create guidelines for districtwide
    measures of student growth for teachers in nontested
    subjects and grades. Growth in non-tested
    subjects and grades could be measured in a variety
    of ways, including externally graded assessments or
    external reviews of student work.


  • Develop statewide minimum parameters for the
    evaluations that districts will use to inform critical
    human resources decisions, including those about
    tenure, compensation, professional development,
    equitable access to effective teachers, and dismissal.
    Districts should adhere to these statewide parameters
    in designing their local evaluation systems
    but should also have the flexibility to go above and
    beyond these practices. At a minimum, evaluation
    systems should:


  • Include measures of teacher impact on student
    growth as a substantial--but not the only--
    factor in a teacher's evaluation. Another significant part of a teacher's evaluation must be
    based upon rigorous observations of practice,
    with multiple observations per year, some
    announced and some unannounced.


  •   Differentiate teachers into at least four groups
    of performance. These categories must be
    defined by the evaluation system and do not
    have to contain equal proportions of teachers.


  • Ensure that teachers and administrators receive data
    on impact on student growth in a timely fashion.


  • Report out at the district and school level the percentages
    of teachers in each rating category each year.


  • Ensure that measurements accurately differentiate
    among teachers, by monitoring--and assuring--
    alignment among the different measures, including
    teacher impact on student growth, assessments of
    classroom practice, and overall teacher evaluation
    ratings. Also to ensure the validity of all measures,
    states should publish a report each year showing
    the average estimate of teacher impact on student
    growth for each of the performance categories.

    The
    Department of Education would provide regulations
    on procedures for states to use in documenting the
    validity of the measures; this should require that the
    numerical order of value-added averages corresponds
    with the levels of effectiveness and that there are
    meaningful differences among evaluation categories.


  • Part B: Timeframe for Creating Evaluation Systems

    The need to get good information on individual teacher
    impact on student growth quickly is balanced by the need
    to do this right. Many states and districts are making good
    progress in this area, but a lot of work remains, from
    developing accurate teacher-student data links to creating
    instruments that assess teacher practice through observations.
    Moreover, it is critical that state and local efforts to
    reform teacher evaluation are aligned with new college
    and career-ready standards and assessments.

    Below is a timeline that pushes this work forward
    while acknowledging how much there is yet to be done.
    The timeline centers around states that commit to setting
    college and career-ready standards and the assessments
    necessary to implement these standards. This timeline
    has been designed for use by states that are at the very
    early stages of developing the necessary elements of a new
    evaluation system. States that are already working on one
    or more of these elements should be able to move at a
    faster pace than the one outlined below. States must meet
    the deadlines detailed in the timeline as a condition of
    Title II funding.

    The timeline below assumes that states will need to
    make progress on deliverables while awaiting further guidance
    from the Department in some areas. The Department
    of Education will need a year to develop the necessary
    regulations, and we assume that the regulations from the
    Department will take effect in the 2013-14 school year.

    TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS TIMELINE: 2012-- 2017

    Phase Deliverables for States Implementing New Assessment Tools in 2014-15 or Earlier
    Year 1: 2012-13 Evaluation System


  • Develop statewide evaluation guidelines that include the minimum requirements for all districts.


  • Measures of Classroom Practice

  • Create statewide definition of "effective teaching" and adopt explicit professional teaching standards
    against which teachers' practice will be assessed.


  • Develop a model evaluation observation instrument aligned with teaching standards that districts
    could choose to adopt.


  • Identify districts to pilot the measures of classroom practice.3


  • Measure of Impact on Student Growth

  • Ensure an accurate data link between teachers and their students.


  • Develop statewide method for measuring teacher impact on student growth in tested subjects and
    grades, which will eventually be a required part of the statewide evaluation. Develop statewide
    guidelines for non-tested areas.


  • Year 2: 2013-14 Evaluation System

  • Begin training staff in the new evaluation system. Begin public communications efforts.


  • If developing their own evaluation systems, districts submit the components of the systems to states
    for approval and for verification of alignment with state guidelines.


  • Measures of Classroom Practice

  • Districts either adopt the state observation instrument for measuring classroom practice or develop
    an observation instrument and any other instruments in accordance with state guidelines.


  • Selected districts pilot measures of classroom practice to identify and work through implementation
    challenges in anticipation of full rollout.


  • Measure of Impact on Student Growth

  • Test and implement verification procedures for the teacher-student data link statewide.


  • Finalize the statewide method for measuring teacher impact on student growth in tested subjects
    and grade levels.


  • Year 3: 2014-15 Evaluation System

  • Continue training staff in the new evaluation system. Continue public communications efforts.

    Measures of Classroom Practice

  • All districts implement instrument (or instruments) to measure classroom practice.


  • Measure of Impact on Student Growth

  • Conduct "backroom" testing of the statewide measure of impact on student growth for tested
    grades and subject areas.


  • Year 4: 2015-16 Evaluation System

  • All districts using approved measure of classroom practice.


  • Teachers and principals receive information on impact on student growth in order to familiarize them
    with the data.


  • Measure of Impact on Student Growth

  • Using the statewide measure of teacher impact on student growth, states generate data on student
    growth using results from the new college and career-ready assessment.

  • States continuing with current assessments implement the evaluation system with all schools and
    districts in the state using the statewide measure of teacher impact.


  • Year 5: 2016-17 Evaluation System

  • Full implementation of evaluation system.


  • Teacher evaluation ratings based on measures of classroom practice and measure of impact on
    student growth in both tested and non-tested subjects.


  • Districts use evaluation information to inform personnel decisions.


  • 3. HOLD STATES AND DISTRICTS ACCOUNTABLE
    FOR ENSURING THAT ALL STUDENTS HAVE
    ACCESS TO STRONG TEACHERS


    Congress must hold states and districts accountable for
    ensuring the even distribution of strong teachers so that
    students of color and low-income students have access to
    successful educators. We propose a series of incentives and
    sanctions that will help states identify inequities and take
    the actions necessary to correct them.

  • Using the TQI, states must monitor and publicly
    report within district and between district inequities
    by patterns of access. Specifically, states must
    examine distribution within each district by race
    and poverty and among districts by race and poverty.

    States should look at elementary and secondary
    schools separately, as well as examine the gap in average
    values between schools in the highest and lowest
    quartiles by concentrations of poverty and race.


  • Once a state has a new evaluation system in place,
    it must use the results to identify inequities within
    districts and among districts by looking at patterns
    of access within each district by race and poverty and
    among districts by race and poverty. States should
    also continue to monitor and publicly report inequities
    within districts and among districts by patterns
    of access using the TQI for two years following the
    implementation of the evaluation system.


  • If a school's achievement on standardized tests is
    above the statewide average for students overall as
    well as for each of its student subgroups --even if
    there are issues of inequitable teacher distribution--
    then the district does not have to address any teacher
    inequity problems that may exist at that school.


  • If a district has not significantly narrowed gaps in
    teacher quality between schools within two years
    from the date of enactment using the TQI, the district
    shall use Title II funds for the sole purpose of eliminating
    those inequities.


  • If a district has not significantly narrowed gaps in
    teacher quality between schools within four years,
    then the district shall receive only 50 percent of the
    Title II funds received in the prior year and shall be
    required to provide an equal match of state or local
    funds.


  • If a district has not significantly narrowed gaps in
    teacher quality between schools within five years,
    then the district shall not receive any Title II funds.
  • — Center for American Progress & Education Trust
    Report

    2011-02-21

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/esea_teacher_policy.html

    na


    MORE OUTRAGES


    FAIR USE NOTICE
    This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.