Like tougher laws to convict the guilty, education has witnessed a recent push to weed out the bad teachers. In my home state of Indiana, the new RISE evaluation model began in districts that did not have a long term contract. Tenure and seniority no longer protect the "Lifers". But, at what cost?
This year,our corporation will see the "retirement" of about 30 teachers. In years past, the average has been five to ten. Further, we expect to see higher than average resignations (to go along with some of our better principals or school administrators who already have resigned) There is no way to account for the number of decent potential teachers who switched majors or career choices before graduation. In contrast, we know of not one teacher was found ineffective and dismissed.
While the Blackstone Ratio suggests better ten guilty remain free than one innocent man convicted (10:1), the new RISE evaluation has cost our school district at least 30 decent teachers while not removing a single ineffective one (1:30).
For our school district, the cost will be even higher than just the loss of experienced teachers who will leave the profession a few years before they were ready, taking with them years of invaluable experience. Left behind are teachers now afraid to ask critical questions of leadership, resulting in an administrative hegemony. The new RISE evaluation system, which is easily manipulated to be subjective to administration's whims, has muffled any protest to administration policy, no matter how detrimental to learning.
What's more, basing evaluations on high stakes testing has pitted teacher against teacher. Consider this quote from Mark Naison, professor at Fordham University:
The result (of high stakes testing and teacher's evaluation based on them) is teachers have become a kind of Education Stasi, ready to report their colleagues to the authorities if the do anything to jeopardize their status.
So much for collegiality, so much for cooperation, so much for collective effort. The result (of testing and evaluations) is a climate of fear and mutual suspicion that will make a mockery of the kind of values that best promote learning and a democratic citizenship.Remember, instead of a 10:1 or 100:1 ratio of protecting good teachers from the bad, this year's ratio was inverted to about 1:30. Is Mark Naison correct then that this is a mockery of learning and democratic citizenship?
Consider these words from Pol Pot, brutal dictator of Cambodia whose regime was responsible for murdering millions:
"Better to arrest 10 innocent people by mistake than free a single guilty party."
Think of the incredible power, the resources, the money, the state has at its disposal. Then consider these words of Peter Keane, who worked as a Public Defender in the justice system:
Take away (public defense) and all our other democratic rights, which are so carefully woven into the constitutional design of our republic, become meaningless. Without resistance from those who represent people being prosecuted, all freedom is ultimately lost, because it is the natural human tendency of those who wield power to abuse those without it.
And so it goes with public education today.
Nothing to see here...keep on walking ;)
ReplyDeletePol Pot was right!!!
ReplyDeleteWhere is it written that the only way to determine if someone has learned anything is by a standardized test? Furthermore who determined that someone other than the learner is responsible for the learning that takes place. It is clear that as long as the critics can hang on to the useless test scores as the way to define learning and effective teaching the struggle for our public schools is over.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to understand how intelligent people can simply ignore the fact that only attendance is compulsory. Learning is voluntary and a score on a test is not an acceptable of either learning or effective teaching.
Phillip Harris
I agree with you Phillip and couldn't say it better myself. I get frustrated when all we emphasize to our students is if they can pass the test. Our emphasis should be on how to learn and then apply it to the different content areas. Once we give students the power to learn and problem solve their are no limits to their potential. This tells me whether I've done my job not some RISE tool or standardized test.
DeleteAfter reading most of your blog, I am of the belief that your administration knows the power it wields with the RISE model, and it is not afraid to use it to quiet the teachers much like a dictator is not afraid to use his army to quiet his captive citizenry.
ReplyDeleteYour administration would not work out a contract with you because THEY wanted to subject you to the RISE immediately. If they cannot or will not admit they know the RISE's sole purpose, in conjunction with the right to work law, is to subvert the power of teachers, they are either deceptive or ignorant. Either choice makes for poor, poor leadership.
"...we expect to see higher than average resignations (to go along with some of our better principals or school administrators who already have resigned)."
ReplyDeleteSadly, this quote is going to apply to me. After 20+ years in my beloved profession, I've had enough. I love the children, their families, my colleagues and my district but I can no longer in good faith support this broken system. It just breaks my heart.
Going anonymous here because I have yet to write my letter of resignation. Only my husband and a few very close friends know what is on my heart.
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteWe're sorry to see you go. We'd love for you to write a piece about the troubles in our corporation. Email us.
HM
What scares me more than anything else about teacher evaluation is the fact that the public has bought into Value-Added Methods of teacher evaluation as a scientific, valid assessment of teacher quality. This mostly happened because the politicians lied to the public about the validity of these new teacher evaluation processes. This is because they now realize the power that VAM holds - to fire at will with only 2 or 3 years of data. The inventors of VAM, and other unbiased critics, plainly state that using VAM for high stakes is a mistake. However, SAS and Mathematica are reaping hundreds of millions of dollars off VAM. So both the politicians and makers of VAM are just as happy as can be, while teachers are simply getting screwed. And this "multiple sources of ratings" for teachers is a pile too. Administrators will simply transform their opinions about classroom performance based on what the coveted quantitative data is telling them. VAM is god now, and we are about to see a good number of good teachers let go or leave as a result of inaccurate ratings.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to look at performing a meta-analysis involving colleges of education and find out how many kids are switching majors and how much their applications for schools of education have decreased. I think within the next 3 to 5 years, especially if the economy picks up, we will see the largest teacher shortage in the history of this nation. That will naturally allow virtual public schools to move in and take over so people can make $$$$!
ReplyDeleteNot on the RISE model yet but since the"right to work for less" law has been passed and our bargaining rights stripped, it seems the staff with the most experience has been targeted with unfair and biased evaluations. School corporations will profit no doubt from our dismissal.
ReplyDelete