Reference no: EM132221504

Cousins Jeri Lynn DeBose, Tish Hoover, and Josephine (Joey) Parks looked forward to meeting up during the Christmas holidays to compare notes on the results of midyear statewide teacher evaluations.

All were public school teachers in districts scattered over the state. In the pressured search for new levels of teacher accountability demanded by legislators, the state de- partment of education joined 16 other states in implementing a new teacher evaluationsystem. The goal is to hold teachers accountable for student learning progress in the classroom. Under the guidance of the National Council for Teacher Quality, criteria varied by state, but in most cases 50 percent of each teacher’s accountability score would be based on the principal’s evaluation/ranking, with the other half divided be- tween student test score gains (roughly 40 percent) and other data such as ACT or SAT scores (another 10 percent). In preparation, the state, like others, conducted intensive training sessions for principals or other district officials who would conduct the evalu- ations based on four class observations per teacher. Officials use standardized achieve- ment tests to derive value-added scores that measure student learning over the year. Teacher ratings were 1–5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 representing near perfec- tion. The publication of the first evaluations stirred interest and controversy, particu- larly among teachers who worried about the possible long-term effects on job retention and tenure. Now, with the half-year evaluations in hand, the three cousins pored over their ex- periences. The three represented different types of school systems within the state. Jeri Lynn worked for a metropolitan system in the state capital. The system included many low-income and English language learning students, and several schools within the system were teetering on the brink of state takeover if improvement in student scores didn’t materialize this school year. Tish worked in a county system dominated by upper- income residents. Joey taught in the rural community in which all three grew up. The rural community had high unemployment and a low percentage of graduates went on to college. As a result, the cousins came to the table with differing teaching experiences. “The numbers are all over the place,” Jeri Lynn remarked as she went through the pages. “The whole system is flawed and they need to make changes before the end of the year,” Joey said. “It’s too subjective. With the principals conducting the observations and writing up the evaluations, there are personal factors that affect a true outcome.” “Yeah, look at the numbers from your upper income district,” Jeri Lynn said to Tish. “How can 60 percent of the teachers score 5s?” Tish chuckled. “Yeah, lucky us. Our schools are overflowing with children from wealthy families. These are the kids who will apply to Ivy League schools. I can tell you that the principals are going to avoid confrontation on all fronts. No principal is going to give any indication that their students are receiving an education under anyone less than perfect and that means cramming the rankings with 5s. They claim a higher level of motivation for students and thus the selection of an elite team of educators. So with those pressures, I don’t think we get personal feedback that is accurate.” “At the other end of the spectrum, we have my rural district,” Joey said. “We have principals on a power surge. And the big problem is that they know everyone and have long-standing relationships with everyone in the county, so I think they give scores based on personal history. We could almost predict who would get high or low scores before the observations. For the principals, it can go back as far as ‘his daddy and my daddy hated each other in high school and now I get to evaluate his daughter.’” “I think that in many cases principals feel pressure to align scores with state expec- tations. The state expected my district to have high scores and expected rural schools such as yours to be lower,” Tish said. “The key to the accountability system is the principal in each school,” Jeri Lynn suggested. “With several of the schools in Metro teetering on the edge of state takeover by the end of the year, we have lots of strict principals who want to hold our feet to the fire, especially during this first round of scoring. I expect the scores to go up in the second round, whether or not they are accurate, in order to show improvement. “I thought the whole idea was to provide the teachers with feedback so that we would know the areas in which we need improvement,” Tish said. Jeri Lynn laughed. “That was the idea. But it’s sort of like all of those post-session evaluation forms we have to fill out at education workshops. You know and I know most attendees just go down the form and mark 4s and 5s.” “I’ve done that many times,” Tish admitted. “Why?” Joey asked. “Well, for one thing, I don’t want to hurt the feelings of the speakers and for an- other, I don’t want to take the time to write something. I just want to get out and move to the next session.” “The principals were supposed to conduct two observations in the fall and two more in the spring,” Jeri Lynn said. “I think that’s asking too much of them when they already have so much on their plates. I think a lot of them are skimping on their visits. I know I only had one observation last semester and I’m sure Mr. Talley just faked the second set of numbers.” “I’m wondering, too, how principals measure performance in a course area outside their area of expertise, such as math” Joey said. “If the guy has a phobia about math, anything the teacher says or does is going to look brilliant—thus a 5.” Tish and Jeri Lynn looked at each other and laughed. “Maybe we picked the wrong subjects,” Tish said. “My question is one of perception,” Jeri Lynn said. “A large percentage of my stu- dents are ELL. That affects their scores. How do you measure a 3 in my situation against a 5 for Tish? At the end of the school year, little Carlos is thrilled that his read- ing in English has improved, but there’s no Big Bang here. It’s a slow, steady improve- ment that may not actually show up in big strides for a couple of years.” “So the question is how do they create a system that is fair?” Tish asked. “And accurate,” added Jeri Lynn.

Discussion Questions

1. What do you see as the major flaws in the accountability system for the schools? What changes do you recommend to improve the system?

2. Is a 1–5 grading system by principals a valuable part of performance feedback to teachers? Why?

3. How might the state manage the accuracy of principals who are conducting teacher evaluation