I was invited by National Journal.com, Education Experts blog to share my reaction to the final report of the MET study. Here's what editor Fawn Johnson asked: What is most surprising about the Gates’
findings? What are the easiest ways teacher evaluations can be tweaked to more
accurately reflect effectiveness? How important are student perception surveys?
What lies ahead for videotaping teachers’ lessons? Do we need to learn anything
more about measuring student achievement? Is the task laid out by Gates too
daunting for schools to handle?

I deliberately avoided looking at any of the social media
spin on the final report of
the Gates Foundation funded Measurements of Effective Teaching (MET) study
until after I had done my own reading. I
took the same approach to the release
of the first report back in December 2010.

Then, as now, there are several things about this study that
I admire. Like Fawn Johnson (National
Journal.com Education Experts editor), I am impressed with the seriousness
and sincerity of the researchers in tackling the complex issue of teacher
evaluation, especially since there are too many people who want to oversimplify
it. I’m also glad to know the data from
this study (unlike some of the earlier studies involving value-added measures)
is being made available to the wider research community for independent
investigation of results.

Most delightful of all is the MET researchers’ recognition
of the importance of student voice in determining the quality of teachers’
work. If we are at all serious about preparing our youth to be critical
thinkers and contributing citizens, we must start by listening to what only
they can tell us about what is and is not working in our classrooms and schools.

Also, unlike some critics of the study, I reject the
complaints about the MET’s inclusion of classroom observations by multiple evaluators
as an important way to measure teacher effectiveness.  The research team recommended that those observations
should not be over or under represented in the blend of measures used in a
teacher evaluation system. Here I’m
using my parent lens (my husband and I have raised 11 children and shepherded
them all through public school).  There
is essential information about a teacher’s effectiveness that no test data can
reveal: How does that teacher treat my child? I have known teachers who could
boast impressive student test numbers, but disrespected and demeaned their
students in the process.

The purpose of teacher evaluation is to answer two questions
(not one): How good a job is this teacher doing, AND how can this teacher do
better? Candid, objective feedback from outside evaluators and thoughtful
reflection by teachers on our work is essential for continuing professional
growth.

Teachers submitting video of ourselves teaching for evaluation
purposes is not new.  Part of National
Board Certification, a voluntary process for advanced teaching credential,
requires teachers to not only include video examples, but extensive written
analysis by the teacher candidate of his/her work using the video as evidence.

As a National Board Certified Teacher myself, and now as a
member of the Board of Directors of the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards, I am gratified that the study
confirms what the National Board has known and proven for 25 years: There are
significant differences in the quality of instruction provided by teachers, and
those differences have critical impact on student achievement and on student
learning.  

It was not the purpose of the MET study to distinguish
between student achievement and
student learning, but their
interchangeable use of those terms in the report further confuses the concepts
in the public conversation. In 2011, a task force commissioned by NBPTS (which
included Robert Linn, Rick Hess, Lloyd Bond, and Lee Shulman) released a report
that supplied much-needed clarification:

Student achievement is the
status of subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in
time.

Student learning is growth
in subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skills over time…It is student
learning—not student achievement—that is most relevant to defining and
assessing accomplished teaching.

Standardized tests are the instruments we use (for now) to
measure student achievement, but there is much, much more that we need to know
about measuring student achievement and student learning. As my higher
education colleagues and many employers will testify, students meeting an
arbitrary state cut score may (or may not) indicate factual recall of certain
immediate learning objectives, but the method falls grievously short as a
measure of what students actually know and can do after the test. How this
scenario will change if, when, and after the “next-generation” assessments
promised under the Common Core Standards are implemented remains to be seen. But
if all we want from teacher evaluation is a way to identify which teachers are
the best bets for raising student test scores, we would be setting a
disgustingly low bar indeed.

Implementing teacher evaluation systems with a balance of
multiple measures as recommended by the MET study will present significant hurdles
to states and school districts, cost being only one of them. However, there are
already some promising starts. Consider what these teachers from
Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington have to say about the challenges of
implementing such a teacher evaluation system. Notably, these teachers have
also decided
not to give the state-required tests to their students this Spring.

Surprise! Effective teacher evaluation not only distinguishes
teachers; it empowers them.

Cross-posted at education.nationaljournal.com

Hey John,

First, let me say how shocked (SHOCKED) I was to see that Ron Thorpe actually reads our blog. I’ve known him since he moderated a panel Ariel Sacks, Barnett Berry, Jon Snyder [President of Bank Street], and me. As we ran into each other at different events, most recently at the MetLife Foundation 35th Anniversary gathering, I realized how awesome it is to have access to some of the most active and influential minds in education … meeting with some of the most active and influential minds in the classroom. Yes, he’s worked in the field of progressive education for decades, and he carries those listening skills wherever he goes. But it seems that we don’t just hope to gain some wisdom from him, but also have a conversation in the truest sense of the word.

Back when we set a course to deliver a message for education, about education, and by educators, we had a hopeful and realistic vision of what we believed 2030 could look like if the right minds got into the huddle with us. The difference between our study and so many others is that we didn’t come from a strictly policy point-of-view, but one of a practitioner with our hands firmly in the work of building better schools one classroom at a time. We didn’t want to simply wait after dinner was served and then join for the dessert menu when all the rich conversations were gone; we had our own dinner table this time with allies in the form of CTQ guiding us in the charge.

As we continue to push this message of teacher as expert, we’re speaking truth to power in a major way. Our voices over the last few years have reached teachers, parents, college presidents, leaders of non-profits, and leading ed-researchers. The work being done in these small enclaves is multi-faceted and important all the time. Why settle for just one dimension of education we’d like to tackle when we have so much talent? While some of our interests lie in policy, others have gravitated towards pedagogy. Wherever we land, we must swim in it with both feet.

With people listening in on voices like yours, it’s become clear that we’ve made a dent. While there’s been a large discussion around certain entities capitalizing on the definition of “ed-reform,” there is a growing movement in the minds and hearts of people doing the real work to ensure that the people working closely with children have a huge say in what happens, and not as a token response either.

Even a simple comment on a blog can make that abundantly clear.

"Instead of a teacher-centered, textbook based Biology classroom, I shifted mine to a collaborative learning network. Instead of lectures, my students researched each unit. Sometimes individually. Sometimes in groups. Often they were responsible for teaching their peers. For in-class assignments, they often had to apply their knowledge to solve problems. Additionally, we created our own on-line textbook. How did it turn out? I’ll let you be the judge"

via plpnetwork.com

Take the time to read and think REALLY hard about the ideas being put forward over at Powerful Learning Practice Network by real teachers on the true cutting edge of education reform.

Then share it.

I'm thrilled to share with you this thoughtful post from my TLN colleague Ernie Rambo, who picks up on a frequently addressed theme around TLN of hybrid roles for teachers, especially teacher leaders, and how educators could be held accountable for their work in such roles. Please share your questions and responses.

Our school district looks really good on paper. School-improvement plans list interventions such as "school-wide collaboration" and "differentiated learning." In our district, teachers receive professional development from Project Facilitators on "Response to Intervention" (recently amended to "Response to Instruction"). Training for "Depth of Knowledge" complements the application of Bloom's Taxonomy in our lesson plans. They appear to be ahead of the game when it comes to providing professional development for the fifth largest school district in the nation.

Every school has teachers who are capable to lead, but don't want to leave their practice behind.

In truth, our school district is only ahead of the game at first glance. The district's Project Facilitators are prior classroom teachers beginning to move up in the ranks of school district personnel. The district requires them to teach specific strategies for implementation in the classroom. Unfortunately, the project facilitators are no longer in the classroom. Many classroom teachers are just as qualified as Project Facilitators to share recent research and school district policies with their colleagues.

Every school has teachers who might not realize that they can lead without having to leave their students behind.

What if? What if each school had the opportunity to release one or two teachers part time each year to be the education research experts at their school? Based on the needs of students identified by teacher analysis of student data, a teacher could spend half of his or her contracted day researching strategies that apply to those needs. After researching, the education research expert could lead discussions with the rest of the faculty, to seek out the best solutions for their students. The education research teacher might support the action research projects at their school, helping to organize data and finding relevant literature that applies to the action research.

The example described above could be termed as a hybrid teacher – one who spends part of the day in a traditional teaching assignment while performing as a teacher leader during the rest of the day. In a recent publication by Alesha Daughtrey at the Center for Teaching Quality and their Teacher Solutions Teacher Working Conditions Team (of which I am a contributing member), hybrid teaching is discussed as one way in which teachers lead, and share in the accountability of a school's performance. We suggest that putting a priority on encouraging teacher leadership can lead to improving student learning. Teacher leaders are immersed in the unique culture of the school and can improve their practice and student achievement simultaneously at their schools.

My Center for Teaching Quality blogging colleague, Kristoffer Kohl, describes his experience as a hybrid teacher, using his expertise with data analysis as his school's data strategist, in this Teacher Magazine article. When his colleagues noted how Kris used student data to steer instruction in his own classroom, they suggested that Kris might be able to analyze all of the school's data – a task that most teachers do not have the time to do as often and with the level of scrutiny that it needs. Kris took on the role of analyzing data for half the school day while teaching writing skills and providing skills interventions during the other half of the day. Kris and his colleagues showed accountability for their students' academic success by recognizing Kris' specialized skills and suggesting that he teach in a non-traditional way.

Creating hybrid teaching opportunities at a school cannot be done in factory fashion. Each position is dependent upon the student's needs as well as each teacher's expertise. Current school schedules do not always lend themselves to teachers with half the student load of other teachers – another example of why cookie-cutter or assembly line designs for teaching assignments do not work with the needs of today's schools. Yet if we see more opportunities for teachers to lead within their schools, such as in the TAP schools, located across the county, or as in other nations, as Professor Darling-Hammond describes in this Washington Post article, the accountability for student achievement might be reasonable instead of an overwhelming burden. We would not just look good on paper, we'd be accountably good.

==============================================================

Susan “Ernie” Rambo is a 23-year classroom veteran who currently teaches at Walter Johnson Junior High in the Clark County School District of Las Vegas, Nev. A National Board certified teacher, Rambo is a member of the Teacher Leaders Network and co-author of the 2010 report from the Center for Teaching Quality, “Transforming School Conditions: Building Bridges to the Education System That Students and Teachers Deserve."

Watch this great animated summary of our new book, Teaching 2030, on how to get us from here to the teaching profession our children deserve.