Did a focus on teacher evaluations work?

As I approach my retirement date of August 31, my last few blogs will focus on my thoughts about education initiatives at the state and national levels over the past six years. I caution readers that these blogs will reflect my thoughts and not those of the Kentucky Board of Education or the Kentucky Department of Education. My hope is that these last few blogs will encourage others to reflect and prepare for the future of education in Kentucky and across the nation.

As part of the Race to the Top (RTTT) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan promoted improvements in teacher and leader (principals) evaluation programs across the nation. With a little more than one year left in President Obama’s and Secretary Duncan’s terms, there will be a lot of debate as to whether the emphasis on teacher and leader evaluation programs has paid any dividends in improving educator effectiveness and/or improving student learning.

As I reflect on the last six plus years, there were several different approaches that states took to improve teacher and leader evaluation programs. There were states that took a fast track. Overnight, it seemed that several states had a plan for new teacher and leader evaluation programs. Some states, like Kentucky, took a slower approach and asked for delays from the United States Department of Education (USED) until the state had time to review research and make the transition to new standards and assessments.

States took different approaches as to components of teacher and leader evaluation systems. A number of states were quick to develop a weighted model for teacher evaluation. Many states interpreted the federal requirements as requiring student achievement to be weighted at least 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation rating. Other states, including Kentucky, took a matrix approach that did not use weights but relied on principals and teachers to review the evidence from student learning and then using a matrix developed by the state come to agreement on the teacher’s rating for student achievement.

States took different approaches as far as the major purpose for new teacher and leader evaluation systems. Some states felt the new evaluation systems would drive a focus on student achievement and failure to improve student achievement would allow the state and school districts to dismiss ineffective teachers. Other states, like Kentucky, focused on teacher professional growth and effectiveness and did not see the new teacher evaluation system as primarily being an instrument for dismissal of ineffective teachers.

The time is fast approaching where every state will be reporting out the results from teacher and leader evaluation systems. USED has required a focus on distribution of effective teachers across school districts to ensure students in low performing schools have equal access to effective teachers as those in high performing schools.

Teacher preparation programs will be completing accreditation processes that require them to report on how well their graduates are doing on state teacher evaluations and with student achievement.

State tests will soon be reported across the nation. The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress results will be released this fall.

There will be TONS of articles and opinions about the impact of Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waivers.

I have a prediction about what we will see from all the data. Those who supported RTTT and NCLB waivers will present data to support the positive impact of these programs. Those who did not support RTTT and NCLB waivers will present data that show these programs did not have a positive impact.

As the results are reported, here are a few things to watch for:

     • Will every state report that they have over 90 percent of their teachers
        rated effective or highly effective? 

     • Will NAEP student achievement results show any improvement? 

     • Will state student learning results show any improvement? 

     • Are there large gaps between state achievement results and NAEP
        results? 

     • How many state evaluation programs will be challenged in court as the
        impact of these programs start to impact teacher assignments? 

     • As Governor’s change and chief state school officers change, will the
        evaluation systems fall away and be replaced by more local control? 

     • Will teacher preparation programs utilize accreditation results to
        improve their programs? 

     • What role will the teacher evaluation debate play in local, state and
        national elections? 

I caution educators as they prepare for the bombardment of information this fall. In 43 years of education, I have learned that there will always be someone who thinks they have the latest and greatest answer to the perplexing problem of closing achievement gaps and improving student learning. However, my warning to those who will lead education for the next generation is that there is no silver bullet.

Education issues are very complex. Poverty, unequal opportunities, leadership, inadequate preparation programs, low morale, low teacher pay, community expectations, lack of parental involvement, and many other issues impact student learning. My advice? Education leaders should never focus on just one of these challenges. Instead, they must recognize that the public education system is multifaceted with many interconnections and they must work to improve the entire system in order to realize real progress. 

Stemming the tide of teacher turnover

Several weeks ago in this blog I told you about the United States Department of Education's (USED)  new requirement for states to develop an educator equity plan to ensure every child has access to a quality education and quality educators.

Last week, it was my honor to represent Kentucky in a webinar sponsored by The Alliance for Excellence in Education and the New Teacher Center. The webinar focused on a recently released report, On the Path to Equity: Improving the Effectiveness of Beginning Teachers. The report examines research on teacher turnover and performance, especially at  high-poverty schools. This reality seriously compromises the nation’s capacity to ensure that all students have access to skilled teaching. The report  makes five recommendations to stem the high rate of teacher turnover.  I suggest schools and districts review this report and perhaps view the video of the webcast available here.  Certainly improving the effectiveness of beginning teachers is an issue for us all. 

Equitable distribution of teachers will be a significant issue in the upcoming  school year due to a recent court case in California and the new USED requirement. This is an issue that we must address in a thoughtful and responsible manner for all concerned.   

Report Card on Teacher Prep Programs

This week, the National Council for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released the first ever national report on the quality of teacher preparation programs.  NCTQ’s Teacher Prep Review provides data on the 1,130 institutions that prepare 99 percent of the nation’s traditionally trained new teachers. That data was used to determine overall ratings of the programs based on a set of key standards.

Among the key findings of the report:

--Less than 10 percent of rated programs earn three stars or more. Only four programs, all secondary, earn four stars: Lipscomb and Vanderbilt, both in Tennessee; Ohio State University; and Furman University in South Carolina. Only one institution, Ohio State, earns more than three stars for both an elementary (3½ stars) and a secondary (4 stars) program. 

--It is far too easy to get into a teacher preparation program. Just over a quarter of programs restrict admissions to students in the top half of their class, compared with the highest-performing countries, which limit entry to the top third.

--Fewer than one in nine elementary programs and just over one-third of high school programs are preparing candidates in content at the level necessary to teach the new Common Core State Standards now being implemented in classrooms in 45 states and the

District of Columbia.

-- The “reading wars” are far from over. Three out of four elementary teacher preparation programs still are not teaching the methods of reading instruction that could substantially lower the number of children who never become proficient readers, from 30 percent to less than 10 percent. Instead, the teacher candidate is all too often told to develop his or her “own unique approach” to teaching reading.

--Just 7 percent of programs ensure that their student teachers will have uniformly strong experiences, such as only allowing them to be placed in classrooms taught by teachers who are themselves effective, not just willing volunteers.

Among the key findings for Kentucky:

High rated programs – Programs at Eastern Kentucky University (undergraduate secondary), the University of Kentucky (undergraduate and graduate secondary), and University of Louisville (undergraduate secondary) are on the Teacher Prep Review's Honor Roll, earning at least three out of four possible stars. Across the country, NCTQ identified 20 elementary programs (3 percent of those rated) and 84 secondary programs (14 percent) for the Honor Roll.

Selectivity in admissions -- The Review found that only 14 percent of elementary and secondary programs in Kentucky restrict admissions to the top half of the college-going population, compared to 28 percent nationwide. Countries where students consistently outperform the U.S. typically set an even higher bar, with teacher prep programs recruiting candidates from the top third of the college-going population. Some worry that increasing admissions requirements will have a negative effect on the diversity of teacher candidates. By increasing the rigor and therefore the prestige of teacher preparation, the profession will attract more talent, including talented minorities. This is not an impossible dream: 83 programs across the country earn a Strong Design designation on this standard because they are both selective and diverse, although no such programs were found in Kentucky.

Early reading instruction -- Just 29 percent of evaluated elementary programs in Kentucky are preparing teacher candidates in effective, scientifically based reading instruction, the same small percentage of programs providing such training nationally.

Elementary math -- A mere 19 percent of evaluated elementary programs nationwide provide strong preparation to teach elementary mathematics, training that mirrors the practices of higher performing nations such as Singapore and South Korea. A notably higher percentage -- 36 percent -- of evaluated programs in Kentucky provide such training, although most programs in the state come up short.

Student teaching -- Of the evaluated elementary and secondary programs in Kentucky, 32 percent entirely fail to ensure a high quality student teaching experience, in which candidates are assigned only to highly skilled teachers and receive frequent concrete feedback. This is a much lower failure rate than the 71 percent found nationally. No Kentucky programs earn a perfect four stars, compared to 7 percent of evaluated programs across the country.

Classroom management -- Only 10 percent of the evaluated Kentucky elementary and secondary programs earn a perfect four stars for providing feedback to teacher candidates on concrete classroom management strategies to improve classroom behavior, compared to 23 percent of evaluated programs nationwide.

Content preparation -- 13 percent of Kentucky's elementary programs earn three or four stars for providing teacher candidates adequate content preparation, 11 percent of elementary programs do so nationwide. Digging deeper, more elementary programs (9 percent) earn a perfect four stars than their national counterparts (3 percent), and only 17 percent entirely fail this standard, compared to 44 percent nationally. At the high school level, only 27 percent of Kentucky secondary programs earn four stars for content preparation, compared to 35 percent nationwide. But unlike 20 percent of programs across the country, no Kentucky secondary programs entirely fail the high school content standard.

Outcome data -- None of Kentucky's evaluated programs earn four stars for collecting data on their graduates, compared to 26 percent of evaluated programs in the national sample, although most programs do earn partial credit. In the absence of state efforts to connect student achievement data to teacher preparation programs, administer surveys of graduates and employers or require administration of teacher performance assessments (TPAs), programs that fare poorly on this standard have not taken the initiative to collect any such data on their own.

Having a highly effective teacher for every student in Kentucky is a goal of the Kentucky Board of Education. It is extremely important that our teacher preparation programs, Education Professional Standards Board, school districts, Council on Postsecondary Education, and the Kentucky Department of Education work closely to build on our strengths in Kentucky teacher preparation and improve in areas highlighted in this report.

Over the summer, I will highlight specific issues from this report, the Commission on Accreditation of Educator Preparation standards report, the Council of Chief State School Officers focus on teacher preparation and the results from our 2013 TELL Kentucky survey. All of these are interrelated and provide excellent data as we continue our work toward college- and career-readiness for all students in Kentucky.