Contact
The educator’s case for real reform
Ellen Bernstein
If we value certain important outcomes for our students, such as the ability to understand essential concepts, work in groups, think critically and solve problems, then we should measure those abilities – both in student learning and in teaching.
Educators from across the state are protesting the way in which Governor Martinez is trying to unilaterally force her plan for teacher evaluation on us. Why? Because we know an education system that focuses on competition and standardized testing, rather than cooperation and learning, is bad.
Bad for students, bad for educators, and bad for New Mexico.
Under “No Child Left Behind,” the emphasis on high-stakes testing led to a narrow curriculum and school schedules that cut out recess and limited students’ opportunities to engage in fine arts and electives. The idea of a well-rounded education has already gone by the wayside! Attaching individual evaluations to high-stakes tests will only serve to exacerbate this.
Linda Darling-Hammond, an expert educational researcher, in her recent paper entitled, Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching, clearly states:
“At best, teachers’ value-added ratings in one year predict only 25% of the variance in ratings in the next year, leaving 75% or more to be explained by factors such as who is assigned to a teacher’s class and what conditions he or she teaches under.”
Basing 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on something that’s at best 25 percent reliable does not make for a fair and accurate evaluation. To make matters worse, the PED’s method of dealing with grade levels and subjects not currently included in standardized testing is to base those educators’ evaluations on their colleagues’ test score — or to do even more testing of all grades and subjects. Our students do not need to spend time taking more high-stakes tests; they need to spend time engaged in relevant learning experiences!
Both parents and educators know that a one-size-fits-few tool like a standardized test cannot truly measure the knowledge and growth of every student, nor the net impact an individual educator actually has on student growth.
Non-educators driving education reforms
The education secretary-designate and the governor claim they have the right to make these wrong-headed changes to teacher and principal evaluations through rule. Not true. If they had such a right, then why did they introduce legislation in the last session?
They know and we know that creating high-stakes education policy through rule, circumventing the legislative process, is wrong. Ask a legislator!
Non-educators are driving these education “reforms” in New Mexico — many of them recycled from other states. Their goal is to sabotage public education and convert it into a private enterprise. To this end, they continue to demonize the educators that, through their unions, are fighting for real and positive reforms. Don’t be fooled; our unions are not the problem.
Last week, Walt Gardner from Education Week wrote, “If teachers unions are the villain they have been made out to be, then states where teachers are heavily unionized would be expected to post the lowest scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But this is not the case. Students in Massachusetts and Minnesota, for example, earn the highest scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress, even though teacher union membership is also extremely high. In sharp contrast, students in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas have the lowest scores on NAEP, even though few, if any, teachers belong to unions.”
A better way
In fact, our union has a better way to reform teacher evaluation. Our reform policies are based on a research-driven approach to evaluation that will create a fair, reliable system and will change public education for the better.
Our ideas are focused on measuring what we value, not the other way around. All too often in education, we value what is easy to measure, but overlook elements that are necessary for effective practice. If we value certain important outcomes for our students, such as the ability to understand essential concepts, work in groups, think critically, and solve problems, then we should measure those abilities.
If we value those attributes in student learning, then we are obligated to value the same qualities in teaching. Sadly, the Public Education Department’s proposed rule (6.69.8 NMAC) includes an over-reliance on standardized measures that undervalues — to the point of ignoring — the exact outcomes we need for our students and that we must value in our teachers.
Bernstein is president of the Albuquerque Teachers Federation.
5 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One of the classic responsibilities of unions and guilds was to establish standards of competence and hold their members accountable to them, in order that the trade be respected and trusted.
Teachers have had forever to come up with an evaluation system of their own and really have nothing to show for it. They have no one to blame but themselves when the community fills the vacuum with standards and accountability of their own design. It was bound to happen; the unions spend years fighting for more money and never provided more accountability.
I recall that in my high school, we had an elective titled “Problems of Democracy.” Any program like that still in existence? Seems like it should be mandatory.
@justUNMStudent
I happen to think (and I am a former teacher) that most teacher evaluation methods fall short of getting to the larger problem with educating students, that have nothing to do with what teachers do in classrooms. (For instance if I could have chosen my students by the ones who had one or both parents come to open house, I would have been the greatest teacher ever.) Of course we tend to not talk about them.
I assume you mean a country besides Finland, which to my knowledge does not have any North Sea Oil production.
@Stever,
Spending money was not part of the union backed teacher evaluation bill. SLO’s or Student Learning Objectives were part of the plan. Basically, a group of teachers would look at Johnny’s progress from the year before and devise a plan and set goals for him to reach, obtainable goals. The bill also called for a more through observation process by Principles, and changed the evaluation criteria from the basic Meet/Does not Meet to a 6 level criteria to give principles more options when evaluating their staff. Sadly, their bill did not have test scores as part of the legislation and was killed.
The union backed bill would have cost less money than the proposed rule that is going into effect this year. We have to buy more testing supplies, and Pearson Education does not give those away cheap. We have to pay Pearson to grade the tests. The rule calls for test monitors who will be hired by PED, guess what, more money. We have to create a test for all non-tested subjects (history, science, arts, and even PE). That costs money, Pearson is not going to create those tests for free.
And money does make a difference, Finland the country that everyone loves to site as the best in the world has a constitutional amendment that 100% of all North Sea oil and gas proceeds have to be used for education. Finland’s teachers are paid more on average than Lawyers and some Doctors. It is one of the most honorable professions in Finland and they get the cream of the crop because of that.
Well to be fair, the level of teacher unionization in some states vs others, is hardly a definitive predictor (e.g. California). By ignoring the other factors you are indicating that you are unlikely to fully address the problem with whatever unspecified, but apparently superior system,. you have in mind. I suspect that spending more money is at the top of the list, even though its as equally unproven as the methods you are criticizing.