What happens when you defend a losing position

MCEA and MSEA have been largely silent with regard to seniority issues.   Failure to address these issues destroys public confidence.   It's a horrific miscalculation to believe this issue- that of seniority- will not result in political losses.   Perhaps those inside of blue Marlyand feel so protected that feel immune for calls for change.   However- look no farther than Ohio or Wisconsin to see the very real consequences of foot dragging.    Here's a scary piece from the Baltimore Sun that shows how seniority issues can be used as a springboard to make broader- often more politically charged attacks- onteacher unions.

Waiting for Superman- logic for the pigeons

As my union says: if super duper left of left leaning Hollywood doesn't nominate "Waiting for Superman" for an Oscar, it must not be very well done.

Good one.

But apparently not only was it a grossly misleading film, it was apparently not a very well done one either...
The Academy Award for Documentary Feature is among the most prestigious awards for documentary films. Here are the nominees:


Documentary (Feature)

"Exit through the Gift Shop"
"Gasland"
"Inside Job"
"Restrepo"
"Waste Land"

Is MCEA any different?

The Montgomery County teacher's union, MCEA, recently reprinted this post by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post.   But as I read it over, I couldn't help but think that my union, MCEA, was no different than the political machine that created the problems Strauss blogs about:

[If we cared about children] we would never tolerate a poverty rate among children of 21 percent.

That’s one in five kids who live in poverty, or nearly 15 million children in the United States who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, currently pegged at $22,050 a year for a family of four.

And that, of course, doesn’t include the kids who live in families of four who make $22,051 a year. Or $22,052. In fact, research shows that families need an income of about twice the poverty level to cover basic costs, so at that rate, 42 percent of American children live at or close enough to the poverty level so that basics aren’t being covered.

Which groups in the U.S. are least likely to be in poverty?   The old.   Those on social security.   It is the same group of people who are politically active.   Those unable to vote?   Most likely to be in poverty.

Now let's talk about the haves and have nots in our union.    A 1st year teacher makes half as much as a teacher who has taught for twenty years.     A 1st year teacher is involuntarily transferred before a more senior teacher.   A 1st year teacher must be fired before a more senior teacher.   If our children are the second class citizens of society, then our new teachers are the second class citizens of the union.

I went to an MCEA Representative Assembly meeting in December.  My first.   The median age in that room must have been 50 years old.   Retired teachers have more of a say in our union than new teachers.  This is not hyperbole.   I could count on one hand the number of teachers under 30 at the meeting.  This despite the fact that 60% of our teachers have less than 10 years of experience.   Of course, this is just democracy in action.

We can say we're a democracy, but that doesn't mean we represent the interests of our constituents.  It is much more likely that we represent the interests of those who are politically active.   And that's why we continue to have arcane seniority rules.   And it's why we'll continue to have reform dictated to us from above.

Pleasant testing, kids.

Attitude reflects leadership

National Board Certified teacher, David Cohen, recently left the following comment on my blog.   David is part of a group of accomplished teachers who write a policy blog out in California.   We have been having a conversation about, well, conversation.    We both agree that teacher evaluation systems around the U.S. need some revamping.   The question that we have been exploring, I suppose, is how we communicate and accomplish that goal.  Here is my response to his original comments:

A part of our disagreement, I believe, is that like many of us, I write a local blog in the context of a more national discussion on reform.   Montgomery County, where I teach, has traditionally been considered a rather progressive union (loaded phrase). Our professional growth system is based on the 5 National Board Standards plus a 6th (professionalism). We have a peer evaluation system in place for novice and tenured teachers who receive an unsatisfactory evaluation. However, what this means in theory and practice are often two different things.  In theory, principals refer teachers to the peer evaluation system when the need arises.  In practice, few tenured teachers are given an opportunity to take advantage of the system.   It is viewed as a punishment- and a way of removing teachers- not helping them develop.  Meanwhile, we still continue to utilize a seniority system that does not effectively encourage or reward professional growth.  I feel the pulls of mediocredom every day.  

Now, I can go into my union and suggest subtle changes to the system but unless we can come to agreement that there is a problematic culture in place we're not going to be able to attack the serious issues that are preventing us from moving forward. I've said this before to you, but when there is more incentive to coach football after school than to develop mastery lessons- there exists a problematic culture. That's not to say that after school activities are not an important part of being a teacher- I used to coach myself- and personal relationship building is a crucial part of teaching- however, when coaching is valued more than a quality lesson- something is amiss. How do we encourage teachers to meet regularly, to observe each other, and to think about taking their teaching to an uncomfortable place? It's funny, but the one thing that the Tennessee study on performance pay concluded- of all things- was that teachers in the study were more likely to collaborate:

The only other significant differences were in collaborative activities, with treatment teachers replying that they collaborated more on virtually every measured dimension. 

They wanted to see what was so "good" about teacher x.... even though they didn't really believe that the tests their students took accurately measured how effective a teacher they were.   Now, we can argue over whether "merit pay" is the way to go, but I think there is a more important point here.   When we value quality teaching, we are more likely to take efforts to become quality.  If we have "master" teachers who are paid more, or who are even just recognized as a master without the extra pay- people will be more inclined to look at that teacher and figure out how to become one. You don't learn how to become a teacher when an interloper comes into your class and tells you how you could do it better. You become a better teacher when you reflect about your practice. I think there is no better way to do that than to watch high quality instruction. Unfortunately, I don't know of many places where instructional leaders are in a classroom, let alone in a classroom with an open door policy.

Now- perhaps this doesn't excuse the way I beat the drum on issues of seniority. I've been accused of attacking veteran teachers.   I've been accused of being pompous.  And I see how some may interpret my ideas in this way.   But when you go to a union and ask for change you best not go with a purple feather duster in your hand (mine at home is purple).

That said- I'm often offended by the way my union defends our current professional growth system as a "model system"  to be destroyed by RTTP reforms. The implication is that there is no way to improve our system- which I passionately resent.    We defend, defend, and defend.   If we reflected half as much as we defended we'd be much better off.   Many of the wonderful teachers in my and other buildings agree that seniority is a problem.   However they are not apt to engage in a fight to change.   Do these teachers have a voice?   Or does it take the Rhees and Kleins and Duncans of the world to make that point for us?

So I suppose I'll put away my drum when I feel like we're headed in the right direction.  I admit that may be to my own detriment.   But I will certainly consider my messaging- because I believe in due process- and I believe in professional growth- and I believe in teachers.  And perhaps my drum is beating on the wrong points.

But let me just say this- and perhaps this is my downfall- most of my postings have been reactionary in nature: and attitude reflects leadership.  The lesson might be that I stop reading about my leaders and do more talking to them.

How we got in this mess

Teachers, their unions, and others all want to know how we got into this educational mess.  Dianne Ravitch spends day and night defending educators from the "reformist" voices of Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan and the like, who argue for the use of  student achievement in teacher evaluations.  The reformists say we need to look at the "value-added" that a teacher brings to the classroom.   My union (along with others), cries foul, and goes here there and everywhere to testify.  They regurgitate claims that value-added modeling used to measure student achievment gains is huey.  And they take up the fight against movies made by directors who know more about global warming than education.  But why?   Why has this turned in to an all out war on education?  How did we get here?   Why are we still here?

Clear the air, and you'll realize this  fight is one that should have been over long ago.    The real fight is over seniority based rules that pay the most tenured teachers more money than the most effective teachers.   The same rules call for new teachers to be fired before the least effective teachers.    They are calls for reform that have fallen on deaf ears for many, many years.  They are calls for reform that were ingored.  But they are rules that could have been, and should have been, addressed by the unions themselves.   Had simple but thoughtful reforms been made or even attempted, the foundation upon which "reformers" built their castle would have fallen into the sea.  But like an old stubborn mule, the unions, led by the eldest teachers that control their ranks and benefit most by the imposition of the rules they defend, refused to change.

The result, is a fight that never had to be.   A fight that has now morphed itslef into an us vs. them fight over the use of testing.  We're fighting over the rediculous standardized test data that was released to the public by a newspaper more concerned with selling a few papers than fixing education.   We're fighting over the relaibility of value-added modeling- a topic about which most teachers and politicians and common folk care to know very little.   We're fighting over the merits of movie directors and chancellors of education.     It's a fight that never should have happened.   But it's a fight on grounds where the unions- and Diane Ravitch-  stand a much better chance of winning.   

Don't be fooled by what you hear and read today.   The real fight is over seniority.

Reactions to new Baltimore City Contract

So I spoke with Liz Bowie over at the Baltimore Sun earlier this week.    She wrote this article about the new Baltimore City contract.    I'm not exactly looking for a job in Baltimore City- as it sounds based on some of my quotes.   I love my job.   And my students.   I'm not going anywhere for the time being.   I'd much rather my own school district rewrite it's evaluation system to include some of the tenents found in the BCSS contract.   There's room to create something better than what we've got in Montgomery County.   Much better.   And I think Baltimore took a step in the right direction.   Kudos to the city and its union.

The value of Value-Added

Here's a study from the Brookings Institution you won't find on the MCEA blog.  Jay Mathews brought it to my attention and he does a good job summarizing the study which focuses on the reliability concerns associated with value-added modeling.   The main idea is that just because a teacher's "percentile rank" might fluctuate year to year- does not mean it is a worthless piece of information.   They compare a teacher's percentile value-added rank to a baseball player's batting average which has similar year to year fluctuations.   Would you make decisions about the current year based on the batting average from last year?   Well, you'd certainly keep it in mind.  From the executive summary:

We believe that whenever human resource actions are based on evaluations of teachers they will benefit from incorporating all the best available information, which includes value-added measures. Not only do teachers typically receive scant feedback on their past performance in raising test scores, the information they usually receive on the average test scores or proficiency of their students can be misleading or demoralizing. High test scores or a high proficiency rate may be more informative of who their students are than how they were taught. Low test scores might mask the incredible progress the teachers made. Teachers and their mentors and principals stand to gain vast new insight if they could see the teachers’ performance placed in context of other teachers with students just like their own, drawn from a much larger population than a single school. This is the promise of value-added analysis. It is not a perfect system of measurement, but it can complement observational measures, parent feedback, and personal reflections on teaching far better than any available alternative. It can be used to help guide resources to where they are needed most, to identify teachers’ strengths and weaknesses, and to put a spotlight on the critical role of teachers in learning.

Pink and Teacher Motivation

I've completed reading Daniel Pink's, Drive, an inside look at what motivates people to perform.  His thesis is essentially that we are all motivated to perform if given the right combination of autonomy and purpose to complete a task.   On the other hand, he argues that extrinsic motivators often accomplish the opposite of their purpose, especially when the task is complex and requires creativity.   Rather than motivate, extrinsic "carrots" can narrow our focus, and turn enjoyable tasks into a job that we are unmotivated to perform.   Pink does a good job- and I believe much of what he says.   Allow teachers automony, provide them with a sense of purpose, and you are more likely to create a master teacher.   Agree or disagree- this book should probably be required reading for anyone considering new evaluation systems and pay scales based on teacher quality.

However, one statement got me thinking about teaching- and the seniority system of pay that currently dominates the field.   A system where the longer you teach, the more money you earn in a single year.  Pink asserts the following:

Of course, the starting point of any discussion of motivation in the workplace is a simple fact of life: People have to earn a living.   Salary, contract payments, some benefits, a few perks are what I call "baseline rewards."  If someone's baseline rewards aren't adequate or equitable, her focus will be on the unfairness of her situation and the anxiety of her circumstance.   You'll get neither the predictability of extrenisic motivation or the weirdness of instrinsic motivation.   You'll get very little motivation at all.

But once we're past that threshold, the carrots and sticks can achieve precisely the opposite of their intended aims.   Mechnaism designed to increase motiviation can dampen it.   Tactics aimed at boosting creativity reduce it.   Programs to promote good deeds can make them disappear.  

My question is whether or not our current system of pay  meets the requirement of  "fairness" Pink asserts is a prerequiste of  what he calls, motivation 2.0.   A system that does not reward increased responsibility by paying more,  but instead punishes it by increasing your workload.   A system that rewards teachers who take jobs as coaches- often at the expense of missing meetings required by those teachers who do not coach.   A system that says if you would like more money- you should leave your job early and find something else to do.   This does not seem like a "fair" system to me- and it leads me to wonder, "what type of teacher would find it fair?"   Is it a teacher who is not interested in leadership or responsibility?   Is it a teacher who has always wanted to coach athletics?   And which type of teachers leave the profession, or never enter the profession, because this is the type of pay structure that exists?

Maryland teacher's unions, and especially my own union, MCEA, are currently fighting tooth and nail to prevent a new evaluation system that would base 50% of that evaluation on student achievement data.   This new evaluation system proposed by the Maryland State Department of Education  is not likely to fix our educational problems.  It is replete with problems just like our current system.

However, if teachers, and the unions that represent them, were more proactive in addressing the failures of pay systems created more than thirty years ago, you wouldn't have politicians and state school boards trying to mandate changes to local school districts.   If we had teacher-leaders brain storming and researching in an effort to create pay scales based on leadership and responsiblity, instead of rewarding those who do just enough to get by, then perhaps we'd all be happy.   Perhaps we'd transform our schools and our profession.  And perhaps my union wouldn't  have to spend time defending our current broken evaluation system, from another, equally broken system proposed by politicians.

The Washington Post on Pinsky

The Washington Post editors are questioning the role of state senator and MCEA staffer, Paul Pinsky, in the latest round of infighting between the Maryland General Assembly and Maryland State Department of Education.   It just so happens I think the General Assembly is right: MSDE has regulated beyond what is allowed by the law.   But the Washington Post is also right.   There should not be MCEA staffers voting on education bills.   I'm not sure MCEA staffers should be serving on the Maryland General Assembly at all.  Granted it's not illegal, but I for one do not want my elected representatives directly employed by lobbies- even if they are lobbying on my behalf.   Rumor has it newly elected Eric Leudtke will soon be an MCEA staffer as well.   I'd call that some political machinery at work.   The best part is, no one else seems to think this might represent a conflict of interest.   Or maybe they just don't know.   From the Washington Post:

We also hope that this latest - and most egregious - example of a lawmaker refusing to recuse himself from an issue where there is a conflict of interest prompts the General Assembly to do something about its lax ethics rules. Essentially the only thing required is disclosure and an assertion that the lawmaker can overcome any conflict. No doubt Mr. Pinsky brings valuable expertise to the discussion, as he argued to us. But that does not obviate the evident conflict when Mr. Pinsky, a union organizer for the Montgomery County Education Association, plays a leading role on an issue that directly affects his employer

My note to MSDE

 Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) recently celebrated a decision by a committee of the Maryland Genearl Assembly (chaired by an employee of MCEA) to block a  Maryland State Board of Education regulation calling for student achievement data to be 50% of teacher evaluations in Maryland.   The Maryland state law called for student achievement data to be a "significant" factor.    I agree with my union that 50% is too much.    I disagree that our current system is the 7th wonder of teacher evaluation systems.  Here's what I sent to state board members.


Dear Board member,



I am teacher in Montgomery County who has spent a considerable amount of time researching evaluation systems.. I take issue with my union on a number of issues, which I detail at improvingmcps.blogspot.com. However, I implore you to consider the following regarding evaluation systems:

1) Any new evaluation system should seek to more readily identify ineffective teachers. 2) Value Added Modeling, though limited, is particularly useful in identifying those teachers who are ineffective, but only when used over a 3 year period. 3) Conclusions reached by student achievement data, due to reliability concerns, should be corroborated by other evidence of teacher quality. 4) An evaluation that relies heavily on flawed student achievement data is just as arbitrary as a system pays teachers based on seniority. 5) New evaluation systems should promote rewards based on teacher quality, teacher responsibilities, and areas of need. In our current system, new teachers often carry the heaviest load(no classroom, most teacher preparations, toughest population of students) but are paid the least.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.



Sincerely,





Mike McCabe

New Evaluation? NO. NO! NO!!!

MCEA (and then MSEA) says no to new evaluations required by the new state regulations.   They say yes only if they don't have to change.    I"ll concede the MCEA point on too much testing when MCEA and MCPS admit they can do a better job than they currently do identifying ineffective teachers.   If they can't do it better, the testing provides an objective meausure for evaluators to move in that direction.

On Merit Pay- a summary of Montgomery County.

Merit Pay.  Here.   Here.  Here. And even here.
In Montgomery County the budget is dire.   Maybe it's too early to say it, but I can't see how MCPS teachers escape furloughs in the 2010-2011 school year.   Meanwhile, MCPS is turning down Race to the Top money with the blessing of MCEA.   And MCEA continues to take this purely anti-merit based pay stance despite a lack of data to support a conclusionn one way or the other.

While money gets handed out to other districts in the merit pay experiment, the question is whether the MCEA- MCPS stance is coming at a high price for the employees it seeks to represent and employ.   While other districts face the prospects of raises and bonuses, MCPS is faced with the status quo or worse, furloughs.  

Who wins by standing up to the political maelstrom of merit pay?   

The Merit Pay Debate

I have had a little bit of time to read about the new study published  by the National Center on Performance Incentives on merit pay.   I recommend reading the executive summary and the discussion section at the end.   I always like to read the report, and then read the headlines that are published.

A good example on the MCEA BLOG: "Teacher merit pay fails the test."  

However, for those interested in learning more about merit pay, I recommend Jay Mathews blog.  Not so much the article, but the comments by readers and Jay that follow   Every once in awhile, you get some interesting ideas circulating.  And incidentally, some of the best, are not necessarily proponents of merit pay.

Washington Post- Letter to the editor

Sent this to the Post last week.   I'm assuming it didn't make it.

When voters head out to the polls to cast their vote in the coming months they will be bombarded with signs, pamphlets and even perfectly outlined apples. Printed atop atleast one of those apples in Montgomery County will be the following title: "Teachers Recommend." The Apple Ballot, which exists in Montgomery as well as other counties across Maryland, has become one of the most successful marketing strategies ever employed. Vote for the following names, in elections even some of the most informed voters know little about, and support teachers. A simple and noble message. However, its important that voters understand what this means.



In my ten years as MCEA member and MCPS teacher, I have never been asked which candidates I believe warrant the endorsement of MCEA. Not an email. Not a, "please fill out this survey." Nothing. I appreciate much of the work done by my employee association, but standing in the way of educational reform that creates incentives for teachers to perform at their highest level is not one of them. The Apple Ballot may very well represent the rank and file teachers accross Montgomery County, but I'm not sure how the MCEA elite would really know, as the rank and file are not involved in the process. But I do know this: the list of candidates I recommend, and the list of candidates MCEA recommends, are two different lists.

Old news from Baltimore

I've been having some conversations with union leadership. Mostly, I've become very discouraged with the way MCEA and MCPS have reacted to changes coming around the bend. Will MCPS be left behind? I read things like the quote below from a Sun editorial way too often.

Although some Maryland school districts -- including Montgomery County, the state's largest -- have resisted modifying the way teachers are evaluated, Baltimore City embraced the concept because it could bring millions of new dollars to its cash-starved school system.

Which leaves me to wonder whether my original decision to come to Montgomery County will eventually become an impetus to leave. Montgomery County Public Schools has long been the highest paying school district in the state. Can we manage to maintain that edge in the current political and economic climate?

I don't believe we can when I continue to read posts like this one from Tom Israel, exective director of MCEA. The language of MCEA and MCPS must change, and change now. Money. Real money, is on the line. Hopefully, it's not already too late.

To impede or embrace

MCEA has so far chosen to be an impediment to the current sweep of education reforms. However, when you look at the money that has become available in DC, you have to wonder if the teachers in Montgomery County Public schools wouldn't be better off getting on the highway instead of building spead bumps on it. Read about the new money available to DC teachers in the Washington Post. A few incentives below. MCPS has none... I'd go for just one.

First, qualify by ranking in the top tier on the school system's new evaluation system. Working at a school where 60 percent or more of students qualify for free- and reduced-price meals earns $10,000 extra right off the bat. (Teachers at lower-poverty schools receive half the money.) Be a math teacher: a hard to staff subject garners $5,000. Teach in grades four through eight: students in those grades take the standardized exams in math and reading that are used to calculate growth data, which can earn up to another $10,000.

Teachers who receive high evaluations two years in a row will also be paid as though they had masters degrees, and will be bumped up to five years up the pay ladder depending on poverty levels at their school.

School systems across the country have adopted performance-based bonuses in the last few years, but Washington's bonuses are among the biggest. Teachers in Prince George's County can receive up to $10,000 in annual performance bonuses.

Doug Prouty

Commander in Chief of MCEA, Doug Prouty, made a speech (hail youtube) about the problems associated with Maryland's Race to the Top application.

Same mind-boggling crap
1) "I guarantee you, that every single teacher, every single lesson, he or she is thinking about what went well, what could have been improved, and they're working on that every single day in the classroom (Are you kidding? This has got to be a bad joke. Unless of course, you talk to every single teacher after every single lesson.)
2) The PAR system we created in 2000 is the bomb (because no one gets dismissed)
3) Be afraid of standardized testing.

Letter to the Editor

Wrote this letter to the Washington Post editors awhile back. Didn't get published... (OK, so I broke almost every rule required for publishing) But with the Apple Ballot for 2010 out I thought I'd let it rip:

Recent editorials in the Washington Post that question the power exerted by MCEA over the local political system correctly highlight the extensive influence of special interests in our local system of government but miss the mark in their attempt to cast blame on MCEA for their successful capitalization of this system. The authors blame an actor in the system, instead of the system itself, and in so doing miss two larger more significant points: 1) Boards of education should not be elected and 2) the MCEA does not represent what is best for education.

Much like the Supreme Court of the United States, a school board should thrive as an independent body free from the direct influence of the public. The framers of the U.S. Constitution created an independent judiciary to interpret the laws created by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive. The framers concern: an elected judiciary would try to please the public and other interests instead of upholding the principles of the Constitution. Likewise, an elected school board cannot focus on its goal, improving local educational systems, while at the same time pandering to special interests in order to win their electoral support. School board members can either cater to the desires of interests and get elected, or choose to focus solely on better education in spite of those interests, and face the bitter reality that they cannot win without that support. It is however, a problem with the system created, and not a problem with the interest groups that use the system.

The second issue is that MCEA’s “apple ballot” is commonly associated with what is best for education, and as an endorsement by all or most teachers in Montgomery County. The MCEA has worked hard at creating this perception, but it is fundamentally untrue. At best the MCEA has the tacit approval of a large majority of teachers to negotiate for higher salaries and benefits, and at worst it represents a small minority of politically active teachers who have the implied but not literal support of the majority of teachers they claim to represent.

No matter the percentage of teachers who generally support union policy, let there be no doubt that the union represents teachers, not education. And despite the unions extremely successful marketing campaign that advertises the contrary, what is best for education and what is best for teachers are two distinct and often incompatible ideas. To cite a brief example, MCEA spends an extraordinary amount of time and resources advocating for ideas like due process rights for under- performing teachers. In so doing the union argues that they are actually fighting for equity and fairness for all teachers under pressure by their employer. However, the effect of this negotiating has been to create a laborious two year process for removing contracted, under-performing teachers. Instead of initiating this process, most principals either A) do nothing and allow the teacher to advance toward retirement or B) apply alternative modes of pressure (multiple class preparations, no classroom ect.) in hopes the teacher will make a voluntary lateral move to another school. After all, any teacher that is initiated into the dismissal process must stay at the school where it was initiated throughout the process. The result is that there exists an abundance of under-performing teachers who are “protected” by the system, and who decrease the quality of instruction that is delivered to students. Furthermore, these same protected and under-performing teachers will not be dismissed as they should be when Montgomery County is forced to eliminate school based positions during the current fiscal crisis. Instead, the county, to the detriment of education, and by policy negotiated and advocated by MCEA, will remove teachers who were “last hired” and untenured. In some cases, these younger teachers will be some of the most promising teachers in the system.

We cannot fault interest groups and unions from doing all within their power to influence policy in a lawful way. Rather it is up to law makers and elected officials to pass new laws that protect the people from their undue influence. It is unfortunate that most often law makers are too self-interested to engage in this debate, after all, the law makers we ask to change the system are the same ones who have already successfully negotiated it. However, we should also know what unions are and are not, and be conscious consumers of information rather than puppets manipulated by thoughtful and well researched marketing designed not to inform, but to propagate agendas.

MCEA Apple Ballot Released

So up on my google alerts for "MCEA" comes Maryland Senator Nancy King's website with this picture embedded of a big ol' apple. Then there is the words from MCEA's website:

The Apple Ballot is what we, as teachers, use to ensure that voters know which candidates we believe to be the best advocates for public schools and public school educators. We know from past elections – and from consistent polling data – that voters value the recommendations of the Apple Ballot more than any other

Don't know much about Nancy King. But it seems to me there is a lot of "we" in those claims when I'm not sure anyone asked, via paper ballot, email, or phone call what my personal opinion on the matter was. Yeah yeah yeah, MCEA is an indirect democracy... but they don't say "MCEA recommended." They say "teacher recommended." And if you're going to make claims about how "we teachers" recommend these officials you think I'd at least get included somehow in the process.

For the complete list of candidates I endorsed without being asked (or for that matter, almost every single other Montgomery County teacher, counselor, and speech pathologist), visit here.

A plea to slowdown

Valerie Strauss is laying on her criticism of Race to the Top even thicker on her Washington Post blog.



And while I admit to being a proponent of reform, I can't help but begin to think that Strauss is right about one thing; this all seems too rushed. She writes:

To make today’s deadline, many of the participating states rushed major education bills through their legislatures to meet the contest’s requirements and engaged in furious negotiations with unions against artificially set deadlines.

Unfortunately, this statement is too true. Despite MSDE claims to the contrary, its clear to me that stakeholders have been brushed aside in efforts to create quick change. I'm sure there's enough blame to go around, but my own school district and union have yet to say "boo" when it comes to where they stand on the issue of reform. I'm sure that statement is on the way though.

Struass goes even further:

[Legislatures] passed laws allowing more charter schools to open -- even though studies show that charter schools on average are no better than regular public schools -- and tying teacher compensation to standardized test scores, even though the tests aren't designed to assess teachers.

Academics call this a part of the construct validity of a test. And it has always been a kind of stumbling block when it comes to the use of high stakes tests. For instance, it might be said of a national algebra test that the test can effectively measure the knowledge skills and abilities of an algebra student. But that same test cannot and should not be used to measure whether a student should graduate from high school. Why not? Because that was not the design of the test when it was created. In other words, this test may be a valid measure of a student's math knowledge, but we cannot make generalizations about this test's ability to determine whether someone should graduate.

Likewise, that same Algebra test cannot and should not be used to measure whether a teacher is necessarily an effective teacher. This is not what this particular test was designed to capture.

This does not mean that student work, or student performance on tests cannot be used to help us evaluate teachers. However, it does mean we need to be congnizant of identifying teacher effectiveness solely or primarly based on student performance data that relies on these tests. And I'm not sure whether these conversations are going on as we speed on with the RttT process.

What we really need first is a comprehensive evaluation system for teachers. And I believe Race to the Top has the cornerstones of a reform system that most hard working teachers are dying to get behind. RttT demands that we need to more carefully identify which teachers (and principals) are strongest, and which teachers are weakest, and which teachers are somewhere in between. RttT also demands that teachers and principals be rewarded when they show they are capable. And RttT demands that we dismiss those teachers that are unable to show improvement, rather than those teachers who have been teachers the shortest length of time. These are real reforms for education; and reforms that will benefit our students around the country if we take the time to get it right.

My blogging friends over in California have put some real time and effort into this question of evaluation. And I applaud their efforts, despite the fact I believe evaluation systems can and should include input from students, parents, and colleagues (both master and non-master teachers).

But with that said, I'll leave you with InterAct's basic tenents for comprehensive teacher evaluation:

Here are the principles on which improved evaluations should be constructed:
-Teacher evaluation should be based on professional standards.
-Teacher evaluation should include performance assessments to guide a path of professional learning throughout a teacher’s career.
-The design of a new evaluation system should build on successful, innovative practices in current use.
-Evaluations should consider teacher practice and performance, as well as an array of student outcomes for teams of teachers as well as individual teachers.
-Evaluation should be frequent and conducted by expert evaluators, including teachers who have demonstrated expertise in working with their peers.
-Evaluation leading to permanent status (“tenure”) must be more intensive and must include more extensive evidence of quality teaching.
-Evaluation should be accompanied by useful feedback, connected to professional development opportunities, and reviewed by evaluation teams or an oversight body to ensure fairness, consistency, and reliability.