One important thing I learned during my time on Capitol Hill is that whatever policymakers are fighting for at the federal level is not what teachers are trying to change in their local schools. While I attended meetings about Highly Qualified, Charter Schools and Parent Trigger Laws, my fellow colleagues were advocating for adequate planning time, fair evaluation procedures and critical resources. I've learned that the trickling down of policy is a slow process when you're talking about the two extremes (local vs. federal) and when policies finally do make it down to "our" level, they lack relevancy and real-world practice.
One topic of popularity at all levels of education is accountability. We are talking about it at the federal level AND in the local classrooms. The conversation is pretty similar in terminology and belief. Teachers must be held accountable for student achievement. Arne Duncan (the Secretary of Education for President Obama) has made this plight for accountability all the more attainable through the state waivers. He has given states the opportunity to break free from the No Child Left Behind evaluation standards for educators. However, because accountability is such a staple for American Education, states must determine other ways in which to evaluate (rate) teachers. Most waivers stipulate that teacher evaluations will be based upon traditional methods (observations, work portfolios, etc.) AND student "growth." Most states have even attached a percentage of how much weight each will have in determining the teacher's overall percentage. In Maryland, educator's evaluation will be determined by 50% of student "growth."
What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing. Teachers are the first to understand the emptiness that comes with using loaded words. Growth is a term we use in education to describe a student's progress towards development. Growth can be seen in a student's academic abilities, behavior, social skills - you name it, growth can occur. However, with a society so obsessed with numerical data growth becomes a daunting accountability measure. No longer is it a word to define development, but now it's a term used to decide if a teacher is "highly effective," "effective," or "ineffective."
The reason I bring all this up (this all interrelates - I promise) is because I have seen growth in my students. In the five years I have been teaching I have seen small growth and substantial growth. A percentage can't be attached to it, a letter grade can't be derived from the artifacts. These growths are organic, and they are not meant to be translated into statistical measurements.
At the end of my second year, after the students were taught about writing persuasive essays and social citizenship, my students had to write an "I Have a Dream Speech." The idea was that students would understand the purpose of MLK's speech and replicate it for their generation. This meant that they had to understand the bigger issues in their communities, the ones holding them back from success and achievement. Just like MLK, their speech had to be compelling and convey a message - their message. For a fourth grader, conveying a message, much less coming up with one, is tough. It requires a year of learning, practicing and GROWING. This was their culminating activity to show the growth of their writing skills and their understanding of the world around them. I graded these assignments for content, grammar and mechanics - like any teacher would. But the growth present in my student's skill was not easily graded. My principal had no rubric for this type of growth, it was just obvious - it was just there.
As a nation, we spend so much time trying to hold teachers "accountable." We take that concept to a new extreme by translating a very abstract process, growth, into numbers and percentages. I firmly believe that good teachers are obvious. In the way they interact with their students, their planning and implementation and the enrichment that emulates from their class at the end of the year. No evaluation will ever capture that adequately. Just as this real-world application showed immense growth in my students better than a standardized test could.
So, my suggestion for our federal policymakers, start going to your local schools (not the private or charter ones) and see, with your own eyes, what teaching is really all about. Take notes, and begin to realize what we educators already know - teaching is not cut-and-dry. It is not always easily measured through numbers and statistics.
I leave you with one of those essays written by a student of mine. Do you think she grew in her fourth grade year? Did you need a percentage to tell you that?
** Extremes are easy to believe in when addressing the topic of accountability and data. It is easy to completely live by it or reject it all together. Percentages and Numbers in education are necessary, it has a place in the education sphere. What concerns me is that so many teachers have examples of how their students have grown that can't be translated into a percentage. A friend shared a story with me about one of her students. She worked with him throughout his six years in elementary school (K-5). When she first met him he refused to speak, but slowly throughout the years he grew. By the time he graduated from fifth grade he was confidently giving a speech to his fellow classmates on stage. That is growth, something that can't be measured in one year, or even through a percentage rate. My friend is an amazing teacher who helped that child grow in such a substantial way. I just want to encourage you to think more globally when it comes to evaluations in our practice. Growth can be a very concrete thing and it can be a very abstract concept. We nee to appreciate the it cannot always fit into a standardized box. Isn't that why Duncan gave the option of Waivers to begin with?
One topic of popularity at all levels of education is accountability. We are talking about it at the federal level AND in the local classrooms. The conversation is pretty similar in terminology and belief. Teachers must be held accountable for student achievement. Arne Duncan (the Secretary of Education for President Obama) has made this plight for accountability all the more attainable through the state waivers. He has given states the opportunity to break free from the No Child Left Behind evaluation standards for educators. However, because accountability is such a staple for American Education, states must determine other ways in which to evaluate (rate) teachers. Most waivers stipulate that teacher evaluations will be based upon traditional methods (observations, work portfolios, etc.) AND student "growth." Most states have even attached a percentage of how much weight each will have in determining the teacher's overall percentage. In Maryland, educator's evaluation will be determined by 50% of student "growth."
What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing. Teachers are the first to understand the emptiness that comes with using loaded words. Growth is a term we use in education to describe a student's progress towards development. Growth can be seen in a student's academic abilities, behavior, social skills - you name it, growth can occur. However, with a society so obsessed with numerical data growth becomes a daunting accountability measure. No longer is it a word to define development, but now it's a term used to decide if a teacher is "highly effective," "effective," or "ineffective."
The reason I bring all this up (this all interrelates - I promise) is because I have seen growth in my students. In the five years I have been teaching I have seen small growth and substantial growth. A percentage can't be attached to it, a letter grade can't be derived from the artifacts. These growths are organic, and they are not meant to be translated into statistical measurements.
At the end of my second year, after the students were taught about writing persuasive essays and social citizenship, my students had to write an "I Have a Dream Speech." The idea was that students would understand the purpose of MLK's speech and replicate it for their generation. This meant that they had to understand the bigger issues in their communities, the ones holding them back from success and achievement. Just like MLK, their speech had to be compelling and convey a message - their message. For a fourth grader, conveying a message, much less coming up with one, is tough. It requires a year of learning, practicing and GROWING. This was their culminating activity to show the growth of their writing skills and their understanding of the world around them. I graded these assignments for content, grammar and mechanics - like any teacher would. But the growth present in my student's skill was not easily graded. My principal had no rubric for this type of growth, it was just obvious - it was just there.
As a nation, we spend so much time trying to hold teachers "accountable." We take that concept to a new extreme by translating a very abstract process, growth, into numbers and percentages. I firmly believe that good teachers are obvious. In the way they interact with their students, their planning and implementation and the enrichment that emulates from their class at the end of the year. No evaluation will ever capture that adequately. Just as this real-world application showed immense growth in my students better than a standardized test could.
So, my suggestion for our federal policymakers, start going to your local schools (not the private or charter ones) and see, with your own eyes, what teaching is really all about. Take notes, and begin to realize what we educators already know - teaching is not cut-and-dry. It is not always easily measured through numbers and statistics.
I leave you with one of those essays written by a student of mine. Do you think she grew in her fourth grade year? Did you need a percentage to tell you that?
** Extremes are easy to believe in when addressing the topic of accountability and data. It is easy to completely live by it or reject it all together. Percentages and Numbers in education are necessary, it has a place in the education sphere. What concerns me is that so many teachers have examples of how their students have grown that can't be translated into a percentage. A friend shared a story with me about one of her students. She worked with him throughout his six years in elementary school (K-5). When she first met him he refused to speak, but slowly throughout the years he grew. By the time he graduated from fifth grade he was confidently giving a speech to his fellow classmates on stage. That is growth, something that can't be measured in one year, or even through a percentage rate. My friend is an amazing teacher who helped that child grow in such a substantial way. I just want to encourage you to think more globally when it comes to evaluations in our practice. Growth can be a very concrete thing and it can be a very abstract concept. We nee to appreciate the it cannot always fit into a standardized box. Isn't that why Duncan gave the option of Waivers to begin with?
No comments:
Post a Comment