Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Board of ed: educator evaluation

Chester: revision of educator evaluation in light of superintendents, principals, teachers concerns
separate impact on student learning
"those conversations continue"
"I do have a fair degree of concern"
"seems as though the positioning on this issue is shifting, particularly with regard to the teachers' associations"
architecture of set up "informed by discussions that teachers were very much part of"
"it was the MTA that at the end of the day argued essentially that student learning is relevant but it should be documented separately within the educator evaluation system"
impact rating, professional practice ratings separate
interaction with those ratings
discussion shifted from endorsing schema to rejecting that schema
both teachers and superintendents shift to not endorsing separate rating
DDMs problematic, but common assessments as looking at student learning valuable
revised regulations
concerned "about whether the goalposts are being shifted once again"
whether there remains a commitment to student learning being a part of the professional practice rating
"I don't want to say that there's no hope here"
"some of the rhetoric, particularly the MTA in writing to their membership, makes me concerned that the goalposts are being moved"
plan to bring back revised regulation next month
"I want to be clear with the Board as to what I am hearing"
Sagan: were hoping that we'd be taking that vote for comment at this meeting
Moriarty: somewhat distressing that only one group seemed to be driving this
accountability, particularly in seeing that effective teachers are in front of every child
five year drive to strengthen accountability
given local districts to determine what's going to matter most
using ESSA to abandon five years of work
"to see if it might function properly"
"I'm very unlikely to support any of this...I think we should stay the course so far"
Fryer: "I'm a little perplexed by this...I don't see any other way than to include test score data in the evaluation"
Gates Foundation spent $50M on what impacts student learning in the classroom; teachers this year as to last year
"something that we actually know is actually correlated with higher scores, but higher wages...a lot of the things we care about"
"the idea that we'd put zero weight on that is inconceivable"
Doherty: "I have a lot of conversations with teachers"
"I'd like to put on the table in layman terms where teachers are coming from"
believe assessment is important, believe student achievement is important
what is in dispute "is that there should be a direct leap from a teacher evaluation to a student's performance"
if academic performance isn't what it should be, it ought to be a flag
evaluator ought to be in the classroom to see what is going on: if things aren't going on with what should be
if teachers are teaching well, and the students aren't performing, that isn't necessarily the teacher
"unreliable and not valid to try to winnow out a teacher's impact on students"
greatest predictor of student achievement is the education and level of poverty in the family
"if there is not something observable going on, then it should not impact the evaluation"
Chester; just want to make sure that the design that's being discussed: there is no automatic
evaluator decides: doesn't tie an evaluator's hands
"no one should have the impression that any evaluator is forced to arrive at any results" due to test scores
Doherty: I understand that an evaluator doesn't have to, but an evaluator can
McKenna: what you are proposing now has no mandated percentages?
Chester: correct
Peyser: concern about arbitrariness on the part of the evaluator absent the data on student learning, as then the evaluation is entirely on the part of the evaluator, whereas having data is your best defense against arbitrariness
some 40-odd indicators, to have student learning explicitly be excluded is contrary to "what the teacher's job is all about"
"seems to be to be crucial" to that
one of 33 standards
Doherty: it's also in standard two, if they don't get proficient in standard two, then they can't be proficient overall
DESE: "as a staff, we really like our current system, because we think it's helpful to provoking the kinds of discussions of teacher performance we'd like to see happen"
"a real elegance, a real fairness" to current system in view of DESE
Doherty: principals aren't on board either
"not just the teacher organizations, but the teachers in the field" are not happy with it
Stewart: it makes parents feel very uncomfortable when teachers have to deal with this outside impact right now in the course of the year
I was on the task force, the evaluation system that we do have minus the indicators, was a complete document
"everything in the rubric keeps students in the center"
"A test that is created to one thing and then is used to do another doesn't do either very well"
Sagan: maybe having a deadline will make it clear we need to come to an agreement Chester: "it's not clear to me that we're in good faith; we're in a different place than we were in the spring"
"cannot endorse a regulation that removes student learning from consideration"
"I think a case can be made that we've been too soft on this."

No comments: