Felipe
Fuentes, author of California’s new teacher evaluation bill, AB 5, has added
more anti-teacher revisions to the legislation in an attempt to placate
conservatives and win a waiver to the federal No Child Left Behind law. The
problem is that conservatives will never accept AB 5, no matter what
compromises are made, as long as AB 5 continues to allow teachers to
collectively bargain any changes to their districts’ evaluation systems.
The changes
might make California eligible for a NCLB waiver. According to John
Fensterwald, of Ed Source, this would halt penalties for low
performing schools and districts and make it easier for the state to access
$350 million in Title I revenues for low performing districts. One of these
changes is particularly onerous for teachers and could be devastating for
schools and students: the mandatory use of student standardized test scores as
a measure of student growth which would be part of teacher evaluations.
In order to
get a waiver, the feds want these scores to be a “significant” part of how student
growth is measured. The revised version of AB 5 does not use the word
“significant.” Each school district will be allowed to determine what portion
of student growth will be measured by the state tests, and how much will be
measured by other factors, such as student portfolios or internal assessments.
CTA Sellout or Victory?
The new
requirement that student test scores be used to evaluate teachers is a direct challenge
to the CTA. The union’s support for AB 5 was due in large part to the requirement
that changes to evaluations be collectively bargained at the district level.
The new student test data mandate undermines this. Unions would have no say in
whether or not the tests could be used to assess teachers, though they could
collectively bargain how much the tests count toward teachers’ evaluations.
Furthermore, while the CTA has expressed a willingness to accept the use of
student test data, they have argued that the forthcoming Common Core assessment
would have to be studied first to see if it was appropriate for this use. The
legislature, on the other hand, is imposing the use of such data first, with
the assumption that “any assessments developed by a national consortium and
adopted by the State Board and used for the purposes of this section meet
statistical and psychometric standards appropriate for this use.” In other words,
the tests can and will be used to assess teachers and the CTA will have to
trust that the consortium will make the tests statistically and
psychometrically valid for this purpose.
It is
unclear how the California Teachers Association (CTA), which had come out
strongly in support of AB 5, will respond to the revisions, (though
unofficially I have heard they are supporting them). Their continued support
would not be a surprise. While the CTA has opposed using the existing STAR exam
to assess teachers because it was not designed for this purpose, they were
strong backers of the shift to Common Core Standards (CCS) and the continuation
of the use of high stakes standardized tests for their students. Furthermore, they
have already accepted other forms of student assessments to measure teacher
competency. Thus, they are not necessarily opposed to standardized test scores
for this purpose.
A fundamental
problem is that all student tests measure student ability, not teacher ability.
At best they might serve as a proxy for part of a teacher’s skill in the
classroom. They cannot come close to assessing the bulk of what teachers do and
in practice they are a terrible proxy for any aspect of teacher skill. Student
success and growth on standardized tests (and most other assessments) are
influenced by many factors, especially their socioeconomic backgrounds. They
are also influenced by previous teachers, familial support, English language
proficiency, special education status and disabilities. Furthermore, Value
Added scores for teachers are inconsistent for all but those at the very
extremes. Even for those at the extremes the scores are inconsistent if
they aren’t averaged over three years.
For these
reasons, the use of student test scores should not be used to assess teachers
at all. If they are used, many good teachers will receive bad evaluations and
potentially be denied tenure and promotions or even get fired as a result. This
is not only unfair to the teachers, but also a disservice to students, who may
lose good quality and beloved teachers simply because they are poor or have a
learning disability. It will also encourage even more teaching to the test than
already occurs, as teachers focus more on saving their jobs through test preparation
than on good teaching. And it will encourage veteran teachers at low income
schools to jump ship and head for safer shores in affluent neighborhoods, where
their students are less likely to have a negative impact on their evaluations
and job security.
Insatiable Ed Deformers
Even with
the revisions, there is continued opposition to the bill and not just from
right wing pundits. The Association of California School Administrators and the
California School Boards Association are expected to continue their opposition
to the bill, according to Fensterwald, because of the high cost ($18 million per
year to cover costs like principal training and the expense of increased
teacher observations) and the fact that “all” aspects of evaluations will still
be subject to collective bargaining.
Many school
boards and district administrators believe they have the right to determine all
factors in an evaluation. This has not yet been tested in court, though an
attorney for LAUSD has written a brief outlining the district’s authority. If
AB 5 passes, lawsuits would be likely, particularly by LAUSD, which has
invested considerable resources into its new VAM evaluation system.
The CTA
could try to spin it as a victory by claiming they preserved collective
bargaining. This would be inaccurate. In order to save collective bargaining for
some aspects of teacher evaluations they will have given up that right for one
of the most important aspects: whether or not to allow student test data at
all. By supporting the use of student growth data they hope to show the public
and their opponents that they are reasonable, professional and truly care about
improving the quality of teaching in California. In reality, this position bolsters
the straw man argument that teachers are to blame for low student achievement
and helps perpetuate the delusion that good teaching can overcome poverty.
