Teachers on Strike: Classic or Dud?

u would think!

i think it's easier to hire a private school to just give them all A+ and get them into college based on name

I don't think there's a real debate over what could be done to improve schools, is there? I think the debate is, per Kozol, what we can do with what we have. Which is not much.

i disagree! why do you say "not much"?!?

My guidance counselor was also the longtime head football coach! But he didn't even win games.

Karen Lewis, the head of the teacher's union, is saying:

Socio-economic status is the largest predictor—up to 75 percent— of student success.

http://ctulocal1.tumblr.com/post/30468476985/president-karen-lewis-puts-the-chicago-tribune-on

Not just the late Daniel Moynihan.

xpost Not much money/resources.

i think the issue is not whether it's a predictor (i know it is) or not but how we interpret that - is it the family's fault for working 2+ min-wage jobs and not being able to support the kids? or is it down to kids seeing that 2+ min wage jobs is their likely future and checking out of school? or is it just that students with low socioeconomic status tend to be underserved by the schools they attend?

i just think it can very easily turn into a "blame the victim" thing of "oh it's so hard to reach poor kids and their families because education is not a priority for them, they don't have good role models, etc"

see the part in the wikipedia article on "blaming the victim"

xpost All of the above. Like I said, systemic failure: i blame parents, teachers, city and students, and there's a legit reason all four of them have for not adhering to some ideal measure. Not saying I have a solution, but not sure how what the teachers are asking for helps anyone but themselves. (which is their prerogative!).

sounds like you're quite down on education, not sure "there's no solution" is a good starting point for fixing education

i mean, we have one of the better educational systems in the world by any measure except perhaps spending-to-results ratio

here's an excerpt from an email written by a berkeley economist who studies teacher-evaluation methods. let me know if i can help anyone parse this. i think it's one of the most even-handed things i've read about this:

Teacher evaluation is a difficult business. I have done some research on the limitations of test-score based measures of teacher effectiveness, and have become quite skeptical of these measures as a result. Other researchers are more positive about them. But there are a few things to know about what the research shows that rarely, if ever, make it into the reporting about them:

A) There is evidence that test score based measures are correlated with careful classroom observations and with principal evaluations of teachers. But the correlations are quite weak, *even after you adjust for the fact that the test score measures are noisy*. A typical result is that the underlying trait measured by value-added-type measures and the underlying trait measured by classroom observations are correlated around 0.4. Now, no one knows which is right, as one can criticize either measure. But they aren't the same -- the idea, common among reformers when talking to the press, that any measure will identify the very worst teachers, is just not supported by the evidence.

B) All of the studies of value-added take place in low stakes settings. The real concern about relying too much on it for evaluations is that high stakes will distort the measure -- in short, lead teachers to redirect effort toward improving test scores at the expense of other things teachers ought to be doing. No one knows how big the distortion would be. But this, I think, is the reason that just about every researcher will say (at least when talking to their peers; some have a bad habit of saying different things to the public) that VA should be no more than one component among many in a teacher's evaluation. This includes vocal proponents of VA-based evaluations like Tom Kane and Rick Hanushek. Rick excoriated me this summer at a conference for criticizing moves to base as much 50% of a teacher's evaluation on VA, saying that no one would propose doing any such thing. Rahm is proposing 40%; that doesn't seem enormously different to me.

C) The rub in this area is that the _other_ components of evaluation are very expensive, especially if you want to do them well. No one is proposing putting the kinds of resources into hiring classroom observers/evaluators that would be required. My guess is that the teachers unions would oppose evaluations even if they were done carefully and well. In that case, I'd have some sympathy for management. But no one is seriously proposing to do that. And it is easy to imagine how a badly designed evaluation system could be worse than none at all -- see (B) above.

D) One can compute a value added measure only for teachers in certain grades and subjects -- typically, for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of teachers. Policies like the Illinois law require that student achievement be a specified percentage of _every_ teacher's evaluation. So you have to figure out what to do with the teachers for whom there isn't a value-added measure (typically because they teach in non-tested grades or subjects). Typical approaches -- I'm not sure what CPS has proposed -- are to use average test scores or value added in tested grades & subjects for the student achievement component of the evaluations of teachers in non-tested grades/subjects. It is pretty hard to defend a system in which 40% of a PE or social studies teacher's evaluation is tied to the school's average reading scores.

This is long enough, so I'll stop here. But it simply isn't the case that opposing a particular evaluation system must arise from not caring about the kids, as it is sometimes characterized.

also i gotta give credit where it's due: jim derogatis, one of the worst music critics to ever take up a word processor, has written a very cogent argument in support of the CTU:

http://www.wbez.org/blogs/jim-derogatis/2012-09/chicago-teachers-rock-102377

careful classroom observations and with principal evaluations of teachers

i would say that one principal measure of teacher evaluation should be growth based on classroom observation - if your principal comes in and says "yell at kids from the front less and spend more time over their shoulders" and you learn how to do it, that's great! even if you're still not a master of classroom management, your growth as a teacher is what is important to the school

The real concern about relying too much on it for evaluations is that high stakes will distort the measure -- in short, lead teachers to redirect effort toward improving test scores at the expense of other things teachers ought to be doing.

agree 100%

No one is proposing putting the kinds of resources into hiring classroom observers/evaluators that would be required. My guess is that the teachers unions would oppose evaluations even if they were done carefully and well.

disagree! esp if you did peer observation and evaluation, but built enough time into the day for teachers to actually do this. we could cut back on some less important stuff like, i dunno, grading worksheets every night

One can compute a value added measure only for teachers in certain grades and subjects

interesting point

thank you, amateurist! could you link the original article?

i would say that one principal measure of teacher evaluation should be growth based on classroom observation - if your principal comes in and says "yell at kids from the front less and spend more time over their shoulders" and you learn how to do it, that's great! even if you're still not a master of classroom management, your growth as a teacher is what is important to the school

which is to say, growth with respect to autonomous professional standards rather than with respect to result-production (better students, better scores)?

what kind of agreement is there in education about how to do that? i occasionally look at the ed. lit out of my own higher-ed professional interests, and it always looks like a big mess that has been utterly colonized by / conceded to neoliberalized/bureaucratized ideas that make even assessment in terms of autonomous professional standards, i would imagine, really fraught.

i can try to find an article but most of 'em are published in economics journals and who wants to read that stuff (...who is not a professional economist). i'll see if i can find something and link to it.

i don't have JSTOR anymore so if i need that forget it

i mean the idea would be that the observer would also be able to observe gains in "better students" - ie more student self-management, better student self-efficacy, more engagement in the material, more signs of understanding, more signs of authentic work being produced

i'm not a proponent of *removing* test scores because student achievement is important, the problem is deciding exactly what achievement is (i.e. is recognizing "the four types of lines" really an authentic understanding of algebra?)

the second and third parts of that post are to j.

xxxxxxxx...post

My guess is that the teachers unions would oppose evaluations even if they were done carefully and well.

there's some truth in this, sadly. i'm in a union (currently decertified, thanks scott walker!) and have sat in on contract negotiations and sometimes i kind of wanted to hide my head.

that said... i've been told that to counter rahm's testing-first evaluation proposals, the CTU's evaluation committee responded with some proposals of their own, but those were either rejected out of hand or the city simply decided they would cost too much. but who knows when all the bargaining takes place behind closed doors.

this shit is complex. americans don't really do complex, unfortunately.

yeah i'm adamantly in favor of evaluation ... because fuck man, we evaluate students every day!

but the move in teaching is actually to move away from evaluation (you're an A, you're an F, you make some arbitrary cut and you don't) and move toward "assessment and feedback" which is basically a more rounded and less-closed form of evaluation, there is strong evidence it helps students learn and i would wager the same would be so for ineffective teachers teachers with great growth potential

amateurist you're in higher ed too, right?

i hate how pedantic my posts come ouit sometimes usually

hey you're bringin it

I think teachers unions could actually have avoided some of the pain they're feeling now if they'd been a little less intransigent on certain key issues in the past -- tenure, the ability to fire bad teachers (sorry, they are completely full of shit on this being easy enough as it is), etc. My views of both teachers and teachers' unions have become a lot less idealistic since my wife entered the public school system about six years ago. I mean sometimes the teachers unions self-presentation has such an air of "we can do no wrong" about it that it strains their credibility.

the key phrase in that email i excerpted above is "it is easy to imagine how a badly designed evaluation system could be worse than none at all"

swap "evaluation system" for "privatization scheme" or anything else the chicago public schools have been pushing for and you've got the problem in a nutshell, more or less.

xpost

the national teacher's unions have had better messaging on this than the locals, frankly.

karen lewis is a horrible leader when it comes to messaging--she projects arrogance, intransigence, and little else. i really wish somebody else were in charge.

xpost to late great, I think public education in America is largely strong, actually, though I have no idea how it compares to the rest of the modern/rich world. But the quality of city public schools? New York, LA, Chicago, etc? Pretty uniformly shitty, isn't it? They sure are in Chicago, at least. And due largely to the problems of inherent to our cities, the same problems that lead to crime, pollution, failing infrastructure, etc.. And that may be what sets us apart from the rest of the world. Are the schools in other major world cities as shitty as ours? Paris? London? Toronto? Tokyo? Berlin? Madrid? I have no idea, but I bet they're better. But maybe not!

There's a solution, but until the pervasive problems of our cities are solved, everything from income inequity to public transportation on up, the schools are unfortunately hitched to a pretty crap train. And when will that happen?

By the way, DeRo is an excellent reporter. He's best when he's away from music.

Oh, and I asked earlier, but do any of you have kids in public school? Just wonderin', 'cause I do.

the thing is public schools in chicago are stratified. there are amazing high schools: jones, whitney young, payton. and there are a ton of schools that are little more than holding pens.

it doesn't make sense to compare inner city schools to urban schools in other countries because they don't have the same geographic history (paris is where the best schools in the country are) and they don't fund them locally

the thing is public schools in chicago america are stratified!

yeah but i'm just pointing out that w/in CPS it's complicated.

sorry :*(

And that's it, really. Our schools are funded by property tax, which guarantees they will be stratified, at least economically.

Oh, and I asked earlier, but do any of you have kids in public school? Just wonderin', 'cause I do.

87 of them a day

Where do you teach? Is that several classes?

Oh, fwiw, I see all sorts of weird combinations here. People who move here, pay the high property taxes but still send their kids to private school, People who move here, pay the high property taxes, then send their kids to private school in Chicago. People who live in fancier 'burbs out west who send their kids to private school here. Completely nuts to me.

Though the vast majority of parents I know send their kids to public school here.

That's four classes per day, plus various supports and meetings and ancillary duties. Currently, I teach in a wealthy, highly-ranked public system in an affluent suburb, but that hasnt always been the case. Mind you, I'm not complaining about my job at all.

Just curious, if you're comfortable, could you illustrate some benefits via the union you have? Aspects of your particular school, like class side, facilities, programs? Do you have any idea what people pay in taxes in your district? It's wild how divergent school systems are.

And that's it, really. Our schools are funded by property tax, which guarantees they will be stratified, at least economically.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:05 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

except that's not quite how it works within chicago proper. in the mid-late 70s/early 80s, when white flight was really threatening to unravel the city in terms of property tax revenue etc., CPS began to set up "magnet" schools that would attract the best students from the whole city (michelle obama graduated from one) and hopefully keep middle-class families in the city. it worked, actually, to some extent; chicago didn't have the same level of urban flight as places like detroit, buffalo, cleveland, etc. (of course that also has a lot to do with a more diversified economy but i digress). over the years they doubled down on the magnet model, and there are now major magnet high schools that either didn't exist or were just "local schools" when i was in the chicago PS system in the 80s-early 90s. these schools attract top teaching talent (often folks with MAs, even PhDs), the best students (and are incredibly ethnically diverse), more money, consequently many more extra-curricular programs. they aren't charter schools because they are operated by CPS and have the same level of accountability as any other public school. and of course the teachers are in the CTU.

(xp to Josh) my school is in a town with a median (assessed) house value of $500k, and 15% property tax. all of my benefits (health, dental, retirement, wellness incentives, professional development) come through the union – a traditional off-the-top pay-in plan. tenure isn't quite the deal it once was, it's offered /after/ pro status is achieved, and there are plenty of ways in which pro status can be denied. i teach 4x daily classes of 22-25 students, each approximately 60 minutes in length. i've also got a homeroom, study hall duties, tutoring, and a pretty hefty meeting schedule. my union guarantees me at least one prep period/day. our facilities are generous but not excessive, nor lavish. extra funding has gone (thankfully) toward improving the special education program, and hiring more paraprofessionals. i'm lucky to live in an area in which the school committee, the union, and the faculty are pretty simpatico. annual pay increases tend to be between 1 and 2 percent, which ... keeps pace.

I think public education in America is largely strong, actually, though I have no idea how it compares to the rest of the modern/rich world

It's enormously difficult to compare education systems. The PISA rankings have a go, but they're quite limited in what they measure.

The general theory a lot of people seem to accept is that a good school in the US will be at least as good, if not better, than a good school anywhere else in the world but that an average school in the US is likely to rank below a average school in the bulk of Europe and a few Asian countries - although not by any great amount. So much of that is subjective and based on conjecture, though.

agreed. Caveat being that US schools have a much more difficult job than many/most other industrialized nations w/r/t diversity and difference of student body.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/6098915-418/no-pay-hike-for-cps-teachers-but-raises-for-execs.html

lol

Oh, and I asked earlier, but do any of you have kids in public school? Just wonderin', 'cause I do.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, September 12, 2012

My son just graduated from a public high school

How'd it go? Good school, bad school? Good experience? Are you in a suburb or city?

BTW, being reported that a deal is likely today. Lewis said it was a "9 out of 10" on the likelihood scale. Which is pretty good progress, because on Tuesday she said the two sides were nowhere near close.

x-post-- suburban school but close to big city, and kinda citified itself. Good experience. Lots of AP and IB classes, made Newsweek's listing of best American High Schools.

I know this is all about Chicago, but in Ontario we're moving into the no-extra-curricular phase of broken contract negotiations. It's an unofficial directive right now. We've met as a staff to make sure we're all on the same page--you don't want tension because different people are interpreting that different ways (i.e, teams and clubs are obvious, but then you get into things like pizza days, extra help at recess, etc.).

i'm still baffled at the idea that public school teachers earn $70k