Why California should not join the Race to the Top
The new Federal solution to the problems in education is called The Race to the Top. Apparently all of those children that were Left Behind during the Bush Era are being gathered up by Obama and Arne Duncan, sharpening their pencils and filling out a new and improved scantron in order to enter a new race where those same old test scores are going to determine whether their school has enough money to stay open and whether their favorite teachers will get to keep their jobs. Another cliché, another waste of money. Schwarzenegger is eager to enter California in the race. The California Teachers Union has serious problems with this program. The first one is that in order to qualify California must change the state law currently in place that does not allow test scores to be tied to merit pay for teachers. Another is that most of the money is required to be spent on a database of test scores and a czar to oversee this database. Because of this it will probably cost as much to monitor the program as the money that we would receive. Very little of the Federal money will make its way to students. In case you do not know an outspoken teacher who has already filled you in on why teacher merit pay is bad for education let me give you a few reasons:
- The very idea assumes that the biggest problem in education is lazy teachers. This is so insulting. I do not know one single teacher that is not already working as hard as they can. Teachers are the only thing that is RIGHT in education. Does the Federal Government think we really know how to raise those stupid test scores and are just not doing it??????? REALLY!
- Merit pay encourages competition instead of cooperation. The only way we are going to improve education in this country is to work together. Remember “It Takes A Village”? This is true, but if teachers are competing for merit pay they are not going to be working together.
- Teachers who have the power will be choosing their students in order to get those who will do well on the test and moving to the schools that these students go to. So the newer, less experienced teachers will be at the lower performing schools without experienced teachers to mentor them.
- Many teachers go into the profession because they want to work with underprivileged children. This is their calling. However, if their family income depends on their test scores, they are not going choose to work with these students and will not be using their talent or their passion.
- These tests are badly written, inaccurate and narrow. They do not reflect how smart a student is. Actually the more gifted students do not do well on standardized tests because they cannot think outside of the box. In order to train students to do well on these tests we are training them to answer questions based on drill and practice and not critical thinking. All teachers know these tests are bad for students. The teachers who care the most about this injustice are already unhappy about this and now if you force them to teach ONLY to the test so they will not get paid less (or lose their job) they are going to leave the profession. The new teachers coming in are already leaving when they find out that they cannot use their creativity to teach what they love.
Do something for a teacher. Help those poor kids, some of whom are taking a test every two weeks. Do what you can to HELP education in California by contacting your elected officials and telling them to vote NO when Arnold asks them to support California’s entrance into the RACE TO THE TOP. It is our job to educate them. Even the good guys think they are supporting education by voting yes.
I sympathize with your frustration. As an educator in Southern California, I too see the tremendous barriers to achievement that plague our system. However, I disagree with several of your contentions about Race to the Top, merit pay, and standardized testing. Let's examine them point-by-point.
ReplyDelete1) You contend that Race to the Top assumes the biggest problem in education is teachers. While it might not be the biggest, it is substantial. Though I cannot possibly know what your particular school or district is like, I do know that there are plenty of unqualified teachers where I come from. These teachers refuse to use data to drive instruction, neglect to use research-based approaches (best practices), and fail to incorporate innovative learning strategies in the classroom. Any new approach is an affront to what they have always done. An effective teacher maintains best practices throughout their career, and incorporates new, research based ideas when appropriate (not fads, but tried and tested methods.) Even more disheartening, is the poor quality of teacher candidates being churned out from California's credentialing programs. The problem is two fold. First, teachers don't earn a high enough salary to attract the most qualified candidates (this is especially true for math and science; few of these majors would choose teaching when they could earn six figures in computer science or engineering.) Second, a staggering number of candidates in the credential programs struggle to pass basic competency tests in a reasonable number of tries. For example, in my credentialing cohort alone (completed recently within the last 3 years), over half the candidates could not pass the writing portion of the CSET on the first attempt. Many took the test 3 or 4 times before passing. Despite the fact that they were obviously lacking in several of the testing areas and required serious remediation to pass, many of these teachers are now employed in my district. I cringe when I think about their exceptionally poor skills (which I witnessed first hand through group projects) and that they will be teaching these to students. Though I wish I could say that this was only a handful of candidates, I can say with confidence that only about half of those who went on to be hired met standards to be minimally proficient. Where could these students have been trained? Cal State University San Marcos, part of the CSU system, which trains the majority of teacher candidates in the state. Clearly, California has much to do to improve its teaching workforce.
2) Merit pay is the catalyst we need to abolish the abundance of mediocrity in California. Many opponents believe it is unfair to compare the test scores of wealthy schools to other schools where students lack social capital. It would appear that the teachers at the wealthy school must be working harder because their students are proficient. The teachers at the school in the barrio must not be doing their jobs because less than half their students are proficient. As educators, we know the many factors that impact student achievement. However, a teacher evaluation can be linked to pay, by showing growth. Any teacher, at a high performing school or at a low performing school, can show growth with their students. I say this as a teacher in a school with the highest percentage of ELL's in the district (73%) and lowest SES (95% of students on free and reduced lunch). Though our API is not where it should be, we grew by 20 points over the previous year, through targeted interventions and modifications to instruction. Individual teachers can do this and should be compensated for it, much like businessmen are given bonuses for positive performance. Ideally, teachers should have a base pay (like the step schedules many districts currently have,) and should be awarded with bonuses for showing student growth.
3) The argument that teachers will choose to work where students are already proficient in order to earn merit pay makes it blaringly apparent that these teachers aren't confidant in their own abilities to promote student growth. Rather, they would prefer to work with students that manage to maintain proficiency regardless of the quality of teaching (students with lots of social capital do this very well.) Granted, I want to earn a buck too, but I wouldn't leave my underprivileged kiddos for anything. I am confidant that I can improve their test scores (as I have done consistently since I began.)
ReplyDelete4) See #3
5) You contend, "all teachers know" that standardized tests are bad for students. Actually, I think they are quite important, and I believe many of our colleagues would agree. Data is essential to make instructional choices at the classroom, district, state, and federal levels. It was through state data that my district and school developed targeted interventions that ultimately led to increased achievement. Though we can agree that an overabundance of testing is unwarranted and can be a hindrance to classroom instruction, the state testing that is in place provides valuable information about our students and guides the instructional choices we must make. Though my ELL's struggle on these tests, it is important to continue teaching the standards and develop solid plans to help them reach proficiency. They CAN and they DO. We must believe that it is possible. We cannot afford to waste time by making excuses for why they do not perform well on tests. Though the barriers are vast, they CAN be broken. As for creativity, who says you can't creatively teach the standards? I see creativity every day in classrooms that are focused on the standards and high achievement.
Bottom line, we have many great tasks before us. Our current system is broken and change is necessary to meet the dynamic and diverse needs of our students. Change is possible, we must believe in it. Besides, there are so many AMAZING teachers out there, how can it not be possible?
In reply to khammel:
ReplyDeleteI would argue that doing well on the CSET does not make you a good teacher. There are many skills that go into teaching and not all of them are academic. Of course knowledge of subject matter is important, but many times someone who has never had to struggle to learn something is not very good at teaching it. I think we are doing the same thing to teachers that we are to students when we try to use one criteria to judge them. Test taking is a skill of it's own and not always related to learning a subject.
I am not against standardized testing, we have had standardized testing forever. One test at the end of the year for 4th grade on up is fine. Teaching to the test, testing every 2 weeks, having test results become your grade in the class, keeping qualified students out of college as a result of test results (because they become their grade in the class) are all problems. And I would still argue that the tests are bad. I don't know what grade you are teaching, but in 2nd grade the test results do not reflect how students are learning, in my opinion. This may be because 2nd graders are too young for this kind of test...another argument against the way they are being used now. Also, the way the results are manipulated seems convoluted to me. You sound like a data guy and maybe it all makes sense to you, but we have high performing schools who are listed as underperforming. And I have attended trainings that show us how to get the most points on the test results by focusing on one group of students at the expense of others.
Those teachers that you refer to who refuse to use data to determine how they teach, may simply not believe that this is the best way to do it. If we determine who is a good teacher and who is not based on this one philosophy I believe that we will be eliminating some talented and inspiring teachers. I am sure that you are a great teacher and that you like data, that does not mean that every teacher should be like you. We need all kinds of teachers because we have all kinds of students who all learn in different ways. This is my argument against merit pay. Someone like you will be deciding who is good and who is not, based on what you think is important.
You are hoping that merit pay would be based on student improvement and not just high test scores so that teachers would still choose to stay in low performing schools. I do not trust that to be true. I think there is a good chance that the easiest approach would be used and that would be raw scores.
I think you are confusing standards with tests. Of course there are many creative ways to teach the standards. Teaching to the test is different and I do not think that the standards and the tests are aligned.
I am glad you are reading and appreciate your comments
Absolutely, the CSET does not necessarily make a great teacher. In fact, there are probably plenty of people who do pass, but lack the teaching skills to convey that knowledge. I just wouldn't mind more rigorous training for this profession, extended student teaching, or interning opportunities (they have basically eliminated the interning option down here due to budget). Higher pay would certainly help attract more qualified candidates!:)
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you come from a district that has taken testing to the extreme. While its definitely important to use testing to guide your instruction, it should not be at the expense of instruction. In other words, we should not be spending more time testing than we are teaching. The problems you mention are certainly flaws within the system, though not reason to do away with testing altogether.
As for fairness of the test, I think it can give an accurate "snapshot" of your students, though there are exceptions. The one in which I question validity is newcomers. How can students who have just begun their learning of English be expected to perform on the test? It is not a valid measure of their skills, as they may be able to demonstrate some in their primary language. This shows that testing cannot be "all or nothing," rather, it is a gauge of the overall performance of the student population and its subgroups. Unfortunately, as you have noted, many districts have gone too far in their efforts to improve test scores. Improving scores is a valiant effort, but not when it means choosing one group over another, testing on a weekly basis, or teaching using "drill and kill" tactics. I would argue that districts who employ these tactics have misunderstood the purpose of these tests and how to make appropriate instructional decisions based on the data. However, I understand that intense scrutiny and risk of sanctions has forced many districts to take this path.
As for high performing schools being listed as underperforming, I can see how it happens. The easiest way to understand it is by looking at a school's "similar schools" ranking and not the overall ranking. For example, we have a school in our district that gets a "9" in its overall ranking. However, in the similar schools ranking, it gets a "2", meaning that it fails compared with 100 other schools with similar demographics. Upon closer review of its subgroups, it is doing a poor job of teaching ELL's and students with disabilities. So despite teaching it's majority population very well, they have missed the small, though important subgroups. Though I'm sure each school has a unique situation, closer review of subgroups may indicate why a seemingly high performing school is listed as underperforming. I have also seen the reverse happen, where a school has a low ranking overall but has a high similar schools ranking, which would indicate the school is teaching its special populations very well relative to schools with similar demographics.
Bottom line, you have some very convincing arguments about the abuses of high stakes testing. However, I believe that districts have the power to us this information appropriately and effectively.