NCTQ's Pretty Darn Quick

A pension myth debunked

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:00:00 EDT

As the funding status of teacher retirement systems in many states reaches crisis levels, pension reform is increasingly on legislative agendas. Yet moving from 'on the agenda' to actual reform is proving to be a slow go. The recent edition of our State Teacher Policy Yearbook found more states nibbling around the edges than taking a real bite at systemic reform.

A new Arnold Foundation paper from pension guru Bob Costrell sheds some much needed daylight on a bogeyman that may be contributing to state inaction: fear of the 'transition costs' associated with structural reform. There is a common belief that reforms, however necessary and beneficial in the long run, will raise costs in the short term. It is not surprising that policymakers would find such increases unpalatable in the current economic climate.

But Costrell shows that this is an unnecessary worry. Nothing under Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules requires the kinds of accelerated payments legislators (and system administrators) fear.

Costrell provides plenty of meat for pension wonks to sink their teeth into, including state examples, and a key takeaway for advocates: transition costs are a compelling, but not legitimate, argument for the status quo.

-Sandi Jacobs

Teacher voices

Tue, 15 May 2012 12:00:00 EDT

What do teachers really think about how well they were prepared? The College Board offers the opportunity for teachers to speak up about the knowledge and skills they wish they would have received before taking sole leadership of their classrooms. Better preparation in classroom management, literacy training, and assessments topped their list. While the College Board acknowledges their results may not be representative of all teachers, they track with recommendations NCTQ has heard from other teachers, as well as from the technical panel advising our national review of teacher preparation programs.

In fact, our national review has standards addressing each of the aforementioned issues. Two separate standards address literacy- Standard 2 Early Reading and Standard 4 Struggling Readers. We've also shown initial results on K-12 assessment coursework (and we'll be releasing more on this next week) further reflecting these teachers' experience: teacher prep programs provide limited preparation on the use of assessments and data.

We are not alone in calling on schools of education to get serious about grounding teacher prep in the realities of today; teachers themselves also lend their voice to this chorus. By approaching feedback as an opportunity to improve and then acting on it, schools of education can show they are adaptable to the changing dynamics in education.

Katie Moyer

New in TR3: Which districts use third-party evaluators?

Mon, 14 May 2012 12:00:00 EDT

In our TR3 database, we've long had information about what is included in teacher evaluations. Now we're taking a closer look at who does the evaluating.

TR3 now identifies which of our 113 school districts use third-party evaluators, with data pulled from evaluation handbooks and collective bargaining agreements. We define third-party evaluators as impartial, district-trained consulting teachers or administrators who are not based at any school. You can see all of our third-party evaluator data, and much more information on teacher evaluations, by using TR3's custom report page.

We found that out of all the TR3 districts, just eight districts require an impartial, third-party evaluator and four districts make third-party evaluators optional:

Required in the District of Columbia; Denver, CO; Greenville, SC; Hillsborough, FL; Minneapolis, MN; New Haven, CT; Pittsburgh, PA; and Brevard, FL (non-tenured only)
Optional in Memphis, TN; Northside, TX; Palm Beach, FL; and Spokane, WA

Together, that amounts to about 11 percent of TR3 districts.

With all the attention on reliability in teacher evaluations, it will be interesting to see if there's an upswing in these numbers. As personnel decisions become increasingly tied to evaluations, it's more important than ever that evaluations are consistent and fair.

-Ginger Moored

TPA DOA at UMass

Fri, 11 May 2012 12:00:00 EDT

Many unanswered questions remain about the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA), trumpeted by teacher educators as the panacea to all that ails teacher prep. But the reasons given by UMass faculty and students for refusing to participate in the pilot of the TPA strike us as less than compelling. Have they never heard of National Board Certification?

They object to the video recordings the TPA requires as part of the assessment, which are sent to a "corporation" for scoring. (Pearson is hiring university faculty, cooperating teachers, coaches, classroom teachers, National Board Certified Teachers, principals and retired educators who maintain their expertise to do the scoring.)

National Board certification requires the submission of video recordings, which are scored by National Board Certified teachers hired to do so.

They object to the 40 page take home test which examines teaching competence in 3 to 5 lessons from one class of students via lesson plans, student work samples, video clips, analysis of student learning and reflective commentaries.

National Board certification requires the submission of a portfolio that includes direct evidence of teaching (student samples, video recordings) and analysis and reflection of that evidence.

To be clear: there's a world of difference between the decades old National Board Certification and the new TPA. For example, we have serious concerns about the validity, reliability and appropriateness of the short, edited snippets of classroom instruction required under the TPA; National Board certification requires recording of entire class periods and prohibits editing. But that's all the more reason to conduct a pilot—so the field learns more about the strengths and weaknesses of this kind of assessment.

— Rob Rickenbrode

How NOT to appreciate teachers

Wed, 09 May 2012 12:00:00 EDT

In an unfortunate twist of the calendar, Teacher Appreciation Week coincides with the middle of the "RIFing" season. Ask any teacher, and s/he will be able to explain how emotional and disruptive this process is. While we recognize the bind districts are in waiting for state budgets to be finalized, we don't understand why they continue to value seniority above all else when sending out pink slips.

Minnesota's governor recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed performance to factor into schools' layoff decisions, arguing that because the state's new evaluation requirements haven't kicked in, the cart is being put before the horse. We find this less than compelling: why can't the teachers identified by the current system as underperforming—however small that group may be—be laid off first? Wouldn't that value accomplished practice, instead of date of hire?

While perhaps trying to show their appreciation in the Southwest, a judge has sided with the teachers' union and ordered Vegas' Clark County School district to move forward with promised pay increases, even though doing so may mean laying off as many as 1,000 teachers... using seniority.

Teacher Appreciation Week should be about recognizing the energy and efforts of all teachers, not just the superstars. Teaching is, after all, very hard work. Staffing procedures, however, should not be so indiscriminate. Policies should show effective teachers, regardless of time in the classroom, they are truly valued. Getting rid of layoffs based on seniority alone would be a good place to start.

Katie Moyer