February 13, 2007
NEA supports the key message of the commission -- all students can learn, all students deserve a high-achieving system, and there is more work to do. However, the commission’s proposals for HQET take some parts of NCLB from bad to worse: it punishes teachers and pushes them to “teach the test,” rather than providing the tools and resources they need to prepare students.
NCLB’s heavy emphasis on testing has already penalized students by narrowing curricula and punishing schools. The commission’s plan would add to those punitive flaws by targeting teachers with new punishments.
• We will VIGOUROUSLY OPPOSE any effort to create yet another set of hoops through which teachers would have to jump to prove that they are qualified to educate students. Teachers have been burdened for the past five years to meet bureaucratic “highly-qualified” requirements.
• The current HQT requirements are so complex and confusing it took almost five years for the U.S. Department of Education to approve states’ plans on how they will meet the requirement that 100% of teachers be highly qualified. There are still four states awaiting final approval. In many states, it was not until fairly recently that the actual definition of HQT was finalized.
• Teachers’ work is necessarily cumulative and cannot be demonstrated based on a student test score, or in this case, three years of test scores. The struggles, and achievements, seen in a classroom can’t be boiled down to a string of numbers.
• The San Jose case study highlighted by the Commission illustrates how the school district improved the quality of the educators teaching in its district, particularly in low-performing schools. The way to ensure that teachers are effective in helping students learn is to provide them with the tools and resources they need, including mentoring programs for new teachers, expanded professional development for all teachers, professional pay, improved working conditions (such as smaller class size), and financial incentives to attract and retain qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools.
• This new HQET proposal places triple burdens on some teachers, new burdens on others, and none of the rest. Elementary teachers who teach all three core subjects will have to meet this new HQET mandate in each subject, a middle or high school teacher teaching just one of the three will have to meet HQET on that one subject, while teachers of art, music, social studies, foreign languages, and other subject will not have any new hoops to jump through. This will clearly be divisive among teachers, and likely exacerbate the shortage of teachers in the three covered subject areas.
• Comparing teachers based on the learning gains of their students, without any regard to the working conditions in the school sets up an unfair system that will further discourage teachers from working in hard-to-staff schools.
The proposal sets up teachers for failure.
• The draft report says that “Teachers who fall in the top three quartiles of producing learning gains and receive positive evaluations would achieve HQET status.” By definition, that means that 25% of teachers will not be HQET.
• At least under the current HQT definition, every teacher can meet it and indeed is required to do so – it’s a standard that doesn’t compare teachers against each other, but sets criteria for all to meet.
• This new HQET starts off with 25% of teachers not meeting t it s requirements.
• What’s unclear is if in the second and subsequent years of this scheme, if the bottom 25% of teachers again would not be HQET- if so, that means it is impossible for all teachers to ever meet this requirement.
• This HQET comparison will discourage teachers from teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and it might also penalize teachers with the “top” students. If those students test scores are already very high, there is less room for “gains”, and thus, such teachers might also fair poorly under this system.
The Commission report covers a broad range of other issues as well. There are some positive proposals, as well as additional negative ones:
NEA applauds the report’s inclusion of growth models -- they measure student achievement over time and give schools and districts credit for the gains that students make even if they have not yet reached the level of proficiency required.
• Growth models acknowledge that students learn in different ways and at different rates. Reaching ambitious growth targets provides confidence and positive reinforcement to teachers and students who have large gaps to overcome and helps teachers and administrators set continuous benchmarks for progress and observe what works in changing instructional practice.
• Growth models are not a quick fix, however. We believe it’s a better model, but we also want the law to focus on other measures of school effectiveness in addition to test scores (graduation, in-grade retention, college enrollment, percentage of AP/IB classes taken, etc.)
The commission’s mention of the need for stronger assessments should raise red flags, because there are problems with the existing assessments in place.
• Not even a quarter of states have completely approved standards and assessment plans. Therefore, schools in nearly 40 states have been measured under the AYP structure using standards and assessments that have not been proven valid and reliable.
• NEA encourages districts and schools to offer educators the tools necessary to understand the results of assessment and how such results can be used to improve instruction. In addition, such information should be readily available to parents so that they understand the assessment process as well.
• NEA encourages the creation of a separate funding stream to support the development of high-quality assessments, including high-quality formative assessments, instead of using a portion of already scarce Title I funds.
• While the Commission recommends the addition of a 12th Grade assessment, another federally mandated test is unnecessary. High school students already face multiple assessments including the PSAT, the SAT, ACT, AP and IB tests, end-of-course exams, and in many states, high school exit tests. College acceptance or employment would be better indicators of those goals.
• The Commission calls for a distinguished national panel to develop national content and performance standards, extrapolating from NAEP structure. NEA supports standards and accountability, but educators should be at the table for development of standards and other groups already have developed strong content standards that should be considered in any such discussion. NEA will vigorously oppose any national test.
The Commission also calls for expansion of the school choice and supplemental service provisions of the law. While we haven’t opposed these programs, we strongly support a separate funding stream for them, so that funds to pay for transportation for school choice and after-school tutoring not come from diverting funds from classroom services for children.
One other Commission proposals seems promising – to limit the percentage of schools in a state each year that are subject to the most severe consequences under NCLB – the so-called restructuring option. The commission proposes to limit such designation no more than 10% of the schools in a district, and to focus corrective action requirements on instructional strategies.
Key players have already indicated where they stand on the proposal
• Governor Barnes led the discussion of this provision at the NCLB press event.
• Kennedy: it “will require close scrutiny.”
• Miller: “eager to read their recommendations and will review them carefully”
• Former Secretary Riley: report “provides a strong foundation upon which to make much-needed improvements to NCLB”
• Business Roundtable: report “offers positive recommendations”
• La Raza: “hope Congress uses the commission report as a solid foundation to determine the next steps in the reauthorization of NCLB”
• United Negro College Fund: “we hope the commission’s recommendations will be adopted and implemented”
• Chamber of Commerce: “believe the definition of a highly qualified teacher should go beyond certification to include a demonstrated impact on improving student achievement”
• Ed Trust: “particularly pleased that in their HQET definition the Commission has embraced an approach to evaluating teachers that takes into consideration the learning growth that teachers help students make and the evaluations of their principals rather than just their paper credentials”
We look forward to working with Congress on the ESEA reauthorization, as it considers these proposals, proposals offered by other organizations (such as those recently released by the Council of Chief State School Officers), as well as NEA’s own Positive Agenda. However, we urge the Congress to reject the Commission’s ill-conceived proposed new mandate to evaluate teachers based on student test scores.
Background
NEA has been involved with the Commission from the beginning. President Weaver testified before the Commission in August. In addition, NEA had five other witnesses at Commission hearings and roundtables, including Becky Pringle, Merchuria Chase Williams of GAE, and Pixie Haywood Schickele of CTA.
One element of the plan that will surely stand out to reporters, and that NEA will vigorously oppose, is a new set of requirements called Highly Qualified Effective Teachers (HQET).
Here’s a rundown of the proposal:
• It keeps the current NCLB HQT requirements (fully licensed and certified, plus an academic major in the subject(s) taught, or passage of a content test in each subject taught, or meeting the state’s High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation)
• It adds a fourth component for teachers of three core academic areas ((1) math, (2) reading or language arts, and (3) science)—a measurement based on “learning gains” of students coupled with either principal evaluation or peer review (if it exists).
• Teachers of all other subjects would not be covered by this new HQET mandate.
• Once a teacher is deemed a HQET, the teacher wouldn’t have to be evaluated again for that purpose.
• Learning gains would be based on scores from standardized tests used for NCLB accountability; they would be based on the past three years of students’ scores, and to the extent possible, are controlled for demographics and current
educational achievement of students in class
• The actual details of the plan for HQET are a bit worse than we thought. While it requires both learning gains and a positive principal evaluation, if a teacher is NOT in the top 75%, based on test scores, they will not be HQET, even if they have a positive evaluation. Thus, it is really based totally on test scores to evaluate teachers.
• Special education teachers will be compared to their fellow special education teachers. But teachers who teach more than one core academic area will have to meet requirements in each of the areas (i.e., presumably all elementary teachers, and some middle school teachers, particularly those in rural schools where they might teach both math and science) and many special education teachers.
• Note: Tom Hobart (former NYSUT President) filed an “additional view” that will be released with the report that suggests a pilot of this proposal instead of a national change because most states do not have adequate data systems
• Timeline
States will have four years after enactment to get data system in place to handle HQET evaluation (Congress should allocate $100 million per year for each of those four years to create or enhance data systems – there is no guarantee the Congress will provide these funds)
After data system is in place, states would look at students’ scores (for last three years) for each teacher of core academics to determine if students are learning
Teachers’ effectiveness will be measured against other teachers in the state and the top ¾ will be deemed HQET; teachers will have two years to be HQET prior to intervention
If teachers are in bottom ¼ after two years, then for three years, districts must individually entitle the teacher to customized professional development that is focused on what that teacher needs (again, no guarantee that funds will be available for this)
After that three-year period (now in fifth year of teacher review), if teachers are still not HQET, the teacher can stay in position, but the principal must notify parents that their children are not being taught by a highly qualified and effective teacher; also the targeted, individualized professional development is not available at this point because that stops after three years
If after an additional two years (now in seventh year of teacher review), the teacher still is not considered HQET, then they would be barred from teaching in a Title I school.
A similar proposal, called Highly Effective Principals, says the principals:
• Must be certified per state law
• Must demonstrate leadership standards (state-developed standards or those developed by CCSSO)
• Must produce learning gains similar to those in “comparable” schools (not all schools in state as is contemplated for HQET)