WASHINGTON--Sen. Joseph Lieberman is drafting a school reform bill that would tie a portion of federal education dollars to a requirement that states implement robust teacher evaluations, with student test scores being a major factor in rating teacher performance.
The bill would also require local schools to give some weight to teacher effectiveness, as opposed to looking mainly at seniority, in making personnel decisions--essentially ending the "last in, first out" rule that has guided a slew of teacher lay-offs in recent months.
Lieberman's proposal would deny Title I education funds--which is the biggest pot of federal education aid to states--to districts that don't meet the new requirements. The Connecticut Democrat-turned-independent is expected to introduce the legislation in the next two weeks, just as Congress ramps up debate over how to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law.
But Lieberman's proposal is likely to spark fierce debate in Congress. Although teachers unions have agreed to support some increased use of evaluations to measure their performance, they've also cautioned that an overreliance on student test scores can produce a superficial and skewed picture of teacher effectiveness.
"This is a very, very bad idea for a number of reasons," said Mary Loftus Levine, policy director for the Connecticut Education Association.
Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan research group that advocates for better public schools, said using student test scores to evaluate teacher effectiveness is "certainly one of the reforms of the day." But the idea of linking those measures to federal aid takes it a step further, he said, and it's bound to be deeply controversial.
Lieberman's proposal comes at a time when teachers and other public sector workers are on the defensive in state capitols around the country, the target of Republican budget slashing and conservative political ire. Teacher tenure and seniority rights have been an undercurrent of the debates in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and other states, where GOP governors are pushing measures to trim the public-sector workers' collective bargaining rights.
With that as a backdrop, Lieberman's proposal could become a flashpoint in the legislative fight over how to revamp No Child Left Behind.
In a speech on Monday, President Barack Obama urged Congress to rewrite the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law before the next school year begins--and to enact sweeping changes to federal education policy in that revision, including a new emphasis on teacher effectiveness.
"What we need to do is a better job preparing and supporting our teachers, measuring their success in the classroom, holding them accountable," Obama said in remarks at a Virginia school. "We're going to have to stop making excuses for the occasional bad teacher. We're going to have to start paying good ones like the professionals that they are. If we truly believe that teaching is one of the most valued professions in society -- and I can't think of a more important profession -- then we've got to start valuing our great teachers."
Lieberman is consulting with top Department of Education officials on his proposal, mostly for technical assistance. He expects to have a Republican co-sponsor for the bill and the backing of at least a half-dozen moderate Senate Democrats, who are collaborating on a range of education reform proposals.
At a recent news conference with the other Senate Democrats, Lieberman said No Child Left Behind has helped "turn the corner" in American education policy. Before that, "most of what we were doing was arguing about how much money we were going to put in [to education] and not having standards at the end about what came out," he said. "And the result was too many our children were not getting a fair shot at an equal education and a better life."
He said Congress now needs to build on that measure by supporting new steps to strengthen teacher recruitment, training and retention, among other measures.
His bill would be phased in over five years, giving states time to develop and implement the new teacher evaluation systems. Student achievement would have to be the predominant factor in the new teacher assessments, but they would also be based on classroom observations and other components. And teacher effectiveness would guide personnel decisions.
"We say this teacher effectiveness evaluation should be used in informing major personnel decisions, including pay, retention, and reduction in force," said a Lieberman staffer working on the legislation.
"Right now, the policy in place is often 'last in, first out' when it comes to reductions in force," said the Lieberman aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is still a work in progress. "Many states are in budget crises and are having to implement lay-offs. In some cases the 'last-in-first-out' policy means having to fire some of the best teachers."
If states failed to go along with these new rules, their eligibility for Title I funding--a $13 billion pot of federal money aimed at helping poor students--would be in jeopardy, although Lieberman's aide said there would be ways for states to work on these issues without losing funds. About 90 percent of local schools receive Title I funds, so the requirement would have far-reaching impact.
The Obama administration's "Blueprint for Reform" similarly calls for a greater emphasis on teacher evaluations, but it doesn't link that to federal aid. The White House plan says that states should be required to develop a definition of "effective" and "highly effective" teachers and principals.
The Blueprint would also require states to create evaluation systems that "meaningfully differentiate teachers and principals by effectiveness" and should also set up data systems that "link information on teacher and principal preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention outcomes of their graduates."
But it doesn't spell out any ramifications if states stumble over those requirements. Jennings said it's far from clear that White House would support the adding a stick to its policy, which until now has relied on carrots, such as competitive grants, to induce states to adopt its vision of education reform.
Whether Lieberman wins White House support or not, he's sure to face opposition from the major teachers' unions.
"Everybody's jumping on this bandwagon without any thought," said Loftus Levin, of the Connecticut Education Association.
She said research demonstrates that teacher evaluations based on student test scores are "a crap shoot," with highly variable, unreliable results.
She pointed to the work of Bruce Baker, an associate professor in the Department of Educational Theory, Policy and Administration at Rutgers University Graduate School of Education, who recently wrote that "even with the best models and data, teacher ratings are highly inconsistent from year to year, and have very high rates of misclassification."
There's little question that other factors, such as family poverty and parental involvement, also have a major impact on a child's academic performance. If school administrators start basing salary and job security decisions on test scores, said Loftus Levine, it will deepen the imbalance between the flood of teachers who want to get jobs in places like Greenwich and the scarcity of those willing to teach in cities like Bridgeport.
"If a prospective teacher knows their salary will be determined in large part by how well their students do academically... we're creating incredible disincentives to teach the kids who need it the most," Loftus Levine said.
She also said that too few policymakers are focused on the one thing that works very well--early childhood learning. "You cannot wait until someone comes to kindergarten and is already behind and say 'Okay, go close the gap and it's all about you Mr. Teacher or Mrs. Teacher'," said Loftus Levine.
"Not looking at poverty or living conditions... and to put all the focus on the test scores and linking them to teacher's and demonizing them is a complete waste of time and money," she said.
Cynthia Garza, a spokeswoman for the American Federation of Teachers, similarly said the union would "not support Title I funding being tied" an evaluation system that used student achievement a dominant factor. She pointed to recent remarks on this issue by AFT President Randi Weingarten, who said that "drive-by" or "test-score-driven" evaluations are often superficial and subjective.
But she suggested there could be some common ground, particularly with a system that put as much emphasis on helping teachers develop and improve their skills as it does on evaluating and penalizing teachers.
"An evaluation system that focuses solely on removing a tiny minority of teachers, without focusing on improving the vast majority--an evaluation system that isn't also an improvement and support system--won't ensure that all kids are taught by the excellent teachers they deserve," Weingarten said, adding that teachers unions will oppose "any system that is simply a sorting exercise."
Weingarten said teacher evaluations should take into account a variety of factors, from an assessment of lesson plans to portfolio reviews to student achievement. And test scores should be looked at "not by comparing the scores of last year's students with the scores of this year's students but by assessment whether a teacher's students show real growth in his classroom," Weingarten said.
She pointed to the "comprehensive evaluation" systems being developed in school districts around the country, including in New Haven.
Jennings said there while the concept of crafting teacher evaluations based in part on student test scores is attracting a huge amount of interest and attention right now, there are significant hurdles to implementing such a system. For one thing, he noted that under current law, students are only tested in math and reading, so it's unclear how science, art, and other teachers would be rated. He also noted that many teachers have aides in the classroom, who help students with remedial reading or other problems, and there's no good way to determine how much the aide contributes-or fails to contribute--to any increase in student test scores.
He said Lieberman's bill might be good to generate fresh discussion and debate about the issue, but it could be "premature" to put into practice. And it definitely, Jennings said, will be a tough sell in terms of political feasibility.
Senator Lieberman is raising the right idea at the right time.
To ease the concern of the anti-test crowd, absolute scores on standardized tests can be balanced out with a progress-over-time measurement.
And while student poverty is no excuse for an ineffective teacher, high needs students ought to be recognized as such and teachers who are effective at overcoming the poverty hurdle ought to be granted the highest rewards and status.
Jeff, a measurement over time measure would do little to counteract the lack of validity of standardized tests. You, Lieberman and other test scores as a panacea proponents miss some profoundly important factors that are barely addressed in this piece.
First and foremost is the validity issue. Test scores can be moved by focusing mostly on students who are borderline passing and by slective focus on objectives of the test that are easiest to address. Hartford pushes this approach as a district!
Second, what about the content areas that are not assessed? In high school only sophomores take a state
Read MoreSammy,
I agree with you about the need to look closely at teachers who choose to work with the toughest populations. Absolute tests scores do not allow for a valid comparison when two teachers instruct very different groups of children.
But when 2 out of 3 children in Hartford public schools cannot read, write, or compute at grade level, you think testing is the problem? That's like blaming the thermometer when it continues to indicate that the patient is running a fever.
A thermometer can't cure anyone, or even tell us what ails the patient. But it
Read MoreThe problem with Senator Lieberman's proposal is that he doesn't know what he is talking about--a typical politician who attempts to enact laws regarding issues on which he is poorly informed.
What is the single biggest predictor of student success in school? Read the article on this website about the gaps in achievement and it is all laid out for you. The answer is the family environment from which the child came. That is #1--and everything else is of much, much less importance. The solutions to this are difficult and expensive. Free preschool for those under a certain income
Read MoreJeff,
The idea that teachers are solely to blame for our children's low level of writing and mathematics skills has been proven false in numerous studies. A child's readiness to learn does not start in the classroom; it starts at home, and until we do something about the poverty and lack of structure that many of our kids live in, it's going to be difficult to get them to pass the test. Sure, we need high quality instruction, but we also need kids who are supported in the learning process before and after the school day.
The bigger problem with
Read MoreThe most significant factor influencing achievement in Connecticut elementary and middle schools appears to be the socioeconomic status of a given child's parents. Stop trying to reform education, and FUND education why don't you?
The reason for the decline of intellect in the US has nothing to do with the caliber of its teachers and everything to do with overcrowding, underfunding, and mindless "reforms" that have taken critical thinking, arts, PE, and anything that can't be measured on a standardized test off the table. We are woefully behind every developed nation in the world in this
Read MoreI think what will be helpful in this debate is to set some idealogical parameters. Here are mine:
Poverty may be one of the root causes of the achievement gap but if we wait for poverty to be solved, we will be waiting forever. Poverty is THE convenient excuse for a system that has for decades shown itself to be unresponsive to the needs of low income children, their parents, and taxpayers.
Above some base level of funding which will be different from district to district according to student-needs, more money has not been shown to
Read MorePoverty isn't just THE convenient excuse for a system (that fails)....it is actually THE reason that there are huge differences between achievements in suburban schools and inner city schools. Some children come to school woefully unprepared. On the first day, they are already behind their more affluent classmates...and not just a little behind, so they can catch up with a little extra effort. Expecting teachers to close this achievement gap - and blaming them when they don't - is absolutely absurd.
Actually, money does make a difference. If low income children go to head start for
Read MoreJulie,
As long as there are examples of high-achieving,high-poverty schools operating at scale in urban districts across the country and the state then logic tells us that poverty CANNOT be the reason for the achievement gap. It must be something else.
For examples of promising public school environments I point you to:
www.conncan.org
www.kipp.org
and of course, my personal favorite, www.achievementfirst.org
Jeff,
I don't know about conncan and kipp, but I do know a little bit about achievement first. The school day is longer, by about 2 hours a day. The school year is also longer by about 2 weeks. Additionally, there is a zero tolerance for behavior issues, and 2 hours of homework a night. These are all good things - and achievement first is doing a wonderful job. The rapid intervention model is excellent. All of these things are expensive. Did you read the 3 part article on the school in West Hartford? That district can afford
Read MoreJulie, thanks for getting into the weeds. Its important.
First, Did you know that the city of Hartford is near the top of the charts when it comes to spending per pupil in the state? The fundamental problem is NOT about the money.
Second, it may surpirse you to know that AF spends LESS per pupil than do the districts of Hartford or New Haven. There are lots of reasons why AF can get better results at slightly less cost per pupil, but a major one is that the administration expense (central office) at AF is about 10% of
Read MoreJeff, I don't have any idea about whether or not Hartford's school system is at all competent-or anything about their teachers or even about their students. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. Throwing teachers away doesn't solve it either. I think we might agree that throwing administration away might be a start.
I think it might surprise you that many-actually most-teachers want a process where incompetent teachers are dismissed. And there is such a process, but administations don't use it. However, teachers are afraid of a system where the principal can get rid of teachers
Read MoreJulie, Stamford's superintendent Josh Starr testified yesterday at the Ed. Committee that it takes a principal the better part of two years of daily attention to remove an ineffective teacher. "Due process" like that is far too costly on our system and is unacceptable to taxpayers and parents. This is job protection plain and simple. Please see the documentary "Waiting for Superman" to see just how corrosive the political power of the CEA and the AFT has become to our community.
As for principals behaving like kings and queens, all over our country today accountability is
Read MoreJeff,
You seem to know a lot about this issue. Has any Connecticut school district ever indicated how many less senior effective teachers would lose their jobs to more senior ineffective teachers because of LIFO? Let me answer that for you, NO. Until they do it is a none issue!!!
Well, as a longtime teacher, I'd say I'd better hang on to my honors and AP classes now, rather than going back to teaching struggling readers with behavioral difficulties. After all, my evaluation and pay may depend on it.
My school district has paid thousands of dollars (and I have paid out of my own pocket) for me to take classes exposing me to the latest research in order to teach struggling older readers. But I have a family too and if this type of legislation were to pass, I can't imagine wanting to teach such students again, knowing that
Read MoreJeff, I wonder if you have thought in depth about who will be willing to teach in the lowest, poorest schools if Lieberman's bill is passed. As a veteran teacher, I can answer that: No one. Teaching in a school with very poor students, which comprises the student body of all urban high schools, is challenging and rewarding; I've been doing it for years, but if my pay or retention is tied to student performance I will opt out.
Pay is not great; working conditions are often abysmmal, and no matter how much I wish my students to learn,
Read MoreSusan Grand,
Test scores are a valid indicator according to most colleges and universities. The SATs and ACTs are required by most accredited institutions and are viewed as predictors of success in college and beyond. The CMT and CAPT tests are a lower bar and are to be viewed mainly as a barometer for basic standards. Until you can convince higher ed. that tests are not a valid gating mechanism for entry into 4-year competitive schools, it would be best to focus on getting better outcomes instead of complaining.
Also, your information on charter schools
Read MoreUntil and unless we make parents (both biological mother and biological father) 100% responsible for the unruly and rowdy behavior of their children in school environment and outside the school, we will have no salvation and no progress in the education of our children. Also, all parents who are irresponsible for having sex for pleasure, and then forsake their offspring should be told that they have no business to live in a civilized society and all such individuals should be sent to penal colonies, as the British had done and populated Australia as a penal colony. Also, banish all cockamamie
Read More"If the state does not change its demographic trajectory, it faces a bleak future."
A Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis report, "Recovery Stirring, But Will Connecticut be Too Old to Compete?"
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
CT Mirror is now well into its 3rd year. Since our launch on Jan. 25, 2010, we've published more than 4,000 stories and had 3.5 million web visits.
From the start, our goal has been to offer readers information on Connecticut policies and politics - and the personalities behind both - to help residents make the best decisions possible about their lives and those of their families.
PROUD SPONSOR
CT JOBLESS RATE
January 2011: 9.3%
February 2011: 9.2%
March 2011: 9.1%
April 2011: 9.0%
May 2011: 8.9%
June 2011: 8.9%
July 2011: 8.9%
August 2011: 8.8%
September 2011: 8.6%
October 2011: 8.5%
November 2011: 8.3%
December 2011: 8.1%
January 2012: 8.0%
February 2012: 7.8%
March 2012: 7.7%
April 2012: 7.7%
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend