Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB - (Page 11)

Teaching Quality Must Be More Than a Number At the most basic level, because of the lack of availability of properly scaled tests in different grade levels and subject areas, the standardized test data generated by NCLB accountability systems are only available for about 30% of elementary teachers and perhaps 10% of high school teachers. The use of these data to examine individual teacher effects is made more complicated by student mobility, leaving many teachers, especially in high-need communities, with “unstable” student data that throw off any attempts at sound statistical analyses. Even if these obstacles were overcome by more testing of more students in more subjects, and more sophisticated ways to track the progress of highly mobile student populations, it is still highly doubtful that these tools alone could measure accurately the complexities of expert teaching — complexities described so clearly by Amy Bailey. In addition, the TLN members involved in the NCLB focus group had much to say about the inability of what one called “the blunt instrument we know as standardized tests” to measure the success of teachers who, for example, have the skills and persistence to accelerate the learning of struggling students in our nation’s highest-need schools. While dedicated, expert teachers can help these students make significant gains in a single year, it may take more than a year to overcome major academic shortfalls. But states and districts actually punish these teachers when they judge teacher performance solely or even primarily by benchmarks of performance on standardized tests that assume all students begin at the same starting line. For example, Susan Bischoff, an NBCT from Manatee County, Florida, routinely helps her 5thgrade students — mostly new immigrants who enter her classroom with 2nd-grade reading and math skills — make large academic gains, well over a year’s worth of progress. However, the Florida test is not “scaled” in a way to capture her students’ improvement. Despite her expertise and her success, Ms. Bischoff did not qualify as a “STAR teacher” under the state’s short-lived STAR merit-pay plan. She notes that we “need accountability systems that are sophisticated enough to measure and reward significant progress – no matter where students enter the game.” During the discussion with the Merrow team, Bill Ferriter, a North Carolina Regional Teacher of the Year, called for defining highly effective teachers as those who: Use student achievement data gathered from both formative and summative classroom assessments to tailor instruction that meets the needs of their students; Can identify students in need of remediation or enrichment and then develop appropriate learning experiences to move these students forward; and Reflect on their instruction in structured ways, working to identify and amplify instructional practices that work — and to eliminate instructional practices that are ineffective. Sarah Zablotny added that highly effective teachers “seek relevant professional development and are able to show how it impacts their instruction and student learning.” Identifying “highly qualified” teachers with these skills and dispositions cannot be done solely with multiple-choice tests and value-added methods. The expert teachers in the TLN focus group were not opposed to using test results as one form of evidence to measure teacher contributions to student progress. However, they agree that other student outcome data, derived from classroom assessments and analysis of student work, must be used as well. In addition, many of these experts see the value of using performance assessments — such as those used by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards — to identify teachers who have qualities identified through careful research as being associated with high accomplishment and expertise. Page 11

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

Executive Summary The Future of American Education in the Making It is Time to Align NCLB Intentions and Consequences The Teacher Leaders Network Encounters NCLB from the Classroom NCLB Demands Results and So Do We Attention Alone Does Not Equal Effective Accountability Standardized Tests Fall Short of 21st Century Demands For What Future Is NCLB Preparing Students? As Testing Expands, the Curriculum Shrinks The Drive for Data Presents Potential for Significant Change Data Systems Don’t Keep Pace with Real-Time Instructional Needs AYP Highlights the Good, Bad, and Ugly of NCLB Does “Highly Qualified” Set the Teaching Bar Too Low? Teaching Quality Must Be More Than a Number Every Student Deserves a Highly Effective, Well-Trained Teacher Conclusions References

Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.