Students are not learning, but teachers are told they’re doing their jobs effectively. This oxymoron is not new in American education, but recent teacher evaluation laws were supposed to demolish it by better aligning teacher evaluation scores and student learning outcomes.
The problem is: the laws aren’t working as intended. Even with new laws in place, the vast majority of teachers across the country continue to receive a rating equivalent to effective or higher. A new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) provides a new explanation for the phenomenon.
The report reveals that in almost all states, there are teachers who receive an overall evaluation score of “effective” or “highly effective” despite receiving a low score for leading students to academic achievement. This is possible because these teachers receive high scores on other parts of the evaluation such as principal and peer observations, student and parent surveys, and other district and state measures. As NCTQ’s new report details, the guidance and rules that structure states’ evaluation laws allow teachers who receive uneven scores throughout their evaluation to still be rated as effective practitioners — even when data show their students are not learning.
NCTQ’s report provides a new opportunity to discuss the negative consequences of misalignment between teacher evaluation and student learning outcomes. The following are a few damaging outcomes of such misalignment: Continue reading
Conversations about teacher professional development are rarely uplifting: professional development largely does not meet teachers’ needs, few teachers are satisfied with professional development offerings, and principals are concerned about the efficacy of professional development. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, TNTP’s new report—The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development—does little to bring optimism to the discussion.
The Mirage details an uncomfortable truth: as much as everyone from Capitol Hill policymakers to school instructional coaches wishes they knew how to help teachers improve, they don’t. TNTP’s research squashes the widely-held belief that good professional development practices are known, they just haven’t been put to scale. It’s a shocking point that many will be talking about in the days and weeks to come. If you want to sound smart joining in on conversations about The Mirage, here are some helpful talking points that scratch its surface:
Districts spend a lot on teacher development. The districts in The Mirage spend an average of nearly $18,000 per teacher, per year, or six to nine percent of the districts’ annual operating budget, on development efforts (the charter management organization in the report spends an average of $33,000 per teacher or 15 percent of its annual budget). This figure includes staff time and resources that are intended to improve instruction either directly or indirectly. At this rate, TNTP calculates that the largest 50 school districts in the U.S. devote at least $8 billion to teacher development.
But money isn’t resulting in improvement. As measured by evaluation scores, most teachers do not improve substantially year to year. Only 30 percent of teachers that TNTP studied improved their performance substantially over a two to three year period. TNTP could not find anything that distinguished teachers who improved from teachers who did not improve. The professional development activities they participated in and the frequency with which they participated in them were virtually identical between teachers who improved and those who didn’t improve. These two groups of teachers also had strikingly similar perceptions and beliefs about development.