You may remember that when the New Teacher Project released its influential Widget Effect report last year, there was a bit of a mini-controversy ("Widgetgate"?) about its dismissal numbers for Toledo, one of the districts studied.

Briefly, the report found that Toledo had very low teacher-dismissal rates, like most of the other districts studied. But then the American Federation of Teachers put out a rather affronted-sounding press release stating that the peer-assistance and -review program in Toledo produces "much better results" than the report stated, and expressing concerns about the data collection.

So did TNTP lowball the dismissal numbers for Toledo by not considering teachers who were dismissed—or resigned—after failing to improve in PAR?

I started doing some digging around the issue and found that there were some inconsistencies in how the data were being classified. Since TNTP and the Toledo Federation of Teachers were engaged in a process of reconciling it, I decided to hold off on doing anything further until the final data were released.

Anyway, TNTP and AFT Toledo have finally audited all the numbers and come up with ones that, apparently, both parties agree on. You can find the full report here. But here are the highlights:

• The initial report found five formal dismissals of nontenured teachers and one of a tenured teacher between 2003 and 2008. The updated data show that two additional nontenured teachers should have been included in the report, for a total of seven. TNTP's next publication of the data will include the updated figure.

• In addition, the district and the union found that five nontenured and five tenured teachers resigned during this time period (an "informal dismissal"). These data will be reported as a footnote in the next publication of the report.

• Eleven teachers who were dismissed either formally or informally through PAR were long-term substitutes, not full-time classroom teachers, which was the unit of record for the report. I'll leave you to decide whether you think these teachers should be included in the overall dismissal rates.

Peer review, of course, is one of the features AFT has been promoting in a revised evaluation system. These data don't really tell us a whole lot more about the relative merits of PAR versus other evaluation models. Even if the dismissal numbers aren't significantly higher than in other districts, for instance, perhaps the quality of evaluation feedback is better. Perhaps teachers that might have faced performance difficulties have emerged much improved.

Here's one of the subtexts both for PAR and for evaluation reform in general: What percentage of teachers each year should be identified as underperforming, offered remediation, or ultimately be dismissed for not performing up to snuff? The academic literature in this area is scarce and rather out-of-date, which makes this most complicated of questions even more difficult to answer.

For a longer look at some of these issues,
read my story from last fall.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:22 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Center on Reinventing Public Education scholar Marguerite Roza and a colleague have a paper up about how districts could help to equalize uneven resources between richer and poorer schools without forcibly transferring teachers. (Disparities in teachers' salaries create much of the unevenness between more- and less-advantaged schools.)

It's a fraught issue that's related to the "comparability" financial test districts have to pass in order to receive their Title I funding. If you're sufficiently interested in this wonky but important issue, read more in this related story. Then write in and let us know whether or not you agree with Roza's analysis.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:07 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Here's another teacher-related question on President Obama's budget request: Will it be good or bad for professional development?

If lawmakers go along with cutting the Title II state formula grant program by half a billion dollars, then there'd already be fewer funds for professional development, unless class- size reduction—a large percentage of current spending under the program—is excised as an allowable use of the money. (Expect the teachers' unions to fight that tooth and nail.)

And a few of the funding streams that have been consolidated were focused on professional development, such as the educational technology grants. The National Writing Project, one of the big success stories in professional development, also would be consolidated into the proposed new programs.

On the other hand, the budget names proposed new Title II programs "Excellent Instructional Teams," and says they'd support the collaborative use of data to improve teaching. And to be sure, it was never all that clear in the first place that the professional- development that districts were providing with federal funds was any good. The definition in the NCLB law specifies that the funds can't be used for one-day workshops, but it's hard to know how many of the nation's 14,000 school districts paid attention to that stipulation.

M. Rene Islas, a policy adviser to the National Staff Development Council, a professional-development advocacy group, seems cautiously optimistic about the budget language in this post. (You may remember that Islas headed up teacher-quality issues back at the Education Department between 2002 and 2006.) NSDC is a proponent of the learning-team approach to professional development, where educators across grades and subject areas reflect on achievement data and set instructional priorities.

Still, there's another tension here worth exploring. How much professional development should be individually based and how much of it should be based on collaborative work? After all, one of the Obama administration's reasons for putting evaluations at the center of Title II is to ensure that all teachers are getting consistent feedback on their own practice. How can team-based professional development supplement individual feedback?

Over at Public School Insights, Claus Van Zastrow has a few thoughts on professional development in the budget here and here.

But what do YOU think?

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 10:10 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Our own Alyson Klein alerted me yesterday to something that I'd totally overlooked in the administration's budget request. I was so busy paying attention to the proposal to put teacher-evaluation systems at the heart of the Title II teacher-quality state grant program that I missed a potentially even bigger marker in the budget in the Title I section.

In its "College and Career-Ready Students" program (basically its new brand for the Title I program, and possibly for NCLB/ESEA in general), the administration says the funding, which is doled out to states and districts under four complicated formulas, would require states "to develop a definition of 'effective teacher' that is based in significant part on student learning, and to put in place a system that links the academic achievement and growth of students to their teachers and school leaders."

It's one thing to put a definition of effective teaching in the Race to the Top program and to require student achievement to be considered in making determinations about teachers. That's a competitive grant program. While there's been a lot of grumbling about the teacher parts of the program, there's always been an unspoken, money-where-your-mouth-is defense: If you don't like the strings, don't apply.

Making Title I funding contingent on establishing a link between teachers and student performance is a different story. With about $14 billion hanging annually in the balance, it's the farthest-reaching federal K-12 program, and an important part of many districts' budgets. Like No Child Left Behind's requirements before it, it would be pretty much financially impossible to say no thanks.

To be fair, the administration doesn't say what states or districts would be expected to actually do once they've put this link into place. Maybe that's where Title II comes in. And this is just a budget line, not an actual proposal, so it has a long way to go before being put into place.

Still, while I'm not sure what the teachers' unions think of this yet— or if they're even aware of it—it's safe to say that this is going to cause some interesting discussions. The American Federation of Teachers, under certain conditions, has supported the link of student-to-teacher data, but there are implications for collective bargaining not addressed here that could be worrisome for Randi Weingarten.

And this will probably cause downright consternation at the National Education Association, where we have a couple of precedents. Back in 2007, when the Aspen Commission put out its recommendations for renewing ESEA, one of them was to put a "highly qualified effective teacher" measurement into the law based on value-added test scores. The NEA came out swinging against the proposal and switched its lobbying into high gear.

Later on that year, about 30 members of the California Teachers Association showed up on U.S. Rep. George Miller's doorstep to protest a proposed performance-pay program inserted in a draft ESEA bill that, compared to the size of Title I, was itsy-bitsy-rinky-dinky in size.

So while I may be getting ahead of myself here, this is definitely something that could change the game from mostly polite and noncommittal responses we've had so far on the budget.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 10:13 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

I will confess to being somewhat confused by all the rhetoric around the new "college or career ready" accountability framework that the Obama administration is considering for the NCLB law. This Washington Post story makes a big deal about possible flexibility for the 2014 deadline, at which states' proficiency targets must reach 100 percent, and about the idea of intervening differently based on how far schools miss their targets.

But wouldn't the idea of everyone graduating "college or career ready" still be pretty much a universal proficiency goal—and a harder one at that, if you believe our current standards and tests are really as crummy as everyone asserts?

Perhaps this is where scrapping 2014 and focusing on growth instead of absolute targets would provide some breathing room. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, quoted in the WaPo story, sounds thrilled by the potential for changes. But it's possible that standards for college- and career-readiness, coupled with the proposed changes to Title II I wrote about yesterday, will push the bar for quality instruction even higher.

(By the way, a reality check on "universal proficiency by 2014." It's already fungible. The alternative "safe harbor" standard in the law actually makes 100 percent proficiency mathematically impossible.)

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 11:44 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

In its FY 2011 budget request, the Obama administration has finally put its cards on the table with respect to its plans for the federal teacher programs.

Let's take a closer look.

The biggest news, as I've suspected for a while now, is that the administration wants to realign the $3 billion Title II teacher-quality state formula grants program. (EdSec Arne Duncan dropped some significant hints about this last time I got a chance to interview him.)

Currently, that program is extremely flexible, with dozens of different activities and very few preconditions. According to one summary document, the administration seeks to put preconditions on these grants. States would need to revamp their evaluation systems for teachers and principals before getting their cut of the formula funds, for instance. And the program would be decreased to about $2.5 billion.

"Taxpayers invest nearly $3 billion a year in a teacher quality block grant that heavily supports investments with little evidence of or impact on increasing learning," the document states. (Sounds a lot like the lede of my story on this topic.)
.
A $950 million "Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund" would combine both the Teacher Incentive Fund, a performance-pay program, and support for advanced credentialing programs, such as National Board certification. This appears to be the fund through which the department will support efforts to base teacher evaluation, promotion, compensation and so forth on determinations of teacher effectiveness.

Funding for a bunch of teacher preparation/alternative certification programs, including Teach for America, Transition to Teaching, and the Teacher Quality Partnerships (which support teacher residencies) would be consolidated into a $405 million "Teacher and Leader Pathways" competitive grant program.

The Troops-to-Teachers program would be transferred to the Department of Defense.

A bunch of other smaller programs and earmarks will be combined into three new "Effective Teaching and Learning" competitions focusing, respectively, on literacy, STEM education, and foreign language/history/civics. According to the budget, all three programs would contain a focus on effectively using technology, to make up for the elimination of the education technology professional-development grant program. Those programs would total about $1 billion in all.

Some caveats to assuage those of you who aren't happy about this turn of events. First, remember that this budget makes three pretty hefty assumptions: That Congress will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB) this year; that it will rewrite it as outlined in this proposal; and finally, that congressional appropriators will do what the administration wants. There are good reasons to be skeptical about all three of those assumptions.

I'll have reaction from the teacher groups and observers as it comes in.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 1:18 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (2)

The National Council on Teacher Quality has released its third encyclopedic "yearbook" of state teacher-quality policies, this time focused on what laws and regulations states had on the books as of 2009. (Remember that these are state policies; local ones are supplemented by what's in collective bargaining agreements, memorandums of understanding, or the results of meet-and-confer arrangements.)

Most of the states got scores in the D range. Just a handful of states—mostly Southern, right-to-work states, interestingly—got the slightly higher but still undesirable grade of C.

Here are a few facts from the yearbook that I find especially interesting:

• Twenty-six states require no content preparation for elementary-level special education teachers.

• On evaluations, nine states don't specify any evaluation parameters. The others do; of those, 15 require annual evaluations, and 16 require objective measures of student performance to be considered. Twenty-one states don't require evaluations to include classroom observations. (Paging Randi Weingarten!) Four states require evidence of teacher performance to be considered when granting tenure.

• Four states offer teachers a defined-contribution rather than a defined-benefit pension plan.

• Seventeen states set a salary schedule based on teacher longevity and credentials, and 18 require districts to set similar schedules.

• Nineteen states support performance-based-pay programs. Of those, 16 explicitly connect performance pay to evidence of student achievement (not necessarily test scores) and 14 allow all teachers to participate, not just teachers in tested grades and subjects.

As we all know, teacher quality is often a touchy subject, one with more than its fair share of passionate advocates. Or to put it another way, tempers flare early and often on this beat. The NCTQ reports frequently cause a maelstrom of debate. This one will probably be no exception. The council labels traditional salary schedules as "outmoded," for instance, thinks that teachers should be compensated for boosting student achievement, and says most pension systems are inflexible and unfair. And the council has specific ideas about what teachers need to know to teach reading and math, which is a hot-button issue all by itself.

Feel free to write in and let us know if agree with the rationale behind the council's selected indicators and grades. Do you agree with its view of the state policies documented here? Why or why not?

It will be interesting to see whether, in the wake of the Race to the Top, some of these numbers—in addition to the council's grades—change in future years.

You can read prior Education Week coverage of this annual report here and here.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:56 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

I'm swamped today finishing up a story for the paper, so I'm turning Teacher Beat over to you.

I take continuous improvement seriously, as does Education Week, so I want to remind you that this blog is only good insofar as it supplies information and analysis that you find useful.

So how am I doing? Which topics would you like to see more coverage of? Am I doing too much on teachers' unions and Race to the Top? Not enough on state teacher-quality policy? Would you find more news analysis helpful? More links to resources?

Post a comment and let us all know; or e-mail me directly if you're shy. ssawchuk@epe.org.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 10:42 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten had a brief call with reporters this afternoon in which she praised the Obama administration for proposing to boost education spending even as most other areas are slated for cuts.

"We very much appreciate that the core education budget has been preserved," she said.

Whether she'll like the specific education priorities in the budget is another story. So I asked about the Teacher Incentive Fund, since in a briefing Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan intimated prioritizing rewards for teachers and principals, according to this Politico story. Here's Weingarten's response:

"We've seen some good examples out of TIF and we're looking to find the labor-management partnerships that TIF could help fund. So as I said in my speech a couple of weeks ago, it is the glue that helps this new path forward, and hopefully TIF will be the vehicle to facilitate that."

Weingarten added that she's concerned about cuts to programs that support the economic safety net.

(We've since learned that the Promise Neighborhoods program, based largely on the Harlem Children's Zone, will also receive an increase.)

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 4:08 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

There are many teacher implications to this Washington Post exclusive on the federal budget. (More here from Alyson Klein at Politics K-12.) President Obama's 2010 budget request will apparently include some new funds for education, but will also collapse the number of federal K-12 ed programs from 38 to 11 and eliminate six programs altogether.

Translation: Overall education spending will go up. But it might not be going to the teacher programs, and the one you depend on may be going buh-bye.

Practically all of the federal education programs, to one extent or another, affect teachers, but there are quite a few that are specifically focused on educators. The ones I can think of just off the top of my head include the Title II state teacher quality grants, a flexible teacher-oriented funding stream that mainly supports professional development and class size reduction; the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program that seeds teacher and principal performance-based compensation; Troops to Teachers and Transition to Teaching, two programs that help career-changers enter the classrooms; Education Technology and Math and Science Partnerships, two programs that support professional development; the Teacher Quality Partnership grants, which supports teacher preparation and "residency" programs; and support for advanced certification, such as through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

If I were a betting man, I'd expect the administration to preserve and expand the TIF, which is one of its vehicles for promoting teacher effectiveness. I suspect the TQP program will also stay about the same, because as a senator, Obama supported language to rework the program that ultimately got put into effect in the 2008 Higher Education Act renewal. And I would anticipate something happening to Title II, given the tidbits Arne Duncan mentioned in our recent interview with the EdSec.

I'll be sure to comb through all this when we see the details and do an updated post once I know what's what. But keep in mind that, even if the budget zeroes out, consolidates or tweaks some of these programs, all of that has to go through Congress. And every federal program, no matter its size, has one or two ardent defenders on Capitol Hill.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:09 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)