The+Proving+Grounds

Across the country we have heard about school districts in many states firing large amounts of their staff in the 'interest of the students.' The goal is to close the achievement gap between different economic or racial groups throughout the country. Washington D.C. Public Schools is at the heart of it all with a new Chancellor of Schools who is leading the charge in this reform. Michelle Rhee's goal is to close that achievement gap and her methods have been described as a "my way or the highway" approach. Rhee has "Identified the problem," what she refers to as lazy teachers protected by the teacher unions as preventing students from achieving their highest potential. In reaction she has replaced about 40% of the teaching staff plus hundreds of teacher aids and principals.
 * __What kind of 'Rheeform' is going on in Washington D.C.?__**


 * __Is 'Rheeform' working?__**

Chancellor Rhee has been reflected in the media as a success. The image of DC Public Schools is that standardized test scores have improved, for example the 8th grade reading assessment has increased an average of 4 points from the 2007 school year compared to the 2009 school year. However, Rethinking Schools reports that the test scores are not the only thing to change. In fact the demographics of the DC area has also changed. That same 8th grade score increase reflects a drop in African American students being tested by 16%. Historically this demographic has tested lower than both the Hispanic and White racial groups, both of which have increased since 2007, thus improving the average score on reading assessments.

= What are your thoughts. . . ? = __**Should a teachers evaluation and salary be based on students' test scores?**__ __**Is school 'Rheeform' hurting or helping the national education system?**__ ﻿Audra: After they fire these teachers who have been around for some time, does this mean that schools should hire new teachers, right out of college with no experience, so that these school districts can mold them into what they want? I think there are teachers out there in the world who may be to blame, teachers who are stuck in their ways and won't go outside of the box to teach and let their students learn. I think I may have had a few teachers like this, who know the curriculum, but have no idea how to teach it. Along with these teachers, there are amazing teachers out there who have been around as long, but are being fired because of the statistics. Sometimes, there are students who can't fit the numbers that people want to see...what do we do then? Should my job be on the line, because some of my special needs students can't fit the high statistics?
 * __Are Teachers really to Blame?__**
 * We can all think of teachers that fit Chancellor Rhee's description. We have sat in on or learned from lazy teachers that truly were protected by unions, seniority or the "old boy's system." Is Chancellor Rhee correct? Are failing schools a result of slacking teachers?**

﻿Carrie: I have to agree slightly that there have been teachers (very few thankfully) or in my lifetime that I knew were part of the "old boys system", grandfathered in and taught much longer than they should have. Fortunately, most teachers do NOT fit this description. I also think that for the most part schools failing is NOT the result of slacking teachers. Maybe I'm naive in thinking so, but I think the old saying, "It takes a village" is so true. If a child is failing, they many times need the support from home AND school working together. Sometimes it does so happen that a child comes from a very supportive home and hard working teachers and for other reasons, they still struggle. I don't think teachers should solely be too blame. Too often this happens and it's very frustrating. Amy: On the one hand, I completely disagree with the hiring and firing of teachers based on test scores, I have to think that if the teacher is a quality educator the students will achieve. Just as there are exceptions and allowances for special ed students on the WKCE testing, there should be allowances for the statistics they generate for their teacher. Then I think.... the teacher's unions are there to protect teachers, and if there are weak teachers that should probably choose another profession, shouldn't the adminstartion be taking care of that during their probabtion years? Stephanie-I think that the drastic steps Rhee has taken are just that....very drastic. I don't think the way she went about it was the right thing to do. I think she probably fired hundreds of very good teachers along with the few bad eggs that may have been stuck in their old ways, refusing to change, and refusing to imporve for the benefit of their students. I think her plan is going to backfire and I the only people I will feel bad for are all of the students who have missed out on the teachings from the great teachers who have been fired and the good teachers who have lost their jobs.

=
﻿I agree with you and feel that currently, as a country, we are about change for the sake of change. We are not thinking things through we are just want things to be different. "The grass is always greener" scenario is apparent when talking about leadership. Things always look better from the outside looking in, but we all know that's not always true. DC wanted change and they got it, and now what will they do with it? Michelle Rhee has resigned from DC and her, fill in, successor is a friend and former colleague. She says she will continue what Michelle Rhee started, however, I am not sure what that really is? Testing is not always a reliable source to gauge the success of a teacher let alone a school. We all know they are culturally bias and do not measure a child's ability to learn. We as teachers have all had low ability classes and you can stand on your head, but if they are not ready to learn it....they don't. Teachers are extremely important but, parents have the most to do with a child's success. It always amazed me that whatever school activity I went to such as sporting events, concerts, plays, spelling bees, dances, etc... you would see the same parents there. They were committed, and envolved parents who valued education and success. If you really want to see kids do well great teachers and involved parents are essential to the equation and I don't believe Michelle Rhee has factored that in. ======

Jen
Irene: I agree also that there is more than one ingredient in the soup; home life, teachers, what the student brings to the picture, economic issues... Would Michelle Rhee consider punishing parents by taking away their tax deductions if the students still fail after her sweeping teacher reforms? The next year, punish students themselves in some way? There must be a better way, than blame/retaliation.

**Emmy:** Michael Kerr has an article in the Washington Post, in June, 2010, relevant to this topic. The Right Way to Assess Teachers' Performance His suggestions are summarized below:


 * (1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance. **

Without the missing students, the tests won't yield a complete picture of learning. But the tests' purpose is to yield a picture of teaching, which isn't the same thing as learning. Teachers can't teach children who aren't there. Results will reveal that many students miss this attendance requirement. Put that problem on the parents' plates. Leave it out of the teaching assessment.

 Two to three students who just don't care can easily disrupt a class of strugglers. Moreover, many students who are consistently removed for their behavior do start to straighten up -- sitting in the office is pretty boring. Yes, teachers could misuse this authority. But if teachers are evaluated by student learning, they must have control over classroom conditions. Then the administration can separately decide what to do with constantly disruptive students or those teachers who would rather remove students than teach them. But keep the issue away from measuring student performance; leave it as a personnel call. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">
 * <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis. **
 * <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">(3) Students who don't achieve "basic" proficiency in a state test be prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression. **

<span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Students who can't prove they know algebra can't take geometry. If they can't read at a ninth-grade level, they can't take sophomore English -- or, for that matter, sophomore-level history or science, which presumes sophomore-level reading ability. <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Not only is it nearly impossible for these students to learn the new material, but they also slow everyone else as the teacher struggles to find a middle ground. By requiring students to repeat a subject, we can assess both the current and the next teacher based on student progress in an apples-to-apples comparison.

<span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">If Race to the Top is to have meaning, we have to be sure that students are actually getting to the top, instead of being stalled midway up the hill while we lie to them about their progress.

<span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
 * <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">(4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment. **


 * <span style="color: #a44ed0; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 130%;">Audra~ Ha! This is great! I hope Michelle Rhee reads this article. Although this type of teacher assessment would never happen, it sure hits on some great points. #1, There are so many students out there who miss a lot of school and because of this, their performance shows it. #2, I can only imagine what it would be like if teachers could remove the problem students from their class. Think of all the learning that could occur, instead of trying to put out behavior-fires all day. #3, This would be a tricky one for me as a special education teacher, because I have many students who don't meet the proficient level in certain subjects, how many years would they be held back? Would my 5th grader who is reading at a 2nd grade level have to stay in 2nd grade? Not fair! Demographics, attendance, behavior, special education, etc., all of these things come into play in the world of education, NOT just the teachers! **