[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EDUCATION REFORMS: EXPLORING TEACHER QUALITY INITIATIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 27, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-445 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Duncan Hunter, California Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
David P. Roe, Tennessee Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tim Walberg, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee David Wu, Oregon
Richard L. Hanna, New York Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Todd Rokita, Indiana Susan A. Davis, California
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania David Loebsack, Iowa
Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
Martha Roby, Alabama
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
Dennis A. Ross, Florida
Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 27, 2011.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Boasberg, Thomas, superintendent, School District No. 1, City
and County of Denver....................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Cicarella, David, president, New Haven Federation of Teachers 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Huffman, Hon. Kevin, Tennessee Commissioner of Education..... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Walsh, Kate, president, National Council on Teacher Quality.. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
EDUCATION REFORMS: EXPLORING
TEACHER QUALITY INITIATIVES
----------
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Biggert, Foxx,
Goodlatte, Roe, Thompson, DesJarlais, Hanna, Bucshon, Noem,
Heck, Miller, Payne, Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney,
Kucinich, Holt, Davis, Bishop, and Loebsack.
Also Present: Senator Bennet, Representatives DeLauro and
Polis.
Staff Present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine
Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; James
Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator;
Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Daniela
Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Staff
Director; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff Member; Brian
Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Linda Stevens, Chief
Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter,
Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor;
Kate Ahlgren, Minority Investigative Counsel; Tylease Alli,
Minority Clerk; Daniel Brown, Minority Junior Legislative
Assistant; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Deputy Director of Education
Policy (Counsel); Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press
Assistant; Kara Marchione, Minority Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Julie
Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Helen Pajcic, Minority
Education Policy Advisor; Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority
Communications Director for Education; and Laura Schifter,
Minority Senior Education and Disability Advisor.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order.
Good morning. Welcome to our committee hearing on teacher
quality initiatives. I would like to thank our witnesses for
joining us today. Your time is valuable, and we appreciate the
opportunity to get your perspective on how States, school
districts, and the federal government can support and encourage
more effective teachers.
Current law recognizes a teacher as highly qualified if he
or she holds a bachelor's degree, is certified to teach in the
State, and has subject matter and teaching knowledge as
determined by a State test. While these are certainly important
criteria for educators, none of these factors alone can
determine whether someone will be an effective teacher capable
of motivating students and improving achievement levels.
The best teachers are those who keep students engaged,
challenged, and progressing in the classroom. As members of
this committee have discussed, the challenges facing the
nation's education system with superintendents, principals, and
community leaders this year, we have heard impressive stories
of the bright men and women who are entering the field of
teaching and bringing a new wave of creativity and innovation
to K-12 classrooms.
A few months ago, a superintendent in my home State of
Minnesota shared the story of a promising young teacher in his
school. This teacher made great strides in improving the
reading skills of male students by pioneering a groundbreaking
program called Boys Like to Read. His popularity with students,
combined with the success of the program, earned him
recognition as the teacher of the year. This and other examples
from around the country illustrate what research has long
professed: the most important factor in student success is an
effective teacher in the classroom.
Unfortunately, instead of receiving a bonus or promotion or
opportunity to help other teachers replicate his successful
teaching style in their own classrooms, this teacher of the
year was let go from his school, where he was recognized for
his accomplishments and appreciated by his students, parents,
and administrators alike, all because of a ``last in, first
out'' tenure rule.
Valuing credentials and tenure over student outcomes is
completely unacceptable. Every student deserves to be inspired
and challenged by an outstanding educator, not one who has lost
interest in helping students succeed but is protected by rigid
teacher tenure rules. As we work to reform the nation's
education system, the committee will support State and local
efforts to recruit and maintain more effective teachers in the
nation's classrooms.
In Tennessee, for example, State legislators have developed
a new law that revamps the evaluation system. As a result,
teachers must undergo a thorough annual evaluation process
based on student achievement levels and subjective measures,
such as classroom observations. Earlier this year, the State
went one step further by tying the results of these evaluations
to meaningful consequences: teachers whose evaluations reflect
sub-par performance in the classroom can have their tenure
revoked. We will hear more about this new system from one of
our witnesses today.
School districts in Indiana are now required to take
student achievement gains into account when developing new
teacher evaluations. To attract more effective teachers to the
classroom, the State is developing more rigorous professional
development programs and has created a Beginning Teacher
Residency program that authorizes school administrators to
assess a new teacher's performance and provide a personalized
plan for professional development.
Indiana has also undertaken an initiative long supported by
Republicans in Congress: taking an educator's performance in
the classroom into account when making salary determinations.
For years, we have championed programs that support performance
pay measures. One such program, the Teacher Incentive Fund,
awards competitive grants to States, school districts, and
public charter schools to design and implement performance pay
compensation systems for teachers and principals who improve
student achievement.
We all know there can be no one-size-fits-all federal
solution for ensuring an effective teacher is in every
classroom. However, we can make sure our efforts in Washington,
D.C., do not undermine teachers' and principals' ability to
make decisions that best suit their students' unique needs. At
the same time, there are many interesting developments
happening at the State and local level that should be
encouraged, and that is what we are here to explore today. I
would like to thank our witnesses once again for joining us,
and I look forward to learning more about what States and
school districts are doing to recruit and maintain effective
teachers in classrooms across the country.
I will now recognize my distinguished colleague, George
Miller, the Senior Democratic Member of the committee, for his
opening remarks.
[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, and welcome to our committee hearing on teacher
quality initiatives. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us
today. Your time is valuable and we appreciate the opportunity to get
your perspective on how states, school districts, and the federal
government can support and encourage more effective teachers.
Current law recognizes a teacher as ``highly qualified'' if he or
she holds a bachelor's degree, is certified or licensed to teach in the
state, and has subject matter and teaching knowledge as determined by a
state test. While these are certainly important criteria for our
educators, none of these factors alone can determine whether someone
will be an effective teacher capable of motivating students and
improving achievement levels.
The best teachers are those who keep students engaged, challenged,
and progressing in the classroom. As members of this committee have
discussed the challenges facing the nation's education system with
superintendents, principals, and community leaders this year, we have
heard impressive stories of the bright men and women who are entering
the field of teaching and bringing a new wave of creativity and
innovation to K-12 classrooms.
A few months ago, a superintendent in my home state of Minnesota
shared the story of a promising young teacher in his school. This
teacher made great strides in improving the reading skills of male
students by pioneering a groundbreaking program called Boys Like to
Read. His popularity with students combined with the success of the
program earned him recognition as the ``Teacher of the Year.'' This and
other examples from around the country illustrate what research has
long professed: the most important factor in student success is an
effective teacher in the classroom.
Unfortunately, instead of receiving a bonus or promotion or
opportunity to help other teachers replicate his successful teaching
style in their own classrooms, this Teacher of the Year was let go from
his school--where he was recognized for his accomplishments and
appreciated by students, parents, and administrators alike--all because
of misguided ``last in first out'' tenure rules.
Valuing credentials and tenure over student outcomes is completely
unacceptable. Every student deserves to be inspired and challenged by
an outstanding educator, not one who has lost interest in helping
students succeed, but is protected by rigid teacher tenure rules. As we
work to reform the nation's education system, the committee will
support state and local efforts to recruit and maintain more effective
teachers in the nation's classrooms.
In Tennessee, for example, state legislators have developed a new
law that revamps the evaluation system. As a result, teachers must
undergo a thorough annual evaluation process based on student
achievement levels and subjective measures, such as classroom
observations. Earlier this year, the state went one step further by
tying the results of these evaluations to meaningful consequences:
teachers whose evaluations reflect subpar performance in the classroom
can have their tenure revoked. We will hear more about this new system
from one of our witnesses today.
School districts in Indiana are now required to take student
achievement gains into account when developing new teacher evaluations.
To attract more effective teachers to the classroom, the state is
developing more rigorous professional development programs, and has
created a Beginning Teacher Residency program that authorizes school
administrators to assess a new teacher's performance and provide a
personalized plan for professional development.
Indiana has also undertaken an initiative long supported by
Republicans in Congress: taking an educator's performance in the
classroom into account when making salary determinations. For years, we
have championed programs that support performance pay measures. One
such program, the Teacher Incentive Fund, awards competitive grants to
states, school districts, and public charter schools to design and
implement performance pay compensation systems for teachers and
principals who improve student achievement.
We all know there can be no one-size-fits-all federal solution for
ensuring an effective teacher is in every classroom. However, we can
make sure our efforts in Washington, D.C. do not undermine teachers'
and principals' ability to make decisions that best suit their
students' unique needs. At the same time, there are many interesting
developments happening at the state and local level that should be
encouraged, and that's what we're here to explore today. I'd like to
thank our witnesses once again for joining us, and I look forward to
learning more about what states and school districts are doing to
recruit and maintain effective teachers in classrooms across the
country.
I will now recognize my distinguished colleague George Miller, the
senior Democratic member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
I note with a smile when you say that the rather minimal
requirements we have for a highly qualified teacher is the idea
of subject matter competency, with a B.A. degree and
certification from the State; and I reflect back how hard-
fought that was to get that in the law in No Child Left Behind.
But then I remember back even prior to that when I offered
an amendment on the floor of the Congress saying that I thought
we ought to have teachers in the classroom who have subject
matter competency. I lost that amendment 434 to 1.
So we have come a long way, and I think the conversation
today will suggest how far we have come. But there is a lot of
work to do here as we think about the teaching profession and
what we owe our children and how we can improve it.
And we have spent a considerable amount of time in this
committee looking into how a federal policy can best support
great teachers in this country. It is an effort that is worth
our time, because I know we will hear time and again today that
teachers are the single most important factor in a child's
education outside of the home.
Student success is nearly entirely reliant on the quality
and commitment of teachers at his or her classroom. And for
poor and minority students, access to good teachers is an issue
of equity. Poor and minority students are taught by novice and
out-of-field teachers at a much higher rate than their more
affluent peers. The very students who could benefit most from
the very best teachers are least likely to get them. Our
federal education policy should prioritize access to high-
quality teachers for all students, including better
measurements of identifying high-quality teachers.
It is a productive exercise to talk about how we can
improve and modernize the teaching profession, because these
conversations will hopefully lead to better policies and
improve student success. What is not productive are the attacks
that we have seen on teachers across the country from
Republican governors. In trying to strip teachers of all their
collective bargaining rights except for negotiations over pay,
these governors are showing how out of touch they are with
today's teaching profession, school reform in America, and,
frankly, the American workplace.
All over America, school districts are changing the rules
from the mere platitudes that teachers are the most important
influence outside the home in the education of our children to
really making that possible. School districts in unionized
areas, where some said it could never happen, are soliciting--
imagine that--they are soliciting teachers' views on how we
might improve the learning and teaching environment. And it
will continue, because it reflects what great teachers view as
the modern workplace, where results and outcomes matter to
students, parents, teachers, and the community.
Any efforts to help teachers must be done with those
teachers, not to them. It is time we treated the teaching
profession like any other modern workplace, with support,
resources, real professional development, and real rewards.
We now have to create a system where we as a nation are
participants in the reconstitution of our schools. This is not
to be done by experts. This will not be done by researchers or
corporate executives. This reconstitution will have to be done
by communities and by teachers who know what is best for our
schools and our communities, for the children and their
parents.
The real change will require buy-in from all levels of the
community. A great example of parents taking charge and the
community being involved is the parent trigger law in
California. In Los Angeles, the community decided that their
schools simply weren't good enough for their children, the
parents in that attendance area. These students deserved better
and deserved attention from the district. The parents came
together and decided to demand change in the schools. The law
finally gave them the means by which to act.
Buy-in isn't just nodding your head and agreeing that
something needs to happen. Buy-in is helping to be part of the
improvement. It means superintendents and principals that can
look toward the future. It means moving the teaching profession
into the 21st century and finally giving teachers a modern
workplace and rewarding success, encouraging growth, raising
expectations, and measuring outcomes.
It is simply not enough for a small few of our students to
have access to the best schools and the best teachers. If we
want to have the best and the brightest in the world, it is
time we demand the best.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you
again for this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being
here.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning. The subject of today's
hearing is nothing new to this committee.
I've focused my career in Washington on helping teachers and
improving the teaching profession. In fact, I once proposed an
amendment that would've required teachers in the classroom to have
subject matter competency in the areas where they were teaching. I lost
that vote 434-1.
Thankfully, this Congress has changed quite a bit since then and
there's now a growing consensus that we need to provide teachers as
much support as we can.
We've spent considerable time looking into how our federal policy
can best support great teachers in this country.
It's an effort that is worth our time because as I know we'll hear
time and time again today, the teacher is the single most important
factor in a child's education today.
Student success is nearly entirely reliant on the quality and
commitment of the teacher in his or her classroom.
And for poor and minority students, access to good teachers is an
issue of equity. Poor and minority students are taught by novice and
out-of-field teachers at much higher rates than their more affluent
peers.
The very students who could benefit the most from the very best
teachers are the least likely to get them. Our federal education policy
should prioritize access to high quality teachers for all students,
including better measures of identifying high quality teachers.
It's a productive exercise to talk about how we can improve and
modernize the teaching profession because these conversations will
hopefully lead to better policies and improve student success.
What is not productive are the attacks we've seen on teachers
across the country from Republican governors.
In trying to strip teachers of all collective bargaining rights
except for negotiations over pay, these governors are showing how out
of touch they are with today's teaching profession, school reform in
America, and, frankly, the American workplace.
All over America school districts are changing the rules from the
mere platitudes that teachers are the most important influence outside
the home in the education of our children to really making that
possible.
School districts, in unionized areas where some said it could never
happen, are soliciting teacher's views to improve both the learning and
teaching environment.
And it will continue because it reflects what great teachers view
as the modern workplace where results and outcomes matter to students,
parents, teachers and the community.
Any efforts to help teachers must be done WITH teachers not to
them. It's time we treated the teaching profession like any other
modern workplace, with support, resources, real professional
development and real rewards.
We now have to create a system where we as nation participate in
the reconstitution of our schools. This will not be done by experts.
This will not be done by researchers or corporate executives. This will
have to be done by communities and by teachers who know what's best for
our schools.
Real change will require buy in from all levels of communities. A
great example of parents taking charge and the community being involved
is the parent trigger law in California. In Los Angeles, the community
decided that their schools simply weren't good enough for children.
Their students deserved better and deserved attention from the
district. The parents came together and decided to demand change in the
schools. The law finally gave them the means in which to act.
Buy in isn't just nodding your head and agreeing something NEEDS to
happen. Buy in has to be helping be a part of the improvement. It means
superintendents and principals that can look toward the future.
It means treating moving the teaching profession in to the 21st
century by finally giving teachers a modern workplace, rewarding
success, encouraging growth and raising expectations.
It's simply not enough for a small few of our students to have
access to the best schools and the best teachers. If we want to have
the best and the brightest in the world, it's time we demand the best.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you for being here
today.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for 14 days to allow questions for the record,
statements, and extraneous material referenced during the
hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record.
I will now move to introducing our distinguished witnesses.
Today, I get a lot of help in that effort. We are pleased to
have some folks here on the committee----
And, by the way, as you probably have surmised, there are
some conference meetings under way discussing an issue which
seems to be sort of prevalent out there. So my expectation is
that members from both sides will be coming in during the
course of this hearing.
To introduce our first witness, I will turn to my colleague
from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. The reason I am here is I have overdosed on
conferences. I couldn't take any more conferences.
Thank all the committee members for being here.
On behalf of myself and Dr. DesJarlais, I would like to
welcome Kevin Huffman, the commissioner of Tennessee's
Department of Education.
Before being appointed in April by Governor Bill Haslam,
Mr. Huffman spent nearly two decades working with public
education systems as a teacher, lawyer, and a nonprofit
executive and nonprofit board member. Commissioner Huffman
began his education career as a first and second grade
bilingual teacher in the Houston Independent School District,
teaching students in English and Spanish. He was a member of
his school's elected, shared, decision-making committee and
trained new teachers as a faculty advisor and school director
at Teach for America's summer training institutes. Mr. Huffman
joined the senior management of Teach for America in 2000,
serving as the general counsel, the senior vice president of
growth strategy and development, and the executive vice
president of public affairs during more than a decade with the
organization.
Commissioner Huffman, I look forward to your testimony
regarding exciting work in education taking place in Tennessee,
and welcome.
Chairman Kline. I will add my welcome.
And, moving on, I am pleased to welcome Senator Bennet from
Colorado to make the introduction of our second witness.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you and the ranking member for
holding this important hearing and having me here today and
giving me the privilege of introducing my friend, Tom Boasberg,
who was appointed superintendent of the Denver Public Schools
in January of 2009.
Tom Boasberg has led the district's efforts to accelerate
its progress in student achievement and better serve the
families of Denver. Over the past 2 years, the district has
posted record enrollment increases, dramatically expanded the
number of preschool and full-day kindergarten slots, cut the
number of lowest-performing schools in half, and continued the
student achievement gains that began with the creation of the
Denver Plan in 2005.
In 2010, Denver Public Schools graduated about 13 percent
more seniors than the previous year. The district had four of
the top five schools for year to year academic growth in the
State of Colorado, and DPS continues a 5-year trend of academic
achievement gains that has outpaced all other school districts
in Colorado. In addition, in the last 4 years, the Denver
Public Schools has seen a 40 percent decrease in the dropout
rate.
Before becoming superintendent, Mr. Boasberg had a
distinguished career in the private and public sectors. But,
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you before the hearing, the
real reason I am here is to ask you to please disregard
anything he says negative about his predecessor, namely me,
during the course of his testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Without objection. Thank you, Senator, and
welcome.
Next, I am happy to welcome Ms. DeLauro from Connecticut to
our committee today to introduce our today's third witness.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you and our Ranking Member Miller for
giving me this opportunity to introduce one of my constituents,
David Cicarella, who is president of the New Haven Federation
of Teachers. As the union president, David led the school
reform efforts of the Federation, producing a new 4-year
contract that emphasized collaboration, cooperation with New
Haven's public schools, with their central office, and with the
school board.
The contract incorporates new, innovative measures for a
teacher evaluation system that is being referenced nationwide
as the, quote, ``New Haven model.'' It came about thanks to New
Haven Mayor John DeStefano, New Haven Schools Superintendent
Dr. Reginald Mayo, and our local teachers union all making the
decision to work collaboratively through the existing
collective bargaining process.
David was instrumental in making it happen. He worked hard
to build the support for the contract among his members. He was
supported by the national affiliate throughout the process. And
because of his hard work, our City of New Haven has led the way
in demonstrating to the entire Nation that strong teachers'
unions, strong schools, and strong education reforms are all
part of the piece. It demonstrated a forward-thinking
flexibility by all parties, a reaffirmation of the central
importance of teachers' unions to our education system, and a
positive and demonstrable commitment to real school reform by
everyone involved.
Along with heading the local AFT chapter, David knows the
New Haven school system inside and out. Prior to his election
as the union president in January of 2007, he was a classroom
teacher, staff developer, instructional coach for 28 years,
teaching science, reading, and math. For 5 years prior to
becoming union president, he also taught mathematics courses at
Gateway Community College in New Haven.
So today's discussion is about teachers, their professional
development, most importantly, how to ensure we are delivering
the best possible education for our children. On these crucial
matters it really is an honor for me to introduce my
constituent, David Cicarella, to you; and I thank you for
choosing him to testify before your committee today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady and add my welcome
to Mr. Cicarella.
Now it is my turn. I have the pleasure of introducing our
final witness for today's hearing. Ms. Kate Walsh became
president of the National Council on Teacher Quality in 2002.
Before joining NCTQ, she worked for the Abell Foundation in
Baltimore, the Baltimore City Public Schools, and the Core
Knowledge Foundation. Her work has tackled a broad spectrum of
educational issues, with a primary focus on the needs of
children who are disadvantaged by poverty and race. She also
serves on the Maryland State Board of Education.
So welcome.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me again briefly explain our lighting system. You will each
have 5 minutes to give your testimony. All of your statements
will be entered in their entirety in the record.
When you start, there is a little lighting system in front
of you. There will be a green light that comes on. After 4
minutes, when you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
yellow. When the 5 minutes are up, it will turn red; and I
would ask you then to please summarize as quickly as you can. I
am reluctant to bang the gavel while you are still speaking,
but we also have a responsibility to keep this moving.
So, again, welcome to you all; and we will start now. I
will just move down the line, and we will start with Mr.
Huffman.
Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN S. HUFFMAN, COMMISSIONER,
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member
Miller and committee members. Thanks for having me and for
taking the time to engage in thoughtful discussion about the
role that teachers and teacher evaluation can play.
This coming school year, Tennessee will launch our new
statewide teacher evaluation system. Teachers will receive an
evaluation score from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. Thirty-
five percent of the evaluation will be determined by value-
added scores from standardized tests. Fifteen percent of the
evaluation will be determined by other student achievement
metrics. Fifty percent of the evaluation will be a qualitative
score based upon classroom observation.
I want to pause here, though, and note something that I
think is important. No evaluation protocol is perfect. In my
mind, one of our great national failings in the discussion
about teacher evaluation is that we consistently allow
ourselves to be derailed through the unattainable concept of a
perfect system. The reality, of course, is that evaluation in
every field is imperfect; and our quest, instead, should be to
create the best possible system and make sure that we continue
to reflect on that system and refine it over time.
In Tennessee, we think evaluations should be used for
several key things: first, to support teachers by providing
helpful feedback in real time; second, to identify the top
performers in the field so that we can study and learn from
them, recognize them, and extend their impact; and, third, to
identify teachers in need of improvement so that we can tailor
professional development and, in the case of a small
percentage, exit them from the profession.
For the qualitative 50 percent of Tennessee's evaluation
model, we field tested three different observation rubrics last
year, with very positive results. We also gathered input from
our legislatively appointed Teacher Evaluation Advisory
Committee, a 15-person committee, including eight educators.
Ultimately, we selected the TAP rubric, which is the
observation tool used in the Teacher Advancement Program,
because of its strong performance in the field test but also
because TAP was able to provide a high level of training and
support for our first year of implementation.
The TAP rubric measures teachers against 19 indicators on a
1-to-5 scale, with clearly defined, observable criteria.
Teachers will be observed by principals, assistant principals,
or other instructional coaches. There will be a minimum of four
observations a year for veterans and a minimum of six
observations a year for apprentice teachers. At least half of
the observations must be unannounced, and at least half of the
observations have to happen during the first semester so that
teachers are getting feedback early in the year. The
observations are followed within a week with both written and
verbal feedback.
In order to become an observer, principals and other school
leaders must go through rigorous training and pass a
certification test. We have this summer trained nearly 5,000
observers in very intensive 4-day sessions. Each observer must
pass an inter-rater reliability test in which they watch
videotaped lessons on line and answer questions.
On the quantitative side, Tennessee has been collecting
longitudinal data on students, with links to teachers, for
nearly two decades and has produced value-added scores for
teachers in tested subjects and grades for years. For the
roughly 45 percent of our teachers who teach in tested subjects
and grade levels, the student growth component of the
evaluation will be based on these value-added scores.
For teachers in non-tested subjects and grade levels, in
most instances we will this year use a school-wide value-added
score. For instance, an elementary school art teacher would be
rated based on the value-added score of the school for the 35
percent of the evaluation.
Now, I want to identify with transparency some of the
critiques of our system and how we are thinking about them.
First, on the qualitative observations, while in the field
test, teachers and principals had a very positive response to
the rubric, we have heard some concerns. Some teachers worry
that observers won't do a good job, and we are attempting to
address that concern through rigorous training and through
ongoing support.
Also, principals are being evaluated on how well they
implement the teacher evaluation system. But in the end, as in
every profession, we can't guarantee that every boss is a good
boss. Some principals are worried that the time required is too
much, but the field test demonstrated that this should not be a
concern. And, more importantly, our evaluation system propels a
critical cultural shift in the job description of principals.
Principals are now no longer simply building and budget
managers. They have to take responsibility for instruction and
for the development of talent in their schools.
And, finally, the largest challenge I see on the
qualitative side is trying to ensure consistency in the range
of distribution of the observation scores, which we are trying
to do through central tracking and then engagement with the
districts.
Quickly, for the quantitative piece, the biggest critique
currently is from teachers in the untested subjects and grade
levels. Many feel it is unfair to be assessed through school-
wide value-added scores, and what we are doing this year is
making sure that we field test other assessments across the
State for different fields.
Then, for the following school year, we would like to offer
districts, at their discretion, the ability to use additional
assessments; and we anticipate that some districts would choose
to use those assessments, while other districts may continue to
believe that school-wide data is actually appropriate for
teachers in some circumstances.
I want to thank you for having me. This is a work in
progress. We are learning a lot from this system. I do think it
is really important that we all stay grounded in the idea that
evaluation is important, that it is always going to be somewhat
subjective and imperfect, and that the important thing is that
we study it, learn from it, and keep making it better over
time.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin Huffman,
Tennessee Commissioner of Education
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and committee members, I am
Kevin Huffman, Commissioner of Education in Tennessee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify about our work to improve education for our
nearly 950,000 public school students in the state.
I want to thank the Committee for taking the time to engage in
thoughtful discussion about the role that teachers and teacher
evaluation can play in the effort to build a better education system.
We are grappling with many complicated questions in Tennessee, and I
hope that our experiences will be helpful as you consider the broader
implications.
Let me start by providing some context about our work. I was
appointed by our newly elected governor, Bill Haslam, and have been in
this position for a little under four months. Tennessee has been
working on a variety of education reforms for much longer, with broad
bipartisan and community support. While the current legislature and
governor are Republican, the bill creating our teacher evaluation
system was passed by a bipartisan legislature and signed by Governor
Bredesen, our Democratic predecessor, who did significant work to
advance reforms in education. This work has been continued and
accelerated by Governor Haslam, who led the effort to implement many
reforms, and to pass landmark tenure and charter school legislation
this year.
The legislature and Governors have acted in large measure because
our education system has not delivered acceptable results. Tennessee
ranks around 43rd in the nation in student achievement. At the same
time, our state assessments historically showed that around 90 percent
of our students were proficient. Additionally, virtually all teachers
were automatically tenured after three years, and tenured teachers were
evaluated (without data) twice every ten years. The system was broken,
and a bipartisan coalition of political leaders stepped in and took
action.
Beyond the legislative work, there is broad community support for
education reform in Tennessee. While he is known here in Washington for
different work, Bill Frist started an organization in Tennessee called
SCORE, which pulls together the business, education, philanthropic and
local civic organizations under one umbrella to talk about schools. It
has been enormously successful in gathering input and building
consensus for change in the state.
This coming school year--2011-12--Tennessee will launch our new
statewide teacher evaluation system. Let me describe how it will work:
Teachers will receive an evaluation score from 1 to 5,
with 5 being the highest.
35% of the evaluation will be determined by value-added
scores, or comparable growth scores, from standardized tests.
15% of the evaluation will be determined by other student
achievement metrics, selected through a joint-decision by principals
and individual teachers.
50% of the evaluation will be a qualitative score based on
classroom observation.
These components are in the legislation, and our job at the state
department of education is to help districts and schools implement the
evaluation system as well as possible.
I want to pause here, though, and note something that I think is
important. No evaluation protocol is perfect. There is no system that
is 100% objective, 100% aligned and normed, and 100% reliable. One of
our great national failings in the discussion about teacher evaluation
is that we consistently allow ourselves to be derailed through the
lofty and unattainable concept of the perfect system. The reality, of
course, is that evaluation in every field is imperfect. The quest is
not to create a perfect system. The quest is to create the best
possible system, and to continue to reflect on and refine that system
over time.
In Tennessee, we think evaluation should be used for several key
things. First, support teachers by providing helpful feedback in real
time so that they can continue to improve their craft. Second, identify
the top performers in the field so that we can study and learn from
them, recognize them for their work, and extend their impact by
building meaningful career pathways that allow them to touch ever-more
kids. Third, identify teachers in need of improvement so that we can
tailor professional development to their needs and, in the case of a
small percentage who cannot reach a bar of effectiveness, exit them
from the profession. Because the national conversation has often
focused primarily on evaluation as a means for removal of ineffective
teachers, we too often lose sight of the way the vast majority of
teachers will experience the evaluation system: as a means for feedback
and professional development, and an opportunity to learn from the very
best teachers.
As we prepare for full state implementation of our evaluation
system this year, we are working on the challenges of both the
qualitative and the quantitative components. I will describe briefly
how the system works, what the challenges and critiques are, and how we
are attempting to address those considerations.
For the qualitative 50%, we field-tested three different
observation rubrics and rating systems across the state last school
year, with very positive results. We also gathered input from our
legislatively appointed TEAC committee--the Teacher Evaluation Advisory
Committee--which met more than 20 times over the course of the year to
craft policy guidelines and criteria, review field test data, offer
ideas about additional implementation needs, and to make
recommendations about the quantitative and qualitative data components.
This 15-person committee included eight educators, the executive
director of the State Board of education, a legislator and several
other business and community stakeholders.
Ultimately, we have selected the TAP rubric (the observation tool
used in the Teacher Advancement Program) both because of its strong
performance in the field test with teachers and principals, but also
because TAP was able to provide the level of training and support that
we need for the first year of implementation. Here is how this works.
The TAP rubric measures teachers against 19 indicators across 4
domains on a 1 to 5 scale, with clearly defined, observable criteria.
Teachers will be observed by principals, assistant principals, or other
instructional coaches or leaders designated by the principals. There
will be a minimum of four observations a year for professionally
licensed teachers, and a minimum of six observations a year for
apprentice teachers. At least half of the observations must be
unannounced. At least half of the observations must be during the first
semester so that teachers get feedback early in the year. The
observations vary in length, from full lesson-length observations, to
15-minute walk-throughs, and are followed within a week with both
written and verbal feedback.
In order to become an observer, principals and other school leaders
must go through rigorous state-facilitated training, and must pass a
certification test. We have, this summer, trained nearly 5,000
observers in very intensive four-day sessions led by expert TAP
trainers. Each observer then must pass an inter-rater reliability test
in which they watch video taped lessons on-line and answer questions to
ensure that they understand what constitutes low, medium and high
performance on the different components of the rubric. They must also
demonstrate the ability to provide high-quality feedback based on the
observed lesson by submitting a post-observation conference plan.
On the quantitative side, Tennessee has been collecting
longitudinal data on students, with links to teachers, for nearly two
decades and has produced value-added scores for teachers in tested
subjects and grades for years. For the roughly 45% of our teachers who
teach in tested subjects and grade-levels (essentially, third through
eighth grade in science, social studies, language arts and math, and
high school end of course exams), the student growth component of the
evaluation will be based on the same value-added scores that the state
has generated and used over time.
For the teachers in non-tested subjects and grade levels, to meet
the statutory requirement of 35% of a teacher's evaluation tying to
student growth data, in most instances we will use a school-wide growth
score for this coming year. For instance, an elementary school art
teacher will be rated based on the value-added score of the school for
the 35% of the evaluation. Simultaneously, we are working closely with
Tennessee educators and technical experts in subject matter committees
to identify and develop comparable, alternative growth measures in
these non-tested subjects and grades.
Let me identify with transparency some of the critiques of our
system and how we are thinking about them.
First, the qualitative observations: In the field test, teachers
and principals had an overwhelmingly positive response to the rubric,
liked the observation protocol, and in particular liked the forced
face-to-face feedback sessions with school leaders. Teachers felt like
the process of observation and real-time, targeted feedback increased
their ability to provide their students with effective instruction, and
principals learned much more about their teachers' work and how to act
as instructional leaders.
That said, there are a number of concerns that teachers, principals
and superintendents (generally, ones who did not participate in the
field test) have aired in my many visits around the state. First,
teachers worry that that the observers will not be effective because of
skill limitations. We are attempting to address that real concern
through rigorous training and through ongoing support. We will have
nine coaches across the state who will be going into buildings this
year and re-training and helping support administrators who may
struggle with the new demands of this system. Additionally, principals
are being evaluated this year, and part of the principal evaluation
includes an assessment of how well they implement the teacher
evaluation. In the end, though, we cannot guarantee that every boss is
a good boss. This is true in every profession and every walk of life.
With so many competing demands, principals worry that the time
required is too much. The field test demonstrated however, that this
should not be a concern. By designating additional administrators and
getting them trained through the state program, principals should spend
an average of five hours a week observing and conferencing with
teachers if they plan their schedules and pace their observations
effectively. More importantly, though, this evaluation system propels a
critical cultural shift and growing trend in the job description of
principals. Principals are no longer simply building and budget
managers. They must take responsibility for instruction and for the
development of talent in their schools in order for us to meet our
ambitious state goals over the coming years.
Finally, the largest challenge I see is trying to ensure
consistency in the range of distribution for the observation scores. By
this, I mean that we would like the same teacher using the same lesson
to get the same score across different schools and across different
districts. This also includes achieving a reasonable, consistent
relationship between the quantitative and qualitative components for
individual teachers across schools, districts and educator groups
throughout the state. This level of consistency will not happen without
a great deal of ongoing support, guidance and hard work on the part of
school leaders, but we are working to build systems and support
structures that will allow us to exercise as much quality control as
possible.
To this end, we are creating an on-line reporting platform so that
principals across the state will be able to enter observation scores in
real time, and we will be able to compile data at the school, district
and state level. This means that in November, for example, we would be
able to see through our state system that the average observation score
in County X is a 3.2, while the average observation score in County Y
is a 4.2. If the different levels of ratings do not correspond with
achievement scores in the district--meaning that if County Y is not
significantly outperforming County X on its achievement and value-added
scores--we will reasonably assume that the counties are applying
difference standards, despite our training and support. We then will be
able to engage in site visits, observations, and re-norming of the
observers and observation scores. In essence, we need to make sure to
the extent possible that districts across the state are holding
themselves to the same bar.
For the quantitative piece, we are proceeding this year with the
current system while we field-test and explore additional options for
the 2012-13 school year. The biggest current critique is from teachers
in the untested subjects and grade levels. Many feel that it is unfair
to be assessed through school-wide value-added scores. Here is how we
are thinking about that piece.
First, this year we are working with teams of educators and experts
to field-test several alternative assessments across multiple fields.
For the following school year, we would like to offer districts--at
their discretion--the ability to use demonstrated high-quality
assessments. Some districts may choose to use these assessments, both
because of the assistance in identifying student needs and also for
individualizing teacher value. Some districts may continue to believe
that school-wide data facilitates team-building and helps create a
sense of collective accountability for results.
I will share my own belief on this, which stems in part from my
experiences as a former first and second grade teacher. I believe that
for academic subjects and grades--for instance, first grade or
secondary foreign languages--we should aspire to use assessments that
capture teachers' individual impact on student growth. For many
subjects, though,--for instance art and music--it is appropriate to use
school-wide value-added data. I do not think we should test kids in
every single class. Furthermore, teachers who touch large numbers of
students in a school have a school-wide impact, not just on reading and
math but also on building the school culture that plays a large role in
outcomes. As one music teacher shared with me at a roundtable, ``When
there are budget cuts that eliminate music positions, we are the first
people to step up and talk about our school-wide impact.''
An additional concern is that the value-added scores will
disadvantage teachers who work in the highest-need schools and
classrooms. Our evidence does not support this claim. There are wide
disparities in value-added data among districts and schools, and some
suburban schools with high absolute achievement scores nonetheless have
lower value-added scores. Additionally, as an alumnus of Teach For
America, I am proud to note that in our assessment of teacher
providers, teachers from Teach For America and Vanderbilt outperformed
teachers from every other pathway on value-added scores. Teach For
America teachers, of course, teach in the highest need classrooms in
the state.
A third complaint involves the volatility of value-added scores.
Some experts believe that value-added scores waver too much from year
to year. We believe that value-added scores, as used by the state over
a period of years, are meaningful indicators of annual progress. To
ensure the fairest system, though, we are going to use three-year
rolling value-added scores for teachers for their individual
assessments where possible. For instance, a teacher who has taught at
least three consecutive years will be scored through the average of
those years rather than simply through the last year. For teachers with
only two years of scores, we will use the two-year average, and for
teachers with one year, that will constitute the score for their
assessments.
One additional challenge is that there are a surprising number of
one-off situations that impact the ability to use quantitative data. We
have teachers who teach multiple subjects across multiple schools,
particularly in remote areas, and it becomes ever more difficult to
isolate the impact. We have teachers who teach in alternative settings,
where students are sent to them because of behavior problems but may
only be in their class for a period of a few weeks.
These are real issues, and we care about doing the best job we can
in these situations. I feel strongly, however, that we cannot let the
outlier examples dictate policy for the vast majority of teachers. We
are likely to read many newspaper stories this year in Tennessee that
focus on anecdotes about individual teachers who do not fit perfectly
within our evaluation framework. We have to strike the right balance of
working to improve the evaluation tools for those teachers, while
remaining focused on what I believe is a strong system for the vast
majority of teachers.
I want to touch quickly on the implication of the evaluation system
for teachers. Essentially, what are the stakes?
First, Tennessee's evaluation law states clearly that ``evaluations
shall be considered in personnel decisions.'' This simple directive is
critical to school district policy moving forward. LIFO--the pernicious
system of laying off the youngest teachers first, regardless of how
good they are--cannot be used any more. Schools must take the
evaluations into consideration.
Second, under Governor Haslam's leadership, Tennessee passed
landmark tenure legislation this year. Previously, teachers were
granted tenure after three years, and virtually every teacher got it.
It was a virtual rubber stamp. Moving forward, teachers are eligible
for tenure after a minimum of five years and only if they score a 4 or
a 5 on the evaluation for their most recent two years of teaching.
Additionally, teachers who gain tenure under the new system will lose
their tenure if they are rated a 1 or a 2 for two consecutive years.
I believe this legislation will be groundbreaking for Tennessee
over the coming decades. If there is any place for tenure in K to 12
education, it must be tied to teacher effectiveness, not just initially
but in an ongoing way.
Let me close with some broad thoughts based on our experience in
Tennessee. First, there is no perfect evaluation system. It doesn't
exist and we should stop pretending that the goal is perfection.
Second, a good evaluation system must have multiple measures. It must
have both a tie to quantitative student achievement growth, and it must
have multiple means of assessing a teacher, qualitatively. Third, there
should be a continuous improvement cycle for the system itself. We are
going to review our system every year, make changes based on feedback
from teachers and administrators, and keep making it better.
Additionally, while I have focused on our statewide TAP rubric for
observation today, we have approved three alternative observation
systems that several districts will use this year. One system is built
around ten or more short observations of 5-10 minutes each. Another,
through the work of the Gates Foundation in Memphis, uses multiple
tools including student surveys. We approved these models precisely
because we don't think we have designed a perfect system and because we
do think we should have multiple systems in place that we can study and
learn from.
Finally, from my experiences to date in Tennessee, I strongly
believe that at some point, states simply have to stop planning and
dive in to do this work. I know there are many states that continue to
kick implementation one year farther down the road. This seems to be
rooted in the futile belief that states will perfect the system before
rollout, or that opponents of the system will be assuaged by delay.
Neither is true. At some point, states and districts have to actually
implement the system, and I am enormously proud that Tennessee is
implementing the system this year, without giving in to calls for
further delay.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present on behalf of my
boss, Governor Haslam, and the state department of education of
Tennessee. I look forward to fielding questions on this important
topic.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Boasberg, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TOM BOASBERG, SUPERINTENDENT,
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Boasberg. Great. Thank you very much, Chairman Kline
and Ranking Member Miller.
I certainly want to also thank Senator Bennet for his kind
introduction. Certainly the work that Michael led as
superintendent to Denver Public Schools and his focus on
attracting and developing and retaining great teachers and
high-quality instruction for all and his relentless can-do
spirit and optimism really helped transform the Denver Public
Schools.
So we have a slide deck for you today where we are focusing
on a couple slides. And if we can go to the first slide in the
deck, it really says, why are we doing this? Why is our program
we call LEAP, Leading Effective Academic Practice, the number
one priority of the district?
And it is precisely because having a great teacher in every
classroom is the most important thing in driving student
achievement and helping close the achievement gaps we have in
Denver, providing equity for every one of our students so that
we can create a much stronger economic and civic future for the
Denver community.
Next slide, please.
We have collaborated very, very closely with our teachers
to jointly spell out what excellence in teaching across its
many dimensions means, through focus groups, through joint
principal and teacher design teams. And I certainly want to
recognize the leadership of our teachers' association
president, Henry Roman, for his role in helping lead this
process.
We piloted our new system this last spring in 16 of our
schools with over 500 teachers, got a very strong response from
our teachers, and in May teachers at each one of our schools
had the chance to vote whether this school year, beginning next
month, to use the system. And I am pleased to say that teachers
in over 95 percent of our schools have chosen to do so.
Next slide, please.
The next slide represents our framework for effective
teaching, the observation tool that principals and peer
observers use to observe and give feedback to teachers about
their classroom instruction. There are 21 specific indicators
on the framework that fall into eight specific expectations
around positive classroom culture and climate, effective
classroom management, standards-based goals, high-impact
instructional moves, differentiation, masterful content
knowledge, academic language development, and 21st century
skills.
You will note a particular emphasis on the importance of
our English language learners, who make up over 40 percent of
the district students. One reason we chose to develop our own
framework and rubric was we felt the national available
frameworks did not have an adequate focus on English language
learners.
And you will also note the focus on the key skills we know
our students need to develop to be successful in this century's
economy: critical thinking, creativity, academic language,
collaboration, and classroom leadership among them.
Slide five, the next slide, shows how our teachers, 500
teachers in the pilot have felt. Over 80 percent of them have
felt that they got feedback that was actually helping them
improve their classroom instruction, more than two times under
our previous system. And we know how extraordinarily
challenging and sophisticated quality teaching is and how
important coaching and feedback is to teachers to develop their
professional craft.
Next slide, please.
This slide then begins to show one of the elements on the
framework, specifically how a teacher motivates students to
learn, to take academic risks, and demonstrate classroom
leadership and really try and have very concrete and specific
examples of what excellent practice is to give teachers that
specificity and to help coaches provide coaching and feedback
to our teachers.
Next slide.
This slide looks at that same indicator, motivating
students to learn, take academic risks, and demonstrate
classroom leadership and looks at student behaviors. And one of
the things that we care most about our framework is that, for
each of the elements, we not look only at the behaviors of the
teacher but what is going on in the classroom. What impact is
that having on students in the classroom? Because if it is not
happening among students, then it is not happening. That
clearly is the measure of effective instruction, is how
students are reacting. So this looks very specifically and
concretely at how students are doing in the classroom and tries
to then distinguish what is, for example, very effective
practice.
When you look at something like the first bullet, almost
all of the students begin work immediately after tasks are
assigned and continue on task throughout their work time,
versus approaching, which is that most students begin working
on tasks after assigned, and some are struggling with those
tasks.
Next slide.
Another example of this is on providing opportunities for
creativity/innovation, critical thinking, and problem solving.
Again, both the teacher behaviors and the student behaviors.
Next slide, please.
Just as students, so do adult learners need to focus on
critical areas of development. So we make sure that in our
framework each individual teacher picks one area of focus, each
school picks a particular area of focus for focus on school-
wide so all the professional development in that school is
focused in the line towards the growth of the teachers
throughout that building in that particular area.
Go through the next two slides, if you would, which are
about professional development, videos that we have on our
website that demonstrate excellence in practice across each of
the 21 indicators, excellent DPS teachers demonstrating that
practice.
This slide, part of our system also is feedback from
students on questions that have been shown to be correlated
with growth and student achievement. This is one of the
elements of our program as well.
The next and last slide, please.
And then overall, summing up, overall, the teacher's
assessment is based on a whole series of multiple measures. As
required by State law, half of the assessment is based on
multiple measures of growth in student achievement. And we also
have the principal and peer observations, we have the
professional contributions to team and to school, and we have
the student perception data. So we believe very strongly in
multiple and balanced measures of teachers, with a real focus
on feedback and coaching and professional development of the
professional skills of our teachers.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Boasberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Boasberg, Superintendent,
School District No. 1, City and County of Denver
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to provide input regarding the
critical issue of educator effectiveness. I am Tom Boasberg,
Superintendent of Denver Public Schools. I have been Superintendent
since January, 2009.
Below we detail the purpose of our Leading Effective Academic
Practice system (LEAP), the collaborative process used to develop LEAP,
the Framework for Excellent Teaching, and the set of professional
develop supports for our teachers that are aligned with LEAP.
Purpose of Leading Effective Academic Practice System (LEAP)
Overview: The Denver Plan
The 2010 Denver Plan lays out the DPS vision and the course we are
embarking on to achieve our goals. It states the district's committed
to having a highly effective teacher in every classroom and building
strategies to support this commitment.
The Empowering Excellent Educators work, including LEAP, focuses on
two strategies within the Denver Plan:
1. GREAT PEOPLE TO DRIVE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS: Development
of a multiple-measure teacher evaluation and feedback system that
meaningfully differentiates the performance of teachers.
2. FOCUS ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE: Create conditions to ensure
educator effectiveness. This will require us to develop a shared
definition of effective teaching (DPS Framework for Effective
Teaching); do more to support teachers in becoming effective teachers;
and continue to develop principals to be effective leaders.
The Need for Reform:
Despite the progress that we have made as a district, we must face
the sobering reality:
Too few DPS students are proficient on the state's
reading, mathematics and writing measures.
Not enough of our students are graduating from high
school.
In a district where a majority of our students are of
color--58% Latino and 14% African American--and 73% of all students are
FRL, an unacceptable achievement gap persists between our African-
American and Latino students and their Anglo and Asian-American
counterparts.
While our growth confirms that we are on the right track, we
acknowledge that we must significantly accelerate our rate of
improvement and put far more of our students on the path to graduation
and success in college and careers.
Study after study has made clear that the most important factor in
closing the achievement gap is the quality of teaching. Our students
deserve our best and we need to ensure that all students have great
teachers.
Ready for Reform:
It is time to accelerate our reforms, to sharpen the focus on
student achievement and classroom excellence.
A report released in August 2010 by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
recognized Denver as the 4th best city in the country for cultivating a
healthy environment for school reform to flourish.
The Council of the Great City Schools, a national organization of
67 of the nation's largest urban school districts, stressed in its 2009
evaluation of DPS that our district's vision for reform is ``one of the
most promising and comprehensive in the nation.'' The council further
noted, ``The architecture of these reforms--instructional, financial,
and human capital--is among the most seamlessly conceived in all of
urban education in the United States.''
Denver Public Schools has made steady strides in the past few
years. Our momentum is strong and we need to capitalize on it now.
Investing in teachers is one of the critical ingredients to school
reform in Denver. Essential to our reform strategy is empowering
educators with meaningful feedback to enhance their instruction and
maximize their impact on student achievement.
Empowering Excellent Educators: Elevating the Teaching
Profession
Empowering Excellent Educators is a comprehensive set of
initiatives rooted in a commitment to consistently develop, recognize,
reward, recruit and retain great teachers and principals. LEAP is part
of DPS's commitment to Empowering Excellent Educators.
reward and retain
Foster a supporting environment for all DPS teachers to
grow professionally
Recognize and reward our best teachers as an invaluable
resource
Provide opportunities for leadership and advancement for
highly effective teachers
Build sustainable training structures
Provide coaching to new teachers
recruitment
Attract excellent new and experienced teachers
Recruit diverse teachers who reflect our diverse student
population
Complete early hiring cycles to secure the best available
talent
Provide multiple pathways into teaching including Denver
Teacher Residency (DTR)
Train our principals on how to successfully identify and
onboard new teachers that fit their school culture
evaluation
Provide evaluations that are transparent, objective and
complete
Use multiple measures, including peer observation and
student achievement data
Link to differentiated professional development
professional development and support
Provide meaningful professional development
Link professional development to identified needs
Create a structure of feedback and support
Provide teachers with the online tools and resources they
need for success, including online assessment tools and easily
accessible curricular resources
Every component of Empowering Excellent Educators is built on the
respect for the central role of educators in raising student
achievement in the district. Our hope is that Empowering Excellent
Educators will elevate the teaching profession within DPS, in our
community and shine a national spotlight on the far-reaching and
profound impact we know teachers have on their students.
Collaborative process used to develop LEAP
Collaboration:
From the planning stage and throughout development, DPS and DCTA
have worked collaboratively. DPS and DCTA recognize that a successful
Framework for Effective Teaching and the supporting evaluation system,
LEAP, must be informed by the ideas and experiences of actual
practitioners.
DPS and DCTA have worked together to organize various engagement
groups:
Steering Committee: An oversight committee for Empowering
Excellent Educators responsible for ongoing strategic direction and
decision making. Members of the group:
Tom Boasberg--DPS Superintendent
Susana Cordova--DPS Chief Academic Officer
Shayne Spalten--DPS Chief Human Resources Officer
Henry Roman--DCTA President
Carolyn Crowder--DCTA
Professional Practices Work Group: A group comprised of
DPS employees, DCTA members, and outside experts that act as an
advisory board to the LEAP steering committee, project leadership team,
and design teams.
Focus Groups: Conducted by a third party and used
throughout the development of LEAP and the DPS Framework for Effective
Teaching to incorporate teacher and principal voice.
Design Teams: Groups of teachers and principals within DPS
that were formed to incorporate teacher and principal voice into the
new DPS Framework for Effective Teaching and LEAP. The five Design
Teams include: Principal Effectiveness, Teacher Effectiveness, Peer
Observation, Student Assessment and Outcomes, and Professional
Development.
LEAP Project Leadership Team: DPS staff dedicated to the
development of LEAP and the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching. The
team includes a full-time DCTA Liaison who works closely with the LEAP
team and brings DCTA perspective on a daily basis.
Focus Group Findings:
Over a three week period in April 2010 approximately 225
principals, teachers, district staff, and students participated and
shared their ideas in focus groups facilitated by a neutral third
party.
The purpose of the focus groups was two-fold:
1. DPS and DCTA wanted to gather the best information possible from
all stakeholders about what is working within the current system, what
is most in need of repair, and what would be necessary to build a more
ideal teacher performance assessment system.
2. The focus groups would serve as an important step in a
continuous improvement cycle that will seek out input, share that input
with Design Teams, and check back to ensure the designs are in
alignment with the specifications outlined by focus group participants.
The Focus Groups resulted in a set of Core Values that have been
used to guide the development of the DPS Framework for Effective
Teaching and LEAP.
focus group core values
Rooted in Professional Expertise
The definition of effective teaching needs to be based on the best
research and is co-constructed by teachers themselves. Administrators
and other evaluators must have the background and expertise necessary
to accurately and fairly assess the quality of the teaching they are
charged with observing.
Multiple Sources of Data
The system of assessment should bring together various points of
data (including principal observation, peer observation, student
growth, self-reflection, and other information) to identify areas of
strength and to set clear, specific targets for growth.
Continuous Feedback
The system should provide frequent and ongoing feedback about
practice, rather than one-shot data points. Constructive feedback is
the lifeblood of improvement, providing information about areas of
strength and areas for growth, and it should flow through all aspects
of the system to ensure each element--from classroom practice to
professional development--is achieving the desired results.
Consistency with Flexibility
The system should set clear standards of effective practice and
apply them faithfully and fairly across the district, but allow enough
flexibility to set goals for improvement and professional development
based on the levels of experience and unique needs of each educator.
Accountability
While the system should aspire to help everyone improve their
practice, it must also distinguish between various levels of
performance, and hold people accountable for reasonable results.
Improvement plans must be followed and have consequences. The
measurement system should change from a binary ``satisfactory/
unsatisfactory'' to a continuum of performance with specifically
defined levels of proficiency.
A Culture of Learning
The system must support and encourage learning and innovation at
all levels--in students, in educators, and in administrators--instead
of being punitive or just rewarding compliance. Growth must be the end-
game for all members of the system. The district as a whole, as well as
individual schools, must be intentional about fostering a culture that
supports everyone to learn.
Reward Effectiveness
The system should reward effectiveness, linking financial rewards
to the evaluation system as well as non financial rewards such as
recognition and unique professional opportunities. It should reward
effectiveness regardless of years of experience.
Design Teams:
After the initial focus groups were held, the next step in teacher
and principal engagment was to form five Design Teams in the spring of
2010.
1. Teacher Effectiveness
2. Principal Effectiveness
3. Peer Observations
4. Professional Development
5. Student Assessments and Outcomes
The five Design Teams worked many hours during the summer and fall
of 2010. They applied the Core Values from the focus groups in addition
to pertinent national research and made recommendations on the specific
components of the new LEAP system as well as the development of the DPS
Framework for Effective Teaching. The passion and dedication they put
into their work was inspiring. As one Design Team member states:
``Teachers and administrators working together to define, describe
and expect effective teaching will help ensure that every child has an
excellent teacher in their classroom.''
La Dawn Baity,
Principal, Steck Elementary School.
Spring 2011 Pilot:
The next step in teacher and principal involvement. * * *
From the start, this effort has been collaborative and informed by
the teachers and principals who will ultimately be supported by the new
system. From focus groups to Design Teams to the spring 2011 LEAP pilot
* * * teacher and principal voice has been a key element of the
development process.
The spring 2011 LEAP pilot schools experienced various components
of LEAP and provided their input to help guide improvements to the
system prior to the district-wide pilot in 2011-12.
LEAP Pilot: January-May 2011
Sixteen schools piloted components of LEAP from January--May 2011.
Teachers and principals in these schools were the first to experience
the system. In many ways they were the architects of LEAP as their
feedback guided improvements to the system in preparation for the
district-wide pilot beginning in August 2011.
DPS's approach of teacher and principal involvement is somewhat
unique: it ensures that our new evaluation tool will be informed by
teachers and principals within the district from inception through
rollout.
FRAMEWORK FOR EXCELLENT TEACHING
Overview: The foundation * * *
The DPS Framework for Effective Teaching serves as the foundation
for the Empowering Excellent Educators work in DPS. It provides
teachers and principals with:
A shared understanding of effective teaching in DPS
A foundation upon which teachers can reflect and perfect
their craft
Observation tool used in LEAP, the new teacher evaluation
system
Effective teaching = success with kids. The DPS Framework for
Effective Teaching captures the potential of teaching actions to impact
student learning in classrooms across Denver.
The framework currently includes standards for measuring the
effectiveness of teachers in the classroom (onstage domains). We are in
the process of building out the standards for rating teachers'
effectiveness outside of the classroom (offstage domains).
4 domains in the dps framework for effective teaching
Onstage Domains
Offstage Domains
Learning Environment
Planning & Preparation
Instruction
Professionalism
With the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching, performance ratings
move from a binary system of ``satisfactory'' and ``unsatisfactory'' to
a continuum of performance with four levels of effectiveness and seven
rating categories:
Not Meeting (1-2)
Approaching (3-4)
Effective (5-6)
Distinguished (7)
Multiple ratings provide the opportunity to identify areas of
strength as well as growth opportunities. Teachers are able to target
their professional development to their growth areas. All teachers,
whether new to the profession or veteran teachers, can continue to grow
professionally and be even better for their students.
Development: Initial Development
Some of the most significant and challenging Design Team work was
that of the Teacher Effectiveness Design Team. When discussing the
framework to be used in DPS, the Design Team placed high priority on
several aspects:
ELL-focused, urban lens
Teacher AND student behaviors
Meaningfully differentiated performance of teachers
Comprehensive but manageable
The Design Team looked at various national frameworks and
observation tools:
Charlotte Danielson's Framework of Effective Teaching
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP)
Quality Urban Classrooms (QUC)
The Denver Teacher Residency Framework for Educational
Equity
In the end, the Design Team recommended that DPS develop our own
framework based on the best components of each tool, aligned to their
specific understanding of teacher effectiveness in DPS, and based on
the 4 domains of Learning Environment; Instruction; Planning and
Preparation; and Professionalism.
The resulting DPS Framework for Effective Teaching is a homegrown,
practitioner-designed tool that pulls from research-based tools used
locally and nationally.
framework refinement
The DPS Framework for Effective Teaching was the foundational tool
used in over 1400 classroom observations and feedback conversations
during the spring 2011 LEAP pilot. DPS also aligned all professional
development offerings to the Framework making it the core of personal
reflection as well as professional growth.
Teachers and principals in the 16 pilot schools provided extensive
feedback on the Framework which was carefully assessed by the LEAP
project team and McREL, a third-party program evaluator.
In May/June 2011, the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching was
revised based on pilot feedback, alignment to Common Core State
Standards, and alignment to the DPS English Language Acquisition
program.
The most noticeable change to the Framework was the addition of
three new indicators focused on English Language Acquisition: two of
these indicators will be observed in ELA-E and ELA-S classrooms and the
third will be observed in ELA-S classrooms.
The new indicators emphasize and support effective practice for
English Language Learners across the district, which constitute more
than 40% of our student population and apply to over 2600 designated
ELA-E and ELA-S teachers.
The revised Framework for Effective Teaching will be used in the
2011-12 LEAP pilot in over 120 DPS schools. Feedback from educators
across the district during the pilot year will inform future
improvements.
View the Framework: DPS Framework Overview for Effective
Teaching 2011-12
aligning support
DPS is working to create a variety of different types of high
quality professional development that are aligned to the DPS Framework
for Effective Teaching. Teachers are able to access targeted support
which enables them to refine their craft and continue to grow
professionally.
For example, video exemplars of effective instructional practice
aligned to each indicator of the Framework are currently being captured
and uploaded in the LEAP section of the DPS Online Learning Center
(Moodle).
A screen shot showing examples of support offerings available on
the DPS Online Learning Center can be seen below.
LEAP System and professional development supports
Overview: The multiple measures in LEAP
The district and the DCTA have worked in collaboration with DPS
teachers and school leaders to develop a new teacher performance
assessment system. Through their work on Design Teams, teachers and
principals applied the guiding principles from the focus groups to
develop recommendations for a meaningful system of observation,
feedback, support and evaluation for teachers. This is what we now call
LEAP--Leading Effective Academic Practice.
LEAP provides teachers with additional feedback and support so they
can continue to learn and grow professionally. Teachers want to be the
best they can be for their students and our students deserve nothing
less than GREAT teachers.
Multiple measures
Student Outcomes: All Students are Capable of Learning and
Growing
This component of LEAP is still in development and will not be part
of the LEAP pilot.
When taken into account with other measures of teacher performance,
looking at student outcomes is a way to measure the direct impact of a
teacher on student achievement. Student outcomes provide a full picture
of the learning that results from teacher actions over the course of a
year.
When fully developed, Student Outcomes will comprise 50% of a
teacher's evaluation. We will be using multiple measures of student
performance data rather than a single data source and are committed to
using, in as many instances as possible, assessments that are already
being used to inform instructional practice.
As we continue to develop the Student Outcomes aspect of LEAP, we
are considering the following:
student assessment criteria
1. Multiple sources of data
2. Growth
3. Summative--external and internal
4. Formative--consistent and accurate scoring across district
5. Alignment to standards, scope, and sequence
6. Increased emphasis on objective measures
7. English and Spanish options
8. School / team accountability
9. Transparent formula
10. Timeliness in administration and results
Principal Observation: Feedback From Your School Leader
The Principal Observation measure in LEAP is fully developed and
in-scope for the LEAP pilot.
Historically, principals have played an important role in
evaluating and supporting teachers in their schools. This does not
change with LEAP. Observation and feedback provided by school
principals remain an important aspect of teacher evaluation. With LEAP:
Principals are receiving extensive training on the DPS
Framework for Effective Teaching, consistent rating (inter-rater
reliability), and giving meaningful feedback.
Principals will conduct classroom observations using the
DPS Framework for Effective Teaching. Teachers will receive two
principal observations during the 2011-12 LEAP pilot.
Principals will provide teachers with post observation
feedback, including insight on areas of strength as well as growth
opportunities. Teachers will use this feedback to select from a variety
of differentiated professional development offerings, all aligned to
the Framework for Effective Teaching.
Peer Observation: Third-Party Feedback With First-Hand
Knowledge
Peer Observation is part of the LEAP system because there is
tremendous value in teachers receiving honest, open feedback from a
peer or colleague who has a similar content expertise.
The Peer Observer role is a new position to DPS but one that has
been used effectively in school districts across the country for a
number of years. Peer Observers are fellow teachers who have been hired
specifically for this role because they are recognized for their
experience and expertise in content, classroom instruction, student
achievement, and best practices.
Peer Observers will be matched as closely as possible to the
content or grade level of the teacher they are observing so they can
provide feedback and support that is specific and relevant. Peer
Observers will provide a third-party, outside perspective combined with
first hand experience with the realities of teaching.
in relation to principal observation
Principals and Peer Observers will both use the DPS
Framework for Effective Teaching when gathering observation data and
will also use the same feedback protocol to ensure consistency.
Both the principal and peer observations will provide
targeted feedback about how teachers are performing against the
standards in the Framework for Effective Teaching and will help promote
teacher growth and development.
Peer observation is not in isolation from observations
done with the principal, but simply adds data points upon which the
principal and teacher can review to make decisions about next steps
with practice.
Peer observation allows for more opportunities for
teachers to receive feedback.
Collaborative Professionalism: A Teacher's Contributions to
Their Team and School
This component of LEAP was in development during the spring 2011
LEAP pilot. It will be ready for the 2011-12 district-wide LEAP pilot.
Professional Collaboration represents the offstage domains--what a
teacher does outside of the classroom that helps determine their
effectiveness--of the DPS Framework for Effective Teaching.
Examples include:
Maintaining student records (student progress)
Communicating with families
Self-accountability for student growth
Reflection
PLCs
Teacher leadership
Collaboration with colleagues
Collaboration with community
Pursuing opportunities for professional growth
Content & pedagogical knowledge
Knowledge of students
Identifying key outcomes
Knowledge of resources/materials
Integrating materials, resources, tools, technology
Designing coherent instruction
Creating student assessments
Use of data in planning
Student Perception: Students Know When They Have A Great
Teacher * * *
This component of LEAP was introduced to the spring 2011 LEAP pilot
schools in April.
Student Perception Surveys are important because they allow student
voice to be part of the evaluation process.
DPS is one of seven districts participating in a national research
study called Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. The research
findings from the MET project are informing our approach to this
component of LEAP because MET includes a Student Perception Survey.
Initial MET findings (released in December, 2010) indicate that:
The average student knows effective teaching when he/she
experiences it.
Student perceptions can help identify effective teachers
and point to specific aspects of teacher practice needing improvement.
Valid teacher feedback need not be limited to test scores
alone.
By combining different sources of data, it is possible to
provide diagnostic, targeted feedback to teachers who are eager to
improve.
DPS will be using research-based student perception surveys
developed by Tripod. More on Tripod student-perception surveys:
Developed by Harvard Professor Ron Ferguson
The framework emphasizes an instructional ``tripod'' of
content knowledge, pedagogical skill and relationships
Tripod surveys have been used in hundreds of schools and
thousands of classrooms in the U.S. and abroad, as well as in the
recent MET study
Includes measures of teacher effectiveness and student
engagement, from the student perspective
Professional Development Alignment: Balancing Support with
Accountability
DPS is dedicated to building a path that helps develop new
teachers, ensures that all teachers continue to grow professionally,
and rewards and recognizes great teachers throughout their careers.
LEAP helps teachers recognize areas of strength in their teaching
practice and also helps identify growth opportunities. Once growth
opportunities are identified, teachers are able to access
differentiated professional development offerings which are aligned to
the Framework for Effective Teaching. DPS is creating a variety of
different types of high quality professional development to ensure
teachers can access the types that are most relevant to their
individual needs and interests.
Teachers and principals are able to work together to identify
targeted professional development resources and focus a teacher's
development on those opportunities that will have the most direct
impact on a teacher's practice and student learning.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Boasberg.
Mr. Cicarella, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CICARELLA, PRESIDENT,
NEW HAVEN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
Mr. Cicarella. Yes. Thank you.
My name is David Cicarella. I am the president of the New
Haven Federation of Teachers; and on behalf of the NHFT and its
national federation, the American Federation of Teachers, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to speak about our
collective efforts to improve student learning and strengthen
the teaching profession in New Haven.
Our schools were facing the same challenges as many school
districts in the country. This included the need for more
meaningful parental involvement, comprehensive wraparound
services for the most at-risk students, and, yes, a better way
of evaluating teachers and providing them with the ongoing
supports they need to do the best for their students.
The situation in New Haven was exacerbated because the
relationship between the mayor and the superintendent and the
local union was often acrimonious. Teachers certainly were not
satisfied with a system that failed to provide any meaningful
supports or feedback to help them develop their expertise and
maximize their capacity to improve student learning.
We knew there was no way to improve our lowest-performing
schools without involving teachers. Districts nationwide were
looking at how best to improve teaching and learning by
incorporating a more robust teacher evaluation system.
In New Haven, the mayor, superintendent, and our local
union made a decision to work collaboratively through the
existing collective bargaining process. We ultimately were able
to negotiate a contract that, in addition to wages and
benefits, would lay the groundwork for a breakout model of
urban school reform, one that values and welcomes teacher voice
in all key decisions.
Now, it is incredibly significant that both the national
and State representatives from AFT were active partners, and
they were completely welcomed by the New Haven School District.
The contract was hailed in our local media as, quote, ``a
first-in-the-nation agreement between a city and a teachers
union to work together to change the way public schools work.''
I think it is also significant to note that the contract
was ratified overwhelmingly by our members by a vote of 855 to
42. The new contract was ushered in with such strong support
because the process that led up to its passage was very
collaborative and it valued input from the teachers about the
district's reform plans. Because the district involved the
teachers in such a meaningful way, there was a tremendous
amount of buy-in from the teachers.
One of the reform initiatives we adopted was a new system
for evaluating our teachers. The plan included multiple
measures of professional performance and real supports tied to
professional development. Now, what is key here is that we
didn't just build a teacher evaluation plan that acts as a
sorting mechanism to tell us who is doing a good job and who is
facing difficulty. Instead, we created a system that focuses on
the continuous support and development of all teachers, those
struggling and those doing a good job. All teachers benefit
from a goal-setting conference in the beginning of the year and
at least two evaluation and development conferences during the
course of the year, with additional conferences provided for
teachers identified as needing improvement.
The annual goals that are drawn up in these conferences
center on the three components of our teacher evaluation plan:
student learning, absolutely; teacher instructional practice;
and professional values. Every element in the evaluation is
mutually agreed upon; and when it comes to indicators of
student progress, the teachers and evaluators are encouraged to
use multiple measures of assessment that include standardized
State tests, district assessments, student portfolio work, and
teacher-developed assessments.
Instead of instituting top-down reforms with no teacher
input, we were able to utilize the collective bargaining
process to ensure that teachers are heard and respected.
Collective bargaining is much more than a process to ensure
workplace fairness and give workers a voice in their jobs. It
is a tool that the teachers and school districts can use to
drive real reforms aimed at improving both teaching and
learning.
We are just finishing the first year of the implementation
of our new plan. From the outset, we have collaborated on
everything--not always agreed, but certainly collaborated.
The commitment to work together has led to many positive
outcomes, not the least of which is increased community
support. Under the New Haven Promise program, funded in part by
Yale University, eligible students graduating from every New
Haven high school will receive full tuition to a public college
or university in Connecticut.
In New Haven, teachers have no problem being held
accountable or sharing responsibility, as long as we are
provided with an agreed-upon, transparent set of standards and
a process for evaluation that includes student achievement,
classroom practice, and professional values. Our collaborative
work in New Haven has created a professional culture whereby
teachers and administrators work side by side, channeling their
energies to create a system that puts student learning front
and center.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Cicarella follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Cicarella, President,
New Haven Federation of Teachers
Good morning Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and members of
the committee. My name is David Cicarella, and I am the president of
the New Haven Federation of Teachers (NHFT), an affiliate of the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The NHFT represents more than
1,600 teachers.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak about our collective
efforts in New Haven, Conn., to improve student learning and strengthen
the teaching profession through, in part, our development of a
comprehensive teacher support and evaluation system in the district.
New Haven schools were facing the same challenges many school
districts in the country are facing today: Many of our students were
not reaching their potential. As in all cases, a variety of factors
contributed to that situation, including the need for more meaningful
parental involvement, comprehensive wraparound services for the most
at-risk students and, yes, a better way of evaluating teachers and
providing them with the ongoing supports they need to do the best for
their students. The situation was exacerbated because the relationship
between the mayor and superintendent and our local union was often
acrimonious, and was characterized by distrust and disrespect on both
sides.
Teachers certainly were not satisfied with the status quo: a system
that failed to provide any meaningful supports or feedback to help them
develop their expertise and maximize their capacity to improve student
learning. New Haven did not have in place processes for turning around
low-performing schools or for supporting and evaluating teachers. We
knew there was no way to improve our lowest-performing schools without
involving teachers and giving them needed supports.
However, there were few good models that provided guidance.
Districts nationwide were looking at how best to improve teaching and
learning by incorporating a more robust teacher evaluation system as
part of that strategy. In New Haven, the mayor, superintendent and our
local union made a decision to work collaboratively--through the
existing collective bargaining process. Keeping collaboration and the
need for teacher input in mind, the NHFT negotiating team took an
aggressive position on evaluation (including the need for teacher
involvement and multiple measures of student achievement), turnaround
schools and other thorny issues in order to shape the agenda and drive
the final product toward solutions that are good for kids and fair for
teachers.
We incorporated the resources and expertise of our national union,
the AFT, and its affiliate locals. We ultimately were able to negotiate
a contract that, in addition to wages and benefits, would lay the
groundwork for a breakout model of urban school reform--one that values
and welcomes teacher voice in all key decisions. It is incredibly
significant that both the national and state representatives from AFT
were active partners and completely welcomed by the New Haven school
district representatives.
The contract, which our members ratified by a vote of 855-42, was
hailed in the local media as ``a first-in-the-nation agreement between
a city and a teachers union to work together to change the way public
schools work.''
One of the reform initiatives we adopted was a new system for
evaluating our teachers. The plan included multiple measures of
professional performance and real supports tied to professional
development. What is key here is that we did not just build a teacher
evaluation plan that simply acts as a sorting mechanism to tell us who
is doing a good job and who is facing difficulty. Instead, we created a
system that focuses on the continuous support and development of all
teachers--those struggling and those doing a good job.
Under the new system, individual teachers and their evaluators meet
each fall to set personal professional goals. This is the centerpiece
of the new evaluation and development system--regular, substantive and
collegial conferences between each teacher and his or her assigned
instructional manager. Each teacher now has a single instructional
manager who is accountable for that teacher's evaluation and
development.
The goal of the evaluation and development conferences is to focus
teacher performance conversations around student learning, provide
comprehensive feedback (including all elements of teacher evaluation)
to each teacher, and set a defined plan of development opportunities
for the teacher. These conferences are the anchor of the rest of the
evaluation and development process, and the foundation of the
professional relationship between teacher and instructional manager.
All teachers benefit from a goal-setting conference in the beginning of
the year and at least two evaluation and development conferences over
the course of the year, with additional conferences provided for
teachers identified as needing improvement.
The annual goals that are drawn up in these conferences center on
three important areas:
Student performance outcomes measured by growth in student
learning and attainment of academic goals;
Teacher instructional practice in the domains of planning
and preparation, classroom practice, and reflection and use of data;
and
Teacher professional values addressing a set of
characteristics including professionalism, collegiality and high
expectations for student learning.
Every element in the evaluation is mutually agreed upon, and when
it comes to indicators of student progress, teachers and evaluators are
encouraged to use multiple measures of assessment that include
standardized state tests, district assessments (many of which are
conducted quarterly as opposed to annually), student portfolio work and
teacher-developed assessments. All are valuable and provide a full,
more encompassing measure of student academic growth and achievement.
The new system ranks teachers on a 1-5 scale: Those receiving a
final summative rating of 5 will be considered for teacher leadership
positions, while those receiving a score of 2 or below will be
supported with a tailored improvement plan aimed at helping them
receive a minimum score of 3 (or ``effective''). Our goal is to have an
effective teacher in every classroom.
Our members ratified this contract overwhelmingly for the following
reasons. First, instead of instituting ``top-down'' reforms, with no
teacher input, we were able to utilize the collective bargaining
process to ensure that teachers are heard and respected. Collective
bargaining is a process that ensures workplace fairness and gives
workers a voice in their jobs. But it is much more. It is a process
that teachers and school districts can use to drive real reforms aimed
at improving both teaching and learning. For teachers in New Haven,
instituting the changes in evaluation and giving teachers a greater say
in decision-making at the school level means increasing their
confidence in the system and the supports they need to be effective in
the classroom.
We are just finishing the first year of implementation of our new
plan and so far, so good. We have established a citywide teacher
evaluation committee consisting of six teachers selected by the union
and six administrators selected by the district. From the onset, we
have collaborated on everything, even these choices. We share our
selections and allow every committee member to comment on them--all
prior to making our choices public. The citywide committee met over the
course of the entire year to complete the system. Despite the
painstaking detail, it is straightforward with little room for
ambiguity.
In addition to the citywide committee, we established a ``working
group'' that allows for every teacher in the district to volunteer to
participate and have input into the evaluation system. Participating
teachers brought their own questions and concerns to the discussion, as
well as those from colleagues back in their schools. Principals were
trained in the evaluation system over the summer, and teacher
representatives were invited to address the initial training. This sent
a clear message that the evaluation system is very much a joint effort
that is supported by all parties. I was invited to address district
administrators at their initial training. I was warmly received, and it
was a positive experience.
The lessons learned from our experience in New Haven is that
teachers have no problem being held accountable, or sharing
responsibility, as long as all are provided with an agreed-upon,
transparent set of standards and a process for evaluation that includes
student achievement, classroom practice and teacher professional
values.
Our commitment to work together has led to many positive outcomes,
not the least of which is increased community support. Yale University
has made a commitment of $4 million a year for the next four years to
pay up to $8,000 annually to cover the cost of a student's enrollment
at one of the state's public colleges or universities, or $2,500 at a
private college. Full grants will be given only to students who have
been in the New Haven Public Schools since kindergarten, and will be
prorated for those entering later.
No two school districts in our nation are alike, and I do not
pretend to think that our plan will work in all districts. However, I
do know that most school districts do not have good evaluation systems
in place--ones that focus like a laser on boosting student performance
through a process that prioritizes the continuous support and
development of their teaching force.
I cannot stress enough how critically important a valid, reliable,
transparent, and ongoing teacher development and evaluation system is
to the health of our schools and our students' ultimate success. In the
absence of such a system, teachers and administrators are left to
wonder what works and what doesn't work, or how and how best to inform
and improve instruction. We need to work collaboratively at all
levels--from local school districts to Congress and everywhere in
between--to establish the conditions that our children need to succeed
and our teachers need to teach.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Walsh, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF KATE WALSH, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY
Ms. Walsh. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, thank
you very much for your invitation to participate in this
hearing today.
My name is Kate Walsh, and I am the president of the
National Council on Teacher Quality. NCTQ is an organization
that advocates for a broad range of teacher policy reforms at
the federal, State, and local levels aimed at increasing the
number of effective teachers in our schools.
As Mr. Miller and Mr. Kline both pointed out in their
remarks, no school-based factor is more important in
determining their achievement gains than their teachers. Not
class size, not access to technology, not per student spending,
not many of the other things that States and school districts
pour money into in the name of education reform that fail to
improve teacher effectiveness.
In fact, if you look at school spending, while it has
increased at a rapid rate, very little of these additional
resources have been directed at improving teacher quality. Over
the last four decades or so, per-student inflation-adjusted
spending has soared, increasing by 2.6 percent a year on
average. But it hasn't been spending on teacher pay that has
driven that increase. Such spending accounts for only a
fraction of the annual increase in actual education spending.
Look at the patterns of spending on resources that are
dedicated to teachers, such as Title II, for example, the
federal funds targeted specifically to teacher quality under
ESEA. For 2009-2010, the U.S. Department of Education reported
that the vast majority of the funds, that is 42 percent, were
used for nonspecified professional development activities, with
spending to reduce class size coming in a close second, at 36
percent. Only 5 percent of those funds were reportedly used for
promoting teacher quality. Given that research shows reductions
in class sides are expensive, with little or no systematic
relationship to improvements in student achievement, and
typical professional development programs are poorly designed,
it is not surprising that Title II, in spite of that annual $3
billion investment, has largely been ineffective at generating
the kind of reforms that we all are seeking.
At the foundation of current efforts to improve teacher
quality are initiatives to develop fair and reliable teacher
evaluation systems that measure teacher effectiveness in the
classroom. As of 2010, we know that 16 States require that
teacher evaluations are significantly informed by student
achievement and growth; and 10 States, including Tennessee,
require that student achievement growth is the preponderant
criterion in teacher evaluations. That is to say that teachers
cannot be rated as effective unless they meet student
achievement or growth targets.
Already in 2010, we have seen a huge wave of reforms. Four
States--Colorado, Delaware, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island--have
put in place State laws or regulations that require evidence of
student learning to be the preponderant criterion for granting
tenure.
But I would like to emphasize that these 2010 data are
likely catching just the beginning of the wave of change. We
won't be surprised if the number of States adopting policies to
include student achievement and teacher evaluations and alter
their tenure policies could as much as double by the close of
2011.
Still, though, the majority of States does not require
annual evaluations of all veteran teachers, and most still fail
to include any objective measures of student learning in the
teacher evaluations that they do require. In all but a small
handful of States, teachers are granted tenure with no regard
to how effective they are with students in the classroom.
There are many other critical areas that need to be
addressed. I would like to turn my attention now to the quality
of preparation of the nation's teachers. Every year across this
country about a quarter of a million people enter the teaching
profession for the first time. Almost all of them are prepared
in the Nation's schools of education, which have until now
managed to avoid the reform spotlight. I am proud to report
that NCTQ, in partnership with U.S. News & World Report, well
known for its ratings of the nation's higher education
institutions, has launched a review of the quality of each of
the nation's 1,400 education schools. This has never been done
before, in spite of many previous efforts, including one by the
U.S. Congress even 5 years ago.
Some higher education institutions are welcoming this
opportunity to have their programs evaluated, seeing the
feedback that we will be providing as essential for making
long-needed improvements in these programs. But the majority of
institutions in the United States, unaccustomed to scrutiny,
have organized a national boycott to block our work, refusing
to provide us with the basic data that we seek. But we are
joined by over 40 foundations across the United States who have
provided funding for this effort and the endorsement of 10
State school chiefs, dozens of school district superintendents,
and a host of education advocacy organizations.
What we are rapidly seeing is an unfortunate battle between
teacher preparation programs and their own clients in K-12
education. An effective teacher in every classroom is not a
far-fetched proposition. But a serious effort to cultivate
highly effective teachers requires us to take a hard look at
current practices and have an honest dialogue about the full
range of policies needed to transform the profession. We need
to attend to how to identify, recruit, compensate, reward, and
retain more effective teachers, and especially to growing more
effective teachers from the start.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Walsh follows:]
------
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Ms. Walsh.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony.
We will move now into questions, and I will start.
Let me start by saying I think that it is important we
heard from Mr. Cicarella and from Mr. Boasberg and Mr. Huffman,
I think in different ways, that the systems being put in place
are not only useful in evaluating teachers for perhaps
retention or promotion or pay but giving real-time feedback to
the teachers on how they are doing, which enables them to do a
better job.
Let me start with Mr. Huffman. When you were trying to
develop the value-added metrics for the nontested subjects like
art and music classes, you said that you used a school-wide--
some sort of school-wide assessment. Can you tell me how you
put that together? How does that work if you are just an art
teacher? I don't mean to say ``just an art teacher.'' Apologies
to all the art teachers out there. If you are an art teacher,
how does that work?
Mr. Huffman. One thing I have learned on this job is there
are a lot of art and music teachers, because they come talk to
me every single time I go speak.
So, right now, the way it works is for the 35 percent of
your score that has to be based on student growth, instead of
getting an individual assessment--so if you taught fifth grade,
for instance, you would get a value-added score from the fifth
grade assessments--in art, you would get the school value-added
score. And the school value-added score is a composite based on
all of the tested subjects and grade levels. So if you taught
elementary school art, then the third, fourth, fifth grades
across their subject areas, that all gets compiled into a
school, that provides a school value-added score. And that is
what would be used.
And what we are trying to figure out--I think this is a
very hard thing to figure out what the right answer is. What we
are trying to figure out for next year is how we can field test
some different assessments across different subjects and grade
levels that are not currently tested and make them available as
individualized assessments.
But I will tell you that my own personal view is I think
there are situations where it makes absolute sense to try to
come up with an individual value-added score. So, for instance,
in secondary foreign language I think there is a way to assess
how much Spanish did children learn and to figure out the
value-added.
But I also think that it is appropriate in some cases to
use school-wide value-added data. First, because we don't want
to test absolutely everything. But, second of all, because in
many cases teachers have an impact on the entire school. So if
you are an art teacher, you only get kids for one class a week,
but you have most of the school coming in, and you are
contributing not just to the art education of those children
but also to the school climate. So, in that context, I think it
is actually appropriate; and I think teachers and principals
have mixed views on what the right answer is here.
Chairman Kline. So, under the current system, you have got
65 percent of this evaluation is not--65-35 is not the school-
wide assessment. And so have you looked at changing those
percentages or is that not possible under your system?
Mr. Huffman. Well, right now, it is enshrined in State law.
So the State law lays out the 35 percent value-added, 15
percent other academic achievement, 50 percent qualitative.
We also have three additional systems that are being
piloted by other districts this year. So they did field tests
last year, and they asked if they could use these systems this
year. They met the State law. And so we are going to watch how
those systems work as well. One in Memphis sounds more similar
to what Tom was describing about Denver. And I think it is
going to be very interesting to gather all the data and see at
the end of the year what people liked, what seemed to work,
what the range of distribution of scores were.
Chairman Kline. Okay. Thank you.
I am going to run out of time here pretty quickly, so let
me go to Mr. Boasberg.
On the LEAP program, you are defining teacher
effectiveness. For example, how are special education teachers,
special educators evaluated under your system?
Mr. Boasberg. Sure. Thank you.
Special education is an absolute critical mission of the
Denver Public Schools, and one of the wonderful things about
the LEAP program is we have peer observers who coach and give
feedback to teachers. So, for example, we have master special
education teachers who then go observe and give feedback to our
special educators who are in their practice in the classroom.
But special educators are observed and assessed under the
same framework, where it is both the principal is observing and
giving feedback, peers are observing and giving feedback, there
is student perception of the educators, as well as we are
looking at growth in their students' achievements.
Now, clearly, if you are looking at one of our self-
contained classrooms for our highest and most severely disabled
kids, that is going to be a little bit different. But the
overwhelming majority of our special education students are
included with our mainstream students in mainstream classrooms,
and we have very high expectations and very high-level supports
for special education students. We try and provide the same
level of support and coaching and work with our special
educators on the same basis as we work with our nonspecial
educators.
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much. My time has more than
expired.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, and thank you for all of
your testimony.
I note that there are certain consistencies. We have three
different systems here, but there are certain consistencies in
terms of how you chose to improve, hopefully, the teaching
experience for teachers and the learning experience for the
students. And the idea that this was done with everybody
sitting at the table in one mixture or another that your
systems chose. And the use of multiple measures, and you have
given different weight to those measures in the three different
systems that you have here. And a good deal of emphasis placed
on additional training and professional development.
But the three of you aren't representative of the United
States. I guess this is my concern. I think that at this
particular moment we are in the most dynamic education reform
environment that I have seen in my public life. And so I worry
about losing the moment, as we do in politics sometimes. And
that moment is, how do we make sure that these types of
evaluation systems are extended across the country?
We know there is resistance in a number of States, we know
there is a minimal pulse sticking out there sort of suggesting
someday we could be for this, and yet I wonder why we would
continue--certainly in school improvement, if we have these
four models, why we are not making sure that school improvement
funds are tied to an evaluation system.
Again, I could take any of your three, I think. But that is
not important. But the point is, why are we continuing to
pretend like we can have these turnaround models if we don't
change that teaching and learning environment and make it a
professional workplace for teachers and a professional learning
space for the students? Or why would we continue to make Title
II grants that aren't tied to this kind of change? I mean, we
are just funding the past.
And I don't want to use any more of my time. I want to hear
from you. Let's start with whatever order you want.
Mr. Boasberg. Sure. I will start, and please pitch in.
I agree with you strongly. Denver has been one of the
districts most active in the country in terms of trying to
improve and turn around our lowest-performing schools. And at
the heart of that is indeed trying to work to have the best
possible school leader and provide the time and resources and
ability to better develop and have stronger teachers. So, for
example, in our schools that are receiving money for school
improvement grants, they have a longer school year, they have a
longer school day. All the teachers voted to work a 9-hour
school day.
Mr. Miller. Let me just ask you. I know what you are doing.
Can you imagine us continuing to give money where these changes
aren't brought about?
Mr. Boasberg. I want to be hesitant to tell you how to do
your job. But I do think, as a taxpayer, it is fair to say that
I think when the federal government gives money, and quite a
bit of money, to have very high standards. We as a school
district have very high expectations of our students and our
professionals, and I think so should the federal government
have very high standards of districts.
And when money is coming in to have standards and
accountability for the use of that money around having
programs, around effective teachers, and having effective
programs to turn around low-performing schools, to provide
equity for our most disadvantaged students. I think that is a
very appropriate role of the federal government.
Mr. Cicarella. I just perhaps might add, in terms of the
federal influence, I think I have to agree with you. It doesn't
make sense to keep funding things that we know didn't work and
continue do that. Perhaps where you gentlemen and ladies can
come in is, in terms of federal law, you never want to be heavy
handed with overly prescribing things, yet, at the same time,
perhaps some things that we could do. There could be an
incentive for the type of collaboration that has existed. You
know, encourage some local bargaining to continue. Encourage
professional development to be tied to teacher evaluation
plans. And that is for all teachers, not just those that are in
need of improvement. Because even teachers that are effective,
all teachers need help in different areas, even those that do a
pretty good job. And the teachers and school districts, they
really perhaps should have flexibility to determine that
correct mix, a little different from Denver to New Haven.
But certainly, to answer your question, in terms of federal
influence and what you should or shouldn't do, again, I
hesitate to tell you that, but I would agree. I would think
that doing what we did in the past, you know, we do need to
make some changes, and I think we have made a good start in a
lot of places, and we do need to replicate those.
Mr. Huffman. My only addition would be that I think there
has to be a lot of flexibility for States and districts to
figure out what their plans are. We are excited about our plan,
but I think the most important thing conceptually with all
these evaluation plans is that there is an actual range of
distribution. Because, of course, we had some level of
evaluation before. It is just that 95 percent of the teachers
were deemed to be outstanding.
So there has to be a range of distribution. There have to
be multiple things, including student achievement, that factor
into it. And there has to be something then that happens as a
result of the evaluation, something that happens positive in
the form of feedback and professional development but also some
level of incentives and consequences for the outliers on either
pole of the system. And, beyond that, though, I don't think we
have figured out what the perfect system is. I think we need a
lot of flexibility.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman.
And if you were evaluating an art teacher and she worked on
mine, she or he would be a failing teacher if I had to pass
art.
I want to mention two people, Ms. Chiles and Ms. Smith, who
were my first grade teachers. And there is no question that the
first 3 or 4 years of my life, or even longer, I had great
teachers. Not a great school building. We had six grades in one
room and two in the other. We didn't have indoor plumbing or
running water, but we had great teachers. And I think that and
great principals, I think that leadership at the top.
The question I have, I guess, in going back to Tennessee,
and we are trying to figure this out, and trying to define a
good teacher is extremely difficult to do. We all know what
they are, but it is like beauty. It is just difficult to put a
numerical number on it.
Let me give you an example. In the No Child Left Behind,
one of my former patients is a good friend of mine. Every time
she asks me to come to her classroom, I go. And so I went this
year and read to the students. And as I was getting ready to
leave, I said, well, how is he doing? And she said, well, he
will be back with me again next year. I said, why is that? And
she said, well, he has missed 60 days of class because his
mother won't get up and get him out the door to school. So he
is going to be held back.
And Jan, my friend, Jan Lindsay, my friend, a great
teacher, is going to be evaluated on the fact that the parent
didn't get the child to school. How do you do that? And have we
looked at the educational level of the parents?
For instance, I know where my kids went to school,
elementary school, a public school, the education level in
those classes in the elementary school was plus five out of
high school. Those are going to be successful teachers teaching
those kids. Is that in the formula anywhere, where you look at
the parents?
Mr. Huffman. Thanks for the question.
A couple of quick thoughts on that. So, one, with the
value-added scores we have not seen that teachers teaching in
the highest-need classrooms are disadvantaged in terms of the
scores that they are actually getting. So there is a broad
range. And there are some suburban schools that get great
absolute scores, but their value-added scores actually aren't
that good in terms of how far they have moved the kids.
At the same time, I am proud to say that, as an alum of
Teach for America, Teach for America and Vanderbilt have by far
the highest impact on student achievement of any of the teacher
providers in the State. And the Teach for America teachers are
teaching in the highest-need areas, where they have the biggest
challenges in terms of parents and families.
Clearly, we have got to figure out how to get parents and
families more engaged to help the education system, and one
question is how you align interests. In Tennessee, one thing
that they did, quickly, is they passed a law that made student
grades, a portion of student grades, I think it is 25 percent,
contingent on their standardized test results. And the idea was
to ensure that you didn't have students who simply just lay
down on the job when it came to the standardized tests.
Teachers felt strongly that they shouldn't be held accountable
for something if the students weren't also going to have to
take it seriously. And that is an example of aligning
interests.
Mr. Roe. Mr. Miller brought up a point a minute ago about
how--my wife taught for 3 years in an inner city school in
Memphis--and how you keep quality teachers in poor-performing
schools. We have 50 percent of our educators drop out when they
start college that don't end up being teachers, and then within
5 years 50 percent of our teachers stop. And so we are losing
all this input. How do you do that?
And the question I have also--and this is to any of you who
may have evaluated this--is in all this evaluation of the
teachers, are you getting any push-back? I know Mr. Cicarella,
he made a point teachers don't mind being evaluated. I never
heard one that didn't mind being held to a standard. The
question is, are they getting burned out by--do they look like
this as overly intrusive into their classrooms?
Mr. Cicarella. I can speak for New Haven, obviously.
Myself, as a classroom teacher for 28 years, I mean, you do
want to be evaluated; you want to be evaluated fairly. And our
present system, even though, yes, there is a lot more
accountability and responsibility, and consequential at the
other end, perhaps, for some of us, but we accept that. As long
as the evaluation system, you know, again, it is fair, we have
some input into it, we prefer that.
Because in the past, it was basically, I mean, the
administrators would, you know, they would come in, and we
would call them the drive-bys. They would come in, they would
stay 5, 10 minutes, write something up, stick it in your
mailbox. If it was good, no one complained. And if it was bad,
we complained, but you couldn't do anything about it. I mean, I
would go to hearings with teachers, personnel, and we would
say--the teacher would say, ``But the principal is never there.
These dates are--you know, that is not correct.'' The personnel
director would look at the administrator, ``Are those dates
correct? Is that your information?'' ``Yes.'' And it was
accepted as gospel.
I mean, it was a ridiculous system. It wasn't
comprehensive. And that wasn't the case all over, but that was
very pervasive, to a certain degree.
So even though the system is not perfect, by any means, we
like it, because it is very clear to us now that--you know,
there has been nervousness about it, as well, because it is
new, as anything is. But we do like we know exactly what is
expected of us. The goals are mutually agreed upon, you know,
with the administrator, so it is clear what I need to do.
And it is not unreasonable--and my final comment is, as a
teacher, I have those kids in September. It is not
unreasonable, when June comes, that they should make some
progress. I mean, that should be expected of me.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Loebsack?
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really want to thank the panel. This has been really
enlightening.
I am married to a former teacher of over 30 years, so I
take some personal interest in this. But, also, I come from
Iowa, and we are in a situation in Iowa where we are not what
we used to be. And the Governor just had a 2-day conference in
Iowa, and I think it is clear that the system in Iowa does need
some improvement. We have prided ourselves in the past on being
among the best in the country, and we have slipped.
And I think that, certainly, teachers are maybe the major
part of this, but we have to think about parents. And I think
it was important that that was mentioned. We have to think
about principals, superintendents, school boards, the community
generally. I think we have to take kind of a whole-child
approach to this, as well. We have to think about counselors,
school nurses, the whole milieu, if you will, of support for
our students. And I am glad we are focusing on teachers today,
but we can't lose sight of all these other things, these other
people, these other factors that we have to take into account,
too, I think, for us to have good schools.
And I do want to ask you, Ms. Walsh, you said that you are
now trying to evaluate schools of education, and you are
running up against some resistance. But could you sort of lay
out for us the different factors that you want to use for the
evaluation process? Could you elaborate on that some?
Ms. Walsh. Thank you. And I was just at the summit in Iowa
and was very privileged to be there.
What we are doing is applying 17 standards that look at
both the content and pedagogical preparation of teachers. So we
want to know if they are taught how to teach--if elementary
teachers are taught how to teach reading; if they learn
appropriate mathematics, because they have to lay the
foundational skills in mathematics. We want to know if the
education schools are appropriately selective and not just
taking anybody. It is easier to get into an education school in
the United States than it is to qualify academically to play
college football, so we want to change that dynamic.
Mr. Loebsack. Can I ask--I mean, that is a sweeping
generalization. I mean----
Ms. Walsh. No, that is not true for every ed school, but--
--
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Ms. Walsh [continuing]. In the United States, it is easier
to get into education school than it is to qualify to play
college football.
Mr. Loebsack. Okay.
Ms. Walsh. That is absolutely the truth.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, I would like to see some data on that
from you, if you would.
Ms. Walsh. I would be happy to show that.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Go ahead.
Ms. Walsh. So we are looking at the student teaching,
whether or not they place student teachers in classrooms with
effective cooperating teachers, rather than just any teacher.
We are looking at the special education training that teachers
get.
So it is a wide range--I would be happy to share with you
the full set of standards, but it is a comprehensive list.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Also, it was mentioned that principals--Mr. Huffman, I
think you mentioned that principal evaluation starting this
year in Tennessee. Do others on the panel have thoughts about
that? Because, clearly, the principal is a very important part
of the education enterprise; there is absolutely no doubt about
that.
Would you like to share, yeah, Rhode Island?
Mr. Cicarella. Yeah. In fact, in New Haven, one of the
things, when we set out to do the reform, is we wanted top-to-
bottom accountability. Teachers have no problem being
accountable; we should be accountable, and we accept that. But
so should the building principal, central office, as well. So
we have systemic reform from top to bottom.
So the teacher evaluation system is the one that got the
most media attention in New Haven, and that is all very nice,
but right next to it we created a new principal evaluation
system and a central office, as well. So all three were
revamped. And they are very, very similar. The same 1 to 5
rating, same matrix is used for all three. What they are rated
on is different.
But that is a central piece of our reform effort, is that
it has to be top-to-bottom accountability. And all three
systems--teachers, principal, and central offices--evaluations
were revamped completely.
In fact, in terms of the collaboration, I sat on the
principal evaluation committee, which was, you know, very
strange, to be in a room working on the principal's evaluation,
as a school--you know, as a teacher, obviously. But that is the
way we did it. We wanted to make sure there was transparent
input from everybody on both sides, whether it was the teachers
evaluation system or the principals.
Mr. Loebsack. All right.
Mr. Boasberg?
Mr. Boasberg. Yeah, so I fully agree. I mean, our
principals have a high degree of accountability already. They
are at-will employees. And we look very closely at a whole
series of measures around their school, from student growth to
parent satisfaction to student satisfaction to--we survey all
of our teachers in the building to get very detailed
information from the teachers about the performance of the
school leader.
We are also developing and will be rolling out this year a
principal evaluation and feedback system that is fully aligned
with the system for teachers. We think it is very important
that those be fully aligned. And, as James said as well, it is
not just principals but for every employee in the district,
they are having multiple--at least one evaluation every year.
I think it is important that there be a performance culture
and ways to measure performance and provide feedback and
coaching and also make personnel decisions based on that
performance at every level of the school system--teachers,
principals, district leaders.
Mr. Loebsack. Superintendents.
Mr. Boasberg. Superintendents, certainly.
Mr. Loebsack. Right. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thought we had a UC agreement here. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. DesJarlais?
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our panel for appearing here today.
Commissioner Huffman, you had mentioned a minute ago about
your experience at Teach For America. Can you share with us a
little bit about how this shaped your belief in the importance
of a teacher evaluation system?
Mr. Huffman. Yeah, thank you very much for the question.
So, first of all, I think being a teacher in an inner-city
school with lots of high-needs kids, the biggest thing that I
learned was simply that all kids, regardless of their
circumstances, can achieve at a high level if we, as adults,
deliver the services that those kids deserve.
And the other thing as it relates to teacher evaluation is,
as with children, with adults there is a range of distribution
of people's performance. And, certainly, what I saw in my own
school and what I think--this is not unique to a Teach For
America experience, but I had colleagues who were in there at
6:30 in the morning, they were there at 6:30 at night, they
were working hard, they were getting results for kids, and they
were paid in lockstep with their colleague next-door who came
from 8:00 to 3:00 and wasn't particularly effective. They were
paid in lockstep, and they were evaluated in lockstep as well.
And that was a system that, quite clearly, didn't make
sense. It didn't make sense for anybody. And so, you know, I
think I came to have a full appreciation for the need to treat
adults like adults and call it like it is and make sure that
that tied somehow to how our students were advancing.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Thank you.
You also mentioned that Tennessee has started rigorous
State-facilitated training sessions for district-level
evaluators. Can you explain these training sessions in a little
more detail and how they are going so far?
Mr. Huffman. Yes. They have gone pretty well. So we have
trained about 5,000 administrators. And the way it works is
that district officials have to figure out how many people they
are going to need in order to conduct the number of
observations that they need. So it is principals, assistant
principals, instructional leaders, and so on. And they come in
for a 4-day intensive training.
It has been run by TAP, who has created the rubric. So it
is TAP experts who are coming in. There is a lot of videotape
session, a lot of discussion, and a lot of analysis to try to
norm people. The goal is that, across this rubric with 19
different sections, that people would become normed around what
does a 1 look like, what does a 3 look like, what does a 5 look
like, and be able to distinguish among them.
And the feedback that we have had has been extremely
positive. I have actually read a number of emails and
encountered a number of people out who said they went in
skeptical--so these are principals saying, ``I went in
skeptical. Another 4-day training, you know, another rubric.''
And they came out saying, ``This is going to help our teachers
become better.''
And, certainly, the field tests, that is the way the
teachers felt, as well. Teachers, when they got feedback on the
rubric, they said, ``I got helpful feedback, and I actually
know what is expected of me.''
Mr. DesJarlais. What are some of the potential problems
that you have seen so far? And what do you plan to do about
those?
Mr. Huffman. Yeah, I think one of the big challenges on the
observation side is just the range of distribution. We have to
make sure that there is not grade inflation or grade deflation
across different districts.
One thing is that this is now tied to our tenure system. So
Governor Haslam led the effort to pass meaningful tenure reform
which turned tenure from a 3-year rubber stamp into a 5-year
process where you have to score a 4 or a 5 on your evaluation
in the last 2 years in order to get tenure. And I think that
ups the stakes for making sure that there is consistency in
application across districts.
And one thing that we are doing, we have an online system
that we are going to roll out, so we will see observation
scores in real-time. So, for instance, in November, we would at
the State level be able to see that this is the average
observation score in county X and this is the average
observation score in county Y. And if there is a massive
difference and if that difference didn't correlate to actual
student achievement results, we would be able to go into county
Y and provide retraining and so on to reform the system.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, thank you. I certainly applaud your
efforts.
And I yield back the little bit of remaining time I have.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman for that.
Ms. McCarthy, I think you are next.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, everybody, for your testimony.
One of the themes that I seem to hear from all of you and
through your testimony, obviously teacher evaluations are
extremely important, but also professional development
activities are very important.
One of the things that we have noticed is a lot of the
young teachers, graduates, new graduates, seem to go into lower
grades. So they are the most inexperienced teachers teaching
probably the students that probably need the best teachers.
With the evaluations and with professional development, how
do you work around that? How do you bring a young teacher who
wants to be in that career--we had a hearing many, many years
ago, and we had four or five teachers there, new graduates,
into the lower grades. And each one of them felt like they
should drop out because they did not feel that they were
qualified to teach. They wanted to stay as a teacher, but they
weren't having the professional development.
So are you having, with what you are doing, the teachers
very, very involved in professional development on where their
weaknesses are and how can they improve so they can be even
better teachers? Because they are the ones on the front lines.
Even though you are principals or superintendents or
commissioners, you have probably come through the ranks in some
sort, one way or the other. I would like to hear those answers.
Ms. Walsh. Well, I will start. I just want to make a clear
point, that I would argue that no teacher should go into a
classroom who hasn't been taught how to teach reading or do any
of the activities that young children need. So I think that the
first order of business should be what kind of preparation we
provided that teacher before she walked into the classroom.
Then, I think that school districts are spending an
inordinate amount of money on professional development
activities. Some are worthwhile, and some are not. So I think
that, in the process of better evaluation systems, we are
beginning to identify how to tailor the professional
development to teachers' future needs. I think it has been very
problematic, without the kind of comprehensive evaluation
systems that are now being put in place, for school leaders to
even know what a new teacher needs.
Mrs. McCarthy. So, with that, how do the rest of you deal
with teacher development to make sure that there are programs
that are worthwhile for the teachers to participate in?
Mr. Cicarella. In the new teacher evaluation system in New
Haven, the teacher and the instructional managers sit down and
they self-rate themselves on the rubrics, of all the different
areas. So I want to make sure, one, there is not a disconnect.
If I am a teacher and I think I do a terrific job in classroom
management and the instructional manager, you know, principal,
doesn't see that, you know--so it usually is a very good--it is
a good tool to determine where are the weaknesses and then have
some targeted and focused professional development.
Because, too often, a lot of our money is spent on system-
wide things. And they are valuable, to a certain degree, but a
lot of it, quite frankly, is wasted, because we march all 1,600
teachers in New Haven to a professional development session,
and we bring a consultant in, very high-paid, when perhaps 200
or 300 of those folks would benefit from that.
So our new evaluation system says that those areas of need
are identified and agreed upon by the teacher and the
principal. And then we will go ahead and target that and do
less system-wide things and more either school-wide or even
group-wide things--for example, classroom management. They
would call in teachers that they have identified from the
different schools in New Haven, and those teachers would attend
those sessions.
Mr. Boasberg. I think we recognize how extraordinarily
challenging a profession it is, even for very experienced
teachers. And for new teachers coming in, it is an enormously
challenging job. And I think we have tried to address that in a
series of ways.
One is a recognition that, as Kate said, a number of our
teacher preparation programs aren't where they need to be, in
terms of truly preparing teachers to come in and be effective
teachers from the beginning. So we have a multiplicity of areas
where we try and recruit teachers from, both from our teacher
schools of education, but Teach For America.
We recently set up our own residency program, where high-
talented individuals come in for an entire year, are resident
teachers in the classroom of master teachers to really observe
and learn teaching practices and gradually take increased
teaching responsibilities under the eye every day of that
master teacher. And I think that program has been very
successful in developing teaching practices among our young
teachers.
And I think part of this is, if you look at our system and
other systems, there has often has been too much emphasis on
content. And if you look at our system, our teachers often do a
lot better on content knowledge than they do on the most
challenging pedagogical skills--for example, around
differentiation, to mean different students need developing
academic knowledge, developing problem solving, innovation,
21st-century skills. And I think one the things that we need to
do and a lot of systems need to do a lot better is, yes, you do
need to understand the content. I don't mean to demean content;
content is important. But content is only one part of this, and
have a much greater focus on the professional in-classroom
skills that teachers need to be effective to meet the very
diverse needs of the 20, 25, 28 kids who are with them every
day.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was a surgeon previously, and I will make a few comments,
and then I will have a question more related to how we get
people to become teachers.
Many physicians score well on standardized tests. Many have
been in the top of their class. But ultimately, once you are in
practice, the outcome of your patients is what is important.
The best doctors are not necessarily those who score best on
the test. And there is an art to the practice of medicine, as I
believe there is in teaching.
The people that know the best how you do as a physician are
those in your local community--the nurses, the other people
that work with you, as well as your patients and family. Again,
in my view, this is applicable to teachers. And, ultimately,
what counts is the success of students.
That said, I think all of us here today have recognized
that student success is a multi-factorial equation, of which
quality teachers are a very important part of it.
So my question really is to anyone, to all of you, is, what
can we do to continue to convince our best and brightest
students to become teachers? And what can we do to attract even
more of our best and bright students to become teachers? I
think this is a fundamental issue that we appear to be
struggling with, as we are in medicine.
Mr. Huffman. I will jump in, and I know Kate is chomping at
the bit.
But from my experience at Teach For America, one thing we
can do is recruit them. It is fascinating to me that,
basically, if you look at the way many schools of education
operate, they hang out a shingle and hope the people come and
apply to want to be a teacher. There is not a proactive effort
to go and find the best people and make the case to them why
teaching should be what they choose to do.
And at Teach For America, it is hard work, but it is
actually doable to go out and get tens of thousands of very
talented people to say that they want to become a teacher. And
it takes meeting with them, sitting down with them, explaining
the value proposition, explaining the leadership opportunity,
the chance to make an impact on the most pressing social
justice issue in our country.
And, frankly, I just think schools of education have punted
on that. They have been willing to take who comes in the door,
rather than go out and proactively seek people.
Ms. Walsh. I would agree with everything Commissioner
Huffman has said.
I just want to add that I think that one of the reasons
that teaching has become low status is because the preparation
of teachers has become such low status. We know that half the
people that graduate from an education program don't even get a
teaching job, they don't apply for a teaching job. So you have
to ask yourself, why is it that so many people are going to an
education school with no intention of ever becoming a teacher?
And I fear that, for too many of those individuals, they have
gone into the education school because it may be the easiest
program on the college campus to complete.
If you compare that data with what Teach For America has
managed to achieve, Teach For America has managed to convey
very high status to getting into its program. That does not
mean all that Teach For America does is look at test scores,
but it is the first gate. You have to meet a minimum level. So
it is quite an honor to make it through that first gate, and
then you have to go through many gates after that.
So the selectivity that that program has modeled for the
rest of us on how to attract the best and the brightest is a
crucial, crucial point. But I have to say that when I go out
and speak with deans of the schools of education, they push
back quite vehemently on the notion that they need to become
far more selective about who gets into their programs.
Mr. Cicarella. I would just say, I mean, in terms of
teaching, I think we all agree, no one becomes a teacher--is
not about money--no one becomes a teacher to get rich. That is
never going to happen, and we know that. The motivation is very
different.
In terms of attracting them and keeping them, one of the
problems we have, it is a demanding job, first of all,
obviously. But they need to have some input, not be blamed.
That is probably--I mean, some of them just--many of the
teachers kind of throw up their hands, ``I am just not doing
this. It is just not worth it.'' So we need to maybe get a
shift of the attitude, that we are not going to blame the
teachers. You have to be accountable, you have to be
responsible, but this, you know, consistent blaming that if the
students aren't scoring well and you are the teacher in front
of the classroom, therefore it has to be your fault and you
have to go.
We need to be accountable, we need to be responsible for
student learning, no question. But I think that is a big issue.
A lot of the teachers just don't feel that they are valued. And
then they just get to the point where it becomes too
frustrating.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller, thank you for
calling this congressional hearing on education reforms.
If we are to remain globally competitive, we must modernize
the teaching profession and provide our nation's teachers with
the support they need to build their knowledge and skills to
grow in the field and advance their careers.
In regard to teacher evaluation, accountability, and
tenure, I strongly believe that these decisions should be made
at the State and local level, with the full participation of
teachers, drawing on their expertise and knowledge to improve
teaching and learning.
Today, I ask my colleagues to consider the work that high-
achieving nations such as Finland, South Korea, and Singapore
have done to modernize and to build the capacity of their
teaching workforce, as well as innovative teacher development
and evaluation systems here in our country, in the United
States. It is critical that teachers are given the opportunity
to develop their expertise both as they enter the profession
and throughout their careers.
I would like to ask my first question to David Cicarella.
Mr. Cicarella, I commend you and the New Haven Federation
of Teachers for partnering with your local school system to
develop valid, reliable, transparent, and ongoing teacher
development and evaluation systems. It seems to me that this is
the type of collaboration and leadership that our schools need.
I read your testimony. You indicate that the New Haven
Federation of Teachers contract was ratified by a vote of 855-
42 and hailed by the local media as a first-in-the-nation
agreement between a city and a teachers' union to work together
to change the way public schools work.
What is unique about your teacher evaluation plan? How does
it improve teaching and learning and prepare our students to be
college- and career-ready? And the last part of that question
is, why is it critical to have multiple measures of student
achievement?
Mr. Cicarella. I will start with the last piece first, the
multiple measures.
State tests--very often, we say, well, let's look at the
State test and make that the sole factor in the teacher's
evaluation. ``If the kids didn't learn the material and you are
the teacher, it must be your fault.'' Well, one, the State test
is too--the State tests were never, ever designed to evaluate
teachers. They are designed to give us data so we can drive our
instruction. Essentially, very simply, tell us what the kids
know and what the kids don't know, and then we can adjust our
instruction there. So they weren't created for that purpose.
So what we do need is the multiple measures. So, yes, do we
have to look at the State tests? Absolutely. I mean, they are
important, they give us some good data, but it is just one
piece. We don't want to look at a student and make an
assessment of him simply by how he does one week on a test in
March in Connecticut, for example. So that is why we need other
measures of assessment that I referenced.
The second reason is, in many districts, in New Haven, only
22 percent of the teachers teach in subjects covered by our
Connecticut Mastery Test and our comprehensive assessment test
in high school. So even if we wanted to, even if you wanted to
make that argument, ``Well, darn it, we are going to use those
State tests because that is what we care about,'' you couldn't
evaluate more than three-fourths of our teachers. And that is
true in many parts of the country. So, from a practical
standpoint, we need multiple measures, but also from a
professional standpoint. The State tests are not designed to
evaluate teachers.
Your question about--I wanted to make a point about the
evaluation system. There are three components, in terms of the
overwhelming support that we got for it. It is, one, that the
teachers were valued. We sat there for an entire year, side-by-
side, administrators and teachers, putting the system
together--the teacher evaluation system, the principal
evaluation system, the surveys, which we did extensively as
well. And it emphasized top-to-bottom accountability. So
everyone is buying in because they felt that it was important
and that it is not just a matter of, ``We have to fix the
teachers.'' Yes, we need to do--there is certainly a lot of
improvement we need on our side, and we recognize that and we
accept it. But in New Haven, they have also said, yeah, we have
to look up and down the ladder, as well.
And the last piece is the three components. The teacher
evaluations shouldn't be merely test scores. Student learning
is front and center, no question. In New Haven, it is roughly
half. We don't like strict percentages on that. But, you know,
the bottom line is that the kids have to learn; that is our
job. But we also should be evaluated on things such as our
instructional practices, classroom management, delivery of
instruction, as well as our professional values.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Heck, you are recognized.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here and sharing your
experiences.
I represent the Clark County School District in Nevada,
which is the fifth-largest school district in the nation. And
we are certainly struggling with many of the same issues that
you have faced. And I have learned a lot from reading through
your testimony and hearing you today, and hopefully we will
bring back some best practices for our district to take a look
at.
My undergraduate degree was in education, and I thought I
was going to be a teacher until I did my student teaching. Then
I realized that I needed something less stressful as a career,
so I went into emergency medicine. And I still feel that that
career is much less stressful than a career as a teacher.
Mr. Huffman, in your testimony, you talked about the
multiple evaluation parameters. And you had 15 percent of the
evaluation determined by other student achievement metrics,
selected through a joint decision by principals and individual
teachers. Can you give some examples of what those other
metrics were, how they were selected, and how they are actually
measured?
Mr. Huffman. Sure. So, for example, if you were teaching in
high school, you might say, we are going to use AP exams, and
we are going to see what the pass rate is or the percentage of
students that are able to get a 3 on AP exams. Or you might
say, ACT scores. Now all juniors across the State of Tennessee
are taking the ACT, and so you might say, we are going to look
at improvement in ACT scores.
We are working with technical experts to figure out how to
actually do the ranking of that and then how to compile it all
back in, because I think that is one of the tricky pieces. It
is actually tricky even outside of that. You get your value-
added score, and then you have your observation scores, and how
do you combine it all so that it winds up with one number? So
we have technical experts from higher ed that are helping us
figure that piece out.
Mr. Heck. Do you foresee using things other than other
types of test scores for that 15 percent?
Mr. Huffman. You could imagine using things that are
different than test scores. But I think what is important to me
is that there is some level of consistency in the scoring and
that there is a range of distribution. What I don't want to see
is that if you teach X subject compared to Y subject, it simply
is easier to get a more positive evaluation. So we have to
figure out how to make sure that the range of distribution is
reasonable so that we are continuing to incent people to go
into the range of subjects.
Mr. Heck. Well, I know one of the concerns I have had, as
my State legislature has tried to grapple with this issue, is
too much of a reliance on test scores. You know, I know I am a
great test-taker. And I know I can go back to high school shop
class and get the manual on how to rebuild an engine, and you
give me a written test tomorrow, I will ace it. But I guarantee
you, I am not the guy you want rebuilding your engine, when it
comes time to actually do the hands-on repair. And so that is
the issue that we are struggling with, is that balance of where
does testing fall in the overall scheme of teacher evaluation.
So I appreciate that.
Mr. Boasberg, one of your parameters is student perception.
And you say, ``students know when they have a great teacher.''
I certainly agree with that. But I am sure that changes from
when you are in 1st grade, what a great teacher means to you,
then when you are in 12th grade. So how do you account for how
students interpret what a great teacher is in that metric?
Mr. Boasberg. So, I see those measures primarily at the
secondary level, rather than the elementary level, I agree. And
as a parent--my youngest will be in 1st grade, although I think
he actually got a pretty good sense of who is a great teacher
or not.
But I do think that what we have seen nationally is that if
you ask the right set of questions and not just, ``Is this
person a nice person,'' but, ``Does this person challenge
you,'' ``Does this person follow up with you,'' ``Does this
person meet your individuals needs,'' ``Are the students on
task in the classroom; do they begin work immediately,'' that
you see a pretty high correlation in those results from student
questions to student achievement.
So this is primarily an issue for our secondary students.
And I think the students do have a very good sense. As a
student, I remember very well who my great teachers were, and I
knew within a very short period of time who my great teachers
were and which teachers weren't very good. And I think it is
very important that we get that student voice, particularly at
the secondary level.
Mr. Heck. Thank you.
And, Ms. Walsh, based on the presentations of the other
three panelists, what do you feel the role is and how can the
federal government help support teacher reform efforts without
interfering in the effective practices at the State and local
level?
Ms. Walsh. I will answer your question; I just wanted to
add, there is a study out by the Gates Foundation that shows
that students' perceptions of their teachers correlate with the
results as low as students in 4th grade. And they didn't do
anyone lower than 4th grade, so it may correlate down even
further. So it is rather--you know, students have 180 days to
observe their teachers, and nobody else has that advantage, so
it is something we should respect.
In terms of the federal role, it is very complicated
because, you know, this is a rather blunt instrument, and
trying to tackle these issues is extremely tough, especially at
this stage of their development. I know Mr. Miller was asking a
somewhat similar question. And I think, at this point, we are
very much in an experimental stage, with the great work these
three gentleman are doing and in a lot of districts. So we
don't have definitive answers that maybe would lead to federal
policy at this point that was either you do or you don't.
But I do think there is a role for federal government in
the reporting requirements and in the carrot. I mean, I think
that we found through Race to the Top that that carrot really
encouraged States to make some important reforms. But, more
importantly, you need to look at--Race to the Top is not
offering any carrot right now, and there are still States that
are very much embracing these new sets of reforms. So I think
we can all feel very encouraged by the activity and momentum
that we are seeing currently.
So I think with reporting requirements and transparency and
tying some strings to what carrots we have, I think that is
what is most appropriate at this point.
Mr. Heck. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
I really appreciate your testimony.
I think that was an interesting question that the
gentleman--or a statement he made, about the student perception
of teachers, teachers that do well. I think also, though, that
same concept of the teacher's perception of the student or
students, I think, also tends to be important. Because we find
that, in high-poverty areas, there may be a low expectation of
the student and, therefore, the teacher teaches down. So I
think the perception of the student to the teacher is probably
even less important than the teacher's perception to the
student, which people would tend to maybe teach down to.
I just want to mention a couple of things just quickly. We
know that poor, minority students are taught by novice and out-
of-field teachers at a much higher rate than their affluent
peers. For example, in high-poverty secondary schools and those
serving most minority students, more than one out of three core
academic classes are taught by out-of-field teachers, compared
to one out of five where the low-poverty students are. So you
have less qualified teachers, as it is very clear.
Additionally, children in the highest-poverty and high-
minority schools are assigned to novice teachers almost twice
as often as children in low-poverty schools or schools without
many minority students.
And, finally, just to achieve true equity in education,
federal, State, and local education policy must prioritize
access to high-quality teachers for all students, including
better measures of identifying high-quality teachers.
Which, Ms. Walsh, brings me to a question. You noted in
your written testimony that teachers are the single most
important factor in determining the success of children in
schools, which I agree with, although I think principals are
certainly important, too, to lead the teachers. And In No Child
Left Behind, one thing that was left out was principals. They
just didn't deal with principals. It dealt with a lot of
things, but not principals.
And, of course, we mentioned about testing. And one of the
gentlemen said he tested well. We know that with the high-
stakes testing, we have even seen our educational system
unfortunately have teachers and schools changing scores because
of the pressure of the----
Ms. Walsh. Uh-huh.
Mr. Payne [continuing]. High-stakes tests that I opposed in
the--I think we need to evaluate students, there is no question
about it. I mean, when I was a kid, many, many decades ago, you
know, they evaluated students, so it is not new. I mean, you
had a pass or you failed, and they had a way of grading you.
But all of a sudden, you have high-stakes testing at 3rd grade
and 6th grade, and kids are pushed into courses of learning to
lead toward the test. And I am not so sure how much learning
goes on when you teach toward the test.
But, as you mentioned, Ms. Walsh, that all States should be
developed to require a teacher quality index--agree. Yet you
state that Title II funds should be competitive. Now, isn't
that recommendation kind of counterintuitive? Because why is it
better to provide such critical support for teacher evaluation
systems and meaningful professional development only to a lucky
few States or, in turn, to a lucky few schools or lucky
teachers and students? You want to highlight what teachers are
effective or ineffective in the State, but, you know--that is
your testimony--you don't necessarily want to provide support
to all States to improve the teaching force.
So I think that transparency is certainly important in
teacher quality, but transparency is really not enough. I think
there needs to be a systematic change and systematic support to
ensure equity. So I wonder about the competitiveness that you
feel should be for Title II funds, which would eliminate many
other schools that need it, probably even more.
Ms. Walsh. I certainly understand and share your concerns
about the States and districts that don't win such
competitions, but I would ask you, what is the alternative we
are facing? The alternative is we are currently spending some
$3 billion a year on something that the taxpayer and those
children in the classrooms are seeing far too little as a
result of that investment.
So I think the alternative here has not proven effective,
the status quo. So we are looking for ways that we can use that
same pot of money without depriving children of the investment
that they would entail, but to use it more effectively and lead
to much stronger results.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Thanks to the panel for being here.
I appreciate the conversation and a lot of zeroing in on
teacher evaluation and, obviously, what we do with that to
develop all teachers into highly effective teachers.
I want to back up a little bit. I know in my career--I came
out of health care, and as I was a manager within hospitals,
frankly, the best time we invested was hiring right, because
you avoid so many problems. And, frankly, once you get
somebody, when you don't hire right--and everybody is kind of,
for the most part, smiling and shaking your heads; you
understand the consequences of not hiring right to begin with.
So I just want to throw this out to begin with. Is there a
best practice that you have identified--I want to open this up
to the panel; if you could be succinct, I have a couple
questions--that is a best practice for making sure that we are
hiring truly highly effective teachers? I don't think it is
important whether they are novice or new or veterans or how
many years of service. We just want the right people, and that
is the highly effective ones.
So, if you could start, please.
Mr. Huffman. I will just jump in quickly and say I really
appreciate the question, because as I have started my role as
commissioner, this is something that I am really grappling
with. I completely agree with your point, that if you hire the
right people in the door in the first place, it solves so many
problems.
One of the things I have seen in my travels around the
State is that a lot of the hiring is effectiveness-blind, and
it is done based on historical patterns of hiring. So people
tend to hire from the higher-ed institution that is
geographically closest to the school district, and people are
hiring without rubrics that are tied to effectiveness.
I mean, I do think there is a tie to teacher evaluation, in
the sense that it allows us to collect more data that we can
tie back to characteristics of people and hopefully help
develop rubrics that we can give to districts that will help
them understand what are the attributes of teachers most likely
to perform effectively when they are in the classroom, because
I think that is what we have to be doing. But right now, the
system is not where it needs to be.
Mr. Boasberg. I think that--a couple things. One is to make
sure, as a district, we have multiple sources we are hiring
from. We don't want a situation where we are effectively hiring
from only one source. So we not only hire from colleges of
education, we have programs like Teach For America, we have a
residency program, we have a mid-career program called the
Denver Teaching Fellows. Because you want multiple applicants
to choose from to be able to choose the best applicants.
Second, we are very decentralized. We have principals and
teachers who, in that building, as a personnel selection
committee, interview the specific teachers. And decisions are
made at the school level. We don't do district-based hiring
assignments. We want that one-on-one contact and professional
judgment of the principal in the school.
Thirdly, I think it is really seeing someone teach. This is
a profession--and paper qualifications are great, but it is
really about how you do in the classroom.
And, fourthly, I would add, while I strongly agree that
hiring the best possible people is vital, in any profession
sometimes you make hiring decisions that don't turn out great
or maybe were good at the time but over time is not a great
fit. And I do think, while we need to focus on our hiring, we
also need to recognize that some of the systems that we have
about replacing low performers certainly need to be changed as
well.
Mr. Cicarella. I just might echo some of the same things;
that the paper resume is nice, but we can all put those
together. And interviews, we all get trained on interviews and
do a nice job in front of the, you know--but--so we do need, I
think, in particular, to be sure that these people have kind of
been field-tested. I mean, student teaching is supposed to do
that, and it does to a certain degree, but, you know, a little
bit more than that. Because we do need to see them in action.
And many school districts are doing that now. You have to come
in and do a lesson in one of the schools before you are hired,
as a requirement to be hired.
My only other comment I will make quickly is that I
appreciate your comment about whether it is new or old.
Sometimes reference is made that the newer teachers--I mean, we
have new teachers that are very effective, that are terrific.
They bring lots of energy. They are inexperienced, but they
more than make up for that in some other areas. Not every
veteran teacher is tired and worn-out. I mean, colleagues of
mine, teaching 25, 30 years, they have just as much energy.
They are in there, 6:30 in the morning, 7 o'clock, with the
young ones. So years of service, that is really nothing to look
at.
So I agree with you that when we are doing hiring, we don't
want to necessarily say, ``Well, we better make sure we have
young teachers,'' or, ``We better get some veteran teachers.''
The best school systems have a mix of both. The new people
bring energy and new ideas. Our veterans have a lot of
experience that we can rely on. And the best school system will
have a mix of the two, and we don't want to preclude one from
another.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Davis?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. I really appreciate your
testimony. I am trying to do double duty, but I did hear from
all of you and read your testimony.
And I was particularly interested--for one thing, I
actually did introduce a bill, it is called the STELLAR Act. I
hope you will take a look at that, in terms of evaluations that
are tied into, I think, one of the issues that you particularly
addressed, Ms. Walsh, Title I. So I would like to ask you about
that.
But first, Mr. Cicarella, buy-in is just a tough issue. I
am from San Diego, California. And I think that there have been
enough instances within, I think, most school districts where
it has been tough to get that at a level where people really
believe that the people doing the evaluations are going to be
skilled enough to be able to really assist and promote
professionalism as opposed to just doing something to teachers.
And it is something you obviously grappled with.
Is there anything else you could share with us in terms of
getting that buy-in particularly, and how you worked hand-in-
glove, essentially, with making certain that the observers, I
think as you called them, were adequately trained in the eyes
of teachers to actually do that? Were most of the teachers also
mentor-teachers, nationally board-certified teachers? Where did
you find those observers, from the existing ranks? Or did
people, retired principals, teachers come in? How did you do
that?
Mr. Cicarella. Yeah, that was a big concern of ours, is
that we have a new evaluation system which will be
consequential for some, and we recognized that. But we wanted
to make sure that it was done fairly and that teachers weren't
scapegoated and a finger was pointed at them perhaps by an
administrator that is not a good instructional leader, does a
no-good evaluation, you know, ``The school is not conducive to
learning.''
So one of the pieces we put in, we put a third-party
validation in, where we have the outside observers come in. And
that we agreed to with the school district. And they are a
combination: They are sitting superintendents; some are
retired. Principals, again, some active, some retired. None of
them from New Haven; they are all from other districts
throughout the State. And they would come in.
So one of the protections the teachers felt was that there
is going to be someone else. Until we get to that point where
we have confidence in the administrator's ability to fairly
evaluate--New Haven, we have pretty much a mixed bag. We have
some administrators who are absolutely terrific. They can be an
administrator anywhere in this country. On the other end of the
spectrum, we have some, quite frankly, that shouldn't be in the
principal's chair. And that was our concern.
So to get the buy-in that you are talking about from the
teachers, we put in a third-party validation system. I can
speak to you more about it; I know time doesn't permit it.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. Okay.
Mr. Cicarella. But those folks come in, and they are
observed by both the principal or assistant principal and this
third party, this outside validator, who was interviewed by the
teachers' union and the school district and we agreed upon
them.
And these people had excellent track records of evaluation
and of handling staff. And we had to agree to each one. So when
we interviewed them, you know, we would say, ``This one. Nope,
not this one. This one. Yes, this one is okay.'' So, at the end
of the day, we have a cadre validators, third-party validators,
that we all have complete confidence in.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I think one of the things that we are searching for and
something that would be carried if we go in this direction--and
I think I heard from everybody that you do see a federal role
here--is to allow--you know, it is definitely not a one-size-
fits-all, but it is the process that school districts would go
through over a period of time, even up to 5 years, that would
provide this kind of a setting so that they can do the
appropriate work of getting this together. That may or may not
be too long, I am not sure.
Ms. Walsh, when you talked in your testimony about Title I
funds being essentially tied to quality data, and we know that
those systems are very important, could you expand a little bit
more on that and why you think that that would be essential as
we move to having, I would hope, more evaluations throughout
the country?
Ms. Walsh. I just want to make sure--a correction, that I
was talking about Title II funding and the $3 billion, money
that goes toward--largely, it is being spent to reduce class
size and for professional development.
And I think both parties have been a little bit disturbed
by the lack of results that have come from that annual
investment and have grappled with ways to make it more
effective. So we think that it is an opportunity to use that
money as a carrot to hold out to districts and States, saying,
``Look, we need to do things a little bit differently here. We
need to move toward an evaluation system, that all teachers are
being evaluated fairly and reliably but annually.'' So we think
that there is an opportunity here to use that money much more
productively.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh.
Mr. Boasberg. Could I add a word about the federal role?
Chairman Kline. I am sorry, the gentlelady's time has
expired. We will try to work that in.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Can any of you speak a little bit to whether or not we
should have an expectation of our higher education institutions
for that period of time after they give out the BA or the BS to
somebody that goes in the teaching profession and what that
responsibility might be?
Ms. Walsh. I am sorry, I didn't--would you restate your
question, please?
Mr. Tierney. Usually, they flip the ball to you, and you
hadn't even heard the question. They are all just shuffling it
down.
Should we have an expectation for higher education
institutions that produce teachers----
Ms. Walsh. Oh.
Mr. Tierney [continuing]. Beyond the time that they give
you your degree? And what is that expectation that we should
have?
Ms. Walsh. I mean, we certainly struggle with that issue.
There are some education schools that have said, you know, if
you are dissatisfied with our product, we will, at our own
expense, retrain or re-prepare that teacher. And then there are
also, on a much broader scale, there is an effort nationwide to
look at the value-add of teacher graduates once they leave an
institution and how much they contribute to the performance in
a classroom. So we know that teachers from one institution are
more effective than another. I know Tennessee has been a
pioneer in that effort.
There are some limitations. It is not something we can do
very easily. But, currently, there are only three States in the
country that allow us to do that. But even when we do have all
50 States providing that kind of data, it will not ever tell
us, well, what is it that education schools are doing right or
wrong?
Mr. Tierney. Well, is--and, also, thinking along the line,
regardless of whether or not a particular institution that
might be located in a particular geographic area graduated that
teacher, might they not have some responsibility with the
community in which they are located to support that teacher?
You know, particularly, we have these instances where a lot
of the students that are high-poverty and high-risk are getting
teachers that are newer, often less experienced, and sometimes
teaching out of subject. So is there something that can happen
there, where those institutions work with the community and
support those teachers to help improve their performance?
Ms. Walsh. There is a great deal of interest on the part of
institutions becoming more involved in the clinical practice
and in real schools. That is a change that we have seen happen,
and I think that is all great.
I would just think that we need to attend also to this the
basic needs of new teachers, and are they coming out of an
education school with the basic credentials--not credentials,
but work that they should have done before they go into
classrooms?
Do you realize that there are over a million children a
year assigned to first-year teachers? And if you look at the
contribution of first-year teachers to student growth, it is
not good. Students lose ground consistently under first-year
teachers. So we know that children who are in high-poverty
schools where there is a lot of turnover have more of those
first-year teachers.
It doesn't need to be that way. We have seen programs that
have delivered teachers well-prepared into schools on day one.
And they do not lose ground; they make up--they make progress.
Mr. Tierney. And going along with your point earlier about
a lot of students feeling that they can get into an education
program because it is easier to get accepted and easier to
complete, what would be the change in that if we paid teachers
at a level, say, that we pay police officers? In our
communities, when they publish the income of public employees,
the police officers are always the first 10, 12, 20 positions
on that, or other people in that category.
What if we paid our teachers like that, so that people
knew, if they graduated and did well in a teaching job, they
would make that kind of money and might want to sustain it as a
career? Do you think that would have a positive impact?
Ms. Walsh. I think it is absolutely critical. I think one
of the reasons we are not attracting the best and the brightest
into the teaching profession is because they are in college and
they look at their future careers and they know exactly how
much they will earn in 25 years if they go to work in the
school district, adjusted for inflation. That is not a
incentive to most 21-year-olds.
We have to make it possible for young individuals, college
graduates, to say, you know, ``If I am really good at this job,
I am going to make a very nice income. It is all going to
depend on my contributing talent and skill.''
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Well, I won't pursue Mr. Tierney's line of questioning
except just to comment that in my own State, where we have the
top public official in the State insulting teachers and telling
them that they are getting too much in health benefits and
pension, it is not leading too many people in that profession.
Two very different questions. First, looking at science and
math education--I am not sure who I am directing this to,
probably Ms. Walsh--but we used to have the Eisenhower funds,
which provided something on the order of $400 million a year to
teachers all over the country for professional development,
mostly in science and math. That was turned into Science and
Math Partnerships, funded at about a third of what Eisenhower
funds had been. And now those funds, this administration has
proposed be pooled with all sorts of other things.
So there is nothing nationally available that is
specifically for science and math teacher professional
development. What is the strategy that we should be using? Is
there any different strategy that we should be using for the
professional development of science and math teachers? I am
using this term kind of broadly, the STEM areas. And maybe
others would have comments on that.
Teach For America seems to be bringing a lot of science
majors into teaching, at least temporarily; and they do have
some different training, I believe, for the students who are
doing that.
Well, let me let you talk.
Ms. Walsh. Well, you know, it is such an important
question, and we get asked it a lot. And I am just going to be
honest with you, I find it a little frustrating. Because, in
terms of professional development for science and math
teachers, right now, if you are an elementary teacher, it is
too often the case where people say, well, I am an elementary
teacher because I am not any good at math. And yet they are the
first teachers of our students in mathematics.
We know what preparation elementary teachers do need to be
effective in the classroom. We know exactly what they should be
learning. But, nevertheless, across the country, if you look at
what kind of preparation teachers are getting in mathematics,
it is all over the map. There are programs that provide no
courses. There are programs that provide any courses. There is
no consensus.
So I think the best thing the U.S. Congress could do is to
look to the State of Massachusetts, which is the only State in
the United States which is currently requiring its elementary
teachers to pass a rigorous test in mathematics. There are a
lot of States that require any test, but there is only one
State that is making real progress.
So rather than try to get--I just think that this testing
issue is the easiest way to reshape the practices and policies
of States. So I just think it is ultimately very important, and
I don't think that we should burden school districts with the
job of providing the content preparation that should have
happened before teachers arrive in their school districts.
Mr. Holt. Would the other witnesses--Mr. Cicarella, please?
Mr. Cicarella. Yes, perhaps two comments.
On science and math, I referenced earlier that teachers
don't become teachers to make money. But there is such a
disparity between what the folks can make on the outside. I was
a math major. I can make a lot more money on the outside than
teaching. I chose to do it, and many of us do, but that is a
difficult one. And not that money is always the answer, but
that is part of the problem we have. There is such a disparity
in the salaries, if you have a math or science degree, on the
outside as opposed to education.
And then the only comment I want to mention about Teach for
America, they are a terrific organization. My daughter is a TFA
person, so I very much like those kids. They are bright, they
are driven, they work hard. But in terms of training, they have
no special training. Quite frankly, it is just simply a crash
course. I can speak firsthand. My daughter went through it.
They come from outstanding colleges. My daughter was a Boston
University graduate.
Mr. Holt. Yeah, more than 15 percent of the graduating
class at Princeton University applied for Teach for America.
Mr. Cicarella. Yeah. But their training is one summer. They
have one summer of training, and they have some follow-up work
with their folks. So they are not doing anything special with
math and science. That is a good organization, they do good
work, but they are not helping us with the math and science
problem.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of my biggest concerns for a long time with our public
education system and with evaluating teachers fairly to see how
well they are doing is that many classrooms, many districts,
many cities in general provide teachers with kids that aren't
ready to learn in the first place. They come to school
insecure. Their homes are not safe. Possibly they may not even
have a home. They may be moving every 6 months. They are hungry
quite often. Sometimes they don't have medical care.
How in the world can we evaluate teachers--so this is a
question to all of you. How would you take this into account
when teachers are evaluated? How do we measure a teacher's
progress when that teacher is provided a classroom of kids that
are in real need?
Mr. Huffman. I will jump in.
So while it is absolutely true, everything that you said,
that kids come to school with very different needs and that
those needs impact then the classroom environment, excellent
teachers are able to advance learning with kids regardless of
the challenges that they are bringing to school. We see that
again and again.
Ms. Woolsey. Excuse me, one kid at a time. What if they get
a classroom of half the kids in the class move every 6 months
or they have got 13 different languages in the classroom? One
excellent teacher is going to be able to balance all of that
without any help from us?
Mr. Huffman. I think there is a difference when you talk
about measurement between moving, in which case you have a
measurement challenge between----
Ms. Woolsey. All right. I am talking about what that does
to the kids. So I am not talking about--okay.
Mr. Huffman. I personally believe, yes, we see it all the
time. So it is not accidental, again, that the Teach for
America teachers are actually outperforming other teachers,
even though they have the toughest classrooms. Part of that is
because we are doing value-added. So we are not just saying,
where do you wind up at the end of the year? We are saying, how
far do you advance your kids over the course of the year? So is
it hard work? Yes. But, on the other hand, we only want people
in classrooms serving high-need kids who believe they have the
locus of control to move those kids' student achievement.
Mr. Boasberg. Maybe I could speak to Colorado. In Colorado,
we measure growth as well. Last year, of the five schools in
the whole State of Colorado, 2,000 schools, that grew the most,
four were in Denver. Three of those schools, the student body
were more than 90 percent of those students came from families
in poverty. We have too many schools that perform
extraordinarily well with students who come from families in
poverty. So I have seen it done in classroom after classroom,
in school after school.
Is it challenging? Yes. But the alternative, that somehow
we do not evaluate, do not have accountability for our teachers
who teach our highest-need students, to me is a far more
concerning alternative.
Ms. Woolsey. Absolutely. So let's go on to you, Mr.
Cicarella. Tell us, I am sure, building on what these two
gentlemen said, what do we do? Why are those classrooms able to
make up that difference? What do we provide?
Mr. Cicarella. You are right. I mean, the extenuating
circumstances do count. While I agree excellent teachers make a
difference, I am going to disagree that if you are an excellent
teacher you are going to overcome all these impediments. Kids
don't come to school. You can't teach them. You can't teach an
empty chair. Some of them have so many severe problems--we
don't need to go into those--that the last thing on their
mind--I taught algebra and I taught reading in eighth grade.
That kid could care less about my polynomial lesson when he has
got all kinds of things going on at home. That is just the
reality of it.
I prepare my lessons diligently, I care about them, and I
do the best can. But if they are not engaged and if they have
so many things facing them, they are just not going to be--no
one is going to break through that.
So to your question as to what do you about it, we do need
to look at the legitimate reasons. And so the wraparound
services are really important. That is part of what we have for
school reform in New Haven, is that we have to address those
issues. Because you can be the best teacher in the world, as I
said, but, again, some of those impediments are so severe that
no one is going to break through those.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Walsh, you have just a little bit of time.
Ms. Walsh. I think that they have spoken well to this
issue. I do think the question before us is what is our
alternative.
Ms. Woolsey. No, I am not suggesting we don't do it. I am
suggesting it will be an investment that has to be made.
Otherwise, we will be leaving groups of kids out and/or
evaluating teachers on something that is quite impossible. So
we need a lot of help in that regard. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady. Her time has
expired.
I want to again thank the witnesses for being here, for
excellent testimony, and really being engaged in the questions
and answers.
I am going to recognize Mr. Miller for his closing remarks.
And, by agreement, he is going to roll at least one more
question into those remarks. So stand by. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I just have kind of a general observation. I
appreciate your observation on the observation.
Mr. Boasberg--I think I got it right--yeah, this is yours.
Mr. Boasberg. It is, yes.
Mr. Miller. On the teacher and student behaviors and
teacher behaviors and on the learning behaviors, on those parts
of the graphs, you have for a distinguished teacher the
students are observed pursuing their own strategies and ideas,
students are observed supporting each other, and persevering
and solving problems. Students are observed encouraging each
other to work harder.
You have here for students, student mediate diverse
opinions or approaches and devise their own. Students approach
tasks and responses in highly original and applied ways.
Students are creative problem solvers and think about systems,
not just isolated parts.
Most teachers would tell me that this is all inconsistent
with teaching to the test. I assume you still have annual
tests?
Mr. Boasberg. We do. So thank you for the observation, and
I appreciate you bringing it up.
If I could respond, I don't see there is any inconsistency
at all. I think that all of us in the community care very
deeply can our students learn to read, write, and do math. To
me, that is just the threshold that all of our students need in
order to contribute to our society and have jobs. And I think
those tasks do measure that. Those are important to our
students. Can they learn to read, write, and do math?
At the same time, our schools all have real aspirations to
prepare our kids for the 21st century, to be good citizens, to
be problem solvers, to be innovative, to be creative; and we
care very deeply about those things. That is what our parents
tell us.
In Colorado, it is a school choice State. As a parent, you
can send your child to any school anywhere in the State so long
as there is room. We need to be able to make sure that we are
offering to our students rich classrooms that really develop
the whole child, and I see absolutely no inconsistency at all.
In fact, what we see when we have teachers who are developing
those higher order thinking skills, the problem solving skills,
the creativity, innovation, collaboration, that students are
taking command of their own learning, being original. They are
the ones who are scoring best on reading, writing, and math.
So, in our experience, there has been absolutely no
inconsistency with caring deeply about students to be able to
read, write, and do math and, at the same time, caring deeply
about the whole child and fostering the critical thinking, the
creativity, the innovation skills that I as a parent care so
deeply about, and all of our parents care very deeply about.
Mr. Miller. Anyone else?
Mr. Huffman. I would just agree. I don't think teaching to
the test works in advancing test scores the way people think. I
think that it is actually the mediocre teacher that teaches to
the test, and it is the strong teacher that teaches a robust
set of skills that winds up being demonstrated in advanced test
results.
Mr. Miller. I probably have been an outlier in that I
insisted for a long time that it was an excuse and not a
result. I am very encouraged that we would consider these
attributes in evaluation. Because I think these attributes
mirror a modern workplace much more so than most schoolrooms
and where students do collaborate, where workers collaborate,
where people work across grades or work across schools or get
together with other schools and start to figure out solutions,
as opposed to the right fact. The facts are on Google. The
question is, can you pull them together and come up with a
solution to what may be complex in fourth grade or seventh
grade or eighth grade and can you do it with others? I think
that tells us more about getting people ready for a modern
economy and modern democracy, if you will. So I appreciate
that. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for all your testimony this morning.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman and identify myself
with all of his closing remarks.
Mr. Miller. You heard it here first.
Chairman Kline. You heard it here first.
Mr. Miller. Probably never again.
Chairman Kline. Maybe, maybe never again.
Mr. Miller. The gentleman gets the right to revise and
extend his remarks.
Chairman Kline. In this case, I won't. I do agree. I am
heartened by what we have heard here today. I think you are
making fantastic progress. We are going to continue to grapple
with our role, with Washington's role in what you are doing. I
can tell you that, as a very minimum, we want to make sure that
you are able to continue with what you are doing and the
successes that we are seeing.
Again, as I said earlier, your testimony is fantastic. You
have been very involved and engaging witnesses. I thank you for
that.
There being no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]