To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing in Innovation Fund.
[Docket ID ED-2009-OII-0012]
The Texas Classroom Teachers Association, representing approximately 50,000 classroom teachers and instructional personnel statewide, has the following comments/recommendations regarding the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing in Innovation Fund.
Regarding Education Reform Areas, the Department states:
“One of the overall goals of the ARRA is to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. Within the context of the ARRA, the Investing in Innovation Fund (I3) focuses on four key assurances, or education reform areas, that will help achieve this goal: (1) Improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have effective teachers, (2) gathering information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness through enhanced data systems, (3) progress toward college- and career-ready standards and rigorous assessments, and (4) improving achievement in low-performing schools through intensive support and effective interventions.”
The language used here by the Department illustrates an interesting evolution in the way that the Department has described the four key assurance areas under the ARRA in previous ARRA grant program notices of proposed priorities. For example, the Department describes the first of the four assurances as follows: “(1) Improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have effective teachers.”
However, in prior proposed notices for other grants provided for under the ARRA, such as the Race to the Top fund, this assurance area was described as “improving teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher distribution”.
In fact, the actual language of the ARRA, from which this priority originates, is:
“(2) Achieving equity in teacher distribution. The State will take actions to improve teacher effectiveness and comply with section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(8)(C)) in order to address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers between high- and low-poverty schools, and to ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.”
It is notable that the description of this assurance in the proposed I3 fund evolves the language from the ARRA which focuses on addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers, into “ensuring that all schools have effective teachers.” While this is certainly a laudable goal, it is not reflective of what the statute actually requires.
In the proposed notice for the I3 fund, the Department describes the second of the four assurances as follows: “(2) gathering information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness through enhanced data systems.”
Again, demonstrating how this language has evolved from the way it was stated in prior notices, the Department’s description of this assurance in prior proposed notices for other ARRA grants was “improving collection and use of data”. This prior language actually reflected the language of the ARRA, from which the assurance originated, which is as follows:
“(3) Improving collection and use of data. The State will establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871).”
Section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act is as follows:
(D) REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A STATEWIDE P–16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM.—The State shall ensure that the statewide P–16 education data system includes the following elements:
(i) PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 EDUCATION AND POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION.—With respect to preschool through grade 12 education and postsecondary education—
(I) a unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system;
(II) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information;
(III) student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education programs;
(IV) the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems; and
(V) a State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability.
(ii) PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 EDUCATION.—With respect to preschool through grade 12 education—
(I) yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b));
(II) information on students not tested by grade and subject;
(III) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students;
(IV) student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; and
(V) student-level college readiness test scores.
(iii) POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION.—With respect to postsecondary education, data that provide—
(I) information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and
(II) other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education”
Nowhere in any of the relevant statutory language is there mention of “gathering information to improve…teacher performance…” Yet, in the Overview of the Investing in Innovation Fund, the Department states that it “intends to use the Investing in Innovation Fund to support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement by aligning four of the priorities proposed in this notice directly (emphasis added) with the four ARRA reform areas.”
Recommendation:
Given that the Department starts with a faulty premise in its inaccurate description of the four ARRA reform areas, it is hard to imagine that the Department could meet its stated intent of aligning four of the priority areas proposed in this notice directly with the four ARRA reform areas. The priority areas should be revised to align with the legislation that was the basis for them.
Regarding proposed Absolute Priority 1--Innovations That Support Effective Teachers and School Leaders, the Department states:
“Absolute priority 1 is intended to support projects that promote practices, strategies, or programs to increase the number and percentage of effective teachers and school leaders, or help reduce the inequities in the distribution of effective teachers and school leaders. It is also designed to encourage the use of teacher and school leader evaluation systems that are tied to student growth.”
We take issue with the statement that “It is also designed to encourage the use of teacher and school leader evaluation systems that are tied to student growth.”
There is nothing in the relevant statutory language that refers to encouraging the use of teacher evaluation systems tied to student growth. Rather, the focus of the relevant statutory language is on improving teacher effectiveness and addressing inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers between high- and low-poverty schools, and to ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
Additionally, in the proposed Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority 1, the Department states: “Under proposed absolute priority 1, the Department would provide funding to support practices, strategies, or programs that increase the number or percentages of highly effective teachers and school leaders or reduce the number or percentages of ineffective teachers and school leaders, especially for high-need students, by identifying, recruiting, developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers (emphasis added) and school leaders (or removing ineffective teachers and school leaders). In such initiatives, teacher or school leader effectiveness should be determined by an evaluation system that is rigorous, transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of teachers' effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on student growth as a significant factor; and the measures should be designed and developed with teacher involvement.”
We object to the Department’s substitution of “highly effective” for “highly qualified” as used in the ARRA. In fact, the actual language of the ARRA, from which this priority originates is:
“(2) Achieving equity in teacher distribution. The State will take actions to improve teacher effectiveness and comply with section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(8)(C)) in order to address inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers (emphasis added) between high- and low-poverty schools, and to ensure that low-income and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.”
It is well-documented that the drafters of the ESEA, as amended, were intentional in using the term “highly qualified” as opposed to “effective.” Additionally, the state of research has yet to reach even a semblance of consensus regarding a definition of “effective teachers”.
Recommendation:
Given that there is no particular teacher or school leader performance component present in any of the statutory terms governing this particular section of the ARRA, we argue that the term “highly effective teachers” exceeds statutory authority and should be deleted. Instead, terms that are enumerated in the ARRA, or can reasonably be inferred from the ARRA, (such as the percentage of low-income and minority children taught by teachers with little or no experience, teachers who do not hold the appropriate certification for the teaching assignment, and teachers who do not meet state qualification and licensing criteria for the grade levels and subject areas in which the teacher provides instruction and/or who do not hold a baccalaureate degree) should be used in its place.
We also object to the Department’s proposal to determine teacher effectiveness based on an evaluation system that includes student growth as a significant factor in measuring teacher effectiveness, and to take action to remove “ineffective” teachers on this basis for several reasons.
First, teacher and school leader evaluations rely on data that is more easily manipulated by school districts and states than the indicators set out in the ARRA (enumerated above, such as the percentage of low-income and minority children taught by teachers with little or no experience etc), which rely on statistical kinds of data.
Second, the term “significant” is not defined.
Third, “student growth” is defined as a student's score on the state standardized grade-level assessments (although the definition now allows for other specified measures of student learning to be included as well). Although we applaud the Department for proposing to allow other measures of student learning to be included in measuring student growth, we continue to take issue with the fact that the Department proposes that “teacher effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by student growth.” This is because the Department is continuing to require that teacher effectiveness must be based, at least in part, on standardized grade-level assessments and because there’s a good deal of consensus among researchers that the ability to accurately, reliably and validly isolate teacher effects on student performance has not been established.
Numerous studies and experts caution that standardized tests are designed to measure students’ ready retrieval of knowledge and skills and are not designed or intended to accurately attribute individual student learning to a particular lesson or pedagogical strategy — or even to a specific teacher among the many instructors students encounter. “And this is true even when state-of-the-art, value-added methodologies are applied to the testing data to control for an array of outside influences. There are many things standardized tests do not measure: student motivation, intellectual readiness, persistence, creativity, or the ability to apply knowledge and work productively with others. Yet these are important qualities engendered and nurtured by good teachers, and they have everything to do with student learning.” Measuring What Matters: The Effects of National Board Certification on Advancing 21st Century Teaching and Learning, Center for Teaching Quality, June 2008, http://www.teachingquality.org/pdfs/TS_NB_report0708.PDF.)
Echoing this caution regarding the use of student growth/performance on standardized tests for a purpose for which it has not been validated (such as a means to evaluate teachers) is a statement by the American Psychological Association, as noted on its website, entitled
“The Appropriate Use of High-Stakes Testing in Our Nation's Schools”. “It is important to remember, however, that no test is valid for all purposes. Indeed, tests vary in their intended uses and in their ability to provide meaningful assessments of student learning. Therefore, while the goal of using large-scale testing to measure and improve student and school system performance is laudable, it is also critical that such tests are sound, are scored properly, and are used appropriately. When tests are developed and used appropriately, they are among the most sound and objective knowledge and performance measures available. But, appropriate development and use are critical. Fairness in testing begins when tests are being developed. Test developers should provide to those using their tests (school systems, for example) specific information about the potential limitations of the test, including situations in which the use of the test scores would be inappropriate. For example, a test that has been validated only for diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of individual students should not be used to evaluate the educational quality of a school. Furthermore, those using a particular test should have an appreciation for how the test performance of some students--students with a disability or those with limited English-speaking ability, for example, should be interpreted.” http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.HTML
Additionally, requiring that student growth must be based in part on student growth on state standardized grade-level assessments is problematic because of research showing the flawed approach of growth models based on grade-level assessment, noting that such models “will do a poor job of documenting progress — especially the growth of students who are performing well below or above their enrolled grade level. Recently released school ratings from some of the states now piloting a Growth Model with grade-level assessments indicate that Growth Models that rely on current grade-level assessments are not very sensitive measures of growth. Five states, each with unique state standards and assessments, varying confidence intervals, and Growth Model algorithms, found little to no impact in the differentiation of school effectiveness as a result of the use of the Growth Model.”
This report called for the use of a multigrade adaptive growth assessment that combines test items from all grade levels into a single online item bank and then adjusts question difficulty based on the individual student’s responses. In this way, the assessment more precisely measures student performance along the entire academic continuum, while also indicating whether the performance is above or below grade-level proficiency. A More Accurate Growth Model: Using Multigrade Adaptive Assessments to Measure Student Growth, Steering Committee of the Delaware Statewide Academic Growth Assessment Pilot, October 2007, www.rodelfoundationde.org/pdfs/GrowthReportCongress102507.pdf.