Fired DC Teachers: Which Schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So long as those criteria are met, a teacher is deemed "minimally effective," and she can exhibit all the risk-taking and individualism she wants in running her classroom. She can teach however she thinks is best. Indeed, if she can teach particularly effectively in some unconventional way, so that her students advance far beyond the baseline in the tests, she will be rewarded with higher ratings.

I don't see how IMPACT forces teachers to teach by rote formula.

Because a Master Educator comes by surprise and has a CHECK LIST of about 60 different things (rote formula criteria) you have to demonstrate in a given lesson. Taking risks is not in the cards for teachers who worry about their evaluation scores. Taking a RISK means doing something that is NOT on the check list. Can you show 60 different things in 30 minutes and look like you are creative, individual and spontaneous?

Maybe you should show me the list of 60 things. I look at the IMPACT guidebook, and I see only nine standards. See http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/IMPACT/IMPACT%20Guidebooks%202010-2011/DCPS-IMPACT-Group1-Guidebook-August-2010.pdf at pages 12 and 15. That's down from 13 standards under the old PPEP system. Those nine standards are pretty general (e.g., "explain content clearly"). None seem to enforce a particular method or approach to teaching. They certainly don't seem to bind teachers into some rote formula for teaching. As long as teachers meet those nine standards, they can teach however they want.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I'd want my children stuck with a teacher who is so creative, spontaneous, and willing to "take risks" in her approach that she cannot "explain content clearly" or "respond to student misunderstandings." These really do seem like pretty minimal obligations to meet for a teacher. I still don't understand why people want to defend teachers who cannot meet these minimal standards. Can someone please explain that?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe you should show me the list of 60 things. I look at the IMPACT guidebook, and I see only nine standards. See http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/IMPACT/IMPACT%20Guidebooks%202010-2011/DCPS-IMPACT-Group1-Guidebook-August-2010.pdf at pages 12 and 15. That's down from 13 standards under the old PPEP system. Those nine standards are pretty general (e.g., "explain content clearly"). None seem to enforce a particular method or approach to teaching. They certainly don't seem to bind teachers into some rote formula for teaching. As long as teachers meet those nine standards, they can teach however they want.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I'd want my children stuck with a teacher who is so creative, spontaneous, and willing to "take risks" in her approach that she cannot "explain content clearly" or "respond to student misunderstandings." These really do seem like pretty minimal obligations to meet for a teacher. I still don't understand why people want to defend teachers who cannot meet these minimal standards. Can someone please explain that?

First of all, you choose the guide book for the individual value add teachers. That means that 50% of their evaluation is based on test scores and TLF is only 35%. If you want to understand the TLF, that's probably not the best guidebook. Try this one:

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/IMPACT/IMPACT%20Guidebooks%202010-2011/DCPS-IMPACT-Group2-Guidebook-August-2010.pdf

That's for group 2 teachers. TLF counts for 75% of their score.

The number nine to which you refer is not to "standards", but to "domains". For instance, "Explain content clearly" is not one item on a checklist. It is a domain. Within that domain, there are various factors that distinguish between high effective, effective, minimally effective, and effective teachers. Here are the factors that indicate a teacher is highly effective:

- Explanations are concise, fully explaining concepts in as direct and efficient a manner as possible.
- The teacher effectively makes connections with other content areas, students’ experiences and interests, or current events in order to make the content relevant and build student understanding and interest.
- When appropriate, the teacher explains concepts in away that actively involves students in the learning process, such as by facilitating opportunities for students to explain concepts to each other.
- Explanations provoke student interest in and excitement about the content.
- Students ask higher-order questions and make connections independently,demonstrating that they understand the content at a higher level.

These are all laudable attributes that I'd hope would be demonstrated by most teachers. But, keeping in mind that this is just one of nine domains and the other domains are similarly detailed, think about how you might demonstrate all of the aspects of the nine domains within one 30 minute period. The issue is not whether the teacher explained things clearly. The issue becomes whether the teacher was concise, made connections to other content areas, involved the students, provoked excitement, and the students responded with higher-order questions. Fail to achieve the last of those and you are not highly effective. Again, all of that plus 8 other lists of items within 30 minutes. The only way to achieve it is a very formulaic method. A teacher would essentially follow a script for lesson after lesson.

I think it would be great for a teacher's teaching style to generally achieve the goals listed within the nine domains. But, the expectation that each of those be demonstrated within a 30 minute lesson does not seem reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't IMPACT have some clause that during the observation at precise time intervals the observer scans the room and notes down the percentage of children 'on-task' and then quantifies this into some number that then goes into the formula that 'proves' whether you're a good teacher or not. There are so many things wrong with that that I would not even know where to begin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't IMPACT have some clause that during the observation at precise time intervals the observer scans the room and notes down the percentage of children 'on-task' and then quantifies this into some number that then goes into the formula that 'proves' whether you're a good teacher or not. There are so many things wrong with that that I would not even know where to begin.

My sister had this same evaluation i.e. the how many kids on task criteria by a mentor teacher in Utah. She said it was some of the most valuable training she had. From her perspective it was catching the off task kids that allowed her to target the kids that were falling behind. It also helped her see which of her lessons were effective. Now the big difference I see here is that IMPACT assumes you should know how to do this where as my sister had a mentor teacher that worked with her for a month on this one issue. However I don't consider this a ridiculous standard for teachers to meet. I think it is one of the critical differences between a high quality and a poor teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't IMPACT have some clause that during the observation at precise time intervals the observer scans the room and notes down the percentage of children 'on-task' and then quantifies this into some number that then goes into the formula that 'proves' whether you're a good teacher or not. There are so many things wrong with that that I would not even know where to begin.

My sister had this same evaluation i.e. the how many kids on task criteria by a mentor teacher in Utah. She said it was some of the most valuable training she had. From her perspective it was catching the off task kids that allowed her to target the kids that were falling behind. It also helped her see which of her lessons were effective. Now the big difference I see here is that IMPACT assumes you should know how to do this where as my sister had a mentor teacher that worked with her for a month on this one issue. However I don't consider this a ridiculous standard for teachers to meet. I think it is one of the critical differences between a high quality and a poor teacher.

It also depends on how "on task" is measured. If all the kids are looking at the teacher, an evaluator might conclude they were all on task, even though the teacher knows that a few of them have perfected the art of daydreaming while looking at the teacher.

But if two were looking out the window and one has his head down, the teacher could get marked down for this. Meanwhile, the teacher might know from experience with these particular kids, that they actually concentrate while looking out the window - it's their way - and that the kid with his head down is just back from an illness or told the teacher before class that his sleep was interrupted by gunshots the night before.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you should show me the list of 60 things. I look at the IMPACT guidebook, and I see only nine standards ....

First of all, you choose the guide book for the individual value add teachers. That means that 50% of their evaluation is based on test scores and TLF is only 35%. If you want to understand the TLF, that's probably not the best guidebook. Try this one: http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/Files/downloads/TEACHING%20&%20LEARNING/IMPACT/IMPACT%20Guidebooks%202010-2011/DCPS-IMPACT-Group2-Guidebook-August-2010.pdf

That's for group 2 teachers. TLF counts for 75% of their score.

The number nine to which you refer is not to "standards", but to "domains". For instance, "Explain content clearly" is not one item on a checklist. It is a domain. Within that domain, there are various factors that distinguish between high effective, effective, minimally effective, and effective teachers. Here are the factors that indicate a teacher is highly effective:

- Explanations are concise, fully explaining concepts in as direct and efficient a manner as possible.
- The teacher effectively makes connections with other content areas, students’ experiences and interests, or current events in order to make the content relevant and build student understanding and interest.
- When appropriate, the teacher explains concepts in away that actively involves students in the learning process, such as by facilitating opportunities for students to explain concepts to each other.
- Explanations provoke student interest in and excitement about the content.
- Students ask higher-order questions and make connections independently,demonstrating that they understand the content at a higher level.

These are all laudable attributes that I'd hope would be demonstrated by most teachers. But, keeping in mind that this is just one of nine domains and the other domains are similarly detailed, think about how you might demonstrate all of the aspects of the nine domains within one 30 minute period. The issue is not whether the teacher explained things clearly. The issue becomes whether the teacher was concise, made connections to other content areas, involved the students, provoked excitement, and the students responded with higher-order questions. Fail to achieve the last of those and you are not highly effective. Again, all of that plus 8 other lists of items within 30 minutes. The only way to achieve it is a very formulaic method. A teacher would essentially follow a script for lesson after lesson.

I think it would be great for a teacher's teaching style to generally achieve the goals listed within the nine domains. But, the expectation that each of those be demonstrated within a 30 minute lesson does not seem reasonable.

I appreciate the link to the Group 2 guidebook. That's helpful. And I see the many factors within each of the nine domains. But I don't think it's correct that any teacher being evaluated by a ME is expected to demonstrate all those factors in a 30-minute segment. The Group 2 guidebook even says at page 11 that teachers are not expected to hit each of those factors in an evaluation:

Group 2 Guidebook at page 11 wrote:The revised framework ... asks observers to assess which level (4, 3, 2, or 1) provides the best overall description of the teacher. An observer need not rate a teacher separately on each bullet in order to compute a final rating, since some indicators may be more relevant to a particular lesson than others. This shift in approach allows more flexibility in recognition of the complexity of teaching.

Also, just thinking about it logically, if each teacher really were expected to demonstrate 6 factors in each of 9 domains within a 30-minute period (clearly an impossible burden), then how is it that 95% of the teachers in DCPS met that obligation and avoided termination? And that brings me back to the question I asked earlier:

These really do seem like pretty minimal obligations to meet for a teacher. I still don't understand why people want to defend teachers who cannot meet these minimal standards. Can someone please explain that?

I'm really not understanding why so many people are so upset about these terminations. There have been countless complaints for several years in the WaPo, on DCUM, and on various education blogs about how absolutely terrible some DCPS teachers are, and how they should be terminated. Well, now all those wishes have been granted. So why the backlash? I could understand the frustration if people were identifying several stellar teachers who were incorrectly ID'ed by IMPACT and unjustly fired. But I have not heard that. Alternatively, I could understand the frustration if DCPS had terminated something like 30-40% of its teachers, without any hope of better replacements. But in fact only 5% were terminated. If the 5% of teachers that were terminated really were the bottom 5% (or even just half of the bottom 10%), why is that a cause for grief? Isn't that a positive development for DCPS?

I'm really not trying to argue with all the people who hate IMPACT. And I'm sure there are pieces that need to be improved. But I truly do not understand much of the upset over termination of teachers graded ineffective. I wish someone would explain that to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
I'm really not understanding why so many people are so upset about these terminations. There have been countless complaints for several years in the WaPo, on DCUM, and on various education blogs about how absolutely terrible some DCPS teachers are, and how they should be terminated. Well, now all those wishes have been granted. So why the backlash? I could understand the frustration if people were identifying several stellar teachers who were incorrectly ID'ed by IMPACT and unjustly fired. But I have not heard that. Alternatively, I could understand the frustration if DCPS had terminated something like 30-40% of its teachers, without any hope of better replacements. But in fact only 5% were terminated. If the 5% of teachers that were terminated really were the bottom 5% (or even just half of the bottom 10%), why is that a cause for grief? Isn't that a positive development for DCPS?

I'm really not trying to argue with all the people who hate IMPACT. And I'm sure there are pieces that need to be improved. But I truly do not understand much of the upset over termination of teachers graded ineffective. I wish someone would explain that to me.

Possible reasons for the upset:
- lack of confidence that IMPACT is accurately identifying ineffective teachers.
- lack of confidence that bad teachers are the cause of low scoring students, given that scores have not gotten better since many teachers have been fired, or have resigned or retired and been replaced with supposedly better teachers.
- concern that the ill-advised focus on teachers as the root cause of DCPS problems or success has deflected focus from addressing wahtever the real causes are and that all the money and time spent on IMPACT, firing teachers and recruiting new teachers has been a waste that has not helped kids at all.

I agree, though - if the teachers were so awful, why not fire more and why isn't IMPACT identifying them - maybe because there aren't enough replacements waiting in the wings because DCPS is now known more for its toxic atmosphere for teachers than its commitment to children.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I appreciate the link to the Group 2 guidebook. That's helpful. And I see the many factors within each of the nine domains. But I don't think it's correct that any teacher being evaluated by a ME is expected to demonstrate all those factors in a 30-minute segment. The Group 2 guidebook even says at page 11 that teachers are not expected to hit each of those factors in an evaluation:

Group 2 Guidebook at page 11 wrote:The revised framework ... asks observers to assess which level (4, 3, 2, or 1) provides the best overall description of the teacher. An observer need not rate a teacher separately on each bullet in order to compute a final rating, since some indicators may be more relevant to a particular lesson than others. This shift in approach allows more flexibility in recognition of the complexity of teaching.

Also, just thinking about it logically, if each teacher really were expected to demonstrate 6 factors in each of 9 domains within a 30-minute period (clearly an impossible burden), then how is it that 95% of the teachers in DCPS met that obligation and avoided termination? And that brings me back to the question I asked earlier:

These really do seem like pretty minimal obligations to meet for a teacher. I still don't understand why people want to defend teachers who cannot meet these minimal standards. Can someone please explain that?

I'm really not understanding why so many people are so upset about these terminations.

As I said earlier, what I've heard from teachers is that the TLF factors actually do become a checklist. How do 95% mange to pass? I can't answer that authoritatively. But, again from conversations with teachers (and also former ME) I would guess that some simply conform. Large numbers, of course, are being rated minimally effective. What I've heard from the ME is that teachers keep an IMPACT-friendly lesson plan handy which they pull out at the first sign of an ME. The kids are bewildered about a totally out of context lesson. But, that's the only way those teachers make it through the evaluation.

Also, keep in mind that the 200 some teachers fired this year are not the first to get fired. There were the 200 some last year fired due to suspicious budget reasons and, I believe, a previous 200 some fired due to IMPACT (or maybe licensing issues).

But, to be honest, I think most of the negativity is not a result of the details of IMPACT -- though those details certainly play a role. Rather, Rhee came in the door with a chip on her shoulder about teachers. Someone who had spent a scant three years in a classroom -- during one of which she says the students walked all over her -- suddenly had all the answers concerning teachers. She immediately made them the root of all the DCPS ills. Given that IMPACT was developed in that environment, it is understandable that teachers see it primarily as a weapon to be used against them. I've always felt that teachers should be approached as partners, just like parents, administrators, and political leaders. There was no reason to view them as an enemy. Now, Rhee is traveling all over the US helping nearly every right wing extremist governor she can find to attack teachers unions. The right wing agenda is not supportive of public education. The fact that Rhee is willing to overlook so much in her singleminded quest to attack teachers unions is revealing. It is not an exaggeration to say that she is willing to see public education weakened in order to see unions weakened. This understandably leads to further suspicions among teachers of her and anything she implemented within DCPS.

Perhaps if Rhee had worked collaboratively with teachers to develop an evaluation system, and the result was IMPACT or something very similar, attitudes would be much different. Maybe it's not too late and Henderson can sit down with teachers and refine IMPACT into a tool that is not only used to punish, but to develop teachers.

Finally, let me ask your question a different way. If IMPACT is such a good system that 95% pass, why are even teachers found to be highly effective complaining about it? Why has there been only one post from someone claiming to be a teacher who supported IMPACT (and I personally do not believe that poster was actually a DCPS teacher)? Where are the teachers that support IMPACT?

[Anonymous]

"What I've heard from the ME is that teachers keep an IMPACT-friendly lesson plan handy which they pull out at the first sign of an ME. The kids are bewildered about a totally out of context lesson. But, that's the only way those teachers make it through the evaluation."

Sad to say that I have resorted to this. My students are prepped in advance to expect a stand-alone lesson that most likely will not be connected to the unit at hand. My projects take weeks to complete and many days students come to class expected to dig into their independent work without further ado.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't IMPACT have some clause that during the observation at precise time intervals the observer scans the room and notes down the percentage of children 'on-task' and then quantifies this into some number that then goes into the formula that 'proves' whether you're a good teacher or not. There are so many things wrong with that that I would not even know where to begin.

My sister had this same evaluation i.e. the how many kids on task criteria by a mentor teacher in Utah. She said it was some of the most valuable training she had. From her perspective it was catching the off task kids that allowed her to target the kids that were falling behind. It also helped her see which of her lessons were effective. Now the big difference I see here is that IMPACT assumes you should know how to do this where as my sister had a mentor teacher that worked with her for a month on this one issue. However I don't consider this a ridiculous standard for teachers to meet. I think it is one of the critical differences between a high quality and a poor teacher.

The two scenarios you correctly note are totally different. All teachers are concerned with time on task. A good coach, which it sounds like your sister had, would take into account specific kids and the context (working for a month). It sounds like your sister was open and receptive. Most teachers are. The IMPACT observation is a series of 'one-ofs' in which the observer sweeps the room and quantifies observations that input into a total score on teacher effectiveness. For some ADHD kids, the appearance of 'off-task' has a totally different meaning from a child being simply disengaged. The teacher may have agreed upon 'redirection' reminders, specific seating etc that she deploys in a specific way. She may know when Johnny 'looks off task' and when Johnny really needs a touch on the shoulder. She knows she can't overuse the shoulder touch or it will lose its effectiveness. It sounds like your sis would have discussed all that with her mentor. Does IMPACT's formula take this narrative of the class into account?

[Anonymous]

An example of misusing IMPACT:

When the ME walks in, the teacher whips out a teaching technique she thinks is sure to merit a 4.

When the evaluation comes back she is devastated to see she got a 1 on that measure. The ME explains this is because several kids were not paying attention.

When the teacher offers to show the ME quizzes in which the kids regurgitated info learned using this technique, the ME refuses, saying he can only evaluate what he sees in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An example of misusing IMPACT: ...

Is this something that actually occurred to you? Or is it some hypothetical possible scenario that you just made up? Sounds like the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of misusing IMPACT: ...

Is this something that actually occurred to you? Or is it some hypothetical possible scenario that you just made up? Sounds like the latter.

this actually occurred, but not to me. I don't have the imagination to make up some thing like that.

I have heard of similar situations, where the teacher could not show the ME evidence that what was observed was not indicative of those students, but was not permitted to because of the "classroom observation" only rule.

IMPACT only sees teaching as a live performance, instead of accounting for the ongoing student-teacher relationship that it is.

[Anonymous]

Here is my question about the ME process. It was put in as a counter to principal evaluations that were biased i.e. too easy or too hard. It sounds to me that Teachers don't want that process either. I get why the Montgomery County process has appeal to teachers, but do folks think it will work in schools with large scale failure? Does Montgomery County have any equivalent schools to Ballou where under 20% are on grade level or Malcolm X elementary which is in the same boat? It would seem to me that in that case it would be a problem not to have an outside observer because the internal process would always be biased in favor of blaming the kids. While I know it is not possible to look at where these kids live and not see some impact it can't be the only cause for such low rates of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is my question about the ME process. It was put in as a counter to principal evaluations that were biased i.e. too easy or too hard. It sounds to me that Teachers don't want that process either. I get why the Montgomery County process has appeal to teachers, but do folks think it will work in schools with large scale failure? Does Montgomery County have any equivalent schools to Ballou where under 20% are on grade level or Malcolm X elementary which is in the same boat? It would seem to me that in that case it would be a problem not to have an outside observer because the internal process would always be biased in favor of blaming the kids. While I know it is not possible to look at where these kids live and not see some impact it can't be the only cause for such low rates of success.

It's not blaming the kids; it's understanding that teachers are not cause of academic failure.

Do you believe that if you replaced every teacher at Ballou with a teacher from Montgomery County that suddenly the test scores would climb dramatically?