IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?

[Anonymous]

PPEP could have been improved. IMPACT, the Bill Gates teacher-bot plug in a formula and spit out only teachers who 'add up' to effective, was not the way. At this point, I'm confused about why people want teachers at all? Why not hook the kids up to IPADS/SmartBoard and have a computer teach? I think they're trying that in some places, aren't they? I'm not talking about Khan academy. I'm talking about let's replace teachers with the flawless teacher formula, which I'm assuming can be programmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead, DCPS spent a fortune devising its own ground-breaking, complicated, one-size fits-all punitive system that's been an utter disaster, and their only defense is to spin stories about it.

Why specifically do you say it's been an utter disaster? It's identified ineffective teachers and removed them from the system. Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

It seems like the main weakness of PPEP was that it created a never-ending administrative process that discouraged school administrators from removing ineffective teachers. And from what I gather, IMPACT has streamlined that process. So in that respect, it seems like a success. Of course with any system -- whether it's IMPACT or a revised PPEP -- people can argue endlessly about whether it had false positive (removing teacher who weren't so bad) or false negatives (failing to spot bad teachers). But that's all pretty subjective. And if the rating system needs to be adjusted to reduce false positives or false negatives, that's tinkering that will doubtlessly be done in later years.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. Maybe there are dozens of reasons IMPACT is ineffective. But I have not seen anyone on this thread describe what they are. Could you please list them out? (And I fully understand you hate IMPACT, but it would really help me if you'd try to list them objectively without lots of anti-IMPACT rhetoric. All the rhetorical attacks make it harder to follow your point.) Many thanks.

Principals who were not able to use PPEP and the 90-day plan to remove incompetent teachers were ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Principals who were not able to use PPEP and the 90-day plan to remove incompetent teachers were ineffective.

That would be all principals then, right? Because DC teachers were hardly ever fired for poor performance under PPEP.

[Anonymous]

You assume IMPACT has identified and removed bad teachers - because that's what you read in the papers? because DCPS says so?

I hope some of the teachers it identified were worthy of dismissal but don't know that at all. It's looking like some were dismissed based on low value-added scores due to to bogus inflated scores from previous classes implicated in the cheating scandal

I do know that IMPACT has stifled teachers, forcing them to conform to IMPACTs nine elements in 30 minutes when it doesn't make sense for the lesson.

I know there are concerns and evidence regarding master educators being unfair and unqualified - and overworked to the point that they can neither provide good feedback or offer help. There's also been a lot of turnover among MEs, so constant training is needed - another big expense.

I know there are good, even great teachers who refuse to play the game and leave DCPS or get fired.

I know that some principals feel IMPACT required duties prevent them from supporting and getting to know their teachers and to truly help them, instead of spending hours filling in a questionable rubric.

IMPACT is costly and has shown poor ROI - scores aren't improving and teachers feel they aren't able to teach as well - even ones who do well on IMPACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Principals who were not able to use PPEP and the 90-day plan to remove incompetent teachers were ineffective.

That would be all principals then, right? Because DC teachers were hardly ever fired for poor performance under PPEP.

Do u have any to back up this claim?

[Anonymous]

Data

[Anonymous]

"IMPACT is costly and has shown poor ROI - scores aren't improving and teachers feel they aren't able to teach as well - even ones who do well on IMPACT."

You know what? You lose all credibility when you say something so irrational and unsupported by the facts. No one has ever promised overnight change. And anyone who knows anything about testing knows that it takes several years worth of scores to have any meaningful trend.

[Anonymous]

Gee, no one promised the test scores would go up quickly?

That means Michelle Rhee lied on DC's Race to the Top application, because that's exactly what was promised. Not a lawyer here, but I'm betting that's a pretty big no-no since it involves Federal funds?

[Anonymous]

BTW, the dear chancellor stated the 2011 test scores would be 56 % proficient in reading and math.

It's all in the Race to the Top application, available on the OSSE website.

Kaya lied about this on WAMU last week too.

[Anonymous]

"And anyone who knows anything about testing knows that it takes several years worth of scores to have any meaningful trend."

If it is so clearly the case that it will take "several years worth" of scores to have any meaningful trend, shouldn't teachers be allowed the same "several years" before Valued Added scores sink them?

Why are people at the top not held accountable by the same measure?

Kaya and Co. did not meet their goal yet they think it's okay to give the excuse quoted above.

[Anonymous]

"You know what? You lose all credibility when you say something so irrational and unsupported by the facts. No one has ever promised overnight change. And anyone who knows anything about testing knows that it takes several years worth of scores to have any meaningful trend."


But yet teachers are expected to make overnight change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You know what? You lose all credibility when you say something so irrational and unsupported by the facts. No one has ever promised overnight change. And anyone who knows anything about testing knows that it takes several years worth of scores to have any meaningful trend."
But yet teachers are expected to make overnight change?

Are teachers expected to go from being "ineffective" to at least "minimally effective," or perhaps even "effective"? YES! In fact, shouldn't they at least have been "minimally effective" all along?

As I understand it, out of 3,600 teachers in DCPS, about 200 were fired. That's about 5%. That means the other 95% (3,400 teachers!) was evaluated at least "minimally effective." What kind of problems must that 5% have to not even reach a "minimally effective" rating?

[Anonymous]

17:39, please explain why the test scores didn't go up over 10% as promised by Rhee and her staff on the Race to the Top application.

[Anonymous]

"17:39, please explain why the test scores didn't go up over 10% as promised by Rhee and her staff on the Race to the Top application."

Because no one cheated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:39, please explain why the test scores didn't go up over 10% as promised by Rhee and her staff on the Race to the Top application.

I don't know, and I don't care why. I don't know how they could make such a promise since the scores are really out of their direct control. But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers. And if that means terminating the bottom 5%, I don't see why that's such a problem.

Also, even assuming the 5% of teachers DCPS terminated were completely ineffective, and assuming DCPS successfully replaced them with effective teachers (two big assumptions), then that's only a drop in the statistical bucket and likely would lead to only a small improvement in scores across the entire District. Maybe what DCPS was counting on to improve scores was a huge jump in "minimally effective" teachers using their second chance to work really hard and improve themselves, so they will become "effective"?