When it comes to amateurs dabbling in education, it's hard to beat the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Perhaps it's inevitable that economists want to weigh in education, since economics is another area in which everybody and his brother believes themselves expert.
But Thomas Kane offers some grade A baloney with a side of ill-considered metaphor with "Never Diet Without a Bathroom Scale and Mirror: The Case for Combining Teacher Evaluation and the Common Core."
Given that title, it's only natural that the essay start with this sentence: "Given the nature of the job, school superintendents are master jugglers." So, now I'm mentally watching myself in the mirror as I juggle on my bathroom scales. Kane goes on to let us know that he knows how tough it is to implement new teacher evaluation systems because he headed up the Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching Project.
Kane calls education reform "a massive adult behavior change exercise" that requires us to "change what adults do every day inside their classrooms."
Yet, as anyone who has ever tried to lose five pounds or to be a better
parent or spouse knows, adult behavior change is hard work. And it
simply does not happen without regular feedback. When the current
attempts to implement new teacher evaluations fall short—as they
certainly will, given the long history of box-checking—we must improve
So, the changes teachers allegedly need to make are analogous to losing fat or being a better spouse.
Teaching to higher standards involves much more complex behavior change
than simply putting down one’s fork before dessert. And it will be more
difficult to achieve. Those who propose “more investments in
professional development” as an alternative to teacher evaluation are
posing a false choice. Investing in professional development without an
evaluation system in place is like launching a Weight Watchers group
without any bathroom scales or mirrors.
The bathroom scale image is brave, given the number of times folks in the resistance have pointed out that you do not change the weight of a pig by repeatedly measuring it. But I am wondering now-- why do I have to have scales or a mirror to lose weight? Will the weight loss occur if it is not caught in data? If a tree's weight falls in the forest but nobody measures it, does it shake a pound?
This could be an interesting new application of quantum physics, or it could be another inadvertent revelation about reformster (and economist) biases. Because I do not need a bathroom scale to lose weight. I don't even need a bathroom scale to know I'm losing weight-- I can see the difference in how my clothes fit, I can feel the easier step, the increase in energy. I only need a bathroom scale if I don't trust my own senses, or because I have somehow been required to prove to someone else that I have lost weight. Or if I believe that things are only real when Important People measure them.
Kane envisions the Core and new evaluations going hand in hand, leading to more successful implementation of the Core (he does not address the question of why a successful Core is a Good Thing, Much To Be Desired). And his vision of how evaluation will provide a connection to standards as well as the kind of continuous feedback by people who don't know what they're doing and whose judgment can't be trusted.
First, curriculum teams will develop, in conjunction with their supervisors, a specific detailed list of instructional changes to address standards gaps. Then...
Schools should focus teacher evaluation and feedback efforts on the
specific instructional changes required for the gap standards. They
should schedule classroom observations for the days when the new
standards are to be taught. They should focus post-observation
conferences on the adjustments demanded by the new standards. And they
should use student performance on interim and end-of-year
assessments—especially on the gap standards—to measure progress and to
identify and celebrate successes. Even one successful cycle will lay
the foundation for the next round of instructional improvement.
I'm pretty sure that this requires a team of twelve administrators, none of whom spend any time doing any of the other things required to keep a school running. But there's more, predicated again on the notion that we're trying to help teachers who are absolutely clueless about what they or their students are doing. Notes. Copious notes. Videos. And let's throw in student evaluation and feedback as well (plus, of course, test scores).
Finally, the wrap-up:
The norm of autonomous, self-made, self-directed instruction—with no
outside feedback or intervention—is long-standing and makes the U.S.
education system especially resistant to change. In most high-performing countries, teachers have no such expectations. The lesson study in Japan
is a good example. Teachers do not bootstrap their own instruction.
They do not expect to be left alone. They expect standards, they
expect feedback from peers and supervisors and they expect to be held
accountable—for the quality of their delivery as well as for student
results. Therefore, a better system for teacher evaluation and feedback
is necessary to support individual behavior change, and it’s a tool for
collective culture change as well.
Oh, the assumptions. The assumption that our school culture needs to be changed. The assumption that teacher autonomy is a problem, not a strength. The implication that US teachers don't like feedback or standards or being held accountable-- that's a little snotty as well.
But I am reminded of the management training that suggests that the fewer levels you have between decision making and decision implementation, the better off you are. Kane seems to be suggesting that the classroom teacher needs to be directed from on high, and his ideas are reminiscent of the worker who can't get a project done because he has to keep going to meetings about getting the project done.
My experience is that every good teacher I've ever known is involved in a constant, daily cycle of reflection and self-examination, using a rich tapestry of directly-observed data to evaluate her own performance, often consulting with fellow professionals. It's continuous and instantly implemented, then instantly evaluated and modified as needed. It's nimble, and it involves the professional judgment of trained experts in the field. That seems like a pretty good system to me.