Eric
Here goes one persons views from 6 years as a parent leader
1. Are districts playing appropriate role in terms of policy? Why or why not?
I think the answers vary tremendously from location to location. In my experience States set what are n effect minimum proficiency levels that, in practice, are easily surpassed by some districts (think Silverlake in LA) and are near impossible to achieve in others (say Long Beach). This leaves the Silverlakes of the world free to innovate and experiment - the kids are all proficient and so no teacher is going to get a bad eval based on the kids test scores, while the Long Beaches struggle.
In an ideal world districts would define policies specific to the needs of their kids, while keeping in mind the need to move all children towards some meaningful higher education. Kind of like what NCLB was supposed to be.
2. Are states playing appropriate role in terms of policy? What are the goals of teacher evaluation systems at the state level?
I come at this with a definite axe to grind but so long as we're in a democracy and interest groups are going to contributed money to elections we have to address the role that teachers unions have played traditionally, and could play in the future. As noted above, I believe the current role that states play is defining minimum standards of student achievement, and (at least in the case of my home state, New York, mandating only the most vague systems of teacher evaluation. And, certainly ones that do not use any data to perform this evaluation. Not parent input, not peer review, and certainly not test scores.
To my mind the goal of the system is to ensure a politically acceptable level of proficiency (about 75% of kids at or above the cut off, regardless of what this really means about readiness for college or work) and ensure a decent standard of living and heathcare for retirees. Nothing wrong with that per se (I think all American workers should be able to aspire to this). But it's not a evaluation system.
3. Is the Federal Government playing the appropriate role in terms of policy? What goals and levers exist at the Federal level?
As you know well the Federal gov't plays a relatively tiny role in education compared to other countries. Whether this is good or not, I'd suggest it's tilting at windmills for this group to try and change that at this time. Arne can do what he wants (exhort and badger) but the way we roll is local property taxes, supplemented by state-level redistributions. And policy will be determined by those who pay for it. Title One is an obvious lever, as are these Race to the Top funds. but they're really a drop in the bucket.
4. Are unions appropriately involved? Why or why not?
Historically they are not. They've appeared to serve their member well by ensuring there is no evaluation system and insisting that one cannot be created. But over time this has come to undermine the success of the very students each teacher claims to be nearest and dearest to their hearts. While I have no hard data, experience suggests that for the most qualified teachers, the union provides little benefit - they're effective, well-respected, capable of managing upward and engaging effectively with their peers and parents. So the union has to serve the weakest, the ones for whom every shortcoming or challenge is someone else's fault. As a union leader, to succeed, you end up having to play to the lowest common denominator. Upon hearing that a local union was seeking to organize her (exempt) position, the assistant teacher in one of my kids classes once told me "Oh, I used to have to belong them then when I taught at X school. They did nothing for me then either"
5. Are non-union teachers and administrators playing the appropriate role in terms of policy? Why or why not?
I presume (good) principals would like fair evaluation systems that allow them to attract and retain quality teachers. But if you have to work with the current unionized staff in the current environment it's probably hard to advocate too loudly for a change that has such a potentially profound impact on your people. And in the most challenging of our schools, where union rules and local traditions prevent principals from paying more to attract (possibly) more motivated or qualified staff, what's the point in being able to evaluate staff more critically if you can fill those gaps with higher quality replacements.
6. Are funding levels sufficient for implementation? Do they reflect the value of teacher evaluation systems? Why or why not?
Hard to say, as we have not yet defined what we want. The value of the current systems is generally low, no one has any expectations of then producing meaningful results, so they are probably not funded.
7. Are teacher evaluation systems institutionalized? Why or why not?
Informally yes. But if 98% of your staff are going to get tenure, and then (in effect) be guaranteed employment for life, who cares if they're evaluated consistently or not. Or whether the system is institutionalized?
8. Are there any innovative practices in this area?
I hope some of the other participants will tackle this.
regards
Matthew
