Practicing What She Preaches

Michelle Rhee vowed to get rid of bad teachers. Thanks to the new teachers contract, she is now living up that that vow.

More than 70 percent of the teachers and staff at two of the District's lowest-performing schools were slapped with poor evaluations this year, leaving Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to bet on an influx of new teachers to help turn the institutions round.


Rhee, like Vallas in New Orleans, is banking on a lot of new teachers, many from Teach for America.

Rhee was able to settle a contract with the teachers union that allows for her to whittle away at tenure. Given Arnie Duncan's take on tenure, it certainly seems to be on its last legs.

In fact, one of the failing schools in the above article underwent what is known as "The Chicago Plan" (devised by Duncan when he was running the schools in Chicago) where a failing school is shut down. The entire staff (from administration to cooks) have to re-apply for their jobs.

Believe it or not, I'm not against this policy. For failing schools.

Remember, the new administration can choose to bring back teachers they deem effective.

I like this because it pushes out bad teachers and allows for good ones to come back. If they can overcome the fact that they have to reapply for their jobs.

Now, if I take the stance that Rhee and many inner city school authorities do, that if a student has three great teachers three consecutive years, their life outcomes can be drastically changed, I'm all on board with the Chicago plan.

Sure, as EA co-president, I can argue the benefits of tenure all day long. But the bottom line is that tenure often rewards the most veteran teachers, not necessarily the most effective. But I also don't think we should just through new - and often inexperienced and, to be honest, sometimes ineffective, teachers into the fray to fix the situation.

But for fixing a district in total disarray, I'm all for the Chicago plan.

In reading the article, one thing that brought hope was the number of evaluations. The article states that a shocking 72% of teachers were given unsatisfactory evals. That speaks far greater to me than teacher performance tied to test scores. If we want to get away from performance linked to test scores, then we have to embrace evaluations as a way to determine teacher effectiveness.

However, upon further digging, it seems that Rhee's evaluations are securely tethered to test scores.

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee garnered big local headlines and national attention July 23 when she announced that she had fired 241 teachers, including 165 who received poor evaluations under a tough new assessment system that for the first time held some educators accountable for student test scores.

I think this is a dangerous step. Yes, teachers should get kids to learn. If the tests are any good (and I'm not sold on the fact that they are) and if students try their hardest (this doesn't happen. Just ask your own kid. Or in order to get kids to do well, we have to brainwash them on it. I am suspicious of that), then a student's growth should be illustrated on a test. But I'm not ready to tie my livelihood to it when they are so many outside influences.

I thought Rhee might be able to work in some alternative evaluations. Take test scores into account. Fine. But also balance them with administrative performance evaluations, which I think are vital.

Now, you can honestly ask, what if an administrator has it out for a teacher and there's no tenure to protect them. And that's a legitimate concern. But seeing how the administrators don't have tenure and Rhee will clean house in a nano second if the principals don't get their teachers to excel, then I worry a bit. But still- be an effective teacher and engage your students. Challenge them and get them to learn. Isn't that our job?

But to be fair, had I been evaluated on my College Comp classes, I'd be a shining star. If I were evaluated on my other classes, well, I might well be out on the street!

So the system isn't foolproof. But it has to be better than the miserable tenure-protected system that was in place.

I just worry about the 'test scores are all' approach.

But a rise in scores doesn’t necessarily mean that more student learning took place, and a decline doesn’t necessarily mean that students learned less.

Researchers in the field say that it is the nature of standardized tests that they rise from year to year when the same design of a test is given in the same schools. And they go down when a new design is given, or when a different demographic of students takes the test, or a bunch of kids in a class had a cold, or... well, you get the idea.

Now comes word that Rhee wants high stakes testing in kindergarten through 12 grade. That scares the hell out of me. Our kids are already tested more than any other kids on earth. Will it work? I don't know.

What will we churn out when kids score well on high stakes tests? Will they be able to think critically and adapt? I don't know.

But all those tests - whether my job is tied to them or not - scare the hell out of me.

Instead, let's have more 'real world' opportunities for kids. Let them see how the skills they learn will improve the world around them or allow them to thrive in that world. Does a 4 out of 6 on the writing test offer anything like that?