One of our members Amber Clark from SWEA shared her story at the Central OEA/NEA Legislative dinner. Do you know someone with a similar story? My name is Amber Clark and I am a special education teacher at Franklin Heights High School. I began my career with SouthWestern City Schools 3 years ago after graduating from The Ohio State University in 2009 and completing two licensure programs at Capital University in 2011. I became a teacher because I am passionate about educational policy and educating and inspiring our future. I began teaching in the fall of 2011, the first year that the Resident Educator program took effect. Over the last three years, I have seen the program implemented without adequate planning and without the necessary training and resources, in order to satisfy state law. In the first year, teachers were left frustrated by the last minute deadlines for assignments that were often added without notice. This year, teachers attempting to take the summative assessment have faced tremendous burdens just trying to understand the program’s requirements. The Ohio Department of Education has consistently missed their own deadlines for releasing materials and they have had to repeatedly push back due dates because the website to submit the tasks has not worked properly. The result is an ineffective and cumbersome program that teachers do not value as a tool to help them grow and improve. It takes away precious time from new teachers, and creates additional burdens with an overload of paperwork and stress, during a period of years in which 1 in 3 educators will leave the profession. And now we have OTES; another state mandated program being implemented without proper training, resources, or planning. According to the Ohio Department of Education’s website, the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System was designed to be research based, transparent, fair, and adaptable. So far, this has not been the case. OTES evaluates teachers on their performance and their students’ growth. Teacher performance is assessed using the Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric, consisting of indicators based on the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Standards for the Teaching Profession were created by the State Board of Education and adopted in 2005. The intention was to create standards to support Ohio’s educators as they develop the skills and knowledge necessary to provide the highest quality education to Ohio students. The standards are meant to drive conversations about the practice of teaching and to allow for selfassessment to identify areas for growth. They were not intended to serve as an evaluation instrument. The student growth portion of the OTES framework is determined using one of three measures. The Value Added Measure from the Ohio Achievement Assessments is required to be used if available. The American Statistical Association released a statement in April of 2014 criticizing the use of Value Added models as having unintended consequences that reduce the quality of evaluations. They reported that most studies on Value Added Measures have found that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores. This means that the Value Added data has very little to do with the teacher and much more to do with outside influences. The American Statistical Association also questions the validity of Value Added measures for gifted students and students with disabilities, calling them biased and stating that Value Added Models do not account for these statuses. As a special education teacher, this is not only frustrating, but also very alarming. The state has recognized that many students receiving special education services on an individualized education plan struggle to demonstrate knowledge through standardized tests. Why do we recognize this fact and excuse special education students from the consequences of these assessments, but use the results for 50% of their teachers’ evaluations? For teachers with no Value Added Measure, vendor assessments can be purchased to measure student growth. Vendor approved assessments vary in their reliability and availability across Ohio’s school districts. ODE’s website explains that although the approved vendors purport to offer assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards, this may not be the case. If the ODE approved assessments do not test everything taught in a course, or test over material not covered in a course, is it fair to base 50% of a teacher’s evaluation on the results? If both Value Added Measures and vendor approved assessment data are not available, a teacher must use locally determined measures to create and write their own student learning objectives. Across the state, there is vast variability in the requirements and the outcomes for student learning objectives this year. At some schools, teachers were required to use assessments and growth targets created by district committees. In other schools, teachers were required to create course assessments and set growth targets in teacher based teams. In others, teachers independently created assessments and set growth targets. Does this kind of variability create reliable evaluations? The effect of OTES on teachers has been disastrous. The day before the student learning objectives were due to our principals, I walked into the teacher workroom to see a new teacher in tears because her student growth was only “expected,” and therefore she could not reach an overall ranking of “accomplished.” Her score on the teacher performance rubric was irrelevant. In another case, the rating of my co-worker, revered by colleagues and administrators, was downgraded to “skilled” due to her student growth measure. She created a rigorous assessment and set high goals for her students. She did not realize that this would negatively affect her evaluation. Teachers that created easier assessments and set lower goals were rewarded with a rank of “accomplished,” since most of their students met the low goals. This distinguished teacher is a model in my district; she serves as a mentor to new teachers, teaches AP courses and special education inclusion classes, and serves on our school’s Intervention Assistance Team. She received a rating of “accomplished” on the teacher performance rubric; a status the Department of Education admits only 13% will receive. Unfortunately she cannot celebrate her “accomplished” rating because her student growth measure brought her overall rating down to “skilled.” The effect of OTES and over testing on students is just as devastating. Students are tested out. There are two types of negative responses to over testing that are common in students today. For some students, highstakes tests cause extreme anxiety; students worry about their performance to the point of becoming physically ill. This is especially common in students receiving special education services. Many of these kids struggle to demonstrate understanding through standardized tests. Other kids simply shut down when administered a high stakes test. They are overwhelmed by the frequency of the tests and do not view them as a valuable tool. Standardized tests do not account for the child that is sick but cannot miss school on a test day or the child that was taken into foster care two days earlier but a teacher can. Teachers work with their students every day and use a variety of ongoing assessments to measure mastery. Test results can be valuable if they are used as a tool for teachers to target strengths and weaknesses for their students. The problem is that the testing data is not used for this purpose; they are only one measure of a students ability and should be used as such. OTES does not measure the most important qualities in an “accomplished” teacher. It does not measure a teacher’s ability to spark excitement or build self confidence, to push a student or to inspire. It is time to take a step back and reflect on the fairness and reliability of OTES. The limitations of value added measures should be considered. School districts need time and resources to thoroughly explore options for vendor assessments. Teachers need time to create reliable assessments to use for student learning objectives. The inconsistencies within school districts and across the state need to be addressed. According to the OTES Training Rubric, “The evaluation system builds on what we know about the importance of ongoing assessment and feedback as a powerful vehicle to support improved practice.” The fundamental issue with both the Resident Educator Program and the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System is that they are being rolled out without consideration to the criticisms of affected teachers and administrators. It is not as simple as instituting a good idea on paper with the hope that it will improve education. It has to actually work in practice. Evaluation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses must be conducted and improvements must be made with the input of the professionals that have dedicated their lives to educating our youth. High stakes staffing decisions related to OTES need to be put on hold to give teachers the opportunity to provide valuable feedback and The Ohio Department of Education time to reflect on that feedback and improve the system. Amber Clark Special education teacher at Franklin Heights High School
Posted on: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 22:56:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015