The Brian Lehrer Show

I taught for two years in the south bronx. my school is the only school in the new york city school district that exclusively serves the projects. there is no doubt in my mind that teacher tenure should be linked to students' test scores, although most teachers at my school would disagree. not linking students' test scores to teacher tenure shows the assumption that certain kinds of kids can't score well on tests (by certain kinds of kids, i mean kids from the projects: minorities and immigrants). teachers at my school always use the excuse that kids from the projects can't really do well on tests. the actual problem, however, is the teachers' attitudes and the inexperienced administration.

Politicians and the Teachers Union should be publicly shamed for this absurd line of legislation. By protecting failing teachers, the Union will only alienate citizens and parents.What a shame. David Patterson, has unfortunately demonstrated a lack of leadership that NYers are stuck with for 3 more years. Bring Eliot and his hookers back, please.

Linking teacher tenure to test scores, and other high-stakes testing practices, de-humanizes young people and treats them more like widgets and products that must produce instead of as individual human beings with unique interests and backgrounds. A more democratic conception of education would respect the individuality of young people and give them a chance to direct their own learning, as happens at Brooklyn Free School in Park Slope (www.brooklynfreeschool.org) and in the dozens of small democratic schools around the country.

See www.democraticeducation.com for more info.

Test scores are influenced by many factors- how many of them are controlled by teachers? and even beside that, how valuable are standardized tests? haven't we gone too far already in our reliance upon them?

Good teachers will have no problem using test scores as part of their evaluation. Bad teachers are behind this. I guess that is who the union represents

Barack Obama will make sure every child has a 4.0 and gets into Harvard!!!

Obama will also personally come to your house and help your child do his/her homework!!!

Barack will also make sure ALL teachers get tenure and great benefits regardless of performance!!!

Absolutely. Although, I am not aware of the criteria teachers need to fulfill in order to be tenured, it should be against public policy that student achievement is not the only criteria, or a substantial criterion in awarding “lifetime” employment. Teachers are public servants and should be awarded in respect on how the public, vis-à-vis, students excel in our school system.

Absolutely. Although, I am not aware of the criteria teachers need to fulfill in order to be tenured, it should be against public policy that student achievement is not the only criteria, or a substantial criterion in awarding “lifetime” employment. Teachers are public servants and should be awarded in respect on how the public, vis-à-vis, students excel in our school system.

The legislature has succeeded in codifying incompetence. Then again, who would know better?

The New York Times editorial today was spot-on regarding the embedding of a tenure law provision in the state budget.

As a school board member in Harrison, NY -- there are lots of issues that can and should be discussed regarding the current tenure rules -- but imposing restrictions on school districts on an already restrictive process is frankly ludicrous. The tenure law as a whole needs to be reviewed -- from the timing of the tenure grant (3 years) to the fact if a teacher is denied tenure they lose their job; to the possibility of incorporating some sort of renewability of tenure after 5 or so years.

The provision stuck in the budget is moving the discussion in the wrong direction.

Our district has worked hard and collaboratively with our teachers union to come up with a comprehensive evaluation process -- that was recently recognized as a best practice by the New York State School Board Association. Another unfunded state mandate as proposed -- could vitiate all of that work.

if the state legislature really wants a discussion about the merits of this proposal or tenure generally -- it should be in the form of a stand-alone piece of legislation -- not snuck in to the budget.

David Singer

Well if the teacher has a looooong record of many students with low test scores or poor grades then we might want to consider looking into the reasons to see if it is possible that the teacher's methods are poor. It should not be a blank statement in the law.

Perhaps Tests are not the best way to analyze the students. I think the trend to judge schools on standardized tests is very dangerous. Everyone does not learn in the same way.

I teach art in East Harlem to middle school students. My subject doesn't get factored into my students GPA, if what I teach doesn't count enough for that, how could my tenure suddenly depend on test scores or my using the data of these tests scores? The problem with tenure depending on test scores is that only a few subjects are actually tested.

In every contract go-around there are countless manifestations by the teachers' union about how much they care about the students, while at the same time they constantly lobby to get things that work to the detriment of students. For example, they've been so successful over the years at minimizing the time they acutally have to spend with the students. This is nothing new, and I'm not surprised. NYC teachers under the current leadership are in it for themselves even when hurts NYC students.

How would you attract teachers to positions that face a lot challenges from outside the classroom that negatively affect test performance if you enacted something like this? Evaluation of a teacher should be based on their skill and effort and not the performance of the students.

I agree that teacher tenure should not be linked to test scores. Although I agree that teachers need to be held accountable, a teacher who teaches a class of 17 in the suburbs will have much higher test scores than a teacher who teaches a class of 37 in the inner city. I do not think that teacher should be blamed because his or her class size is 20 students larger.

why does the state have so much control of our city. doesn't the city sent millions to albany shouldn't that buy our freedom.

when are parents held accountable for their children. how about this if your child fails in school child gets taken away from parents.

I taught for many years, always inner city kids and still I do not support tenure for teachers. But the standard used should be student progress year to year. If you inherit a group of students who start out behind, your job and your compensation should be to make them LESS behind each year. Measure progress and compensate for it.

Also, school should not be about teaching kids how to test well. Believe me, that does not prepare you for the real world. The real world is not a test you can learn the tricks to.

This is a great idea. We should also tie parental rights to test scores also. This pretends that the only factor in students getting good test scores are teachers, we know this isn't true so stop making public policy based it.

Why are we such a panacea-seeking culture? Shouldn't it be something more than just test scores to measure a teacher's ability? I mean, should they be a factor? Sure. But there are other criteria as well.

What is questionable here is the idea itself of tenure for grade school teachers. Grade school teachers are charged with teaching children basic academic skills, and as such actually have a much higher level of responsibility than university professors for whom tenure was originally designed, to protect them from dismissal when discussing unfashionable ideas.

Tenure for grade school teachers protects bad teachers and puts vulnerable children at an extremely high risk for a bad education. I say tenure for grade school teachers should be eliminated completely. Other incentives for good teaching should be devised.

As an unemployed music teacher, I am appalled by the lack of professional courtesy on the part of administrators when it comes to advertised openings. They should respond to EVERY resume that is sent in. I have a strong desire to be on the conductor's podium in front of a concert band.

I started teaching because I thought the system needed a good teacher ...I quit because I found a fantastic system with enough resources dragged through the mud by parents and children who can't be bothered to take responsibility for THEM SELVES.

The focus on "improving that child's test score" through "analysis" is indicative of our misguided emphasis on test performance. Testing is not teaching and by focusing on test scores we turn our students into data that can be crunched to show that public schools fail. Accountability: yes, but through more diverse means than the Regents.

If I don’t perform well in my job, I rightfully so get canned... Everybody I know working in the real world has the same fate. I believe in compensating well for teachers that perform well and stick around. Tenor? It’s a fantasy that only teachers and professors live in. Do the kids really benefit from tenor? After all that’s the only thing that really matters and not that a bad teacher gets to keep their job just because the union says so….

I taught in the Bronx and am a proud union member. The kids were very hard to teach and they have lots of issues they bring into the classroom which makes it hard to teach them anything. Our school did not have high test scores, but that is typical of the neighborhood. You cannot hold us accountable for producing kids that can make high test scores.

The caller discussing his sister and father, both teachers, mentioned the detention room. This is a room at the Board of Education headquarters in Brooklyn where teachers under investigation for everything from uttering a possibly racist slur to throwing a chair (either rightly or wrongly, intentional or accidental, hence its under investigation) are held until the Board of Ed can determine what happened. Some people can stay in this room for years.

This is similar to a debate in medicine.

In medicine, insurance companies want to reimburse doctors according to outcomes. Mark Vonnegut, Kurt Vonnegut's son, is a pediatrician. He recently wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about how insurance companies are penalizing him if he doesn't meet certain outcomes. Vonnegut pointed out that there is no evidence that these outcome penalties actually result in better patient outcomes. The insurance companies (and others) are coming up with bright ideas, but they don't do the research to find out if these ideas really work.

There is a similiar situation in teaching. Bush gave us No Child Left Behind, but there is no evidence that NCLB is doing children any good, and some evidence that it's doing harm.

Do teachers really have enough control over their students' outcomes that they can affect their test scores, throughout the whole range of students' abilities and problems?

We need the facts before we can make a decision. If there is evidence, then you could make a strong case for doing it. If there is no evidence, then you can't justify it.

I'd like to know whether there is any evidence for this. Otherwise, it's just an ignorant debate.

I don't think there is. I think it's like Vonnegut's medical insurance companies. Am I wrong? What's the evidence?

You shouldn't use data meant for one thing for another wrong reason, e.g. using a thermometer to tell the time. Also, start training teachers on appropriate use of data and less money on data that would be misused.

Why do teachers deserve tenure in the first place? No other profession gets this special protection.

Teacher's tenure ahould be linked to their performance BUT not to the students. If you do did link it to students performance then teachers in poor schools would have a harder time then teachers in better performing schools even though the teachers ability may be the same. It is hard enough to find teachers now, linking students test scores to a teacher's chance at tenure would make it harder to get teachers in the poor schools.

In my opinion I would not advise any young person to persue a teaching career the way things are now.

Parents and children need to take responsibility for their performance AT THE SAME TIME that teachers take responsibility for theirs.

The reassignment location for punished teachers is referred to as the "Rubber Room." In addition to "This American Life," a piece on the room was written in the NY Times on 10/Oct/07.

I agree, using standardized tests is an inaccurate, blanket way to evaluate anyone, but if they consider it fair to use the test scores to manage our kids positions in the school, then they should be allowed to use those scores to help evaluate the teachers.

If they are so upset about it, the teachers and union should work on changing the way we evaluate our kids learning.

Karen 10:19 is spot on right. Why not MENTION THAT ON THE AIR?!

My high school had the highest paid teachers in the county and one of the lowest test scores in county. They were mostly older teachers who had tenure and also largely checked out.

One teacher let a kid urinate in the classroom, let students curse him out in class, and let students walk in and out of the class freely. And he was there when I came into that school, he was there when I left, and I'm sure he retired without any pressure from the school.

The reason that there hasn't been a surfiet of teachers "flunking out" is *because* of tenure--the politics of teacher retention among administrators is irrelevant to quality; if your approach to education or political positions is not acceptable, bad administrators will not care.

Why should teacher tenure be measured in relation to the application and assessment of student testing when its ridiculous and infuriating to measure the "learning" of children/students by testing measures. The whole perception of learning and teaching excellence needs to reassessd!!!!!!!!!

why is it that unions are criticized for using their power but corporations can use their power and no one cares?

1. Linking tenure to performance will lead to teachers not wanting to teach certain children. 2. A teacher may be great and doing the best possible with students but that may not be reflected in test scores.

To Nicole (#16): this attitude that inner city kids can't perform to the level of kids in the suburbs is the root of the problem. this soft bigotry causes the teacher union to push for a law that disallows tenure evaluation to be based student performance.

I am in my 31st year of teaching and have been tenured as a school library media specialistin two districts. I have worked with hundreds of teachers over the years, most of them talented, dedicated and conscientious. I am horrified by the proposal to reduce the measure of our success to student test scores. Not all teachers administer exams. No student is the "product" of any one teacher. The home environment determines many of the variables for success for any individual student. Standardized tests are not in any way a complete measure of student potential, ability, or achievement. As a library media specialist, I see a direct relationship between the increase in testing and the decrease in teachers' having time to design and implement research tasks and other authentic learning experiences. Being able to answer reading comprehension questions on a state exam does not translate to being able to think in a logical manner, or to solve problems or to work effectively on a team. These are only some of the skills that colleges and employers demand. To evaluate new teachers based on state exam results is illogical and demeaning.

Tenure affects brand new teachers. School districts do not need a reason to fire a untenured teacher. Whether to tenure a teacher or not is the work of administrators who need to have more experience and training than is generally the case. With that training they would use a multidimensional framework to evaluate and more importantly, provide guidance and leadership to new teachers. New teachers are expected to function at the same level as veteran teachers from their first day in the classroom. They can't. It is unrealistic. As a new teacher, there are many areas in which they need to learn, and grow including lesson design, assessment and so on. To evaluate them on such a narrow basis as student exam performance is not logical.

I currently teach at an independent school, but have also taught in public school, an I closely follow the debates on standardized testing. It has always seemed to me that the biggest problem is the debate between testing counting for everything or nothing. The best way to use standardized testing is as one tool of many to evaluate how students are doing, which in turn, we as teachers can use to reflect on our own teaching. The language proposed and rejected recently sounds like the closest I have ever heard to an acknowledgement of this. It is a shame it was rejected. Once again, the unions are denegrating the professionalism of teachers and the learning of students.

What happened to report cards for students? This is maddness to shift responsibility away from the only people who actually have control.

The caller's comments on a "special room" where teachers are sent is called the Rubber Room. "This American Life" did a fascinating (and pathetic) segment on it. Listen here at the 7:25 minute mark:

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/350.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php

This teacher trainer guy is unbelievable--Kids "who cannot learn" I hope he never teaches my kids. He said he wouldn't do as well if he didn't have tenure/ He is exactly the kind of teacher who should not have tenure

It is called the Rubber Room...where teachers get put if they have performance issues. There are currently over 900 teachers in the rubber room in the Bronx.

Stephen, it's not a question of whether inner city kids CAN or CAN'T perform to the same level. It's that they don't. It's not bigoted to say that these students are not achieving to the same degree as more priveleged kids in the suburbs. It's a fact. The bigotry comes in when you just give up on them because you assume there's no remedy.

Political firing of teachers:

An old friend of mine was a high school science teacher. His principal was making money going around giving speeches on how to run Advanced Placement classes, but not running his own schools program in the way he advocated. When my friend brought this up and it found its way to the wrong ears, he was sacked. Every future employer wants to hear from his past principal for a recommendation and all the principals on Long Island are buddy-buddy, so he can’t get another teaching job.

Fortunately he had just got married to a woman whose father runs a hospital, and the new father in law directed him into how to become a radiation tech in short order so that he could provide for his new wife.

I propose tht we measure Brian's show by how his hosts perform on his show!. brian stop being ignorant - why do teachers prefer to quit working in the city and go to the suburbs?

Evaluating a teacher can sometimes be like appreciating a work by Picasso; while some may appreciate it, others will call it piece of junk!.

Brian, consider yourself lucky - you are part of the elite!

Read 'Up the Down Staircase' by Bel Kaufman if you want to understand why teachers shouldn't be linked to student performance.

Brian: "They would take into account the starting points of the students."

We don't have tests that can take those into account. The children of Soviet Jewish emigres did better in school than low-income black and hispanic children. How do you factor that into the testing?

We've had Margaret Spellings, the Secretary of Education, on this program, and she admitted that the current tests aren't good enough.

Linking teacher performance would be fine if teachers could choose the pupils they are to teach. Absent that, how do you compare that teacher'serformance to one who has all advanced placement students? That is tantamount to saying that you as a radio personality are responsible for the amount of product one of your advertisers sells as a result of sponsoring your show.

As far as tenure is concerned....teachers are supposed to be observed and evaluated prior to attaining tenure. If a teacher receives tenure and is not performing well, that is the fault of the supervisors responsible for observing and helping that teacher...not tenure itself.

And don't get me started on the parents responsibility. Some parents assume that the school is totally responsible for raising their child.

For a child who is dyslexic (which is 20% of the population!!!) or has other learning disabilities, test scores are a poor, poor measurement. The schools desperately need teachers who are trained in multi-sensory teaching methods that are scientifically-proven to help students learn to read, and they need to be given the time to teach them. However, while this crucial work will teach many kids to read, and probably help curb the dropout rate, it is not an achievement that would be reflected in standardized testing. So talented, dedicated teachers focused on these kids in ALL types of schools with these already underrecognized needs would not get tenure....

the problem with linking test scores ith tenure is that the school system (I work in it) is all ready to geared towards teaching to the test. All the resources go to test prep, so there's no sports, art, music or home ec, which lead to low attendance and interest, and high teacher turnover.

the whole system is broken.

To fix, teachers should go on strike and demand a 15 to 1 student teacher ratio with no teacher with less then 3 years of experience in a room alone and full sports, arts, music and home ec in ALL schools.

When the politicians say there's no money, I say, we're the richest country in the world, there's plenty of damn money. if we can pay for a war, we can pay to educate all our kids.

It is a travesty

laura,

why don't u just tell us?

Paulo: why don't these inner-city kids perform to the same level? I would hold that it is a large part due to the attitude of many teachers that they can't. of course, there are many reasons why kids don't do well in school, may of them due to problems at home, in the neighborhood, etc. however, a teacher has a lot of influence in the classroom and just because a kid is coming in from a rough neighborhood does not mean that he or she can't perform just as well as a kid from the suburbs. when we get teachers in the inner city that really believe this, then we are going to see some results.

To attach teacher tenure to exam scores is just as useful as someone's SAT verbal score being able to tell you that someone can read... it doesn't.

I believe in accountability especially when it comes to schools but attaching teacher tenure to exam scores is putting too much faith in the exam creators and assumes that the exam scores is a true "test" of knowledge.

I feel that much of the problem with issues of public education stem from the fact that the people who are in the best situation to make real change in the lives of young people (teachers and school staff), are not in a position to make the big decisions that affect them. Legislators and government officials are making these decisions and do not always seem to value the voice of teachers and parents, even though teachers and parents are the experts at evaluating the needs of their students and children. Teachers, however, do have an equal responsibility to create a professional climate that does not support negative and ineffectual teaching practices. I am not teaching now, because, as a NYC public school teacher for 3 years, I did not feel that the system valued my voice and I was also dissatisfied with the unprofessional behavior of some of my colleagues. Public school teachers need more power to make the big decisions that affect their students, but they also need to create an environment where peer review is supported, accepted and practiced.

My mother is a retired board of ed social worker (who worked in tough schools in the south bronx). She saw all the worst. And she saw signs for hope - children succeeding, poor students working hard, minority, immigrant and poor parents who were engaged...basically the "good news" that doesn't get adequate coverage. There are successes and we shouldn't forget that. She also spoke damningly of the education system's inability to teach students to read, which is the first skill needed for education and testing success. NYC successfully educated the poor and the immigrants and minorities in the past and a focus on fundamental rather than test taking skills would help return the system to that success. This focus on accountability (via test scores) is one more indication of "corporate" influence in non-commercial space (like in journalism and health care as well) which tends to be counter to the mission of education; education is not a commercial venture and should not be measured in that way.

Well, but Stephen, you were suggesting that the other person, by suggesting that inner city teachers were placed at a disadvantage against suburban teachers in terms of student test scores, was somehow guilty of "soft bigotry". But that's only true if you believe that these two environments were on a level playing field, which is demonstrably untrue. Again, it's not about can or can't... the reality is that any teacher in the inner city expected to be held to the same score standard as teachers is the suburbs is going to fall short until these problems within the institutions are solved.

On the surface, I like the idea of holding teachers accountable very much. However, as I understand this law, there is the potential for terrible unintended consequences.

I taught for two years in rough public schools and now I am a private tutor. Let me use a recent student of mine, "C", as an illustration of what worries me about linking student performance to teacher compensation or job security. C is a 10th grader from a moderately privileged background, a smart kid, a nice boy, and also just plain lazy. He routinely snoozed through math class and freely admitted it. His father hired me for 8 weeks of intensive tutoring prior to the regents. On the first practice regents I gave him, he scored about a 60%. On the final practice regents, he scored an 88%. Big difference, huh?

I don't hold his math teacher fully responsible for his original score- it's hard to teach a kid who is determined to sleep through class, but I also don't give his math teacher credit for his eventual good regents grade. The structural problem here is that well-off students get all kinds of privately funded tutoring, etc. that boosts their scores a great deal compared to poor students. My fear is that instituting this system would inadvertently punish teachers who work with kids who aren't getting these extra services.

And yet... I'm also sick of lazy teachers who just want to get by until they retire. It's a complex problem. I wish I had a real solution to propose.

I am someone who was bored through most of her public school education, even in the gifted and talented classes, who left high school without graduating because her advanced needs weren't being met... When I hear about linking tenure to test scores and performance, all I can think about is the tendency for teachers to teach to the lowest common denominator. They know that the more accelerated students will do just fine, so they need to focus on bringing the struggling kids up to a passing level.

By no means should the children most in need get "left behind," so to speak, but I think it is extremely important that every student gets their needs met in public education, not just those who stand to jeopardize the teacher's job security.

Furthermore, when a teacher begins teaching to the tests, they are essentially forced to abandon most of their creativity and imagination, which is generally what distinguishes the best teachers in the first place.

Consider tying tenure to test scores in the same light as you might think about tying doctor "tenure" to patient survival rate. A doctor might have superior skills, training, compassion, bedside manner,etc., yet, because of these characteristics, be treating patients with only the most complex and severe illnesses. Would it be fair to compare his "success" to his general practioner colleagues? Similarly, a skilled, trained and dedicated teacher might choose to teach the most educationally impoverished students - who did not go to pre-school, maybe the ones whose parents are never home, who work many jobs, or are not present, who don't speak or read English well, who are not available to read to their children or help with homework, whose children may have emotional needs that are not being addressed anywhere except possibly by the teacher. This teacher may be doing great things for her students, really healing the whole child and positioning them for a real educational future -- but the results might not necessarily show up on tests - certainly not "standardized" tests, and maybe not within a mere 10 months. Yet a foundation for love of learning, self-esteem, and educational basics would be set that could transform a child forever. - an ex NYC teacher

High stakes testing for radio show hosts. I agree.

We'll give a sample of Brian Lehrer show listeners a quiz on the information a citizen should have, and give them another quiz a year later. If Brian's listeners don't improve, we'll get another radio show host.

Paulo: i do believe that an attitude that inner city kids can't do just as well as suburban kids is a flawed and perhaps even bigoted attitude. i realize that throwing the word bigotry around is somewhat incendiary. however, i think that saying that inner city kids can't do just as well as suburban kids is unfair to kids living in the city.

Dear Brian,

I am a former NYC Teaching Fellow and the father of two children in the public schools

The change in the wording of the legislation is a win for students and educators. Standardized assessment may have some value to teachers, parents and students as at *tool* towards evaluation progress.

However, the often demonstrated bias against children because of their class, race, gender, physical or cognitive ability outweigh their usefulness as being the *sole* means of evaluation of whether students are learning and whether teachers are teaching well.

The most contemporary thinking that is being taught in (some) teacher education programs is that a balanced approach towards assessment is necessary to truly understand student learning, and to make adjustments in teaching. For example, in one of line of thinking, some students demonstrate learning better through portfolios of creative work in addition to ( or instead of ) reductive standardized tests. This may be particularly true of students who have been tracked into special education.

The conversation in the State House ( and on the program) so far, has been somewhat regressive. Howard Gardner's idea of 'multiple intelligences' has taken strong root in teacher education programs, but is not in evidence in this discussion. Like students, teachers need to be evaluated by more than one set of criteria for consideration of tenure.

To continue with my previous point:

As a former New York City Teaching Fellow, with two children in the school system, it also cannot be emphasized enough that teachers are often subject to the whim's, desires and career needs of school principals. What makes a 'good' teacher is more than somewhat subjective.

With fairly little research, it is possible to find many teacher who - by any measure would be considered 'good' - who were denied tenure simply because principals did not like them or for other petty reasons.

The UFT is not as monolithic as many people believe. The defense of teachers may only be as good as the chapter leader in a given school. If a chapter leader happens to have a personal agenda more closely tied to the needs of a principal, then the rights of their colleagues may not be adequately defended.

A more balanced, holistic approach to tenure needs to be developed that takes into the environment and politics of a given school and the student population. Neither the current system, which is subject to the arbitrary control of administrators, nor a 'blind' test based system are fair to teachers or students.

And Finally...On a second note - a caller early in the program referred disparagingly to a place that 'bad' teachers are sent and paid to do nothing. He was referring to what are called (internally) "Rubber Rooms".

If the New York City School System were re-imagined as a small country, these are the equivalent of holding cells for "administrative detention". Literally thousands of educators are held in these cells, with little access to timely due-process. The New York City Public School System's procedures for 'justice' are equivalent to that of an impoverished, authoritarian developing country.

Some teachers are placed in 'rubber rooms' for legitimate reasons - because they may represent a clear danger to students. Many, many others, however, are placed in these internal ( or rented) detention centers at the whim of Principals or higher levels of the DOE administration. Many educators placed in this position do not know what the charges are that have placed them in this position.

The 'rubber rooms' which drain millions of dollars from the school system and contribute to the overall shortage of educators, need to have the bright spotlight of the media used to expose an extraordinary failure in the system.

Let's talk reality. We have been at several different public schools, mainly because my elementary school aged son is dyslexic. HOWEVER, in all that moving around, we only saw ONE teacher who truly deserved to be fired. She looked great on paper, but she was arrogant, condescending, sarcastic and clueless. She harmed many children on a psychological and emotional level, not just my kid. AND, she told several families to put their kids on various drugs, not once but again and again and again. BUT, test scores were fine and the principal loved her, even though parents were and are really upset. The system needs to address situations like this - this type of incompetence has much more damaging and lasting affect, angers parents, disillusions kids and frustrates other teachers who are left to pick up the pieces. This will have more of an impact on any of these children then whether they scored a 2, 3 or 4 on some lame standardized test. WHY IS THIS TEACHER STILL IN A CLASSROOM???And no, she does not have tenure - yet - but I'm sure she'll get it. Most teachers are great and are increasingly limited by these false measurements. BUT, there does need to be something in place that listens to parent's input, too, as one factor, something based on classroom reality and not just principal preference or connections or test scores.

The sole purpose of this Olympics from its inception is the political validation of China: to speak of the politicalization of the Olympics is nonsense. It is political per se.

Not to protest is a moral irresponsibility. A sin. If it were in Washington, I would protest. I am a service connected 100% disabled USA veteran and I did not sacrifice my life to see us shame our heritage in Iraq. I protest Iraq every day. It is sinful not to. I am not going to commit the sin of not speaking out against a government which denies basic human dignity to its own people and enforces its own atheistic ethically challenged corrupted culture on other nations with military rule.

There is no moral justification for China's suppression and exploitation of Tibet, of Uygur, etc. and of its entire population except for the select few who profit from its corruption. So yes the rich Han Chinese, living in complete absence of normal information, are protesting the protest. They profit from the Olympics just as Halliburton, and our Secretary of State who serves on its board and all the oil companies on whose board she serves, and all of the Bush family thugs on the Supreme Court profit from the war in Iraq personally.

They have no ethics so the proposition that someone other than the Chinese have sullied the Olympics is indefensible. the only ethical and the only moral response is protest as useless as that is. They do not make room for anything else.

OOOPs wrong comment on the wrong discussionabout china

I'm sorry that this is in the wrong place, but I couldn't find a place for general comments.

I think that you have a culture problem among those who answer the phones. I understand that they are under pressure to move things along, but I think that they have given up too civility. I have called the show five times in the last year. In each case I was interrupted at least once, and in three cases I was cut off before the interviewer understood my point. I am not particularly long winded.

I know that what they do is a kind of triage, but a moments patience should be part of the job description.

Our current tests are usually, at best, designed to measure current performance levels. But eve Brian acknowledged that going by performance level would not be fair, because teachers working in low performing schools should not be punished for their commitment to work with the most needy student.

So, measure improve in scores, year to year, right? Well, the tests are usually not designed to do that, and rarely do it well. Moreover, even if they were, recent studies have shown that lower income students lose more ground over the summer than higher income students. It's easy to imagine why, as higher income students are more likely to attend richer summer programs that build on their learning in schools. This is entirely beyond the control of schools and teachers, but this would imply a weaker teacher performance in low income schools than those in higher income schools, if we measured year over year growth.

There are issues with using the same tests for low performing schools and Stuyvessant High School.

Should we expect students' math and reading scores to go up by the same amount in 7th grade as in 3rd grade, or are some years more critical than others?

What about the subjects for which we don't have high stakes tests? Do students perform differently on high stakes tests than low- or no-stakes tests?

These problems go on and on. Sure, there are answers to most of them, but they usually require more costly tests and analysis procedure. And some problems do not have answers.

But the real point, the biggest problem, and what I wanted to mention on Brian's show today, is that these tests are not known to be "instructionally sensitive." That is, none of them have been designed to differentiate good instruction from bad instruction. None of them have been validated for that. None of them have even been checked for that. We have no reason to believe that these tests -- or the individual items on the tests -- are capable of providing information that would allow us to identify good teaching or good teachers. Heck, we don't even yet know how to design items that are instructionally sensitive. This is what James Popham was talking about two weeks ago at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association. (He is a former president of the association.)

Sure, if all you have is a hammer, than everything looks like a nail. But that'll break the lightbulb and it's not going to do anything useful when you are trying to change a flat tire. And that is what we are talking about here. We do not have the tool to accomplish that, and until we do we need to back off.

If the state of New York wants to invest a couple of million dollars in such a research effort, out of the $20 billion it spends on education each year, perhaps that would be a good idea. The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars each year on the next generation of weapons and equipment, paying defense contractor to invent/develop them before using them in the field.

**********************

None of the previous section addresses the original language in the legislation and why it might be bad. But there are problems there, too, even though it doesn't call for teachers to be evaluated on student performance.

I am all for teachers using performance data to help guide their teaching. I think that teacher education programs should teach pre-service teachers how to make sense of such data. But I'm not convinced that it should yet be a factor in tenure decisions.

First, we better make damn sure that the tests are good and actually provide meaningful measures of student performance before we demand teachers make use of them day to day. The original language calls for teaching to the test. That is what it means. It means that teachers should take test data to guide their instruction so that students do better on the next test.

At its worst, it means teaching how to take these tests, or even how to answer the kinds of problems that appear on the test, rather than focusing on the core lessons of the topic. It means narrowing application of material to how they appear on tests, rather than real world use that might not be able to appear on the test.

It means that the tests -- regardless of their quality -- will drive instruction, rather than the tests providing information about student performance, or even about instruction. It confuses the cart and the horse.

And then there's the bottom line. It is principals who are responsible for evaluating teachers. This language is about what principals should consider. Unfortunately, principals do not know how to do this stuff, either. Moreover, no one teaches principals the dangers and concerns in depending on potentially problematic tests, that might be used in appropriately to draw conclusions about things that the tests are not capable of supporting. I do not blame principals for this, rather I look to their preparation programs and their districts, both of whom have failed to teach them about this valuable material. But if they do not really understand it, why would anyone put them in a position to evaluate it?

But I am not just a hater. I am happy to recommend resources that might help principals and other the learn more about this.

DataWise is a book about using assessment data to guide instruction. It addresses the immediate problem at hand, how principals and teachers can use test results.

More importantly, Measuring Up: What Educations Testing Really Tells Us is a brand new book about tests, testing and educational measurement in general. It is written for a lay audience, without all of the complex mathematics and statistics that underly testing.

The credibility and expertise of the authors of both books are beyond reproach. These are not one-sided politcal screeds by any means.

Brian--get a union person on the show to explain how teachers should be evaluated. And what they should be held accountable for. This will be interesting and no doubt shed light on what is really at the crux of this issue.

Then please, please, please bring some teachers from high performing schools in the Bronx, Harlem, W. Heights etc. Teachers from Teach for America or the NY Teaching Fellows program or competant BOE teachers who have kids performing at average or above average and let them please explain to the world that having lower expectations for kids based on where they come from is a cop out. And any teacher that has that attitude (Karen 10:19) is better off stepping aside and letting someone committed to equity take their place. Also, please ask these same teachers if they chose to teach in these challenging schools because they thought they might get tenure.And what they, who are in the most challenging situation, think og being partially evalauted by test scores. Now there is a show worth listening to.

If you want to hear some REAL whining try suggesting that legislation here in NJ. While it is unfair to base tenure on test scores because of the complexity of our educational system, I believe that there needs to be some sort of performance measurement. I whole-heartedly believe that tenure, as it's used now, is totally out of context in public education and unfairly guarantees that the mediocre and just plain bad teachers stay employed.

The whole thing may just be a way for teachers to say, get rid of this test-crazy system. Then, let's talk about what a good teacher is.

pat

Brian:

I listened to your show this morning, and I have to say that you were not given accurate information.

1. The language on this issue from last year's budget agreement was NOT dropped. It remains.

2. The language lays out three general grounds on which tenure decisions for teachers should be made:

[a] direct supervisory observation of classroom performance and teaching;

[b] direct peer observations the same;

[c] the ability to use data from standardized tests to inform and shape instruction.

3. What was added was clarifying language which made it clear that [c] meant that a teacher should be evaluated on their ability to shape instruction to meet students' needs, using the information from standardized tests, not on the actual results themselves.

4. Seen in its full context and with accurate information, it is clear that teachers do not shirk accountability, but rather want to be accountable for what we control, our teaching and our instruction.

5. Further, it is clear that what was at issue was an attempt by the DoE to change the system of teacher evaluation and teacher tenure, substituting standardized tests which were not designed for evaluating teacher performance for actual classroom observation of teaching and learning by expert educators.

You really owe it to your listeners to have a teacher union representative on the show to discuss the issue with accurate information.

Brian,

Based on how yoy were totally unprepared for this segment (probably last minute-how do I kill some time) your performance will be rated as an U (unsatisfactory) you get 3 of those - no matter what you have done previously, and we will send you to the rubber room for radio hosts. may be if you lose your job you can become a taxi driver and forgo the elite life style you have been accustomed for these years!

correction to comment 85

"......will be rated U...."

If I did not correct this, I could find myself in the rubber room"

Under current educational law, any school district can DENY tenure to any teacher for ANY reason, as long as the decision is not capricious and arbitrary or violates mandated protections (race, sex). As a matter of fact, teachers have been denied tenure for attendance, eventhough the teacher did not go over the days the district grants. A district can deny teure to any one for the simple reason that this person "does not fit" the culture of the district!. (read Commissioner of education decisions NYSDOED). So as a matter of fact, class performance has always been a factor in evaluating a teacher for tenure as part of a comprehensive evaluation. Writing it into law,narrows the evaluation and gives legal cover to a tool that can be used unilaterally in a arbitrary and capricious way.