Certifying Teachers

Re: the article on Certifying Teachers, More by How the Teach in the New York Times today   by Al Baker, on page 1. 

It is accurate that this assessment is better than paper and pencil tests. And, it is accurate that "teaching is action work."   That is why the proposed new assessment system is not nearly as useful, helpful, nor valid as the present practice of student teacher practice and assessment by professionals.  

In this article, Ray Pechone and Linda Darling- Hammond continue their long practice of only telling the positive. And, the writer Al Baker makes the classic error noted in the prior post on media coverage of "reform".

 " Why then in schools do we allow politicians, lobbyists, and other “experts” who are not teachers and have not worked in classrooms for over ten years, and who have not taught children, to make the basic decisions about schooling.  As a starting point, clearly those establishing our policies do not understand testing and its limits.  (See Bracey, 2009).

Teacher Performance Testing - PACT

There is a New York Times article today about Resistance to Outsourcing Teacher Licensing.  Move to Outsource Teacher Licensing Process Draws Protest

... Student teachers at the University of Massachusetts are protesting a new national licensure procedure being developed by the education ...

May 6, 2012 - By MICHAEL WINERIP - Education - Article - Print Headline: "Move to Outsource Teacher Licensing Process Draws Protest"

A group of faculty and students at UMASS Amherst are resisting the assessment system developed and used in California, known as PACT. In the article Prof. Raymond Pecheone of Stanford and others claim there is no organized resistance to this testing.

To the contrary.  A group of faculty and students in the CSU have consistently resisted this testing as invalid and not reliable.  Here is a record of some of this resistance.

https://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

Duane Campbell.  Democracy and Education Institute. 

Coming Soon, National Exit exams for teachers

See the excellent article on PACT in Rethinking Schools.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_04/24_04_exams.shtml

PACT is used as an exit requirement in the Teacher Preparation Program at Sacramento State. In my experience it takes important time ( at least 1/3) away from actual student teaching.  That is the student teacher is performing for PACT rather than preparing, teaching, and motivating children.
We have sought to have this changed but received no assistance from our legislators.  There are faculty with an opposing viewpoint.  They see PACT as good.
It has now become increasingly normalized. That is current students do not often recognize that this is an imposition that detracts from teaching and learning.
Duane Campbell

Arne Duncan and PACT

Needed: an overhaul of teacher prep
At a speech to Columbia University's Teachers College, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called for a broad overhaul of the nation's teacher colleges. Duncan, as reported by the Associated Press, explained that prep programs are lucrative for the institutions that offered them, but fail to adequately prepare teachers for the classroom. Large enrollment and low overhead make them "cash cows" for universities, but profits are diverted to smaller, more prestigious departments rather than invested in research and training for would-be teachers. Duncan also faulted state governments for overly easy licensing that does not gauge classroom readiness and for failing to track which programs turn out effective teachers and which do not. If the country is to reach the president's global goal of the most college graduates by 2020, "both our K-12 system and our teacher preparation programs have to get dramatically better," said Duncan. He pointed to the administration's use of stimulus dollars to reward states that tie student achievement data to their education schools and to the demand to pay for an expansion of teacher residency programs in high-needs schools. Duncan stressed that timing is crucial. A third of veteran teachers are poised to retire, which could create a million new teaching positions over the next four years.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_teachers
See the secretary's speech: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html

DuaneCampbell

It uses the popular approach of citing a number of "excellent" programs, which happen to be those that Duncan has visited. 

Perhaps he should visit more.  It contains many of the usual problems, such as quoting an anonymous student who reported to E.D. Hirsch why he thought students did not take his course.  There is a great deal of self interest here. Hirsch thinks everyone should take his course.

he uses as evidence hearsay.

Typical, and troubling to me was this;

This is self reported success:

Under the leadership of Sharon Robinson, the AACTE and its 800 colleges and universities have made it a core mission to have pre-service education lead to substantial increases in student achievement. AACTE has also recently launched a series of new programs and initiatives designed to improve teacher effectiveness. One of their most promising initiatives to date is the development of the first nationally accessible assessment of teacher candidate readiness. Under this performance-based assessment, supervising teachers and faculty would evaluate student teachers in the classroom. And student teachers and interns would be required to plan and teach a week-long stint of instruction mapped to state standards and provide commentaries on videotapes of their instruction and classroom management.

AACTE's project is based on PACT, California's Performance Assessment for Teachers, which Linda Darling-Hammond and a wide-ranging consortium of teacher preparation programs in California have done so much to pioneer. Already 14 states have signed up to pilot the performance assessment.

So. AACTE is adopting this "model".   BTW. There is no objective data showing that this model works. 

Here is an examination of its problems by those of us who have used it.

http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

Those who report its success almost universally do not visit student teachers in schools. They are encamped in the university.

It looks good from there.

And, it costs California some $9 million per year for an invalid, unreliable measure.

Duane Campbell 

http://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/

Testing and the California budget crisis

Lets cancel the High School Exit Exam, lay off teachers, release prisoners early, cut medi cal payments, keep children from health insurance, increase class size, end care for Alzheimer patients, but keep $ 16 million for a sweetheart contract for a very few tenured professors.

In 2006 the legislature and CTC imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system (test) TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. I am confident that only a few legislators were even aware that they were creating this accountability fraud. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher.

Significant evidence of the test has yet to be gathered. For details see the linked article. But, I was able to observe two out of the available 5 local sites.
In each case about 30 students made twenty minute videos to measure (calibrated) to see if they were “good teachers”. In the two cases I observed, about 3 students – total of 6- did not pass on the first administration. Notably, these 6 students were also student teaching and observed by professionals who found their teaching very professional. In the same cohorts, about 6 student teachers were “excellent” in their calibration of their video. Notably, these 6 student teachers were not found to be excellent nor superior in their student teaching as measured by professionals. That is, the test did not eliminate the weak and it did not identify the strong. That is what the state is paying $16 million each year ; $10 million to the CSU and an estimated $6 million to the U.C. U.C. prepares fewer teachers than the CSU. BTW. In future years, the cost of the test (calibration) will be transferred as a fee to the students teachers.
The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $ 16 million should be cut from the CSU and U.C. budgets and used for other vital, impacted interests.
For a detailed description of the problems of PACT and TPA see here ; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/
Why are so many people disillusioned with the legislature and the legislative leadership? In part because these kinds of boondoggles exist. And, pure personal contacts, the privileges of the elite, keep them funded while the governor proposes that we close parks and reduce the number of fire fighters available. Legislators and the LAO have been consistently advised of this foolish spending. This is a failure of leadership.

Duane Campbell,
Sacramento

Will the legislature listen?

My Assembly person is Allyson Huber. This is her first term. She won a very narrow victory. On her web site she says that she wants to hear from her constituents. I have sent her a prior copy of this and have not received a response. So, I am going public.
BTW. My Senator is Darrell Stienberg. I have tried to get his attention to this $10 million for over two years. It is interesting how friendly candidates are during campaigns and how distant they are after winning.
But, another election is on the way.

Assemblywoman Allyson Huber,
California Assembly June 1,2009

The budget reform proposals failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history. Perhaps it is time to listen.
Here is $10 million which I previously pointed out was available.
In 2006 the legislature and CTC imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. I am confident that only a few legislators were even aware that they were creating this accountability fraud. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
The CTC has a session on these accountability programs on Friday and they do not recognize that any problems exists.
The legislature will be faced with ending health insurance for the young, increasing class sizes in k-12, laying off teachers, and violate contracts rather than examine this sweetheart deal for the self promotion of a few tenured profs.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $10 million should be cut from the CSU budget and used for other vital, impacted interests. A similar amount is in the U.C. budget.

For a detailed description of the problems of PACT and TPA see; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

I remain available to discuss the misguided financing of PACT and TPA with your office. I encourage you to use your elected position to act responsibly in this budget crisis.

Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education (Emeritus)
Sacramento, Ca.

Here is $10 million for the budget crisis

May 21,2009

The budget reform proposals failed and the legislature has the lowest approval ratings in modern history. Perhaps it is time to listen.
There is $10 million per year in the CSU budget and about the same in the U.C. budget that could be cut and this would improve teacher preparation.
In 2006 the legislature and CTC imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. I am confident that only a few legislators were even aware that they were creating this accountability fraud. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
Now that the legislature faces cutting class sizes in k-12, lay off teachers, and violate contracts, cutting health care for children, I urge you to look examine this sweetheart deal for a few tenured profs.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $10 million should be cut from the CSU budget and used for other vital, impacted interests.

For a detailed description of the problems of PACT and TPA see; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

I remain available to discuss the misguided financing of PACT and TPA with your office. I encourage you to use your leadership position to act responsibly in this budget crisis.

Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education Emeritus

California adopts budget; wastes $10 million

California has adopted a difficult budget. The CSU system and the UC system will face significant cuts. The CSU has already been cut $246 million this year. ( for cuts in K-12 see other posts on this blog).
These cuts will lead to keeping students out of the CSU and refusing to pay salaries as bargained for in the last contract.
However, here is $10,000,000 that can be saved.
The legislature and CTC have imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system TPA/PACT on teacher preparation – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. It is a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment of future teachers into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.
Legislators, Senators and Assemblymembers , including my Senator, have been advised of this boondoggle. They have chosen to not cut these funds. That is, they choose to cut class sizes in k-12, lay off teachers, and violate contracts rather than examine this sweetheart deal for a few tenured profs.
There is no evidence that TPA/PACT are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA/PACT are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. The implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program. The solution is obvious. Rescind this provision of SB 1209.
In times of crisis we should fund important things. This $10 million should be cut from the CSU budget and used for other vital, impacted interests.

For a detailed description of the problems of pact see; http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

Getting Accountability Right

Getting Accountability Right

By Richard Rothstein
The federal No Child Left Behind Act has succeeded in highlighting the poor math and reading skills of disadvantaged children. But on balance, the law has done more harm than good because it has terribly distorted the school curriculum. Modest modifications cannot correct this distortion. Designing a better accountability policy will take time. We cannot and should not abandon school accountability, but it's time to go back to the drawing board to get accountability right.

The first step is to understand today's curricular distortion. It has arisen because No Child Left Behind holds schools accountable for only some of their many goals. When we demand adequate math and reading scores alone, educators rationally respond by transferring resources to math and reading instruction (and drill) from social studies, history, science, the arts and music, character development, citizenship education, emotional and physical health, and physical fitness.

This shift has been most severe for the disadvantaged children the law was designed to help, because they are most at risk of failing to meet the math and reading targets. But they are also most at risk of losing curricular opportunities in other domains. In these other areas, NCLB has widened the "achievement gap."

President Barack Obama has vowed to correct this distortion. He has noted that NCLB "has become so reliant on a standardized-test model that ... subjects like history and social studies have gotten pushed aside. Arts and music time is no longer there. So the child is not having the well-rounded educational experience I benefited from and most in my generation benefited from." We must change No Child Left Behind, he has said, "so that the assessment is one that takes into account all the factors that go into a good education."

Although some Democrats and Republicans want to ignore the law's goal distortion, observers with varying policy perspectives share the new president's view that NCLB requires a radical reconsideration. The Center on Education Policy, headed by Jack Jennings (formerly an aide to Democrats on the House education committee), has publicized the loss of instruction in social studies, science, the arts, and physical education, especially for disadvantaged children. Chester E. Finn Jr. and Diane Ravitch, who served as federal education officials in Republican administrations, complain that present policy means only "top private schools and a few suburban systems will stick with education broadly defined." While rich kids study a wide range of subjects in depth, they write, "their poor peers fill in bubbles on test sheets." There is a "zero sum" problem, Finn and Ravitch say, because "more emphasis on some things ... inevitably mean[s] less attention to others."

Yet public discussion of the law's upcoming reauthorization focuses almost entirely on correcting flaws in math and reading measurement: substituting "growth models" for fixed levels, modifying the 2014 deadline for attaining student proficiency, standardizing state definitions of proficiency, modifying "confidence intervals" in reporting. While these steps may improve the sophistication of math and reading data, none addresses the goal distortion caused by exclusive accountability for basic skills.

Designing accountability tools that require satisfactory performance across a balanced set of outcomes requires a significant federal research-and-development effort, which could build on prior experience. When the National Assessment of Educational Progress was developed in the 1960s, it measured a broad range of cognitive and noncognitive knowledge and skills. NAEP abandoned that breadth when its budget was slashed in the 1970s, however, and never restored it.

To see whether students learned to cooperate, for example, the early NAEP program sent trained observers to sampled schools. In teams of four, 9-year-olds were offered prizes (such as yo-yos) for guessing what object was hidden in a box. Students could ask yes-or-no questions, but all team members had to agree on each question asked. NAEP rated the students on whether they suggested new questions, gave reasons for viewpoints, or otherwise demonstrated cooperative problem-solving skills. It then reported to the nation on the percentage of children capable of cooperative problem-solving.

For teenagers, NAEP assessors provided lists of issues about which young people typically had strong opinions. Students had to collaborate in writing recommendations to resolve them. For 13-year-olds, lists included topics such as whether they should have curfews for getting home, and for 17-year-olds, the age eligibility for voting, drinking, or smoking. NAEP rated students on whether they took clear positions, gave reasons for viewpoints, helped organize internal procedures, and defended another's right to disagree.

Early NAEP understood that teaching civic responsibility involved more than having students memorize historical facts. So in 1969, during the era of the civil rights revolution, the assessment asked teenagers what they felt they should do if they saw black children barred from entering a park. NAEP reported that 82 percent of 13-year-olds and 90 percent of 17-year-olds knew that they should do something constructive, such as tell parents, report it to a civil rights or civil liberties organization, write letters to the newspaper, or take social action such as picketing or leafleting.

The early version of NAEP also assessed 17-year-olds' ability to consider alternative viewpoints, by asking them to state arguments both for and against a heated public issue of the time, such as whether college students should be drafted. It asked 9- and 13-year-olds if something reported in a newspaper might be untrue. It also asked teenagers if they belonged to any nonschool clubs or organizations; interviewers followed up with questions to verify answers' accuracy.

To assess commitment to civil liberties, NAEP asked teenagers if someone should be permitted to say on television that "Russia is better than the United States," that "some races of people are better than others," or that "it is not necessary to believe in God." The assessment reported the discouraging result that only a small minority of the teenagers thought all three statements should be permitted.

The early NAEP program also assessed personal responsibility. Seventeen-year-olds were asked what to do if, when visiting a friend, they noticed her 6-month-old baby was bruised. The correct answer was "suggest that your friend call her baby's doctor." Incorrect choices included "ignore the bruises because they are none of your business." A follow-up prompt said that at a later visit, bruises remain and "you are now suspicious that your friend may have hurt the baby." Students were asked what to do now. The correct choice was "call the local child-health agency and report your suspicions."

Certainly, if school systems were evaluated by such results, not simply by math and reading scores, incentives would shift. National reporting of low scores on the civil liberties questions, for example, could spur demands that schools do a better job on citizenship; then, the incentive to drop cooperative learning in favor of test prep in math and reading would diminish.

Designing a new accountability system will take time and care, because the problems are daunting. Observations of student behavior are not as reliable as standardized tests of basic skills, so we will have to accept that it is better to imperfectly measure a broad set of outcomes than to perfectly measure a narrow set. We will have to resolve contradictory national convictions that schools should teach citizenship and character, but not inquire about students' (and parents') personal opinions. To avoid new distortions, we'll need to make tough decisions about how to weight the measurement of the many goals of education.

The time to start on these difficult tasks is now, but the new administration won't have to begin with a blank slate. Looking back at the early National Assessment of Educational Progress can start us on a better path.

Richard Rothstein (riroth@epi.org) is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute. This article summarizes an argument from his recent book, co-written with Rebecca Jacobsen and Tamara Wilder, Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right (Teachers College Press).
Published in Ed Week.

Unfortunately legislators and media writers have too often accepted claims of accountability rather than serious study of accountability measures. This year the California Legislature and the Governor provided $10 million for accountability in Teacher Performance Assessment. The TPA/PACT process is neither valid, nor reliable. However, since it goes under the frame of accountability it has been funded even while schools are cutting classes, increasing class sizes and closing schools.
To read more about the problems of TPA/PACT go to http://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

$10 million California boondoggle

A million here, a million there, soon these things begin to add up to real money.

We all recognize the fiscal emergency of the California state budget. We are shocked by the governor’s proposals to cut $31.6 million from the CSU as of Oct 20, and the cut last year of 3.1 billion from K-12 education for 2008/2009. California can not accept such an abandonment of its educational infrastructure. . We still consider ourselves bound by the promise of the Master Plan for Higher Education in California, and these cuts would break that promise.
In light of these proposed budget cutbacks, we are strongly opposed to the governor’s action last year in the May Revise to add $10 million to the CSU budget to pay for a Teacher Performance Assessment program (TPA). The TPA and/or PACT is a poorly designed, redundant and invalid process for assessing the quality of teacher credential candidates.

Background:
SB 2042, in 2000, required a major revision of teacher preparation in California based upon a new set of state standards and a set of teacher performance expectations (TPEs) . The universities have responded by revising their programs. In 2042 The legislature created a system where the state must continually train new teachers to replace those driven out by inadequate working conditions. One element of 2042 required the development of high stakes performance assessment of California teachers (TPA) based upon the teacher performance expectations (TPE) to be developed by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
The problems with this are several. There is no evidence that TPAs are valid measures of good teaching. To the contrary, our experience tells us that one-time all-or-nothing tests like the TPA are among the poorest possible ways to predict the likelihood that a test-taker will be an excellent California teacher. Beyond this overwhelming substantive concern about the damage to teacher education, we must also point out that the implementation of TPA assessment was initially contingent upon state funding. But SB 1209 in 2006 removed the funding requirement and required implementation of the TPA throughout the CSU effective July 1, 2008, imposing a new low quality accountability system on teacher preparation programs in addition to the performance assessments currently in place, without providing the funding needed to pay for the new program.
Thus the legislature and CTC have imposed an expensive, redundant accountability system – one the state cannot afford in its current budget crisis. Not that we want the TPA program funded -- it would be a gross injustice to add funding for performance assessment into the budget when our schools are having to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, reduce career technical education, cancel transportation, and delay long needed school reforms.

Duane Campbell: Sacramento

PACT and California Teacher Preparation

Education Week
Published Online: October 29, 2007
Published in Print: October 31, 2007

LETTER
Calif. Teacher Assessment Offers No Improvements

To the Editor:
The Performance Assessment for California Teachers, or PACT, was approved by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing—not by teachers, nor by the college professors who prepare them (“Performance Test for New Calif. Teachers Approved,” Oct. 17, 2007). I and other faculty members in teacher preparation in the California State University system worked to oppose this bureaucratic imposition of an unfunded mandate.
Trial runs of this particular type of teacher-performance assessment lead many to believe that such assessment in its various forms will not actually improve the quality of teachers, nor contribute to closing achievement gaps. It will cost future teachers a great deal of time and money. Your article claims that studies of PACT pilots have shown positive results, but advocates of PACT have not sought evidence from those of us opposed to it.
The one-sided argument presented is that portfolio assessment is an improvement over the current assessment system. It may well be an improvement for elite universities with small teacher-preparation programs, such as Stanford, a leader in the development of PACT. There, academic professors do not usually supervise student-teachers or interns. In such sites, a portfolio assessment may be better than a written checklist from the field.
But for universities with large programs, the cost in time and money is substantial. For those of us at these lowly-brethren institutions, advocates would need to demonstrate that PACT is a more substantive assessment than professors making six to eight evaluative visits per semester to supervise student-teaching, plus the evaluation of host teachers. This has not been demonstrated.
What we have is another bureaucratic solution imposed on teacher education by persons who do not work closely with teachers in the field.
Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Bilingual/Multicultural Education
California State University-Sacramento
Sacramento, Calif.

Vol. 27, Issue 10, Page 27