| As OpenLeft commenter VLazlo suggests in a comment to my Quick Hit on Duncan's teacher evaluation scheme, if Duncan applied his "data-drive" evaluations to the results he had leading Chicago public schools, he might not like the score. Specifically, taking the broad data indicators used to judge RTTT entrants, Duncan's record at Chicago public schools would most likely result in a failing grade:
Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points)
In 2007, Duncan's plans for improving teacher effectiveness in Chicago relied primarily on a teacher merit pay program called Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP. Although the program was hugely controversial with teachers, Duncan charged forward with it under the mantra that "business approaches" to education would yield the best results. So now that we have the benefit of hindsight, what were the results?
Not so hot. As WaPo's Valerie Strauss explains:
"Under the program in Chicago, payments to teachers under the program averaged $1,100 for those in schools in their first year of implementation, and $2,600 for those teachers in schools in their second year.
The comparison with similar schools that didn't use the program revealed no real difference in student scores or in teacher-retention rates among those schools."
Not only did "pay for performance" do nothing to create "great teachers" in Chicago, it quite likely produced a number of very negative effects, according to this analysis, including:
* Damaging curriculum by emphasizing only those subjects that are tested
* Lowering teacher morale by damaging their sense of professionalism
* Increasing cheating
* Leading to test score inflation as teachers do more teaching to the test
Success Factors (125 total points)
Despite the damage Duncan inflicted on teachers, what effects did he have on student achievement. Here again, the results are mixed at best.
In a report (pdf) that Diane Ravitch links to "the gains registered in the elementary schools of Chicago during Arne Duncan's tenure were almost entirely the result of changes to the scoring of the tests, rather than evidence of any genuine improvement in student learning."
On a much broader scale, Duncan's policies were in fact quite damaging to Chicago. As this analysis reveals, the results of Duncan's signature program Renaissance 2010 was actually "traumatic, largely ineffective, and destabilizing to communities." By arbitrarily shutting down schools and shuffling students - primarily minority and poor - from one school to another, Duncan's policies led to severe spikes in student violence, severe dislocations, and job losses.
Standards and Assessment (70 total points)
Scoring in this area relies primarily on the extent to which schools have adopted the Common Cores Standards for curriculum, which did not exist when Duncan ran CPS. But it's quite likely that he would have embraced the standards had they been available.
Regarding testing and assessment, CPS recently announced that scores on standardized tests indeed have increased. But as this local commentator puts into perspective, 63% of Chicago black males don't graduate from high school, and CPS has one of the highest rates of suspensions of any big-city school district with more than 60% of expelled students last year being black and male.
So one has to wonder if the key to more effective standardized testing in Chicago has been achieved largely by getting rid of students who may be more apt to score the lowest on these tests?
General Selection Criteria (55 total points)
As this assessment area relies primarily on the implementation of charter schools, I'll give Duncan flying colors - all 55 points.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points)
Although Duncan's turnaround model of closing Chicago's lowest performing schools has become the model to be implemented across the nation, this approach has proven to be generally ineffective. According to this analysis (pdf), only 6 percent of schools affected by school closings ended up at schools that were higher achieving than the ones they left.
But if you interpret the "turnaround" criterion strictly as committing the act of turning around, regardless of the results, certainly Duncan deserves some credit. So split the difference maybe?
For the last two RTTT assessment areas, Data Systems (47 total points) and STEM (15 total points), I'm having difficulty coming up with anything definitive. But even if Duncan won flying colors in these areas, it's not enough to give him a passing grade overall, based on his own standards for "success."
So with Duncan himself being unable to measure up to the standards he has set for the nation's schools, does it mean that we dismiss Duncan's leadership, the standards, or both? |
STATE BLOGS
