Web Letter: Taking Sides on Education Reform? An Exchange Between Joanne Barkan and Claire Robertson-Kraft
Web Letter: Taking Sides on Education Reform? An Exchange Between Joanne Barkan and Claire Robertson-Kraft
Web Letter: Taking Sides on Education Reform? An Exchange Between Joanne Barkan and Claire Robertson
To the editors:
In “Firing Line: The Grand Coalition against Teachers,” Joanne Barkan makes a compelling case for why we should be concerned about the direction of the current education reform movement. There’s no doubt that an increasingly powerful group of self-styled “education reformers” have come to blame teachers and their unions for the problems ailing public schools. They contend that unions protect ineffective teachers from being dismissed, allow for evaluation systems that fail to differentiate teacher performance, and promote a salary schedule that rewards seniority rather than teaching excellence. Accordingly, they accuse union leaders of using their political power to thwart flexibility and stifle innovation.
We have ample historical evidence demonstrating that reform efforts are most effective over the long term when they are done with teachers, not to them. Unfortunately, as Barkan aptly describes, the reform approach of late too often characterizes teachers as the problem, rather than empowering them as the solution. However, as someone who spends quite a bit of time with the “reform camp,” I’d say that her characterization of the debate oversimplifies several important issues.
First and foremost, I think we can all acknowledge that the educational system disserves a large percentage of our student population. It may not be as easily fixed as some reformers would lead you to believe, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who has spent time in the system who doesn’t think change is necessary. Not only has teacher attrition grown by more than 50 percent over the past ten years, but there’s evidence that teachers are being replaced by a younger workforce that has different expectations about their role from their veteran colleagues, and, as such, is more likely to be in favor of differentiated roles and alternate forms of compensation. Because the teaching profession does not traditionally offer opportunities for advancement or provide effective support, many choose to leave. I can speak from experience because I was one of those teachers.
Though it’s probably fair to say that some reformers view “fixing teachers” as a silver bullet for addressing these challenges, there’s more nuance to their approach than “Firing Line” acknowledges. For example, most of the reformers’ systems are not simply focused on measuring performance and dismissing teachers, but also on providing them with more robust mentorship and meaningful ongoing professional development. And while many reformers emphasize the importance of including student growth in teacher evaluations, most also understand that there are drawbacks to value-added measures and, as such, propose using this data as one component in a more comprehensive system of multiple measures.
As I see it, the issue isn’t with the elements of the reforms themselves. Rather, it’s a matter of the process used to design and implement the new systems. Largely driven from the top-down, these initiatives are being rolled out much too quickly without garnering the input of teachers and other stakeholders that would be necessary to sustain the efforts over time. And the rhetoric has all too often been focused on getting rid of bad teachers, as opposed to creating a more attractive profession for prospective and higher-performing current teachers.
But the real problem is the polarization that this debate has caused among advocates. To be sure, education reformers need to quit characterizing anyone who raises concerns about out-of-school factors such as poverty as defenders of the status quo. But on the flip side, we need to stop characterizing all education reformers as “anti-teacher.” Take Barkan’s discussion of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR). It could certainly be the case that some reformers aren’t implementing PAR because they don’t want to share power with teachers. However, I’d contend that PAR is not more widespread because of challenges associated with implementation (for example, it’s costly, time consuming, and requires pulling the best teachers out of classrooms), in addition to ideology.
Rather than engaging in polarizing discussion, we should be focusing our efforts on supporting promising legislation like a recent Illinois education law—which brought multiple stakeholders to the table to work together as partners in reform—or the work of organizations like Battelle for Kids—which trains teachers to use multiple forms of data to improve practice, not merely measure performance.
New energy around reforming the school system provides an opportunity to bring about and sustain system-wide change. Now is not the time to point fingers, but to explore common ground and find ways to productively harness this energy.
-Claire Robertson-Kraft
Barkan responds:
Thanks to Claire Robertson-Kraft for taking time to comment on my article. While I agree with parts of her description of the “increasingly powerful group of self-styled ‘education reformers,'” I disagree with her overall perspective. Here’s what I agree with (in her words):
•”[T]he reform approach of late too often characterizes teachers as the problem”;
•The education system “may not be as easily fixed as some reformers would lead you to believe”;
•”[I]t’s probably fair to say that some reformers view ‘fixing teachers’ as a silver bullet”;
•The reformers’ initiatives are “[l]argely driven from the top-down”; they “are being rolled out much too quickly without garnering the input of teachers and other stakeholders that would be necessary to sustain the efforts over time”;
•The reformers’ “rhetoric has all too often been focused on getting rid of bad teachers, as opposed to creating a more attractive profession for prospective and higher-performing current teachers.”
All of the above concern how the reformers operate—what Robertson-Kraft calls the “process” of designing and implementing reforms. She finds fault with the process but not with the substance of the reforms. I strongly disagree: I see the substance as equally wrong-headed and destructive. The substance includes closing thousands of schools and replacing as many as possible as quickly as possible with charters (so far, more than one-third of the charters have turned out to be worse than the original schools); misplaced application of top-down, data-driven business practices; vouchers that divert public money to private schools; overemphasis on standardized testing; narrowing of curriculum; and high-stakes but highly unreliable methods for evaluating teachers.
On teacher evaluation, which is the focus of my article, Robertson-Kraft argues that most reformers understand that there are “drawbacks” to the method that they are pushing so hard and successfully (it’s called value-added modeling, or VAM). Therefore, says Robertson-Kraft, the reformers propose making VAM only part of an evaluation, usually 50 percent. But why use VAM at all when the education research community considers it so error prone and inconsistent that one scholar likened it to tossing dice? There is an alternative evaluation method called Peer Assistance and Review (PAR), which seven school districts have used successfully for years. It incorporates teachers’ input and professional development—two features that Robertson-Kraft supports. She contends that PAR isn’t more widespread because “it’s costly, time consuming, and requires pulling the best teachers out of classrooms.” But the reformers’ policies are notorious for consuming inordinate time in test prep, test taking, and data collection and for the hundreds of millions spent on VAM design, test design, test grading, instructional software, and consultants. If the reformers were interested in a proven evaluation system with notable side benefits (for example, lower teacher turnover and improved administration-teacher relations), they’d have been advocating PAR.
In a confusing twist, Robertson-Kraft ends up dismissing all the flaws in the reformers’ agenda—both substance and process: “[T]he real problem,” she writes, “is the polarization that this debate has caused among advocates….Now is not the time to point fingers, but to explore common ground and find ways to productively harness this [reform] energy.” No, that’s too simple. Robertson-Kraft’s criticisms of the reformers’ process, which I listed at the beginning of this response, are very real problems. Believing in a silver bullet, rolling out initiatives much too quickly, and using a top-down approach have contributed to policies that undermine learning, weaken public schools, and make teaching an undesirable profession.
Some ed reformers deflect criticism by admitting all the problems (yes, VAM is unreliable; yes, there’s too much testing; yes…) as if acknowledging flaws neutralizes them; then they press ahead with the same agenda. Robertson-Kraft does essentially this and then urges everyone to explore common ground. I certainly don’t oppose that exploration, but I see it as Robertson-Kraft’s job (along with likeminded colleagues), not mine. She “spends quite a bit of time with the ‘reform camp,'” she finds some value in the substance of the policies, and so she’s positioned to help reformers improve their approach. I see my job as investigating the reform movement, informing readers of what I find, and making my objections clear.
-Joanne Barkan
