A letter from a teacher to parents

Dear Parents of children I have taught,

There is a new system that is steamrolling into our school district,
into our classrooms, and into the relationships that I have with each
of my students. This system, driven by standardized tests, will
change the classroom environment dramatically. I am asking for you to
make your voices heard on this issue.

As you may already know, Seattle Public Schools is prioritizing its
focus and funding on ways to make teachers “more accountable” by
linking student test scores to teacher evaluation and compensation.
But the elephant in the room is: Are these high quality tests? Do we
want teachers to give them highest priority? Tests such as the
Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) test finite skills, which can
be useful for a teacher in designing instruction, but let’s not be
misled: it does not test how an individual child is developing skills
of critical thinking, creativity and problem solving, or independent
and teamwork skills—cornerstone qualities of the most successful
members of our society.

As a successful lifelong learner myself, I naturally need feedback in
many forms to evaluate my teaching so I can continuously improve.
However, this move to emphasize test results to evaluate and
compensate teachers is setting students up to be shortchanged.
Teachers will be forced to teach a narrower set of skills, focusing on
test-measured forms of “success”. Class time for music, arts, social
studies, science, research, and physical education will continue to
dwindle as long as the focus on testing is largely in reading and
math. I have already seen this happen throughout the district at the
elementary level, especially in schools with higher poverty rates
where students tend to test poorly and the pressure to raise test
scores is intense.

Even testing logistics have a negative impact on learning. In
buildings throughout the
district, the entire school is denied access to precious library
resources for 9 weeks out of
the 36 weeks of the year to allow for MAP testing three times a year:
that’s 25% of the
year! On top of that, often teachers and principals decide that kids
need more practice with standardized test taking on the computers in
order to succeed on these high-stakes tests. Children will see
libraries as testing centers rather than as places to expand their
learning through research and be inspired by great books.

What about teacher evaluation?

All students deserve talented, effective, inspiring teachers. We need
an evaluation system that encourages teachers to engage children in
critical thinking and in creative problem solving, as opposed to a
system focused on multiple choice test taking. A new evaluation
system was developed collaboratively over the last few years by the
Seattle Education Association and Seattle Public Schools and piloted
in several Seattle schools, and was shown to be a useful and effective
evaluation system to judge the effectiveness of teachers. It also gave
principals the power to put those teachers who demonstrated
ineffective teaching skills on probation. This system is an exciting
new development for our teachers and administrators, something that
many saw as a very promising step forward to building successful
schools.

But then Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson acted unilaterally in adding
the test based evaluation system to this new collaboratively-developed
system

After 15 meetings of the contract negotiation teams, Seattle Public
Schools introduced a new addition to the collaboratively developed
evaluation system, reducing the new system to 50% of a teacher’s
evaluation, and announcing 35-45% of the teacher’s evaluation would be
tied to student performance on standardized tests, most significantly
the new MAP test. This 11th hour addition to the contract negotiations
is called SERVE. These are just a few of my concerns:

* The MAP test was brought to the district in a no-bid contract.
Not having an alternate bid for many contracts is an embarrassing
critique outlined in the federal audit of SPS, recently published.
* Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson sits on the board of the
company that makes the MAP test, and did not disclose that before the
contract was approved.
* Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), the company that makes
the MAP test, states the test was never designed as a tool to evaluate
teachers.
* $4 million price tag to roll out this system includes money for
the test and for more administrators to oversee the program--- money
that won’t go to our children’s classrooms.
* Honest and thoughtful evaluations can’t be that easy! The SERVE
plan hands teacher evaluation over to a computer.

Do we want computerized tests at the core of what our teachers teach
and what our children learn?

What Can You Do?

Come to the Board Meeting at John Stanford Center for Educational
Excellence (JSCEE) on August 18.

Talk and write to everyone you know about your feelings. Write to The
Seattle Times and neighborhood papers. Email or call Superintendent
Goodloe-Johnson at superintendent@seattleschools.org or 206-252-0167

Contact the School Board members and tell them your concerns with the
SERVE proposal and the direction it would take our schools. Seattle
School Board email addresses:

superindendent@seattleschools.org; peter.maier@seattleschools.org

,
sherry.carr@seattleschools.org; harium.martin-
morris@seattleschools.org; michael.debell@seattleschools.org;
betty.patu@seattleschools.org; steve.sundquist@seattleschools.org;
kay.smith-blum@seattleschools.org; pjoakes@seattleschools.org;
mcrain@washingtonea.org

Thank you for participating in public education; it is the foundation
of our democratic society.

Focus on Growth or Focus on Punishment?

Make your voice heard!

Join Seattle Education Association peers and community
members at Wednesday’s Seattle School Board meeting. Meet at 5:20 p.m. Aug. 18 at the District’s John Stanford Center for
Educational Excellence, 2445 3rd Avenue S. in Seattle.

Attend the SEA general membership meeting, 4:30 p.m., Sept. 2

at Seattle Pacific University, Royal Brougham Pavillion

3414 Third Ave. West, Seattle

For the past two years, Seattle educators have worked hand in hand with top district administrators to create a new model for growth and evaluation that focuses on helping Seattle’s students succeed. Now our superintendent is attempting a last-minute end-run around that collaborative process by demanding that teacher evaluations be tied to student test scores. So what’s in the Professional Growth and Evaluation plan (PG&E) that was developed jointly by SEA and the district? Why is it a historic change, how does it benefit students and help close the achievement gap?

It makes student progress the foundation of teachers’ professional growth

· All certificated teachers will set annual student achievement goals which are specific and measurable.

· Using the Professional Practice Standards as a guide, teachers will set professional growth goals to help obtain student achievement goals.

· Recognizes clearly that "Student growth data shall be relevant to the teacher and subject matter, and must be based on multiple measures that may include classroom based, district based, and state based assessments as well as, attendance, discipline data, mobility and completion (course or year) rates of students. Student growth means the change in student achievement between two points in time."

· The joint PG&E plan focuses on student achievement goals AND linking Professional goals that enhance our professional teaching practice. SERVE sets student achievement goals without accountability for enhancing professional practice.

It helps take the guesswork and bias out of educators’ evaluations

· Uses clear standards based on four domains from the research of Charlotte Danielson that have been tried and tested in other districts where improvement has been documented. The four domains are: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instructional Skill and Professional Responsibility.

· Sets clear indicators of acceptable performance based on standards within each domain.

· Culturally relevant practices are integrated in all four domains.

· Establishes a four-level rating system: Innovative, Proficient, Basic and Unsatisfactory.

It increases the level of accountability for educators with a focus on great teachers in every classroom

· For newer educators, it increases the number of required observations and conferences by administrators.

· Requires any teachers not in the top two levels in any domain – Proficient or Innovative – to be on a Plan of Support.

· Improvement plans are clearly defined for administrators and educators.

· Establishes a support system in the form of Human Resource Consulting Teachers to assist educators who are on Performance Improvement Plans.

· Maintains probationary process for either improvement or dismissal for those deemed Unsatisfactory in any of the four domains.

· PG & E would be phased in beginning this year to replace the current evaluation system while ensuring that it is implemented with fidelity. It would be fully implemented by 2013-2014.

· All teachers will participate in collaborative groups called Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s).

· Enhances collaborative work amongst educators focused on the academic achievement of students with an emphasis on culturally relevant practice.

It uses student test data for teacher growth, not punishment

· Educators are professionals and believe in accountability. The joint plan negotiated with the district mirrors the state’s goals to use test data correctly to improve teaching, and it has the support of Seattle’s educators.

· The big difference? The state plan means teachers will be evaluated on their ability to use the student data to modify their instruction (which happens every day in the classroom) and, unlike SERVE, would not misuse student assessment results to deem teachers “good or bad.”

· In addition to test data, SERVE would also rely on student surveys at the high school level. This ignores that some students may lack the sophistication to provide detailed qualitative feedback on instructional techniques. For instance, is a teacher “mean” or does that teacher simply set high standards and hold students accountable? In an era of instant communications, students could easily organize a negative evaluation for even great teachers whom they simply don’t like. The likely outcome of SERVE is skewed data that would not be reliable for high-stakes personnel decisions.

Learn more at www.SeattleWEA.org

SEA member video

Why Merit Pay and Tying Test Scores to Evaluations is not Appropriate

SEA is Focused on Quality Education for Students

Seattle teachers are on the brink of adopting historic changes that could increase student achievement, help close the achievement gap and increase teacher accountability through a jointly developed evaluation system. But Seattle District leaders are risking throwing all that away, publicly trying to goad teachers into a strike, all to achieve reforms that don’t pass the common sense test.

We’re focused on quality teaching and providing accountability
• Seattle educators want to make sure there is a great teacher in every classroom.
• Educators and district leaders have worked together to create a plan that increases teacher accountability and focuses on student performance. Under the new plan, it will no longer be OK to just get by: teachers will face specific measures unless they’re in the top two proficiency levels.
• Accountability also increases for administrators, who will now have standards on which to judge teachers. because The joint SEA/district agreement provides a standards-based, four-level rating system (Innovative, Proficient, Basic, and Unsatisfactory).
• Any employee not in the top two proficiency tiers will get a plan of assistance. If they cannot improve and become proficient, even employees with a “basic” rating would enter the probation process. That’s a new and higher threshold that educators must meet.
• These changes, which were developed collaboratively, have been jointly proposed to the bargaining team by SEA leaders and top district administrators. They could be implemented when school starts this fall. But that agreement is now stalled because the district superintendent wants to unilaterally change the proposal.
• The collaborative plan uses methods that are tested, proven and research-based.

We don’t agree that tests results should be misused
• Students are more than test scores.
• The key difference between the superintendent’s plan and the joint agreement developed by the district and educators is how to most effectively use test results to improve instruction.
• Tests are designed to understand how well a student understands a particular topic on a particular day, and serve as a basis to guide instruction. Education professionals understand classroom tests are not designed to rank teachers. Seattle’s superintendent proposes to misuse student test scores as a basis for employee evaluation. The jointly developed plan by the district and Seattle’s educators would use student test scores, but in an appropriate role as one of numerous indicators to help channel a teacher’s professional growth.
• You don’t have to decide who to believe on this issue: Even the testing companies state that the tests were not designed to determine teacher performance.
• Placing an even greater emphasis on test scores is likely to have unintended consequences. If jobs depend on tests, human nature will be to teach more to the test. That can only further narrow the curriculum at a time when options are already disappearing because of budget cuts.

Educators believe students learn best in a professional setting that fosters trust and collaboration
• Seattle’s educators are ready to follow through with the plan jointly developed with the district, but the superintendent is now obstructing that agreement.
• In contrast to the joint plan that was developed collaboratively, the superintendent deliberately waited until Seattle’s educators left town for the summer before presenting her first comprehensive draft of the SERVE proposal. Seattle educators and district negotiators already had met for nearly 15 bargaining sessions.The superintendent would divert $4 million to create a computer system that spits out employee evaluations. These millions would be better used to supply direct student services, instead of foolishly attempting to automate a process as individualized as teacher evaluations.

Resources:
1. Professional Growth and Evaluation Joint Task Force’s self assessment tool modeled after the work of Charlotte Danielson: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/pge.pdf
2. Charlotte Danielson’s work: http://www.danielsongroup.org/theframeteach.htm
3. SPS’s SERVE proposal: http://www.seattleschools.org/area/laborrelations/20100804_Summary_of_SPS_Proposals_for_Certificated_Staff.pdf
4. SEA’s research-based proposals: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/researchproposal.pdf
5. SEA’s message to members about the “Truth about SERVE”: http://www.seattlewea.org/static_content/bargainupdate7.pdf
6. Professor Daniel Willingham explains the pitfalls of linking student test scores to teacher evaluations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uONqxysWEk8
7. Northwest Evaluation Association: http://www.nwea.org/
8. The Jointly Proposed changes to the evaluation system: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1AVwZIyYU-i2aAbQCSjC-u2pHoFOpSX3pb48ev06prZw&hl=en#

SEA Response to Superintendent's communication to staff re: bargaining

August 3, 2010 The TRUTH about SERVE Seattle (Please read and pass on) Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson and Board Member Steve Sundquist sent all certificated staff an email tonight. The email contains and describes what they are calling SERVE Seattle. It is the district’s bargaining proposal that ties student growth based on test scores to certificated evaluations. The SEA held five focus group meetings last week to get input on the district’s proposal. We had over 200 certificated employees present at the focus group meetings, representing 57 schools and programs. Now the superintendent believes that if she just emails each of you; maybe you will put pressure on SEA and the bargaining team to go the way the district wants us to. The truth of the matter is that the email they sent you leaves out important details. Based on what our members told us at building visits, through the bargaining survey, and at last week’s focus groups, the SEA Bargaining Team will listen to its members and continue to say NO to SERVE Seattle! Here is the truth: ● They say the district is “working together with your SEA representatives to make sure that everyteacher gets the tools, time, support, and opportunity needed to help students succeed.” The truth is that SEA has raised the issue of giving teacher’s support around class size/caseload and workload. SEA wants to make sure that you have the tools, time, support, and opportunities needed to help students succeed. SEA has made proposals that are research-based that we know can work to close the achievement gap and raise student academic achievement. Our proposal is in concert with a recent report by leading national civil rights groups. ● They say that significant change is happening in education throughout the country, and they are committed to a thoughtful, fair, and collaborative approach that benefits from lessons learned in other districts and builds on their success here in Seattle. The truth is SERVE was not developed in a thoughtful, fair, and collaborative approach. They only argue that others are using it, not that it works. We know that they use something similar in Washington, DC where 241 teachers were just fired in one swoop, while over 700 others were put on notice. ● They say SERVE gives teachers and other staff large blocks of collaborative time. The truth is that in exchange for 2 hours of collaboration time every other Friday beginning in 2011-12, you will teach students for 12 minutes longer each of the other nine days prior. The truth is that of the 19 days they offer for collaboration, 5 are district directed, 7 are principal directed, and only 7 are staff directed. ● They say SERVE gives career opportunities which will be available at every school with stipends. The truth is that they are not available until 2012-13 and only 3-4 teachers at each school will have the opportunity to partake in them. Teachers would have to opt in to SERVE and be at the highest level in all four domains of the new proposed evaluation tool. Although site based hiring would take place, principals will make the final decision on who gets the positions. ● They say SERVE offers support for new and developing teachers, almost doubling the number of STAR mentors to support professional growth in instructional practice. The truth is that the joint SEA and SPS STAR Panel made the recommendation to improve the STAR program and it was not originally tied to SERVE. ● They say SERVE will provide detailed information about student outcomes to help teachers understand the effects of their practice on all students they serve. The truth is that MAP already provides you with detailed information and SERVE does not enhance that in any way. The truth is that these reports will also be tied to your evaluation. ● They say SERVE will provide significant dollars focused on helping principals support struggling teachers by connecting them to relevant professional development, coaching and mentoring opportunities; and doubling the number of HR consulting teachers to support those on performance improvement plans. The truth is that it was the joint STAR panel that developed the language for doubling HR consulting teachers. The truth is they will offer a fund of $500 per teacher evaluated unsatisfactory in 2012-13 to help pay for principal suggested professional development and release time for other teachers to assist them. The truth is that our evaluation proposal, which was jointly developed by an SEA and SPS task force, also gives teachers support when they need it without SERVE. ● They say SERVE will recognize the critical work performed in our most challenging schools, by offering stipends to strong-performing teachers in our lowest performing schools. The truth is that teachers will have to be at the highest level in two domains of the proposed evaluation tool to get the service stipend. All other teachers working in the most challenging schools will not get anything extra even if you are working hard to help students achieve. The truth is that teachers will have to have their evaluations tied to student growth using test scores. The truth is that the district’s proposal gives them the discretion to change the eligibility criteria depending on funding availability. ● They say the “four-tier” evaluation system developed by the joint SEA and SPS task force is mandatory and will be rolled out over the next two year in all schools. The truth is that the roll out of the new evaluation system HAS TO BE BARGAINED. The district cannot make a unilateral decision of when to roll it out. The new state law requires it be in place by 2013-2014. We are willing to BARGAIN the roll out and have a proposal on the table to make sure it gets rolled out effectively. ● They say SERVE allows a teacher to choose when to tie their evaluation to student growth outcomes and peer and student feedback. They will give those who opt in fully to SERVE an immediate 1% increase to TRI. The truth is that those who decide not to opt in would make less money this year than last year due to the state taking away our final learning improvement day and you will have no increase in compensation over the life of their proposed three year contract. The district has told us at the table that you have received big enough raises over the last five years and thus do not need any increase in your compensation over the next three years. The truth is that even though the economy may not be at its best, every teacher in our 11 comparable districts except for Highline will be making at least the same amount of money as this past school year and most will be making more. ● They say in the email that those teachers who opt in will receive targeted support if they are struggling. The truth is that the proposed professional growth and evaluation system provided by the joint SEA and SPS task force gives ALL teachers who are struggling some targeted support. ● They say that SERVE will use a reliable and balanced set of measures to foster professional growth, including measures determined by teachers themselves. The truth is that the goals that teachers set would have to be determined by you, along with your peers in a professional learning community and then have to be approved by your administrator. There are no measures in SERVE that you have authority to determine by yourself. The joint SEA and SPS developed proposal did allow for individuals to set their own goals or use the reflective nature of a professional learning community. ● They say SERVE uses multiple measures that would capture performance in student learning outcomes and growth. The truth is that the outcomes and growth would be based only on student test scores on MAP, the new state MSP, and end of course assessments. The truth is that only teachers of tested subjects will have to fulfill this requirement which is 25% of their overall evaluation. They will be held to a different standard than their peers who teach in non-tested subjects. ● They say SERVE uses multiple measures and the overall school performance would be part of your evaluation. The truth is that your evaluation will now be based partly on how others in the school perform. You will now be evaluated on other people’s work and not just your own. ● They say SERVE uses multiple measures and would capture performance in service to and collaboration with peers and students. The truthis that the district wants to survey your students, parents, and even your colleagues and then include those survey results as part of your evaluation. ● They say in the upcoming year, teachers and administrators will work together in a joint committee designed to finalize details of the evaluation system and the supports offered to teachers. They say the new multi-faceted evaluation tool will be “fair, comprehensive, and reliable”. The truth is that this is a proposal of theirs and it would have to be bargained. The truth is that we proposed that the district use the SIG schools and a blind study of those members piloting the new “four-tier” evaluation system to see if the evaluation and student growth coincide. They told us they have “confidence” that their SERVE proposal would be “fair and reliable” and do now want to do any study. ● They say they will roll out SERVE in 2011-12 as a tool for professional development and growth. The truth is that the proposed professional growth and evaluation that was jointly developed by the SEA and SPS task force truly is a tool for professional development and growth. The truthis that the district is looking to mechanize evaluations and automate the firing of teachers. ● They say they remain committed to a collaborative process at the negotiation table. The truth is that last week, the superintendent told a representative of the Washington Policy Center that with the failure of the collaborative approach, the district will now be engaged in classic, and contentious, union/management negotiations, a process that will take many months. When asked whether the District was preparing for a possible strike, her answer was, yes, but I’m not at liberty to give out details. The truth is that SEA has been willing to collaborate around areas that will truly help close the academic achievement gap and help raise student achievement. SERVE DOES NOT meet this need. ● They say that providing all teachers the opportunity to improve their practice is the pathway to increased student achievement. The truth is that we definitely agree with this. Improving professional practice is ONE way of increasing student achievement. The joint SEA and SPS evaluation task force has proposed language that will help teachers improve their professional practice. It uses a standards based “four-tier” evaluation tool that is linked to improving student academic achievement. The district, itself, has provided research studies that show there is a correlation between the standards based evaluation tool and student academic performance. We want to give the jointly developed evaluation system a try. The jointly proposed system is designed to create a culture of continuous improvement. SERVE does not. Their mechanized system is one of minimal rewards and automated punishments. ● They say nothing in their email about the cost of SERVE. The truth is it will cost over $3.9 million dollars over the next four years. The truth is that part of this cost includes hiring 3 new managers. The truth is that the $3.9 million dollars is strictly for operational costs to put SERVE in place; it does not include any of the stipends for career ladders, stipends for working in low performing schools, or the 1% increase for opting in to the program. SERVE Seattle does not serve students, families, or educators! Go to the SEA website at www.seattlewea.org and see the district’s SERVE proposal.