Schools chief suggests changes  

State Superintendent of Education John White said that, while he is a firm believer in teacher evaluations, he plans to recommend modest changes in how the reviews work.

However, leaders of the Louisiana Association of Educators, one of the state’s two largest teacher unions, are stepping up their criticism of the 3-year-old evaluations and especially their reliance on standardized test scores for half of a teacher’s rating.

LAE President Joyce Haynes said her group is prepared to carry the fight to the courtroom, as they have done to challenge a bill pushed by White and Gov. Bobby Jindal that expands the state’s voucher system.

“The LAE is prepared to do it lawsuit by lawsuit,” Haynes said.

The evaluations, which are being used in the current school year, stem from a 2010 state law pushed by Jindal.

They are touted as a way to improve student achievement through more rigorous teacher reviews. Virtually every teacher won satisfactory marks under the previous system.

Under the plan, half of a teacher’s review is based on the growth of student achievement, which for many teachers is linked to standardized tests such as LEAP and iLEAP.

The other half stems from classroom observations by principals and others.

Students who show gains under the state’s model, regardless where they started, generally mean their teachers will get satisfactory ratings.

Those rated as “ineffective” for two years in a row are subject to dismissal.

White said that approach is the right way to go.

“The purpose of teaching is for students to grow, and so it is important to measure the growth of students when we measure how effective a teacher is,” he said.

However, White said pilot projects in various school districts since 2010, and comments since the reviews were started during the current school, will lead him to recommend changes to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, likely in January.

One such adjustment, he said, is to let teachers have a detailed look at the student’s previous academic record at the start of the school year.

“Give teachers all of the data at the start of the year, so the teacher can see what progress looks like,” White said.

Educators also need video links and other options to see how top-flight teachers operate in the classroom, according to the superintendent.

“They (teachers) have been saying over the course of the year: Give me a clearer understanding of what excellence looks like,” he said.

In a third area, White said school principals need more discretion in rating teacher performance, especially in schools with lots of high-achieving students that, critics say, are harder to show year-to-year improvements.

“These are teachers who have done their jobs,” he said. “So people are saying why not give the principal greater discretion to use not just test scores, but other means of evaluating teachers.”

Leaders of some schools, including Westdale Heights Academic Magnet School in Baton Rouge, have said teachers are liable to get poor ratings when high-scoring students fail to show improvements over the previous year.

Yet Haynes and other critics, who opposed the 2010 law, said the problems go deeper than any tweaks can address.

Linking teacher performance in part to tests like LEAP and iLEAP is a mistake, she said.

“I just want someone to make the case against standardized tests,” Haynes said.

Michael Walker-Jones, executive director of the LAE, criticized the use of test results to gauge whether teachers helped students improve in the previous year.

“None of them was designed to judge the performance of the teacher,” Walker-Jones said of the exams.

Michael Deshotels, who was executive director of the LAE from 1995-98, said that, just as in state ratings of Louisiana’s roughly 1,300 public schools, poverty is often overlooked in analyzing student test scores.

He said data shows a clear link between low rates of students from poor families and high-scoring schools and high rates of poor students and schools rated D or F by the state.

“All the testing experts know that student scores vary greatly no matter what school they attend and that students from poor neighborhoods score worse than those from wealthy neighborhoods,” wrote Deshotels, who runs an education-related blog.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (3)


1) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 02/01/2013

Nice to see that The Advocate has reopened the comments after most people have stopped coming to see them. Way to go! I notice that sever other key education-related articles were also denied comments. Every major research group has found major flaws in Value Added Measurements, and these range from outright condemnation of this faulty process (basically, they are using tests designed for one purpose to be used for a purpose for which they are not valid at all) to suggestions that any use of VAM be temporized by having them account for a minimum of a teacher's evaluation. As pointed out below, these faulty measures (the formula for the LA VAM has NEVER been released. Other states are transparent about them, and the resulting data. NOT Louisiana. What are they hiding?) actually account for 100% of the real effect on teachers. The way the system is set up, a low or "ineffective" immediately removes tenure for a teacher. Without that, there is no real recourse for a teacher who resists an administrator's advances, and then decides to get rid of her. Or a teacher who questions an administration policy is suddenly terminated with no effective recourse under the new law. So the claim that the VAM is "balanced by another half of the evaluation system is, well, basically another lie by the reformers.

2) Comment by twinkie1cat - 30/12/2012

No one ever wants to address the issue of special education in teacher evaluations. I am not talking about those students rightfully attending regular classes with 504 plans or IEPS that are able to address their needs in the mainstream. I am talking about those who are resourced, who see a special ed teacher most of the day and who cannot keep up with the work in regular classes and need a modified academic curriculum. I am also talking about those who are on a functional curriculum including the moderately, severely, profoundly and multiply disabled and those with severe autism or severe emotional disturbances. First of all most of these students should not be taking the LEAP or ILEAP with the expectation that they will perform on grade level. They are not going to because the are cognitively disabled, best known as mentally retarded. Secondly, no regular ed. teacher, principal with a regular ed. background, or even a lead teacher with a mild disabilities background is going to have any idea what she is looking at in a severe-profound or even a moderate class. Only another severe teacher would. The students could be totally attentive and doing what they are supposed to be doing and the principal would not even know. But if they have a good teacher they make progress, good progress. Is special ed going to get worked over by this so- called value added concept. All are children are valuable and any special ed teacher worth her salt can get them to learn. Are we to be penalized because we cannot cure their disability??? I can see that happening under such a program. And wow, a cure for mental retardation and autism. What kind of miracle would that be?

3) Comment by Iamhopeful2 - 30/12/2012

If the Value Added teacher evaluation system designed By Dr. Noell who no longer works for LDOE is not junked there will definitely be a court challenge. Expert analysis of his work has revealed glaring flaws in the methodology, some of which is acknowledged by Noell himself. National studies have agreed that the use of high stakes standardized tests used this way are not valid. There is no one at the Dept of Ed who can explain or justify the metric. Legislators who passed the law allowing its use do not understand the measure. None has attempted to explain it or asked for it to be explained as far as I know. And yet the law under this system says that the lowest 10% of teachers will be rated as ineffective every year. The law states that regardless of the rating given a teacher on the other half of the evaluation performance, if the teacher scores 1.9 or below out of 5 on the student test portion that the teacher will be rated ineffective. Keep in mind that the teacher nor her evaluators will get to see the student tests that determined his/her fate. Regardless of the accuracy of the data and the data base system there is no way to know if or where an error is made. Just as there have been errors in student test result reporting on numerous occasions in numerous locations, there will be errors in this system. Children have been prevented from graduating or passing due to errors. The media have verified those events. Does it make any sense at all that this system be used ?