Knox Leaders Demand State Accountability on TNReady

Education leaders in Knox County called on the Tennessee Department of Education to take responsibility for the latest round of TNReady troubles.

The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports:

The Tennessee Department of Education is to blame for more than 9,400 incorrectly scored TNReady tests, the Knox County school board chair said Monday.

“If I had one entity to blame, it would be the department of education,” Chair Patti Bounds said Monday. “They still haven’t taken any responsibility. Last time they blamed the vendor and we got a new vendor.

“We’ll see who they blame this time — not themselves. No reflection there.”

Lauren Hopson, immediate past president of the Knox County Education Association, added:

“Our state department of education, our state school board, and our legislators must be held accountable for this continuing debacle,” said Lauren Hopson, past president of KCEA. “If they have a problem being held accountable for the services of another entity, then they finally understand how teachers have been evaluated in the state for years.”

Stay tuned as the legislature conducts hearings and teachers, parents, and school leaders wait for the Department of Education to accept responsibility.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

A Lot of Words

The Murfreesboro City School Board has already expressed concern about the state’s TNReady tests and the delay in receiving results.

More recently, Board members expressed frustration with the response they received from Education Commissioner Candice McQueen.

The Murfreesboro Post reports:

“I felt like it was a lot of words for not really answering our questions,” said Board Member Jared Barrett. He referred to the response as having “excuses” and “dodging the question.”

“My first response when I read this letter was that there’s something in here that doesn’t add up,” said Board Member Phil King. “My fear is they haven’t solved the problem of getting the paper tests in our hands in a timely manner.”

King suggested moving away from using TNReady in teacher evaluations until the state can prove it can get results back to districts in a timely manner.

The Murfreesboro School Board meeting happened before the most recent round of TNReady troubles, with some students receiving incorrect scores and some teachers not having students properly counted in their TVAAS scores.

In response to those issues, House Speaker Beth Harwell has called for hearings on the issue of state testing.

Additionally, yesterday, the United Education Association of Shelby County called for TNReady scores for this year to be invalidated and for a moratorium on including TNReady scores in accountability measures until 2021.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Dear Educator

The Tennessee Department of Education explains the case of the missing students as some 900 teachers see their TVAAS scores recalculated.

Here’s the email those educators were sent:

Dear Educator,

We wanted to share an update with you regarding your individual TVAAS data.

The department has processed about 1.5 million records to generate individual TVAAS scores for nearly 19,000 educators based on the assessment results from over 1.9 million student tests in grades 2-8 and high school. During the review process with districts, we found that a small number of educators did not have all of their teacher-student claiming linkage records fully processed in data files released in early September. All linkage data that was captured in EdTools directly was fully incorporated as expected. However, due to a coding error in their software, our data processing vendor, RANDA Solutions, did not fully apply the linkage information that districts provided in supplemental Excel files over the summer. As a result, we are working with Randa to ensure that this additional data is included in final TVAAS processing.

 

You have been identified as an educator with some linkage data submitted via an Excel file that was not fully processed. This means after our statistical analysis vendor, SAS, receives these additional linkage records your score may be revised to reflect all the students you identified in the teacher-student claiming process. Only students marked “F” for instructional availability are used when calculating individual TVAAS data. Based on our records, there will be [X] additional students marked “F” for instructional availability linked to you when the additional data is incorporated.

 

Your district’s and school’s TVAAS scores are not affected by this situation given that all students are included in these metrics, regardless of which teacher is linked to them, so no other part of your evaluation composite would change. Moreover, only those teachers with this additional linkage data in Excel files are impacted, so the vast majority of your colleagues across the state have their final individual TVAAS composites, which are inclusive of all student data.

 

We expect to share your final growth score and overall level of effectiveness later this year. While we do not have more specific timing to share right now, we are expediting this process with our vendors to get you accurate feedback. We will follow-up with more detailed information in the next couple of weeks. Also, as announced to districts earlier this month, the department and your districts will be using new systems and processes this year that will ensure that this type of oversight does not happen again.

 

Thank you for your patience as we work to share complete and accurate feedback for you. We deeply value each Tennessee educator and apologize for this delay in providing your final TVAAS results. Please contact our office via the email address below if you have any questions.

 

Respectfully,

 

Office of Assessment Logistics

Tennessee Department of Education

A few things stand out about this communication:

  1. Tennessee continues to experience challenges with the rollout of TNReady. That’s to be expected, but it begs the question: Why are we rushing this? Why not take some time, hit pause, and get this right?
  2. The Department says, “Thank you for your patience as we work to share complete and accurate feedback for you.” If accurate feedback was important, the state would take the time to build a value-added data set based on TNReady. This would take three to five years, but would improve the accuracy of the information provided to educators. As it stands, the state is comparing apples to oranges and generating value-added scores of little real value.
  3. On the topic of value-added data generally, it is important to note that even with a complete data set, TVAAS data is of limited value in terms of evaluating teacher effectiveness. A recent federal lawsuit settlement in Houston ended the use of value-added data for teacher evaluation there. Additionally, a judge in New York ruled the use of value-added data in teacher evaluation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
  4.  When will teachers have access to this less than accurate data? Here’s what the TDOE says, “We expect to share your final growth score and overall level of effectiveness later this year. While we do not have more specific timing to share right now, we are expediting this process with our vendors to get you accurate feedback.” Maybe they aren’t setting a clear deadline because they have a track record of missing deadlines?
  5. It’s amazing to me that a teacher’s “overall level of effectiveness” can only be determined once TVAAS data is included in their evaluation score. It’s as if there’s no other way to determine an overall level of a teacher’s effectiveness. Not through principal observation. Not through analysis of data points on student progress taken throughout the year. Not through robust peer-evaluation systems.
  6. Let’s assume for a moment that the “level of effectiveness” indicator is useful for teacher development. Providing that score “later” is not exactly helpful. Ideally, actionable insight would be provided to a teacher and his/her administrators near the end of a school year. This would allow for targeted professional development to address areas that need improvement. Of course, this assumes targeted PD is even available.
  7. Accountability. This is the latest in a series of mishaps related to the new testing regimen known as TNReady. Teachers are held accountable through their evaluation scores, and in some districts, their pay is tied to those scores. Schools and districts are held accountable for growth and achievement scores and must develop School Improvement Plans to target areas of weakness. On the other hand, the Department of Education continues to make mistakes in the TNReady transition and no one is held accountable.

The email to impacted teachers goes to great lengths to establish the enormous scope of the TNReady transition. Lots of tests, lots of students, not too many mistakes. If this were the only error so far in the TNReady process, all could be forgiven. Instead, it is the latest in a long line of bumps. Perhaps it will all smooth out in time. Which only makes the case for hitting pause all the stronger.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Muddy Waters

Laura Faith Kebede of Chalkbeat reports on the challenges in generating reliable TVAAS scores as a result of TNReady trouble last year. Her story cites a statistician from the Center for Assessment who explains the issue this way:

Damian Betebenner, a senior associate at Center for Assessment that regularly consults with state departments, said missing data on top of a testing transition “muddies the water” on results.

“When you look at growth over two years, so how much the student grew from third to fifth grade, then it’s probably going to be a meaningful quantity,” he said. “But to then assert that it isolates the school contribution becomes a pretty tenuous assertion… It adds another thing that’s changing underneath the scene.”

In other words, it’s difficult to get a meaningful result given the current state of testing in Tennessee. I wrote recently about this very issue and the problem with the validity of the growth scores this year.

Additionally, two years ago, I pointed out the challenges the state would face when shifting to a new test. Keep in mind, this was before all the TNReady trouble that further muddied the waters. Here’s what I said in March of 2015:

Here’s the problem: There is no statistically valid way to predict expected growth on a new test based on the historic results of TCAP. First, the new test has (supposedly) not been fully designed. Second, the test is in a different format. It’s both computer-based and it contains constructed-response questions. That is, students must write-out answers and/or demonstrate their work.

Since Tennessee has never had a test like this, it’s impossible to predict growth at all. Not even with 10% confidence. Not with any confidence. It is the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.

The way to address this issue? Build multiple years of data in order to obtain reliable results:

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable. As more years of data become available, it may be possible to make some correlation between past TCAP results and TNReady scores.

So, now we have two challenges: We have two different types of tests AND we have a missing year of data. Either one of these challenges creates statistical problems. The combination of the two calls for a serious reset of the state’s approach to accountability.

As I suggested yesterday, taking the time to get this right would mean not using the TNReady data for accountability for teachers, students, or schools until 2019 at the earliest. If our state is committed to TNReady, we should be committed to getting it right. We’re spending a lot of money on both TNReady and on TVAAS. If we’re going to invest in these approaches, we should also take the time to be sure that investment yields useful, reliable information.

Why does any of this matter? Because, as Kebede points out:

At the same time, TVAAS scores for struggling schools will be a significant factor to determine which improvement tracks they will be be placed on under the state’s new accountability system as outlined in its plan to comply with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. For some schools, their TVAAS score will be the difference between continuing under a local intervention model or being eligible to enter the state-run Achievement School District. The school growth scores will also determine which charter schools are eligible for a new pot of state money for facilities.

TVAAS scores also count in teacher evaluations. TNReady scores were expected to count in student grades until the quick scores weren’t back in time. If all goes well with the online administration of TNReady this year, the scores will count for students.

The state says TNReady matters. The state evaluates schools based on TVAAS scores. The state teacher evaluation formula includes TVAAS scores for teachers and TNReady scores as one measure of achievement that can be selected.

In short: Getting this right matters.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Seeping Scores Sour School Board

Members of the Murfreesboro City School Board are not happy with the slow pace of results coming from the state’s new TNReady test. All seven elected board members sent a letter to Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen expressing their concerns.

The Daily News Journal reports:

“However, currently those test scores seep ever-so-slowly back to their source of origin from September until January,” the letter states. “And every year, precious time is lost. We encourage you to do everything possible to get test results — all the test results — to schools in a timely manner.

“We also encourage you to try to schedule distribution of those results at one time so that months are not consumed in interpreting, explaining and responding to those results,” the letter continued.

A Department of Education spokesperson suggested the state wants the results back sooner, too:

“We know educators, families and community members want these results so they can make key decisions and improve, and we want them to be in their hands as soon as possible,” Gast said.. “We, at the department, also desire these results sooner.”

Of course, this is the same department that continues to have trouble releasing quick score data in time for schools to use it in student report cards. In fact, this marked the fourth consecutive year there’s been a problem with end of year data — either timely release of that data or clear calculation of the data.

TDOE spokesperson Sara Gast went further in distancing the department from blame, saying:

Local schools should go beyond TNReady tests in determining student placement and teacher evaluations, Gast said.

“All personnel decisions, including retaining, placing, and paying educators, are decisions that are made locally, and they are not required to be based on TNReady results,” Gast said. “We hope that local leaders use multiple sources of feedback in making those determinations, not just one source, but local officials have discretion on their processes for those decisions.”

Here’s the problem with that statement: This is THE test. It is the test that determines a school’s achievement and growth score. It is THE test used to calculate an (albeit invalid) TVAAS score for teachers. It is THE test used in student report cards (when the quick scores come back on time). This is THE test.

Teachers are being asked RIGHT NOW to make choices about the achievement measure they will be evaluated on for their 2017-18 TEAM evaluation. One choice: THE test. The TNReady test. But there aren’t results available to allow teachers and principals to make informed choices.

One possible solution to the concern expressed by the Murfreesboro School Board is to press the pause button. That is, get the testing right before using it for any type of accountability measure. Build some data in order to establish the validity of the growth scores. Administer the test, get the results back, and use the time to work out any challenges. Set a goal of 2019 to have full use of TNReady results.

Another solution is to move to a different set of assessments. Students in Tennessee spend a lot of time taking tests. Perhaps a set of assessments that was less time-consuming could allow for both more instructional time and more useful feedback. I’ve heard some educators suggest the ACT suite of assessments could be adapted in a way that’s relevant to Tennessee classrooms.

It will be interesting to see if more school districts challenge the Department of Education on the current testing situation.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Apples and Oranges

Here’s what Director of Schools Dorsey Hopson had to say amid reports that schools in his Shelby County district showed low growth according to recently released state test data:

Hopson acknowledged concerns over how the state compares results from “two very different tests which clearly are apples and oranges,” but he added that the district won’t use that as an excuse.

“Notwithstanding those questions, it’s the system upon which we’re evaluated on and judged,” he said.

State officials stand by TVAAS. They say drops in proficiency rates resulting from a harder test have no impact on the ability of teachers, schools and districts to earn strong TVAAS scores, since all students are experiencing the same change.

That’s all well and good, except when the system upon which you are evaluated is seriously flawed, it seems there’s an obligation to speak out and fight back.

Two years ago, ahead of what should have been the first year of TNReady, I wrote about the challenges of creating valid TVAAS scores while transitioning to a new test. TNReady was not just a different test, it was (is) a different type of test than the previous TCAP test. For example, it included constructed response questions instead of simply multiple choice bubble-in questions.

Here’s what I wrote:

Here’s the problem: There is no statistically valid way to predict expected growth on a new test based on the historic results of TCAP. First, the new test has (supposedly) not been fully designed. Second, the test is in a different format. It’s both computer-based and it contains constructed-response questions. That is, students must write-out answers and/or demonstrate their work.

Since Tennessee has never had a test like this, it’s impossible to predict growth at all. Not even with 10% confidence. Not with any confidence. It is the textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.

Here’s a statement from the academic article I cited to support this claim:

Here’s what Lockwood and McCaffrey (2007) had to say in the Journal of Educational Measurement:

We find that the variation in estimated effects resulting from the different mathematics achievement measures is large relative to variation resulting from choices about model specification, and that the variation within teachers across achievement measures is larger than the variation across teachers.
You get different value-added results depending on the type of test you use. That is, you can’t just say this is a new test but we’ll compare peer groups from the old test and see what happens. Plus, TNReady presents the added challenge of not having been fully administered last year, so you’re now looking at data from two years ago and extrapolating to this year’s results.
Of course, the company paid millions to crunch the TVAAS numbers says that this transition presents no problem at all. Here’s what their technical document has to say about the matter:
In 2015-16, Tennessee implemented new End-of-Course (EOC) assessments in math and English/language arts. Redesigned assessments in Math and English/language arts were also implemented in grades 3-8 during the 2016-17 school year. Changes in testing regimes occur at regular intervals within any state, and these changes need not disrupt the continuity and use of value-added reporting by educators and policymakers. Based on twenty years of experience with providing valueadded and growth reporting to Tennessee educators, EVAAS has developed several ways to accommodate changes in testing regimes.
Prior to any value-added analyses with new tests, EVAAS verifies that the test’s scaling properties are suitable for such reporting. In addition to the criteria listed above, EVAAS verifies that the new test is related to the old test to ensure that the comparison from one year to the next is statistically reliable. Perfect correlation is not required, but there should be a strong relationship between the new test and old test. For example, a new Algebra I exam should be correlated to previous math scores in grades seven and eight and to a lesser extent other grades and subjects such as English/language arts and science. Once suitability of any new assessment has been confirmed, it is possible to use both the historical testing data and the new testing data to avoid any breaks or delays in value-added reporting.
A couple of problems with this. First, there was NO complete administration of a new testing regime in 2015-16. It didn’t happen.
Second, EVAAS doesn’t get paid if there’s not a way to generate these “growth scores” so it is in their interest to find some justification for comparing the two very different tests.
Third, researchers who study value-added modeling are highly skeptical of the reliability of comparisons between different types of tests when it comes to generating value-added scores. I noted Lockwood and McCaffrey (2007) above. Here are some more:
John Papay (2011) did a similar study using three different reading tests, with similar results. He stated his conclusion as follows: [T]he correlations between teacher value-added estimates derived from three separate reading tests — the state test, SRI [Scholastic Reading Inventory], and SAT [Stanford Achievement Test] — range from 0.15 to 0.58 across a wide range of model specifications. Although these correlations are moderately high, these assessments produce substantially different answers about individual teacher performance and do not rank individual teachers consistently. Even using the same test but varying the timing of the baseline and outcome measure introduces a great deal of instability to teacher rankings.
Two points worth noting here: First, different tests yield different value-added scores. Second, even using the same test but varying the timing can create instability in growth measures.
Then, there’s data from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project, which included data from Memphis. In terms of reliability when using value-added among different types of tests, here’s what MET reported:
Once more, the MET study offered corroborating evidence. The correlation between value-added scores based on two different mathematics tests given to the same students the same year was only .38. For 2 different reading tests, the correlation was .22 (the MET Project, 2010, pp. 23, 25).
Despite the claims of EVAAS, the academic research raises significant concerns about extrapolating results from different types of tests. In short, when you move to a different test, you get different value-added results. As I noted in 2015:

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable. As more years of data become available, it may be possible to make some correlation between past TCAP results and TNReady scores.

Or, if the state is determined to use growth scores (and wants to use them with accuracy), they will wait several years and build completely new growth models based on TNReady alone. At least three years of data would be needed in order to build such a model.

Dorsey Hopson and other Directors of Schools should be pushing back aggressively. Educators should be outraged. After all, this unreliable data will be used as a portion of their teacher evaluations this year. Schools are being rated on a 1-5 scale based on a growth model grounded in suspect methods.

How much is this apple like last year’s orange? How much will this apple ever be like last year’s orange?

If we’re determined to use value-added modeling to measure school-wide growth or district performance, we should at least be determined to do it in a way that ensures valid, reliable results.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

It Doesn’t Matter Except When It Does

This year’s TNReady quick score setback means some districts will use the results in student report cards and some won’t. Of course, that’s nobody’s fault. 

One interesting note out of all of this came as Commissioner McQueen noted that quick scores aren’t what really matters anyway. Chalkbeat reports:

The commissioner emphasized that the data that matters most is not the preliminary data but the final score reports, which are scheduled for release in July for high schools and the fall for grades 3-8. Those scores are factored into teachers’ evaluations and are also used to measure the effectiveness of schools and districts.

“Not until you get the score report will you have the full context of a student’s performance level and strengths and weaknesses in relation to the standards,” she said.

The early data matters to districts, though, since Tennessee has tied the scores to student grades since 2011.

First, tying the quick scores to student grades is problematic. Assuming TNReady is a good, reliable test, we’d want the best results to be used in any grade calculation. Using pencil and paper this year makes that impossible. Even when we switch to a test fully administered online, it may not be possible to get the full scores back in time to use those in student grades.

Shifting to a model that uses TNReady to inform and diagnose rather than evaluate students and teachers could help address this issue. Shifting further to a project-based assessment model could actually help students while also serving as a more accurate indicator of whether they have met the standards.

Next, the story notes that teachers will be evaluated based on the scores. This will be done via TVAAS — the state’s value-added modeling system. Even as more states move away from value-added models in teacher evaluation, Tennessee continues to insist on using this flawed model.

Again, let’s assume TNReady is an amazing test that truly measures student mastery of standards. It’s still NOT designed for the purpose of evaluating teacher performance. Further, this is the first year the test has been administered. That means it’s simply not possible to generate valid data on teacher performance from this year’s results. You can’t just take this year’s test (TNReady) and compare it to the TCAP from two years ago. They are different tests designed to measure different standards in a different way. You know, the old apples and oranges thing.

One teacher had this to say about the situation:

“There’s so much time and stress on students, and here again it’s not ready,” said Tikeila Rucker, a Memphis teacher who is president of the United Education Association of Shelby County.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

4 Bills Teachers Need To Know About

While the debate around vouchers is loud and needed, we must not forget about the other bills that are making their way through the legislative process. Here are four bills that teachers need to know that will change how teacher effectiveness and preparation are measured.

The proposed bills all look like they will pass and become law. Spread the word about these bills so teachers will have the most updated information.

SB114/HB695 By Senator Bo Watson & Rep. Ryan Williams

There is a consensus that we need to improve the preparation of future teachers. Teachers need the most updated information from faculty that still have connections to the classroom.

The amended version of the bill requires education preparation faculty, including education deans, to have direct personal involvement in a school annually. The state summarizes that bill as follows:

Requires full-time educator preparation program faculty members, including academic deans, to have direct personal involvement in public schools or local education agencies (LEAs) annually. Requires faculty involvement to include professional learning targeted to pre-K through grade 12 teachers; learning focused on LEA specific initiatives; direct instruction to pre- K through grade 12 students; district-level partnership; or observation of pre-K through grade 12 teachers.

The bill has passed the Senate and is waiting to be taken up in the House Finance committee this week.

SB575/HB626 by Senator Dolores Gresham & Rep. Sabi Kumar:

Right now, you are able to log on the Teacher Prep Report Card to find out information about how teacher preparation programs are doing in preparing teachers for the classroom. This bill will add teacher observation data into this mix.

The bill requires the department of education to provide all state board of education approved teacher training programs access to annual evaluation data for teachers and principals graduating from the programs for a minimum of five years following the completion of the program.

It’s not clear if the public will be able to see the evaluation data from the different preparation programs. Either way, I hope the programs will use the data to improve.

The bill has passed the Senate and is waiting for the House to take it up this weeks.

SB1196/HB309 by Senator Mark Norris and Rep. David Hawk

This bill deals with assessment data that are used in overall teacher evaluations. The bill makes permanent the flexibility to use the most recent year of TVAAS student growth, if it leads to a higher evaluation score for the teacher. I’ve heard that some superintendents like this bill because it could be used to reward a teacher for a large one year growth. The three year growth option will allow teacher flexibility to change schools, grade level, or move to support a higher need population.

And here’s the state’s summary:

Requires the student growth portion of teacher evaluations to account for 10 percent of the overall evaluation criteria in FY16-17 and 20 percent in FY17-18 and each year thereafter. Requires that the most recent year’s student growth evaluation composite account for 35 percent of growth data in a teacher’s evaluation, if such use results in a higher evaluation score. Authorizes the use of educational progress and evaluation data for research purposes at postsecondary institutions. Requires Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) subject-area scores to make up the following percentages of elementary and middle school students’ final spring semester grades in grades 3-8: 10 percent in FY16-17; 15 percent in FY17-18; and 15 to 25 percent in FY18-19 and subsequent years.

This bill has passed the House and is waiting to be passed in the Senate.

SB250/HB67 by Senator Jim Tracy & Rep. Eddie Smith

This bill is trying to solve the problem that arises with teachers who teach in non-tested subjects. The state summary is pretty clear in this case:

Requires local education agencies (LEAs), by the 2018-2019 academic school year, to adopt at least one appropriate alternative growth model approved by the State Board of Education in order to provide individual growth scores to teachers in non- tested grades and subjects. Requires the Department of Education (DOE) to develop valid and reliable alternative student growth models for non-tested grades and subjects currently without such models.

What do you think?

Teachers, what are thoughts on these four bills? Let us know in the comments.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport.


 

 

It May Be Ready, But is it Valid?

In today’s edition of Commissioner Candice McQueen’s Educator Update, she talks about pending legislation addressing teacher evaluation and TNReady.

Here’s what McQueen has to say about the issue:

As we continue to support students and educators in the transition to TNReady, the department has proposed legislation (HB 309) that lessens the impact of state test results on students’ grades and teachers’ evaluations this year.

In 2015, the Tennessee Teaching Evaluation Enhancement Act created a phase-in of TNReady in evaluation to acknowledge the state’s move to a new assessment that is fully aligned to Tennessee state standards with new types of test questions. Under the current law, TNReady data would be weighted at 20 percent for the 2016-17 year.

However, in the spirit of the original bill, the department’s new legislation resets the phase-in of growth scores from TNReady assessments as was originally proposed in the Tennessee Teaching Evaluation Enhancement Act. Additionally, moving forward, the most recent year’s growth score will be used for a teacher’s entire growth component if such use results in a higher evaluation score for the teacher.

We will update you as this bill moves through the legislative process, and if signed into law, we will share detailed guidance that includes the specific options available for educators this year. As we announced last year, if a teacher’s 2015-16 individual growth data ever negatively impacts his or her overall evaluation, it will be excluded. Additionally, as noted above, teachers will be able to use 2016-17 growth data as 35 percent of their evaluation if it results in a higher overall level of effectiveness.

And here’s a handy graphic that describes the change:

TNReady Graphic

 

 

Of course, there’s a problem with all of this: There’s not going to be valid data to use for TVAAS. Not this year. It’s bad enough that the state is transitioning from one type of test to another. That alone would call into question the validity of any comparison used to generate a value-added score. Now, there’s a gap in the data. As you might recall, there wasn’t a complete TNReady test last year. So, to generate a TVAAS score, the state will have to compare 2014-15 data from the old TCAP tests to 2016-17 data from what we hope is a sound administration of TNReady.

We really need at least three years of data from the new test to make anything approaching a valid comparison. Or, we should start over building a data-set with this year as the baseline. Better yet, we could go the way of Hawaii and Oklahoma and just scrap the use of value-added scores altogether.

Even in the best of scenarios — a smooth transition from TCAP to TNReady — data validity was going to be challenge.

As I noted when the issue of testing transition first came up:

Here’s what Lockwood and McCaffrey (2007) had to say in the Journal of Educational Measurement:

We find that the variation in estimated effects resulting from the different mathematics achievement measures is large relative to variation resulting from choices about model specification, and that the variation within teachers across achievement measures is larger than the variation across teachers. These results suggest that conclusions about individual teachers’ performance based on value-added models can be sensitive to the ways in which student achievement is measured.
These findings align with similar findings by Martineau (2006) and Schmidt et al (2005)
You get different results depending on the type of question you’re measuring.

The researchers tested various VAM models (including the type used in TVAAS) and found that teacher effect estimates changed significantly based on both what was being measured AND how it was measured.

And they concluded:

Our results provide a clear example that caution is needed when interpreting estimated teacher effects because there is the potential for teacher performance to depend on the skills that are measured by the achievement tests.

If you measure different skills, you get different results. That decreases (or eliminates) the reliability of those results. TNReady is measuring different skills in a different format than TCAP. It’s BOTH a different type of test AND a test on different standards. Any value-added comparison between the two tests is statistically suspect, at best. In the first year, such a comparison is invalid and unreliable.

So, we’re transitioning from TCAP to TNReady AND we have a gap in years of data. That’s especially problematic — but, not problematic enough to keep the Department of Education from plowing ahead (and patting themselves on the back) with a scheme that validates a result sure to be invalid.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Washington Co. Joins Waiver Wave

Last night, the Washington County School Board voted 6-3 in favor of a resolution asking the State of Tennessee to grant a 1-year waiver from the use of TNReady scores in teacher evaluations and student grades. The resolution is similar to those passed in Nashville and Knox County and comes after the State Board of Education voted to change the way End of Course tests are counted in student grades.

The Washington County resolution comes just days before the Tennessee General Assembly returns to action (January 10th). Barring action by the State Board to grant a waiver, the only way it will happen is if lawmakers force the issue.

Similar resolutions were passed last year ahead of TNReady testing that ultimately failed. That makes this year the first year of new tests, now administered by Questar.

Tune in next week and beyond to see if more school boards pass resolutions asking for a waiver or if the State Board or legislature take action.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport