Today, as this piece is being published, the Tennessee State Board of Education will vote on changes to teacher licensure standards in Tennessee. Here are all the details of the proposal.
Some elements are very good — a streamlined renewal process, a higher standard for entry based on content knowledge as demonstrated on the Praxis.
And then, there’s the part about tying teacher licensure to performance on evaluations and value-added assessment scores.
At first glance, it may sound great to expedite the dismissal of “bad” teachers. But, that’s not exactly what this policy does.
Here’s the deal: A teacher MUST have a score of 2 on both the overall performance evaluation AND their value-added score in two of the three years before their license is up for renewal.
But wait, you may be saying, not every teacher HAS value-added data available.
Yes. That’s true. And that’s precisely the problem. Both Professional Educators of Tennessee and the Tennessee Education Association have expressed concern about the use of TVAAS data in licensure decisions. And of course, not only does every teacher not have value-added data, there are also concerns about using TVAAS at all for employment decisions.
The point, though, is that teachers will be treated differently based on whether or not they have value-added scores.
Here’s a scenario. Math Teacher has overall performance evaluation scores of a 3 in all three of the years before his license is up for renewal. However, his value-added scores are a 1-2-1. So, he’s license is not renewed, he goes under review and could potentially lose his license.
Band Teacher has performance evaluation scores of 2-2-1 in the three years leading up to renewal. Band Teacher has no value-added data. Band teacher is automatically renewed under the streamlined licensure scheme.
So, Math Teacher, whose overall scores were higher than Band Teacher’s, is in danger of dismissal. Band Teacher is renewed. Math Teacher (and other teachers similarly situated) complain and/or sue.
Solution? Just add MORE tests so that every single teacher has value-added data.
This at a time when school systems like MNPS are studying the amount and cost of testing and it’s overall usefulness.
Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers was quoted recently as saying, “If you have been properly prepared and supported and still can’t make the grade, you don’t deserve to be a part of our profession.”
And that’s the second problem with this scheme. John wrote yesterday about the need for a meaningful, focused program of teacher induction.
Until that’s in place, it is difficult to say that teachers have been properly prepared. The lack of ongoing support and meaningful professional development is also critical. If teachers are going to be “under review” then support and assistance must be provided to help them get back on track.
I’ve written before about the need for better pay and more support for all teachers, including an early career mentoring program.
Changing the standards for licensure and renewal of licenses should not happen until these measures are put in place. Even then, there is serious and legitimate concern about the reliability and validity of TVAAS as an instrument for making employment decisions. And certainly, parents are concerned about their children’s performance on a week of testing (or more) determining whether or not certain teachers keep their jobs.
The issue of teacher quality is certainly an important one. The State Board of Education and Department of Education should focus on addressing it with meaningful investment in and support of teachers, not a mandate for more and more testing of students.