The section on teachers in Louisiana's RTT application is considerably weaker than I expected. This should bring us pause since LA is not only a finalist but also, in the conventional wisdom, among the??front-runners.
On the upside, the state is serious about collecting and analyzing student performance data and required participating districts to use student growth as 50 percent in teacher evaluations. It also plans to create assessments in untested grades and subjects so there are empirical measures for a greater number of teachers.
However, as was the case with a number of other finalists, Louisiana leaves entirely too many issues unresolved. For example, though it purports to support performance pay, no comprehensive system is in place. Instead, a blue ribbon commission will study the issue and then make recommendations to the governor and state board of education. Then the legislature would have to act.
Moreover, rather than crafting explicit policies on tenure and termination decisions, the state has left all of the details up to participating districts. Though the application repeatedly makes clear that participating LEAs signed an official agreement committing to use student performance in such critical personnel decisions, that "partnership agreement" is extraordinarily vague.
It says nothing about how districts will ensure that tenure is meaningful or what criteria must be used to remove low-performing teachers from the classroom. In fact, districts merely committed to headings, like "Use evaluations to inform compensation, promotion, and retention," and??"Use??evaluations??to??inform??tenure??and/or??full??certification."
This is simply not good enough. We deserve more from this unprecedented $4.35 billion investment than hypothetical new programs and speculative changes to important policies.??If this is what an application from a front-running finalist??looks like, it speaks volumes about the state of the race.
It is up to the peer reviewers to rank order these finalists, but it is up to Secretary Duncan to decide where the bar is set. My hope is that someone in the Department is a stingy grader with sky-high expectations, someone who recognizes that this opportunity will not come again and that it cannot be squandered.
I hope that person is showing the secretary these weak provisions, reminding him that he is under no obligation to fund a single one of these applications, and telling him that a three-word response to these states will ensure this program lives up to its lofty name and potential:
Not good enough.
--Andy Smarick