This is a little wonky, but bear with me.
The great part about section D2 of the Race to the Top application is that it gets progressively more reform-oriented as you move through it. Each subsection asks a bit more of the state than the previous one.
If a state fully embraces each piece, it will have an attractive and sturdy structure in place for the teaching profession. If it only addresses the earlier, easier components it will have an incomplete and unstable structure.
First, the state is asked to measure the academic growth of each individual student. Then it is asked to use student growth in teacher evaluations. Then it is asked to evaluate all teachers annually. Then it is asked to use these data-informed evaluations to influence professional development. Then tenure. Then compensation. Then termination.
By going through these applications, you can see where each state blinks. Maybe it's willing to measure growth, but it won't use that data in evaluations. Maybe it will use data in evaluations but it won't say how much. Maybe it will say how much growth will influence evaluations and use this data for professional development but refuse to use it for compensation decisions.
I bring this up because New York, which was a round one finalist, provided a stark and disappointing example of blinking entirely too soon.
The state is willing to build a system for measuring student growth. Check. Then it discusses its process for constructing better evaluations. Check. But rather than embedding data in all evaluations across the state, it wants to rely on participating districts and "incentives" for districts and unions. Semi-check.
Then things go downhill. While it was verbose in describing the evaluation-development process, when it comes to how evaluations will inform personnel decisions, it begins to lose its voice. It only has enough left to discuss professional development.
But then it provides only a chart for a new "career ladder." It seems promising enough, but all of the details that flowed freely earlier are missing. It's impossible to tell how meaningful this ladder will actually be--how it will be implemented and monitored.
The slide continues.
Will the state create a performance pay program for teachers continuously rated highly?
A small box below the chart is labeled "Compensation (Potential Uses)" and contains about 20 words. No program, no details, no explanation.
Will the state require that these data-infused evaluations inform termination decisions?
Nary a word.
I'm glad New York didn't win with this plan. The Race to the Top should only invest in full buildings, not wooden frames.
--Andy Smarick