How You Can Tell That Yesterday's Training Was Worthless

This is a "paradigm shift", switching from "evaluation" to "growth".

Honestly, I have enough to do without added work on my part for an evaluation growth system that's meaningless.  Example:  I have to supply 2 pieces of "evidence" for each of 9 "essential elements".  Such evidence, though, could be something as silly as a picture, a seating chart, or an assignment.  During our many meetings with our "facilitator" (usually an administrator who has more important things to do than spend a half an hour with me several times a year going over my "growth"), we are supposed to "observe the process, not the content".  What????

What attributes make a good math teacher?  That was the title of one of my research papers for one of my master's degree classes.  It was a review of literature, and here's the conclusion:

There are no definitive skills, knowledge, or attributes that have been identified, the possession of which will, ipso facto, make a good math teacher. There is no known way to predict in pre-service who will become a good math teacher, and there is no known protocol (such as the MKT) for determining effective math teachers. Furthermore, popular pedagogical styles do not seem to improve student performance, so the teachers who employ them cannot rightly be deemed effective.

Yet, we are to spend hours and hours on form over substance.

This new evaluation growth regime focuses a lot on behaviors the exceptional teacher will have, and a few times a comparison of our standards to National Board standards was mentioned.  In my research, what did I find out about National Board?

At the turn of the 21st century, National Board certification was a trumpeted way to recognize high-quality teachers. To achieve National Board certification, teachers were assessed in a variety of domains that reflected a particular pedagogical slant. Peculiarly, student achievement was not one of the assessed areas. In research pertaining to National Board certified teachers, the results depended on whether or not student achievement was factored into the study...

Yeh also made reference to my opening comment on p. 3 of this paper:

“The theory of action underlying NBPTS certification is that it is possible to improve achievement by replacing weak teachers with strong teachers. The quality of teaching is an intermediate, rather than a final goal. Society cares about the quality of teaching to the extent that it improves student outcomes” (Yeh, 2010, pp. 223-224).

Perhaps because of the style of teaching promoted by National Board certification—namely, discovery learning—National Board certified teachers “were less effective in math than never certified teachers” (Yeh, 2010, p. 228), a damning indictment, indeed. Yeh found that “rapid assessment” (providing teachers with information specifically on how to improve student performance) is “three magnitudes as cost-effective as Board certification” (Yeh, 2010, p. 220), and concluded that it is in fact more cost effective than NB certification, value-added assessment of teacher performance, or imposing higher requirements on prospective teachers (Yeh, 2010, p. 233).

Clearly, I'm not going to be impressed by National Board standards.  If you're interested, here's the citation for the Yeh study:

Yeh, S. S. (2010). The Cost-Effectiveness of NBPTS Teacher Certification. Education Review, 220-241.

What's the biggest problem with National Board standards?  They focused on teacher behaviors and not student achievement.  What's my issue with all this silliness on which my "growth" is now going to be evaluated?  It stresses some things I couldn't care less about, and ignores my strength--the ability to transmit knowledge to teenagers in such a way as to allow them to learn and excel in math.  I agree with Yeh:  "Society cares about the quality of teaching to the extent that it improves student outcomes." (italics mine--Darren)

Well, it wouldn't be teacher training unless there was butcher paper hanging around the room, right?  RIGHT?  Well, this training didn't disappoint:

All around the room.  And you see that little rainbow of color on the right side of the picture?  Sentence strips.

The first 5 1/2 hours of this training was selling the new paradigm and writing on butcher paper.  It was only in the last half hour that we actually determined which of the 9 "essential elements" we wanted to focus on for growth this year, and began filling out the first page of our documentation forms (which we must have ready when we have our first meeting with our "facilitator").  And you know what?  Those forms look a lot like the forms we filled out when it was an "evaluation" rather than a record of "growth".

It was a beautiful day outside yesterday.

There were a few dozen teachers in the room, and I don't know how many other rooms had this training going on as well.  I estimate that, on average, each teacher earned $350 yesterday.  That's a lot of money to blow on an ineffective evaluation growth system.