South Orangetown Central School District

The Governor Weighs in on Teacher Assessment
Over the last week, there have been media reports related to teacher evaluation and student assessments. Following the work of experienced educators who were asked for their input on the development of a model to evaluate teachers and principals, on the weekend just before the Board of Regents were to meet to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, Governor Cuomo recommended that New York State test scores be allowed to count for double the amount that had been originally proposed by the State Education Department and the Regents Task Force that was working to refine the plan.

The revised model for teacher evaluation requires that teachers be rated on a 100% scoring system that uses New York State assessments for as much as 40% of the score. The remaining 60% will be determined by a teacher evaluation rubric with leveled criteria that is based on a newly developed set of teaching standards. The original plan assigned 20% of the teacher’s evaluation score to be based on the State assessment. Local districts would have had the option of choosing from a State-approved menu of assessments that may have been more in line with the kinds of learning experiences that were occurring in the local district. Because of the Governor’s recommendation, the weight of one state assessment has now been doubled.

If the New York State assessments accurately capture rigorous student learning over the course of a year and we have a sufficient number of assessments for all of the content and skills that are taught throughout the K-12 system, then the doubling might make sense. However, if there are questions about both the accuracy of the assessments and the limited scope of grading tools for other disciplines, then this new system to evaluate teachers is troublesome.

Depth of Knowledge and Assessment Design
It is often stated that we need more rigorous learning in schools. Rigor goes beyond quantity. While practice is important in the development of skills, in some instances repetition, especially when errors are being “practiced”, can be deleterious to learning.

If rigor and depth of knowledge go beyond how much is taught and extend to quality, how do we know it when we see it? How do we assess for it? How do we ensure that our learning experiences provide for it in a developmentally appropriate way?

In designing appropriate assessments, the evaluator must first decide the knowledge levels that we expect students to demonstrate. On the recall level, it may be easy to assess by asking students to define, calculate, repeat, recognize, label, list, draw, or recite. While such basic “recall” learning is fundamental to higher levels of learning, too often, these areas may be over-assessed, even by the State.

A second and deeper level of knowledge addresses the acquisition of skills and understanding of concepts that build upon recall. The learners are asked to demonstrate knowledge by classifying, estimating, relating, comparing, organizing, summarizing, inferring, identifying patterns, and other similar tasks. Comprehension and application can be also assessed and perhaps through the kinds of assessments that the state will administer.

It becomes more difficult to assess students when we move to a third level that asks students to demonstrate their thinking. Can they develop a logical argument? Can they develop a scientific model regarding a complex situation? Can they apply concepts to new contexts or to solve non-routine problems? These kinds of thinking tasks require more sophisticated assessments that take more time and more complex instruments or processes.

Higher Standards
If that is all that our State or even our local schools and teachers expect from students then perhaps the new model is sufficient. However, if we want our students to go even deeper to a level of understanding where they will extend their thinking by analyzing, creating, designing, and synthesizing from multiple sources – the kinds of innovation that are essential for preparing them for a complex future – then the efficient and standardized assessment system that the State believes will effectively assess its teachers may be insufficient for also ensuring that our students are brought to this deepest level.

When assessment is complex, time-consuming, and in need of contexts other than testing rooms, one can assume that the cost factor increases, making it more difficult to standardize and administer across a state. However, if the assessment is reduced to assess recall, skills, and basic conceptual knowledge – superficial levels of understanding – then it may accomplish the task of gathering information on teachers teaching to these lower levels and students being prepared for such assessments.

Assessment Priorities
If the State truly wants a rigorous learning experience that challenges students to think both strategically and in extended ways, assessment will have to take forms other than a simple paper and pencil test in May. We may actually have to trust that teachers will provide our students with such rigorous learning experiences that they will assess in context. We may also have to accept that not all of these experiences are easily measured in such a way that the State will be able to grade teachers.

It is hoped that the Board of Regents and Governor Cuomo have enough knowledge and expertise about the kinds of assessment experiences upon which 40% of a teacher’s evaluation will be based to assure us that there will be no dilution of learning across New York State. It is also hoped that the State does not want to grade our teachers more than it wants to ensure that our students are challenged to think more deeply.