Senator Frockt Explains his Vote for Tying Test Scores to Teacher Evaluations
One reader sent along to me a response to her e-mail to Senator David Frockt over his vote on Senate bill 5748. I'm printing it in its entirety below.
It is nuanced and carefully thought out. I believe the Senator is probably speaking from a position of good faith in what he believes this bill to be. Unfortunately, I do not share that trust/comfort that this bill is merely a way to get back the NCLB waiver. If you read his letter, it seems like he thinks it does almost nothing and, of course, that makes no sense because no one created this bill just to do very little.
Perhaps it is just a foot in the door but it's kind of a Shaq foot in the door. (I'm going to highlight relevant sections in red along with some comments.)
Thank
you for writing to me about the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver and
the use of state based assessments in teacher evaluations (SB
5748
as amended). During my five years in office, this issue has invoked
more passions and concerns than almost any I have seen. I appreciate
very much the deeply felt expressions
of both concern and support on this issue. I want to lay out for you in
detail why I voted to take steps to restore the NCLB waiver and what
the amendment I voted for actually does. I hope after reading
it you will understand my perspective even if, at the end, you still ultimately disagree with the decision.
And
I want to assure you that whatever your thoughts are on my vote on this
bill, my support for protecting and advancing wages and benefits for
our educators and for fully and aggressively
funding both our McCleary obligations and capital capacity needs, with
new revenue, will not change.
frockt/
It is nuanced and carefully thought out. I believe the Senator is probably speaking from a position of good faith in what he believes this bill to be. Unfortunately, I do not share that trust/comfort that this bill is merely a way to get back the NCLB waiver. If you read his letter, it seems like he thinks it does almost nothing and, of course, that makes no sense because no one created this bill just to do very little.
Perhaps it is just a foot in the door but it's kind of a Shaq foot in the door. (I'm going to highlight relevant sections in red along with some comments.)
In
2010 the legislature passed legislation implementing a statewide
teacher evaluation system after long discussions with the educators, the
legislature, and other
stakeholders.
In 2012, Governor Gregoire brokered an update to this legislation that
required districts to have a component of their evaluation utilizing
some student growth data component from either school based, district based, or state based assessments. These are
the evaluation and professional development systems currently being implemented around the state.
In
early 2013, the federal government indicated to Washington we were at
risk of losing our NCLB waiver, and the flexibility for use of a portion
of our Title I
money, if we did not amend our statute to require the use of state
based assessments in
the current evaluation systems.
In
2014, Governor Inslee went to Washington, D.C. to negotiate with
Education Secretary Arne Duncan to grant us the flexibility we need. He
came back and advised
the legislature a bill, along the lines of SB 5748, would likely be
required to restore Washington’s waiver.
Last
year, the original waiver bill presented in the Senate offered no
concrete assurance that the use of test scores would be open to
negotiation at the local
level and no process for the Superintendent of Public Instruction to
certify the use of the assessments would be done in a fair manner for
educators. Moreover, it offered no delay at all in the use of the
evaluations until the state had some experience over
the next several years in seeing what the results of the Smarter
Balanced assessments (SBAC) would be. For this reason, I voted against
that bill in 2014.
However,
without any action by the State on the issue, the federal government
made good on its promise and revoked Washington’s NCLB waiver in April
of 2014. When
the federal government revoked Washington’s NCLB waiver, districts lost
flexibility of roughly $40 million in federal Title 1 funds designed to
provide academic supports for struggling students. While I acknowledge
the loss of these funds were not critical
in every single district around the state, the flexible use of these
funds is very important in several of our highest poverty school
districts. A number of school districts testified that the loss of
flexibility using Title 1 dollars seriously impacted their
instructional program for students and their ability to provide
consistent intervention or support services to their most struggling
students. The common theme was that the loss of flexibility undercut
their ability to provide consistent intervention and support
at the right time to their most struggling students. In particular, I
know this was a concern in the high poverty Highline School District as
well as in Tacoma and Seattle, as expressed by their superintendents.
(Editor's note: While I appreciate that districts no longer had control over how the dollars were spent, Seattle Schools says that much of the money got spent - by parents - on tutoring services. That this was not exactly how the district wanted to spend the money does not negate that it did have use.)
Additionally
when the NCLB waiver was revoked, letters were sent to schools
considered to be failing by the NCLB standards. Now, I don’t believe
that anywhere close to 90%
of our schools statewide are failing and I certainly don’t believe that
nearly all of our Seattle schools are failing. Some dismiss these
confusing “failure” letters as irrelevant or a non-event. I respectfully
disagree. While it’s clear that the NCLB law
is broken in this respect, I think the letters have the potential to
create a false impression for the public when we very well may need to
be asking that same public to invest billions more in our K-12 system to
meet our McCleary and 1351 obligations. I also
think that calling nearly all of our schools failing is disrespectful
to our educators who are working hard, daily, to improve lives of their
students. It is not lost on me how hard educators work and I want to do
my best to support and respect those efforts.
I
want to be clear about thing – I think that the federal NCLB law is
woefully broken. The federal government’s lack of flexibility put us in
this position. My
strong preference would have been for Secretary Duncan to grant us the
NCLB waiver based upon our existing evaluation law which provides for
the permissive use of state based, district based or school based
assessments for continuing professional development.
Senator Patty Murray is gamely trying to find a way to rewrite NCLB in
the Congress. However, at this point, when Congress cannot even find the
will to fund the Department of Homeland Security, I have little
confidence that changes to NCLB are going to occur
until this next Presidential administration, if at all. For this
reason, we face the prospect of the continued loss of the waiver for the
foreseeable future unless we take some action.
(So NCLB is going to be rewritten but we don't know exactly when or what it will say but we want to continue to operate as though it will have the same kinds of requirements? Is that a good reason to pass this bill?)
There
is another point I want you to know. Prior to Governor Inslee’s
negotiations with Secretary Duncan over the waiver last winter, the
Washington Education Association
put forward to the federal government a paper on the waiver issue. I
have attached the document here. In providing this to you, I am not
suggesting that this position represents where the WEA is today or that
it fully represented the views of all educators.
But I am suggesting to you that, in my opinion, it represented a
plausible way forward for resolving this complicated NCLB waiver
requirement to ensure that Washington retained its waiver while
minimizing the actual use of state based assessments. The bill
I voted on - due to the amendment that was adopted - is very similar to
what was being suggested in this memo.
Thus,
I want you to understand the amended bill I recently voted for (SB
5748) is not the original bill I voted against last year. I am attaching
the actual amendment
that was adopted last week for you to review. In particular I would
direct you to the “effect” statement at the end of the document. As you
will see, it reaffirms state based evaluations must be used only as one
of multiple measures of student growth for the
purposes of teacher and principal evaluations beginning no earlier than
the 2017-18 school year; three full school years from now.
The
amendment continues the policy already established by expressly
ensuring assessments are only one of several evaluation criteria. This
is not and will not be
the sole criteria by which teachers are evaluated and under no
circumstances can any assessment be the sole basis for a teacher
evaluation. Moreover, the delayed implementation gives us three cycles
of tests before they play any role in any evaluation for
any teacher in our state. The current system stays in place for the
next three years allowing us to see what results look like across the
system. There will continue to be the option to revise and revamp the
system moving forward, but even with this delay
the waiver can likely be restored. I have received comments from
educators that the use of these assessments is not fair because they
don’t teach in a subject tested – social studies or physical education
or art, etc. The amendment makes clear that in this
case, the assessment would not be used in those evaluations. The
assessment can only be used where “relevant”.
(I had to smile here. Again, this parsing of word meaning is very tricky and what is "relevant" to Republicans may not be to Dems. Who decides?)
Second,
the use of statewide assessment results in teacher and principal
evaluations is expressly reserved to implementation with educators
through the collective
bargaining process. This preserves local control and requires educators
have a direct say in how the evaluations will be used. The use of these
assessments after 2017-18, again, only for those teachers for whom the
assessment is relevant, can be as little
as 1% or even half a percent of the entire evaluation. There is no
threshold percentage assigned. Period. If people suggest that there is
such a threshold, they are wrong. It is not in there. There have been
proposals in the past by others to require these
tests to be as much as 50% of an educator’s score - I have always
opposed measures like that and will continue to oppose such ideas. Very
simply, this is not that. Some will say this could be a slippery slope
toward a massive use of these tests in evaluations.
To date we have not seen this occur in the systems districts have set
up under our current law, which even today require the use of some
assessment data – be it school, district or state based. I think the
slippery slope is highly unlikely to be the result
of this proposed legislation.
(I think it disingenuous to say it could "be as little as 1%" as that just isn't going to be the case. And, Arne Duncan has said mixed things on this point. Many of these evaluations are based on VAMS (value-added modeling) which the DOE has encouraged thru RttT dollars. VAMs have many issues in their use.)
Finally,
the amendment stipulates the requirement will not be implemented until
the test is deemed a valid and reliable way to measure student growth.
The Office
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Teacher Principal
Evaluation (TPEP) system's steering committee are required to determine
if the assessments meet professionally accepted standards as a valid and
reliable tool of measuring student growth.
This is a pre-condition before these assessments can be used no earlier than three years from now.
This means they must certify that using the assessments in this manner will strengthen the existing evaluation system.
(A valid and reliable way to measure student growth? And who would deem this, Randy Dorn?)
In
sum, I think the amendment I voted in favor of recognizes the
importance of keeping educators involved in the discussion on how to
craft an effective and fair
evaluation system. That’s why it reaffirms the role of collective
bargaining in determining how to use the test results in the evaluation
process. No threshold percentage is included in the legislation telling
districts how much of the evaluation is to be
based on test results - this means it can be as much or as little as
the local collective bargaining process determines and will still only
be one of the multiple measures. It must be certified as a valid
methodology by the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the TPEP steering committee. In this way, local control is
maintained and each district can craft a policy that works for them.
This
legislation is intended to target specifically only what the Department
of Education directed is necessary to maintain the waiver. If this bill
is adopted,
there will be no further changes to our evaluation systems around the
state for at least three years, and even then, only with the direct
input of educators.
Now, I recognize for some
any use of the state based assessments (or any testing at all) is the wrong policy for evaluations even if it counts for only 1%.
I know there continues to be concern about implementation of the SBAC. The
emails I received have been
against the entire testing regime our students and educators face. The
argument is that the use of any summative tests are wrong when there are
so many external factors their students face: poverty, lack of family
support, health challenges, etc. Educators
take students as they come and do the best they can with what they are
presented. I don’t disagree that these factors must be considered when
evaluating our educators. But that is why the use of assessments are one
of multiple measures and in practice are
only a small percentage of an evaluation. In voting for SB 5748, I
believe I took the necessary but minimal steps to restore the NCLB
waiver. The bill will not put any educator’s job in jeopardy over a
single test.
But,
I also want you to know this – in reading all of the comments and email
I have received – I realize I need to better acknowledge where our
educators and parents
are coming from on the proliferation of tests, their use and misuse. I
am going to be more open minded and work to continue the conversation so
we can strike the right – and fair – approach for both students and
educators. For example, I recently had a discussion
with State Superintendent Dorn where he suggested to me an alternative
way of using the Smarter Balanced Assessment one time in high school and
not for the purposes of a graduation requirement. I am going to be
listening and be more open to these discussions
and ideas.
It
is conceivable that in the near future the SBAC, and its use as a
graduation requirement, may be modified. I am open to taking a hard look
at this.
Thank
you for your patience in receiving my response and reading this long
discussion. I wanted to lay out in detail for you my reasons for voting
for this amendment
and the factors I was trying to balance. I believe I have compiled a
strong record in support of public education and educators during my
time in office. Let me know if you would like to hear more about what I
have done and tried to do, the other bills I have
sponsored and supported, and the work I have done to meet our McCleary
funding obligations. I will be happy to send you any further
information.
Again, thank you for letting me hear your concerns and for reading this letter.
Sincerely,
Senator David Frockt
46th District of Washington
http://sdc.wastateleg.org/
Comments
Second, Frockt can dissemble all he wants to, but the fact is clear that he voted to make our schools teach to the test. In every state where a similar law has been passed, the results have been clear: teachers wind up conducting test prep, and a comprehensive and effective education is tossed aside.
At the end Frockt acknowledges that he has not done a good job listening to parents and teachers. That's an understatement.
I hope everyone is able to attend the town hall at Nathan Hale tomorrow and let him and the other legislators know that this bill is completely unacceptable, we don't want it, we don't accept their excuses, and the only option we will accept is voting no - and taking further steps to protect actual learning from being dumbed down into test prep.
What is critical to recognize about these latest nuanced explanations for selling out Boeing workers ... I mean teachers ... I mean any of us ... what is critical to see is that the explanations come from people like Frockt (UPenn), Pedersen (Yale), Kohl-Welles (U.W. / Ivy Wannabee), ... and HUnter (Harvard) and Rueven (K-School) -
IF you were sophisticated, IF you were like them, THEN it would not look like a sell out buried under double speak and double think ... cuz you'd be sophisticated, like them.
Face it - in Chevy Chase's movie 'Christmas Vacation', us lowly mouth breathers are like the relatives who show up with a broken down RV & a dog named "Snot" ...
CousinEddy
How does he know the feds would provide a waiver?
IMO, it is very likely that our next governor will be a Republican and there is no chance in H- E -double hockey sticks that SB 5748 would be amended or recinded. If anything, there will be a continued push to have a higher percentage of test scores linked to teacher evaluations.
We're seeing the same situation throughout the country. We have a woefully underfunded system and federal dollars are being used to create controversial initiatives.
Greenwoody is correct.
-alienated
Really? Frocket didn't listen to educators this round. Why would we believe him?
DFER $950
DFER $950
Stand For Children $950
Chris Larson $500
Peter Maier $500
Peter Maier $500
Lisa Macfarlane $125
Ross Macfarlane $125
Heidi Bennett $100
Michael DeBell $100
Draw your own conclusions.
-- Ivan Weiss
CT
I think we either are related or in fact I would like to be your best friend.
Thank you for speaking the truth that is rare in Seattle unless it is couched in vanilla pudding
- White Trash
It couldn't happen here? Hardly.
I generally think Frockt, Pederson and Kohl-Wells are thoughtful legislators. I am in deep disagreement with them on this one.
EdVoter
CT
Rihanna and Eminem had a huge hit in 2010, "I Love The Way You Lie" (I think 831,000,000 youtube views qualifies as 'huge hit') The song is disturbing, and it captures sick dimensions of very very very unhealthy relationships in a way fancy college degrees are incapable of.
Listening to the incessant excuses for analyzing this comma and that clause, for accepting this erudite excuse and that exegesis on the chicken guts - wow.
No wonder they lie, they get away with it.
Other People