LASD Teacher Named Apple Distinguished Educator

Ellen Kraska is the LASD Technology Integration Instructional Coach.  Apparently Apple thinks she's doing a fabulous job, because she has been named an Apple Distinguished Educator.

There are about 2,000 teachers who have been named ADE's over the course of the program.  That puts Ellen in some pretty rare company.  There are literally a couple million teachers in the US alone, not to mention the rest of the world.  And it's also worth noting that LASD has a second educator who was selected as an Apple Distinguished Educator.  Samantha Nguyen (Almond School 5th grade teacher) was selected in 2007.

Special thanks to the donors who funded the position - it's great to be able to have folks like Ellen on our team. 

Well done, Ellen!

Link to Apple Distinguished Educator Program Description

Updated 4 March 2013 @ 9:00 am, to correct Ellen's title to Technology Integration Instructional Coach.  LASD also is priveleged to have Kami Thordarson working with us as an Innovative Strategies Coach (also funded throguh private donations), but they are two distinct poisitions.

Breakthrough in teacher evaluations

The Mercury News reported this morning that San Jose Unified is working on a contract that revolutionizes the way teachers are evaluated.  It creates a "teacher quality panel", and puts some real teeth in the teacher evaluation process.  The new evals include things like peer and student feedback, as well as standardized test scores as a component.  The agreement also provides for increased compensation at the top end of the scale, as well as various other "carrots" for successful evaluations.

The agreement is a huge deal because teachers unions general have a reputation as obstructing progress in this area.  I'm excited to see a local school district taking bold steps to re-examine how they work together. 

I've made it no secret that I'd like to revamp the way we evaluate teachers.  Mostly, when I look at this framework, I see a possibility of developing greater trust between administration and staff.  The entire profession is helped when we can effectively coach and correct those who under perform, and it is also helped when we recognize those who are really making a difference.

At Monday's Board meeting, we had a free-ranging discussion about teacher compensation.  Frankly, it has been a long time since we gave any sort of across-the-board raise to teachers and staff.  I think that our staff was excited to hear us discuss the possibility, and I think that those in attendance understood that we want to ensure we have a win:win goal in mind.  We've given some ideas to those working in the negotiation, and we're still collecting competitive data.  For myself, I'd like to see us stretch the salary schedule out a bit, and create some sort of flexible pay scenario.  It could take a lot of forms, but I'm really excited that we're talking about something other than a simple "win/ loss" negotiation. 

Pay for Performance in Academia

Purdue's new president, Mitch Daniels, has taken a bold step in academia.  When he starts his job as President of Purdue later this month, his compensation will be tied to his performance.  Specifically, he has agreed to key metrics on graduation rates, student affordability, and faculty hiring and achievement.  his "variable comp" will be specifically tied to these results. 

My point in sharing this isn't that we need to suddenly change our entire compensation system.  It's simply that there are folks out there doing innovative things with compensation in academia.  I applaud Mr Daniels in this bold step. 

And yes, I'm a Boilermaker...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578211642167171594.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Teacher Evaluations

I'm a very data-driven person, though, and I like using data to help improve outcomes.  In my professional life at a subscription billing company, we process over $2B/ year in credit card transactions.  One of the things my team does is deeply analyze that data to increase revenues for our clients.  I believe we should bring that same discipline to how we deliver education for students.

Let me start by saying that I think we have some incredibly talented and hardworking teachers.  I start there, because any time you talk about evaluations in public education, people think that the discussion is only about chasing out "bad teachers".  In our case, I'm most interested in recognizing what works.  Different teachers have different techniques.  Our district already analyzes test data to help improve instruction in this way.  To me, the next logical step is to use that same data as part of the evaluation process.  The primary function of a teacher is to help a student learn.  If we have data that shows they are doing this well, it seems only natural to me to use that data in the teacher's evaluatoin.

There is a bill in Sacramento right now, though, that is trying to make this whole process harder.  AB5 seeks to unwind the use of test data in teacher evaluations.  This flies against the national trend, and in my mind, flies against common sense.  There is a good editorial in the LA Times that discusses the issue.  Have a read, and if you are so inclined, reach out to Sacramento (Senator Joe Simitian, Assemblyman Rich Gordon) and let them know that this is a step backwards for our kids.

LA Times and Posts Teacher Evaluations

The LA Times recently published their own ranking of all 6000 teachers in the LA Unified School District. The scores were based on a "value add" concept- basically, if Johnny came in reading at 83% of the standard, and left reading at 90% of the standard, they attribute the gain to the teacher. Likewise, if Johnny's score drops, they assume that was the teacher as well.

I like the value add approach to evaluations. It's fair- it looks at where someone started, and assess the impact of the teacher. Unions often object that a principal can load a class with below average students, thus hurting the teacher's evaluation. Value Add means that we measure the teacher's achievements given where they started- who were the kids that were in the classroom.

During the campaign last fall, I spoke out in favor of this approach, and I still believe it would be a great way to identify our best teachers. There are details to work out of course, but I believe it's worth discussing and implementing. I would advocate for using this type of data to identify our top performers, and I would actually support some sort of merit-based bonus for the very best of our staff. We have some *fabulous* teachers in our district. Even amongst the great staff that we have, there are some true standouts. I'd be in favor of recognizing those who are so talented at inspiring our kids.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of what the LA Times did. Imagine if, at your place of work, every employee evaluation was posted on the wall. Imagine further, that the evaluation didn't necessarily conform to what you'd been told you'd be evaluated on. It's pretty easy to see this wouldn't go down well. Evaluations are confidential. When we assign an engineer to a project, the client doesn't get to look over their performance reviews.

I understand the spirit of the LA Times- they're trying to create an active debate about an important topic. I hope that folks see past the tactic and focus on the content- that it's important to evaluate teachers at least in part on how well their students learn.