MTA Position Statement on DESE’s Performance-based Licensure Plan
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is floating a
series of dangerous proposals that would link your license to your
evaluation and/or student performance measures.
The MTA is
strongly opposed to all of the options outlined by DESE – and to any
proposal that would tie an educator’s license with the state to his or her school- and district-based evaluations or student performance measures.
On October 20, DESE released “
Design Principles and Policy Options” for a “reimagined license system.” DESE has contracted with TNTP
1 and the Keystone Center
2 to
hold “town halls,” ostensibly to get stakeholder feedback on these
options. Members who attended the first session reported that the
conversations were controlled and participants were not given the option
of challenging the faulty premises being promoted by DESE. Meanwhile,
DESE plans to issue proposed policy changes in the spring of 2015 and to
have built a “
performance-based licensure system” that includes “a link between licenses and district work assignments” by October 2015.
The policy options include a number of ideas about how to change
the licensure system for those entering the profession as well as for
those who are already licensed and experienced teachers. Based on a
preliminary analysis, the most alarming proposals are the three options
for “License Renewal and Advancement for Teachers” that are the subject
of this position statement.
All three options, called Models A, B and C, would link license
renewal and advancement to performance as determined by different means.
We urge MTA members to demand “none of the above” as an option. Here
are some highlights.
Model A: One provision: “License A automatically renewed
for all educators with summative performance ratings of at least
Proficient each year and at least moderate student impact rating each
year.”
In other words, the Student Impact Rating – based on MCAS
growth and DDM scores – could be used to deprive you of a license to
teach and drive you out of public school employment forever if
that rating was less than “moderate.” What happened to the state’s
promise that these questionable, yet-to-be-implemented ratings would
only be used to help determine the length of an educator’s growth plan?
Such a provision would make the high stakes attached to mandated tests
even higher. Why would DESE even consider this option at a time when
educators and parents across the state are saying that there is already
far too much emphasis on standardized tests? How does this benefit
students?
Model B: One provision: “If educator fails to demonstrate
to the state [emphasis added] progress towards growth identified in the
Educator Plan, the license may be conditionally extended for one
additional year if LEA [school district] or its designee(s) provides
additional coaching.”
In other words, DESE – which claims it doesn’t have enough
staff to regularly answer routine licensing phone calls – could be given
the job of analyzing the plans of some 80,000 educators for the purpose
of determining whether they have made progress toward meeting their
goals. How many millions of dollars would this cost and, cumulatively,
how many thousands of hours would teachers have to spend complying with
such a requirement rather than teaching students? Why should the state
have any role whatsoever in reviewing or analyzing an educator’s locally
developed growth plan? How does this benefit students?
Model C: One provision: “Educators may renew a license by completing (or demonstrating) any two of the following:
•
Recommendation from the employing LEA for license renewal
• Satisfactory results based on Student Feedback through a survey or other means
• Successful and Effective Parent Engagement….”
There are eight bullets altogether, but the first three give
an idea of the direction. Under this model, the yet-to-be-implemented
student feedback systems could play a role in determining whether you
keep your license. This is a perversion of the stated purpose of
obtaining student feedback. Why would DESE want to further undermine the
validity and usefulness of an evaluation system that is already subject
to deep and sustained criticism by educators? How would students
benefit?
We strongly oppose all three models under consideration by DESE.
•
Linking licensure to evaluation is wrong. No
other profession links job performance with licensure. Of course, the
license of any professional can be pulled for grievous offenses, but not
for employment-related performance reviews. Evaluations relate to
educators’ employment status, not to their licenses. Linking performance
measures to licensure puts vocal and activist teachers – indeed all
teachers – on notice: Be careful or you will not only lose your job, but
the ability to teach in Massachusetts.
•
The state’s role is to determine if an educator is qualified.
The appropriate role for the state is to determine whether an aspiring
educator has met the education, training and experience requirements for
obtaining a license and whether a practicing educator has met the
professional development requirements for renewing a license. To link
licensure to job performance would further extend the state’s reach into
the choices educators make in the classroom.
•
Too many mandates on top of too many mandates.
It is outrageous that these proposals are being made at a time when
even top state education officials have acknowledged that the state and
federal governments have imposed too many mandates and new initiatives
on educators. State Education Secretary Matt Malone has described the
current mandate madness as akin to educators “trying to drink water from
a fire hose.” And yet now the state is proposing a controversial new
mandate that is strongly opposed by the field – with no clear
explanation of why it is so urgent to impose these burdens at this time
or how students will benefit. Stop the mandates! Let us teach!
October 22, 2014
1TNTP was found by Michelle Rhee in 1997 as The New Teacher Project.
2The
Keystone Center has been mostly an environmental and energy consulting
firm, with Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Dupont, Duke Energy, Pacific Gas
& Electric (the utility company in the movie Erin Brockovich),
Coca-Cola and General Mills as clients. Keystone is becoming a player in
education issues. Will it have equivalent corporate sponsors?
