Time to Talk About VAM in Teacher Education Programs

You may know about the Value-added Models (VAM or VAMs) of accountability for K12 teachers and schools which are supported by those who seek to tie school districts' reputations -- and individuals' salaries or job security --  to how well students do on standardized tests. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required a sort of VAM accountability in that K12 schools could be closed and principals and faculties fired if multiple student populations didn't make significant growth (defined by scores on standardized tests) from year to year. Race to the Top (RttT) funds seem tied to similar accountability measures as well, connecting them to the slate of new tests aligned with the Common Core State Standards. Prominent pro-corporate education reformers like Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, and *Arne Duncan* support VAM as a means to evaluate public school teachers.

NCLB has been credited with forcing schools to focus on under-represented populations more than they had previously, and that is a claim hard to refute. However, NCLB also required all students everywhere in the United States to meet basic literacy proficiency by 2014, a completely unrealistic goal which illustrates the "failure by design" measures inherent in VAM systems. Teachers in accountability-hot states might have found their "efficacy" ratings printed in local newspapers, another VAM-like aspect of the increased pressure on public schools to show often-arbitrary and meaningless "growth."

Now folks at the federal Department of Education seek to establish VAM as a means of evaluating teacher preparation programs, which suggest to me it is only a matter of time before individual college professors are held accountable for how well their students' students perform on Common Core State Standards assessment and/or other state-mandated standardized tests.

The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) reports:

On December 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Education released its long-anticipated proposed regulations for teacher preparation programs for public comment through the Federal Register. Right now, AACTE staff members are reading and analyzing the regulations. 

See AACTE's concerns regarding these proposals *here,* and see information about the actual proposal from the U.S. Department of Education * here and here.*

You may note when clicking that last link that there is a "comments period" underway. Both AACTE and I encourage you to share your concerns about VAM applied to teacher education by the February 2, 2015 deadline.

My response is listed as the second comment received as of now and begins "The Value Added Model (VAM) is one of the greatest scams perpetrated in the name of education reform in the 21st century." Only seven responses have been gathered as of this blog post's live status.

Essentially, the proposed VAM system adds another layer of accountability Hell for those involved in teaching.

Just as K12 teachers might be retained or fired based partly on their students' progress on standardized tests, this next step would allow the government to reward, deny funds to, or even contribute to the elimination of teacher preparation programs with graduates (teachers) in the field (public schools) whose K12 students do no perform what is considered "well" on standardized tests. And who determines "well?" The feds, of course.

Again, programs -- and I believe individual professors too, given the trickle-down hierarchies  inherent in higher education and academics' reputation for accountability-shirking (Yes, we brought much of this on ourselves) -- will be awarded or perhaps fired (especially if they're untenured) or see their programs or departments shuttered if K12 students taught by their graduates do not do well on measures the government deems important.

Just as current K12 reforms are supported by the same interests who invest in alternatives to the public schools their policies bastardize, I suspect privateers are investing in and eager to market more private/corporate alternatives to university-based teacher education programs or will fund competing programs alongside traditional routes to teacher licensure (See recent news about changes in teacher education at the University of Memphis and Eastern Michigan University, for example). Teach for America  has a template for investors to follow already.

As well, the reformers and politicians continue to define the terms of success, the same terms which suggest many teachers and now maybe professors are failing in their missions.

Essentially, the government wants to answer "Why can't Johnny read [such that he can pass standardized tests]?" with the answer "Because Dr. Jones and/or peers at Any State University's Teacher Ed program didn't do a good enough job teaching Sally Santos, Johnny's teacher, how to turn Johnny into a standardized test-taking automaton. Perhaps others should avoid Mrs. Santos' fate be enrolling in a new program financed by a philanthropist who has found a way to profit from her involvement." 

Central to VAM proponents' claim is that the teacher is the most important part of any classroom, even though research suggests socioeconomic status (especially poverty) affects students more than a teacher can. Indeed, no study suggests a more than 20% impact rating regarding the teacher's role in assisting students' learning or achievement on standardized tests, themselves poor metrics of student growth, and from what I've read, 20% is generous.

While making a comment doesn't equate to making change,*I do encourage all to comment *  such that the DOE can see many of us have important, fact-based worries regarding these proposals, proposal which are not based in realities or research and clearly are part of the larger plan to destroy and privatize public education and use the most narrow and meaningless metrics to define "success" for American students, teachers, and teacher educators to do so.