It’s time to move on. Obama and Duncan have changed the discussion and with the deadline of the first round of Race to the Top applications past, the focus changes from "should systems use student scores as part teacher evaluation" to "how will systems effectively use student scores in helping to determine teacher status."

It’s a much better discussion because it focuses on how to do a job well, rather than on preventing something from happening. It’s full of the positives and that makes solutions more likely and will leave the nay sayers in the dust.

Another change is to figure out how to get more high quality teachers in the classrooms, and much less about getting rid of the poorest performing teachers. Again we’re looking to the positive, and are less focused on the negative.

Jay Mathews highlights the first point in his article today in which he presents his own and a long time teacher's view of Washington, D.C.’s Impact (teacher evaluation) program.
Neither dismisses the idea but both are more concerned with its implementation and effectiveness.

Watch for more of these kinds of discussions, and expect less of the complaints that "these test don’t accurately reflect that teacher’s work," or "these tests used for accountability take away teacher freedom and creativeness."

Randi Weingarten’s oft mentioned speech to the National Press Club provides the perfect transition to the new order. She’s talking about appropriate ways to use student data in helping to assess teachers, while emphasizing that evaluation should mean helping teacher to be better in the classroom. Firing teachers may have become the battle cry but it it’s a small part of the problem.

We’re going to be hearing more about program and philosophy changes in schools of education, and see greater linkage between these training centers and public school systems.
This will be linked to much stronger mentoring programs for first and second year teachers so the latter can take advantage of the wisdom of good experience.
There is an excellent article on mentoring in February’s Harvard Education Letter.

As an aside I would say that a big problem in the past for student teachers was that the selection of supervising teachers. It was often based on availability or volunteering rather than on quality of teaching. The reward was a course voucher from the college or university. Most experienced teachers had finished their course work while those still working on their masters found it an attractive payoff. I won’t mention those teachers who saw it as a way to get their classes covered.
Universities were happy to have a certified teacher sign off on their programs so they didn't complain; school systems felt they were making a professional contribution and did pay enough attention to what was happening; and the teachers liked having a student with whom to work.

The same issue is somewhat true of mentors in many systems. While the Mentoring Program was good on paper, the best teachers were not recruited for the positions; there was an insignificant stipend for the hard work; and most systems couldn’t afford the release time needed for the mentor and mentee to meet.

The recruitment for both programs is critical. Both the universities and school systems must show the importance of both these experiences. Here’s where federal funds should come in. These programs will have some short term results but they are really long term solutions for the improvement of teaching quality. School boards wisely use their funds for the immediate but would welcome state and federal support for this important mission.

Keep your eyes peeled as we move forward.