Problems with TKES

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

GA Teachers

MEMBERS

10 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Georgia Teachers Chatboard

Problems with TKES

by Kurt

Nov 28, 2016

Got this in an email. Thought I would share it. It had foot notes in the original.

Did you know the author of TKES, James Stronge, says your review is only effective 75 percent of the time? This means 1 in 4 teachers who receive “ineffective” or “needs improvement” scores are unfairly punished. For more information on problems with TKES, please review the chapter below from the book What it is Like to Teach in Failing Schools available on amazon.

James Stronge

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ A) The Hypocrisy of James Stronge Hundreds of thousands of teachers are reviewed by a “system” developed by James Stronge – a “consultant” on teacher evaluation and head of the Stronge and Associates firm. First and foremost James Stronge is a hypocrite because he advocates policies and practices that he has never experienced. Stronge did teach social studies for two years in Fairfield, Alabama from 1974-1976. Stronge couldn’t hack it and got out of the classroom b...See MoreGot this in an email. Thought I would share it. It had foot notes in the original.

Did you know the author of TKES, James Stronge, says your review is only effective 75 percent of the time? This means 1 in 4 teachers who receive “ineffective” or “needs improvement” scores are unfairly punished. For more information on problems with TKES, please review the chapter below from the book What it is Like to Teach in Failing Schools available on amazon.

James Stronge

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ A) The Hypocrisy of James Stronge Hundreds of thousands of teachers are reviewed by a “system” developed by James Stronge – a “consultant” on teacher evaluation and head of the Stronge and Associates firm. First and foremost James Stronge is a hypocrite because he advocates policies and practices that he has never experienced. Stronge did teach social studies for two years in Fairfield, Alabama from 1974-1976. Stronge couldn’t hack it and got out of the classroom by becoming a guidance counselor. However, Stronge didn’t have any difficulty dealing with his administrator. He explains the laid back nature of his reviews during his short career as a classroom teacher.

I had a principal … when I was a middle school teacher who loved clean, orderly classrooms … he always wanted my blinds to be leveled. It didn’t matter what else I did it seemed to me. I always knew when he was coming too, by the way. So, I got my desks in a row, got the trash cleaned up, but I especially made sure the blinds were level. If I did that I got good ratings!

Stronge had an easy-going review system when he was a teacher. What is his view on teacher reviews today? “The fact is ... there are some teachers who got on the wrong bus. There must be accountability in the system ... Evaluation is a tool for reform.” After Stronge left the classroom, he designed a teacher evaluation system that was used by districts across the nation to review thousands of teachers. This evaluation system destroyed people’s livelihoods – forced them to move; hurt lives. Stronge was paid millions for this system. What does he say about it now? “In the past I worked on an evaluation system that had 20 performance standards for teachers ... it's good on paper. I don't believe it works in practice anymore.” He admits that his former evaluation system was ineffective even though he received over $11,802,801 in grants and contracts from 1989-2009. Stronge admits that he never experienced the high-stakes review system he now advocates for teachers in twelve states. He further admits that his previous review system doesn’t work. What about his new teacher evaluation system?

B) What’s wrong with Stronge’s research?

If you’re going to be a teacher, it’s close to a 1 in 4 chance you will be reviewed by a worksheet developed by James Stronge. He calls his worksheets a “teacher effectiveness system” and claims the worksheets and rubrics are developed based off “research.” Let’s examine these claims. James Stronge was paid $962,000 dollars in 2011 to develop the teacher evaluation system for Georgia educators. The rubrics, standards, and research conducted by Stronge are the basis of all teacher evaluations in the state of Georgia. These little slips of paper developed by Stronge translate to people I know – people who I respect – with families and lives, getting fired and their houses foreclosed. I’ve seen this happen. The evaluation system is why your author was put on probation – because obviously I know nothing about being an effective teacher in modern, urban America after ten years compared to Stronge’s yeoman two years in 1976. The research these evaluation “systems” are based off is absolutely horrible. It is a crime that Georgia paid one million dollars for it. The first problem is Stronge lies to state education leaders. For example, he told an assembly of New Jersey education leaders that “reform begins and ends in the classroom… Teachers matter most – there is a lot of research behind that.” This is a lie. Teachers do not matter most. His own sources prove teachers don’t matter most. Which brings us to the first problem with Stronge’s research – he contradicts his own sources. For example, I’ve sat through countless meetings, both on the local and the state level, where the following mantra is repeated with religious reverence: “Teachers account for 30 percent of student achievement variance.” The source of this ubiquitous quote is James Stronge’s handbook he cobbled together for the Georgia teacher evaluation system. His citation for this claim is a 2003 article, addressed to New Zealand educators, where John Hattie claims teachers account for 30 percent of student variance. However, there are two problems. First, Hattie does not provide sources for this assertion. Second, if you add up the averages, Hattie admits in this article the teacher variation could account for only 20 percent of student variance. Now, it may be Hattie is catering his research to his audience and only citing studies that were conducted in New Zealand – since he does not provide his sources in this informal paper, it is impossible to know for certain. Let’s simply note that Hattie actually said teachers account for 20-30 percent of student variance in 2003. However, in the same section of the handbook, Stronge cites Hattie’s entire 2009 book Visible Learning. Since Stronge does not deign to give his readers pages numbers; we must assume he approves of the entire content of the book. Further, since he cites Hattie’s 2003 article, we must assume that Hattie’s 2009 book, made for an American audience, gives accurate numbers regarding teacher influence. In 2009, Hattie cites research by Marzano which notes “80 percent of the variance in achievement could be accounted for by student effects, 7 percent by school effects, and 13 percent by teacher effects.” Stronge’s own source contradicts his handbook. Stronge’s thirty percent quotation is further contradicted by another one of the sources he cites. Again, in the same section of his book, Stronge cites an article entitled “The Mystery of Good Teaching.” In this article, Goldhaber notes, “Eric Hanushek, John Kain and Steven Rivkin estimated that … variations in teacher quality account for 7.5 percent of the total variation in student achievement.” Goldhaber goes on to note his belief that “8.5 percent of the variation in student achievement is due to teacher characteristics.” Another example of Stronge’s sources contradicting his handbook. Yet a further problem with Stronge’s million dollar research is the lack of page numbers for his citations. This makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to check his resources for accuracy. Teachers are not idiots. We want to know the basis of our reviews. For a million dollars, citations should be accurate and succinct. Consider this example: Stronge writes “The complexities of teaching involve the focus on not only the breadth of content and skills that students should possess, but also the depth of the content and skills.” His source of this assertion is his own book: Qualities of Effective Teachers. However, since the citation does not provide a page number, it is extremely difficult to verify his sources for this assertion. Stronge does this for almost every book-length citation. It is beyond the reasonable capacity for teachers to verify – and learn from – the very research that their job performance is based off. For a million dollars, teachers and taxpayers expect more. Stronge also improperly misapplies research across disciplines and grade levels. In the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System handbook he notes, “Integrating technology has also been associated with better academic achievement.” What is his source for this assertion? A 2002 article where a principal described one computer lab that was made available to 16 eighth grade students! This is what every teacher in Georgia – elementary, middle and high – is judged off - the journalistic reporting of one school’s eighth grade computer lab in 2002? Let’s look at one more example. Stronge writes: “The (effective) teacher implements a variety of classroom techniques and strategies that enhance student motivation and decrease discipline problems.” His source for this citation is an article from the Elementary School Journal that outlines how nine 3rd grade teacher in catholic schools decrease discipline problems. Let’s suppose that we are insane and this research can be applied to public-school 3rd grade teachers. Does it make sense to evaluate middle and high schools teachers – or even kindergarten teachers – by the same standards based off research involving nine 3rd grade teachers?! Stronge misapplies research that is applicable for one discipline, such as Science, to all disciplines: Art, Physical education, Language Arts, Mathematics, etc. Consider the following examples from the teacher evaluation handbook:

Research has found that when a teacher’s subject-matter knowledge is insecure (for instance, when a teacher is teaching unfamiliar areas of curriculum) his/her ability to give appropriate and effective explanations in the classroom is limited, rendering them ineffective.

What is his source for this assertion? Stronge cites an article from The International Journal of Science Education that examines one science teacher in England. Every teacher in the state of Georgia, across every discipline, across every grade level, is evaluated by the experiences of this one teacher! This brings us to another problem with Stronge’s research. He applies private school research to public school settings. Let me tell you: a private school might as well be another world compared to Fairfield. They are two completely different environments. On page 196 of the handbook, Stronge writes “Throughout instruction, effective teachers model and provide scaffolding to support student achievement.” His source for this contention is an article describing one private-public school with highly selective admissions that serves 700 Black students. Surely, the experience of this school which limits enrollment and ensures family involvement is not applicable to every public school teacher in Georgia. Sometimes Stronge will simply make an assertion without any evidence. He writes “(Effective) teachers also provide wait time for students to reflect on their answers.” His source for this assertion is an article by M. Singham. On page 590 of Singham’s article he simply asserts that wait time is effective. Singham provides no evidence that it is effective. Finally, Stronge engages in double-speak. When he writes for the academic community, research is subjective and strong conclusions cannot be drawn from it. When he writes for teacher evaluations, research is clear-cut and dogmatic. For instance, Stronge compares apples and oranges when he demonstrates that teachers in predominately white, middle class schools and classrooms “had fewer class-room disruptions, better classroom management skills, and better relationships with their students than did bottom-teachers.” Stronge admits to his academic audience his research can be interpreted in many different ways: One interpretation of this finding is that differences in personalities and dispositions of students can better explain the differences found among the teachers. Perhaps this one year, the higher quartile teachers had students who had less difficulty behaving in school. Although this is certainly a possibility, we doubt that the differences in students are wholly responsible for the differences in teachers.

When questioned by an educator about differences in teacher influences on student outcomes, Stronge admitted: “It is virtually impossible in our field to find cause-effect relationships… I can tell you that what we’re looking for in behaviors of the teachers correlate very highly with getting higher gain-scores.” No one argues that differences in students are wholly responsible for differences in teachers. What anyone who has reviewed the relevant literature will conclude is, just as in the nature-nurture debate, teacher and student characteristics both influence student outcomes. Unfortunately, as I have demonstrated numerous times in this book, research has demonstrated that teachers account for approximately 13 percent of variations in student outcomes. From these considerations, and I could multiply these examples exponentially, it is obvious that the Georgia teacher effectiveness system was not independently reviewed – or was reviewed by an incompetent. It is no wonder teacher morale is at an all-time low.

C) Has Stronge Increased Student Outcomes?

“If it doesn’t touch the life of a child it’s been a waste of effort.” James Stronge used these words to begin his sales pitch of his rubrics and worksheets masquerading under the name of an evaluation system. Has Stronge’s evaluation paperwork increased student outcomes? The answer is no. In 2009, Stronge designed a teacher evaluation system for Miami-Dade County Schools – the fourth largest school system in the nation. He was paid over $2,300,000 to develop a training tool for the system. The system has been a complete failure: it has not increased student outcomes. It has decreased teacher morale. Let’s consider the Miami black-white achievement gap in Reading and Math. From 2009-2015 the black-white achievement gap either increased or stayed statistically the same for all grade levels measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Hispanic-white achievement gap stayed statistically the same for all grade levels measured by NAEP. Eight-grade students achieved at the same level they did in 2009 in both Mathematics and Reading. What does Stronge think of his evaluation system? Before he charged approximately $684,000 dollars to 76 New Jersey school districts, he admitted: “there’s no perfect rubric. In fact, they are all bad in some way.” Stronge acknowledges that one in four teachers who are disciplined under his evaluation system will be wrongly punished. “We aim for 75 percent interrater agreement among evaluators," he explains. And so we have Stronge: the two-year veteran of teaching in the trenches. He admits that his review system is often ineffective. He provides shoddy documentation for his research. He has a vested interest in interpreting his research in ways that allow him to design multi-million dollar review systems and training sessions. His review system achieved nothing in Miami-Dade County – a result which he freely admits has “been a waste of effort.” Tens of thousands of teachers have been wrongly punished due to negative evaluations based off Stronge’s worksheets which he calls a review system. If you are thinking about teaching in the favela: you may be the next victim of Stronge’s review system.

ATLTeacher Craziness playing with our lives!

May 26, 2017

Like (1)

report post

Mary22 It seems like TKES should be "class-action lawsuit worthy." I'm frankly surprised it hasn't happened already. If anyone ever could get the ball rolling, I think they'd find at least 70% -of the state's teachers on board.

Aug 18, 2017

Like (1)

report post

GArunner Exactly! This is my 6th year with TKES! The first year was practice. Oh my! We had 6 observations over the year. Seems our principal and assistant principal were always doing someone's observation! At least now those with 4 years teaching experience can have 2 a year.

Interesting to see the information presented in the above message! I ho...See More

Sep 10, 2017

report post