Teachers: Could The CEI Cost You Your Job?

Spruce High School apparently has a unique way of handling SEI and CEI scores. Here is some information that you should be able to verify with a Texas Open Records request:

Spruce promoted a math teacher to department head. Turns out that he was reprimanded by the last school administration for helping students cheat on a high-stakes examination.

If the current administrators didn't bother to check the personnel records of this employee, is this negligence? Incompetence?

Or, did they know about this alleged act of less-than-honorable behavior? If so, maybe they are hoping that he can continue "tutoring" students during an examination like TAKS.

It would in the public interest for someone to find out exactly what is going on at Spruce. Is taking the easy way to higher test scores ever the right thing to do?

The CEI mess, this is an absolute joke! I will be willing to bet Dr. Hinojosa my salary against his, the statement he made about teachers with low cei's will never change is an absolute lie! The system does not recognize mastery achievement of a student.

The student makes a perfect score on a tenth grade test and misses 1 question as a junior the teacher failed and loses cei points.

Just found out my campus's SEI was incorrect. (Imagine!) It's actually higher than reported. Let's put aside for a minute the debate over CEIs and SEIs themselves. If we are still having errors surface months later only after requests for review, are we ready to use them to affect peoples' lives and paychecks?

[Ed Note: One important thing to remember is that if a teacher's CEI's are incorrect, the findings can be appealed. We'd like to hear (in detail) from someone who has gone through an appeal process recently to hear what it is like.]

In today's Dallas Morning News, more evidence that the DISD does not tell the truth to its own employees.

They fought--and won--the right to keep CEI's out of the public domain. They say it is private, but that makes no sense, since the said earlier that THEY DON'T USE THEM FOR EVALUATIONS.

Which is it? They do, or they don't?

I would gladly show any parent my CEI. I could show them how CEI's are based a on a small grouping of kids. I can show how it makes no sense. If they want to remove their kid from my class because of my CEI alone, let 'em!

I teach so well, it would be further proof that the CEI is a crock. They would see how mine and many other CEI's really do NOT reflect what is going on in the classrooms.It will show them that distilling their child--your child--to one or tests a year makes no sense. THAT should bring them comfort, eh?

When people think DISD employees are irrational, emotional or see conspiracies everywhere, they laugh. This is just ONE MORE ITEM of how they say one thing and do another.

THAT is why so many people opposed the bonus pay. If you can't trust them to be straight with you on evaluating you for your base pay, do you really think they will be fair on a bonus?

I am all for rewarding excellent teachers for their students' progress and improvement. However, my only concern is the fact that teachers are now only teaching kids how to take standardized tests. The pressure put on these teachers by their schools, district, and state for these kids to pass tests such as the TAKS has caused them to focus more on test strategies and has taken away the joy of teaching.

The kids are learning the information that they need to pass these tests, but they are not learning why this information is so. For example, I had a student whom after having read a Comprehension Practice Essay (on the Coersive Acts of 1774) for the TAKS, was able to tell me that the 4 Acts were a result of the Boston Tea Party (he's a very smart kid). However, he had no idea what the Boston Tea Party was when I asked him about it. He thought that it was a party where they all got together and drank tea in Boston. What shocked me most of all was that NONE of my class knew what the Boston Tea Party was. Nobody had ever taught them.

I know we need to have standardized tests, but we also need to actually EDUCATE the kids and not focus primarily on them. I am a product of DISD, myself, and now teach in DISD. But I cannot say that my education was a result of it. I transferred into DISD my junior year, and had to take what is now the TAKS test (used to be TAAS in the 90's). I had never heard of this test, except for that the test was a joke and super easy...That was a half true.

I ended up passing the test in flying colors in all subjects except writing. The reason I didn't pass the writing section was that I had learned an entirely different style of writing in private school. Here I was, thinking I had written this beautiful essay, and would wow whoever read and graded these tests, and I failed. I was too embarrassed to tell anyone except my teacher. She told me that I needed to write my essay using the "TAAS format" to pass. So, just to see if this was true, I wrote the stupidest essay with multiple grammatical and spelling errors, but I wrote it in the correct format (Intro, 3 supporting paragraphs, closure). Guess what...I passed it with flying colors!

I think if teachers are preparing students for any test, it should be the S.A.T. Otherwise, these students need to be educated about the important things in life. Our children are being underserved by bad teachers, and the good teachers don't even have time to help these kids to their fullest potential. It is sad.

I just have to say this: I wonder how they might be using CEI's against the teachers at Roosevelt? Growth plans usually involve observations and CEI's, TAKS Scores and ACP scores.

And since Aimee's group supports the use of CEI's for the bonus, how can she then turn around and say, oh no, don't use them this time?

[Ed Note: Well, CEIs are already used as a portion of the criteria to terminate teachers. If a pattern develops of "just happening to" terminate the contracts of those who were at the meeting, we'll obviously point that out here. It's not nice to retaliate and we always seem to catch them!]

Since the board passed the pilot pay for performance program, I will concede the point of using CEI's for the moment. Fine, use them.

But fix them first.

Teachers have the right to ask for correct and verifiable CEI's. Perhaps I've been using the wrong word--unfair. I think a better word is inaccurate.

Or at the very least, mysterious is good word. Teachers cannot verify who is on their roster--and thereby cannot verify who even might be used to calculate their CEI.

As it was explained, a teacher has added value if the student scores better than "expected" on the standardized test(s). Where does the teacher find what the "expected" score is? It seems logical to me that if there is an expected score the student must reach in order for me to have added value, I should be able to find what that score is. Again, where is that?

What will be done about teachers who have subjects attached to their name that they do not teach? I'm writing from an elementary teacher's perspective on this point. Here are the specifics--there are teachers at my school who teach only one subject. We departmentalize.

But these teachers have 2 or more TAKS tested subjects attached to their names because of the way the master schedule is written. I have been totally unsuccessful in getting any answer from anyone as to why that is occurring. Can anyone answer that for me, please? What can be done to correct that? As is stands, teachers who don't deserve the bonus might get it and vice versa.

It has been written that there is a grievance process if a teacher feels their CEI's are inaccurate. Will that process be shortened or expedited in order to meet next December's pay day? Why can't the teacher know now who is potentially on their CEI roster and the district correct mistakes now?

Now, if a teacher could get her hands on that information, let me tell you what I think any self-preserving teacher would do with it. She would analyze the students weakness according to the test data and teach to those weaknesses. She would also memorize those expected scores and test, analyze, benchmark, analyze, and test and benchmark until the student reaches that score, focusing only on the skills necessary to get the expected score on the standardized test.

Because $10,000 will motivate.

So will the possibility of losing your position. But is this what we truly want? Maybe I'm being very gloomy. I admit that is a pretty severe scenario but I don't think it's that far-fetched. What about the students at the top? What about the students at the bottom? What about students who have special needs?

I know that the editor of the website has asked for better ideas. I would call on the teachers and administrators of this district for better ideas. I believe the president of NEA-Dallas asked for better ideas in his address to the board. We will see if this pilot works and what the problems are as it goes along.

Like I wrote, this is sort of a white flag post from me. I will never support the idea of pay for performance for teachers because it is wrong. Teaching and learning are experiences. I don't think a number can be put on that. There are no peer reviewed studies that indicate that over time pay for performance really improves the students' learning.

I would encourage everyone to look at some of the data coming from Tennessee. Also, the President of the National Education Association just wrote an article that appeared in USA Today opposing tying teacher pay to test scores. Here is the link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/opposing-view-r.html

The CEI's are going to be used. I can't stop that for now.

I don't think it is unreasonable for me to request and even with all due respect, demand that they be accurate.

Some clarification on this new performance pay plan the district is rolling out. This is a bit of a long post, but if you want some good, truthful feedback about the new performance pay program, please continue. Just as a precursor, I will admit that I am not a teacher but am an informed DISD employee about the performance pay program. I really want some honest feedback on this.

If I were to come to a teacher and say for their class, if 80% of your kids pass the TAKS exam then you’re doing good, and if 80% doesn’t pass, your doing bad, how fair would you think that would be?

I can hear it now, well so and so has the honors kids, well I have all the limited-English speaking students, well I have a bunch of special education kids in my class, etc….

Guess what. That’s exactly what the state and federal systems do.

They do not care what your class looks like or who you teach.

Let me correct that, they do look at race and a few other factors to determine various student groups, but they primarily look at scores and percent passing.

If that were the only way to be considered a good teacher, then that means the only good teachers must reside in the suburbs with the “rich, privileged kids” in districts such as Highland Park and Southlake Carroll because they’re the ones who consistently have good accountability ratings, etc…

Or maybe only the magnet schools have good teachers and all the others have bad teachers because the magnets always score so great. Well what if someone said we know that’s not the fairest way to do it and instead of judging you just on passing rate, we will judge how well you grow the kids who are given to you. Wow what a great concept. You mean if I have low income, Limited-English speaking kids, I can still be considered an effective teacher even though my passing rate, or average TAKS scores aren’t that high? Exactly.

I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Why aren’t there daily protests in Austin and in Washington about the current accountability system because like I said, they just judge mainly by percent passing, and absolute measurements?

And yes, the state does tie money to those accountability ratings. Look at many of the grant funds being given out because many of them tie accountability ratings to them. Believe it or not, the state doesn’t rate a district exemplary because of how well the teachers get parents involved, or measure how passionate and caring teachers are. Sorry, but in the real world, they care about numbers and something measurable to determine accountability. I know it sounds insensitive, but I didn’t make up the system.

We have a district in Dallas who is trying to improve upon the unfair system that the state and federal government is currently using. DISD recognizes that it is an urban district with urban students and urban challenges, so they should have a system that better shows which teachers are doing well in the classroom with their students.

Notice how I said, “a system that better shows,” as in better that what we’re currently using. What the state and federal government does is one thing, and DISD is attempting to do something they think is MORE fair.

When teachers got money from the TEEG grant from the state, did you read the details in that your school still had to have a certain accountability rating? When the district rolled out the Outstanding School Performance Award, did you read the details and notice how the school still had to have a certain accountability rating? In other words, you still had to be in a high-achieving environment to be eligible for the money and yet I still didn’t see any pitchforks raised.

The program the district is rolling out says you can improve the students that come in your classroom, still have a low accountability rating as a school or even a low passing rate, and be eligible for money. Maybe I’m missing something but that sounds at least a little fairer than what’s in place.

Let me just mention this too. One of the reasons why some administrative staff said this is “cutting edge” and that we are ahead of the curve is because even the state and federal government recognize the unfairness of the current accountability system. They understand that measuring by absolute performance isn’t always the best accountability so they are encouraging districts to start developing and researching these “value-added” systems that look more at student growth in the classroom rather than absolute performance measurements.

It just so happens, in the still relatively new arena of “value-added” systems, Dallas ISD does have a lot of research in this area, so why not try it out to see if it can work better than what we are using right now?

I never said the district is presenting something that is PERFECT. If there is anyone out there who thinks they can come up with a perfect system, please strip the anonymous tag off your post name so we can anoint you superintendent right now.

I promise there is not one who can come up with a perfect system that is fair to everyone. Not DISD, not the state and not the federal government. If teachers are so up in arms about tying pay to performance that just give money out free for doing nothing and showing no improvement.

Oh yeah we already do that.

We give thousands and thousands of dollars with absolutely no performance measurement.

Teach math = extra money.

Bilingual = extra money, etc…

And those are the stipends that actually make sense and there are many that don’t. I’m not against stipends or incentives or awards. I actually think that serves another way to recruit certain people to do certain jobs or have certain responsibilities.

The district’s plan has many categories, in which just like the previous example of stipends, some money just has the purpose of paying money to people for being a math teacher or whatever. Which is fine.

One way to help recruit the math, science, bilingual, etc... teachers is to offer these "stipends". Other parts of the district’s plan look at how well students are growing in achievement compared to similar kids in the district. I’ll repeat, how well the students are growing in achievement, and not just how well they are passing. Of course the eventual goal is to get them to pass but you have to start somewhere and why punish the teachers who are getting them closer to the bar?

We don’t see protest being done for a teacher who increases their salary by 40% with absolutely not accountability tied to those stipends and incentives. I’ve heard plenty of times and believe teachers are right when they say they don’t work for the money.

Great, but do you work for free?

Do you even want to get paid at all? Don’t act like you don’t want a paycheck. Forgive the district for trying to offer an improvement over the current system and give teachers and campus staff ways to get more money.

Just one last thing about the district’s plan.

All full-time campus employees (in one of the pilot schools) are eligible for this extra money. Yes all, including elective teachers, janitors, cafeteria workers, coaches, counselors, everyone. And better yet, there is really no risk to the program.

For teachers who get CEIs, you will receive your CEI whether you join this program or not and for those who join, there is no punishment if you don’t qualify for the money.

There are different levels of awards for the staff, but the point is that some are saying this is only for the “core” teachers, but that is not true.

At least be educated about the program first and try to understand more about CEIs and SEIs before pulling out your pitchforks and torches. The district barely began communicated the plan yet, and some are opposed before they are even fully explained the details.

Let’s give them a chance and see how this pilot works.

Thanks for listening.

I always reach back to my own experiences in DISD when I write on this. I had one teacher, who taught chemistry. DISD refused to remove her even though only 20% of the students in all her classes were even passing (C- or better).

If you have 80% of the kids on your 5 classes (roughly 150 kids total and 120 of them were failing the class) periods per day who were "not getting it" to the tune of D's and F's, I think that's a pretty clear indicator that you need to find a new line of work.

Worse yet, I don't think this will have the effect DISD is looking for. Teachers with proven track records will likely get offers to move on to greener pastures leaving DISD with the dregs.

While I am certain that Dr. Mendro is an expert and I am in no way questioning his method of calculating a CEI/SEI, I would like to point out some of my concerns with using these indices.

First, I have personal knowledge that not all of the data being put into the formula is accurate.

For example, at elementary schools teachers in upper grades are often deparmentalized; that is, they teach only one subject to all of the students at that grade level.

At present, due to constraints on how the master schedule is written/constructed, (constraints that I haven't been able to get a good answer on why they exist) these teachers have students and subjects attached to them that they never teach, therefore generating a CEI that isn't really theirs.

That isn't fair.

All data used in calculating these indices must be exact and verifiable. I have heard of no plans to correct this yet.

Second, since the CEI/SEI results come from standardized test scores, I feel that teachers will teach to the test even more.

If a large sum of money and possibly their job relies on having high CEI's and SEI's and the way to get them up is to get a better than expected score on standardized tests, then it is logical to conclude that teachers will spend lots of time on the test material.

Dallas ISD has spent an enormous amount of time training all of us on the Priciples of Learning.

They are one of the major pieces in the Dallas Achieves! recommendations.

One principle is academic rigor in the classroom.

We all know the TAKS is a basic level test of knowledge and skills and there will be no academic rigor in a room where this test is emphasized.

Then, there is the issue of divisiveness.

Many good teachers won't be eligible for the money because they have no CEI's--that could cause jealousy and strife.

Will the school board one day approve a test for every subject at every grade level so that everyone will have CEI's and a chance at the money?

Ugh, I hope not.

Next, there is the large issue of how to pay for this when the federal grant money that is paying for it now runs out.

Are the taxpayers willing to pay more taxes to raise the millions when we still are cleaning up years of corruption?

I doubt it.

If we only have so much money in so many "pots", as Dr. Hinojosa puts it, where will the money come from?

And finally, don't think that tying these indices to evaluations won't eventually happen. It already has.

CEI's were used in the process of determining who was moved out of the reconstituted schools.

This vote is historic.

The school board will decide if we move toward trying to run a school district like a manufacturing company.

I don't think we should because teaching isn't making a product. It is influencing a human being.

I'm not sure we should be measuring that with numbers.

[Ed Note: The only numbers many of the kids are measuring the district by are things like "dropouts" and "failures." I think the Office of Institutional Analysis folks recognize that more testing data will be necessary to pull together comprehensive analyses. However, we must start somewhere. The status quo fails too many of our kids.]

Another thought on the research on teacher effectiveness; it takes a few years for most teacher to ramp to effectiveness if that is the way they are going to trend. Look at the churn rates for teachers these days, and you will see the majority leaving before they develop mastery. This speaks to the current crisis in achievement extremely well. Every teacher needs a more appropriate student teaching experience, and every new teacher needs a great deal of support the first couple of years. Instead, the senior teachers generally take the best students and leave hordes of freshmen to the rookies. Freshman year in high school is a decision time for potential dropouts. Being placed with many novice teachers is a bad practice.

The actual use of the CEI would be the first real reform of this administration.

Previously, this research was great stuff for Mendro's professional circle, but it wasn't used to eliminate teachers whose students regressed academically because of the teacher's poor practices.

The use of CEI gives every teacher a level playing field in terms of adding value to what walks in the door in August.

The teacher who works in a magnet that cherry picks students will certainly have her work cut out for her since she will have to actually show progress for that student rather than just riding the coat tails of a high achiever.

You might ask to see the data aggregated to show which schools are most effective according to the CEI. The data will shock you in many cases because it will show some schools are very ineffective even though they have good reputations.

Since Hinojosa is now admitting the poorest teachers generally stay that way, his comments at the beginning of school that principals should just "fire them up," rather than firing the poorest were not indicative of his understanding the consequences of leaving students with these teachers.

Research done at the University of Tennessee years ago highlighted the permanent damage done by the lower quadrant especially in the early years of learning to read. The poor results of high school students in Texas shows the lack of mastery of content later.

Getting rid of these lower quadrant teachers will be a political bombshell since lower performing principals have allowed them to ride out their careers in DISD. Pity the poor children who have had to put up with a lack of instruction in core areas.