Am I dreaming? Does Jay Greene now believe that standardized test scores (and value-added analyses) alone cannot be used to judge teachers? Maybe so. Reading his blog, I am struck that Mr. Greene -- a long-time proponent of most-everything-rests-on-test-scores in educational accountability, including how to identify and reward effective classroom teaching -- may be doing a “180.” (Even the folks at Education Sector appear to be moving their thinking.)
Mr. Greene picks up on writer Michael Lewis's description of basketball player Shane Battier. In his New York Times Magazine piece, Mr. Lewis notes that Battier, one of my Duke basketball-crazed wife’s all-time favorites, may not have NBA all-star stats, but when he plays, “his teammates get better, often a lot better, and his opponents get worse — often a lot worse.” Battier “may not grab huge numbers of rebounds, but he has an uncanny ability to improve his teammates’ rebounding….(and while) he doesn’t shoot much, when he does, he takes only the most efficient shots.” Lewis's analysis seems to have hit the bottom of the net for the policy wonks of education. At least the sports-minded ones.
Mr. Greene notes that “as we move into the era of value-added analysis for teacher merit pay,” the Lewis piece “provides much food for thought,” and teacher rewards “should not just be based on individual learning gains.” Schools, according to Greene, are “more complex social organizations than basketball teams, so education sabrematicians have a great (deal) of work ahead of them.” To find out more about how to pay teacher leaders for highly valued, but not necessarily statistically defined performances, Mr. Greene could return to the framework defined by our TeacherSolutions team, who, collectively, have designed a strategy to reward both the Kobe Bryants and Shane Battiers of the teaching profession -- and find ways to pay more for those teachers who help others get better.
