Teacher Groups Frustrated With California ESSA Plan’s ‘Loose’ Definition of Ineffective Teachers
This article is a collaboration with LA School Report.
Teacher advocacy groups are expressing concerns about the loosely defined criteria for ineffective teachers in California. These concerns have mounted as the state is required to submit its accountability plan under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act by September 18th. One of the key measures of accountability is ensuring that low-income and minority students are not disproportionately taught by inexperienced or incompetent teachers.
However, California’s Board of Education recently approved a vague definition that falls short compared to those offered by other states that have already submitted their plans to the federal government. California is one of 34 states that have yet to submit their plans.
Daniel Weisberg, the CEO of TNTP, a nonprofit organization focused on ending educational inequality, expressed disappointment with California’s definition of an ineffective teacher, stating that it is detrimental to teachers as a whole. The California plan defines an ineffective teacher as someone who lacks the necessary credentials or is assigned to teach the wrong grade level or subject. It does not evaluate teacher performance.
This loose definition of an ineffective teacher is particularly concerning given the Vergara v. California case, which highlighted the existence of ineffective teachers throughout the state. The CEO of TNTP argues that the state Board of Education should be more diligent in setting standards in light of this evidence.
The National Council on Teacher Quality has been closely monitoring and reviewing the ESSA plans of different states. Their report highlighted that Tennessee and New Mexico have more comprehensive definitions of ineffective teachers, incorporating multiple objective measures and growth percentiles. Weisberg believes that California could adopt a similar approach.
Defining an ineffective teacher is a contentious issue when developing an ESSA plan, and California is not alone in having a loose definition, according to Weisberg. The Executive Director of The Education Trust–West, Ryan Smith, expressed concern that the state’s proposed definition focuses on teacher qualifications rather than their ability to help students learn. The Education Trust recommended including additional measures, such as absentee rates and employment turnover, to evaluate teacher effectiveness.
The Association of California School Administrators also weighed in, suggesting that teachers with preliminary credentials should not be considered ineffective. They highlighted the difference between inexperienced teachers and fully credentialed but ineffective teachers in instructional practices.
Weisberg cited surveys and conversations with thousands of teachers, underscoring the importance of having a clear understanding of excellence in teaching. He believes that this will benefit all teachers.
The president of the state board, Michael Kirst, stated that a loosely defined definition could prevent interference from the federal government in California schools. He mentioned that the state can revise the plan in the future to provide more details. One of the board members, Ting Sun, summed up the discussion by expressing her concerns about the definition of an ineffective teacher.
