Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?"
Why would Tulsa even think of hiring embattled Chief for Change Deborah Gist as superintendent? Oklahoma voters recently rejected Chief for Change Janet Barresi and her devotion to test, sort, and punish. Students, parents, teachers, and administrators have risen up in a grassroots rebellion against the bubble-in mania of Gist and Baressi, and the voters overwhelmingly elected a State Superintendent, Joy Hofmeister, who is making good on her promise to bring civility and collaboration back to our schools. So, why would Tulsa hire a charter member of an organization dedicated to destroying local school governance and the professional autonomy of teachers, as well as our unions?
This is a national issue, not just a threat to Oklahoma schools. Why would Tulsa hire an ideologue who pioneered the mass dismissal of teachers in order to stifle dissent?
As in other states at the depths of the Great Recession, Oklahoma was given an offer it could not refuse. We could forfeit millions of federal dollars and remain under the micromanaging of the discredited No Child Left Behind regime, or we could agree to the Gates Foundation's risky, experiment for using test scores to fire teachers. To be eligible for federal grants, we had to embrace Arne Duncan's School Improvement Grant (SIG) system of removing at least ½ of the teachers in high-challenge schools and/or labeling teachers who oppose teach-to-the-test as "culture killers," and "exiting" them.
But, now, why would Tulsa hire Gist, who made her name as a blood-in-the-eye "reformer" by rushing to the head of the line, and helping to fire all teachers in Rhode Island's Central Falls High School? Why would Tulsa hire a Chief for Change who is being run out of her own state?
Six years ago, it made sense for Tulsa to apply for a pilot project grant to test some of Bill Gates' pet theories. Even then, scholars and practitioners who sought to use high-stakes tests and a not-ready-for-prime-time statistical model to evaluate teachers were few and far between, but only in retrospect did we learn that Gates would demand such complete fidelity to those hypotheses. Back then, we did not know that Arne Duncan would fill his Department of Education with Gates Foundation staff, and that Bill Gates' untested preferences would soon become the law in almost all of the nation.
The Gates/Duncan value-added models, which were promoted by Gist, have now been proven to be biased against teachers in high-poverty schools. Now, we understand that the full implementation of Gates' theory would prompt an exodus of its top teachers away from schools where it is harder to meet their growth targets. So, why would an 80% low-income district hire Gist, a last true believer in punishing schools and individuals for not meeting quantitative goals (even though they have proven to be impossible in neighborhood schools that serve everyone who walks in their doors?)
The Gates/Duncan/Gist value-added evaluations are collective punishment of teachers who commit to high-challenge schools. It is now clear that they always were a club to beat down teachers and unions who opposed test-driven accountability. So, Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?" | John Thompson:
