������Ƶ

In an interview published recently, state school Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi demonstrates that she either doesn’t understand the criticism of her ways, or is dead set on advancing a personal agenda.

In defending her administration’s version of education reform, Matayoshi apparently believes her ace in the hole is in high-stakes testing scores. The “rising scores” she refers to as evidence that her reform is working is based on Common Core standards, which was not developed through a national consortium of public school educators, but rather by chums of Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men on the planet. It has been subject to intense criticism nationally, much as has the “Courage Campaign” education reform being pushed by the uber-conservative, ultra-rich brothers Charles and David Koch.

However, even the Gates Foundation has reservations about Common Core, as shown by its recommendation recently that states wait two more years before tying test results to teacher evaluation and student promotion. Apparently, Matayoshi’s ears are deaf to the foundation’s warning, because the “improvements” to the state’s Educator Effectiveness System do not include modification or removal the provision that 25 percent of teacher evaluation be predicated on students’ high-stakes testing scores.

The superintendent likely listens more to her federal counterpart, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Much like the call statewide for Matayoshi’s ouster, the “Dump Duncan” outcry has gained momentum nationally, echoed loudly at the recent National Education Association convention in Denver last month, largely due to this political huckster blithely brushing off recent research results calling into question his “value-added measures” for teachers evaluations based on student test scores. (Notice how his term resembles an advertising slogan.)

In many districts, principals fall victim as well to his value-added measures, and in a bizarre situation in Washington D.C., so do every adult employed at schools, even custodial staff.

This bit of voodoo is contrary to overwhelming research that calls it and the whole notion of standardized testing into question, not to mention its invalidity for use in evaluating teachers.

In April, the American Statistical Association found that “effects — positive or negative — attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors.”

Other researchers reported out similar findings in May, concluding that there was “little or no correlation between quality teaching and the appraisals that teachers received,” using Duncan’s measure of choice.

So it is not enough that Matayoshi’s ace in the hole is not what she would have it to be. The superintendent, herself a lawyer no less, chooses to disregard contractual language that requires evaluation of all DOE personnel, not just teachers. Binding arbitration of the principals’ contract removes pay-for-performance. Matayoshi’s response to this inequity: “We are not looking to fire teachers, we are looking to hire them and support them in their continued employment … The same is true of principals. So if you look at (the evaluation systems) from that perspective, they’re not incompatible.”

If the superintendent was actually legally advocating for teachers, she likely would argue that the teachers contract calls for teachers evaluated as “marginal” or less to be denied pay raises or outright fired.

A vast majority of teachers do not support Matayoshi’s reforms, if the Hawaii State Teachers Association Convention this past April can be relied upon. Nor do the principals. Darrel Galera, the retired Moanalua High School principal who conducted the principals’ survey critical of the DOE’s direction, remains unconvinced that the alluded to “improvements” are enough. Using the Smarter Balanced Assessment “in this way, to help determine teachers’ pay, is basically an experiment. It’s a disservice to teachers and it’s a disservice to students.”

Long-time community activist Randy Roth, a law professor at the University of Hawaii, met with Matayoshi after he and several principals called for her ouster. He was quoted in a recent article as saying, “I would like to believe that the superintendent ‘gets it’ and any changes she is initiating now are more than just an attempt to make it look as though schools are going to be more empowered in the future. After having talked to her at length, I have very serious doubts that she even understands the depth and seriousness of the principals’ concerns as expressed in the principals’ survey.”

In other words, few buy into the “reforms” advocated by Matayoshi and Duncan. Rather, they would play with words, using advertising jingles designed to deceive.