Let’s talk about teacher evaluation. This is one of the most complex topics in education, and I cannot say that I have the answer. What I do have, however, is the perspective of a teacher who cares deeply about the success of the public schools, the reputation of the profession and of my own school, and the experiences that students have every day.
I also have a few years of experience (give or take a couple of decades). One thing experience has taught me is that what may seem obviously “right” can have unanticipated consequences.
There is a proposal that keeps circulating regarding teacher evaluation, which seems logical on the surface, but carries harmful unintended consequences. It has a variety of permutations, but it all comes down to the same idea: good teachers should be paid more than mediocre teachers. This is called “merit pay.”
If there were a way to do that, I’d be all for it. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. How do you sort out the good from the not so good? To borrow from Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, good teaching is hard to define but you know it when you see it. Unfortunately, quantifying it for purposes of determining pay is more problematic, and additionally relies upon the judgement of principals who are themselves uneven in their abilities.
Recognizing these pitfalls, proponents of merit pay have suggested tying teacher salaries to student scores on standardized tests. This eliminates the subjectivity of other methods, but it has problems of its own as it both penalizes teachers who take on the challenge of teaching our most needy students, and stigmatizes those students who are facing the greatest obstacles to success.
After decades of ignoring this flaw, there is a new mantra: “value-added.” This means we look at individual students’ test scores at the beginning of the year, and compare them to their scores at the end of the year to determine how much value has been added in the form of learning. This is supposed to be the cutting edge of education; to have such a system in place heralds a district’s arrival on the scene of exceptionalism. Value-added methodology does acknowledge the disparity in student populations, and it has the virtue of being easy, but it is still problematic and I believe damaging to the cause of quality education.
I already see good teachers setting aside more meaningful instruction in favor of drilling on test items in order to boost their students’ standardized test scores. Teachers and schools are already compared on the basis of these scores, and their reputations hang in the balance. Across the country, schools and entire districts are making Herculean efforts to forestall the inevitable: failure to meet their target APIs and consequently falling into “program improvement” status. By 2015, virtually all districts in the nation will have failed in this effort, as the mandated target for that year is for 100 percent of the student population to test at “proficient” or “advanced.”
Of course society has a right to expect teachers to do a good job, and teachers should be evaluated on their job performance (Indeed we already are, and teachers who receive two consecutive “unsuccessful” evaluations are dismissed). But it seems to me there are two distinct problems we are facing here.
One is that some ineffective and even bad teachers remain in the classroom (Conversely, some outstanding teachers are growing discouraged and leaving the profession). Administrators need to be more consistently trained in recognizing, fostering and acknowledging the qualities of effective teachers. And they need to be given time to focus on this most important of responsibilities.
The second problem is that too many students are not performing as we would like. The knee-jerk reaction has been to “hold schools accountable” through interminable testing of students. We need to refocus on what is meaningful in learning. People enter the teaching profession for a number of reasons, but I think the most common is a desire to help children – to inspire them, to see them become successful, to share a love of learning or of a particular field of study. I believe that is what society wants for our children, as well. Interestingly, if you look at the schools that have been rated the best in the world, you will find that they don’t even have standardized tests until the end of high school.
Teacher evaluation is complex and important, and it cannot be fixed by increasing our reliance on standardized tests. Good teaching is about so much more.
