Maryland Superintendent Nancy Grasmick came up with an ingenious new plan this week that would force schools to link teacher evaluations to student achievement. For some reason, she thinks that teachers ought to be judged by how well their students perform. More specifically, she thinks that at least 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation ought to be based on their students' achievement. (The definition of “achievement” it yet to be determined, but one can assume it will mean students’ performance on standardized tests.) Where on Earth would she ever get such an idea? Why should teachers be judged on how well their students perform? Shouldn’t they just have job security because they have served their time in the system, sat through hours of professional development and staff meetings over the years, dealt with parent upon parent, and written hundreds of lesson plans? Why do they need to actually be good at what they do? Isn’t it good enough that just show up at work everyday?
Well, thankfully the whole Race To The Top movement and national push to get better test scores and see real student achievement is getting to Grasmick. And she, along with several other schools administrators around the country, are making real strides to get qualified, successful educators into classrooms and try to combat the issues plaguing countless schools around the country.
And the unrest in teachers’ lounges and at union meetings throughout Maryland can now begin (that’s to say there were at one time peaceful and calm environments). One teacher (who put in her 34 years) wrote into the Sun.story saying that it’s not realistic to tie student success to teachers because teachers cannot be expected to produce growth in troubled children. I can imagine that in the near future, several more teachers and union leaders will speak out against the proposal in similar ways. And many will attempt to chip away at Grasmick’s plan and create negotiations so as to prevent strikes and keep everyone calm.
It seems so counterintuitive to me that so many teachers and teacher unions are steadfastly opposed to the idea of linking teacher evaluations to student success. I would think that all teachers would want to be in the company of successful teacher and would want to reassured that all of their co-workers are there for a common purpose: creating better students. It is understandable for people to get frustrated over the fact that their job is linked almost solely on a single test, but if students aren’t learning (meaning teachers aren’t accomplishing their main duty while at work) then teachers should be let go. Why is this so hard for teachers to accept?
If Maryland really wants to see real change and produce real growth in its students, then, yes, it’s probably going to mean letting teachers who have been around for 34 years clean out their classrooms and let someone else try. And, unfortunately, it’s also probably going to mean enduring several riots from teachers in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree that some aspect of teacher evaluations should be based on what students are learning. The main job description of a teacher is to educate students, so if teachers are not overall meeting that main goal, then maybe they need to find a different avenue to be working with students. I think the real battle will come with how achievement is defined though. There are students who could grow leaps and bounds within a school year maybe gaining at least 1.5 or 2 years of growth in math or reading yet still not be successful on the standardized tests. However, if we have a better way to ensure that EVERY teacher is helping students achieve that type of growth in each academic year, then we could hope to begin to see students who aren't as many years behind.
I think the next question gets to how are we also going to really hold students accountable for learning in school? If there are excellent teachers in all classrooms and students are not taking advantage of their learning opportunities (thus not doing well on standardized tests, and thus negatively impacting teacher evaluations), does a solution exist there?
While I also agree that student success must play some part in teacher evaluations, I am hesitant to say that it should be so strongly linked to teacher quality assessments that a person's job could depend upon it. Anyone who has taught knows that a students performance on an exam is not solely upon the teacher's efficacy, a myriad of other factors like attendance, prior exposure, natural aptitude, etc. come into play. Therefore, their students' performance should not be the sole measure of a teacher's success.
Performance based pay incentives, like those proposed by D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee have taken a lot of heat over the years, but at least in that situation teacher retention was not at stake. While I won't disagree that ineffective teachers should be removed from the classroom, surely a better system exists for doing so than tying students "high stakes" test scores to yet another outcome.
One additional problem with this proposed model is that it does not take into consideration the absence of adequate standardized testing for all content areas. As a teacher of a non-HSA subject, who will determine whether my students have succeeded enough for me to keep my job? Would this model necessitate creating a New York State like model of "one subject, one test?" Or, will this plan only impact teachers fortunate enough to already be under the weight of a mountain that is the HSA exams?
Perhaps the absence of adequate standardized testing for all content areas will serve as the impetus for a nationalized curriculum. I think if the Federal government wants states to raise the stakes of tying student achievement to teacher and school performance, then it should be accountable for providing a nationalized curriculum to measure outcomes. I know this bumps up against state’s rights versus the oversight of the federal government; however, I could see a scenario similar to federal funding for state highways or works projects being tied to states adopting federal-sponsored regulations, for example seat-belt or helmet laws.
So, if a nationalized curriculum for all subjects (or just a few to start) were propagated to states due to federal funding like RTTT, won’t this perhaps begin a more serious dialogue? I know can be a maelstrom of academic critique and opinion, but in simple form, doesn’t it seem to make the most sense?
Again, to create another parallel, isn’t this why most universities still believe in the reliability of the SATs and ACTs in order to predict student preparedness and success? It is easy to rush to the offensive as a teacher due to the plethora of excuses and reasons for why this job is already as difficult as it is and further stress and nonsense will only take one’s energies from the classroom. But, yet again, aren’t we trying to ensure our children’s academic success, which outside of subjective opinion, can only be judged by standardized assessments? Ah the calamity!
But great post!
My question is why should it not be linked to ACHIEVEMENT. How can it be OK to just show up to work, when the work directly affects the lives of other people - nurses can't just show up. As a teacher, your goal every day should be trying to improve achievement, close the gap and teach students. There is no other job, where the "boss" would say - you did a great job three years ago, so I'll keep paying you for 10 more.
The first thing that actually draws my attention when I hear about jurisdictions like Montgomery County linking student performance to evaluations is that another pioneer is experimenting with the logistics of this endeavor. I believe that most of our discomfort and most of our questions where it comes to linking student performance to teacher evaluation comes down to logistics. How can we make this fair? How can we avoid attaching too many outcomes to high stakes standardized tests?
Ryan asks the important question of how to measure performance in non-tested subjects. Montgomery County is soon going to have to try something. The large majority of my fears regarding this trend concern logistics and fairness, and the only way we can work out those logistics is to try them. Denver instituted merit pay, Minnesota instituted merit pay under a Republican governor. I'm as scared as everyone about being unfairly penalized, but at the same time we may also be working out a basis for increasing the rigor of teacher requirements through incentives instead of penalties. These rules will have to be fair, too. It may be that what these jurisdictions come up with for dealing with non-tested subjects, for example, will in some cases be innovative ideas that increase the plausibility of merit pay on a larger scale.
How do you protect kids from this kind of situation?
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2009/10/newsweek-on-mcps-what-happens-when-role.html
This was a very real situation and Newsweek did an excellent report on the atmosphere at the school at the time. How do you keep students from being pawns?
Post a Comment