One of the recent issues in the Chicago Teacher Strike was about the use of state-mandated tests as 40 percent of the evaluation. This is by no means a new idea. They finally settled on it being 30 percent of the evaluation. You already know, if you've been reading these what I think of state-mandated testing on the use of evaluating anything. Teachers do not object to evaluations. It makes sense and helps the teacher grow, but there are much better ways to evaluate than using a test that really evaluates very little.
Recently there has been a move in Colorado to again get rid of that evil tenure, even though tenure has not technically existed in Colorado for twenty plus years – no one has apparently informed the Colorado congress of this. The new law is one that is astoundingly moronic. Teachers will be judged in part on the progress of students on the Colorado mandated test, now called TCAP or "tee-cap." On the surface that sounds like a good idea. If kids don’t show progress in a particular field, the teacher they have will lose his tenure if he has it and be moved back to probationary status.
Remember, the test means nothing to the kid except now he can blow the test in the subject areas he doesn’t like to get rid of the teacher who made him do his work instead of playing video games. Adding to the problem is state testing generally only goes through tenth grade (junior and senior teachers you’re safe for the time being unless they decide to use the ACT or something). There is the whole host of problems with testing. There is the problem that if the tests actually do work, then the bar will have to adjusted because you can only demonstrate so much improvement. Not every area is tested (in fact right now we test English, math, and science, with possibly social studies in the near future). They have no idea how to judge the other areas of teaching (so band, drama, PE, special services, and family and consumer studies, etcetera, you too are safe for the time being). And last but not least, the rubric for the evaluation required of every teacher every year is several pages asking for judgment on things that have nothing to do with the teacher and even include items beyond the classroom doors.
 |
| Goodbye Creativity...we are going to be busy testing. |
Administrators will be spending three times the amount of time of evaluating, and teachers will now be worrying about keeping their job because of a test. As I said, political decisions are, as we all know, too often driven not by what actually makes a difference but by what politicians perceive as public perceptions (often created by their own propaganda machines) and their need for reelection.
Let's also not forget cost. Schools are already strapped for funding in most if not all states. Well someone must be paid to make all these tests and paid to grade all these tests and then someone paid to collate the data and then someone must be paid to analyze the data and then there is postage, printing, transport...etc. In Texas, for example standardized testing will cost the state half a billion dollars over the next five years. And of course the cost in time for administrators who must now evaluate every teacher with a document of incredible length and the cost in time to education and classes and teachers. All for something that will not accurately measure any group, learning, learning styles, teaching, or teachers. Is it really a cost worth paying and...
When exactly were schools supposed to go about educating kids?
I agree with you... mostly. I'm a proponent of using student performance to evaluate student and teacher proficiency. The evaluation needs to be consequential to the student. It would be appropriate for the student to have to demonstrate an understanding of current course material in order to be allowed to move on to newer material. In other words, make the tests count. If a students ability to move to the next grade level is affected by one of these mandatory evaluations I guarantee the scores will come up. Making the test matter to the student will help better expose under performing teachers. If properly motivated students are still consistently under performing, then it would point to an issue with the way the educator's course material is being presented.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know if you have an alternative to the current testing system (failing I agree). After 30+ years of being an educator how would you evaluate student progress, and teacher performance? I think it would make a very interesting post, and I'd love to read it!
As for the issue of tenure. It absolutely still exists, as you mentioned in your first post it is simply a matter of semantics. I feel I have a better understanding of tenure than most, and as it currently exists it provides too much protection for incompetent teachers. I agree that because of the subjective nature of evaluating a teachers "ability" that tenure has a purpose. However, there needs to be some mechanism to more easily terminate poor teachers. A true pay for performance system (like the majority of us work under) would be a good step in the right direction. Years + Education is hardly a solid measure of the value of any given teacher. Under the current system, extremely gifted teachers, such as yourself, are egregiously (sp?) underpaid, while others are overpaid for their poor or mediocre teaching abilities. Giving districts more leniency in their ability to distribute teacher compensation would immediately lead to more motivated teachers. That and that directly applies to student performance. anyway... sorry for the mini-rant! love the blog, read every post!
There is certainly alternatives to bubble testing but all are expensive. Testing does need to be a part of the work, but the question of validity is difficult. Let's say the state test decides that every child needs to understand the concept of irony in eighth grade, but the school's curriculum based on state standards hasn't included it until 9th grade. What then? Then there is the issue of smart kids who don't test well. You know someone like that well. What about students who have more pressing concerns than a test...like food, home, or a parent who doesn't abuse them? Do we hold the mentally challenged to the same standard? Are they included in the final evaluation of the teacher whose class they are mainstreamed in? Then there the testing of the student who doesn't care, was sick, or didn't get a good night's sleep? Testing is a complex problem and the solution is far from easy. The problem here with evaluation is that teachers are not invited to the table by the politicians or board.
DeleteNext is the idea of bonus or performance pay. Your pay is related on clear demonstrable items such as completion of a program or hours at school. The product is immediate. My problem is how do you give rewards based on anything other than college hours to a teacher for success that may not come to fruition until years later. How many students who hated my demands in writing when they went through it, suddenly realize it two or three years later or ten years later? Do I get my bonus pay with ten years worth of back pay or interest?
I am a firm believer in demonstrated performance. Given the new technology, building and storing a portfolio which can certainly include testing could show progress and learning. We also need a way to confirm that parents are actively pursuing learning and re-enforcement at home.
There is also the rise of core curriculum. I am not sure, since it is a new process, exactly all that it entails. It is coming to many states. Some states are dropping testing in favor of the idea of core curriculum. Its main thrust, if it works is a good one in principle: An A is the same A in any school in the country. My concern though is the loss of creativity for students that such regimentation could bring. There are a few recent studies that indicate the loss of creativity in the American schools has drastically reduced problem solving by graduates. Again, teachers have not been invited to the table.
One thing that we have done in many states is have teachers work on developing the standards, but the tests that are written by companies do not align with those standards.
As to tenure, it is a matter of doing the job as an administrator to break it. I've known a couple of administrators who are willing to do that job, but also too many who don't do it cause it may cause them to have to build a case and take a stand which for far too many is a scary idea. It needs documentation to break tenure. Tenure is changing. The discussion about tenure we have now will be different in ten years especially as we progress hopefully from the industrial model of education. Tenure does protect the incompetent, but as you well know from your experience with other government entities, tenure is a poor excuse that it protects incompetent. There are plenty of people who are incompetent in positions of "boss" that haven't any tenure, just someone above them who is a buddy or fails to do his job and follow the process to "fire" the person.