Recently, I was informed of an overnight success. A science teacher was teaching his subject in the South Bronx with minimal success. Only 55% of his students were passing the state regents in that particular subject area. He was discouraged and disappointed in the results. The next year he was transferred to a better district in Queens. He used the same lesson plans from the previous year and really didn't change his teaching style one bit. Miraculously, his success rate increased to a 90% passing rate. According to the data, he became a super teacher overnight! He went from receiving an incompetent evaluation to master teacher in just one year!
This particular story, which happens to be true, crystallizes the ludicrous notion that teachers should be evaluated according to test scores. Teachers have always been evaluated by administrators. Principals can come into your classroom at any time to observe your teaching style. In the past, before a teacher received tenure, the principal customarily made three formal observations. Over the years, that has increased to at least six observations by several administrators including the superintendent. This apparently didn't satisfy the politicians who wanted hard cold numbers to substantiate good teaching and the witch hunt began!
Feeding into the public's thirst to get those overpaid, fat, lazy, public servants out of the profession, our good Governor Cuomo wanted teacher evaluations to include how many students passed the NYS tests. That number should count for 40% of a teacher's evaluation, but the courts knocked it down to the original agreement of 20%. In reality, test scores measure the ability and effort of students, and the only thing they can evaluate is the program of study being offered by the district not the teacher.
Administrator know who their good teachers are. These are the educators that offer parents and students a learning environment that they are satisfied with. When administrators get an overabundance of complaints concerning a particular teacher, perhaps what should be considered is a peer review. Using retired master teachers to evaluate a troubled classroom would add a different perspective to the evaluation process. A master teacher could intercede and first do an analysis of the general make up of the class. If there is a large percentage of special needs children along with discipline problems and ELL students, that has to be taken into consideration. Those are the factors that put a drag on the class and can affect learning. The composition of a class can have a detrimental effect on those students who want to learn. And yes, the teacher can be at fault in which case the master teacher would act as a coach or mentor until the classroom environment improves.
A peer review system is much more comprehensive than looking at percentages and would constitute a much more equitable approach to teacher evaluations. Simply looking at a number tells you nothing about the ability of the teacher, however, it speaks volumes about the ignorance of our politicians. Teachers, more than anyone, want to weed out incompetence. We truly care about our students, and want them to become productive citizens. The future of our country depends on it. It is the reason why we became teachers in the first place. We, above all others, would never protect incompetence and we above all others, have the ability to recognize it. Wake up, America!
No comments:
Post a Comment