It may surprise some people outside of education that teachers have always been evaluated. When you read the newspapers you might think that Governor Cuomo invented the idea. Traditionally, in districts on Long Island, teachers without tenure can be evaluated at least three times a year and more recently six times a year or more by a number of administrators. Tenured teachers have been evaluated at least once a year, but teachers have always been evaluated on their ability to teach a lesson! The theory was if a lesson was motivating, engaging, and exciting for the students the teacher was doing his or her job. Now, a teacher will be judged on whether the students are doing their job. Being judged for the shortcomings of others just doesn't seem fair. It is simplistic to think teachers can just command their students to pass a test and it will happen.
Teacher evaluations were based on observations of lessons by an administrator, usually a principal or assistant principal. Teachers have also been observed by the head of a department, superintendents, assistant superintendents, or other district office administrators. For each observation, a teacher must sit down with the observer for a pre-observation screening which must be in written form, and then a post-observation evaluation meeting on the lesson. The whole process can take two hours or more including the lesson. It has always been a formal process and it was always a source of stress for most teachers, and for me personally, even after I received tenure. After teaching a super lesson and having a positive assessment as a follow up, a day later or a week later the concept you taught may be gone! You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
In educational circles we call it," the dog and pony show," but in reality, most teachers want to put their best foot forward, and show their immediate supervisor that they are effective! Even veteran teachers would get a knot in their stomach when being observed, simply because they cared what their principal thought of their teaching ability and took pride in their profession. No one that I encountered in my forty years in teaching was flippant about being observed. In my district, veteran teachers were eventually allowed other options besides observations to advance their professional ability. For example, a teacher can read a book or take a course on a new technique in teaching, demonstrate how it was applied in the classroom, and be required to share it with the faculty. Most teachers thought it was easier to be observed, but I always took the option even though it was more involved than a simple observation. At the end of my career, I thought it was much more valuable for me as a professional.
Now, the good Governor, the President, and the Secretary of Education want to really shake things up by adding children's test scores to the evaluation process. The state tests in math and language arts were meant to measure if a child did what he or she was supposed to do for a particular grade level. It measures what a child has learned or retained, not the ability of the teacher. If they worked hard, studied the rules, paid attention, and did their homework, theoretically they should do well on the test. It is an opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned during the year, provided that they actually put the effort into learning. What is never discussed by politicians is that there is a readiness factor, a memory factor, and an ability factor if a child is going to do well regardless of the teacher's ability. Above all, there is no accounting for what a child will do on a timed test.
Even the best students I've had can blank out on the day of the test due to nerves, or lack concentration due to a family crisis. A certain number of them will just put any answer down just to get it done so that they could look smart in front of their classmates. They have learned that it really doesn't matter what you get on the," stupid" test because you go on to the next grade no matter what! Many will fixate on one particular question for ten minutes and then the teacher will announce that there is just five minutes remaining. Most have been trained to not leave any blanks so they will proceed wildly to fill random answers just to put something down. If they skip a difficult question, they often will misnumber the rest of the test and all their answers will be wrong from that point on. Like I said, anything can happen when it comes to children and a timed test!
Yet another factor that enters into the testing is a child's uncanny ability to cheat. They have devised some very sophisticated methods of cheating. They are really quite good at it and will deny it to the end! They will copy answers from a friend no matter how well you supervise the test. Some students know the questions in advance because they have a cousin in another school district who took the test the day before. Although it certainly is not cheating, affluent parents can employ tutors to prepare their child for the tests, distorting the whole process with an unfair advantage. Perhaps what we need to do is to treat these young children like they are taking an SAT. Place them all in the gym with proctors, collect the tests, and immediately ship them off to the Governor's office in Albany. Do we really want to do that to our children?
Now imagine that your entire career, an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in your education, and the time invested in graduate and undergraduate courses can all be wiped out by the scores of your students. You may have worked extremely hard at teaching the necessary material but your students just don't care. It is just human nature that some teachers will be tempted to enhance their scores any way they can. Some will look over their shoulders and guide their students to the correct answer, some will look the other way during a test, and some will be so bold as to change answers before they hand them in. As unethical as it sounds, it will occur because of the extreme pressure that is being placed on these test scores.
Next, the test itself is flawed because on both the math and language arts tests there are extended response questions that can be interpreted differently depending on who is correcting it. Some may be overly generous while others may be too harsh. If students have excellent computation skills but have difficulty reading, they may fail the math test. If students can read but have difficulty physically writing down a response that is legible, they may fail the language arts test. ESL students are especially in danger of failing because they are forced to take these tests after only one year in this country. I'd like to place Gov. Cuomo in a foreign country and have him take a test in another language after one year! Did I mention many of these students were not educated in their native language? So the Governor would have a distinct advantage.
Another variable that is not accounted for is the make up of your class. A teacher in a poor district who is loaded up with ESL students, mainstreamed special education students, or severe discipline problems who create a distraction for others during a lesson, is at a distinct disadvantage. Whereas, a teacher in an affluent district with a minimal amount of disadvantaged students, and parents who are educated or supply tutors if necessary, will have a huge advantage when being evaluated. As you can see, the system is flawed at all levels!
Too much is riding on these state tests and it is not good for teachers or students to have too much emphasis on them. Ask any administrator who their best teachers are and they can tell by the rapport they see in the classroom, the requests they get from parents, and the overall learning environment created by that teacher during any observation. Actually, the best way to observe a teacher is at random. Principals should ask if it is a good time to observe and become part of the lesson, getting involved with the students as they learn. On the other hand, principals know who is not effective by the number of complaints they get from parents, requests for withdrawal from a teacher's class, and the negative atmosphere created by that teacher. Administrators should be in that teacher's room once a week and offer mentoring to that teacher if necessary. Test scores simply measure a child's ability to recall information and apply it. They should never be used to measure a teacher's ability to teach when some students refuse to put in the effort to learn. Wake up, America!
No comments:
Post a Comment