The entire education world stands behind consistent core content standards to use as benchmarks for student evaluation. But, what about teacher evaluation?
another California elementary school
At this moment most school districts in the country are frozen by the disarray in state budgets and taxpayer angst, preferring to blame teachers when students aren’t doing well just as the oil execs pointed fingers at everyone but themselves for the latest catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.
So with the uncontained controversy over funds for schools-think about it, we’re talking about money to make sure students are educated. What would it be like to live in the countries where children don’t go to school at all, aren’t educated, struggle through life with little to sustain them much less lift themselves out of their hard scrabble existence?
Here in the U.S. the latest way we value our students is to not approve school district budgets, vote not to pass parcel taxes, exact wage freezes and higher insurance premium concessions from teachers, and require furlough days–to name a few of the cutback options pervading not only urban districts but upscale suburban districts also.
On top of such turmoil, state legislatures are passing new education bills that feel to teachers like another slap. Why? Before common core standards for students are put in place, and no matter what the states say, teachers are being evaluated by one tool–analyzing the improvement in test scores for the teacher’s students. For many states improvement in this area would mean SPENDING funds and time to make those test scores valid and available.
Here it is: the cart before the horse.
This is how academic standards for student achievement should affect the teacher evaluation goal. Follow this path: consistent standards and benchmarks, preferably throughout regions of the country if not nationwide; then tests that actually assess those standards and for which proficiency is equivalent region-wide; after test analysis, provisions made for each school to support those students who need intervention; next yearly evaluation, non-threatening, designed collaboratively with teachers in a school, test scores being one aspect; yearly evaluation of the school as a whole and of the district as a whole, including the superintendent and school board; money set aside to provide professional development for aspects of academic achievement not met by teacher, principal, school, and district. REPEAT EACH YEAR.
This process is not on the agenda. Instead, teacher tenure, anathema for most lay people, drives the process, especially for those fixated on turning schools into businesses, which they aren’t and won’t be even if run for profit. Why would anyone wish to make a profit on the backs of little kids just doing what their parents want and the state requires?
The tenure aspect of teacher evaluation ought to be seen as an outcome of consistent, agreed upon standards and benchmarks for student achievement. The teacher’s standards must be clear, unequivocal, based on objective statements of good teaching.
In addition, an agreed upon framework is needed for how the school community works together to meet student achievement goals. If one teacher can’t or won’t support that goal, then steps to lay off the teacher make sense.
If you are interested in details of national student core standards, part of the federal Common Core State Standards Initiative to make assessment and proficiency consistent and achievable across the country, you can go to the National Governor’s Association or the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Both groups have overseen the development of and recently set out a draft of national core standards K-12 from which the process outlined above would lead to results that teachers may feel adequate for successful evaluation. Don’t forget the principal and school district administrators must be evaluated also.
You can go directly to look at the core standards and take a survey. Do so.
