As we well know, there is a new teacher evaluation system being rolled out in states across the country. This was a highlight to the Chicago Teacher's Union strike a few weeks ago. In an interview, Ed Payne from CNN asked members of the CTU about their objections to a new teacher evaluation tool:
And herein lies the quintessential question that surrounds all teacher evaluations - how much can student performance be measured and appropriately linked to teacher performance?
Despite popular opinion, I do not think most teachers are opposed to being evaluated, nor are they opposed to having their performance determine whether or not they keep their position. Teachers, especially younger teachers, understand that there are many more people applying for jobs than there are positions to be had. If you're a low man on the totem pole, you're going to WANT your evaluation to help you keep your job, and you probably wouldn't mind if someone at the top had to work just as hard to keep theirs.
Where teachers are concerned is, just as the CTU members stated, the relationship of student performance to their own ability to teach. There will always be that one student or couple of students who are almost impossible to reach. Even a master teacher, who's been teaching for 25+ years can have a student that they're not sure how to help. Does this failure equate to them being inadequate as a teacher? Of course not, and the new evaluation system wouldn't hold a small percentage of the student population against them. However, what happens in a school district where the majority of the student population is underperforming? Is the entire teacher population at risk of losing their jobs because their district isn't making the grade?
This is where the CTU has some ground to stand on in making their case. In a district with a large number of at-risk students, it would be concerning to base your teacher evaluations on the performance of these students. At the same time, there are teachers who have great success with at-risk students across the country, so would it be terrible if these school districts only looked for the best? (are there enough of these teachers who don't burn out after 5 years...)
I don't think there's a clear answer in this debate, but what is clear is that teacher new teacher evaluations are here to stay and the best way to deal with it is to make sure that you're doing the best you can in your classroom. Any teacher who honestly puts their all into their work (which most teachers do) has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if you're a teacher who has been riding the wave letting students come and go without putting in too much effort to update your curriculum, or develop new strategies for working with students who struggle, maybe you should take a closer look at your career and find a way to fix things before the evaluation becomes an issue for you.
-MB
Next week: Merit Pay
 |
| Image - www.nytexaminer.com |
Q. Why are teachers objecting to evaluations tied to performance?
A. The union says student performance is directly linked to conditions in the home or neighborhood, making it unfair for teachers to be punished if students don't do well in the the classroom for those reasons.
(click HERE for the full interview)
And herein lies the quintessential question that surrounds all teacher evaluations - how much can student performance be measured and appropriately linked to teacher performance?
Despite popular opinion, I do not think most teachers are opposed to being evaluated, nor are they opposed to having their performance determine whether or not they keep their position. Teachers, especially younger teachers, understand that there are many more people applying for jobs than there are positions to be had. If you're a low man on the totem pole, you're going to WANT your evaluation to help you keep your job, and you probably wouldn't mind if someone at the top had to work just as hard to keep theirs.
Where teachers are concerned is, just as the CTU members stated, the relationship of student performance to their own ability to teach. There will always be that one student or couple of students who are almost impossible to reach. Even a master teacher, who's been teaching for 25+ years can have a student that they're not sure how to help. Does this failure equate to them being inadequate as a teacher? Of course not, and the new evaluation system wouldn't hold a small percentage of the student population against them. However, what happens in a school district where the majority of the student population is underperforming? Is the entire teacher population at risk of losing their jobs because their district isn't making the grade?
This is where the CTU has some ground to stand on in making their case. In a district with a large number of at-risk students, it would be concerning to base your teacher evaluations on the performance of these students. At the same time, there are teachers who have great success with at-risk students across the country, so would it be terrible if these school districts only looked for the best? (are there enough of these teachers who don't burn out after 5 years...)
I don't think there's a clear answer in this debate, but what is clear is that teacher new teacher evaluations are here to stay and the best way to deal with it is to make sure that you're doing the best you can in your classroom. Any teacher who honestly puts their all into their work (which most teachers do) has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if you're a teacher who has been riding the wave letting students come and go without putting in too much effort to update your curriculum, or develop new strategies for working with students who struggle, maybe you should take a closer look at your career and find a way to fix things before the evaluation becomes an issue for you.
-MB
Next week: Merit Pay
