The right way to evaluate teachers

Perhaps because it is legislative season in many states, how public school teachers should be evaluated has been in the news a lot lately. There is great tension between legislators (and one would assume much of the public they represent) who want standardized tests to be a factor in teacher evaluations and teachers who feel the use of test scores is unfair. 

I am undecided and confused about the issue. 5 years ago I defended the use of aggregated historical test performance as a criteria that I would use as a parent to choose a teacher from my child. I reasoned:

Now, my little boy Skunkie Jr is going into 4th grade and there are three possible 4th grade teachers that he might get. Might not I, as a parent, want to look at the track record of each teacher the Skunkster might get next year - as demonstrated by the percent of students that made or exceeded a year of growth in each of those teachers classes, over say, the past three years. The records indicate that an average of 75% of Mr. Chip's kids make a year of growth; 90% of Ms. Brodie's kids made a year's growth; but only 50% of Mr. Holland's got that year of progress. Might that not be a good thing to know - as a parent or an administrator or a staff development coordinator or as a taxpayer?

In the meantime, I read a very compelling editorial in the Washington Post written by Michele Kerr. As a classroom teacher, she asks for a "negotiated" set of conditions that must be met before she is to be evaluated based on test scores. These are:

(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.

(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis.

(3) Students who don't achieve "basic" proficiency in a state test be prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression.

 (4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment.

I can't believe any reasonable soul could argue that Ms Kerr's conditions aren't themselves reasonable. And as Ms Kerr laments, if all factors, not just "teacher quality" are not considered when looking at student performance, we may never get to the root of why some kids aren't successful in school. (As a geezer, I catch myself asking, "When did the primary responsibility for doing well on a test shift from student to teacher?")

Anyway, I do believe in evaluations of teachers - but test scores seem a very inadequate metric of effectiveness. In my experience as a teacher, a parent, and a student. Here are things I would like "measured":

1. Ability to develop student dispositions (like empathy, perseverance, love of learning, humor, critical thinking, etc.), not just basic skills.
2. Ability to personalize instruction for every student.
3. Ability to communicate and partner with parents.
4. Ability to understand a student's particular set of circumstances that might impact his/her school performance (home life, socio-economic levels, health issues, etc.)
5. Ability to simply inculcate and strengthen the joy of learning in my child. 

The primary thing I watched for in judging my own children's teachers was whether they said they "liked school." Test scores be damned if kids don't equate learning with happiness. If my kid wants to be in school, is excited about something being studied, and feels safe, valued, and important - you have my confidence as a teacher.

But how that is numerically assessed is beyond me...

Comments

[Vivian]

Thank you for a interesting read. I don't envy the teachers in the States under this kind of testing pressure. How would you evaluate creativity, empathy, and humour I wonder. Also, can it be taught?

[Douglas W. Green, EdD]

I consider myself reasonable and I would like to take issue with Ms. Kerr's conditions. First I should say I think the standardized testing culture is bad for students and teachers and needs to be abolished. It is predicated on a one-size-fits-all style of education that dates to the 19th century. The only tests kids should take are the ones they are ready for. If you have a system where kids proceed at their own pace and take tests for the material they have been working on with unlimited retakes, you can judge students and teachers by how far the children progress. It would be easy to factor in attendance with a progress/day approach. As for disruptive students, you will have less disruption if students are working on material that is interesting to them and appropriate in terms of difficulty. Most principals will tell you that most disruption comes from a small number of teachers with poor behavior management skills. Why should we let poor teachers weed out disruptive students who are likely to be low scorers? As for holding kids back who aren't proficient, I believe this to be immoral. If we let kids move at their own pace, there is no such thing as holding back. There is no reason why we should create a system that features the concept of failure. I would rather see Ms. Kerr fight the madness than try to fix an unfixable system.

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Dr. Doug,

I didn't read the editorial by Ms Kerr as a argument for keeping the testing culture in education, but as a means of exposing why it will not work as a means of evaluating teachers because external variables that impact test performance cannot or will not be controlled. My guess is that given the choice, Ms Kerr would toss the testing system out as well.

I appreciate your comment and certainly agree with your thoughts about testing and its impact on kids.

Also, thanks for your blog. I am a faithful follower.

All the best,

Doug

[Lissa]

It seems to me the reason that we resort to standardized testing is because it's easy. I agree that they are not an accurate measure and I would much prefer your way of evaluating teachers. The golden question - how would those things be assessed and who would be responsible for the evaluations? The problem seems that better ways of evaluating teachers are also much more difficult. :/

[Doug Johnson]

Hi Lissa,

I agree standardized testing is easy. But I also think it is seen as objective where as so many other measures are viewed as subjective. Personally, I've always viewed the subjective as the way the world actually works, but then I'm not making policy.

Doug