The debate concerning the use of student progress as a measure of teacher performance is beginning to receive considerable attention nationwide. With the recent election of Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey this idea gained further traction in the Garden State. The sought after federal “Race to the Top” U.S. Department of Education grant for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding is contingent on a renewed teacher evaluation process that formally recognizes a correlation between student achievement and teacher performance. Is this a valid idea whose time has come? Ask yourself this question: In an era of increased accountability for public education why would any reliable system for evaluation not include student performance?
Here is the problem: The current system of teacher evaluation in use throughout New Jersey is far too narrow in scope and falls short in many key critical areas. This is primarily due to overreliance on outdated methods for assessing teaching performance linked to limited criteria. For example, a major flaw in the current process for evaluation is the sole reliance upon direct observation of teachers by principals or supervisors. Direct observation limits the evaluator’s view to only a fraction of total annual teaching time. As a result the evaluation process fails to offer a complete picture of employee performance. Therefore by design the common evaluation process for assessing teacher performance in New Jersey limits school administrators to only a snapshot of employee performance. What’s needed is a full motion picture of performance over time.
The dual mandates of teacher accountability and improvement of instruction are among the most important components of our schools and should be the centerpiece for valid and reliable teacher evaluation practices. Consider that the quality of any school district is directly linked to the performance of the individuals who work there. Administrators are in need of accurate and complete measures of employee performance in order to assure the best connection between qualifications and assignment of personnel. By extension, administrative decisions concerning teacher placement typically correlate with the overall achievement of students assigned to specific courses within a school. These important components need to be infused into a reliable and defensible evaluation process.
Classroom observation as a primary data source for evaluation provides only one snapshot of teaching actions and limits the administrator’s overall view of performance. The exclusive use of direct observation presumes that observable, overt teaching behaviors provide a sufficient basis for judging teacher adequacy and competencies. Hidden from view are the elements of teacher planning, modification of instructional materials, context and depth, working relationships with colleagues, and student growth factors. Equally important are the teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, content mastery, and feedback from students and parents.
The reforms that are shaping America’s public schools include a movement toward increased academic rigor, learner-centered schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, professional learning communities, and collaborative problem-solving. A new era of rapid technological change implies that teachers will need sustained professional growth experiences and the ability to communicate with many constituencies. Outdated and subjective teacher evaluation practices exclude most of the elements described above and contribute little to the student learning and growth measures needed today in our public schools.
If teachers and principals together are to be held accountable for student performance then they will need to have genuine and sustainable professional interactions that support teaching and learning. What is also needed is a mechanism for performance evaluation that takes into account multiple measures of student success. If evaluation protocols intend to respect the professionalism and qualities of excellent teaching then a more inclusive system for collecting, collaborating, analyzing and disaggregating data is needed. At the center for all of our efforts must be the growth and progress of the students we serve.
Schools now have access to multiple views and longitudinal data about student progress thanks to a decade of content standard development and standardized testing in America. Why not use this rich data to inform us about the effectiveness of teaching practices and behaviors in our public schools? Outdated evaluative practices merely offer a glimpse into the act of teaching as opposed to the results of teaching. This is an important shift for educators. Why do many professional teacher associations appear fearful of analyzing the results of teaching when considering the overall effectiveness of teaching behaviors?
In fact, teachers should be making their own case for valid and reliable evaluation practices rather than avoiding or deflecting this discussion. The reason schools exist as a public institution is to meet the needs of the children we serve. Teachers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for student progress or demonstrate consistently mediocre professionalism need to be counseled and removed. Unfortunately, only in extreme cases are schools able to facilitate the dismissal of ineffective teachers. In order to prevail in cases of dismissal school boards must rely upon a wealth of data absent from common evaluation practices in New Jersey.
Many other states have embraced the use of student data and multiple criteria for evaluation as part of a complete picture of employee performance. It is time for New Jersey to usher in a new era of accountability and cooperation based upon more modern and reliable assessments. Evaluation of teachers should contain multiple rating categories and procedures that value student growth and achievement. Evaluation must be fair, inclusive of constructive feedback, and connected to a foundation of support and shared professional development in schools.
New Jersey’s new administration has a golden opportunity to depart from the past practices that have limited the overall view of educational performance and innovation by advocating for evaluation reform. These reforms need to be consistent with the federal Department of Education’s Race to the Top funding goals as millions of dollars in federal support could be gained. This alone is reason enough to pursue some much needed reforms in educational evaluation.
If New Jersey is to embrace any form of merit pay for school employees it will first have to address the inconsistencies and shortcomings of current evaluation processes. The Commissioner of Education would be wise to inspect the educational changes that have taken root in other places and be prepared to break from outdated thinking about evaluation and accountability practices. This may finally be the best time for us to place students at the center of our renewed efforts to build excellent public schools in New Jersey. Isn’t that why our schools exist in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment