We are doing persuasive essays in social studies at the end of a unit on ancient Rome, in honor of that civilization's tradition of oratory and persuasive verve. In the republic, after all, leaders had to use their voice or actions to persuade others they were right. They couldn't just beat people up and insist on their way (that came later with the Caesar). So, honing one's persuasive technique is a fundamentally democratic act, one that might be good to promote among children who will grow up to be citizens of the world.
Speaking of
things that are good for children (or not), I've recently been deeply disturbed by Obama's latest push to tie teacher evaluations to their students' standardized test scores. I totally agree with the president that teachers are vital to the process of education and to the growth and development of their students. Where I profoundly disagree is using something as flawed and potentially child
damaging as standardized test scores, especially in the areas of reading and writing.
It makes me want to write a persuasive essay! To convince you, my audience, that I'm right about this, as 'logical' as it may sound to non-educators. What's wrong with accountability, after all? If students are going to be judged by their scores, why not their teachers? What is going on in those classrooms, day after day, and why shouldn't teachers be answerable for their students' results? Why not indeed. As you will see, I am not arguing against accountability. I'm taking on the yard stick itself. How we judge our teachers
will make a significant difference in the lives of our children, but we have to make sure we are evaluating professional educators in a valid, meaningful way if we hope to make a valid and meaningful change.
So, here is my thesis statement, my "call to action" (as I tell the kids), my opinion that I would love you to agree with by the end of this essay: Teachers should NOT be evaluated primarily by their students' scores on standardized tests, especially in the areas of reading and writing.
Reason #1: Teachers should not be evaluated primarily by their students' standardized test scores because the tests themselves do not accurately or authentically measure student knowledge or progress, especially in reading and writing. In California, the STAR language arts test is a gru
eling, three-hour, multiple-choice exam that supposedly assess an array of reading and writing standards. Because there are a minimum of 30 standards in each grade (5th grade has 32), each standard is "assessed" with only 1-4 questions. Therefore, the measure of student's ability to, say, identify the main idea of a passage, often comes down to his/her answer on a single question. Maybe that morning, the student has had a good night's sleep, eaten breakfast and has come to school bright-eyed and ready to test. Maybe they answer that one question correctly that one morning of the year. And maybe that don't. No educator worth his/her salt would ever determine mastery based on the answer to a single question on a single exam. Yet, the standardized tests do this every year. It's wrong to judge student progress using such a measure, and it's wrong to judge teachers for the same reason. Furthermore, most standardized tests do not ask students to do any sort of writing at all, even though they are tested on writing standards! Incredibly, most states equate a student's ability to take a multiple-choice writing test with an ability to write. However, I don't know a single university professor or employer who would accept "E: none of the above" in place of a term paper or job application. In fact, a professor friend of mine often speaks with concern about the lack of writing ability she sees in her freshman survey course. She blames the focus on high-stakes standardized tests, and so do I. These tests do not measure a teacher's ability to teach. They test a long list of standards with one or two questions on one day out of the 180-day school year. And they don't even test authentic writing, a skill that is crucial to a student's later academic and professional career. If teachers are evaluated by these test scores, many will continue to ignore authentic skills in the service of test prep. These teachers will be held up as "excellent" or "acceptable" if their students pass the tests, but the students themselves will not be ready for college or the job market because the tests themselves are the problem.
Reason #2: Evaluating teachers using their students' test scores will hurt low-income students in disporportionate numbers. As we discussed previously, standardized tests don't assess authentic skills like writing. What they do is ask students to apply narrow range of line-by-line editing skills to a text they have never seen before. Teachers of low-income students are often confronted with kids who are far below grade level. In a short amount of time, they must help their students develop necessary skills after years of neglect. With the inauthentic tests hanging over their heads, urban teachers must sacrifice a great deal of time teaching actual writing and reading in order to teach the standardized test 'skill' of line-by-line editing or analyzing a short, stand-alone text. Those who don't take time out of their actual instruction to teach these 'skills' will be faced with lower test scores and lower evaluations. Let us be clear: they will be judged as less effective teachers because they choose to teach writing composition or authentic reading rather than test prep. This is neither fair to the teachers, nor fair to the low-income students who will forced to learn useless skills to help improve their own test scores and their teachers' evaluations. In addition
, low-income students traditionally score far below middle class students on standardized tests, regardless of the teacher they have. If test scores become a major part of teacher evals, even fewer teachers will choose to teach low-income students. Those who do stay will be confronted annually with discouraging reviews, even in years where they feel they make significant progress because the test scores may not reflect their hard work. Low-income students will continue to be given the least experienced, least mobile teachers. The plan to hold teachers accountable for their students' test scores will not improve the quality of teachers who serve low-income students. In fact, it will make it worse.
Reason #3: Teachers should not be evaluated based primarily on their students' test scores. Instead, they should be held accountable in a range of more authentic ways. True, these ways are more complicated and less politically expedient, but they would be better for students and teachers. Currently, Obama's plan "Race to the Top" requires that standardized test scores provide no less than 50% of the teacher's evaluation (many states are weighing these scores more heavily). The remaining 50% (or less) will be based on five classroom evaluations by administrators throughout the school year. (This in itself is interesting because many public school teachers are evaluated just once a year. Maybe. Public school principals are as overworked as teachers. Who is going to carefully observe 50-100 teachers 5x/year?) Instead of basing teacher evaluations on just two indicators (one deeply flawed, one practically impossible), I think teachers should be evaluated based on the ways they help our schools become what we all agree they should be: places where authentic learning happens; where students feel safe and eager to be; where instruction is based on the standards as they are written, not as they are tested. (Every state has writing application standards. These standards set the bar for actual writing instruction in each grade level. Yet they are not tested.) Most of all (and this is where teachers can make a huge difference), schools should serve all students equally. Therefore, teachers should be evaluated on their students' writing and reading growth over time. This can be represented in a portfolio of student writing and reading projects (determined by the standards, but actually representing authentic skills). Teachers should be evaluated by students
and parents based on a state-sponsored evaluation or a pre-approved questionnaire set by individual schools. Teachers should be evaluated by their colleagues on their grade level team or department based on their contribution to helping build a community for all students. Teachers should be observed by both master teachers and administrators to evaluate their instructional prowess. Teachers should be evaluated on their long-term plans, which can be submitted as easily as test scores, though it will take more work to assess them. If the state insists, test scores can be a slice of the evaluation pie, but it will be just a slice. The sum of these evaluations will paint an accurate picture of the teacher as a professional, an instructor, a member of a school community and of someone who is being trusted with the education of children for nine months out of the year. It's fair and it's encouraging. It will accurately evaluate teachers on their commitment and skill regardless of where and who they teach.
Conclusion: Obama will be doing the teachers and students of America a great disservice to base teacher evaluations primarily on their students' test scores. The tests themselves are nearly meaningless measurement of student knowledge, especially in reading and writing. The evaluation policy will put low-income students and those who teach them at a particular disadvantage. Finally, teachers can--and should be--evaluated in a variety of authentic ways.
'Nuf said.
