This week’s teacher strike in Chicago is one that everyone in education is closely watching; it is about much more than money. Besides the city’s demand to lengthen the workday and school year, the trickiest issue is the city, following the federal lead, wanting to include student performance as a part of a teacher’s evaluation. The theory is that if a teacher’s students do poorly, then the teacher is doing poorly. Is it fair to make this direct correlation? The Chicago teachers say no and claim that those external variables that affect student performance (absenteeism, poor social conditions at home, learning English as a second language) are all beyond a teacher’s control and hence, make the playing field uneven. The reason that I write that this is tricky is because the teachers in a sense, are in a box on this one. On the one hand, conceding to include student performance on their evaluations may lead to teachers losing their jobs. But on the other hand, refusing to include this provision bolsters the case of those who cry that public education is not accountable or willing to improve, and this is why public money needs to be made available for school vouchers or such. So where do I stand on this?
First of all, I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to improve. As recipients of public money we all bear an enormous responsibility to constantly get better. Whenever an individual does not embrace improvement, he or she risks falling into a state of complacency that can lead to a state of entitlement. The good news is I don’t believe our KPBSD teachers are afraid of the accountability expectation. But I also know that this accountability is as much a district responsibility as it is a teacher’s. If the district does its part by providing a clear curriculum (that includes assessments) to ensure instruction is on target, and offers professional development to promote effective instruction, then the teacher’s and student’s performance will improve. My hope is that we can bring forward a teacher accountability model that includes multiple measurement points of student performance that are a seamless part of our curriculum. I feel that refusing to include student performance as a part of the teacher evaluation process is a mistake. But then, so is depending on a standardized test for this purpose.
Chicago teacher strike and evaluation
This week’s teacher strike in Chicago is one that everyone in education is closely watching; it is about much more than money. Besides the city’s demand to lengthen the workday and school year, the trickiest issue is the city, following the federal lead, wanting to include student performance as a part of a teacher’s evaluation. The theory is that if a teacher’s students do poorly, then the teacher is doing poorly. Is it fair to make this direct correlation? The Chicago teachers say no and claim that those external variables that affect student performance (absenteeism, poor social conditions at home, learning English as a second language) are all beyond a teacher’s control and hence, make the playing field uneven. The reason that I write that this is tricky is because the teachers in a sense, are in a box on this one. On the one hand, conceding to include student performance on their evaluations may lead to teachers losing their jobs. But on the other hand, refusing to include this provision bolsters the case of those who cry that public education is not accountable or willing to improve, and this is why public money needs to be made available for school vouchers or such. So where do I stand on this?
First of all, I feel that it is incumbent on all of us to improve. As recipients of public money we all bear an enormous responsibility to constantly get better. Whenever an individual does not embrace improvement, he or she risks falling into a state of complacency that can lead to a state of entitlement. The good news is I don’t believe our KPBSD teachers are afraid of the accountability expectation. But I also know that this accountability is as much a district responsibility as it is a teacher’s. If the district does its part by providing a clear curriculum (that includes assessments) to ensure instruction is on target, and offers professional development to promote effective instruction, then the teacher’s and student’s performance will improve. My hope is that we can bring forward a teacher accountability model that includes multiple measurement points of student performance that are a seamless part of our curriculum. I feel that refusing to include student performance as a part of the teacher evaluation process is a mistake. But then, so is depending on a standardized test for this purpose.