What is the Best Way to Evaluate Teachers?

[KingofMadCows]

One of the biggest problems with the education system is that the distribution in student ability is too wide. It's just assumed that a kid's skills are uniform across all subjects but there are a lot of cases where a kid has maybe 3rd grade reading skills but their math skill is only between 1st or 2nd grade. Then they get put in the second grade where their reading skill is too advanced but their math skill is behind. As a result of things like that, you get this big distribution with the teacher teaching towards the middle and you have the more advanced kids getting bored and the struggling kids getting left behind.

There's also the problem that teachers aren't really taught effective teaching techniques. They don't reinforce good behavior nearly enough. If you want a kid to behave, you can't just tell them to behave and then ignore them when they do it. You have to periodically reinforce them for behaving in the right way if you want to increase the frequency of that behavior. The way that testing is conducted is also flawed. If you want the best results, you have to provide immediate feedback. You can't give kids a test one day and go over the next on the next day. When giving a test, going over the answers immediately after the test is done greatly increases the chance of a person's ability to learn which mistakes they made and what the correct answers are. Not only that, but it also teaches the kid to review the subject after testing to consolidate learning, a skill that will become more and more useful in later school years.

 

[bigred]

What amazes me is the crap people who have never worked in a school say, about schools.

For example:

"They need to run on a business model"

Anyone who even uses that trendy asinine phrase should be shot, but that aside.......anyone who tries to apply such trite little Corporate 101 gibberish to a school, which is a decidedly different animal, is basically screaming I AM A MORON.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Anyone who even uses that trendy asinine phrase should be shot, but that aside.......anyone who tries to apply such trite little Corporate 101 gibberish to a school, which is a decidedly different animal, is basically screaming I AM A MORON.

In what way is a school a decidely different animal to a business? They may have different objectives but anyone claiming that you can't apply business principles to something like a school would be more likely to trigger my I AM A MORON alert than someone who does.

 

[themusicteacher]

In what way is a school a decidely different animal to a business? They may have different objectives but anyone claiming that you can't apply business principles to something like a school would be more likely to trigger my I AM A MORON alert than someone who does.

Wow, where to start?

A business exists for one of two purposes: to either a) make something and sell it at a profit or, b) provide a service or product to people and make a profit while doing so. This is done almost exclusively for people who are demanding that service or product and the people who pay for such things are, without exception, ultimately adults (you know, the people that have the money).

Schools exist to inculcate knowledge and skills into children. This is not done (in most cases) at a profit and is mandatory (that is, we make kids go whether they, or their parents, want the service or not). We teach young people, who grow increasingly agitated with out attempts to educate them as they get older, a bunch of things they can't always see the immediate value in, things they don't have a previous interest in and things they don't come across in everyday life (when was the last time you saw calculus graffitied on a wall?) and make them earn a grade for it, refusing to let them move on (in theory) if they don't do what's necessary. Are we getting the picture yet?

Schools are not businesses. Students (and the public in general) are not consumers. They do not get to decide what is taught or simply take their business elsewhere (they can move to a new district if they'd like but the requirements will be the same). We are there to tell them to do things they don't always have a prediliction to doing on their own, to tell them things they don't want to hear (like "evolution is true" or "you play with no noticeable musicality"), to track their progress and to help prepare them for life in a complex world in which they are expected to be a productive, educated member of a free and open society.

Schools are nothing like businesses and the sooner people realize this, the better off we'll be.

 

[Saggy]

Wow, where to start?

A business exists for one of two purposes: to either a) make something and sell it at a profit or, b) provide a service or product to people and make a profit while doing so. This is done almost exclusively for people who are demanding that service or product and the people who pay for such things are, without exception, ultimately adults (you know, the people that have the money).

Schools exist to inculcate knowledge and skills into children. This is not done (in most cases) at a profit and is mandatory (that is, we make kids go whether they, or their parents, want the service or not). We teach young people, who grow increasingly agitated with out attempts to educate them as they get older, a bunch of things they can't always see the immediate value in, things they don't have a previous interest in and things they don't come across in everyday life (when was the last time you saw calculus graffitied on a wall?) and make them earn a grade for it, refusing to let them move on (in theory) if they don't do what's necessary. Are we getting the picture yet?

Schools are not businesses. Students (and the public in general) are not consumers. They do not get to decide what is taught or simply take their business elsewhere (they can move to a new district if they'd like but the requirements will be the same). We are there to tell them to do things they don't always have a prediliction to doing on their own, to tell them things they don't want to hear (like "evolution is true" or "you play with no noticeable musicality"), to track their progress and to help prepare them for life in a complex world in which they are expected to be a productive, educated member of a free and open society.

Schools are nothing like businesses and the sooner people realize this, the better off we'll be.

Move to the back of the bus, musicteacher. Schools are becoming businesses, it's known as the charter school movement, and O has appointed a big cheerleader as Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan.

And, in NY, there was recently a big flap when Major BooBerg (the snow sweepers showed up late in the last storm and the mayor's ratings tanked) just replaced the outgoing Chancellor of Education, pulled out of the business community, with Cathy Black, from business, Black and Decker or some such, with no education experience at all as his replacement.

Incidentally, Duncan recently announced that 80% of the nations schools are 'failing'. Can that possibly be true? I don't believe it.

 

[Dancing David]

In what way is a school a decidely different animal to a business? They may have different objectives but anyone claiming that you can't apply business principles to something like a school would be more likely to trigger my I AM A MORON alert than someone who does.

Because a school runs very differently than business and in most ways are much leaner than corporations.

the overhead on schools is a lrge cost afters alaries, there are not a whole lot of efficiencies that are not already part of the system.

The private businesses taht tried to take on public schools have backed away, why is that?

 

[Dancing David]

Move to the back of the bus, musicteacher. Schools are becoming businesses, it's known as the charter school movement, and O has appointed a big cheerleader as Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan.

And, in NY, there was recently a big flap when Major BooBerg (the snow sweepers showed up late in the last storm and the mayor's ratings tanked) just replaced the outgoing Chancellor of Education, pulled out of the business community, with Cathy Black, from business, Black and Decker or some such, with no education experience at all as his replacement.

Incidentally, Duncan recently announced that 80% of the nations schools are 'failing'. Can that possibly be true? I don't believe it.

Except charter schools receive extra money, why is that?
And they can screen their students?
Why is that?

Why do charter schools need extra money ?

 

[bigred]

In what way is a school a decidely different animal to a business? They may have different objectives but anyone claiming that you can't apply business principles to something like a school would be more likely to trigger my I AM A MORON alert than someone who does.

Sorry but you don't make final Jeopardy and thx for playing. Happily others have saved me additional keystrokes and thx to them.

 

[Fnord]

How about using standardized tests to evaluate teachers?

The assumption being that if they do not understand the subject matter, then they would be less effective teachers of that subject matter, and shouldn't be allowed to teach it.

 

[bigred]

Because being a good teacher is about FAR more than knowing the subject matter. That's not even the most important criteria (tho it's obviously very important). Being able to "reach" the kids (and handle them) is far more important.

 

[Vortigern99]

How about using standardized tests to evaluate teachers?

The assumption being that if they do not understand the subject matter, then they would be less effective teachers of that subject matter, and shouldn't be allowed to teach it.

I can't speak for other states, but in Texas, yes -- you have to pass a content exam in the subject you want to teach, and for the appropriate grade level, before you can be considered employable in that position.

Then, as you teach the subject, lo and behold: You learn even more about it because you are reading the material right along with the students.

So the model you're asking for is already in place, albeit inversely.

 

[Fnord]

But are Texas teachers required to periodically retake the content exam?

 

[Vortigern99]

I don't know, but I can find out on Monday by contacting the company which is providing my certification. I can't seem to find the answer on the 'Net.

Meanwhile, please explain why you think a teacher, who has studied and passed the appropriate content exam, and is immersed in the subject on a daily basis -- reading the material and evaluating students' grasp of the information -- needs to take an additional test to show that s/he knows the subject.

 

[Fnord]

To demonstrate that not only do they know the subject matter as it stood on the day of their first content exam, but to also demonstrate that they've kept current with any changes, omissions and amendments to the subject matter.

While we're at it, let's abolish the tenure system.

 

[Vortigern99]

I believe in self-motivation.
I believe in homework.
I believe in classroom discipline.
I believe in administrative support.
I believe in parental involvement.
I believe in promotion by merit.
I believe in self-representation.
I believe in measurable results.
I believe in earning privileges.

I could never be a teacher.

I believe in/support all of these concepts/ideas/goals, and I am earning my teaching certificate while teaching high school at what is roundly considered the "worst" inner city school in Austin.

Why you think these ideas and goals are mutually exclusive from public school teaching remains a mystery, especially given that your sole experience with the profession has been military tutoring.

 

[Vortigern99]

To demonstrate that not only do they know the subject matter as it stood on the day of their first content exam, but to also demonstrate that they've kept current with any changes, omissions and amendments to the subject matter.

4 years ago, a teacher answered this question on Yahoo Answers:

Teachers are constantly tested!

Formally:
We take an exam to become a teacher (I took 7 to be a certified teacher in Hawaii, and 3 to be a certified teacher in Michigan).
We have to take college and continuing education classes to keep our teaching certificates. Some of these classes require us to pass tests, others have projects and papers that test our knowledge in a different way.

Informally:
Every day in class, students ask questions that test our knowledge of subject matter. Good teachers can either answer the questions or find the information (or help students find the information).

I guess in the end, the reason we don't have as many tests as often as you do is that we've already shown that we know the material because we had to or we wouldn't have graduated from college. However, we are still tested. Teachers who don't know their stuff eventually get weeded out of the classroom either by parents who want their kids to have the best education possible, or administrators who want their teachers to be the best possible.​

I will also add that when new textbooks are printed, incorporating new information/processes/ideas, teachers are the first to read them and so "demonstrate that they've kept current with any changes, omissions and amendments to the subject matter".

While we're at it, let's abolish the tenure system.

Can you give us an idea as to why you want this?

 

[Fnord]

Why you think these ideas and goals are mutually exclusive from public school teaching remains a mystery, especially given that your sole experience with the profession has been military tutoring.

I do not think that.

Please re-read Post #47 in this thread for the full explanation.

Basically, my idealism would get me into trouble with parents, administrators, and school boards.

("I speak, you listen ... I teach, you learn ... that's the deal ...")

 

[Fnord]

... Can you give us an idea as to why you want this?

Abolition of tenure? Sure. To better enable school systems to remove teachers from their positions when those teachers' levels of performance drop to (or below) marginal levels. Also, to help prevent those instances when students register complaints against a teacher, only to be told "Our hands are tied; she has tenure", and get sent back to the same teacher for even more abuse or indifferent treatment.

 

[Vortigern99]

Basically, my idealism would get me into trouble with parents, administrators, and school boards.

("I speak, you listen ... I teach, you learn ... that's the deal ...")

I get ya. My own idealism has already caused me some trouble in my current position, as my refusal to allow disruptive, rude and/or uncooperative behavior in my classroom has led me to raise my voice and to send students out of the class.

Evidently, in my first week, the administration considered removing me because they would prefer that I handle such behavior in the classroom, rather than burdening the Assistant Principals with all my discipline cases.

I've now learned to walk the thin line between absolute intolerance to disruption and redirecting students in a more constructive way. I will still send a troublemaker out of the room as a last resort, but by necessity I've developed other strategies to cope with them first.

"I speak, you listen ... I teach, you learn ... that's the deal ..."

^ ^ This is my basic philosophy and approach to teaching, as well. I'm rather uncompromising about it, and when students do not abide by it I'm known to get rather unhappy with them. However, I am learning to pick my battles with a more discriminating eye.

 

[Vortigern99]

Abolition of tenure? Sure. To better enable school systems to remove teachers from their positions when those teachers' levels of performance drop to (or below) marginal levels. Also, to help prevent those instances when students register complaints against a teacher, only to be told "Our hands are tied; she has tenure", and get sent back to the same teacher for even more abuse or indifferent treatment.

I agree with this position in part, with the proviso that some students (the above-mentioned discipline cases) will complain about good, tough, on-task teachers in order to remove them from the classroom so that they, the students in question, can go back to being lazy and getting away with murder. Many students lie constantly in order to get their way.

I've already had this happen to me, and I've been teaching for less than a month. So it's something to keep in mind.

But no, like you I don't think that a bad or abusive teacher should be allowed to remain in their position simply because they've been around for awhile. There has to be some middle ground where an ineffective teacher can be removed, but that the administration does not cave in to every student complaint that's fired their way.