Teacher Evaluations & Standarized Tests

One of the education reforms that are often talked about, and always opposed by the teachers' unions, is basing teacher evaluations on results instead of just on what the principal or other supervisor observes about the teacher's performance in the classroom.  That would of course mean evaluating the teacher based on the performance of his or her students, which usually means using test scores in some fashion, whether based on the percentage of students who pass a standardized test, or an overall average score on the test, or on how well the student's score improves from one year to the next, or some combination.

The unions always oppose this.  They claim to be worried that using test scores would make teachers "teach to the test," and that it would be unfair to teachers who end up with the worst students who have no chance to pass the test.  But using improvement from one year to the next as one component would solve that second objection, and as to the first, if teachers are going to "teach to the test," they are already doing so in an effort to make sure that their students pass those tests, so using the scores to evaluate the teachers as well as the students won't make any difference. 

This idea that "teaching to the test" is wrong has been overblown anyway.  If the tests have been properly designed to evaluate what the students need to learn in a specific subject, then teachers should be teaching that material to the students.  I don't know how other states do it, but in Texas teachers have a specific set of knowledge and skills (referred to as the TEKS) that they're supposed to cover in any specific subject, and then the TAKS tests (and future end-of-course tests) are designed to cover the most important parts of those objectives.  For example, in 11th grade U.S. History, I am required to teach the students why certain years (1898, 1929, etc.) are important, and what certain people contributed (anyone from Dwight Eisenhower to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Caesar Chavez) to American history (this is a very small sampling of the TEKS for that class.)  The TAKS test that students take that year is based on what are considered the most important skills and knowledge from those objectives, as well as a few important objectives from world history, world geography, and 8th grade U.S. History (which covers the time period up to the Civil War.)  So while some might say I am "teaching to the test," I believe it is in my students' best interests to cover those topics that will be on the test, because those topics are the most important parts of American history anyway.  And it's the same with math (I teach 1 math class as well.)  The math skills that are covered on the TAKS test are those that are considered the most important for students to learn, so naturally those are the skills that math teachers spend the most time teaching to students.  So yes, I guess I am "teaching to the test."

The fact is that the unions oppose using student performance to measure a teacher's performance because the unions' primary purpose is to protect their members' jobs, including protecting members whose performance is less than stellar.  The unions know that using test scores would expose many poor teachers and make them vulnerable to dismissal.  In fact, unions are really opposed to any type of evaluation, but will allow a more subjective type if pushed, because they know that it's not that hard for poor teachers to get around those.  Unions have no interest in seeing teachers either rewarded for excellent  performance or punished for poor performance.  That's why they oppose merit pay, and why they oppose performance evaluations based on student performance.  That's why they would rather see a first-year teacher who has just won an award for outstanding performance be fired than a more senior teacher who doesn't perform as well (as recently happened in Wisconsin.)

Even in a non-union state like Texas, the current performance evaluation system (PDAS) is basically a joke.  Although a school's overall rating is partially used in a teacher's evaluation, the scores of the teacher's students are not supposed to be a factor.  Instead, the principal or other evaluator is supposed to evaluate how well the teacher does at teaching in a "student-centered" manner.  In other words, the teacher is evaluated based on how much his or her students participate in class, on how much they are involved in their own learning.  In practice, this system ends up being based on whether or not the evaluator agrees with the teacher's teaching methods or even rather or not the evaluator likes the teacher or not.  It is entirely subjective.  It becomes a game, nothing more and nothing less (a belief that I have heard principals agree with.)  It doesn't take into account how active a teacher is in extracurricular activities, such as being a student council sponsor or academics coach.  It can be used to set a teacher up to be fired, by designating them as a "teacher in need of assistance."  That would be fine, except the standards used to make that designation are subjective instead of objective.  So it's entirely possible for a teacher who has every student pass the TAKS test to still be designated as being in "need of assistance," while another teacher, who has anywhere from 20%-40% of their students fail the test, gets a good rating.  A better method of evaluating teachers would use both the test scores of their students and personal evaluation.  It would take into account that there are different methods of teaching, and that ultimately it's the results that matter the most.  And while it might not punish teachers who are not that involved with extracurricular activities, it should reward teachers who are willing to give more of their own time to give their students extra opportunities at other rewarding activities that sometimes ultimately mean as much to the students as classwork.

So, to state legislators in Texas and elsewhere, it's time to come up with a new way of doing things.  Ignore the teachers unions and teachers groups (such as ATPE) in non-union states such as Texas, and come up with a way to evaluate teachers that is based on how well their students really learn, not based on how well they play the game.  And come up with a system that rewards teachers who can be shown to have helped their students succeed, and ultimately dismisses teachers who are not doing the job properly and are hurting their students more than helping them.  It's time for us to realize that schools are more than just a jobs program, and that the number one goal should be to help students succeed, not help teachers make it to retirement (except in cases where getting teachers to retire immediately would also help their students.)  It's time to really put the students first, even if that means firing teachers or shutting down bad schools or giving students vouchers to use at private schools (which may end up causing bad schools to shut down and bad teachers to lose their jobs.)  Ignore the teacher's unions, do what's best for the kids.

NCAA Nonsense

There are usually a couple of questionable calls made by the committee that selects the teams, and decides how to seed the teams, in the NCAA basketball tournament.  But, instead of merely making a few questionable selections, this year's committee made some calls that are beyond question; they are wrong (stupid, ignorant, pick an adjective), plain and simple.  I have yet to see anyone who thinks that UAB and VCU (University of Alabama-Birminghan and Virginia Commenwealth University for those who don't know the initials) actually deserve to be in the tournament except for those on the committee, especially when compared to Colorado and Virginia Tech and Alabama and even Harvard.  I don't know what the committee members were thinking, or what stats they were looking at that led them to these selections, but they have made themselves look like idiots.

Then there's the seeding.  Kentucky beats Florida earlier on Sunday to win the SEC title, so naturally Florida is given a #2 seed while Kentucky only gets a #4 seed.  And Texas, which most pundits thought at worst would fall to a #3 seed, instead gets a #4 also.  There are some other questionable seeding decisions, but those are some of the most blatant. 

I won't go so far as to say the selection process needs dramatic changes yet, but if next year's selections are as bad as this, then the NCAA should take a serious look at just how these decisions are being made as well as look at the people who are making them.  There's no excuse for this happening, especially considering that the field was expanded to 68 for this year.

Thank you Governor Walker

There's probably nothing I can add to what dozens of other conservatives have written about the situation in Wisconsin over the past few weeks.  The behavior of the Democratic senators was despicable, although nothing compared to the behavior of many of the union thugs and other protesters who have threatened Republicans with violence, including several very credible death threats.  And it now seems that some of the unions are trying to hurt businesses that supported Governor Walker in his election campaign by boycotting them.  A bank in Wisconsin had union members withdraw nearly $200,000 from one of its branches because it donated $46,000 to Walker's campaign last year (although, like many business, it hedged its bets by donating $12,000 to his Democratic opponent.)  The bank became so concerned that the protest outside was growing and might become violent that it ended up closing early. (Hat tip to National Review's "The Corner" blog and Katrina Trinko)  Now, boycotts are a legitimate form of political expression, but attempting to shut down a business by making people too scared to walk through the doors is not, and unfortunately this is a tactic that has been used by union thugs for generations.

But, now that I have digressed somewhat, back to the original point of this post.  To Governor Walker and the Republican legislators who stood up to the Democrats and union thugs, from a non-union teacher in a right-to-work state, a very sincere thank you.  Thank you for standing up for your state's taxpayers and for those teachers and other public employees who really don't want anything to do with their unions and their arcane rules (such as laying off a teacher who has just won an award for being a good teacher because she's doesn't have seniority) and who might have lost their jobs because their unions would rather have layoffs than give an inch on pay and other benefits, or heaven forbid actually contribute to their own pensions and health care (the idea that someone should have their pension provided by the taxpayers with no personal contribution at all is beyond my comprehension.)  Thank you for passing a bill that will give the teachers and other public employees the option of no longer financially supporting those unions, instead of being forced to do so as they are now.  And thank you for taking a stand that may be somewhat unpopular at the moment, knowing that the stand you took was more important than being popular and that in the long run, once people really know the truth, will come to be viewed by most as the right thing to do.