No, though it sounds like an interesting take (that I'd probably half agree with and half hate). I'm actually not a big fan of the standardized testing movement, despite my strongly favoring teachers being held accountable; teachers end up teaching to the test (and yes, they really do). My sister is an elementary music teacher (not in Chicago, thank goodness) and has been asked this year how she can contribute to the students having better test scores (there is no music test, unfortunately, or her kids would ace it - she's really good). Sigh.
Realistically it's very hard to have a solid metric for evaluating teacher performance, but that doesn't mean we can't combine _some_ testing (that is not solely ends-based, and is not written by a committee of bureaucrats, but instead actually measures things like critical thinking) with local, direct observation. I think local school boards can, and should, be able to hold their own teachers accountable; and it's not really the federal government's job to enforce that, except in explicitly obvious instances where they are truly failing (ie, Chicago). Even in Chicago they could, if not for the union's resistance... whether they would or not is another question.
After all, how many of us are graded on our job performance based on exams? Most of us are graded based on individualized targets (those that aren't working retail/etc., sorry for those who are) that are somewhat subjective (though sufficiently objective). S.M.A.R.T. goals and whatnot (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely).
This is definitely one of those backwards political issues where the Democrats and the Republicans are on somewhat backwards sides... why does the GOP support federal standards pushed onto states while the Dems prefer to leave it alone? Bleck to both of you. Figure out a reasonable way to hold people accountable, have it be largely localized so different districts can adjust criteria/measurements/etc. to be appropriate to their local needs, and be done with it. Just make sure you're educating our students, and that every teacher is a part of that process instead of holding it up.
Realistically it's very hard to have a solid metric for evaluating teacher performance, but that doesn't mean we can't combine _some_ testing (that is not solely ends-based, and is not written by a committee of bureaucrats, but instead actually measures things like critical thinking) with local, direct observation. I think local school boards can, and should, be able to hold their own teachers accountable; and it's not really the federal government's job to enforce that, except in explicitly obvious instances where they are truly failing (ie, Chicago). Even in Chicago they could, if not for the union's resistance... whether they would or not is another question.
After all, how many of us are graded on our job performance based on exams? Most of us are graded based on individualized targets (those that aren't working retail/etc., sorry for those who are) that are somewhat subjective (though sufficiently objective). S.M.A.R.T. goals and whatnot (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely).
This is definitely one of those backwards political issues where the Democrats and the Republicans are on somewhat backwards sides... why does the GOP support federal standards pushed onto states while the Dems prefer to leave it alone? Bleck to both of you. Figure out a reasonable way to hold people accountable, have it be largely localized so different districts can adjust criteria/measurements/etc. to be appropriate to their local needs, and be done with it. Just make sure you're educating our students, and that every teacher is a part of that process instead of holding it up.
Comment