Unsatisfactory
Teacher grades don’t add up
That 98 percent of teachers and nearly 99 percent of school principals achieved “satisfactory” ratings sounds like good news. And for the most part it is.
?But a few things don’t add up — such as student test scores and also graduation rates that fly in the face of the rosy evaluation reports.
The evaluations were submitted by school districts to the state Department of Education, where they came under question. Said Secretary of Education Ron Tomalis, “It is very difficult for me to rationalize how our state can have virtually 100 percent of educators evaluated as satisfactory when, based on the statewide assessment, one in four students are scoring below proficient in reading, and one in three are scoring below proficient in math.” Good point.
From a common sense perspective, it seems there are a couple of problems with the evaluation system. First, the two possible ratings — “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” — are too limiting. More gradations are needed. Not to oversimplify, but something along the lines of a traditional A-F scale would be more reflective of reality.
Educators are rated on various criteria, including demonstrating an “in-depth and thorough knowledge of content”, providing “clear and appropriate instructional goals” and having “clear standards of conduct and effective management of student behavior.” There are other measures, but you get the idea.
Question is, do educators who demonstrate mastery of only half or slightly more than half of the criteria deserve a “satisfactory” rating? Consider that scoring 50 or even 60 points on a 100-point scale generally is considered a failure.
Do sympathetic co-educators dish out “satisfactory” ratings in such cases anyway, the same as a teacher who is a high achiever in all areas? Wouldn’t seem fair to teachers or students. And it’s not fair to taxpayers either.
Some school districts tie pay raises to “satisfactory” evaluations. If educators performing at an unsatisfactory level are getting “satisfactory” ratings and, therefore, pay increases, taxpayers are getting cheated. By the way, seems to us all school districts should require satisfactory performance before handing out more money to people; that’s the way it works in the private sector. But that’s another issue.
In addition to the gradation shortcoming, the current evaluation system leaves student achievement out of the picture entirely. Imagine a private company not placing emphasis on results. That company wouldn’t be in business very long. As they should be, production and profitability are part of the ratings equation in the private sector. You don’t make your numbers, you don’t get a pay increase. Indeed, you could be out of a job.
Education Secretary Tomalis reasonably and logically wants to incorporate student performance into teacher evaluations. If he had his way, Tomalis said he’d make student achievement account for half of an educator’s evaluation. Makes sense to us. Testifying before the Senate Education Committee, Deputy Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Carolyn Dumaresq offered a different formula: classroom observations, school performance on state assessment exams, teacher performance and other criteria determined at the local level.
That makes sense, too, especially since special education scores are factored into school performance ratings.
Bottom line: Student performance must carry some weight in evaluating educators’ performance. And the evaluations must include more than a pass-fail rating. The black-and-white nature of the current system provides an inadequate assessment of educators’ performance and, therefore, an inaccurate and “unsatisfactory” view of our schools’ effectiveness.
Bucks County Courier Times