“Reformed” Teacher Evaluation: Another Example of Weighing the Cow Doesn’t Make it Fatter
Posted January 29, 2012on:
Someone posted this link to the ABC news story about teacher evaluation and education reform. I reposted the link along with the comment, “I’d much rather my principals were able to spend time working with teachers on curriculum than filling out paperwork. #justsayin”
But a few more thoughts were racing through my head, and so this post.
In my district probationary teachers were formally evaluated every year, and tenured teachers every three years, unless they were on an IDP (Individual Development Plan) because their performance was less than satisfactory. The IDP sets out what must improve, and the steps expected to be taken to achieve the goals. Part of the reason we are in the pickle we are today is that too many administrators did not do their jobs, or were not willing to conduct the due diligence to remove an ineffective teacher. It was never “tenure” that protected “bad” teachers. And the union, as an organization, does not want ineffective members among its ranks. The role of the union is to protect the due process of members, not jobs for those who cannot do them!
It used to be if a teacher was not observed/evaluated, the teacher was considered “satisfactory,” and now it’s just the opposite. So if an administrator does not do his/her job in carrying out the observation(s), even an excellent teacher’s job could potentially be at stake.
What is really sad about all of this, is that any person or group who sets out to adjust the insanities of this arrangement would be seen as not caring about having excellent teachers in front of kids, or worse, only concerned about “protecting” bad teachers.
No easy answers.