Teacher Evaluations Don't Add Up

http://www.mathforamerica.org/about-us/mission-and-vision


Bloomberg EDU Radio Show - Jim Simons -Math for America (click to listen)

***********************************************************************************

I was listening to Bloomberg Radio the other day. A talk show about education called EDU with Jane Williams was playing. The guest was Jim Simons of Math for America. I immediately assumed that it would be just another teacher bashing, education "reform" proponent but I decided to listen anyway.

I'm glad I did, because I think Dr. Simons and his organization made some good points. One was “They (teachers) should know their subject with sufficient depth".  Another was "Much of the current public discourse suggests teachers are untrustworthy and need ever more stringent evaluation".

Both of these statements brought to mind something about which I have written before.  In New Jersey, any person with a Supervisor's Certificate can evaluate a teacher in any area!

This means if I had a Supervisor's Certificate, I could evaluate the performance and competence of a French teacher. I can't even read a menu in a French restaurant!

This idea of allowing people without knowledge of the subject to evaluate and suggest improvement schemes extends all the way to the State DOE. Here we have commissioners and high level staff engaged in evaluating and planning many of whom, have had little or far distant teaching experience themselves. Much of their educational "expertise" was obtained in prestigious university classrooms (book learnin'). How many have taught a significant number of years in the "war zones" or even in suburban public schools rather than sophisticated private schools four all but three or four years?

The idea that education can be improved by the plans and schemes proposed by those who are ignorant of the subjects which they evaluate and the situations which teachers face daily is beyond absurdity! 

Can Someone Please Explain This to Me ?

How can the State control the schools for twenty years and then when the district asks for control to be passed back to them the State claims the district is not performing well enough ?
If the State was in charge for twenty years and now the district is not performing well, how can that be the district's fault? I don't get it.  
Can someone please explain this to me ??
It appears to be a Catch 22 engineered by the "educrats" at NJDOE !

Evaluation By the Evaluated?

   

When I taught at Middlesex County College, student evaluation forms were always issued along with the final exam.

   I thought, by enlarge, the results were a fair distribution of positive and negative remarks.

(BTW - These all were anonymous evaluations and not used by the administration to grade instructors - as far as know anyway)

   One thing I liked about the form was the section asking about the student's efforts. This too, generally resulted in a fair distribution of honest responses. Often a student indicated a serious lack of effort on his part but still didn't criticize the instructor as the reason for his poor grade. I hope that the same kinds of questions  will appear every proposed student / teacher evaluation form (but I'm not confident that they will).

  And , remember, the evaluations of which I'm speaking were written by mature adults, not children!

   Now, let me get back to the editorial.

   One of the statements reads as follows:

"Kids do know what makes a good teacher. And it's not a mystery why they'd know better than trained adults...".

   Well if this is true, than -

   Why do we need well paid administrators to observe and evaluate teachers?

   Why do we need the "Educrats" at the NJDOE to tell teachers when, what and how to teach children.

   Why to we need politicians to continually pass legislation instructing teachers when, what and how to teach children?

   Let's just leave teachers to their task and then accept the children's evaluations as the  indicator of the teacher's success. We would no longer have to spend all the time and money needed by these other evaluation methods and would get a better result than that provided by "trained adults".

   And, since we are talking about evaluations of teachers by their charges, why not have teachers evaluate their administrators and supervisors?

   While we're at it, why not have local administrators evaluate the honchos at NJDOE ?

This way we could a true picture of what's going on in NJ education and in the case of the DOE, I'm not so sure that it would be a pretty picture!

   What do you think?