Blog: The Shortfalls of Proposed Teacher Accountability Measures

What is wrong with holding teachers accountable?  Well, in general, nothing.  Teachers should be held accountable.  After nearly a decade working in the schools and close to four decades of being a student myself, I am often disheartened and angered when I encounter apathetic and ineffective teachers.  I am an advocate for sweeping educational reform, including revamping the evaluation and accountability measures of teachers. 

However, the well-intentioned teacher evaluation methods that are being proposed as part of the Race to the Top program are misguided in theory, too small in scope, and off-target.  In other states, tying teacher pay to student performance has already shown little to no movement in student achievement and it is likely that Maryland will have the same results. The poor results in other states is likely due to the oversight of two critical principles: teachers can’t provide results when they aren’t given the freedom to choose their methods, and standardized assessments designed to measure student performance does not translate to an effective measurement of teacher performance.

One of the most common new proposals regarding teacher evaluations that has emerged from the Race to the Top program involves measuring teacher performance based on student performance on a standardized test; this singular measure is an oversimplification of the role of the teacher and when used in isolation, serves as a poor measure of teacher efficacy.  Using a student test to measure teacher performance has multiple shortcomings when it comes to general statistical measurement principles.  First, student evaluation methods are designed to evaluate student performance and not teacher performance. Therefore, using the test for something other than what it was designed to measure weakens the validity of the results. Second, standardized tests generally have some level of bias towards minority groups and therefore, those teachers serving certain populations are at an increased disadvantage. Also, if the test is supposed to measure teacher performance, there should be a pre-test and a post-test to determine the value added over the course of the year.  It is inapporpriate to use just one score as a measure of success without knowing how much progress was made from start to finish.  Using the test scores from the previous year would be inappropriate the tests from each grade level assess different skill sets.   Finally, state tests are given in early March, nearly four months before the end of the school year.  If a teacher is going to be held accountable for an entire year's worth of curriculum, they should been given the entire year to teach the curriculum. 

The role of today's teacher is complex and expanded; a teacher is no longer only responsible for academics; therefore, using only one measurement of acadmics does not reflect the multiple competencies of today's teacher.  Today’s teacher not only teaches curriculum, but simultaneously teaches his/her students citizenship skills, social skills, and life skills.  A standardized state test score doesn’t reflect the impact a teacher had by working with parents, running a homework club, or watching her student’s sporting events on her own time.  One test score doesn’t measure the success of a teacher who instills the love of reading, sparks curiosity and inquisitiveness in young minds, or brings the arts to students who would otherwise never have such experiences.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, teachers shouldn’t being held responsible for improving the test scores of students without also being given the freedom to choose the methods and curriculums that they deem best suited to get results.  It is unfair to hold teachers accountable for results while simultaneously handcuffing them to a curriculum and strict pacing guide.  If a teacher doesn’t have the ability to make choices in the classroom, how they can subsequently be held accountable for poor results?

Effective education reform first and foremost must return the profession of teacher to an expertise level.  Curriculum guides that outline all the activities, assessments, tests, worksheets, and homework assignments cultivates an assembly line approach to teaching.  While this method purports to create equality and continuity between schools, in actuality this method is likely creating larger inequalities by inappropriately applying one generalized curriculum to diverse learning populations.  Achievement of all students can only be attained by returning to an individualized approach in which teachers are considered the experts in their respective fields, learning theories, and child development.  Teachers must be given the freedom to evaluate each student individually and provide a curriculum and methodology that will ensure the best results. Today’s classrooms are too diverse to use a one-size fits all approach.  We cannot ask teachers to differentiate for each student while simultaneously sending the message that they can’t deviate from the structured curriculum.  This mixed message is confusing and only weakens the education of all students. 

Education reform is way overdue; at the same time, we should be careful about oversimplifying the problems and the solutions.  It wouldn’t be fair to ask a carpenter to build a house with only a screwdriver and then not pay him due to his shoddy workmanship.  It is no more fair to hold teachers accountable for student achievement without also giving them the freedom to utilize their training and expertise to choose the tools and materials best suited for the task at hand.  We should be searching for better evaluation methods for teachers, but those methods should include multiple data points that more effectively captures the comprehensive role of the teacher.  Utilizing state assessments as the singular tool may not be the best assessment method for teacher performance.