Moms Talk: Should Teacher Evaluations be Tied to Student Scores?

Soon, your student's test scores will help determine whether his or her teacher makes the grade.

Is that fair? And how would what sounds like a good idea in some ways play out in the real world, and real classrooms?

Within the next year or so, based on how that teacher's students perform on tests, including state standardized tests.

Bernards schools Director of Curriculum Sean Siet recently told the this week, is that by the 2013-14 school year, teacher evaluations would be based on classroom observations, as now, and the other half would be based on student performance.

Teachers' ratings would be based on a "student growth percentile" that would track how much students have improved on standardized state tests such as the New Jersey ASK (Assessment of Skills and Knowledge) and also partially on another test to be chosen by the school district, Siet told the board. With the new Excellent Educators for New Jersey (EE4NJ) evaluation system, the state "really wants to quantify what's happening in the classroom," Siet said.

Teacher evaluations based on some measure of student performance have been implemented in other states, including New York, Siet said.

Where, incidentally, the system garnered at least some criticism for unfairly giving a poor rating to teachers who handle students with some of the toughest issues, who would be most likely to log low scores.

The New Jersey rating system would try to address that in some fashion by measuring student improvement during the year, rather than total scores.

Still, growth for some students, for whatever reason, is especially hard won, and can be expected to be incremental.

And would this new system discourage teachers from taking on students who may need more hands-on remedial work or special attention to make any progress. Isn't it really easier just to throw out information at a group of highly motivated, high achievers?

Do kids care about standardized tests?

Which brings us to a question no one really addresses — Do kids, especially younger students, really care about how they perform on standardized tests?

Educators always talk about how there will be fluctuations of test scores every year based on the individual children coming into a school (must less one class!) for that particular school/grade level. Generally, it would seem the fewer the number of students, the greater the potential for skewed/varying test results from year to year.

What might affect test results? Is it always good teaching?

I've been sceptical of basing too much on individual test results since my older son started kindergarten in Oyster Bay, N.Y. and was given an IQ test in the spring — when he was prone to allergies, on Benadryl and even more likely thinking about how he would prefer to be at the playground.

I won't say how low he scored — he might be mad to have that number spread around! — but suffice it to say that his performance didn't place him much above Forrest Gump.

Ditto for two of his friends, also prone to allergies and a bit, shall we say, distracted by other interests.

Within a year or two his score had risen about 20 points, something that one of his teachers told me is NOT supposed to happen with IQ tests. Recently, he said he tested 50 points above that original score.

His annual standardized test scores in individual subjects (a wider variety in the lower grades at his school in New York State) also varied wildly during those first few years. His scores depended on his mood that day and also which subject was adminstered first, when he was fresher and a little more motivated.

But when one of his best subjects, science, was the last test given one year, he basically flunked. By then, his (elementary) attitude was, "Who cares?" (P.S. All three of the now 23-year-olds performed quite well in college after tanking on their first IQ scores.)

So where does that leave us? It probably is a good idea to link student performance in some way to a teacher's effectiveness. But how? How do you quantify good teaching when there are so many variables?

Based on their evaluations, teachers would be categorized as highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective, Siet told the board. Initially, the only consequence for teachers rated below par would be additional training, Siet said.

Research and pilot programs in place have indicated that only about five percent of teachers can expect to be rated as "highly effective," Siet said.

But what if a school is lucky or savvy enough to have gained an especially strong staff of teachers? Should they be rated against each other? Or against teachers who aren't as good in another school district?

And do teachers in districts with higher test scores deserve to be rated more highly than teachers in school systems that long have had lagging scores?

Do teachers who don't seem to be teaching subject material deserve to be protected by tenure? And what's the best way to measure that?

Then we come down to the issue of money.

Although he allowed that he was speculating, Siet noted that he believes that the EE4NJ evaluation system may eventually be tied in with Governor Chris Christie's request for tenure reform — and perhaps merit pay.

Which led former School Board President Susan Carlsson to wonder exactly who is going to cough up the funding for that merit pay.

What do you think? Do you think the newer system is more fair?

Does it make teachers more accountable?

And do you think those teachers who are evaluated more highly, partially on the basis of student test scores, should receive merit pay?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below. Hope to hear from parents and other observers of the educational system!