What percentage of failing teachers can succeed with some help? According to Toledo schools, about 90%.
But how successful are those teachers, really? Did they simply manage to get on the good side of the teachers union, or are they truly effective teachers?
And are the teachers who "failed" and lost their jobs actually incompetent, or did teacher politics get rid of good teachers?
The evaluation board in Toledo contained a majority of teacher union representatives. See the
Status Report of Intern Teachers.
Here's an article about Peer Review from Education Week:
Peer Review: A Panacea?
by Stephen Sawchuk
The national teachers' unions weren't altogether thrilled by all the attention paid to teacher effectiveness in two reports released last week (see here and here for details). National Education Association Dennis Van Roekel, for instance, argued that the reports would have overemphasized standardized test scores.
"What a teacher does with her students, how she relates to them, and how she translates her subject knowledge into effective teaching practice are all the central measures of quality teaching," he argued.
AFT was equally unhappy with the reports, but the union's releases heavily promoted the "peer assistance and review" model of teacher evaluation as a promising option for dealing with ineffective teachers.
"We know that schools need to aggressively deal with ineffective teachers, and we are willing to take on the tough job of developing new systems to measure teacher effectiveness," one of AFT's statements reads.
Under a PAR system, teachers who are struggling in the classroom are referred to work with a "consulting teacher." Those who do not improve are typically referred for greater intervention and can ultimately face dismissal. Among the best known examples are in Cincinnati, Toledo and Columbus, Ohio; Rochester, N.Y.; and Montgomery County, Md.
But here's some food for thought: In any kind of teacher-evaluation system, what percentage of teachers should expect to improve with assistance? And what percentage won't improve and need to be removed from the classroom? And how long should a teacher who's on the borderline remain in a classroom with kids?
Within the existing PAR models, these figures appear to have varied quite a bit. These data from the Toledo AFT Web site, for instance, show failure rates by teachers on the PAR system ranging from 2 percent to nearly 16 percent.)
Also, despite being around for almost 30 years, PAR just isn't that popular. Some local unions, such as the National Education Association-affiliated California Teachers Association remain skeptical of the concept (see this interview with leader A.J. Duffy.)
PAR may be becoming the standard AFT response to the thorny issue of teacher effectiveness, but is it the best answer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
PAR is the only option that the unions have committed to. This program is designed to create a friendly relationship between a consulting teacher and a teacher who needs to be up to and in PAR.
The problem with this is, is no one who is any good at teaching wants this job, the Consulting Teachers are pulled out of a hat and the poor teacher who may have a slower learning curve or hasn't picked up the changes soon enough, gets to have a "district" qualified CT to come to the PAR teacher's classroom and help her/him become more effective. Effective might mean how the children score on tests, or how popular the teacher is. Effective needs to be defined.
To get good help, the Union should pay for the teacher in PAR to go back to school to learn the newest and latest strategies for teaching in an environment where the district can not perpetuate and reinforce things that may or may not be true and build a case for termination.
Often times the union does not protect its members, that is why keeping a teaching job is a myth. Teachers lose their jobs everyday and they are not well protected by their unions.
Districts are very powerful, they employ thousands of people, and their hierarchy is like large government. Teachers are just a dime a dozen to a district, one job can generate up to 500 applicants a day.
Districts have many ways of getting rid of teachers. Districts do not listen to teachers; districts bring in experts who dictate exactly what should be on the wall, and what time certain parts of the program should begin.
Definitions are important here. Define an effective teacher please! Is there a standard to be held accountable to? Should there be a standard? When teacher quality is defined, then please define a good student, and then a good parent. Please then standardize the definition of a proficient or advanced principal, superintendent, or politician. Then perhaps every person pertaining to a school system can be up to PAR.
I hope this idea of standardizing people in a profession soon becomes a robot. I want to meet a perfect teacher.
People need to understand what being a human being and a teacher means. We learn by our mistakes and from people who inspire.
Are you a teacher? Do you inspire? Do you build dreams? Teach manners? Do you drive the speed limit? Teachers are people, education changes are rapid and help and training are extremely limited.
Unions need to do more to protect teachers from harassment, bullying, and to fight for Academic Freedom.
Unless the attitudes towards teachers becomes more positive, teachers in public schools will be blamed for parental and government performance, and all of societies ills, while the private schools teachers are honored and helped more.
I hope the Obama's administration has answers to break up the power of the districts and distribute their money to more private schools.
Post a Comment