We seem to
be on a fast track to change teacher evaluation systems in our state. Although not required by the US Department of
Education, this seems to be a major component of the NCLB/ESEA waiver being
proposed by the SC Department of Education.
Talking with
my colleagues across the state, there seems to be little support for such
change and much concern. It seems in our
haste to make tweaks to the evaluation system we may make some of the same mistakes
that other states have made.
With regard
to “pay for performance,” most teachers (less than half) do not have tests that
can provide “value added” data for evaluation purposes. There seems to be a narrowing of the
curriculum (maybe less teacher collaboration, too) when such systems get put into place. Another
problem seems to exist when you don’t structure incentives correctly: people will cheat (there are many examples of this across the US).
How do you manage such a system efficiently with
existing manpower? The additional load and responsibilities will fall on
the principal when moving from a bimodal system (teacher demonstrates
competency and then moves to a goals-based evaluation) to a frequent rating/ranking model. Such a system has to be fair and consistent, and that's been a major problem.
There’s an
article that highlights some of the problems being faced by principals in other
states in the rush to develop new teaching rating/pay for performance models (click
here to read).
I hope we
don’t put the cart before the horse in this situation.
