There has been much to talk about in the past few months regarding the teaching profession, whether it is concerning how they are paid and what benefits they get, to how they are prepared, to how to evaluate them. Some people, usually with a union label, would have you believe that all of these things are all wrapped together so tightly that to try tackle one of these issues, is tantamount to a full scale assault on the teaching profession. While that makes for good sound bites and some lively speeches at the union conventions, it does not necessarily help teachers improve their profession, because it shuts off potentially legitimate discussion and attempts to make things better for education by the creation of a culture of fear for one’s job security. Others, usually conservatives, would paint teachers with the broad brush of being against any sort of reform with their heads in the sand as education gets worse and worse. A counterpoint to both sides could be this week’s “School of Thought” column by Andrew Rotherham, the author of Eduwonk, for Time.com. In it Mr. Rotherham makes the argument that this current culture does not allow stakeholders to discuss the real issue of instructional quality.
He has a point. If we are unable to have an honest discussion about what is good teaching and what is bad teaching, then how can we possibly make any substantive improvements to education in general? As we look at the next authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there is the potential of different states coming up with different methods of evaluating this area, especially if the Harkin-Enzi bill gets through Congress. If that power does go back to the states there may be an unprecedented opportunity for that honest discussion to happen on more local levels.
The questions to be tackled may differ from state to state, but could include some of the following:
- How much of an indicator is student achievement of good instruction?
- Is there a reliable objective measure of classroom management practices?
- What safeguards will be available to make sure administrators are making personnel decisions on the basis of objective data and not on subjective judgments?
- Will teacher evaluations based on student achievement be adjusted to account for factors such as; socioeconomic differences, special education needs, subject matter, and/or racial and gender differences?
- Will there be contingency plans for evaluating teachers who miss extended time for personal and families emergencies?
- How will the practice of tenure change?
- What will be the basis for awarding performance bonuses to teachers?
- What will be the basis on which a poor performing teacher be released from employment?
- How can states measure and identify high quality teacher preparation programs, both in traditional degree programs and alternative pathways?
Mr. Rotherham focuses primarily on getting rid of bad teachers but there are other opportunities where teachers could benefit, but it will only happen if there is enough courage among teachers, union leaders, politicians, and reformers to discuss them honestly. Lately that courage has been in short supply, but that does not preclude future opportunities. Hopefully, it won’t keep people like Andrew Rotherham from pointing them out.
Some other comments of Mr. Rotherham’s column are here and here.
Filed under: education reform, No Child Left Behind, politics, public education, teaching profession Tagged: Andrew Rotherham, education reform, Harkin-Enzi Bill, public discourse, public education, standardized testing, tenure, Time
