OK, we’ve drifted a bit, equating bonuses and merit pay with teacher evaluation–two completely different things, but I didn’t catch it when I asked my question, so here we are. The Houston plan that you cited actually relies on three different tests, or sets of scores (as well as using comparative, rather than absolute, or improved scores–which I found a bit puzzling). It’s hard to tell exactly what Florida is doing, or intends to do–it sounds like a grand free-for-all between the legislature, local school boards, and of course, the unions. In NYC, there was a trade-off in the inclusion of test scores in the bonus system (full retirement at age 55–and don’t I wish!). As near as I can tell, while the bonus is based on scores and numbers of teachers in the building, it is distributed based on decisions made at the building level–which I assume would play out as an equal sharing, or distribution based on seniority or something.

So, what we have is salaries based on canned criteria (degree plus years of service), evaluations based on who knows what (and in all likelihood the kind of dog and pony show that Paul describes–pretty much all that the contract will allow in my disrict)–that affect nothing at all in the life of the teacher (advancement, continued employment, certainly not salary) and a possible bonus based on the overall scores of all students granted to teachers in a building across the board. Wow. Good thing you can retire with full benefits at age 55. Sounds unbearable.

While I certainly agree that teacher evaluation and development is in sorry shape in this country, in general (and there are a few notable exceptions)–neither of your descriptors really leads to an understanding of what a useful evaluation of teaching might look like. A valid, reliable evaluation of teacher effectiveness would be a great asset–and might allow us some confidence that we have hired and fired the right teachers (which was the point of Dan Willingham’s original blog).

That evaluation would certainly include a pre-conference. In an ideal conception of teacher evaluation, the teacher would tell the evaluator (who might be a principal, but also might be a demonstrably accomplished colleague) what they were aiming for in the lesson to be evaluated. Learning goals, planned activities, how learning will be assessed, and how success will be defined–all things that a good teacher should be able to articulate. Then, the evaluator watches the teacher not only to see how the plans are carried out, but also how the teacher deals with unanticipated problems. Because good teaching is all about decision-making, often in the moment.

That’s not to say that a supervisor (or, again, supportive colleague) should not regularly walk through any/all classrooms, observing the nature of interactions and content presented, and keeping notes. Or that a teacher should not feel free to ask a principal or colleagues for assistance (without being judged a failure). The movement to flesh out teacher evaluation processes, with pre- and post-conferences, annual self-set teacher improvement goals and peer collaboration to improve practice (for example–Japanese lesson study models) are coming from practitioners. It’s the policymakers who want to know why we can’t just use test scores.

There was a piece in Education NEXT a couple of years ago around research showing that principals, asked to rank order their teachers’ effectiveness (based on test scores) could reliably name the top 10% and the bottom 10%. They were not good at figuring out how effective 3/4 of their teachers were. And it’s that same 3/4 who could most benefit from an evaluation process that not only weeded out the lousy teachers, but could help mediocre teachers get considerably better.

Painting a picture of teacher evaluation as a universally useless sham or a game of gotcha doesn’t move us toward a better teaching force. Teachers should be telling the principal exactly which “pitches” they plan to use, and why they’ve chosen them. You’ve both described adversarial teacher-principal relationships as an essential part of the evaluation equation.

The same teacher shows up the next day in a sweat suit, unprepared, and proceeds to hand out one set of worksheets after another for the sole purpose of keeping the kids busy.

I saw it happen over and over in three and a half decades in a good middle class Massachusetts district. It was borderline embarrassing. It satisfied the teacher’s and the principal’s obligations but was an outrageous diservice to the students.

The public knows all about these practices. The folks responsible for education reform since 1983 (NAR) are also very aware of this travesty of practice. They’re the ones pushing for a change in the existing practice looking to inject some degreee of objectivity into the process and I cannot fault them one bit.

The current system of teacher evealuation in US schools today is nothing short of a joke. It has to change.

1.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/national/13houston.html

(Houston plan for merit pay is based ENTIRELY on standardized test scores.)

2.) http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070916/NEWS/709160385

(Florida’s STAR program, though it was ultimately rejected, would have tied merit pay ONLY to standardized test scores.)

3.) http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/22_04/meri224.shtml

(Right here in NYC, a pilot merit-pay plan was based almost entirely [85%] on standardized test scores.)

4.) http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/Careers/articles/pns_calif_teachers_0105.asp

(A proposed merit pay plan in California would have been based on–you guessed it!–standardized test scores.)

There are but four examples of proposed merit pay plans that would have looked only, or very heavily, at standardized test scores.

1.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/national/13houston.html

(In 2006, the schools of Houston implemented a merit pay plan centered around standardized test scores.)

2.) http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070916/NEWS/709160385

(The STAR program in Florida sought to tie merit pay to standardized test scores, although the program was ultimately rejected.)

3.) http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/22_04/meri224.shtml

(Right here on my home turf of NYC, a pilot merit-pay plan was based almost entirely [85%] on standardized test scores.)

4.) http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/Careers/articles/pns_calif_teachers_0105.asp

(This commentary from California examines a proposal by Gov. Schwarzenegger to base merit pay on–you guessed it–standardized test scores.)

These are but four (do I get merit pay for finding four?) examples of proposed merit pay plans based entirely or very heavily on standardized test scores. Not cool with me, with most teachers, or, I would imagine, with most parents.

Ms Eyre:

Can you name three? And even better, point to a statement in which they say so?