Teacher Evaluations: Presumption of Incompetence

In San Francisco Unified (SFUSD) last year, 40 out of 1,924 teachers (2%) received bad reviews. Over the past f....

Abuse of Data Leads To Abuse Of Teachers

The Ed Deformers love to hold up numbers like these as proof that the teacher evaluation system is broken. What the Ed Deformers are actually
demonstrating by such abuse of data is their own ignorance and
incompetence. Low numbers of unsatisfactory reviews does not prove that
the evaluation system is broken any more than high temperatures indicate
a broken thermometer. These results could mean that there are actually
very few bad teachers. There is no reason to assume that there must be
more bad teachers than are being caught by the current system or that
there is necessarily a bell curve of teacher aptitude.

On the contrary; many evaluation systems, like that used in California, are based on benchmarks or standards that teachers are expected to work toward. Teacher training programs, student
teaching experiences and professional development are generally geared
toward these standards. Teachers are assessed on these standards yearly
until they have achieved tenure, and every two to four years thereafter.
In the assessment process, teachers can receive evaluations of
unsatisfactory, satisfactory or better. Obviously, unsatisfactory
implies that some standards have not been met, while satisfactory means
that they have. While some teachers are certainly better than others at
any given standard, a rating of “satisfactory” must still be accepted
for what it is: the ability to sufficiently perform one’s job. Thus,
contrary to all the anti-teacher rhetoric, we should expect the vast majority of teachers be able to meet these standards if they have been adequately trained, as most have.

That this is true should be clear by examining a sampling of the California teaching standards:

Each of these standards is clearly an important part of good teaching (as are the others I left out for the sake of space). They are relatively easy to learn, both through training
and practice, and to demonstrate to administrators who are evaluating
teachers. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the vast majority
of teachers get positive revues. It is not only what we should expect
for evaluations based on standards (rather than test scores), but what
we should desire for our children.

On the other hand, receiving a satisfactory to excellent review, indeed being an excellent teacher, cannot guarantee that every student is
learning the student content standards. This is because students come to
school with a range of prerequisite skills and social development,
familial support structures, and material security (or lack thereof)
that influence their academic success. Therefore, it is entirely
possible, indeed likely, that we can have good teachers with bad student
test scores. This may be part of the reason for the irrational
assumption that there must be many more bad teachers out there than are
caught under current evaluation systems.

Another problem is that administrators are stretched thin with all their other responsibilities, which means that they seldom have the time for many
classroom observations of their teachers or to give adequate attention
to teacher portfolios. This may result in some teachers receiving satisfactory evaluations when in fact they actually need improvement.

Oakland Superintendent Anthony Smith said “We have to create a better evaluation system that really names what...,” but we already have that in California. The Standards for the Teaching Professional clearly identify the qualities of good teaching. His
solution to include student performance in teacher evaluations, in
contrast, is irrational and cannot possibly help to achieve his goal.
Student test scores tell us nothing about what good teaching should look
like. Student achievement data is at best a proxy that may or may not
tell us anything about the quality of teaching. For example, a good
student may do well on a test, even when the teaching is very poor,
because that student already knew how to study, and had considerable
background knowledge, high self-efficacy and the ability to focus for
extended periods of time. Student achievement data, unlike teaching
standards, tell us nothing about methods to motivate students, or how to
reach low income students, English language learners or special needs
students. In contrast, while benchmark or standards-based evaluations do
not guarantee improved test scores, they can and generally do describe
what good teaching should look like and can help teachers reflect upon
their teaching and improve.

Teacher Evaluations: Presumption of Incompetence