I __blogged recently__ about how teachers have a huge amount of influence over the outcomes of our children. Because of this leverage, we should take steps to ensure we have the best teachers, the ones who lead to the best outcomes. One of the comments on that post asked how we would actually evaluate teachers, taking into account both social inequalities and influences on the “whole child”.

These are reasonable questions. Children in richer neighborhoods often have better test results and overall outcomes than children from poorer neighborhoods, and school is about more than just test scores. So, how to do you ensure each school offers roughly the same opportunities and how do you evaluate the performance of teachers?

**Dealing with inequalities**

To deal with inequalities, we can start by eliminating private schools. Or rather, you can have private schools, but not ones that operate during school hours. Every child goes to public school. Rich people who would prefer something else can further educate their kids after school hours. By doing this, I expect it will increase the incentives for public school funding.

Second, any donations or fund-raising for any school should be “taxed” 50%. In other words, the school will get 50% of the income, but the rest is returned to the school district to be redistributed to other schools. Thus, a school in a wealthy area will still be better than a school in a poor area, but the inequality will fall. I think a strategy like this is a reasonable way to ensure a reasonable trade-off to encouraging fundraising without creating an extremely skewed education system.

**Ask the experts**

Almost every teacher at higher grades evaluates their students through testing. Thus, they clearly believe that testing is a reasonable way to evaluate students’ abilities, so should have no problem with tests being used to evaluate their abilities. What’s more, because of all the testing they do, one could argue that teachers are the experts at creating tests to evaluate people’s performance.

Thus, a simple (though maybe a bit cynical) way to grade teachers is to ask them to come up with a way to grade themselves, to distinguish the best teachers from the worst teachers. First, they would have to determine the important things they should be teaching, and then how to evaluate whether the students are learning those concepts well.

If they come up with a system where every teacher gets an A+ grade, then they will have proven that they are unable to evaluate someone’s performance. But I view this as the most core component of being a teacher. If you can’t even determine how someone is performing, you can’t know on which areas you should focus your teaching. At best, that means you’ll be a grossly inefficient teacher and at worst completely useless. If you’re that ineffective, you should find another job.

**Standardized grading**

If people are reluctant to allow teachers to set up their own grading system for themselves, then I’d suggest creating a standardized grading system.

With a committee involving teachers, administrators, and parents, come up with a list of what we hope to achieve in each grade. Then, create a huge database of questions related to each topic. Have a bunch of kids in each grade answer the questions so that you have a rough idea of how difficult each question is. Then, build random adaptive online tests that use a small subset of the questions.

By adaptive, I mean giving easier questions when the student gets the question wrong, and harder questions when the student gets the question right. By having the questions randomized, you minimize the chance for teachers to cheat, such as by giving the students the answers to the questions in advance. They’ll still be able to focus on the topics that will be on the test, but, since the test evaluates the dimensions we care about, that doesn’t seem like a bad thing.

In this way, in a relatively small number of questions, you’ll be able to evaluate the student’s abilities in various topics. At the beginning of the year, give the students the test, and then give them another test at the end of the year. The difference between the results is the impact of that year of school, which, in aggregate, should largely be the effect of the teacher.

**But what about….**

Of course, there could be the temptation for teachers to encourage their kids to sandbag the beginning of the year test so that they have a low hurdle. However, if this is occurring, it should be relatively obvious by comparing year over year results. (“That’s odd. Every one of Ms. Bingly’s students lost 80% of their knowledge over the summer, while everyone else’s students only lost 25%. And this has happened for 3 years straight.”)

Of course, teaching has a human component. So what do you do to ensure that teachers who have a good “soft side” get rewarded?

Nothing. If it’s important, it should be on the tests. If the teacher is actually abusive, then they shouldn’t be teaching anyway, regardless of test scores. Otherwise, put in the test…

**The bottom line**

I don’t imagine this strategy would be perfect, and it may be completely wrong. But teaching is about evaluating gaps in knowledge and skills, and filling in those gaps. If we believe that teachers are able to evaluate students at all (and I would find it hard to believe many people truly think most teachers can’t do this), then you also ought to be able to use similar evaluation techniques to judge the performance of teachers.

Something along the lines you suggest could probably be worked out. Often it seems that a minority ends up making policy and oftentimes that minority is out of touch with the day to day realities of the profession or they may have a strong personal vision they would like to impose. Teachers do work on curriculum development of course. It occurs to me that it is not enough to pay teachers well. They need suppport structures, aides and resources. This is an area where money is always tight and was a great souce of friction last year. Eg kids with special needs in regular classroom. I think that as well as some public appreciation would help the situation for teachers

LikeLike

Too many variables! Where systematic grading of teachers schemes have been implemented ‘teaching to the test’, with its’ limitations, develops over time. We need to again look at Item 5 on:

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/06/24/ctq_faridi_finland.html

There is a trend in contemporary education toward ‘demonstrated competencies’ rather than ‘recall’ testing. Grading teachers based on the quality of their students portfolios is going to be even more

subjective and, hence, unfair.

LikeLike

The thing about teaching to the test is that if the test has a broad enough set of questions, it will accomplish the goal. Every test doesn’t need to test every subject that the student should know. Rather, you just need every test to have a reasonable chance of testing any subject that the student is supposed to know. (i.e. If the student should know 20 concepts, if you randomly choose 12 of those concepts for every test–and different tests for different students–then the teacher will be forced to teach all 20 concepts). If there is something that should be taught that isn’t on the test, then add it to the test, then it will be taught.

If grading teachers is unfair because of subjectivity, then it implies that grading students is also unfair. Yet teachers have been grading students forever, and I imagine that most teachers would defend their right to evaluate their students. So, I don’t see a problem with grading teachers as well, though I imagine teachers would get annoyed when they believe they are misjudged, just as students get annoyed when they believe they are misjudged. (In fact, in almost every job for which people are paid, their quality of work is judged. Is there some reason why teachers should be a special class of people protected from their abilities being evaluated?)

I agree that improved teacher education is likely a really good thing as well.

LikeLike