Joan Fowles Lavery

Joan Lavery's Response:

To begin with, we departmentalize our math teaching, so I teach only a third of the students in my own class in math. Secondly, often I have students who come into my class scoring as high as 600 on CST exams (all correct) in a subject. Even if they score 600 again the next year, I would be considered average because there is nowhere for them to move. If they go down to 580 (missing one problem), or 560 (missing two) they are losing. I will be rated (less effective) and not as effective as a teacher who has large gains to make. Usually at my school 80% or more of entering students are already proficient or advanced, so I don't see significant gains either way. The curriculum gets harder and my students work to transition to middle school by learning to take responsibility for their own learning. This is something that cannot be evaluated through standardized tests.
This type of evaluation will lead to teachers teaching to a test. As we know students who take preparatory (practice tests) for SAT and college entrance exams do better than students who do not. If test scores will be used to evaluate teachers, then teachers will work on test taking skills and the limited content on standardized tests rather than teaching the child. It will improve test scores, but will it prepare our students for the real world?
The aim of teaching is to teach the whole child and that includes art, drama, dance, physical education, computers, health, social studies and science. Socialization and focusing on teaching children to deal with problems that arise on the playground make for a healthier child who is able to cope in our society. My focus as a teacher is to help children to think, work out their own problems in a socially responsible way and understand the processes by which they learn best.
In addition, children need to learn to be a member of our larger world and community. Teaching the process of a democracy through a democratic classroom will never be tested on standardized tests. Yet if we want an educated voting public, we need to teach it in our schools. Students need to understand propaganda, advertising and how the manipulation of data can skew an issue.(as this article and database does)
This is a flawed idea that will demoralize teachers who work hard with too little resources and support. While I can see the value of looking at this as a staff, there is little value in rating teachers this way. Teachers could look at this data and share best practices and how to improve student achievement. If it is used as teacher evaluation, it will pit teachers against each other. Every year we study student data to improve instruction and how content is delivered, but where is the monetary support for teachers to get the meaningful professional development to improve instructional strategies?
It would be nice if the LA Times worked for ways to raise revenues for our schools instead of trying to tear teachers down and break our spirits.