Test Scores and Tenure
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 By Matthew Carr
It is not very often that I run across a New York Times editorial that I agree with, but today is an exception. Apparently, a small provision was inserted into the state’s pending education budget bill which “bars school administrators from considering student test scores when determining whether a teacher deserves to get tenure.” The folks on the editorial board are against the measure, and blame the state’s teacher union for trying to thwart better school management.
“To judge whether a teacher elevates the class or sets students spiraling backward, administrators should look at the biggest possible picture. That includes the teacher’s education and experience, of course. But what about the students’ work, including their performance on standardized tests? Shouldn’t that also be considered before giving a teacher a virtually permanent job in New York State? The ban is so nonsensical that lawmakers clearly decided that the only way to get it passed was to keep it hidden deep in the budget documents.”
“Nobody in Albany would say who is behind this language. The driving force, however, is the powerful teachers’ union that gives lots of money and time to state campaigns. Union leaders argue that it is impossible to judge a teacher fairly by students’ performance on tests, especially since many are given in the middle of the year.”“The chancellor of New York City’s schools, Joel Klein, has argued that test performance can be analyzed in a way that makes it a useful tool for comparing teachers’ performance. Also, he has said that this should be a matter for each local district to decide. For his schools, he has sensibly promised that the scores will be only one of several metrics used. The best teachers teach children how to collect information carefully and how to evaluate it critically. Before they hand out tenure, New York’s school administrators should be able to do the same.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear that local schools have been put in an untenable position by state policymakers. On the one hand, they operate in new and relatively rigorous accountability systems that expect improved performance and better utilization of resources. But at the same time, states continue to increase their control over the school day. How do we expect local schools to make the kinds of changes necessary to improve student achievement if they cannot exercise discretion over key school management decisions because of state interference?
Print This
