Print subscriber but without online access? Activate your Digital Account now.
Accountability is one of those things everyone says they want. It would be more easily achievable if only there could be agreement on how people are to be held to account, and by whom. Too many captains at the tiller won’t help in keeping the public schools on course.
The current debate over employee evaluations in the public schools provides an illustration of this point. At issue is how to make evaluations reflect how well a teacher has succeeded in drawing good performance from students. Teachers are understandably nervous about which student performance measures would be used in the calculation.
Some point out, for example, that certain tests under the federal No Child Left Behind law requires non-English speakers to be tested along with everyone, regardless of how recently they arrived in America. And in schools with a large immigrant population, this could skew the evaluation against teachers, putting them at a relative disadvantage with teachers in less diverse neighborhoods.
While the state must find a way to make student performance a factor in teacher evaluations, there’s still work to do to find the right mix. And in this kind of broth, too many cooks are definitely capable at spoiling things.
That’s why this is not the time for state lawmakers to inject themselves into the issue, no matter how well-intended, to push the process along. Instead, the state Board of Education is better positioned to set policy in this critical area of school reform.
The proposals in play include House Bill 2527, which is due to come up next before the House Finance Committee. It sets a mandate in law that the state Department of Education develop an evaluation process for teachers and principals in which "student learning and growth" constitute 50 percent of the evaluation rating. The measure is designed to ensure that the DOE implements commitments set out in its nearly $75 million educational reform grant awarded in the federal Race to the Top competition.
It replaces a brief section of law that simply requires the department to establish an evaluation program that "shall define the criteria for evaluation and assign responsibilities for the application of the criteria."
Basically, it leaves the department to fill in the blanks. The new section spells out much of what’s required, mandating measures of fiscal accountability and instructional leadership where principals are concerned, effective classroom practice and student engagement for teachers, and the support of student learning and growth in both categories.
The evaluation component is due to be implemented by July 1, 2013, under this bill.
By contrast, the BOE is considering a board policy that attempts to flesh out the general directive for a performance evaluation system. It requires the department to present a plan for how it will develop the system by April 30, only a few months from now, and similarly have it ready for the 2013-2014 school year.
"The evaluation of a teacher and principal shall be on the basis of efficiency, ability, contribution to student learning and growth and such other criteria and processes as the department shall determine," reads one section of the proposed policy.
This seems to be the more appropriately general policy directive, and it comes from the body most responsible for setting new courses: the state school board. The unions for the teachers and principals have stated a preference that this be left to the collective bargaining process, but clearly there needs to be oversight and direction, and the BOE is the logical entity to provide it.
When Gov. Neil Abercrombie advocated for an appointed school board, one of his arguments was that it would enable him to be more clearly responsible for the progress toward his educational goals.
It’s now time to put that notion to the test, by having the Legislature step back and hand the reins for this policy to the BOE.