A wonderful example of Eduspeak re teacher evaluation

In the September 7th Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente called for the evaluation of teachers using a value-added approach, i.e. based on how far their students progressed during a year of their teaching. Three days later, the following rebuttal appeared in the letters to the editor. (I could not provide a link to the letter because the newspaper’s website seems to be frozen on September 9th).

Teachers are graded Margaret Wente is on the mark about teachers being the most important factor in children’s education. However she gets a poor grade for not identifying that Ontario’s system has one of the most comprehensive teacher evaluation systems in existence. The province’s Education Act and regulations provide for intensive methods of regular teacher appraisal, carrying on throughout a teacher’s entire career. Teachers are paid not only based on seniority as she asserts, but through a system which recognizes them for their academic achievements and teaching experience.

Sam Hammond, President, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario

This letter provides as good an example of “eduspeak” as you’ll find anywhere. Is the evaluation system comprehensive? You bet – but not in a constructive way. Those of us who sat through the development process several years ago were appalled to see the educrats eventually settle on an evaluation process that required the evaluator to assess the teacher on 161 “look fors” – not one of which was “how much are the students learning (as confirmed by objective tests)”.

The resulting process is so complicated and time-consuming that it is not used anywhere as frequently or completely as Mr. Hammond thinks. As one Ontario principal told me when I asked him about the use of this evaluation system at his school: “I can’t use this sh***!” When Frank Gue and I (representing the public on an advisory panel) suggested early in the consultations that we include some metrics on student progress in the teacher’s evaluation, there was stunned silence from most of the other panel members followed by “You CAN’T do THAT!” Mr. Hammond’s letter confirms that things haven’t changed since those days. Note that the “their” in front of academic achievement refers to the teachers, not the students!

Comments