Since the Compass teacher evaluation system was unveiled, teachers have been worried about the fact that half their performance evaluations would be based on student scores on standardized tests.
That's understandable. It has to be unnerving that your livelihood depends in large part on someone else's performance.
No one can dispute that teachers are charged with imparting knowledge to their students. And their success in that area should be part of the measure of a teacher's effectiveness. But not half.
There are too many factors - often beyond a teacher's control - that can affect a child's performance on standardized tests, from their natural ability in one subject or another to poverty or problems at home.
Senate Bill 364 by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, would delete the value-added model requirement and require the state to develop a new evaluation system for teachers. It also requires that the system be based on multiple factors and that it provide additional training for lower-performing teachers.
Teachers have been concerned not only about the nature of the Compass evaluation but also the fact that it goes hand-in-hand with the newly implemented Common Core state standards. Many teachers have expressed the feeling that they have not received adequate training or materials to help them teach to the unfamiliar standards.
That is a valid concern and efforts appear to be underway to address it. But it is still early in the game and it is to be expected that some teachers may not feel entirely comfortable with being evaluated.
The best teachers often possess qualities that are hard to quantify.
But there has to be accountability. Teachers, like employees in other professions, are subject to evaluations by their employers.
But performance evaluation should not be a cut-and-dried 50-50 equation that doesn't consider advanced training and certification. And it shouldn't ignore the more subjective qualities, like dedication, perseverance and a true concern for the students in their charge.
Great teachers should be recognized and celebrated, not punished. While we agree there can be some objective measurements of student progress, the art of motivating students to learn and to set higher goals for themselves contains many subjective components.
A good teacher evaluation system would be constructed to motivate the good and great with financial rewards and to weed out the marginal performers. We'd like to think our state's university-level schools of education have something to offer in the way of constructing a good teacher evaluation program.
Maybe instead of trying to legislate performance evaluations, we should take a hard look at Sen. Nevers' bill that might allow these resources to be part of the conversation.