by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

After reading the comments on my post concerning tenure and evaluation, I realized that it was possible that what I was thinking about those topics was not reflected in what I was actually writing.  My first thought was to use the Charles Barkley defense.  When questioned about a controversial quote in his autobiography, the Hall of Fame basketball player said, “Obviously I was misquoted.”  But when my wife sided with the detractors, I decided to take a second look at what I had written.  My revisit convinced me that I needed to do some serious restating of my positions

What I did not mean

Unfortunately if someone chose to read my words rather than my mind, the following conclusions were highly probable:            

1. After three years teachers cannot improve at their craft
2. Therefore, there is little reason to work on improving one’s skills
3. Consequently, there is no value in having evaluations after year three

Try, try again—Topic 1

My semantic nightmare began as the result of an ill-fated attempt to differentiate between “evaluation” and “professional growth”.  I believe that for many people evaluation is a red-flag word.  These people view it as an administrative referendum on the success or failure of a teacher rather than an opportunity to improve a teacher’s skills.  With that perception in mind I tried to separate these two outcomes.  To achieve that split I contend that during the first three years of a career teachers should be subjected to an extensive and comprehensive evaluation.  During this process a decision should be made as to whether these individuals have the skills necessary to become an effective educator.  After that level of ability is quantified, the focus should then be placed on professional growth—continually working to become a better teacher.  I have often written that this method would be remarkably similar to evaluation—classroom observations by professional evaluators, videotaping, visiting other classes, frequent professional development opportunities. During my forty years as a high school math teacher I spent a great deal of time working with new teachers.  One of my main points of emphasis was that my approach was constantly evolving.  I would point out that every year whether it was my fifth, twenty-fifth or thirty-fifth, I would make notes to myself about changes I would incorporate the following year.  I strongly encouraged them to do the same.  Let me be clear—in order to be an effective teacher, one must be constantly evaluating and reevaluating their work.  New technologies, policies and educational theories must be studied and when appropriate incorporated into the classroom.

Topic 2

My second writing fiasco was my comment that teachers do not improve after three years.  This massive misstatement was the result of inadvertently grouping weak and strong teachers together.  The intended focus of this statement was on the removal of weak teachers.  I should have clearly stated that, if after three years of extensive evaluations, a person is found to lack the necessary talents to succeed as a teacher, the likelihood of the any significant improvement is remote.  This belief is based on observations of poor teachers, who for a variety of reasons were able to continue their careers despite obvious shortcomings.  Allowing these educators to remain year after year in the hope that they would suddenly become competent had a highly negative impact on the students they taught.  Consequently, I remain firmly convinced a more efficient and expedient method for removing these teachers must be implemented.