DPI warns the reader: “READ THIS FIRST: In order to understand the charts, it is important that you first read the following information.”
And I feel obligated to warn the reader that: THE CHARTS ARE TOTAL, UTTER, USELESS NONSENSE!
The North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Evaluation standards for teachers:
•Teachers demonstrate leadership. [Whoopee!]
•Teachers establish a respectful environment for a diverse population of students. [check]
•Teachers know the content they teach. [Very nice, don’t you think?]
•Teachers facilitate learning for their students. [Merely facilitate?]
•Teachers reflect on their practice. [navel gazing]
Educators can receive one of five ratings on a standard:
•Not demonstrated (Lowest Rating)
•Developing “educator is growing … but has not yet demonstrated competence.”
•Accomplished “exceeded basic competence …most of the time.”
•Distinguished (Highest Rating) “consistently … exceeds basic expectations”
But are the teachers effective as demonstrated by their students’ academic successes? (to be continued…)
Turning to a typical “chart” such as the one for Duplin or, for that matter, most other counties we find that only 9 out of 356 teachers (2.5%) were below proficient (ie., Not Demonstrated or Developing) in “facilitating” the learning of their students. http://bit.ly/wfVN1C Yet their ABC Report Card reveils that nearly 40% of all 3-8 grade students fail the state’s basic reading test. http://bit.ly/AuYTnB . (Over 70% in the state fail the national NAEP reading test.)
If the “North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Evaluation” reveals that 97.5% of Duplin’s teachers are “evaluated” as Proficient or better while 40% of their students fail, we cannot escape the conclusion that the evaluation is not measuring factors that are meaningful for teaching reading.
This is not to decry or denigrate the hard-working teachers in our state or their struggling students and anxious parents, but it is clear from this example that this whole “Educator Evaluation System” is worthless.
Maybe the educators of our educators – the schools of education – should be evaluated! But wait! The NC education schools were evaluated in 2009 by the National Council for Teacher Quality in a 152-page report. In preparing their teaching candidates to teach reading, the NC university ed schools scored a “D-.” http://bit.ly/f2uCgI (page 17) The students of their graduates – our children – reflect this failing grade.
But 2009? Maybe we’ve improved! Okay, so let’s look at the just-released 2011 report on teacher preparation…page 2… http://www.nctq.org/stpy11/reports/stpy11_northcarolina_report.pdf
Hmmm. Another “D-.” A blistering report card for our ed schools and credentialing process.
The NCTQ 2011 North Carolina report says things such as, “Preparation programs are not required to address the science of reading, and candidates are not required to pass a test [like NES 104] to ensure knowledge.”
And, “Neither teacher preparation programs nor licensure test requirements ensure that new elementary teachers are adequately prepared to teach mathematics.”
What to do? What to do?
The General Assembly through GS 115C-296(a) assigns to the State Board of Education the job of credentialing our teachers. Either the SBE should treat this assignment seriously, or the GA should take on this vital task thenselves, thus forcing the ed schools to do their job properly. The horses are already out of the barn and shutting the door later with on-the-job more evaluating will not help our kids learn to read. http://bit.ly/tbtg9
[Ed. note: The views expressed above are strictly those personal opinions of the author and are in no way necessarily reflective of any organization with which he may be associated.]