You may have heard bits and pieces of a debate over some Senate Bill called 191, but like myself, before researching this topic, you probably just overlooked it. You shouldn’t. Senate Bill 191 essentially standardizes a grading rubric on which teachers are evaluated at the end of each year. Last year, Senate Bill 191 was piloted in certain schools where they tested standardized evaluation, and this year it will be implemented state-wide. The bill basically states that at least 50% of teachers’ evaluations are now going to be based off of students’ academic growth. Notice that the evaluations will be based on relative growth versus performance level. The state legislature recognizes that teachers who teach in very wealthy districts may be at an advantage to those in poorer district if the grading system were solely derived in student right vs. wrong answers.

The evaluation occurs every year on the statewide TCAP tests, later to be replaced with PARCC tests which assess how well students are learning the set standards in curriculum that teachers are supposed to be teaching. Half of the teachers’ evaluation is divided up into two or three categories, depending on whether or not they teach Math, English, or Science (the subjects tested in TCAP). This year, if teachers teach TCAP, approximately, 35% of their entire evaluation is based off TCAP scores as a school, about only 15% off of their students’ respective scores in the subject they teach, and about 10% of an “other assessment” category. This “other assessment” category consists of a department-developed evaluation which teachers fill out to measure how much progress their students have made throughout their course.

Here is where my first problem with this bill lies. Teachers who teach subjects that are not on TCAP (i.e. Ceramics, Health and Wellness, Astronomy, Foreign Languages, etc.) are still being evaluated on how well their students do on the TCAP/PARCC tests. This year approximately 30% of “Teacher Attributions Without TCAP” is the TCAP results of the entire school, and 20% “other assessments.” That being said, the “other assessments” portion of the evaluation will grow to about 35% and TCAP scores shrink to about 15% by the year 2016-2017.

Regardless, I believe the principal of the matter is flawed. I do not believe art teachers should be held accountable for their students’ math scores. Teacher proponents of the bill say, “We just really need to work together and all support the student in every aspect of his/her learning.” I fully endorse teachers supporting students in other classes, but I do not believe they should be subject to evaluation based on other teachers’ performances. This system means that a really bad art teacher could piggy-back off the scores of a really good English and/or Math Department; and vice versa, a phenomenal art teacher could be jeopardized by the failure of the English and/or Math Department.

Linda Van Matre and Doug Lundberg, respectively President and (former) Vice-President of the D20 Board of Education, graciously agreed to meet with me for an hour so I could get their thoughts on this state-mandated bill. My first question was, “If growth is being measured, is there a beginning test and an ending test? If not, how is the progress measured?” Mr. Lundberg answered, “You know, that’s a great point, but we really can’t afford to do pretests in every year, and the logistics are too complex.” Statewide testing takes a lot of time and costs the taxpayers a lot of money. Another quite basic problem is “how do we develop pretests in every subject?” It’s really hard to have art students take a test at the beginning and end of each year to analyze how well an art teacher developed student creativity. Also, would a geometry teacher just teach to the final test through year to make sure his/her students would do well on the test?

I also asked Van Matre and Lundberg “Can we institute some sort of student ramification or repercussion to ensure students are taking testing seriously?” The basic answer is no because the state won’t allow it. Personally, I believe that students should be penalized or punished for filling in all answer C then sleeping for the remaining time. This is our teachers’ jobs we’re talking about. Hypothetically, a math class’ students could all plot together and fail the TCAP test to fire their mean math teacher; his teaching abilities may have nothing to do with that.

Additionally, I proposed that teachers who teach AP classes like AP Calculus, could be assessed on the student performance on the AP test. But not all students take the AP test, and teachers may discourage students from taking the test if they think certain students might not pass the AP exam.

Linda Van Matre explained to me that no evaluation will entirely capture how well students are being taught, but the states want some sort of concrete evidence of the results being produced.  I also asked Van Matre, “Many of my teachers have totally different teaching styles (for example Barbra Wilson and Glen Hoit). Does the bill hinder how a teacher can teach their students?” She replied, “The bill doesn’t really hinder how a teacher teaches, it will simply standardize more of what they are teaching. I’m sure your different teachers both produced great results despite the difference in their style.”

After much discussion and debate on this bill, I have concluded that when evaluating something as abstract as the impact of a teacher on students, no system is perfect. There are shortcomings and loopholes in every system, and we all know that we would rather be taught by personalities than by computers. Regardless, teachers at Air Academy shouldn’t be so concerned about the type of evaluation because nearly all of them are phenomenal and irreplaceable. In this season of Thanksgiving I would like to, on behalf of the entire student body, thank all of our great teachers for their service, which we seldom fully appreciate. You are all providing us with the tools, the importance of which we cannot fathom. Thank you, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.