Teachers work endless hours making sure lessons are properly prepared, attending meetings, conducting after-school (and sometimes before-school) activities, teacher-appointed duties, grading papers, and endless meetings. If teachers were paid an hourly wage, we would be in the upper-class financial status. Unfortunately, we are not. Because of this, and numerous amounts of paperwork, teachers are leaving the field faster than ever before. Sure there have been some incentives to keep teachers. Education needs teachers that care about their jobs, who perform well above the norm to ensure all students are life-long learners and productive citizens.
It has become apparent Richmond County Schools do not adhere to this belief.
This is year three of a new test, the Student Learning Objective (SLO). The premise of this test is to determine if there is learning going on in the classroom. This test is given at the beginning of the year. The same test is administered near the end of the year, and the results compared. On the surface, this seems like a great idea. Students should be learning and growing.
Not in Richmond County.
According to the Augusta Chronicle's article February 9, 2014, "Half a teacher's score is tied to student academic growth, but just 30 percent of the state's teachers are in areas such as math, English and sciences that have pre-existing standardized competency or end-of-course tests already in place, Callahan said. For the other 70 percent of courses, school districts across the state are developing "Student Learning Objectives," or SLOs. Even though state reviewers will sign off on the new SLOs, inconsistent models across the state might give teachers legitimate grounds to say that everyone's not being held to the same standards. Some teachers will have tests that are highly reliable and valid," Sally Zepeda, a University of Georgia education professor whose research specialty is teacher evaluation, said. "But another teacher whose subject area doesn't have a highly reliable or valid test? Say they get a great evaluation score. Is it because the teacher is great, or because the test is not reliable or valid?"
That's right. The ELA test is different from the Math, which is different than the Latin, and so on. This one test is worth 50% of a teacher's evaluation.
Making sure students are learning is inherent in this field. That is the reality of the situation. However, this test is flawed beyond measure for several reasons.
1. It is made at the county level. This test does not come from the state.
2. The first year it was given, the English test had four questions that could not be answered correctly because there were two of the same answer choice, the question had nothing to do with the passage, or there was no correct answer to choose from. There were similar stories from other teachers of the same problem.
3. Teachers, parents, and students were repeatedly informed by administration that the test didn't count for anything. So if the test didn't count for anything, why take it at all? Since the students were required to take it, they marked anything just to finish and take a nap.
4. There was no test security. At our school, they were on the floor of the assistant principal office in which her door was constantly left open and unguarded. Another school decided to do it as a take-home test, so students could look up answers if they had to "make their numbers look good" (a teacher's words from that school, not mine).
5. Teachers were not allowed to assign any type of grade to the test. No points could directly be correlated with this assignment.
6. The tests don't measure many of the things that make a good teacher, such as time spent outside class doing things like tutoring or advocating for students, or teaching skills like critical thinking and processing.
7. Teachers were not informed this would go against their evaluation.
8. As with an End Of Course Test, teachers are given materials to help students prepare. Not all classes have an EOC, hence the implementation of SLO. However, now that teachers have discovered that 50% of their evaluation hinges on a test administered two years ago, why would a school system deliberately set up a teacher to fail?
The teacher evaluation consists of two components:
1. Teacher Assessment on Performance Standards (TAPS), and
2. Student Growth
The general score scale is:
I. Ineffective
II. Needs Development
III. Proficient
IV. Exemplary
I will use my case as an example.
On the first component, I was a borderline IV (missed it by 3 points). I have never scored anything lower than a III in any category at any time. I am considered a highly proficient teacher in my building and in the county. I rank either highest or second highest with my AP scores every year at my school. My students, when surveyed every year, comment that they enjoy my classes because they are challenged and are never bored. They find my classroom a safe haven and a good learning environment. They also comment that I teach a variety of ways with a multitude of assignments, so that it's easier to learn in my classroom. I also teach them time management and study skills.
So because the students, parents, and teachers are informed that they have to take a test directed by Central Office that will not count for anything, that there is no grade, and that it will not appear on their record, they do not take it seriously.
Would you?
So because of this one test and the average of part 1, I am now scored a II and I am labeled a teacher that "Needs Development." I have a II. What makes it worse is that it is now on my permanent record.
After the calculations came in, individual meetings are scheduled. I found out just before the Christmas holidays. My administrator's response? "Don't worry. No one really reads these evaluations anyway."
Then why have it? Why demoralize a teacher in this fashion? Why has one test that is out of the teacher's control count for so much of their performance? If this test was that important, isn't it the county's responsibility to provide study materials for both the teacher and the student, just like an EOC? Wouldn't all parties involved be informed of the importance of this test?
One test should not rule everything. Remember, the ring was destroyed. Will the teaching profession be destroyed, too?
