When a Teacher’s Job Depends on a Child’s Test

If it’s March, it must be test-prep season: next month, New York students in grades three through eight will take the state’s standardized English Language Arts and Mathematics tests: three days of exams devoted to both subjects, lasting for upward of seventy minutes a day. These are often referred to as high-stakes tests because of the impact that the results can have on student promotion, teacher evaluation, and school funding—and the stakes of the tests in New York this year may be pushed higher still. In his State of the State address, delivered at the end of January, Governor Andrew Cuomo pledged to make education reform a centerpiece of his agenda. “Everyone will tell you, nationwide, the key to education reform is a teacher evaluation system,” the governor said. He noted that while only thirty-eight per cent of New York State high-school students are deemed to be “college ready,” according to their scores on standardized tests, 98.7 per cent of teachers in New York’s schools are rated “effective.” “How can that be?” Cuomo asked. “Who are we kidding, my friends? The problem is clear and the solution is clear. We need real, accurate, fair teacher evaluations.”

That teachers should be evaluated is an assertion with which no reasonable person involved with education—from a policy-maker to a parent—is likely to disagree. But how teachers might best be evaluated remains a contested science. In New York City, a system that incorporates a range of metrics, called Advance, was adopted in 2013. Students’ results in state tests account for twenty per cent of a teacher’s rating, but the teacher’s curriculum materials are also evaluated, as is his or her classroom practice, which is observed on multiple visits throughout the year by the school principal or another observer.

More