For all concerned, let’s hope the compromise–in the case of the Newsome High social studies teacher who was suspended for rejecting his assigned peer evaluator–actually works. To recap: Joseph Thomas, 43, an 18-year high school teacher had refused to schedule a peer observation with his chosen evaluator, a 29-year-old whose experience is mostly in elementaryschool.
Thomas claimed his evaluator was not qualified to evaluate him. He analogized it to “having a dentist professionally judge a heart surgeon.” His “civil disobedience” stand became an ostensible real-life social studies lesson to students. The attention had him being hailed as “Joe the Teacher” on Facebook. The School District, presumably, was not pleased at the juxtaposition.
This incident, maybe inevitably, became a pedagogical subplot of the 9-figure, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded initiative that is revamping the way the Hillsborough County School District evaluates its teachers.
Put it this way. Change was necessary. No one was venerating the status quo when it came to teacher performance. Not when seniority seemed to matter more than in-class performance.
Surely, no one can disagree that performance should trump everything when it comes to assessing teachers. And, surely, no one can disagree that doing everything possible to help teachers improve their performance is a necessary means to the end of better educating our children. Mentoring, evaluating and testing are the key components.
But details can be devilish. The best of intentions and lots of Gates money doesn’t guarantee flawless implementation. You can still have a $100-million work in progress. In fact, we’re likely looking at Exhibit A, the ironically named Empowering Effective Teachers program.
Anyone who has ever taught–or can remember back to being taught–knows the difference between elementary and senior high school. It’s visceral. There are key constants, to be sure, such as teacher preparation, enthusiasm and class control. But the variables are as different as childhood and adolescent dynamics, curriculum and subject mastery.
If the school district is going to call it “peer” evaluation, it needs to make good on that. Credibility is everything. Mismatching an elementary and secondary teacher–as well as their experience teaching children of any age–is counterproductive. And not very “empowering.”
That’s why this “compromise” seems, well, compromised. Newsome is off suspension after agreeing to be evaluated by both the original elementary-school “peer” along with one with experience teaching eighth grade. Wonder how much the students will appreciate the classroom atmospherics when this happens? Think they won’t recognize a charade?
Here’s a suggestion, and it doesn’t take Gates money to implement. Schools should be increasingly looking at their department heads for more evaluative help. These are the ones who know their stuff, their staff and their school. Perhaps too much is made of “peer” semantics.
And “peer” egos will be a non-factor when it comes to assessing strengths and weaknesses of individual teachers. As seasoned professionals worthy of chairing a department, they are a vital resource and well positioned to make critical evaluations. A critical detail: Making sure department chairs have teaching loads light
enough to accommodate enough observations to be meaningful.
And if department heads are deemed less effective as evaluators than those more formally Gates- trained in the last year, then that’s a separate problem. How did they become department chairs in the first place?