Delay sought in teacher evaluations

It's not pleasant to tell parents their schoolchild is failing to make the grade. Over the years, as some parents have adopted a more adversarial attitude - and as the schools have presented themselves more as social service agencies than as guarantors of academic rigor - the process of making a child repeat a grade has also become more cumbersome, and less common.

Add kids who change schools frequently, and kids for whom English is not a first language, and for a slew of reasons the public schools over the decades have become less rigorous. Lots of bright kids still do well, but it's no secret that many children who haven't mastered what the curriculum says they should have learned are still "passed along," year after year, until many find themselves unable to earn a high school diploma. Even many of today's high school graduates don't turn out to have the skills that employers say they need and expect.

Finally, the state Legislatures have begun to act. Last year, Nevada's lawmakers ordered a new teacher evaluation system that focuses on what students actually learn.

The Legislature set up the Teachers and Leaders Council, and told them to base at least 50 percent of teachers' and administrators' evaluations on student performance data.

The Council - most of its 15 members appointed by Gov. Brian Sandoval - did just that, drafting a system under which students' annual improvement counts for 35 percent of teacher evaluations. Another 10 percent would be based on the reduction of gaps between underperforming students and average students, while 5 percent would be based on the percentage of students with grade-level skills.

But even leaving aside a predictable lack of emphasis on the progress of gifted students - from among whose ranks we must draw tomorrow's leaders - problems remain.

Only 25 percent to 30 percent of teachers teach grades three through eight, the levels at which the state currently tests in math and English, points out Council chairwoman Pamela Salazar, who was appointed to the board to represent public-school teacher and administrative training programs.

In high school, students must pass the state proficiency exams in reading, writing, math and science. But teachers in music, art, and other disciplines can't be evaluated based on test data in areas where the state does no testing.

The council argues testing needs to eventually be expanded, but admits that will cost money, as will implementing this new evaluation system, which the State Board of Education will consider formally adopting on Jan. 25.

The 2011 Legislature required that the new evaluation process be put into practice no later than next school year, but that's not enough time to do the job right, argues Salazar, who wants two trial years before implementing the system in 2015-16. State Superintendent of Public Instruction James Guthrie agrees, as do officials from the Clark County Education Association - the teachers union.

"We don't want to repeat the mistakes of Florida," says Ms. Salazar. "We want to make sure that when we stand this up and make decisions based on it, we believe in it, we know it's right."

In Florida, thousands of evaluations had to be retracted because of miscalculations. In Houston, teachers were required to hand back bonuses awarded for performance, with "miscalculations" again being cited.

Mr. Guthrie estimates the new system will cost $10 million to $20 million to launch. Furthermore, to get things right, the Council is now recommending a "validation study" be done over two trial years to make sure teachers aren't mis-evaluated. To balance the testing data, the other half of evaluations will be based on teachers' classroom behavior and their actions outside the classroom "influencing instruction," likely to be scored by school administrators.

In real life, while "classroom behavior" is of course key, the rest of that formula means continuing to reward teachers who beef up their resumes with advanced degrees in pedagogy, rather than in the disciplines they teach - a pattern that shows little correlation with student success.

Mr. Guthrie called the council's proposed evaluation system "superb," but noted the Legislature must make changes - including allocating more funds - for this all to happen.

The Legislature faces an important task, here. Is it going to take more time and money than anticipated to "get it right"? That seems likely.

But on the other hand, the teacher unions have made no secret of the fact they will drag their feet against any attempt to make their members truly accountable, efforts aimed in the long run at allowing differentiation in pay and even in retention between the effective and the ineffective.

When do rigorous efforts to "get it right" end, and a campaign of delay and foot-dragging begin?

In Carson City this winter, some healthy skepticism will be in order. For starters, someone needs to seriously ask why a one-year "trial" wouldn't make more sense than a two-year delay.

After all, how many more ill-served kids should be allowed to "flow over the dam" before we start to make things right?