Problems with Rating Teachers by Test Scores

[Jessica Shiller is an assistant professor of education and coordinator of the master’s program in teaching social studies at Lehman College, City University of New York.]

When I read recent news that the New York City Department of Education wanted to rate teachers on the extent to which they raised test scores among their students, I got shivers. We have already seen schools’ ratings tied to test score improvement under No Child Left Behind, but to tie ratings to individual teacher performance makes it completely unambiguous that teachers should be teaching toward a test and divides a school staff among teachers who test prep well and those who don’t. What could be worse for improving academic achievement and building a positive school culture?

A first-year teacher working in the Bronx extolled the virtue of a such a rating on his blog, saying that his low rating helped him “focus [his] expectations for the rest of the year.” What he did not say is how his teaching would change. What new strategies would he use? What support would he be getting to improve his teaching practice? There are no provisions in a rating system like this to support teachers to improve their practice. Instead, teachers just get a grade, and are on their own to find ways to improve. Not easy for a first year teacher in a Bronx public school. I suppose you can drill the students more in their weakest areas on the test, but what about next year’s class? Does this teacher wait for his scores to come back and do the same thing again? In any case, this is not a recipe for the students or the teachers to learn more.

Despite that fact, the city is spending $1.5 million to expand this rating system. Without supporting teachers to improve their practice, rating teachers will only tell us which teachers are not improving test scores. The main goal of this seems to collect evidence to label teachers as failing and then to fire them. It will be the No Child Left Behind of the teaching profession. With school districts finding it hard to recruit and retain teachers as it is, this seems like a misguided strategy at best.

The more significant issue though is how a rating system of this sort undervalues the teaching profession. First, it assumes teachers are expendable. Rather than investing in professional growth and longevity, this system will require a never-ending supply of new teachers when current teachers fail. Think computer upgrade. Second,  teaching will be by definition a short-term profession. If their ratings are not strong with in a couple of years, teachers will need to move onto something else. Third, with virtually no money poured into professional development of teachers, and all the emphasis on test scores, teachers know that what they need to do is probably best learned from Stanley Kaplan rather than the Harvard Graduate School of Education, fueling a whole new sector for an already profitable industry. Finally, there is no test-rating system for teachers in affluent districts. If you ever tried to introduce it, the relatively well-paid and well-respected teachers would likely fight it.  So, why urban schools? What does the New York City Department of Education say to that?

Comic by Marshall Ramsey of
the (Mississippi) Clarion Ledger