According to our grade scale...we are failing...

I received an email today from the administration where I am a student-teacher. It reads "60% of true freshman received all passing grades on their report card. 40% received at least 1 E."

According to the grade scale in my class...a 60% is not a passing grade...our school is failing.

This is truly disheartening. Only 60% of freshmen passed each of their classes during the first marking period of their high school career. I can't help but wonder what the teachers of the freshmen class are thinking when they receive this kind of news. I would think it would be very disappointing/frustrating. Clearly, the grades these students received are a product of their past educational experiences and I wonder if this data will be provided to the junior high and elementary schools that serve our district.

The first comment I want to make about this data is that it further calls into question the use of tests as measures of school success and teacher ability. How can our high school as a whole and teachers be held accountable for their students' test scores when the students they receive are failing immediately upon arriving in high school? Clearly, these students are already behind the learning curve and their public education has already failed them. The easiest way I can make a mental picture of this is using an assembly line analogy. It seems as though much of the legislation right now is punishing the guy at the end of the assembly line for a table not having all four legs when an employee up the line never put the first three on. We need to find a way to form more cohesion and teamwork from kindergarten up to senior high. We can't wait until high school to try and catch these kids up.

Also, I think as a next generation teacher I need to be ready to stand at the edge of a cliff. In other words...I have to call for my job to be fire-able. I don't think that the next generation of teachers can afford to cling to tenure. Now don't get me wrong...I think that we need to stand together and have some protection, especially when it comes to the manner in which teachers are held accountable. For example, I don't think tenure should be based on years of teaching or standardized test scores. But I also think that those of us who teach need to be confident in our abilities and accept a work enviroment in which we can be fired at any moment for poor performance. For example, if you are a bad engineer you are fired, if you are a bad cook you're fired, why should bad teachers be unfire-able after tenure?

Instead, why can't teachers be evaluated in the manner of other work places? For example, the administartion (or other individual, such as our field instructors for example) visits a classroom, watches the teacher, then submits a report about the performance. I don't see how this is different from a sales person having their presentations evaluated or an engineer having their reports judged. Of course, this means that a school district would have to provide training for those who would be evaluating teachers and evaluations would have to occur more then once a year, but the system would be much less arbitrary then test scores or passing grades. How about categories such as timelyness in providing grade reports and attendence to parents and administration, where the kids engaged, do your lesson plans align with state standards, have you shown an ability to be innovative in your methods?. Categories like this seem to get more at what teaching is about...

If we judged on valid criterion instead of arbitrary test scores maybe we wouldn't have to worry about "old dinosaurs" and "dictators" being irremovable from classrooms because of tenure issues. I'll put my head on the chopping block...if I'm a bad teacher I shouldn't be allowed in a classroom...but if I'm a good teacher I'll have the confidence and ability to pass these evaluations with flying colors (if they are structured correctly)