Chesterfield County, Virginia, is facing some tough times.  While that hardly makes the area unique, it is of particular interest because the school district is facing a massive $52 million shortfall and is looking to cut over 300 positions from the public schools.

The district comprises 38 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 11 high schools, and a technical center.  If the cuts were distributed evenly, it would come out to nearly 5 positions per school.  And in government work, seniority and tenure mean a lot, so the newest teachers are the ones who will most likely be on the streets.

A recent letter to the Editor of the Chesterfield Observer suggests it be done differently:

The Chesterfield County school system in its proposed reduction in force policy to meet budget restrictions is planning to lay off the newest teachers in the system. In my opinion it is these teachers who should be kept. I have found that the youngest, most recent college graduates are the most enthusiastic and bring with them the most current knowledge of educational practices and course content. It is not fair to our students to deprive them of good teachers and keep those who are not performing in a satisfactory manner.

An interesting view, but not one I can support.  Another term for the “youngest” teachers is the “least experienced”.  It may be true that these are the most enthusiastic folks on the faculty, but there is no evidence to support the implication that tenured teachers are lazy and uninspired.  Furthermore, many of the newest teachers are still deciding whether or not to make a career out of education.  It would be a dangerous investment for the district to value them so highly while they wait for their social lives or graduate school applications to sort themselves out.  Half of them don’t stay past five years.  So no, even though some of them are very enthusiastic and freshly molded, and even though they are a bargain at $20,000 less than the most experienced teachers, I would not support keeping the newest teachers first.

But still, I do think the author makes a very good overall point:

I suggest that Chesterfield County make a speedy and concerted effort to weed out underperforming educators (in teaching, administrative and staffing positions) and keep those who will make a positive difference in the lives and education of our children. Get rid of the dead wood, and keep those who will keep the system growing in the desired direction.

That would be fantastic.  The problem is that we don’t have a method in place to evaluate teachers.  We do not even identify the “dead wood”, let alone get rid of it.  That has long been the sticking point for merit pay proposals, and it now stands in the way of otherwise excellent suggestions like this one, to rid a school district of its worst teachers.

New York’s Governor Paterson sized up the biggest problem regarding teacher assessments:

How would you assess a teacher who could go into a a very difficult school and do a good job bringing a class up to, say, state average on standardized tests and then a teacher that’s a little lazy in an affluent community, where all the other teachers are doing well, benefits from the location.

This disparity can show up even within an individual school, when differentiated classes are offered (e.g., Honors).  Anecdotally, I am one of two physics teachers at my school, and I teach all three of the honors sections.  If our school were to give any standardized physics test, my students would average better than the teacher in the very next room, because the strongest and most dedicated students have self-selected into the Honors courses.  It’s a microcosm of our society overall, and I would have to be a markedly worse physics teacher than the fellow next door before it would be detectable by comparing student scores.  For this same reason, teacher assessments will be dominated by suburban teachers in well-educated districts if student performance is the basis for comparison.

The President says “this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success.”

But no amount of incentives and rewards will allow us to differentiate our teachers by merit until a reasonable, objective metric can be implemented, and I am not aware of the existence of any such metric.  It’s not just a matter of manipulating data that already exists, or documenting something that teachers are already doing.  What standardized comparison is even possible?  This is a major sticking point for several potential reforms in primary and secondary education, and until it is addressed, everything downstream of it will remain hypothetical.

 

(By the way, I live in the Chesterfield County school district, and my kids do attend two of the schools in question.  I teach in a neighboring county.  In case you wondered.)

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: all work, education // Add Comment »