preparation > evaluation

Since I started following Diane Ravitch on Twitter, I have been unable to avoid the discussion about "value-added measures" (VAM). She tweets about it constantly and seems to retweet everything about it. (Not a deal-breaker, but I was hoping for more.) It is a very hot-button issue in public education, so it isn't a surprise at all that she's all over it. In the smallest of nutshells, VAM is a formula that bases teacher effectiveness on student outcomes as measured by standardized tests. Proponents argue that it is a more objective measure than traditional administrator evaluations that can be clouded by personal relationships. On the other hand, opponents believe that VAM implicitly encourages 'teaching to the test' rather than 'teaching so kids can learn stuff' by basing evaluations of effectiveness solely on test scores.

Both sides agree that there needs to be a more effective way to terminate underperforming teachers who are harmful to students. However, I believe that more effort needs to be spent in making sure that these people don't reach the classroom in the first place. In short, teaching needs gatekeepers.

When I was training to be a counselor, I always liked that my professors took their role as professionals who were training future colleagues very seriously. There was a vested interest in teaching us to be good counselors because we would be entering their field, and they didn't want us to screw it up.

Teaching is very different. The myriad of alternate route certification programs has fostered an idea that, with minimal preparation, anyone can be a teacher. Like math? Teach it! Watch the History Channel? Teach it! I have met people who sign up for these programs merely because they don't know what they want to really do for a living. The programs vary in offerings and length of preparation - some offer a few months of prep, others offer five weeks in the summer - but none work to weed out people who are not cut out for the job. Teaching is one of the hardest jobs around and not everyone is cut out for it. These nontraditional certification programs are actually harmful to the field because, since everyone can do them, they lower the esteem of teaching as both a profession and a craft. All are welcome, so it must not be too difficult, right? (Wrong.)

Instead of spending a lot of money developing tools to kick people out the profession, more money and effort need to be spent to ensure the quality of those who enter. While experience definitely helps good teachers become great, the better they start out, the better they will be for students. I have read research that estimates that one year of bad teaching sets a child back about two grade levels. It behooves all of us in the education field to demand quality teaching from the door, and to put more pressure on these programs to preserve the craft. Accurate evaluation is necessary, but effective preparation is far more important. Teaching needs a bridge troll that only allows the most qualified people to pass, and preparation programs need to take that role seriously.

What are your thoughts?

xo,
Linds