- Mr. Christie said he would immediately appoint a nine-member task force of education experts to recommend by March an evaluation system for teachers that would be based largely on student achievement.
I’d like to hear more about what the plan has in mind for determining student achievement–more grades? Mixed performance assessments and portfolios? Student feedback and reviews on the teachers? Peer evaluations and reviews by colleagues and admin?
The most effective teachers, he said, would be rewarded with merit pay and could be designated “master teachers” and given more professional opportunities, including the chance to start charter schools.
- A spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association, Frank Belluscio, who attended the meeting, said he liked the direction of the governor’s proposals.
Important keywords: "education experts" and "school boards". The common goal is to improve education for the children, and that involves getting rid of things that don’t work and having everyone involved. There should be business experts for the managerial aspect, financial experts for the fiscal and budgeting parts, and teachers for the results. I have to ask– what classroom experiences do these nine education experts have? Were one of them teachers at one point in their work history? And if not, where are the teachers on the panel? Where are the teachers on the school board? Why does Christie have a plan for education that does not include teachers and their input in it?
And if by eliminating ineffective teachers from tenure, the goal is to create an efficient and more competent teacher workforce, would not merit pay defeat that purpose? While I can see its own advantages and disadvantages, in Christie’s plan it seems counterintuitive. Why pit teachers against each other, and provide "more professional opportunities" for an elect few? Wasn’t the plan supposed to make ALL teachers effective in the classroom?
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.