There is little comfort for me in the unanimous editorials by the Journal staff that come out bi-weekly about teacher evaluation. Much closer to me are the excellent staff at the school where I work, that have made education their daily business, and the worry that placing an already proven faulty evaluation system, on top of an already extremely flawed system of testing, is entrenching our public monies into publishing companies that already have billion dollar stakes in education in our country. Think “Bank of America”, education style.
The promise of sub-contracting education is a lesser promise; we are selling our democracy out piecemeal. I wish I could say it is to the highest bidder, because at least then we might end up with a better product, but this is not the case, and the product is faulty at best. We are selling our soul here, and it goes to the lowest bidder.
Every penny we spend on publishers and people outside the state is less money developing our expertise and investment in the field. Teachers should design curriculum and tests, and be given resources to do so. The rhetoric being used to rationalize bypassing the democratic process and push this out to the schools is ironic to the informed. The collective groan coming from teachers comes from a place of knowing that the countries who do better than the U.S. in every measure of education, are going in the exact opposite direction, with less emphasis on testing.
I do look forward to next week’s editorial by the Journal staff. Although I’m pretty sure I know the substance of it, I’m hoping they’ll get a little creative with the content. Maybe this time make a limerick or a haiku.
Monte Vista Elementary