Sounds reasonable…

But it’s not.

There seems to be a lot of this going around these days: ideas that seem reasonable on the surface (especially if you’re not really paying attention, which most people are not) but upon close examination are deeply counter-productive, or worse.

To cite an example I’ve used before: a change in the implementation of the Keystone exams that will allow students to take the exam in the same year they take the course, rather than making them wait until their junior or senior year.  Of course that’s reasonable! – and everyone patted themselves on the back accordingly for making the change.

But here’s my question: was what those students learned in their freshman Biology course important, or wasn’t it?  If it really is important – so important that it’s required for graduation – shouldn’t students still remember and be able to use it two years later?  Otherwise, what was the point?  This is the message we appear to be sending to students: memorize as much of this stuff as you can, regurgitate it as quickly as possible, and then forget it so you can go on to the next thing.  This is learning?

And now to the more current example: last week the PA House unanimously (!) passed compromise legislation - compromise is good, no? -  that establishes a new system for evaluating public school employees that uses student performance as a rating factor.

Sound reasonable?  Let’s look at some details. “For non-teaching professional employees, the bill requires 20% of their overall rating to be based on student performance.”

So to be clear: how well the school’s students do on their PSSAs will be 20% of the evaluation for school nurses, guidance counselors, etc.. Are you kidding me?  (Think Lewis Black as you read this.) Could they not come up with anything less relevant?

Here’s another detail: For teachers, the bill requires 50% of their rating to be based on student performance; 15% of which will be based on building level data, including things such as the PSSAs, the school’s graduation rate and AP course participation. By what shred of logic should individual teachers be evaluated based on the performance of students they have never met?

Allow me to make a point that should be obvious: teachers in schools that have the resources to offer more AP classes, and where the graduation rate is consistently in the upper 90s (such as State College) are therefore, by definition better teachers than those that teach in more challenging circumstances?

Let’s consider the unintended  (one would hope!) consequences. You’re a teacher looking for a job.  You have a choice: A) you can work in a ‘good’ school, where you are relatively well-paid, the students are relatively focused on learning, and where you are more likely to receive good evaluations – based on overall school performance - resulting in greater job security, or B) you can work in a struggling school, for less pay, where your job evaluation will be pulled down by the school’s overall test scores and you are at risk of being fired every year.  Where would you go?

Just as importantly, school A has ten applicants for every position, while school B has to take whoever they get.  Needless to say, the primary difference between school A and school B is the relative wealth of the respective communities. Under this proposal, we are institutionalizing a scheme in which the rich continue to get richer…

I haven’t even addressed the issue of statistical reliability.  (Does no one understand statistics?)  Based on the evidence so far, the use of student ‘achievement’ data results in wild fluctuations in individual teacher evaluations from year to year. We might be better off using a dartboard – at least then, the randomness would be apparent to everyone.

What will be the impact on teacher morale of this nonsense – and what will be the impact of that, on the kids?  Finally, is there anyone – anyone? – who believes the PSSAs measure more than a tiny sliver of what is important in student learning?

This proposal is either A) dumb as rocks, or B) an incredibly devious and dishonest attack on the very idea of public education. Honestly, I am somewhat torn between the two options. (As they used to say, “just because you’re paranoid…”)

p.s. One other provision of this legislation would permit non-education professionals to be school superintendents. Now, there’s a swell idea.