Further to my comments on whether teachers ought to be evaluated according
to their students' test scores, I strongly suspect that what's going on
here is simply job protection, as I say in my column today (Tuesday) in
the Daily Gazette.
I take note of the responses I have received from a couple of teachers, to
the effect that it's not their fault if some kids don't learn. Some kids
are genetically deficient, some kids just don't want to learn, which may
or may not be. I am not the expert, though I'm prepared to believe that
not all kids are equally capable or equally motivated.
Still it's relative improvement we're talking about when we're talking
about test scores. Do even poor students do better under one teacher than
under another? That might be worth measuring and worth taking into account
when deciding whether to grant new teachers lifetime job security.
Why do teachers resist it? Why do they resist "merit pay"?
I guess because they like having what I would like to have too if I could
get it -- a nice safe job with guaranteed annual raises regardless of
how well I perform.
My question is: Do they explain this ethic to their students in civics class?