It seems that no matter where you teach, teacher accountability and evaluation is a hot-button issue. Standardized testing, merit pay and principal evaluations are all systems created to hold teachers accountable for their practice. Ask most however, and teachers will vociferously state that these type of assessments are not valid as they cannot reliably measure all of the variables that impact student learning.
What most teachers seem to want, is a system in which they monitor their own practice of teachers by teachers. This system would better reflect the intricacies of each school community as well as the true daily grind of the work. In essence, the reason that teacher accountability measures are failing is that teachers are not sufficiently involved in the process.
This being the case, what is puzzling is that we try and implement the same sorts of accountability measures onto our students? For example, are late marks, zeros and averaging grades any different than measuring teacher success through standardized tests which take the average to rate performance? What about random participation marks? We know that merit pay does not have an impact on teacher effectiveness so how do subjective participation marks lead students towards becoming more accountable for their learning?
My point is if we want students be more accountable for their learning we need to include them in the conversation. It is therefore why I am suggesting that the one- sized model of accountability start with a conversation to co-construct the criteria for both the evaluator and person being evaluated. This sets clear boundaries for both parties in which the lens, while evaluative, is designed to allow for honest self-reflection and provide feedback for future and continued success.
When we ask students to be accountable for their learning, we need to ensure that the methods being used are held to the same principles we hold our teaching to. When we do this, the interconnectedness between teaching and learning is strengthened.
What most teachers seem to want, is a system in which they monitor their own practice of teachers by teachers. This system would better reflect the intricacies of each school community as well as the true daily grind of the work. In essence, the reason that teacher accountability measures are failing is that teachers are not sufficiently involved in the process.
This being the case, what is puzzling is that we try and implement the same sorts of accountability measures onto our students? For example, are late marks, zeros and averaging grades any different than measuring teacher success through standardized tests which take the average to rate performance? What about random participation marks? We know that merit pay does not have an impact on teacher effectiveness so how do subjective participation marks lead students towards becoming more accountable for their learning?
My point is if we want students be more accountable for their learning we need to include them in the conversation. It is therefore why I am suggesting that the one- sized model of accountability start with a conversation to co-construct the criteria for both the evaluator and person being evaluated. This sets clear boundaries for both parties in which the lens, while evaluative, is designed to allow for honest self-reflection and provide feedback for future and continued success.
When we ask students to be accountable for their learning, we need to ensure that the methods being used are held to the same principles we hold our teaching to. When we do this, the interconnectedness between teaching and learning is strengthened.