Stating the obvious, the state Supreme Court ruled recently that Washington is underfunding basic education, and must come up with a reliable revenue source to meet its constitutional duty.
But since our state Constitution also gives voters a direct voice in such decisions, through referendum and initiative, citizens must first be convinced that the money will be spent efficiently and effectively.
To that end, lawmakers need to add teeth to the teacher and principal evaluation system currently being piloted in 11 districts (including Snohomish). The sharper the teeth, the better.
Various ideas are reportedly under negotiation in Olympia, ranging from filling in details in the current law to requiring student test scores be a significant factor in evaluating teachers and principals, and having those evaluations count in employment decisions such as placement, transfers and, when necessary, layoffs.
For the good of our students, a compromise mustn’t result in half-steps. It should incorporate student growth measurements, when they become valid and reliable, into evaluations that reward great educators, point those who need improvement toward it, and move ineffective ones out of the system.
You know, just like meaningful evaluation systems do in other lines of work.
The system being piloted is a positive step forward simply for replacing a 25-year-old one that rates teachers either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Almost everyone passes. The new system has a four-tier rating scheme, but clear connections between performance and consequences have yet to be drawn.
Along those lines, we favor a proposal from several education-reform groups to require mutual agreement between a teacher, principal and superintendent before a teacher can be placed at a school. The absence of such a rule allows less-than-effective teachers to be moved from building to building, passing on a problem rather than dealing with it.
Superintendents understandably blanch at giving principals authority to refuse a particular hire, because under standard teacher contracts, the district would still be on the hook to pay an unplaceable teacher’s salary. That, some worry, would anger taxpayers.
True, but that just illustrates an underlying problem: that it’s currently too hard to get rid of ineffective teachers. (“Ineffective” is a label that applies to relatively few teachers, to be sure. That is not, however, a reason to let those few stay in the classroom.)
Studies show that having good teachers is a greater indicator of student success than other factors, including poverty. Voters need to see meaningful steps that maximize teacher effectiveness. Only then, we suspect, will they be open to paying more for education.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
