“In 2003, all students in grades three through eight have been tested annually in English and Math,” said Shaughnessy. “The goal was to have all students perform at or above grade level by 2014; we have recognized for several years that this goal is not achievable. I have always thought of this as the ‘Lake Wobegon’ requirement: All students must be above average. Our goal should be to graduate students who are ready for college or career. If you start a new program in elementary schools, it takes many years for the initial students to reach high school graduation age. Ultimately, it also takes that long to evaluate the effectiveness of the new program.”
Untimely results
Shaughnessy added that because state testing results aren’t generally made available until well after the school year is over often makes it difficult to use the results in preparing curriculum for the following year. The same could be true in preparing a teacher’s APPR.
“State test results are not available for many months,” Shaughnessy said. “The results have not been very useful in tailoring teaching for the individual student. Now, they may prove to be not very useful in helping teachers improve.”
Jacobowitz also expressed concern that given the extreme nature of the APPR, it might have made more sense to give it a test run before putting it into action.
“I do worry about the severity of the consequences of the APPR,” she said. “I think meaningful evaluation is important — teachers need to be held accountable for their work — but we need to be sure that the evaluation tool is reliable. I think it would make more sense to pilot the evaluation tool — and process — first to work out the kinks, make sure it’s reliable, and then apply it.”
Both supporters and critics of the teacher evaluations acknowledge that it will require some degree of change in how teachers in the district approach their work in the classroom.
“It’s changing the way we teach, but I don’t feel it’s what everyone thinks it is,” Padalino said. “We’re approaching this collaboratively. It’s our job to use the evaluation tool to put in front of teachers that assesses what they’re doing and do a better job for our students. It really is to make us all better.”
What about GW?
The Montessori program at George Washington Elementary, already under fire for low standardized test scores over the past few years, may face further scrutiny with the new APPR.
“Because at this time in education we must function under the new APPR, I believe that the Montessori program is going to have to adapt to more of a hybrid approach to instructional delivery in order to improve test scores,” said Bowers. “If all of our schools must submit to a testing emphasis, GW must be able to compare well within our district. I believe the character education strengths of the Montessori program will not suffer in this shift.”
Shaughnessy agreed.
“Standardized testing is antithetical to the Montessori philosophy that students should be allowed to pursue mastery at their own pace,” he said. “Standardized testing expects all students to [show] identical mastery of prescribed skills at a particular time. SoGeorgeWashingtonSchoolhas a challenging task to improve the standardized test scores of its students. The staff understands the challenge and is committed to success. GW students are exemplary in their respectfulness, social responsibility, and readiness to learn. I believe they will succeed.”
Shaughnessy added that even with the APPR system should work inKingstonlargely because of the quality of everyone involved.
“We have good teachers and principals,” he said. “The expectations and evaluations will be fair. There won’t be many instances of teachers being rated ineffective for two consecutive years.”
