Rather than being evaluated based on the raw scores, I think teachers should be evaluated on the improvement of their students. This would combat the fact that schools seem to have forgotten that their role is education and have decided to focus on bringing up a moral generation- perhaps if they focused where they should, disciplining students for not completing their work, then both morals and parental interaction (after parents realise that schools will not do their job) would improve.
In a sense, yes the teachers should be evaluated on the scores that their students get. However, this should not be the only thing that is looked at. If we only look at the scores it would be unfair because students are the ones that need to take responsibility and make sure they learn the material for that class. Teachers shouldn't have to feel worried that if their students decide to slack off that they can be punished for it.
These are just some of the questions that surround the issue of whether student test scores should be used to evaluate teacher performance. I take the view, that it's unfair to base teacher personnel decisions on student test scores. Researchers calculate teacher influence on student test scores ranges from as little as 7.5% to 20% (Education Week, 2011). Out-of-school factors are the most important. Students have different levels of ability and commitment, and different experiences outside the classroom. As a result, test scores are greatly dependent on a student’s class, race, disability status. Second, basing teacher evaluations on inadequate standardized tests is a recipe for bad evaluations. Value-added measures are only as good as the exams on which they are based. They are simply a different way to use the same data. Unfortunately, standardized tests are narrow and limited indicators of student learning. They leave out a wide range of important knowledge and skills. Third, recent research investigation of available evidence concluded that teacher evaluation has not shown to produce positive results in learning outcomes or school improvement. (Murphy, et al., 2013). Since educators’ careers would depend on their students’ scores, these measures will intensify incentives to further narrow the curriculum and teach to the test. More students will lose access to untested subjects, such as history, science, art, music, and physical education. Schools are likely to give less attention to teaching cooperation, communication, creativity and other essential skills. Teachers may try to avoid students who are harder to help show gains (Mass. Working Group, 2012).
First off, if you evaluate teachers solely on test scores, you are going to experience a sudden rush of teachers OUT of city schools and remedial classes. If you punish a teacher for taking on more difficult students, you are setting up schools for failure. There is only so much a teacher can do in inner city schools with no budget, kids who never show up, kids who don't do any of their work, kids whose parents don't care- they have nothing to work with.
Second, this creates a learning environment where no one actually LEARNS anything- you just get drilled to take the test. "TEaching to the test" has been repeatedly shown to be a failure.
Third, you cannot disrespect these professionals, require them to have advanced degrees yet pay them dirt, expect them to basically raise your kids for you, then expect them to work miracles.
Take some responsibility for yourselves, students and parents.
It's a great idea for teachers and administrators to get feedback from students on a teacher's performance. However, students (especially young students) cannot be solely responsible for the hiring, firing, and compensation of teachers. Young teachers in particular need the mentorship and support of a community that will help them to grow, not the dog-eat-dog competition of wondering if they'll keep their job this year.