The need for regular, comprehensive evaluations of teachers

The teacher unions oppose any and all measures to improve ou education system. It wouldn’t matter what was proposed they will find a similar case?elsewhere?int he world where their fellow union mates vigorously opposed the introduction of the policy.

They seem to think they have a monopoly on ideas in education. They are wrong.

One area that they seem particularly disposed to?opposing?is the area of performance evaluations for teachers, and the unions world-wide?oppose?it:

The good news is that we do have the ability to increase teacher effectiveness. Study after study has pointed to the need for regular, comprehensive evaluations of teachers. These should include repeated class observations by administrators and other teachers, objective measures such as student test scores and regular written evaluations from fellow teachers, students and parents. But that’s only one step. It is also clear that continued employment as a teacher should be linked to effectiveness. Administrators should be given the ability to hire, fire and reward teachers based on their performance in the classroom.

Why has California not implemented these measures? The primary reason is that teachers unions have strongly opposed changes to LIFO and tenure. Not only do they value teachers’ rights over students’ rights; they also value some teachers over others. In protecting those with the most seniority, the unions are turning their backs on newer teachers. And they are also completely out of touch with what most rank-and-file teachers actually do want: a system that rewards effectiveness, encourages improvement and weeds out blatant incompetence.