The idea that some objective system currently exists, or can possibly exist in the near future, to evaluate all teachers under a single system is pure fantasy. Most of what any teacher does is not measured, or measurable, at this time. Most curricula is not currently measured.
At this time, no reliable, and I stress that word reliable, mix of methodologies exists. If it does, it hasn't been scientifically measured yet and proven to be scientific.
Most teachers are on regular evaluation schedules. There is immense subjectivity to these evaluations. The evaluators are usually principals and vice-principals, who may or may not be expert at teaching certain content areas, or in teaching at all. My experience with a few bad principals tells me that the system is still very flawed. Schools, unlike most business operations, are like small de-centralized businesses with little oversight from the central office. This makes them like little kingdoms, subject to the whims of the leader. That is the greatest problem, and also a great argument for teachers' unions as protection from those whims.
Unless there is a massively ramped-up system for teacher evaluation utilizing both much more money and personnel, it will not happen in a responsible way. Testing right now consumes big chunks of instructional time.
And teachers rightly fear being held responsible for life circumstances of students over which they have no control, which greatly impact the student's readiness to learn in the classroom. The idea that simply improving teacher quality will overcome poverty and difficult live circumstances is the great farcical notion of the so-called reform movement.
= new reply since forum marked as read
