Last summer a fun if silly movie called Bad Teacher was released in the U.S. I believe a good chunk of that movie’s audience was teachers, (and the other good chunk of it students) because most of us secretly fear being labeled a bad teacher. Underperforming. Unsatisfactory. A recent opinion article in the New York Times by William Johnson shows us what that’s like.
Johnson is a special-ed teacher who works with students with severe learning difficulties and emotional problems. His students are some of the most difficult to reach and the least likely to perform well on standardized tests. He is in his third year of teaching, which to me says that the adrenaline rush of being a new teacher has worn off and he is just about at that point where he is trying to decide whether he really wants to do this for another 20 or 30 years. (I am at just that point myself.) He was classified as unsatisfactory by his principal at the end of last school year and transferred to a different school, for reasons that, according to his description, had to do with not being able to satisfactorily follow conflicting instructions from conflicting administrators.
A few highlights from the article:
In my three years with the city schools, I’ve seen a teacher with 10 years of experience become convinced, after just a few observations, that he was a terrible teacher. A few months later, he quit teaching altogether. I collaborated with another teacher who sought psychiatric care for insomnia after a particularly intense round of observations. I myself transferred to a new school after being rated “unsatisfactory.”
These anecdotes don’t surprise me. One has to have pretty thick skin to be a teacher. I don’t think the point of this passage is that teachers are fragile emotional humans with real feelings who need to be treated better (although that may be true for some) or even that teachers in general are being unfairly evaluated or ill-treated by the New York department of ed. The point is that teachers care about their teaching, their students, and their evaluations. It does remind me of the characterization of the greedy union teacher who puts in minimal effort and is paid handsomely for 10 months of work (with healthcare! and benefits! and summers off!), a specter that is so often conjured up by pundits during debates about educational spending and teacher salaries. That lazy, mooching-off-the-state-and-hiding-behind-the-union goodfornothing is not the same teacher who become very distressed about a bad evaluation and decides it would be better for everyone if he quit teaching. It’s not the teacher who is losing sleep at night about evaluations.
I don’t just want to get better; like most teachers I know, I’m a bit of a perfectionist. I have to be. Dozens and dozens of teenagers scrutinize my language, clothing and posture all day long, all week long. If I’m off my game, the students tell me. They comment on my taste in neckties, my facial hair, the quality of my lessons. All of us teachers are evaluated all day long, already. It’s one of the most exhausting aspects of our job.
Ain’t that the truth. You haven’t truly felt self-conscious until you’ve tried to teach a difficult lesson to 28 high-schoolers.
The writer goes on to state that the self-consciousness that goes with being evaluated by an administrator is the worst of all, because one will do whatever is necessary to please the administrator and keep the job, even at the expense of students’ learning. And yet…
Given all the support in the world, even the best teacher can’t force his students to learn. Students aren’t simply passive vessels, waiting to absorb information from their teachers and regurgitate it through high-stakes assessments. They make choices about what they will and won’t learn. I know I did.
Which is why high-stakes assessment should not be the sole measure of a teacher’s worth, or a student’s learning.
He does have a point about the best way to measure student learning. I don’t know the any teacher who thinks standardized tests should be the end-all and be-all in student evaluation. Which, in a way, is too bad, because that would be relatively easy and cheap to implement. But it’s not a reality in a world with good test-takers and bad test-takers, ELL students, kids with dyslexia, behavioral problems, physical disabilities, learning disabilities, or horrendous home situations.
Similarly, two evaluations per year is not the best way to gauge teacher skill. Johnson doesn’t say exactly what the evaluation system at his school was, but he makes it clear that he felt the feedback to be arbitrary, confusing, and difficult to follow. Although he doesn’t come right out and say it, perhaps the biggest complaint about the evaluation system that labeled him unsatisfactory was that (he felt that) nobody worked with him to improve his teaching skill. He apparently did his best to follow the recommendations given to him by his superiors, “to show I was a good soldier,” and when he was given a negative review and reassigned at the end of the year, it came as a shock to him.
Despite all the critical depiction of the New York evaluation system, the author’s final point is not that the system is broken or unfair. He closes by stating that in order to truly measure student learning, all students need to have access to the same resources. The same quality facilities, the same textbooks, the same technology (and the same kinds of teachers?) If they are not given equal access to resources, not everyone can succeed. Which is something to keep in mind when towns, cities, school committees, and lawmakers discuss when and how to cut teachers, and resources, in response to a budget shortfall or underperforming students.
Related articles
- Confessions of a “bad” teacher. NY Times Opinion by W. Johnson (clouducation.wordpress.com)





