The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, otherwise endeared to public schools as “No Child Left Behind,” is approaching the end of its authorization. As such, Congress, which is planning to reauthorize this act, is debating the specifics of its new form.

A controversial clause regarding teacher evaluations was recently omitted from the bill. The clause mandated that states set up systems of evaluations to regulate the pay and employment of teachers. A teacher’s salary or job, therefore, would be contingent upon the performance of his or her students on certain tests.

This omission from the bill is good. Teacher evaluations are certainly not an effective manner of improving the public education system currently in place in the U.S.

The American education system has become too focused on the results of standardized tests. As a result, teachers now “teach to the test,” while glossing over important details of a subject that is not mandated to be covered by the state or federal government.

If the teacher evaluation clause was to remain included in the bill, and the bill was to be passed, this culture of “teaching to the test” within education would only be strengthened. Teachers who are already struggling to pass their students based on state-mandated standards would further disservice their students by attempting to ensure that they pass another standardized test in order to secure the existence of their own jobs. Such an increase in regulation would, therefore, stifle any unique form of education offered by teachers once they have satisfied the state-mandated objectives of learning.

Such an increase in regulation would, intrinsically, lessen the amount of time teachers have to plan and work to implement creative projects and methods of instruction. Teachers spend many hours every year devising and executing creative ways to allow their students to retain important information. It would be truly detrimental to both the teacher and the st

udent in such a situation to take this valuable planning time away from busy teachers.

Furthermore, as the National Education Association has asserted in its stances on the issue, expecting all local school systems, and inherently, all individual students to be measured accurately under a uniform standard, would prove fruitless. For example, it would certainly not seem fair to hold the salary of a teacher who teaches solely general education classes to the same standard of results as a teacher who teaches exclusively honors courses. Each teacher might possess a similar work ethic and effective teaching style, but they cannot control the performance of their students.

While the argument that retaining a system of tenure based on experience might encourage a decline in initiative amongst older teachers is viable, it is important to understand that the vast majority of tenured or otherwise experienced teachers strive to improve their teaching styles on a consistent basis. The system in place will eventually render teachers with such negative demeanors unemployed, while increasing the pay of those who continue to enhance their practices.

By implementing teacher evaluations, younger and older teachers alike will cease to think with such a “long-term” prospective, instead basing their practices on the immediate results of particular tests. The system in place, on the contrary, encourages the perpetuated enhancement and adaptations of a teacher’s practices, and thus increases the student’s benefit.

Improving the public education system should not be equated with increasing regulation. Such an increase in pressure would adversely affect teachers, and most importantly, the students they aim to educate.

Written by the A-Blast Editorial Staff