<p>I don’t think there are any easy answers but I’m willing to give the idea of hiring the best and brightest to be teachers a chance. In the school system I’m most familiar with, the best teachers were very bright and pushed the students in varied ways, and made an impact. Their classes were known to be “hard” and were sometimes dreaded but the kids ended up loving the classes - because they were challenged and learning - and these are the teachers who remain legendary. In contrast, I have been on hiring panels where 6 teachers were interviewed for a position and the very worst (both on paper and in their interview performance) candidate was hired because “paying your dues” and who you’re related to - (especially in small communities) is often what counts not any ability or competence. They then go on to get tenure, and often the excellent teachers leave to do something else because they’re burned out and unsupported.<br>
It’s clear that evaluating teachers for merit pay increases based on the test scores of their students is fraught with perils, but I continue to think that using student evaluations (because even tiny kids call tell a good teacher) in conjunction with observations and a school culture that recognizes effort and innovation might be the way to go.
I do also think there is a place for testing - schools should be about children’s learning rather than teachers’ jobs and the hope is that standardized testing would make the task of the poor teacher more focused so minimum standards would be met. Having said that, why does it seem so difficult to come up with basic competency tests without them taking over the whole curriculum?</p>