This article was submitted by Louise Smith, a longtime Denver-area teacher.
“I’ve been LEAPed,” said my friend the last day before Christmas break.
She was referring to the results of her trip through Leading Effective Academic Practice, Denver Public Schools’ new teacher evaluation process.
She was unhappy with the results, as everyone else has been, and promised me not to obsess about it so that we might have a decent, work-angst-free evening. I told her not to worry about it, because, though I longed for a decent-work-angst-free evening, I could see it wasn’t going to happen tonight.
She got 2s and 3s on a scale of 6, though not really, because the numbers have been deleted from the LEAP system. So although she was rated low, she actually wasn’t rated low, though everyone knows from the politically correct adverbs of time (sometimes, frequently, etc.) that she was rated low. (Are you beginning to see the effect of school-born-confusion, aka SBC, set in?)
Our conversation revolved around her grief at having expected her years of teaching experience to be valued and instead, finding that “new” teaching and “new” practices are all the rage. She struggles to understand what “new” really is.
For example, writing learning objectives—a cornerstone of the LEAP inventory and educationese for what is being taught at any given moment—is highly disputed and mutually disagreed upon by a variety of administrative and LEAPers alike. This leaves the teacher in a never-never land of never, never getting it right, because nobody really agrees on what is “right” just what is “new.”
And so, the “new” evaluation system, a product of intense group-think, assumes that a vast checklist of “teacher dos” will evaluate teachers fairly.
Maybe it will. Maybe we all can learn from this and incorporate “new” into our classrooms. (Why not? Our business is learning, so we should be able and willing to learn.) And maybe, like most ideas entering the educational system, it will be cut, pressed and laundered to please a variety of political parties. The final product, faded into a light impression of the original intent.
“LEAP” will eventually have to change its name to “JUMP” or maybe even “HOP.”
But, back to “new.” Most teachers I know, given a little time to overcome the shock of not being “new” want to learn “new” and give their students their best. Yet “new” keeps changing. And the more things change, the more things stay the same.
Or not, Or maybe. Yes, they should stay the same. Or maybe they should stay the same with numbers. No, they should stay the same without numbers…… They should just be learning discussions. No, learning discussions based on an inventory of items. No, just learning discussions…. Learning discussions based on objectives. What objectives? Okay, just learning discussions…..
SBC—Arggg…..
About our First Person series:
First Person is where Chalkbeat features personal essays by educators, students, parents, and others trying to improve public education. Read our submission guidelines here.
