Question 5: Gov. Phil Murphy has run into opposition to his plan to change standardized testing in New Jersey. What do you think he should do now?
David Rullo: Governor Murphy is on the right track with his changes to the weighting of standardized tests for teacher evaluations. I believe that the pushback he faces is not quite bad-faith, but I think it is being unfairly characterized as a giveaway to teacher’s unions. Yes, these changes are something that the unions have been asking for since the TEACHNJ Act passed. But just because it is something that the unions want, doesn’t mean making the change can’t be a good idea. Another aspect of this decision is that the power to make it rests in the Department of Education, not the legislature, so barring an amendment to the law, the decision should stand.
My mother was a teacher for 45 years. In the last handful of years leading up to her retirement, she watched these overwrought and unnecessarily punitive programs be implemented and throw her profession into chaos. Yes, there are aspects of TEACHNJ that are welcomed changes that address shortfalls in the tenure system that have festered for years. However, when it came to standardized testing, I have always thought they missed the mark, by a mile.
The crux of my argument against weighting standardized testing so heavily in teacher evaluation has been the negative externalities that it creates. The first one is the “teach the test” mindset, where everyone gets so singularly focused on preparing students for a test that no one asked for and certainly no one wants to take. The next point unfortunately, is the increased incentive to cheat that is created when you evaluate someone using a metric that has so many uncontrollable and unknown variables. In situations like this people, even honest ones, will look to gain an edge with the variables they can control. This is a perverse incentive structure that strips away everything that makes teaching and learning worth doing.
The final and most important point is the utter failure to take the actual students into account. When you base such a considerable amount of a teacher evaluation on the backs of students you do them a disservice. They are used as pawns to be shuffled around to make teachers and parents lives miserable. Kids are not oblivious to what is going on and they talk, so they know full well why these tests exist and by extension realize that there is nothing in it for them. Governor Murphy is on the right track with this decision, setting the metric at 30% was reckless and shortsighted. The more manageable 5% is a realistic and fair standard.
