The New York Times Needs to Do Its Homework on Teacher Evaluations

In his commentary, “The New York Times Needs to Do Its Homework on Teacher Evaluations,” Justin Snider relays his frustration with the author of the article “Fairness in Firing Teachers.” Snider states that the article, “Has me wondering whether the Times editors understand much about how teachers . . . are evaluated.” Snider doesn’t hide his irritation with the misinformed authors, especially pertaining to the subject of teacher evaluations and how often they are performed. I have to agree with Snider that the author of “Fairness in Firing Teachers” was completely mistaken when it came to how often teachers were evaluated. Teachers are typically evaluated annually, depending on how many years they have been in the profession and which district they work for.

Snider goes on to discuss how the evaluations themselves are not as good as they should be. In “The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness,” over ninety percent of educators were rated “as effective.” That seems like an abnormally high number of effective teachers and most would naturally question the validity of those elevated numbers.

Snider goes on to discuss the different data reports available and that only a small percentage of those directly linked to educators, only those educators that taught math or English to grades fourth through eighth.

Snider’s article appeals to those living in the U. S. who have anything to do with education, whether they are a teacher, a parent, a student, or a citizen worried about our current educational state. Education relates to every person. Our students of today will guide our country in the future. We should all be concerned with the effectiveness of our teachers as well as with how often and to what extent they are evaluated.

Snider also discusses “objective evaluation(s)” and whether or not they actually exist. It would be impossible to look at just one or two student evaluations and be able to tell what a student is fully capable of. What if the evaluation/test is faulty? What if the student was given the wrong test? There are countless variables that could affect and alter the validity and objectivity of an evaluation, for students as well as teachers.

The underlying fact is that Snider believes that our system of measuring teacher as well as student performance is seriously lacking, which it is. We need to focus on creating a way to effectively measure how our teachers and students are performing, what they are retaining, and how we can enhance their education and performance. However, in times such as these, where in Texas alone they are cutting over 185,000 teachers, do we really have room to cut more?

Justin Snider is an undergraduate professor at Columbia University as well as an editor for The Hechinger Report. Being an educator, I would feel comfortable stating that Snider knows what he is talking about when it comes to the topic of education.

Freedom to Ingest.

In his article, “Why Government Dictating What People Put in Their Bodies Is a Violation of Personal Liberty,” Stanton Peele shares his belief that everyone should have the right to decide what should and should not be put into their bodies.  Peele recalls how we were able to decide on our own what we chose to ingest until the Harrison Act back in the early 1900s.  He also discusses the era of Prohibition where America outlawed the consumption of alcohol, but how we eventually grew past that after thirteen long years.  Peele writes toward Americans, particularly those that may support his liberal views about the right to choose what one is able to consume.  Peele could also be pleading toward the more conservative readers, pushing them to awaken from their conservative slumber.  The author is listed at the top of the article as an Addiction Expert, which could mean an array of questionable credentials.  Despite the lack of credible evidence that would support Peele’s desire for freedom to consume, one can easily see that he has a point.  A young man or woman age eighteen can venture off to war and risk their lives but they can’t have a celebratory drink when they return safely?  How can one tell a man of seventy years that he can’t smoke because it is illegal?  Isn’t he old enough by now to make that decision on his own?  Another added positive would be the ability to tax substances that are considered currently “illegal”.  Not only would it add to our freedoms but it would bring in funding for many government programs, including our public school systems which are currently in a major budget crisis.  Peele makes a valid argument that we should be able to decide whether or not to consume a substance.  We are adults, aren’t we?

Censorship of the Internet.

One immense advantage of the Internet is that the user has access to an infinite amount of information, some biased, some not.  However, talk of the government taking over the Internet leads to a growing concern that information once readily available to all consumers will soon take a turn toward the “censored” side.  According to the article “Oh, the Hypocrisy: Congress Is Fine With a ‘Government Takeover of the Internet’” found at the Huffington Post, the United States Congress is seemingly unconcerned with the prospect of the government controlling what is available on the Internet.  This greatly concerns me and causes me to wonder, what about our right to freedom of speech?  Limiting ones words, whether on the Internet or in any other form, inhibits the voice of individuals to be heard. Just because the government deems information inappropriate for viewing does not mean the information is.  It is outrageous that Congress would promote censorship and everyone should be concerned.