Letter: Evaluation will disrupt classes

As a public school and university educator of some 28 years, I have come to fully appreciate the symbiotic relationship that exists between curriculum and assessment ["Deal on teacher evaluations," News, Feb. 17]. Unfortunately, it is not merely the case that one informs the other, as both are deeply rooted in the political and economic circumstances of a given historical epoch.

For example, the current preoccupation with standardized testing, particularly as a form of teacher evaluation, is the product of a much larger accountability movement that has been proffered by conservative voices over the past several years. To be certain, this movement has had intellectual champions within the field of education. Consider the writings of E.D. Hirsch and others who would reduce learning and knowledge to an objective list of facts that is best assessed through standardized testing. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the research efforts of Howard Gardner and Daniel Goleman suggest that knowledge and learning are much more complicated entities that are incapable of accurate appraisal through any singular assessment modality.

While the knowledge and learning debate between conservatives and liberals is ongoing, let us not forget that children are often caught in the middle. The decision by the New York State Board of Regents -- with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's assent -- to assign a significant weight to standardized testing results in evaluating teachers is the most recent manifestation of this debate, and one that threatens to undermine advancements in the field of education. We presently live in an era where changing demographics, technology and legal statutes demand more personalized and diversified approaches to curriculum and assessment. Thus, the decision to elevate standardized testing represents a step backward, in that it will lead to a stagnation of teaching and learning. The result of this retreat to our old and familiar ways will be disengaged and alienated students, particularly among historically underserved populations.

An alternative to the "one size fits all" teacher evaluation methodology would be to offer local districts incentives to experiment with alternate forms of learning and assessment that are scientifically based and more closely aligned with current research. Once new systems of evaluation were identified, they could be piloted on a smaller scale throughout the state. Doing so would also do much to restore the faith of local school leaders who view the new evaluation system as yet another unfunded mandate from Albany. This would be less distracting to students and progressive teachers who are truly committed to 21st century learning.

Thomas J. Troisi, Hempstead

Editor's note: The writer is an adjunct associate professor of curriculum and teaching at Hofstra University.