I predict that Maryland's impending revamp of the public school teacher evaluation system is going to be a recipe for disaster. Basing the rating of educators on students' progress on standardized testing cannot be implemented fairly due to the high degree of variance in school populations and to the diversity of effectiveness of principals and others responsible for evaluating teachers. Additionally, it will further institutionalize the teaching of test taking while demeaning whatever joy is left in learning and teaching.

Having spent 25 years of my 31-year career as a classroom teacher and teacher mentor, I can readily tell anyone that the direction the state board and superintendent are taking is ill-advised. As a third and fifth grade teacher, I served students in schools in two distinctly different environments in Harford County. In one, I was constantly frustrated by the lack of parental involvement and the social and health problems faced by students on a daily basis. In another context just several miles from the first, I worked with families who were actively involved with the education of their kids. While my colleagues and I were able to make significant progress with certain students in the first instance, that school is still struggling to meet the standards set by the state for the population at large.

As a mentor and as president of the local teachers' union, I observed and worked with teachers who were dealing with the same challenges.

Some of the best educators I knew were in the lower performing schools.

MSEA and HCEA (the local union) were heavily involved in researching and designing models of professional development and measures of teacher performance that were complex, sophisticated, and based on multiple indicators of what professionals must do on a daily and yearly basis.

While a measure of student performance on tests was a component, it was just that, a part of plans that would be consistent, comprehensive, systematic, and systemic. Needless to say, this work sits on shelves in various offices, unimplemented because it would cost dollars.

It is so much easier for a state and a school system to rely on standardized tests that have not been proven to indicate how effective a teacher is.

I am willing to bet my meager pension for the coming year with anyone that a teacher evaluation process in which test scores are a dominant component will lead to less effective and less creative teaching, while enriching those who publish materials that prepare students to take exams. In fact, I am thinking of starting a consulting business called, "How To Teach To The Test."

Paul Stephen Schatz, Bel Air