20-03-2025
Lodi Unified board says policy for performance evaluations needs work
Mar. 20—A Lodi Unified School District policy regarding teacher performance evaluations has gone back to the drawing board after employees and parents raised concerns about its language.
The district's board of education was presented with a revised policy during its Tuesday meeting with language that Superintendent Neil Young said was recommended by the California School Board Association.
Young said the language would align the district's existing policy on teacher evaluations with state law.
One of the revisions to the district's policy states that the superintendent or designee will assess the performance of certificated instructional staff as it reasonably relates to "students' progress toward meeting district standards of expected achievement for their grade level in each area of study and, if applicable, towards the state-adopted content standards as measured by state-adopted criterion-referenced assessments."
Teachers and parents who spoke during public comment said the language made it seem like the district would be using standardized test scores to evaluate an employee's performance.
Christopher Anderson, a resident in Lodi Unified's District 5 and a teacher with the Stockton Unified School District, said the revised policy was "wholly misguided" and not supported by research, adding its implementation would have unintended consequences.
"While student assessments can provide valuable data, relying on them for teacher evaluations is problematic, potentially unfair, and student outcomes are influenced by numerous factors beyond a teacher's control."
Anderson and Chris Munger — an English teacher in Tracy who also lives in Lodi — said those factors include socio-economic background, family support and access to resources.
Munger said he understood the importance of tracking student progress and adapting to instructional changes, but tying test scores to teachers' evaluations was not an effective way to improve student achievement. He said that when the No Child Left Behind Act was implemented two decades ago, teachers ended up teaching to the tests instead of curriculum, and some districts were caught manipulating student scores so they wouldn't be penalized when test scores were low.
Signed into law in 2002, the NCLB aimed to improve public education by increasing accountability for schools and states, mandating standardized testing and ensuring all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, met academic standards.
"If (the district's) policy is enacted, the result would be very similar," Munger said. "I think it's important for the district to bargain with the (Lodi Education Association) to create a policy that is both beneficial for students and is effective in bringing test scores up."
Rob Reynolds is a parent of a neuro-divergent student, and said how his child performs on a test depends on a number of factors, from including what color pants they wear, or if they don't have waffles for breakfast.
"My kids hate state testing," he said. "They hate going to school, sitting in front of a computer and doing something just because they were told that they have to. Children — I know they do their best at school — but during these two weeks (of testing), they are just phoning it in, and to put that on teachers is extremely unfair."
Teacher Michelle Orgon said district staff and teachers spent years working to develop a pilot evaluation model in the past, but it was ultimately scrapped without an official vote from the board. She admonished staff for not discussing Tuesday's revised policy language with the LEA, which she said was required by state law.
"We know our current evaluation system is archaic in its model," she said. "But to put this in a policy, knowing that you threw something out and did not continue it with evaluation, with any kind of feedback, or coming to the table as a sunshine item, and bringing it through the back door seems deceptive."
Young said district staff is always available if the community is concerned that tests are being used to evaluate a teacher's performance.
"There is no intention that we are tying in the outcome of a (state test) and using that to evaluate a teacher," he said. "The evaluation process is completed long before we receive the outcome of the (state tests). In fact, we don't get the complete information until teachers are on summer break. I just wish people had come to us before the meeting."
Other policy revisions included assessing performance based on the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee; the employee's adherence to curricular objectives; and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment within the scope of the employee's responsibilities.
Board member Courtney Porter said assessing a teacher based on techniques and strategies was vague language, and questioned what staff meant by curricular objectives and a suitable learning environment.
He added that in his nearly four decades as a teacher, he had never once seen a list of district standards that employees are supposed to meet as described in the first topic discussed.
"This whole thing is written very poorly," he said. "You're asking people to do evaluations, yet we have nothing about how they're being trained or what they're doing. My biggest concern is that we have never established assessments for all teachers, for teachers in certain subjects, to be used by an assessment board."
The rest of the board agreed that the proposed policy should be rewritten and brought back to a future meeting, and that staff discuss the changes with district teachers.
"I feel this shouldn't be brought forward until we really have a chance to go through it with a committee where we can fine-tune this," trustee Sherry Alexander said. "I don't like this being thrown out here and having people upset. Because if I were a teacher, I'd be upset too."
