Amendment 3 on Tuesday's ballot is a bad idea that deserves defeat.
The proposal's key provision would tie evaluations of public school teachers to statewide standards, including the performance of their students.
The amendment largely reflects the sentiments of Rex Sinquefield - a wealthy businessman who now invests in political activism. (He and other supporters, however, have withdrawn their financial support from the campaign, following unfavorable polling.)
Although the standards Sinquefeld and his followers propose may work for business and industry, they do not adapt well to education.
Why? Because students are not goods or services. They are not inanimate, standard or uniform.
As we have said previously in this forum, education includes two components - teaching and learning. Students may learn from a variety of sources - experience, books, teachers - but only if they are receptive. Students also differ from each other in abilities, competencies and learning styles.
The best teachers adapt their instruction to reach the greatest number of students.
The statewide standards proposed by Amendment 3 do not encourage or reward teachers for tailoring their approach to the diverse learning styles and abilities of students.
In contrast, the incentive for educators - to improve their own evaluations - may be to concentrate on the high-performing students to the detriment of at-risk students.
Such an approach is completely inconsistent with efforts to mainstream students and to leave no child behind.
The great challenge of formal education is providing an instructional system that works for hundreds or thousands of unique, individual students.
Teachers accept, and meet, this challenge every school day.
Don't constrain and constrict their instructional skills and talents by adopting a one-size-fits-all set of standards. Retain the flexibility teachers need to help educate your child.
Reject Amendment 3 on Tuesday.