I read in this morning's paper that Colorado is considering ending teacher tenures as a move to improve student testing (standardized) results.

The idea is to get rid of bad tenured teachers. By "bad", I mean those that don't meet the criteria of raising student scores. After all, that seems to be the only way of measuring student progress--or so they say.

Well, I have news for them. You can't always "go by the book". Yes, there are less than stellar teachers out there. I've seen them. Maybe I was one (hope not).

In my 33 years of teaching, I tried many different "methods" of teaching. I taught "by the book": rote (without understanding or thought), memorization, etc. That was teaching to the test. Pretty successful results, but boring.

I tried problem solving techniques. This made students think, but they didn't learn enough facts and details that would earn them high standardized test scores. There is little thinking involved in "information only" tests. It's "what do you know" that counts.

In my last 6 years of teaching, I did what is called "cooperative learning". Students worked in teams of four to solve science problems, do projects, answer questions, etc. The concept was that in real life, we all work with others, often in teams. So it's important we learn how to work with others. Sounds good, but it was usually one or two persons in a team that did all the work.

I'm sure my students would perform poorly on standardized tests if they were schooled in the latter two methods (problem solving and coop. learning). Therefore, despite my "innovative" teaching techniques, my students would have failed, and I would have been "chopped" as a teacher.

Teach to the test or teach to think? I don't have the answer (does anybody, for sure?). The public wants results, and I don't blame them. The US ranks low on most comparative subjects. We want answers. I just don't think ending tenure for so-called nonproductive teachers is the solution. Perhaps Colorado's plan will give us an answer.