Arguments Against Student Teacher Evaluations, Article Review Example

Bias Observation

Summative student evaluations of teaching (SET’s) have been widely criticized, especially by teachers, for not being accurate measures of teaching effectiveness. The main reason teachers feel this way is because they feel that students have a tendency to be bias in favour of certain teachers based on personalities, looks, disabilities, gender, sex and culture.  An alternative to SET’s is electronic evaluation which could save the school or University thousands of dollars in training monies. Students enter college or universities with gender role expectations that are very difficult to change because this is a learned way of behavioural thinking.  Many women professors have to be concerned with these gender typed stereotypes. One way to try to attain discrimination free evaluations is to educate the evaluating committee on how stereotype thinking can affect an evaluation. Women must make precedence that they are competent and knowledgeable.  Informal dressing must not be tolerated; rather a more professional dressing commands respect. Assertive and nurturing personalities go a long way with eliminating gender bias evaluation factors.

Infringement of Academic Freedom

Arguments against SET’s are that they put pressure on the teacher or professor to comply with the student classroom demands in reference to teaching style and grading format all of which infringe upon academic freedom. If you use only the student ratings to judge the teachers it is a bias to teacher effectiveness and not a true exemplary of a teacher’s abilities.  There was a situation where a Singapore law professor was invited as a visiting professor to teach a Human Right’s class at the University of New York Law School.  Students of the law school vehemently protested her appointment based on their belief that she shared ‘anti-gay views’.  This was in fact a violation of NYU’s own academic policy regarding freedom of speech and commitment to a diverse and indiscriminate workforce.  This was extremely worrisome that these future law students refused to hear opposing views when in fact a major part of their future positions as attorneys’ would be to argue anti-views on debatable topics. Even though the President of the university shared the same views as the law students he should not have played any role in the evaluation of her merits to be a visiting professor. He claimed what was relevant in a hiring decision is not what the Professor’s views are but his/her ability to argue his/her viewpoint.  Unfortunately visiting Professor Thio declined to assume powers of argument when she declined the professorship in light of the student protests.

Relation to the Courts

Innovative avenues to escape the SET’s have been through administrators finding creative ways to minimize the impact of the SET’s.  The question to examine is what constitutes admissible and non admissible evidence with relation to these methods?  Questions of reliability and validity must be addressed. Courts have actually struck out the SET evaluations in many instances due to the fact that the tests are discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, SET’s are not methodologically sound and should not be treated as admissible evidence in any legal or quasi hearing. Human Rights are afforded by the US Constitution and any infringement of such rights is actionable with the Supreme Court. Any violation in our neighbouring country, United Kingdom, is actionable under the Human Rights Act 1998 through Judicial Review and Preliminary Reference.

Teacher-Student Relationship

It is noted that some good teachers are often resented by students simply because the teachers choose to stick to high standards that are not acceptable to the students.  It should be remembered that the student-teacher relationship is not one of equal value; if it were there would be no need for distinction-we all would be professors in our own mind but not on paper. The NYU situation is a prime example of the student having more power than that of the teacher and in today’s society this should not be tolerated.  Where is the respect for the teachers? What are we teaching the younger people of the society?

Conclusion

Considering all factors discussed,  SET’s are not as legitimate as once proposed as a legitimate means of evaluating teachers because of the bias factor involved which promotes discrimination. Other means of evaluation should be considered such as computer generated evaluations to eliminated the bias factor. If faculty and management of academic facilities support discriminatory behaviour of students and faculty, that is illegal and toleration should by no means be preserved.