yes , t think that very important to test ability of teachers every few years , thus the world is move and science is change .

in my university this test absent ...in every year

I dont think so.

yes , t think that very important to test ability of teachers every few years , thus the world is move and science is change .

It would cause unnecessary stress to teachers. He should be required to take a course, participate in a conference, write a paper every two years.

Vilemar Magalhães

I do not think so . day by day teacher will be more experienced.

regards

at my university located in Illinois, USA, we conduct student course and faculty evaluation for each course abd for each faculty twicc a year.

thank you

this is an important issue to improve teachers and make them updated with new methodological learning and teaching.

thanks for this good question.

Dear Dr. Rasha

yes , I think that an important to get the teachers new information about new methods of teaching and test the ability of them.

thank you sir

There have to be some kind of quality control.

i think yes

thanks

Definitely.

Well, I don't think it is necessary.

However if it becomes mandatory in my institute,I will have no objections to undertake such tests.

Should teachers be tested every few years for their teaching ability?

Teachers should be evaluated for their teaching ability at the time of hiring (by test, demonstration etc), and later during their entire career the increase or decrease in their ability or the quality of teaching should be evaluated by certain quality control procedure (students feedback, activities etc) and not by "Test".

Best Regards

Teachers are constantly assessed on their teaching ability. In the form of feedback from students and observations from administration.

agree.

Yes, to keep them on their toes

In my opinion yes. A competent teacher has nothing to be afraid of.

Regards

Yes, they need that.

Yes, teachers should be tested at intervals. It should be part of quality control in the school/university system.

Teachers upgrade themselves from time to time through conference attendance and participation, seminars and publications to obtain up-to-date knowledge through the different means. The outcome of such knowledge should have direct impact on the students. In the absence of the above, then tests could be conducted every 3 to 5 years.

thanks for all

That is part of our system in the university. Teaching methods and techniques are in change, I believe more in retraining teachers and equip them with updated knowledge and skills to develop their careers. No shame of that

I agree with this within the parameters specific to the test, and that the test is far from random and narcissistic in the decision.

thanks for all

Yes

Why not?

Of course.

It's a very important for all teachers.

Of course.

of course.

Yes, and I think it is better more than one test (2-3) to evaluate students.

thanks

thanks for all

Teachers are evaluated on their ability on a regular basis in this country. Before unionization, evaluation was by the principal and occured on an irregular basis, often informally by unscheduled visits. Once or twice a year ( I am embarrassed to say I cannot now recall) the principal sat in the back of the class and observed a lesson. Afterward we would talk about what he had seen. I learned a good deal about student interaction from these evaluations. Oddly enough, I always felt that these were not evaluative visits (they were), but collegial advice from a more experienced teacher.

After unionization, in my district, there was much less informal help, and a schedule of formal evaluations. These began on the older inherited pattern, ran through a more formal process, and have ended up as a waste of time, the resulting written evaluation dictated by the district administration vetted by its attorneys, and delivered by principals who have not been in the classroom. They give no advice and are rightly ignored by all.

New teachers are evaluated yearly in a system bounded by many rules. After three (?) years, the evaluation changes to once each two years, then, at some point, to once every five years. For senior teachers, the administration and the teacher may agree to skip evaluations.

At some schools with an experienced and competent principal ( and one who has the seniority to ignore the central office) some evaluations may be helpful, but formal evaluations don't help nearly as much as the informal give and take among teachers and administrators.

I remember when people believed and acted upon the idea that the principal was the curriculum leader, and teachers had no problem going to him and asking for help. I remember going to my principal and telling him that I had tried everything I knew, and telling him to get into my class and show or tell me what next to try. I woukd never advise a teacher to do that today. First, most principals don't know what to do — no experience, and many would use the request as evidence of a teacher’s shortcomings.

Evaluation formats are mandated by the district and seldom fit what is being evaluated. The possible comments and checked level are also mandated, so they are unhelpful. The evaluation system here is badly broken. Good teachers are annoyed or harassed, and needy teachers are not helped.

Perhaps in other districts things are better, but I doubt it in California or other similar states. Perhaps there are better systems in other places.

Evaluation by student test results is unimaginably foolish, but I am sure that there are places where that happens.

I wish I had the power to make evaluations useful and helpful, but who cares what an old man thinks?

thank you very much