Can a teacher's merit really be judged by statistics and numbers?  Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, seems to think so.  In a recent Washington Post article he is quoted as saying "In other fields, we talk about success constantly, with statistics and other measures to prove it" in reference to teacher quality and the measurement thereof.  There are many problems with this thought process as I see it. 

First, the statistics used to measure teacher success are primarily based on standardized test performance by students.  What's wrong with that you ask?  Well, for starters those tests are not a national standard so to draw conclusion on a wide scale based on tests that vary greatly from state to state is in error.  In addition, standardized tests have been proved again and again to be skewed and to present an inaccurate representation of student achievement.  Why should a teacher's performance be based on test scores that are not in and of themselves a fair reflection of a student's knowledge growth?

Second, teachers are more than knowledge reproducers- they are life shapers.  I don't think there are quantifiable means to assess the impact one individual has on another.  Some teachers represent a parental figure to their students more so than their actual parent or guardian does.  That's immeasurable.  While a particular teacher's tests scores may not appear to be stellar in comparison to the rest of world, her impact on the students in her classroom may be so profound and significant that those students are never the same again. 

Stats and numbers have their place but I'm pretty sure teacher evaluation isn't one of them.