Monitoring problem teachers, Part 2: some considerations, concerns

So, California gets a “B.”

That is the letter grade that a team of researchers at USA TODAY have given the state for the way it tracks teachers who might reasonably be termed “problems” for any number of reasons.

We referenced the report — a survey, actually — in our immediately preceding blog post, noting therein the obvious importance of keeping close tabs on select teachers, especially those with one or more reports of inappropriate contact with children.

Centrally, of course, that means a teacher’s wrongful sexual contact with a child. The above researchers set out to see how every state in the country ranks in terms of officials collecting relevant data on teachers who have been identified as misbehaving with children in any respect. The assigned letter grade results from evaluation of a host of factors, including schools’ running of background checks on potential hires, their sharing of any concerning information with authorities in other states, the disciplinary action they take — or fail to take — against problem teachers, and their reporting of misconduct to a national database.

California’s “B” score means …. what, exactly? It’s certainly nice to know that the state has been adjudged slightly better in such an important context than a number of other states, but improvement is of course warranted, with teacher predators being highly dangerous individuals who absolutely need to be identified and kept away from kids.

Overall, there seems to be a strong need for improvements in tracking. One commentator on the survey says that it points to “deep flaws and inconsistencies in what we track and how we act on it nationally.”