This year Carmel began implementing RISE standards into the classroom on a limited basis. Even with this controlled introduction, it has shown drastic and mostly negative effects on the school. Teachers and administrators are bogged down with the stresses of maintaining the new standards, which transfers directly into the classroom. While it is too early to determine the holistic success or failure of RISE, the issues presented this year must be addressed before continuing forward.

RISE works by evaluating a teacher on their ability to direct a classroom and his or her students’ success. The data is collected by the teacher and two additional evaluators who then assign the teacher one of four possible evaluation ratings. If this description sounds over simplistic, that’s because RISE is; it tries to break down the education of thousands of students, all with unique circumstances, into two basic building blocks. With the current system of evaluation, it rewards teachers who focus on those two blocks, instead of the whole student.

Teachers and administrators are further hampered by the slew of new requirements asked of them. It seems as if teachers have to document every step taken as a class in order to appease their evaluators. Since most of these evaluations are done in-house, administrators have less and less time to do their jobs. RISE tries to improve teacher accountability, but instead it has bogged down the system with bureaucratic red tape.

These changes have created an anxious atmosphere where the staff is more focused on staying afloat and less on their students. This year, despite dedicated efforts, I have not had a teacher who was ahead of their grading and/or assessments.

During passing periods and other downtime, they’re often hastily working to stay afloat, which constrains their ability to connect with students. RISE pushes these intangible aspects of teaching farther away, making the classroom less friendly to students. In all likelihood, if these policies remain as they are, teachers will tailor their classes to better fit RISE standards to the detriment of their students. RISE pulls attention away from the specific problems faced in each classroom and places it on a standardized set of goals. While there are universal underlying aspects in the challenges faced by students and teachers alike, standardization fails to appreciate the diverse specifics of them.

It is important to point out that RISE did not come from thin air. There were some major problems with public education that needed to be addressed. Schools used standardized procedures as a crutch and some teachers were just ineffective; however, RISE doesn’t solve these problems. Education is a complicated process which doesn’t translate well to standardized rubrics – what works for some may fail for others, but this shouldn’t eliminate the process.

As I am obviously not a teacher, I cannot speak to their exact thoughts the last few months, but as a student I’ve seen fantastic teachers worrying about their job security and the rising general anxiety of the school. It has become harder to simply have a conversation with teachers since they’re too busy filling out paperwork. I’ve felt guilty for asking them for favors, such as a letter of recommendation, because I knew it would only add to their plate. RISE has put an unnecessary wall between teachers and students, damaging the classroom environment.

At the end of the day, teachers, administrators and RISE share the ultimate goal to best educate students; however, the devil lies in the details, and in the past few months multiple problems have arisen. The additional workload has stressed the staff and discouraged interactions with students. The school system has problems, but RISE is not the solution. It places too much emphasis on bureaucratic tasks that diverts attention away from the classroom. Before fully implementing RISE next year, the state needs to address the problems it has created.