I was reading several opinion pieces this week. This one about teacher tenure said something that I found interesting (this question is not really about tenure, that's why I started a different thread): http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schneider-vergara-teachers-20140610-story.html The quote that struck me was this: "Research does indicate that, though teachers tend to improve by leaps and bounds in their first few years on the job, they often plateau after that." Is there something wrong with a plateau? I mean I know there is always some new technology to learn about (that many schools don't have the capacity to use), but most of our pd's are just programs recycling ideas from other programs-I don't think there's that much new groundbreaking strategy out there. If you are rated on a 1-4 scale and you get 3's-which means effective every year, is there something wrong with that? You met the criteria. Should everyone be expected to go above and beyond the expectations? Same thing with student test scores. Ours are measured by percentiles. Every class I have ever taught has had students who were below average, average and above average. We are expected to make those percentile ranks grow every year-we are expected to make below average kids average and average above average. I think sometimes kids are doing what they are academically capable of-some kids will just be average-that's their plateau. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to be better, I think a lot of teachers do that, but should we be criticized for not continuing to improve and improve if we are doing enough.