Common Core question for proponents

[Anonymous]

^ The problem in the past with little accountability was that teachers/educators were "passing" kids that were illiterate. Kids were graduating HS with only being able to read/write at a grade school level, if even that. Without the accountability, it is difficult to root out such teachers/educators. It's not just some teachers that were doing this, but Principals were also allowing it. So, how would you stop this from happening without some kind of standardized testing?

Sure, it's fine to not necessarily tie a teacher's pay to the testing, but we do need *some* kind of standardized testing to measure how well a kid is doing over the years.

We've had testing that measured performance in pretty much all schools long before NCLB. It is when schools began to be identified as failures that the testing monster took over.

[Anonymous]

Once more: If the jobs of administrators and teaches are determined with heavy reliance on test scores, you will have no teachers in poor schools. And, the ones there, will lose their jobs soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once more: If the jobs of administrators and teaches are determined with heavy reliance on test scores, you will have no teachers in poor schools. And, the ones there, will lose their jobs soon.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends on the structure of the testing component of the performance evaluation. If the testing component were that you're a good teacher if your students have high scores and a bad teacher if your students have low scores, then what you say would be true. But as far as I know, nobody is proposing to do it that way. They're all fiddling around with "value-added" models. And arguably it's easier to increase scores from very low to less low than from very high to even higher.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends on the structure of the testing component of the performance evaluation. If the testing component were that you're a good teacher if your students have high scores and a bad teacher if your students have low scores, then what you say would be true. But as far as I know, nobody is proposing to do it that way. They're all fiddling around with "value-added" models. And arguably it's easier to increase scores from very low to less low than from very high to even higher.

Do you know anything about NCLB? It's not formally firing teachers, but it is essentially getting rid of administrators.

[Anonymous]

And arguably it's easier to increase scores from very low to less low than from very high to even higher

Not necessarily. Not when kids don't come to school. Not when they have lower than average IQ. Not when they move a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And arguably it's easier to increase scores from very low to less low than from very high to even higher

Not necessarily. Not when kids don't come to school. Not when they have lower than average IQ. Not when they move a lot.

A good value-added model would exclude students who weren't there for the whole time the teacher is being evaluated for, and it should also exclude students who were absent more than [some number] of days.

I'm not sure how IQ is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends on the structure of the testing component of the performance evaluation. If the testing component were that you're a good teacher if your students have high scores and a bad teacher if your students have low scores, then what you say would be true. But as far as I know, nobody is proposing to do it that way. They're all fiddling around with "value-added" models. And arguably it's easier to increase scores from very low to less low than from very high to even higher.

Do you know anything about NCLB? It's not formally firing teachers, but it is essentially getting rid of administrators.

This discussion is not about NCLB. It's about using student test scores as a part of teachers' performance evaluations. The US Department of Education is pushing this idea.

[Anonymous]

The problem in the past with little accountability was that teachers/educators were "passing" kids that were illiterate. Kids were graduating HS with only being able to read/write at a grade school level, if even that. Without the accountability, it is difficult to root out such teachers/educators. It's not just some teachers that were doing this, but Principals were also allowing it. So, how would you stop this from happening without some kind of standardized testing?

You do realize that there are students who will never be able to read because of dyslexia (and there is a spectrum for this). It doesn't mean that they can' learn, but taking reading tests will be a problem. I also have a student right now who is very low IQ (80) and cannot write (and I have tried to get him to and he slams computers on the floor). He has been kicked out of schools for assaulting students and teachers. Put up for expulsion four times since grade school. He is homeless right now. Do you think I should be held accountable for his lack of writing? I do not want to be assaulted so I have not been forcing him to write. He is emotionally disturbed (classified). He has been kicked out of two centers for the emotionally disturbed. After four months I feel some victory in the fact that he doesn't drop the "f" bomb every other word when he speaks.

There is usually a story behind the ones who are illiterate. And if a kid gets to grade 12 and has absolutely no issues and cannot read, well, then I would expect that he has not been attending school (because I have never seen a school that is that bad).

Before you pass judgement, learn a little more.

[Anonymous]

A good value-added model would exclude students who weren't there for the whole time the teacher is being evaluated for, and it should also exclude students who were absent more than [some number] of days.

LOL. There will be whole schools where teachers will not have to be evaluated using the tests!

[Anonymous]

LOL. There will be whole schools where teachers will not have to be evaluated using the tests!

Absolutely right! Love the posters here who have no idea what life is like just a few miles away.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure how IQ is relevant.

Short answer:
Child with 100 IQ will make a year's progress in a year.
Child with 90 will make 90% of the progress of one with 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL. There will be whole schools where teachers will not have to be evaluated using the tests!

Absolutely right! Love the posters here who have no idea what life is like just a few miles away.

Nobody on this thread has said that using value-added models to evaluate teachers is a good idea. In fact, I think it's not, because they don't work. The same teacher can be very effective one year and ineffective the next. According to one evaluation, the best predictor of a student's test scores in one year was who they had as a teacher in the next year -- a logical impossibility.

Nonetheless, the fact is that when people talk about using test scores to evaluate teachers, they're talking about value-added models, not just plain raw test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure how IQ is relevant.

Short answer:
Child with 100 IQ will make a year's progress in a year.
Child with 90 will make 90% of the progress of one with 100.

That's not what IQ is, and it's not how IQ works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem in the past with little accountability was that teachers/educators were "passing" kids that were illiterate. Kids were graduating HS with only being able to read/write at a grade school level, if even that. Without the accountability, it is difficult to root out such teachers/educators. It's not just some teachers that were doing this, but Principals were also allowing it. So, how would you stop this from happening without some kind of standardized testing?

You do realize that there are students who will never be able to read because of dyslexia (and there is a spectrum for this). It doesn't mean that they can' learn, but taking reading tests will be a problem. I also have a student right now who is very low IQ (80) and cannot write (and I have tried to get him to and he slams computers on the floor). He has been kicked out of schools for assaulting students and teachers. Put up for expulsion four times since grade school. He is homeless right now. Do you think I should be held accountable for his lack of writing? I do not want to be assaulted so I have not been forcing him to write. He is emotionally disturbed (classified). He has been kicked out of two centers for the emotionally disturbed. After four months I feel some victory in the fact that he doesn't drop the "f" bomb every other word when he speaks.

There is usually a story behind the ones who are illiterate. And if a kid gets to grade 12 and has absolutely no issues and cannot read, well, then I would expect that he has not been attending school (because I have never seen a school that is that bad).

Before you pass judgement, learn a little more.

I'm not talking about SN/LD kids.

From Nation at Risk report back in the early 80's
"About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent."

You are telling me that those figures are mostly SN/LD kids?

And they do this at the college level, too. Some educators keep perpetuating it.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2014/03/college-gives-illiterate-students-a-pass-to-keep-them-playing-sports/

"So far, few people seem to be pointing out that some high schools are graduating illiterates."

[Anonymous]

That's not what IQ is, and it's not how IQ works.

No--but it is a short answer. Kids with higher IQs learn more quickly.