Anonymous
Post 02/27/2012 23:14     Subject: IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
actually, the idea is to get rid of the bottom 10% every year.

A similar number of teachers were fired via IMPACT in 2011 as in 2010.
Anonymous
Post 02/27/2012 21:47     Subject: IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.

[cutting out many interim posts]
What I don't understand is why do you think that improving test scores is a worthy goal? Why don't we work on improving the quality of educational opportunities for all students? That seems like a much more important goal to me. Why this fixation on test scores? I just don't get it.

I'm not fixated on improving test scores. My original quote above was part of a longer response to someone who was criticizing IMPACT by pointing out that it had not improved test scores by 10%. She may be fixated on test scores, but I am not.

I agree with you that "improving the quality of educational opportunities" is a good goal. And I think that part of the path to that goal is for DCPS to be willing and able to terminate ineffective teachers. And although there is much debate about the best way to spot ineffective teachers, I think that one part of the analysis can be an evaluation of whether their students are improving their scores on standardized tests over time.

But do I care in the abstract that DCPS is improving its test scores relative to other school districts? No not really. I assume DCPS test scores will always be defined by factors like the SES of DC's population, just like every other school district in the nation.


Being willing to fire incompetent teachers is one thing. Holding an annual bloodbath where you fire over 200 teachers is quite another thing. If standardized test scores were a valid or reliable way to measure quality of educational opportunities, then evaluating teachers using these score might be useful. I don't think this data is valid or reliable. Nor do I think that evaluating teachers using a rigid rubric is helpful either. There is more than one way to teach. Just because a teacher doesn't follow this particular formula doesn't mean he or she is "ineffective".


If this were to happen every year, you might have a point. Given that the "bloodbath" occurred at the end of a stretch where effectively *zero* teachers were fired for cause? No, I don't have a problem with that. It's like skipping housework from September through May, then complaining that you had to spend four hours "spring cleaning."
Anonymous
Post 02/27/2012 19:11     Subject: Re:IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:PPEP could have been improved. IMPACT, the Bill Gates teacher-bot plug in a formula and spit out only teachers who 'add up' to effective, was not the way. At this point, I'm confused about why people want teachers at all? Why not hook the kids up to IPADS/SmartBoard and have a computer teach? I think they're trying that in some places, aren't they? I'm not talking about Khan academy. I'm talking about let's replace teachers with the flawless teacher formula, which I'm assuming can be programmed.


you don't sound too bright.


Thanks! I'm sure there will be many more who don't sound too bright after a generation of teacher-bots in the classroom.
Anonymous
Post 02/27/2012 01:30     Subject: Re:IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
Anonymous wrote:What does "teach harder" look like to you???


thank you that is a great question.....teach harder......laughable.....no one is doing anything differently for the money....and if they are it's each to the test.....either ay we are helping dumb down education than help it get better
Anonymous
Post 02/27/2012 01:27     Subject: Re:IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
Anonymous wrote:PPEP could have been improved. IMPACT, the Bill Gates teacher-bot plug in a formula and spit out only teachers who 'add up' to effective, was not the way. At this point, I'm confused about why people want teachers at all? Why not hook the kids up to IPADS/SmartBoard and have a computer teach? I think they're trying that in some places, aren't they? I'm not talking about Khan academy. I'm talking about let's replace teachers with the flawless teacher formula, which I'm assuming can be programmed.


you don't sound too bright.
Anonymous
Post 07/24/2011 11:54     Subject: IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?
Anonymous wrote:Posters writing about verbal usage really shouldn't use "ur" or "U." Ya'll that is.


unless they are using a tiny handheld device with a keyboard the size of a credit card