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

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.

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.

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.

I'm not sure how IQ is relevant.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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 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.

^ 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.