Again, what this teacher is missing is that the testing is what's important because they will be the measure of the standards. She keeps bringing up New York, saying 'well, they created their own tests, etc". Yes, they did. Because they adopted common core and so re-did their testing to measure those standards. And they did it badly. And guess who is paying for that? The kids. With their frustration and their tears.

So hey, the standards are good, so who cares if a bunch of little kids suffer in the process - we have a point to prove, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what homework did you on your school? Sounds like you took either their word for it or looked at some data rankings. I did that with my major, then also investigated who went where in my area, and talked to people in the industry about what kind of grads the school turned out.

How nice for you. The point is not what homework you or I did. The point is whether or not the program is good.

And you find that out by doing your homework.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the post. How much growth do the students have to demonstrate in order for the teacher to get a good evaluation on that portion? And, how much weight is given to that?

http://msde.state.md.us/tpe/TargetingGrowth_Using_SLO_MEE.pdf

MD -- it's pretty vague.

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.

At least in MD, teachers will be evaluated (in PART) on student GROWTH, as measured by pre and post tests, not on whether children pass an end of the year test.

Students in low SES schools who start the year very low, have a high potential for growth. Students in the G/T classes start off high already (ceiling effect) and it may be difficult to show growth, actually.

50% is based on test scores. Wonder if the teacher is going to administer the tests? Could be problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.

This has actually occurred to the people who put together performance-based evaluation systems. Which is why performance-based evaluation systems take this into account.

Most teacher evaluation systems calculate scores based on growth. After kids take the test one year, scores are predicted for the next year based on a complex analysis of the scores of previous students with similar scores, and kids' performance the following year is measured against these predicted scores.

The first year of PARCC may be challenging, because there won't be previous scores to compare to, but going forward, even if PARCC scores are very low overall it won't hurt teachers's chance of rehire unless they're kids' scores are even lower than the scores of other kids with comparable predicted scores.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the post. How much growth do the students have to demonstrate in order for the teacher to get a good evaluation on that portion? And, how much weight is given to that?

I don't have any idea. Read the stuff at the link.

Thanks for the post. How much growth do the students have to demonstrate in order for the teacher to get a good evaluation on that portion? And, how much weight is given to that?

Anonymous wrote:

This has actually occurred to the people who put together performance-based evaluation systems. Which is why performance-based evaluation systems take this into account.

The powers that be want it tied to test scores.

The DC teacher evaluation system is already tying teacher performance to test scores. Does the DC teacher evaluation system find that teachers with high-scoring kids are good teachers, and teachers with low-scoring kids are bad teachers? Nope. There are various problems with the system, but that's not one of them.

http://www.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT+(Performance+Assessment)/An+Overview+of+IMPACT

This has actually occurred to the people who put together performance-based evaluation systems. Which is why performance-based evaluation systems take this into account.

The powers that be want it tied to test scores.

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.

This has actually occurred to the people who put together performance-based evaluation systems. Which is why performance-based evaluation systems take this into account.

Anonymous wrote:

So what homework did you on your school? Sounds like you took either their word for it or looked at some data rankings. I did that with my major, then also investigated who went where in my area, and talked to people in the industry about what kind of grads the school turned out.

How nice for you. The point is not what homework you or I did. The point is whether or not the program is good.

Has it occurred to anyone that something is wrong with the test? I taught school and then worked on curriculum development and testing for adults. There's a lot of work in making sure a test measures what it is supposed to measure.e

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Then you are incredibly naive. These tests will soon be used as a weapon against you, as 70 to 95 percent will repeatedly fail the tests.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

My university teacher training program was awful. The graduates who performed well as teachers did so in spite of the program, not because of it. If the program were judged on the performance of its graduates, maybe it would shape up.

No crystal ball needed. In the states where they have been testing for the past two to three years, the majority of kids fail.

Perhaps you should have done your homework and picked a better school!

"The states" = Kentucky and New York. And the non-applicability of New York's experience to any other state has been thoroughly explained on this thread.

Actually, my teacher training program had a very good reputation among teacher training programs (though not, as it turned out, among actual teachers in the area), but thanks for your concern.

And North Carolina. Same failure rates.

So what homework did you on your school? Sounds like you took either their word for it or looked at some data rankings. I did that with my major, then also investigated who went where in my area, and talked to people in the industry about what kind of grads the school turned out.

The trouble with evaluating teachers on test scores is clear: put teachers in a GT class and his/her scores will glow. Put him/her in very low SES, and trouble awaits in keeping the job.