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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
You can have smaller class size, a better curriculum, more involved parents encouraging their kids to do homework, more two-parent families, better nutrition and medical care, less neighborhood violence. It is indeed ludicrous to think the only way to improve scores is to improve teachers. Except maybe if you're in the business of recruiting teachers, as Henderson and Rhee were.
I'm the PP of the first quote. Some of these are good comments. You're right; my original statement was too broad.
Some are sort of silly and likely facetious: improve student body, cheat. Some of the others make sense, but are not really things DCPS can feasibly change: more involved parents, more two-parent families, better nutrition, less violence. But some are good ideas: smaller class sizes, improved curriculum, better support.
But I still think that terminating ineffective teachers is one valid way to improve the situation. Maybe we can argue about whether IMPACT accurately identifies ineffective teachers. But how can you really be against removing ineffective teachers? How does protecting ineffective teachers make sense?
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
You can have smaller class size, a better curriculum, more involved parents encouraging their kids to do homework, more two-parent families, better nutrition and medical care, less neighborhood violence. It is indeed ludicrous to think the only way to improve scores is to improve teachers. Except maybe if you're in the business of recruiting teachers, as Henderson and Rhee were.
I'm the PP of the first quote. Some of these are good comments. You're right; my original statement was too broad.
Some are sort of silly and likely facetious: improve student body, cheat. Some of the others make sense, but are not really things DCPS can feasibly change: more involved parents, more two-parent families, better nutrition, less violence. But some are good ideas: smaller class sizes, improved curriculum, better support.
But I still think that terminating ineffective teachers is one valid way to improve the situation. Maybe we can argue about whether IMPACT accurately identifies ineffective teachers. But how can you really be against removing ineffective teachers? How does protecting ineffective teachers make sense?
Anonymous wrote:[
I'm the PP of the first quote. Some of these are good comments. You're right; my original statement was too broad.
Some are sort of silly and likely facetious: improve student body, cheat. Some of the others make sense, but are not really things DCPS can feasibly change: more involved parents, more two-parent families, better nutrition, less violence. But some are good ideas: smaller class sizes, improved curriculum, better support.
But I still think that terminating ineffective teachers is one valid way to improve the situation. Maybe we can argue about whether IMPACT accurately identifies ineffective teachers. But how can you really be against removing ineffective teachers? How does protecting ineffective teachers make sense?
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
You can have smaller class size, a better curriculum, more involved parents encouraging their kids to do homework, more two-parent families, better nutrition and medical care, less neighborhood violence. It is indeed ludicrous to think the only way to improve scores is to improve teachers. Except maybe if you're in the business of recruiting teachers, as Henderson and Rhee were.
Anonymous wrote:Have to work with what you have: The things DCPS have control over are smaller class size, a better curriculum, etc. and teachers.
Other large cities such as Chicago and NYC are implementing similar ways to evaluate teachers. Teachers' unions are obviously fighting it as to be expected.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
You can have smaller class size, a better curriculum, more involved parents encouraging their kids to do homework, more two-parent families, better nutrition and medical care, less neighborhood violence.
It is indeed ludicrous to think the only way to improve scores is to improve teachers. Except maybe if you're in the business of recruiting teachers, as Henderson and Rhee were.[/q]
A lot of teacher have good teaching 'chops' and need further training and support. You see it all the time in 'new' teachers--a little wobbly, but man they have 'it' (je ne se quois). I would argue that teachers at all stages can evidence the magic, and can all benefit from training, support, and yes...some pressure so they don't go too far off the grid. But there is nothing inspirational about IMPACT. If anything, it's deadening. How does that not imbue to your kids?
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
I disagree. There are a number of ways to improve scores. You can improve the student body. You can cheat. It's been documented that we've seen some of that. Even improving facilities can help. Also, keeping the same pool of teachers but providing better support can improve scores.
Anonymous wrote:But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:17:39, please explain why the test scores didn't go up over 10% as promised by Rhee and her staff on the Race to the Top application.
I don't know, and I don't care why. I don't know how they could make such a promise since the scores are really out of their direct control. But I do think the only way to improve scores is to improve your pool of teachers. And if that means terminating the bottom 5%, I don't see why that's such a problem.
Also, even assuming the 5% of teachers DCPS terminated were completely ineffective, and assuming DCPS successfully replaced them with effective teachers (two big assumptions), then that's only a drop in the statistical bucket and likely would lead to only a small improvement in scores across the entire District. Maybe what DCPS was counting on to improve scores was a huge jump in "minimally effective" teachers using their second chance to work really hard and improve themselves, so they will become "effective"?