Anonymous wrote:
No, SAT and ACT aren't high stakes at all. Nothing like determining whether you're going to get into college or the degree program you want. Heck, there's nothing at all high stakes about a kid's future, right?
Not "high stakes" my ass. You have a pretty warped definition of "high stakes" if the only thing you care about is how it affects teacher evaluations, but then you obviously don't give a shit about kids' futures.
Again, totally different situations. SAT and ACT are optional tests. They are not required by the PUBLIC education system. They are not paid for with PUBLIC tax dollars. And, there are many colleges that do not require those in order to enter---so I don't think a kid's future won't be bright if they don't take them. Maybe in your exclusive, elite, DC world this is true. You are the one with the "warped" perspective.
High stakes is not just about teacher evaluations. It's also about how students are "placed" in school based on these tests. I have seen kids put in the wrong classes because of these scores. Of course you are going to say that is a LOCAL problem again. Sure, but it's a problem and it should not be swept under the rug either. It also affects schools as a whole to have scores out in public with no explanation of why the scores are the way they are except for some people like you saying that the teachers don't give a shit about kids' futures. It's really helpful to everyone to have a bunch of numbers that are hard to interpret in meaningful ways.
As for teacher evaluations, it's not clear that the tests are measuring the teachers at all. They are measuring all kinds of stuff and teachers are probably one of the smallest parts. There is no scientific research that links standardized test scores to teacher effectiveness.
I could care less about the linking of test scores to teacher evaluations. I care about what this is all doing to the kids and education. Most teachers are not in this profession for the money. If they had wanted to earn money, they would have gone into testing psychometrics.
Placement? Come on. Many schools don't even want to do tracking in the first place, DCPS for example doesn't do tracking in favor of in-class differentiation. And yes, if kids are being placed in the wrong classes as a result of testing, then that *IS* a local problem. TOTALLY a local problem, and you know it is.
And likewise, teacher evaluation policies per RTTT are also LOCAL - here's the criteria language, which leaves most of it up to the LEA:
D. Great Teachers and Leaders (138 points)
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
The extent to which the State has—
(i) Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow alternative routes to certification (as defined in
this notice) for teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers in addition to institutions
of higher education;
(ii) Alternative routes to certification (as defined in this notice) that are in use; and
(iii) A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and
for preparing teachers and principals to fill these areas of shortage.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as defined in this notice),
has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice)—
(i) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as defined in this notice) and measure it
for each individual student; (5 points)
(ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that (a) differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on
student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor, and (b) are designed and developed with
teacher and principal involvement; (15 points)
(iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and constructive
feedback; as part of such evaluations, provide teachers and principals with data on student growth for their
students, classes, and schools; and (10 points)
(iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding— (28 points)
(a) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction support,
and/or professional development;
(b) Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals, including by providing
opportunities for highly effective teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain additional
compensation and be given additional responsibilities;
(c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification (where applicable) to teachers and principals
using rigorous standards and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and
(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample
opportunities to improve, and ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
Sure seems to leave most of it up to locals. Sure DOESN'T seem to support most of the arguments being made about how it's all the feds fault. The "actions have consequences" is a total cop-out when the actions and consequences are happening entirely at the LOCAL level.
Bottom line is that the highest stakes are kids futures, and that SHOULD INCLUDE the possibility of kids going on to college.