Posters writing about verbal usage really shouldn't use "ur" or "U." Ya'll that is.

True. There are a lot of things that need to get out of the toilet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

B/c standardized tests are an objective measure of what kids are learning. If you don't consider test scores important, you are in the minority. Parents who have a choice will not send kids to schools with crappy scores where most children are not performing at grade level in reading and math. No one is against improving quality of education opportunities but there is no way for parents to know these educational opportunities are being implemented successfully without these tests.

you lost me with "crappy"

"crappy" = "shitty" = lowest score in nation for a major metropolitan school district

Crappy is an accurate description.

Ya'll need to get your mouths out of the toilet

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

B/c standardized tests are an objective measure of what kids are learning. If you don't consider test scores important, you are in the minority. Parents who have a choice will not send kids to schools with crappy scores where most children are not performing at grade level in reading and math. No one is against improving quality of education opportunities but there is no way for parents to know these educational opportunities are being implemented successfully without these tests.

you lost me with "crappy"

"crappy" = "shitty" = lowest score in nation for a major metropolitan school district

Crappy is an accurate description.

Anonymous wrote:I love that you keep using the term verbally bankrupt.

Clearly you have issues. I am sorry about that. It must be a very hard and sad life you lead.

(FTR, I was the first posters of crappy but not the second)

I have nothing but compassion for ur verbal limitations. U and Michelle could start a support group.

Did you see last week in Nashville she said (again) that her daughters "sucked" at soccer. And the girls were sitting the the audience.

Quite the mother, that Michelle Rhee.

Anonymous wrote:I love that you keep using the term verbally bankrupt.

Clearly you have issues. I am sorry about that. It must be a very hard and sad life you lead.

(FTR, I was the first posters of crappy but not the second)

That's funny, I though I was the first poster of crappy, mimicking Michelle Rhee. But it doesn't matter -- it's hardly something to be proud of.

I agree with 11:40 - I don't admire Rhee at all, though I must admit I did at first, when I wasn't paying attention and was hoping that a new leader could succeed. As soon as I heard her claim about the soaring Baltimore scores I knew she was a phony.

I love that you keep using the term verbally bankrupt.

Clearly you have issues. I am sorry about that. It must be a very hard and sad life you lead.

(FTR, I was the first posters of crappy but not the second)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
you lost me with "crappy"

Did Rhee lose you when she used crappy to describe DCPS teachers?

I never had any respect Rhee. Her only goal was to raise test scores. Her favorite principal was Wayne Ryan (lead cheating principal of Noyes Elementary School). I doubt that Michelle Rhee has any clue about anything related to education. The fact that she was verbally bankrupt as well came as no surprise.

This is a woman who used masking tape to tape her students' mouths shut when she taught in Baltimore.

Is this someone that you admire?

Anonymous wrote:When I have looked at the CAS test I have been struck at how basic the test appears. If my child is not passing this test then there is a significant problem. So while I get that the test should not be the goal like it appears to me that passage needs to represent a minimum level of achievement. Are kids just that far behind, are they starting that far behind or is the curriculum and or teachers from the early grades that weak?

It's not a pass fail test.

Also, have you ever heard of test nullification? This is when students just fill in any random bubbles without even attempting to answer the questions. My brother used to do it all the time. How could this data be reliable or valid?

Anonymous wrote:
you lost me with "crappy"

Did Rhee lose you when she used crappy to describe DCPS teachers?

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".

Anonymous wrote:

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.

B/c standardized tests are an objective measure of what kids are learning. If you don't consider test scores important, you are in the minority. Parents who have a choice will not send kids to schools with crappy scores where most children are not performing at grade level in reading and math. No one is against improving quality of education opportunities but there is no way for parents to know these educational opportunities are being implemented successfully without these tests.

you lost me with "crappy"

Anonymous wrote:When I have looked at the CAS test I have been struck at how basic the test appears. If my child is not passing this test then there is a significant problem. So while I get that the test should not be the goal like it appears to me that passage needs to represent a minimum level of achievement. Are kids just that far behind, are they starting that far behind or is the curriculum and or teachers from the early grades that weak?

Good questions. DCPS is responding as if the answer is weak teachers and the solution is different teachers - hopefully more effective, of course, but there is no way of knowing, unless they are recruiting teachers who have proven themselves in a similar teaching environment. There is no sign that this is what's happening. DCPS shows a predilection for teach-for-america and DC teaching fellow recruits. They may be fine teachers some day, if they stick around awhile, but many do not.

I find it remarkable that people cheer the firing of ineffective teachers identified via a costly and complex statistical model, but then don’t ask if replacement teachers are any better or how they had been identified as such. You can bet that if scores had gone up, as projected in the RttT application, DCPS admin would declare that an improved teacher corps had made the difference. But scores have gone down and flattened, so we hear silence, followed by lies and excuses.

I also find it remarkable that people haven't questioned how teachers in schools with a diversity of students, have kids in the same class who are learning at different levels (according to standardized test scores). Check the DC-CAS scores for some Capitol Hill schools and Ward 3 schools with high OOB numbers to see what I mean.

With such an emphasis on the power of effective teachers, is it then the teachers’ responsibility when all their students aren’t learning at similar levels and scores show a racial/ethnic/SES difference? I don’t think so and I haven’t heard them being characterized that way, but their peers who teach all low SES kids are held responsible for the low scores at their schools.

When I have looked at the CAS test I have been struck at how basic the test appears. If my child is not passing this test then there is a significant problem. So while I get that the test should not be the goal like it appears to me that passage needs to represent a minimum level of achievement. Are kids just that far behind, are they starting that far behind or is the curriculum and or teachers from the early grades that weak?