How does the general public feel about...

[MakiSupaStar]

teacher evaluations based upon student test scores? I've just started following the Chicago teacher strike, and apart from the obvious disputes over hours vs wages, and benefits, one of the main points of dispute is teacher evaluations based upon student test scores. As a teacher, I definitely have some opinions on this, but I was wondering what the public thinks about it. Oddly enough, my school is a grant recipient for a prototype of this model. We were able to work out an agreement between the union and the district, in which teachers can be evaluated by test scores and subsequently given a bonus for improved test scores, and there are pros and cons to this model. Luckily our scores have risen, without too much teaching to the test (which is officially obsolete as of next year as it will be replaced by national standards), but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it went south. So how do you, the general public feel about your children's teachers being evaluated by their test scores? Just curious. Let's keep this civil, I'm aware of the anti-union sentiment, and if you're going to allow that to filter it into your post lets try to keep it from going political. I'm more curious about the test thing and how much worth parents and the general public puts into it.

 

[sandmangeck]

teacher evaluations based upon student test scores? I've just started following the Chicago teacher strike, and apart from the obvious disputes over hours vs wages, and benefits, one of the main points of dispute is teacher evaluations based upon student test scores. As a teacher, I definitely have some opinions on this, but I was wondering what the public thinks about it. Oddly enough, my school is a grant recipient for a prototype of this model. We were able to work out an agreement between the union and the district, in which teachers can be evaluated by test scores and subsequently given a bonus for improved test scores, and there are pros and cons to this model. Luckily our scores have risen, without too much teaching to the test (which is officially obsolete as of next year as it will be replaced by national standards), but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it went south. So how do you, the general public feel about your children's teachers being evaluated by their test scores? Just curious. Let's keep this civil, I'm aware of the anti-union sentiment, and if you're going to allow that to filter it into your post lets try to keep it from going political. I'm more curious about the test thing and how much worth parents and the general public puts into it.

I think if parents worked as hard as the teachers with their childrens education this wouldnt be an issue. Teachers have one of the most demanding jobs out there. Teacher. Counseler. Social worker. And friend.

 

[electracoyote]

I can't be objective, as I'm a retired public school teacher.

But I feel very strongly that this will encourage many teachers to dumb down standards in their classrooms and artificially inflate achievement to increase their paycheck. Not you Maki, but we both know there are some teachers who are already cutting corners and trying to make their jobs easier, less hours, less work, etc., which is another way of boosting your pay scale a bit. I can think of several teachers who were once colleagues, and I wouldn't put it past them at all.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Evaluating teachers based upon test scores is prima-facie meaningless if the tests aren't valid to begin with*. That issue is even further compounded if teachers "teach to the test."

*Sorry for ending the sentence with a preposition, Munji.

 

[iamlowsound]

So you get raises when the test scores go up, do you give up money when the scores go down? Teachers should be based on how well they teach the course material, which isn't always reflected in test scores. In high school, the best teacher that I had, had one of the lowest class marks in the school. Why? Because he always pushed us to be better, to work harder, to learn more and to THINK. I still name him as one of the most influential people in my life. He was such a good teacher that the school board gave him the job of teaching teachers to teach better.

If he would have been evaluated on test scores/student marks, he would have likely had his job on the line. Instead he was the head of the department and now teaches how to teach better.

lowsound

 

[skychief]

I can be objective. I have no ties to teaching whatsoever.

Evaluating a teacher based on his/her students' test scores is ludicrous.

There, i said it.

Its a feeble attempt at standardizing the evaluation process. Location, demographics, climate, medications, diet and many other factors come into play when it comes to how well a student performs on a test.

Granted, the teacher's performance at teaching plays a big part in it, but theres just too many variables going on to use test scores as a criterion. im0.

 

[1958Bassman]

That would only make the teachers look bad if the students don't want to be there in the first place, like here in MKE. The Milwaukee Public School System has a dropout rate of about 46% and the teachers are almost in a war zone. The problem with this is that they can't discipline the students, so the teachers end up being overpaid baby sitters and many make close to 6-figures.

The teachers in Chicago need a reality check, called 'unemployment'. The freaking state and city are worse than bankrupt, yet they still have the balls to demand any kind of raise. That's beyond stupid. Apparently, they're trying to get a 16.5% raise over 3 years.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Location, demographics, climate, medications, diet and many other factors come into play when it comes to how well a student performs on a test.

Many of those things, such as demographics, can actually be accounted for in a statistical process known as regression. For instance, if you're comparing standard scores between urban and rural schools, you can code for that as a variable, get the scores indicating how far each observation falls from the regression line (known as a residual) and then make comparisons with consideration of important intervening variables.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a big fan of using standardized test scores for major administrative decisions either...just giving a view that while hidden variables are a concern, they can be dealt with to a certain extent.

If anything, if administrators and policy makers are going to consider standardized test scores for making important decisions about teachers' fates, it should be part of a more holistic evaluation that takes into consideration other quanitative and QUALITATIVE criteria, as illustrated by iamlowsound's story about the great teacher he had in school.

Edit: I don't know if the top brass making these decisions are actually controlling for variables outside of teachers' control. If not, then that's a pretty scary use of assessment.

 

[two fingers]

It's t a tough one. I agree that testing is not the answer. Parent involvement is the only thing that will make or break a kid. But here's the flip side of the coin. How, then, do you fire a teacher who sucks? What documentation, or evidence do you use to fire a teacher? The unions have made it all but impossible for anyone in admin to let a teacher go unless they punch a kid in the neck. So how do you get rid of them without test scores?

 

[tplyons]

Teachers should be evaluated on how well they do their jobs, not how well their students score.

Teachers control the scoring. They can grade more leniently so they appear to be doing their job better. However, this does not help the students who gain a false sense of security that they are educated. Frankly, the education of today is no match for the education of yesteryear.

 

[beggar98]

I think it needs to be a carrot/stick situation. Teachers should be rewarded if their students score above the curve on standardized testing, but there needs to be some accountability when their students underperform. Understanding that teachers have less influence on students' performance than parents, I think, when there are underperforming students, teachers need to be able to show that they identified the student as at risk of missing the mark and made attempts to involve the parents. Beyond that, what can a teacher be expected to do?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Teachers should be evaluated on how well they do their jobs, not how well their students score.

However, the idea is that students' score are thought to be a proxy to measure how well teachers are doing their jobs.

...whether or not standardized scores are actually a measure of teachers' effectiveness of doing their job is a much different matter.

 

[kanonfodr]

This may sound kinda cold and heartless, but I think we need to focus on putting more kids out of school. I graduated high school in 2004, but up until that time, especially in high school, there were lots of kids that detracted from the learning environment and teachers couldn't really do much about it.

Put them out, maybe teach them a trade (if they show interest/aptitude) in it. The world will always need plumbers. But let them suck it in the real world, and let the students who at least aren't going to be a problem learn more.

Peace,
Greg

 

[tplyons]

However, the idea is that students' score are thought to be a proxy to measure how well teachers are doing their jobs.

...whether or not standardized scores are actually a measure of teachers' effectiveness of doing their job is a much different matter.

In my opinion, there is no proxy for the effectiveness of a teacher.

A teacher should inspire thought and ideas. Not read facts from a book that "students" simply regurgitate.

The best teachers in my life have graded me harshly, pushed me to improve, and actually caused me to be a better student, not a better parrot.

In my experience, kids these days lack the ability to actually think... they can do what they're told, but the kids I see these days can't apply ideas to new situations. I believe this is because children aren't taught to think, but rather repeat what they're told on a test.

 

[K-Frog]

As two fingers alluded to, it's difficult to measure teacher effectiveness without using some objective measurable evidence.

I agree that measuring teachers on student test scores can be less than ideal, but how else can you really objectively measure the output of teaching?

 

[Ziltoid]

It's bulshut, and an incentive for teachers to teach in function of the tests rather then what students may need, heck it's also an incentive to cheat results, which has been proven to happen.

Generally speaking there's a lot of validity problems when it comes to evaluations. College rankings is a great example. The data they use to indicate the quality of an institution tells in no way the actual quality of it. The number of books in the library, the cost of cafeteria and etc. do not tell the quality of the education you will get.

The same happens with schools, they evaluate teachers with parameters that have no validity in regards of the quality of their teaching.

Isn't it normal to have weaker groups once in a while? Why would teacher be punished for that?

But man, that's just like, my opinion man.

 

[K-Frog]

In my opinion, there is no proxy for the effectiveness of a teacher.

A teacher should inspire thought and ideas. Not read facts from a book that "students" simply regurgitate.

.

But how do you measure that? Who measures it? How do you score them?

 

[ShredderMaximus]

This may sound kinda cold and heartless, but I think we need to focus on putting more kids out of school. I graduated high school in 2004, but up until that time, especially in high school, there were lots of kids that detracted from the learning environment and teachers couldn't really do much about it.

Put them out, maybe teach them a trade (if they show interest/aptitude) in it. The world will always need plumbers. But let them suck it in the real world, and let the students who at least aren't going to be a problem learn more.

Peace,
Greg

This, I had more than a few classes in HS where the teacher had absolutely ZERO control over the class. Most of the time it would start with one group of hooligans, and then the entire class would become a mob against the teacher. I've seen everything from kick me signs placed on the teachers back, to watching my classmates chug off a bottle of JD, to even seeing some railing yay-yo when the teachers back was turned.

 

[tplyons]

But how do you measure that? Who measures it? How do you score them?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm just sure what the answer isn't.

 

[Catbuster]

Kids that don't care if they won't care Parents do matter, but there was a year were I had 500 points missing work and via weighted grading still had a 3.95 GPA. No biggie, right? My GPA would have been a 4.3 if I had done that missing work. My test scores didn't suffer, but my grades did. And at the end of the year, I got an earful, and I couldn't wait to go back and mow grass on a horse farm to get away from my house. And my GPA was a 4.4 the next year.

Honestly, if that's the way it's being evaluated, I'd teach AP (CollegeBoard college credit classes) and use the weighted grading and expectations of students (coupled with students that care) to do what they need to do to.

I know, I took A.P classes. Biology and Human Geography, then Music Theory, World History, statistics (FEAR the E), and med term, then Chem, U.S History, Environmental science, English, French (oui, Je parle du Français) then Calculus, Physics, & Euro History. I got at least a three in most if them...

Whereas I took "lifetime sports" or "fitness and aerobics" three years in high school. I also ran cross country, track and played baseball. I didn't care, they were schedule fillers where I got to either play games for a period or lift weights.

That's my take on education.