That may be but the evaluation of teachers at present is meaningless. Most expect, and get, superior ratings; the Lake Wobegon situation. And informing these assessors several times a year with tests that measure improvement is critical.
At 09:24 PM 1/12/2013, Robert Hansen wrote: >Um, yeah, that teacher accountability thing is there, it is always >going to be there, but can't we just put that aside for the moment? >Nn top of all of the other testing, this is too much bloody testing. >Even all that other testing is too much bloody testing. While you >talk about "3 tests" during the year, the net result is not just "3 >tests" during the year. Not only do these tests affect the focus of >teacher (teaching to the test) there are also many "pretests" that >spring up. For example, result of just one (NCLB) test a year is >that the students are tested weekly, in reading, not quite as often >in math, but quite often. > >People misunderstand my support for standardized testing. We need >authentic measures that are normed to what professional society >expects of successful students in these subjects and not for the >purpose of evaluating teachers. For the purpose of being HONEST to >the students. As far as evaluating schools or teachers, my only use >of those standardized tests is to determine if the schools or >teachers are LYING to their students and passing them on to the next >class when they are not ready. > >As far as evaluating teachers, that has to be done by the principle, >the administrators, and people in the context the teachers are in. >The rest of the world does it that way and they share their ideas of >doing it. That process, while not perfect, seems to work pretty damn >well. And if teachers don't like that process because it is not >perfect then too bad. It sure beats the heck out of the choices >talked about lately, including their own choices. > >Bob Hansen > > > > > >On Jan 12, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Wayne Bishop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > I don't know anything about the validity or reliability of the > test but my guess is that real objection to the test (2 hours, 3 > times during the year) has more to do with "tied to merit pay" than > anything else. > > > > Wayne > > > > At 08:25 AM 1/12/2013, Robert Hansen wrote: > > > >> On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Michael Paul Goldenberg > <email@example.com> wrote: > >> > >> > http://bit.ly/XsO6wa > >> > >> > >> Sounds like they don't like the MAP test. Understandable since > this is yet another test on top of all the state mandated testing. > >> > >> I support them. > >> > >> Bob Hansen