Teacher Impact

[basketcase]

Yes, and they base grades on them, which seems entirely valid to teachers except when test scores are used to measure their performace, then all of a sudden testing is highly flawed.

Except that studies show that GPA (grades assigned by teachers) are a better indicator of university success that standardized tests. If the goal of education is creating students that will be successful in the future, standardized tests are a failure.


p.s. do you not understand the difference between tests created by teachers and standardized tests?

 

[FAST]

=basketcase;5038220

p.s. do you not understand the difference between tests created by teachers and standardized tests?

The 1st one is self serving avoidance.

FAST

 

[basketcase]

The 1st one is self serving avoidance.

FAST

Yet seems to be better at predicting university success than SATs. Maybe teachers in general know their business.

 

[onthebottom]

Except that studies show that GPA (grades assigned by teachers) are a better indicator of university success that standardized tests. If the goal of education is creating students that will be successful in the future, standardized tests are a failure.


p.s. do you not understand the difference between tests created by teachers and standardized tests?

Yes, tests created by teachers are tests they develop based on what they taught, standardized tests are tests developed to measure what they should be teaching.

Again, tests are OK to measure student performance for grades, why not to compare students and measure teacher performance?

 

[AdamH]

Again, tests are OK to measure student performance for grades, why not to compare students and measure teacher performance?

Because, as long as the teacher has no incentive to teach the test (their pay isn't directly tied to the test results), we can assume that the student has actually learned the subject matter being taught to them, vs learning what was required to pass a test..

 

[onthebottom]

Because, as long as the teacher has no incentive to teach the test (their pay isn't directly tied to the test results), we can assume that the student has actually learned the subject matter being taught to them, vs learning what was required to pass a test..

So you think teacher are unethical?

 

[AdamH]

So you think teacher are unethical?

Of course.. I think most people are unethical..

 

[basketcase]

Yes, tests created by teachers are tests they develop based on what they taught, standardized tests are tests developed to measure what they should be teaching.

And which are the better indicator of success in University? It seems the teacher created tests.

Again, tests are OK to measure student performance for grades, why not to compare students and measure teacher performance?

You mean besides standardized tests don't do a good job of measuring students? I'm sure that a testing apparatus can be created to evaluate teachers but giving standardized tests to students isn't it. If studies show that teachers are better at predicting future success than standardized tests, I think principals can do a better job of evaluating teachers than comparing student test results.

 

[onthebottom]

And which are the better indicator of success in University? It seems the teacher created tests.


You mean besides standardized tests don't do a good job of measuring students? I'm sure that a testing apparatus can be created to evaluate teachers but giving standardized tests to students isn't it. If studies show that teachers are better at predicting future success than standardized tests, I think principals can do a better job of evaluating teachers than comparing student test results.

It's sad how pathetically afraid teachers are of having their ONLY objective measured. If standardized tests didn't work Universities wouldn't use them. Can teachers spot smart students, sure, can they impact performance - questionable.

 

[basketcase]

It's sad how pathetically afraid teachers are of having their ONLY objective measured. If standardized tests didn't work Universities wouldn't use them. Can teachers spot smart students, sure, can they impact performance - questionable.

You can keep going on about teachers and fear but standardized tests are shown to be a poor measure of what they were designed for so using them to assess something else is ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that every school system has some kind of teacher evaluation and I'd trust the opinions of principals over the flawed standardized test results of a bunch of kids. All they really need to do is make it easier to fire the ones who fail.

 

[FAST]

Not going to happen

I'm pretty sure that every school system has some kind of teacher evaluation and I'd trust the opinions of principals over the flawed standardized test results of a bunch of kids. All they really need to do is make it easier to fire the ones who fail.

But this highlights the problem that is continually being brought up here,...

Even if a teacher's evaluation is poor,...that teacher will STILL get a raise,...simply due to a union contract,...and NOTHING more,...

That is why the whole concept of perks was brought up in the 1st place,...to fix this,...but very unlikely to happen,...there would be riots in the streets,...similar to teachers throwing water on a government official in the Eaton Center a number of years ago.

FAST

 

[AdamH]

If standardized tests didn't work Universities wouldn't use them. Can teachers spot smart students, sure, can they impact performance - questionable.

You keep ignoring the fact that these tests are only valuable if we can be (relatively) certain that teachers aren't teaching the test.. It's actually called "Campbell's Law"

The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor

 

[FAST]

Good luck with that,...

And you keep on ignoring that the tests should NOT be created by the teachers,...and kept secret until test day,...problem solved.

FAST

 

[onthebottom]

You can keep going on about teachers and fear but standardized tests are shown to be a poor measure of what they were designed for so using them to assess something else is ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that every school system has some kind of teacher evaluation and I'd trust the opinions of principals over the flawed standardized test results of a bunch of kids. All they really need to do is make it easier to fire the ones who fail.

Actually, the standardized tests we are discussing here are not university admissions tests but rather tests designed to measure mastery of grade appropriate skills. I don't think we have enough data to know how effective they are at that. I do know the teachers unions are afraid of exposing their members to actual metrics which can be used to measure actual outcomes.

Making it easier to fire teachers wold be helpful (perhaps the bottom 5% should be let go every year), but that doesn't measure the outcome we are looking for, grade appropriate skills.

 

[oldjones]

Actually, the standardized tests we are discussing here are not university admissions tests but rather tests designed to measure mastery of grade appropriate skills. I don't think we have enough data to know how effective they are at that. I do know the teachers unions are afraid of exposing their members to actual metrics which can be used to measure actual outcomes.

Making it easier to fire teachers wold be helpful (perhaps the bottom 5% should be let go every year), but that doesn't measure the outcome we are looking for, grade appropriate skills.

Actually I thought the topic was an article that summarized the small correlation that has been demonstrated between student test scores and teacher ability/impact/quality.

How making it easier to fire anyone would measure any outcome in any field—as you say in your last sentence firing 5% of teachers might— is utter nonsense. It only reveals how even successful TERBians may still need someone to teach them to say (or just proofread) what they mean. But I wouldn't measure your education by that, otb, just you.

 

[onthebottom]

Actually I thought the topic was an article that summarized the small correlation that has been demonstrated between student test scores and teacher ability/impact/quality.

Actually the OP was that while teachers are objecting to being measured by what their students can demonstrate on a test (surprising but OK) they use to support this that teachers only have 14% influence... which calls into question the focus on the "profession".

How making it easier to fire anyone would measure any outcome in any field—as you say in your last sentence firing 5% of teachers might— is utter nonsense. It only reveals how even successful TERBians may still need someone to teach them to say (or just proofread) what they mean. But I wouldn't measure your education by that, otb, just you.

I think firing the bottom 5% would make the other 95% work harder, it's essentially a part time job for life with full time rewards - that breeds lazy behavior and draws lazy people into the profession. Risk tends to sharpen people's focus.

 

[basketcase]

Actually I thought the topic was an article that summarized the small correlation that has been demonstrated between student test scores and teacher ability/impact/quality.

Are you suggesting that bot is arguing against the details of the article he posted? That's just silly. He is saying that the quality of teachers has little to do with student results on standardized tests but student results on standardized test should be the way that the quality of teachers is determined.

No contradiction. Really. Maybe if you squint while reading this it will make sense.

 

[onthebottom]

Are you suggesting that bot is arguing against the details of the article he posted? That's just silly. He is saying that the quality of teachers has little to do with student results on standardized tests but student results on standardized test should be the way that the quality of teachers is determined.

No contradiction. Really. Maybe if you squint while reading this it will make sense.

Actually, we need education to break the cycle, it's failing miserably, we need accountability and results - are you guys really this dim or is it time to replace your tampons....

 

[basketcase]

Actually, we need education to break the cycle, it's failing miserably, ....

Based on? Canada seems to be doing fairly well in terms of international testing and we don't use standardized tests to assess teachers (or anything more than general indicators) and are more liberal in general. Of course we don't let states decide to teach crap like intelligent design instead of science.

And yes, the US needs some massive overhauling of their system. One of the major problems as I see it is the extent that the educational system becomes more about what politicians say to get reelected as opposed to what will actually help kids. Another problem tied to the first is parents who mistakenly think their kids are angelic geniuses and use their pull to undermine the schools. A third factor is the inequality in the US system where well funded areas and private schools obviously do better underfunded schools full of the poor. The first and the third are things that Canada does much better. To be fair, Canada also needs to come up with a solution to deal with elementary school kids who fall behind other than just passing them on to the next grade.

And yes, the ability to fire incompetent teachers is significant but you need a more insightful mechanism than standardized testing unless all you care about is politicians looking like they are busy.


2012 International results of testing 15 year olds. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

Out of 65 countries, Canada placed 13th in math, 6th in reading, and 9th in science. US is 35th in math, 24th in reading, and 28th in science (below the mean in all three categories). Instead of trying failed practices that other countries tried (New Zealand and St. testing=pay), maybe the US should be examining what aspects of higher scoring systems will work for them.

 

[oldjones]

Certainly if 'teacher impact' on scores is as low as 14% that's an awfully weak correlation to assess their abilities or performance on under a state-wide law. Kinda like a law requiring CEOs to be assessed (and paid, demoted or sent for remedial training) annually by a formula that considers only growth in profits. Irrespective of recession, competition, rising material prices, administrative ability, cost efficiencies, R&D costs for the new product line or other any other factors.

If you want to 'score' teachers, test teaching. If all you test is student achievement, then score that factor at 14%, just like anyone sensible scores a kid's pop quiz as only a fraction of her entire scholastic achievement over that year.

You aren't manage anything by measuring other things instead. And I'm teachers would be grateful to finally have their 'clients' tell them just what they believe the good teaching they blather actually is.