And now a study in New Jersey debunks using value added test scores to grade a teachers performance. As in New York, the same conclusions abound.
Poverty overwhelmingly determines a school’s test scores. There is very little impact a teacher can make….
One thing is very important and cuts to the heart of Fredericka Jenner’s acquiescence to letting teachers be subjected to this irrationality…..
Those supporting Value Added Testing as the sole evaluator of a teacher’s performance, use subjective arguments to buttress up their arguments. A subjective argument is where one takes a position and then attempts to persuade one with moral or impassioned entreaties, to accept that position he has taken.
Those opposing Value Added Testing, use objective arguments to prove their points. An objective argument is where one take a school’s published value added test score and plots it on a graph according to it’s published poverty level, and then, just lets the results stand for all to see.
Figure above elaborates on the negative relationship between student low income status and school level growth percentiles, showing: that among very high poverty schools, growth percentiles tend to be particularly low.
In other words, it is a myth that you can teach everyone the same. Those with low poverty, due to factors beyond their control, cannot with the proper teacher, become geniuses…. Of course good teachers are better than bad teachers for these children, but relying solely upon test scores, will counter negatively against teachers in high poverty areas and push poor teachers scores up higher, provided the poor teachers are in affluent schools.
Setting up the paradox,… that a good teacher gets fired in a poorer school, and a bad teacher gets promoted in an affluent school.
Something is not right with this picture, and Frederica Jenner had better get fighting mad over this data, or if she has been compromised, resign and let a fighter take over for the betterment of all our teachers.