The Brookings Institute study came up with a remarkable observance, that will come as no surprise to most…..
- For one, the researchers found a strong statistical link between teachers’ observation scores and the achievement level test scores of the students they instructed.
- Two, the report takes aim at evaluation systems that use a “school-wide” value-added measure, in which all teachers are judged in part on the progress of the school as a whole. Good schools inflated mediocre teachers; bad schools deflated excellent teachers.
- Three: Observers tended to give the best marks to teachers whose incoming students were high performing, while those teachers working with academically struggling students were penalized, according to an analysis of thousands of observation scores.
This comes particularly as we in Delaware rewrite and vote on a House Bill linking evaluations with test scores…
The Brookings finding discovered that really great phenomenal teachers get penalized for teaching students with low income status, and poor and mediocre teachers get high marks for teaching incoming students who are exceptionally gifted… It appears that among others, one of the things standardized test scores can’t judge, is how good a teacher is, or isn’t!
We have all heard problems with Value Added Tests before. All concern in the past, was mostly centered upon the test scores. In theory that was to be balanced by classroom observation. What this study breaks into the open, is that now, simply based on data of many subjective teacher evaluations, those class room evaluations are prejudiced depending upon the test scores. There is no offsetting value….
That means even the classroom evaluation is flawed, because of test scores.
This study tended to show that principals were the worst culprit, that when impartial outside observers came in to judge the classroom experience based on a rubric, they were much more honest and correct in their evaluations.
Even the best principal, if being scolded for his school’s low scores, walking in upon one of the teachers whose classroom is full of the sort of students who are guilty of lowering that school’s scores, in this situation, even the best principal, perhaps in the course of trying to move the needle for his school, will unfairly judge that teacher…. simply because of what is at stake…
So it appears that not only are high stakes testings unreliable, the counterbalance of classroom observation is also unreliable, simply because of the human nature to make those observations fit in hand with the test scores…. We can all put ourselves in that principal’s shoes: “The test scores out of this class are so bad, I can’t say you are a great teacher, even if you are; I’ll get laughed out of my job!” Now… my brain is fuzzy. Where have I heard that Delaware principals were not being tough enough on their evaluations because the actual classroom teachers ratings did not jive with the secret recipe formulated test scores? Hmmm. I can’t remember… The knuckleheads all sound alike this late in the legislative session…..
The big answer to solving this dilemma, the one that will get us moving forward again, is for us to continue using the tests to help children, but use that critical mass of data only to discover their weaknesses and work to strengthen those areas in them… Not fire, nor demote, nor put on parking duty, any teacher who has the misfortune to have lower income students incoming into her class……..
kavips 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 14, 2014 at 7:41 am
a
Kavips says, “….Not fire, nor demote, nor put on parking duty, any teacher
who has the misfortune to have lower income students incoming into her class……..”
This isn’t all about the ‘teachers’ incomes. This isn’t about ‘lower income’ kids. This isn’t suppose to be, ‘all about the money,’
It’s supposed to be about educating kids.
I been noticing a few things for a while – thinking to myself, ‘that’s just too wrong.’
One of those ‘things’ is the beating the ‘single parent’ takes, for being a parent, an unmarried parent, whether divorced or not married. Why those horrible ‘single parents’ should be singled out as unfit to parent, according to some. (And never mind that there’s another dead headed, dead beat or dead – parent around somewhere in the family picture of said ‘single parent child.’)
Well, I’ve seen some horrendous pieces of crap, married parents, with the kids to prove it. Why even married teachers, doctors, lawyers, business owners, preachers, politicians, come to mind.
In addition, to realize just how discriminating calling out a parent for being lower income or single is, try substituting a word for example. Let’s substitute ‘brown’ for ‘lower income.’ Would this be considered fair game also? “…any teacher who has the misfortune to have ‘brown’ students coming into her class……..” How’s that sound?
The use of ‘lower income’ as the encompassing catch all phase, which when used, gives the children of that household an even harder time to someday improve his/her income level. Again, one hasn’t witnessed some real poor excuses for human beings in ‘higher income’ households? (How about some of those lovely ‘well off’ parents who made the news of late?)
Would kavips say, ‘the teacher who has the misfortune to have ‘higher income’ students incoming into her class….” Again, there’s long lists of proven examples of some ‘unfairly referenced’ students, having been the outstanding students. And yes it happens, some are both from ‘low income’ and ‘single parent’ households. Oh never mind that there are ‘lower income kids’ who aren’t from single parent households and ‘single parent kids’ that aren’t lower income.
It’s the kids’ fault. How dare someone expect to be treated as just another kid – equally, regardless of ‘family status.’ Here come those freaky, financial failures; those deprived, delirious kids with one parent. Lock the doors.
Which brings one to why there is this ‘educational problem.’ Those in the educational field ‘dancing’ around the ‘real problems’ – substituting labels, substituting discrimination, substituting solutions. And now, here is where those in the field are – still unwilling to address the truth of what it is – that causes the educational system to fail kids.
It isn’t that Johnnie has one parent or that Johnnie’s mom doesn’t have much money.
Substituting ‘labels’ isn’t the answer. Blaming the kids for having one parent, or little money at home – isn’t the answer. Try identifying and addressing the ‘real’ problems and perhaps real solutions can be found.
The ‘missing’ factors are the ‘real’ reasons Johnnie can’t learn.
What are they, kavips?
May 14, 2014 at 10:37 am
a
I’m not saying teachers themselves have to ‘cure’ what’s wrong with Johnnie. The school may be the only place the child comes, that could identify a child with other difficulties as well as learning problems, by noticing that something is up. Maybe that teacher needs to get a second opinion from another of his teachers. It’s likely some kids are coming to school overly tired, distracted, beaten, hungry, withdrawn, frightened, etc. In other words, not in a condition receptive to school lessons. It could be the child needs counseling, referrals. It could be social services, family court, the justice dept, etc that has help the child needs.Yea, it’s a huge problem. So is dropping out, joblessness, homelessness, crime, prison life…..
Perhaps if she gets noticed, a pedophile gets arrested, she get counselling, grades improve, whereas the parent’s status wasn’t the problem. Perhaps a hungry boy, has substance abusive parents and the refrigerator is always empty and a teacher might notice he’s thin and tired. Social services might check on the well-to-do parents, or similar chaotic home life.
There could be learning capabilities involved, medical, dental problems, etc.
I’m just saying, teachers needs to watch out for the catch all phrases that mask problems.
Oh well, he’s ‘lower income, single parent. household’ What can one expect?
How about the highest math test score in the state.
July 7, 2014 at 12:04 am
All About Common Core, Charters, and Public Education | kavips
[…] (Elections Are Done So Onward): Oh No! There Is Bias, Bias In Classroom Observations […]