Today's Washington Post has an article by Carol Corbett Burris and Kevin G. Welner, two educators who have had conversations with President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan about the use of student assessments in evaluating teachers.
Their conversation was based on discussions around the new evaluation system for teachers in New York State that was put in place as a result of applying for Race to the Top. The authors feel that the evaluation system and its connection to test scores is punitive and will lead to further narrowing of the curriculum.
New York state has long had the Regents Exams, standardized tests that measured student learning in a number of core high school courses. Unlike similar tests in other states that helped determine whether or not school made AYP, students had a vested interest in the Regents; if they did not pass, they did not get credit for the course and jeopardized their chances of graduating on time. That's very different than the use of MSA and HSA scores here in Maryland.
We also need to keep in mind that there are other things that are hard to account for. Recently Washington D.C. schools were faced with the conundrum of teachers have high value added scores (i.e. their students performed at or above standard) but did not score comparatively in their classroom observations. New York City celebrated the amazing gains made by their students, only to have the Regents admit that the tests were getting easier over the last few years.
We keep hearing about making educators more accountable by connecting their evaluations to test scores. But if the tests are flawed and cannot accurately measure learning, how can they be expected to accurately measure teaching?
Their conversation was based on discussions around the new evaluation system for teachers in New York State that was put in place as a result of applying for Race to the Top. The authors feel that the evaluation system and its connection to test scores is punitive and will lead to further narrowing of the curriculum.
New York state has long had the Regents Exams, standardized tests that measured student learning in a number of core high school courses. Unlike similar tests in other states that helped determine whether or not school made AYP, students had a vested interest in the Regents; if they did not pass, they did not get credit for the course and jeopardized their chances of graduating on time. That's very different than the use of MSA and HSA scores here in Maryland.
We also need to keep in mind that there are other things that are hard to account for. Recently Washington D.C. schools were faced with the conundrum of teachers have high value added scores (i.e. their students performed at or above standard) but did not score comparatively in their classroom observations. New York City celebrated the amazing gains made by their students, only to have the Regents admit that the tests were getting easier over the last few years.
We keep hearing about making educators more accountable by connecting their evaluations to test scores. But if the tests are flawed and cannot accurately measure learning, how can they be expected to accurately measure teaching?
No comments:
Post a Comment