Comments on: UFT helping city recruit for Gates-funded teacher quality study

By: Maisie

Maisie — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:35:46 +0000

Hunter65–that’s exactly why the second test is a different one, one that can measure those HOT skills.

By: Hunter65

Hunter65 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:37:13 +0000

Maisie, you may not understand that standardized tests do not have the capacity to measure higher order thinking skills.

By: miss brave

miss brave — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:08:17 +0000

Too bad the DOE website on the subject is blank…for a study they’re trying to recruit teachers to volunteer for, it’s awfully mysterious!

By: curious

curious — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:02:51 +0000

Until a few years ago, didn’t NYS require a video-taped submission of a lesson as one of the tests for certification similar to the written ATS-W? Yes. So clearly there is already a substantial pre-existing wealth of data about this issue. And certainly what the Gates Foundation is looking for has nothing to do with curriculum mastery or higher-order thinking but rather the more subjective teaching skills like classroom management, student engagement, etc. And these tapes and this study have pre-existing conclusions that the designers are looking to substantiate in a more rigorous and comprehensive way. They are attempting to quantify what is inherently qualititative. I expect the results will lead to the modification of the current surveys used to calculate 15% of a schools progress report grade. And this will then be part of the numerical determination of teacher effectiveness. Notice how one selected teacher and one cherry-picked classroom of students will represent the entire demographic of a particular school.

If they really want to determine the qualities that make an effective teacher, Gates and Co. would simply dig deep into their own memories. What qualities did your best teachers have? The collective answer to that question will lead them to the data that must be collected to judge a teacher’s true ability. And they must stop claiming that putting numbers on things makes it better, and “more scientifically valid” and unassailably true.

By: Maisie

Maisie — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:34:20 +0000

Hunter65, I don’t think you’re reading this right. The second test is designed to do exactly what you are advocating: test higher-order cognitive skills drawn from the curriculum of that grade and subject. In addition, the study is designed to test multiple measures–including the very ones you say it should–such as student work, student surveys, and videos of teachers in action.

By: Hunter65

Hunter65 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:47:30 +0000

Don’t be fooled by this attempt to disguise evaluating teachers (not teaching) by standardized tests and the low level of learning that such tests will be capable of measuring. Unless these tests are aligned with what the teacher is teaching (the goals of the lessons and curriculum) and with survey items, then the test is not a valid measure of anything. Why not use multiple forms of student assessments that are authentic student products rather than just proxies.

This is a wolf in sheep’s’ clothing. Teachers who participate are fools because they will be contributing to the development of a system in that will dismiss teachers who teach higher level skills and knowledge that the tests can’t measure.

Everyone should know that Kane believes that no investment should be made in teachers after 3 years of teaching because there is not growth in their students’ test scores.

By: Maisie

Maisie — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:37:56 +0000

What I like about this project is that Gates researchers are really evaluating the evaluation tools that measure teachers, not the teachers alone. For example: They are using state standardized test data but also giving another test. That second test acts as a reality check on how well the standardized tests do in measuring teacher effectiveness. Does the teacher effect come out differently on the second test?

Judging teacher’s effectiveness based on the state tests can be a problem because those tests are wide and shallow–they measure lots of areas but have only a few questions in each area. So they give a second test with questions that go deeper into a subject area. Do the students’ performances on that test give a different result for their teacher? Then what does that say about measuring teachers using the state tests? This promises to be very interesting.

By: John Hancock

John Hancock — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:35:23 +0000

What about cluster and specialty teachers. How is this going to work for them? What exactly are the student test results for playing the flute in Music or creating a documentary in Technology. What is the standard? Just curious.

By: Maura Walz

Maura Walz — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:45:50 +0000

TeacherMan – You’re right, looking back at the post I don’t think it was explicit enough that the UFT is excited about the study because it goes well beyond test scores and begins by looking into classroom practices. I’ve updated the post. I hope it’s now more clear.

By: TeacherMan

TeacherMan — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:01:10 +0000

I was at a briefing about this plan at the UFT this afternoon and I think this story misses the mark entirely. This project is designed to get away from using test scores in evaluations and instead look at the broader spectrum of what we do in classrooms. That’s the point. Also, the line about teachers being guinea pigs is offensive. We want more people to realize that you cannot evaluate teachers just on test scores.

By: Fort Tryon Teacher

Fort Tryon Teacher — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:16:01 +0000

This is exciting. Why didn’t I get this e-mail? Who are “eligible teachers”? The hyperlink in the e-mail doesn’t go to anything other than an empty box that says “MET.” How do I sign up?