Obviously there has been a LOT of talk about why we should be trying our hardest on the Common Core or SBAC tests this week (shout out to that snazzy PSA in the announcements), but I came across an article from the New Yorker recently that made me think about it from a different point of view. The State of New York has been debating what comes into consideration when teachers are being evaluated, and recently there has been a push to include the state's standardized testing results as 50% of a public school teacher evaluation. This could be a frightening prospect if widely implemented, but perhaps it would be the most effective and efficient way to evaluate our teachers.
On one hand, a teacher evaluation based largely on standardized testing results might mean that teachers would become more geared towards teaching the test itself rather than teaching the content, in order to keep their jobs. It would also mean that the jobs of teachers, many of whom are truly dedicated to teaching their students, would be in the hands of student responsibility. Which, as we all are I'm sure aware, isn't always reliable. If half of the class decided to stay up until 4am binging on Netflix the night before the test, and then performed poorly, it would be the teacher who would have to pay the price.
On the other hand, if a standardized test is well balanced, then would teaching to the test really leave significant gaps in knowledge? And shouldn't teachers, especially at lower levels, be teaching responsibility just as much as content? And I am sure that many of us have had AP teachers, not Mr. Stewart of course, who did not adequately prepare us for the test come May, and we were the ones who suffered for that. If AP teachers were assessed more heavily based on our performances on AP tests, then perhaps students would have better AP teachers and would be more prepared.
Here's the link to the article: New Yorker Article
Opinions? Discuss below!
This is a very interesting post! I personally think that using standardized tests as teacher evaluations would do more harm than good. Teacher performance should be measured on more than just one big test. How teachers interact with students in a classroom is equally important. Students are at different levels of academic achievement and a teacher's goal is to help everyone achieve as much as they can individually. A standardized test does not show where each student started and cannot determine how much they improved. It is not fair to mark a teacher down when a class gets average test scores, because without that teacher the scores could have been much worse.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really intriguing topic! I definitely agree with Kim on this one. Teachers shouldn't be tested on simply their knowledge on their main subject. It should be about how they interact with the students and more importantly, their ability to improvise in front of a class because a lesson can go in any direction.
ReplyDeleteNot saying I agree with this side, but one implication I could see with Ryan and Kim's arguments involves the effectiveness of the teacher in motivating his or her students. If New York schools aren't "college-ready," isn't it the job of the teacher to contribute to the college readiness of the students? Isn't part of this motivating students to take standardizing testing seriously? Shouldn't this motivation factor be a part of a teacher's fair, critical evaluation in order to improve quality of schools? For these reasons, shouldn't students' scores impact evaluations?
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to base a teacher's evaluations to be based on student improvement, but not performance. Maybe something that could be implemented to evaluate teachers is a specific test for each class that students take at beginning and ends of years to show how they've improved in that subject and certain skills. Just a thought. It would also, though, hold teachers accountable for very specific and cookie cutter way of teaching, which may not be necessarily the best for the students, and make the public education system much too uniform, which isn't always good. Its interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to base a teacher's evaluations to be based on student improvement, but not performance. Maybe something that could be implemented to evaluate teachers is a specific test for each class that students take at beginning and ends of years to show how they've improved in that subject and certain skills. Just a thought. It would also, though, hold teachers accountable for very specific and cookie cutter way of teaching, which may not be necessarily the best for the students, and make the public education system much too uniform, which isn't always good. Its interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to base a teacher's evaluations to be based on student improvement, but not performance. Maybe something that could be implemented to evaluate teachers is a specific test for each class that students take at beginning and ends of years to show how they've improved in that subject and certain skills. Just a thought. It would also, though, hold teachers accountable for very specific and cookie cutter way of teaching, which may not be necessarily the best for the students, and make the public education system much too uniform, which isn't always good. Its interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteI think it would depend on the difficulty of the test. For example, if the test were something like the AP Test, which takes months to prepare for, and is very intensive, it may create an interesting divide for teachers at the top. It would probably be good to tell how teachers were for high schools like Los Altos or others around here. However, it could cause problem in "lower-performing" schools that don't have the resources or test scores, as very few kids may do well there. However, there could also be the opposite effect. If the test is too easy for students here/similar high schools (such as the SBAC or other California standardized tests), the difference would be too small to really tell how good a teacher is.
ReplyDeleteI think it would depend on the difficulty of the test. For example, if the test were something like the AP Test, which takes months to prepare for, and is very intensive, it may create an interesting divide for teachers at the top. It would probably be good to tell how teachers were for high schools like Los Altos or others around here. However, it could cause problem in "lower-performing" schools that don't have the resources or test scores, as very few kids may do well there. However, there could also be the opposite effect. If the test is too easy for students here/similar high schools (such as the SBAC or other California standardized tests), the difference would be too small to really tell how good a teacher is.
ReplyDeleteI would say that this issue is a double edged sword; yes by having an incentive above a teachers head will certainly allow teachers who are "bad" rather you can fill in the definition. However for teachers whom have a definitive style which strives to teach the student how to think instead of what to think, to convert to a style that reflects a more what to think style. Also for students, it may change the learning experience which could go either way. However like you said there are problems as well as possible benefits, right now we can't say anything for sure unless we want to risk extrapolation. Though this also begs the question; what about students whom aren't good at test taking in general, students who could be really bright, just shut down by the circumstances of testing which then hurt the teacher. Should there be a more project based evaluation if any? I know I can't vouch for it, but it is an interesting idea to look over.
ReplyDeleteThere was a good jobs showing how standardized testing affects teachers on Last Week Tonight, showing some of the issues with judging teachers on their students' standardized testing performance. Teachers are judged based on how their students compare to their estimated result. If the student performs better than the estimation, the teacher is judged favorably, and the vice versa. One teacher's student was estimate to have a score that was three points above the highest possible score achievable for a student in that grade level, an impossible score. The student incidentally got a perfect score on the test, however, because the student's score was below her estimated score, the teacher was judged unfavorably.
ReplyDeleteThere was a good jobs showing how standardized testing affects teachers on Last Week Tonight, showing some of the issues with judging teachers on their students' standardized testing performance. Teachers are judged based on how their students compare to their estimated result. If the student performs better than the estimation, the teacher is judged favorably, and the vice versa. One teacher's student was estimate to have a score that was three points above the highest possible score achievable for a student in that grade level, an impossible score. The student incidentally got a perfect score on the test, however, because the student's score was below her estimated score, the teacher was judged unfavorably.
ReplyDelete