Reader Scubus has a detailed response to yesterday’s story about Florida’s teacher evaluation formula:
You know how hurricane models vary in their predictions, and are not often in agreement or 100% accurate? That is a similar mathematical model. They are only as good as the underlying assumptions.
In addition, study after study shows that children in poverty do not learn at the same rate as more affluent students (which has NOTHING to do with intelligence, just opportunity) no matter how much state officials want that to be true. In addition, the model makes no allowances for attendance (I have a number of students every year who miss one quarter or more of my classes.)
Finally, a single standardized test alone tells us very, very little about an individual student. Students may have a great day or a poor day…
I do not, nor do many teachers, disagree with the goal – just the model. If there were an accurate means to grade a teacher most would be onboard. This isn’t it, and such a system has never existed. And globally, school systems that are models of success know this and do not use testing in this manner for a reason.
What are your thoughts?