Not exact matches
The authors point out that the Cincinnati system of evaluation is different from the standard practice in place in most American school districts, where perfunctory evaluations
assign the vast majority of
teachers «satisfactory»
ratings, leading many to «characterize classroom observation as a hopelessly flawed approach to assessing
teacher effectiveness.»
In other words, despite the fact that TES evaluators tended to
assign relatively high scores on average, there is a fair amount of variation from
teacher to
teacher that we can use to examine the relationship between TES
ratings and classroom
effectiveness.
This is particularly important as illustrated in the prior post (Footnote 8 of the full piece to be exact), because «
Teacher effectiveness ratings were based on, in order of importance by the proportion of weight
assigned to each indicator [including first and foremost]: (1) scores derived via [this] district - created and purportedly «rigorous» (Dee & Wyckoff, 2013, p. 5) yet invalid (i.e., not having been validated) observational instrument with which
teachers are observed five times per year by different folks, but about which no psychometric data were made available (e.g., Kappa statistics to test for inter-rater consistencies among scores).»
Chances are the performance of these two
teachers is really not that different, but because of the cut points
assigned to different
effectiveness ratings, these
teachers are given very different messages about how successful they are in their careers.
Teachers in Tennessee are
assigned one of five
effectiveness ratings based on their job performance: Significantly Above Expectation, Above Expectation, At Expectation, Below Expectation, and Significantly Below Expectation.