Kentucky, for instance, considers the quality of schools» programs
in nontested subjects, such as world languages, arts, and humanities.
Prior research suggests that such intensive test - based accountability can lead to behaviors, such as teaching to the test, that increase scores without improvements in underlying learning or through reduced learning
in nontested subjects.
They also argue that it is unfair for teachers
in nontested subjects to be judged by the scores of students they don't even teach, as some states» evaluation systems require.
In districts that use school - wide VAM output to evaluate teachers
in nontested subject areas, in fact, principals reported regularly ignoring VAM output altogether (p. 99 - 100).
Not exact matches
As full implementation of both the teacher and principal evaluation systems looms for September 2013, it is imperative that boards of education, district leaders, and the DOE ensure that principals and teachers have a viable curriculum based on the Common Core Standards; valid and reliable assessment tools to measure growth
in every
subject area (tested and
nontested); and time to work
in professional teams to set growth targets, analyze data, and provide the appropriate instructional interventions for every student.
That may be because
in Tennessee, teachers of
nontested grades and
subjects get part of their evaluation score based on schoolwide performance.
Measures not based on student test scores have a special significance
in nontested grades and
subjects.