Sentences with phrase «not like teacher evaluations»

The union did not like teacher evaluations, but if you surveyed teachers as we did, there was a broad range of opinion.

Not exact matches

The disclosure of teacher evaluations has been firmly supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but is a sensitive issue for teachers unions, who point to other public employees not having their evaluations released to either the general public or a narrowly defined portion of the populace, like parents.

But he won't be persuaded to retreat from raising standards and implementing education reforms like teacher evaluations, he said.

No Child Left Behind was not great for us either, but certainly Race to the Top» ratcheted everything up, because it became clear that for districts in need to get money that they would have to make all these kinds of measure and punish ideas that they'd put across, like the teacher evaluation piece and all of that.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a news conference this morning did not mention the women's agenda as potential measures he'd like to push in the spring, but did note the Dream Act, public financing of political campaigns and changes to the teacher evaluation law were items he wished were in the budget.

«In truth some of the matters that are still open like teacher evaluation — these are not urgent matters,» Cuomo said.

She believes there's too much stress on students and teachers from tests that are badly created, and she doesn't like tying those test results to teacher evaluations.

The state budget is due in two months, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed a wide range of items that Democrats like and dislike, including an increase in the minimum wage, which they favor, and an expansion of charter schools, and tougher teacher evaluations, which they do not.

Note: Some of these provisions aren't in current law — some were in the stimulus bill (like Race to the Top), some are in Secretary Duncan's conditional waivers (like teacher evaluations), and some were in one of the bills passed in July (like Title I portability).

To be sure, mistakes were made: Not understanding the limitations or unintended consequences of federal leadership on education; a disastrous, ill - timed excursion into teacher evaluation reform; a technocratic impulse that was insufficiently sensitive to parents» concerns about issues like student privacy; and on and on.

It can't be blamed on policy changes like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) or Common Core or teacher evaluations, because the upward trend predates all of these policies.

Hawaii and Delaware are not exceptions: Across the country, the «new» teacher evaluations that include student growth continue to look a lot like the old ones that did not consider student performance.

That will be used as fodder to attack Common Core, teacher evaluations, charter schools, or whatever else you happen not to like that's prominent in today's education policy conversation.

But let's be honest: America's bluer states aren't likely to go this far anytime soon — states like Illinois, whose ESEA waiver request is languishing because of the teacher - evaluation issue.

It's moving in the exact opposite direction of teacher evaluation systems everywhere else, including places like Washington, D.C., where we've learned from experience that test scores should make up less, not more, of a teachers» evaluation.

We contend, however, that evaluations based on observations of classroom practice are valuable, even if they do not predict student achievement gains considerably better than more subjective methods like principal ratings of teachers.

He's right that nobody has found a perfect way to measure teacher performance, and that many evaluation ratings aren't as accurate as we'd like them to be (often because they're inflated).

Because of Ohio's federal waiver, Buckeye State districts couldn't just move to evaluations based on teacher observations and the like.

That helped us discover, for example, that many veteran teachers hadn't yet mastered crucial instructional skills like student engagement, even though they earned a high overall evaluation rating.

Again, like the teacher evaluation bill, it gave some people what they wanted and others not.

A few caveats: First, some of these provisions aren't in current law — some were in the stimulus bill (like Race to the Top), some are in Arne Duncan's conditional waivers (like teacher evaluations), and some are in one of the bills passed this month (like Title I portability).

In addition, our analysis does not compare value added with other measures of teacher quality, like evaluations based on classroom observation, which might be even better predictors of teachers» long - term impacts than VA scores.

To quote former U.S. Secretary of Education John King, «If teacher evaluation feels like a «gotcha» system, it won't work.»

And it turns out that, even after policies were changed, principals still were not sure what poor teaching looked like, still did not want to upset their staffs, and still did not think giving a negative evaluation was worth the ensuing tension and hassle — especially given contractual complications and doubts that superintendents would back up personnel actions against low - rated teachers.

• Race to the Top's enthusiasm for rigorous teacher evaluations led states to adopt «growth measures» in non-tested subjects (like P.E.) that don't pass the laugh test and are helping to fuel the backlash to testing and accountability writ large.

And it's not like policymakers have helped with any of this by reducing the paper burden associated with harsh evaluations or giving principals tools for dealing with now - embittered teachers.

That number is small compared to the Atlanta and Philadelphia scandals, yet with more state policies — like teacher evaluations, merit pay, and takeovers of schools with poor ISTEP + scores — riding on students» scores on state tests, state officials, education experts, and parents told StateImpact Indiana they see these pressures to get results as incentives for teachers who can't hack it to bend the rules on state tests.

I'm talking about things like teacher licensing mandates, which researchers have long found do not improve teacher quality and traffic in disproven education fads (but do provide easy - access cash cows for state departments of education and teacher colleges since teachers are required to keep buying their products to maintain certification); ever - increasing testing and data - entry mandates; centralized curriculum mandates like Common Core; centralized teacher evaluation and ratings systems; and the massive data entry required to document things like student behavior problems and special education services.

So, for my buddies in the charter world, this discursive narrative on Alan Watts, the road sign and the test, may read like something out of the Martian Chronicles — because state mandated teacher evaluations don't apply to us!

There are numerous other combinations like these few examples in which teachers have had their evaluations based on students that are not even in the same building (any teacher receiving a district's value - added rating as shared attribution).

Although there may be certain teachers leaving the profession in Illinois because of things like the Common Core (adopted in 2010) or new teacher evaluations (implemented in 2013), the data do not support the notion that waves of teachers are retiring because of these developments.

We hope that they won't pooh - pooh small innovations like a one - off charter school with a unique design, a teacher evaluation tool that a school district has worked hard to create and implement, or a set of standards that a community has created to reflect its values.

However, lacking any other method, such as extensive peer review, student - driven teacher evaluation, impartial audit, longitudinal outcome evaluation, or the like, we need to have some basis to establish whether or not everyone in the educational system, including students, are doing their jobs.

But here's the real issue: In this case, and exponentially growing numbers of cases like this across the country, the district decided to use a national versus state test (i.e., the SAT 10) which can (but should not) be used to test students in kindergarten and 1st grades, and then more importantly used to attribute growth on these tests over time to their teachers, again, to include more teachers in these evaluation systems.

They did not leave because of reforms like the new teacher evaluation system or the adoption of higher learning standards.

And parents don't know that our district will be the model for all others — because we do it best — we will collect SSP data in the form of social and emotional surveys, we will change our curriculum to socially engineer our children with social and emotional instruction without parents suspecting a thing, we will assess and survey up the wazoo about academics, school climate, cyberbullying, etc. while willing parents stand by, we will enhance our teacher evaluation program and refine it into a well - oiled teacher manipulation machine, and since our kids would do well no matter what because we have uber - involved parents, it will look like everything the Administrators are doing at the State's recommendation causes the success.

In the final analysis, we need to see principal evaluation, just like teacher evaluation, as a means to support improvement — not an end in itself.

«If you're going to wean school administrations away from focusing on the SBAC score as opposed to formative tests throughout the school year that identify the specific needs of the student, then you've got to stop treating SBAC like a high - stakes test that not only goes potentially to teacher evaluation, but to administrator evaluation, and to school ranking.

But then you start to drill down into the question of just what, exactly, «essential» looks like, and you realize it's not as simple as you might have hoped, particularly in the realm of teacher evaluation and how it affects student achievement.

``... while Hartford's public school students, parents, teachers and school administrators are crippled by the Common Core, the Common Core SBAC testing scam and Connecticut's unfair teacher evaluation system, Luke Bronin's child is attending a school that DOES N'T adhere to the Common Core SYSTEM, doesn't force children to take the unfair Common Core SBAC testing program and treats their school teachers like the education professionals that they are.&raqN'T adhere to the Common Core SYSTEM, doesn't force children to take the unfair Common Core SBAC testing program and treats their school teachers like the education professionals that they are.»

While I disagree with its spot atop the Education Reform «To Do» List, I'd still like to share a logical teacher's perspective on teacher evaluations that focuses on teacher improvement and professional development, not firing teachers.

Many approaches, like teacher evaluation, simply did not work and caused irreparable harm to teachers and children.

There are also urban districts that have not done that: that have, like San Francisco, put more money into the schools serving high - need kids with a weighted student formula; that have really worked to have a better, stronger hiring process; that have put in place induction [mentoring], and stronger feedback, and teacher evaluation systems.

While groups like ConnCAN, a New - Haven based reform group, have pushed for tests playing an overwhelming role in evaluations, teachers» unions have resisted saying that many students don't do well on tests.

Meanwhile, White has promoted linking test results to teacher evaluations and compensation — something teachers unions don't like.

And in addition, while Hartford's public school students, parents, teachers and school administrators are crippled by the Common Core, the Common Core SBAC testing scam and Connecticut's unfair teacher evaluation system, Luke Bronin's child is attending a school that DOES N'T adhere to the Common Core SYSTEM, doesn't force children to take the unfair Common Core SBAC testing program and treats their school teachers like the education professionals that they aN'T adhere to the Common Core SYSTEM, doesn't force children to take the unfair Common Core SBAC testing program and treats their school teachers like the education professionals that they are.

In Michigan, StudentsFirst spent $ 955,000 last fall to push an education package that included evaluating teachers primarily by student test scores and restricting union bargaining rights (so issues like the new evaluation system would not be subject to negotiation).

I've previously posted about studies that have found that the laser - like focus on raising student test scores often identifies teachers who are good at doing that, but those VAM - like measures tend to short - change educators who are good at developing Social Emotional or «non-cognitive skills» (see More Evidence Showing The Dangers Of Using High - Stakes Testing For Teacher Evaluation; Another Study Shows Limitations Of Standardized Tests For Teacher Evaluations; Study Finds Teachers Whose Students Achieve High Test Scores Often Don't Do As Well With SEL Skills and SEL Weekly teachers who are good at doing that, but those VAM - like measures tend to short - change educators who are good at developing Social Emotional or «non-cognitive skills» (see More Evidence Showing The Dangers Of Using High - Stakes Testing For Teacher Evaluation; Another Study Shows Limitations Of Standardized Tests For Teacher Evaluations; Study Finds Teachers Whose Students Achieve High Test Scores Often Don't Do As Well With SEL Skills and SEL Weekly Teachers Whose Students Achieve High Test Scores Often Don't Do As Well With SEL Skills and SEL Weekly Update).