For the first time,
an objective measure of teacher effectiveness — based on standardized tests that measure student learning — will be part of annual evaluations.
But the Obama administration, which was elected with teacher - union support, has pushed for
objective measures of teacher effectiveness, and some union leaders have gradually shifted positions.
Most teachers» unions have not supported these new evaluation laws and will look for any excuse to gut them and go back to the world where there were
no objective measures of teacher effectiveness.
Not exact matches
Our
objective is to
measure the impact
of practice - based performance evaluation on
teacher effectiveness.
By mandating that all states develop annual standardized tests to
measure student performance, NCLB created
objective standards that could be used for other purposes, too — including as an ostensible means
of judging
teacher effectiveness.
Teaching is entirely over scrutinized — what other profession has a multitude
of evaluators who sit in the worker's cubicle, office, or warehouse and take verbatim notes
of what is seen and heard, then evaluates them with no
objective means because there is simply no way to objectively
measure a
teacher's
effectiveness to ALL students.
With EA as your partner, you'll get
objective and expertly developed
measures of teacher or school
effectiveness.
Artificial inflation is a term I recently coined to represent what is / was happening in Houston, and elsewhere (e.g., Tennessee), when district leaders (e.g., superintendents) mandate or force principals and other
teacher effectiveness appraisers or evaluators to align their observational ratings
of teachers»
effectiveness with
teachers» value - added scores, with the latter being (sometimes relentlessly) considered the «
objective measure» around which all other
measures (e.g., subjective observational
measures) should revolve, or align.
«I fully recognize that any system
of accountability will not be able to perfectly
measure teacher effectiveness, but I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the closest thing states have to an
objective measure of student achievement should not be part
of the equation.
Changing the current evaluation system to focus on improved student outcomes, including
objective measures of student growth, is critical to improving
teacher effectiveness, raising student achievement, and meeting the
objectives of the federal «No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001.»
Also recall that one
of the key reports that triggered the current call for VAMs, as the «more
objective»
measures needed to
measure and therefore improve
teacher effectiveness, was based on data that suggested that «too many
teachers» were being rated as satisfactory or above.
No matter how many times our commissioner might say it, these tests are NOT
objective measures of a
teacher's
effectiveness.