Sentences with phrase «other teacher evaluation measures»

Moreover, the two premises represent a tautology — student test score growth is the most important measure, and we have to choose other teacher evaluation measures based on their correlation with student test score growth because student test score growth is the most important measure... This point, by the way, has already been made about the Gates study, as well as about seniority - based layoffs and about test - based policies in general.

Not exact matches

To ensure that the City and the state's other districts fulfill New York's promises to its schoolchildren, we request that you introduce a back - stop measure that requires districts to develop teacher evaluation plans by August 31, 2012.

Whatever the parties negotiate or King decides, the evaluation system will be based 20 percent on standardized test scores when applicable, 20 percent on other evidence of student learning and 60 percent on classroom observation and other measures of teacher effectiveness, in keeping with the 2010 state law on teacher evaluation.

BOX 23, A-15-4; 30219212 / 734979 SAPA Requests for Translations of SAPA materials, 1966 - 1968 Prerequisites for SAPA The Psychological Basis of SAPA, 1965 Requests for SAPA to be Used in Canada, 1966 - 1968 Requests for Assistance with Inservice programs, 1967 - 1968 Schools Using SAPA, 1966 - 1968 Speakers on SAPA for NSTA and Other Meetings, 1968 Suggestions for Revisions of Part 4, 1967 - 1968 Suggestions for Revisions of the Commentary, 1967 - 1968 Summer Institutes for SAPA, Locations, 1968 Summer Institutes for SAPA, Announcement Forms, 1968 Inservice Programs, 1968 - 1969 Consultant Recommendations, 1967 - 1968 Inquiries About Films, 1968 Inquiries About Kits, 1967 - 1968 Inquiries About Evaluations, 1968 Tryout Teacher List, 1967 - 1968 Tryout Centers, 1967 - 1968 Tryout Feedback Forms, 1967 - 1968 Tryout Center Coordinators, 1967 - 1968 Cancelled Tryout Centers, 1967 - 1968 Volunteer Teachers for Parts F & G, 1967 - 1968 List of Teachers for Tryout Centers, 1963 - 1966 Tucson, AZ, Dr. Ed McCullough, 1964 - 1968 Tallahassee, FL, Mr. VanPierce, 1964 - 1968 Chicago, IL, University of Chicago, Miss Illa Podendorf, 1965 - 1969 Monmouth, IL, Professor David Allison, 1964 - 1968 Overland Park, KS, Mr. R. Scott Irwin and Mrs. John Muller, 1964 - 1968 Baltimore, MD, Mr. Daniel Rochowiak, 1964 - 1968 Kern County, CA, Mr. Dale Easter and Mr. Edward Price, 1964 - 1967 Philadelphia, PA, Mrs. Margaret Efraemson, 1968 Austin, TX, Dr. David Butts, 1968 Seattle, WA, Mrs. Louisa Crook, 1968 Oshkosh, WI, Dr. Robert White, 1968 John R. Mayer, personal correspondence, 1966 - 1969 Teacher Response Sheets, 1966 - 1967 Overland, KS Oshkosh, WI Monmouth, IL Baltimore, MD Teacher Response Checklist SAPA Feedback, 1965 - 1966 Using Time Space Relations Communicating Observing Formulating Models Defining Operationally Interpreting Data Classifying (2 Folders) Measuring Inferring Predicting Formulating Hypothesis Controlling Variables Experimenting Using Numbers SAPA Response Sheets for Competency Measures, 1966

But not for all the usual reasons that people raise concerns: the worry about whether we've got good measures of teacher performance, especially for instructors in subjects other than reading and math; the likelihood that tying achievement to evaluations will spur teaching to the test in ways that warp instruction and curriculum; the futility of trying to «principal - proof» our schools by forcing formulaic, one - size - fits - all evaluation models upon all K — 12 campuses; the terrible timing of introducing new evaluation systems at the same time that educators are working to implement the Common Core.

Tilles raises legitimate concerns about the use of these tests — the quality of the tests, their snapshot nature, the unintended consequences of their being high stakes — but seems to forget that 20 % of the teacher score comes from «locally - selected measures of student achievement» and that 60 % of evaluation is based on «other measures.»

This evaluation problem is further complicated by the fact that schools have goals other than cognitive achievement (for instance, promoting citizenship, fostering individual development, and reducing drug use and violence) that are difficult to measure and are often achieved only with teachers» cooperation.

Some favor subjective measures such as a principal's evaluation of the teacher, which has its own critics who fear favoritism, and some rely on a combination of these and other factors.

On the left, some of the opposition to Common Core and its assessments is related to broader resistance to high - stakes testing, the linking of student scores to teacher evaluations, and other reform measures such as school choice, which some see as «corporate school reform.»

While this approach contrasts starkly with status quo «principal walk - through» styles of class observation, its use is on the rise in new and proposed evaluation systems in which rigorous classroom observation is often combined with other measures, such as teacher value - added based on student test scores.

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.

Critics also contend that standardized tests are only one measure of student performance, and must be considered alongside other assessment tools, including classroom work, student portfolios, and teacher evaluations.

By combining teacher - student links with the ability to measure achievement gains using common assessments, we could be generating lower - cost, faster - turnaround evaluations of curricula and other educational interventions.

Other measures would allow new routes to teacher and principal certification, tie student performance to teacher and principal evaluations, and allow for the expansion of the state's charter sector.

One of the commitments that Washington — and every State that received ESEA flexibility — made was to put in place teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that take into account information on student learning growth based on high - quality college - and career - ready (CCR) State assessments as a significant factor in determining teacher and principal performance levels, along with other measures of professional practice such as classroom observations.

In addition, some research, including an ongoing study of measures of effective teaching supported by the Gates Foundation, gives credence to the use of student achievement measures when combined with other measures, such as teacher observations and student feedback, as part of an effective teacher evaluation system.

The most - positive aspect of Kline's plan lies with its requirement that states develop teacher evaluation systems that use student test score growth data (along with other «multiple measures) in evaluating teacher performance.

Under the Annual Professional Performance Review system, each teacher receives a summary evaluation based on state - approved and local measures of student performance (including the teacher's VAM score), classroom observations, and other measures.

This finding has a significant impact on teachers and schools as policy makers put more emphasis on the labels for performance funding, teacher evaluations and other accountability measures.

Second, other measures of teacher performance, such as principal evaluations, student ratings, or classroom observations, may ultimately prove to be better predictors of teachers» long - term impacts on students than VAMs.

Toch praised the recommendations for «establishing clear standards» for evaluations and using other measures such as «student surveys, teachers» contributions to school culture, and, perhaps, students» academic success.»

In this case, this might be observed when VAM estimates of teacher (or school / district) effectiveness relate, or more specifically correlate well with other measures (e.g., supervisor evaluation scores) that are also developed to measure the same construct (e.g., teacher effectiveness) at or around the same time.

As a general rule, as I explained in another CKN brief, it is often a waste of resources to collect multiple measures of the same performance construct, except to the extent that additional measures improve validity and reliability when used in combination with other measures or that additional measures are used in part for formative teacher evaluation.

Value - added scores account for up to 50 percent of evaluations in some states, and a smaller portion in many others, with the remainder of teachers» ratings comprised of classroom observations and other measures.

Teachers gain these units through professional development, strong evaluations, and gains in learning outcomes, among other measures.

In the same year, a policy report from the Brookings Institute, Evaluating Teachers: The Important Role of Value - Added suggested that VAM should not be measured against an abstract ideal, but rather should be compared to other teacher evaluation methods to determine its potential usefulness.

When used in conjunction with principal observation and other measures of teacher performance, VAM increases the validity and reliability of the evaluation process and contributes to improvement of educator evaluation systems, according to the report.

I also argued (but this was unfortunately not highlighted in this particular article), that I could not find anything about the New Mexico model's output (e.g., indicators of reliability or consistency in terms of teachers» rankings over time, indicators of validity as per, for example, whether the state's value - added output correlated, or not, with the other «multiple measures» used in New Mexico's teacher evaluation system), pretty much anywhere given my efforts.

Requiring regular evaluations of teachers using multiple measures based on clear standards for effective practice, measures of student achievement growth, and other measures such as observations and lesson plans or other artifacts of practice.

I'm also not clear as to why teacher accountability (through evaluation of student learning by test scores and other, richer measures) runs counter to teaching students the value of self - discipline and motivation.

The foundation has also drawn to a close its multi-year Measures of Effective Teaching project that among other things encouraged linking teacher evaluations to student performance, including test scores.

Another sticking point is the requirement from the Obama administration that students» test scores or other measures of academic growth be a «significant factor» in teacher evaluations by 2014.

They also, along with others troubled by New York's — particularly NYC's — notorious achievement gaps, yearned to release school leaders from the muzzle of LIFO, which requires that teachers be laid off by seniority, not effectiveness, and change old - school subjective teacher evaluations to reflect student academic growth, measured in part through standardized test scores.

Under the new process, 50 % of a teacher's evaluation would be based on walk - through observations and the other 50 % would be based on so - called «shared - attribution measures» — i.e., a district - wide value - added measure of student growth, based on -LSB-...] More

While mayors, superintendents and other local leaders around the nation carefully consider including testing data in teacher evaluations, they need to invest just as much energy and effort into ensuring that these measures are thoughtfully implemented.

Under the new system, a full 60 percent of principals» evaluations must be based on «subjective» measures, those other than students» academic performance, the same as is required in teachers» evaluations.

Education officials in other states and districts have made the same argument to justify the use of similar «collective measures» in their teacher evaluations.

Even though other measures (such as observations) make up the majority of each teacher's evaluation, student performance measures could have a big impact on a teacher's final rating.

Some of the support can be ascribed to the fact that both Brown and the State Board of Education did not succumb to pressures from both the Obama administration and advocacy organizations to apply for waivers from the No Child Left Behind that would have required the state to link teacher evaluations to student test scores or other measures of «student academic growth.»

The Obama administration offered waivers from the law's requirement that states steadily increase the number of students graded proficient on standardized exams to 37 states that agreed to other accountability measures, including new evaluations for teachers and principals.

Any useful system of evaluation, including these bold California initiatives, will have measures of student performance and progress along with other important indicators of teacher effectiveness.

A reliable evaluation system must incorporate other measures of effectiveness, like students» feedback about their teachers and classroom observations by highly trained peer evaluators and principals.

MaryEllen Elia, the state education commissioner, said in a phone interview that she was «absolutely in favor» of using test scores and other measures of student performance in teacher evaluations.

For teachers and principals, 35 % of the evaluation will be based on student growth (TVAAS where it is available, or some other comparable measure of student growth).

In exchange, these states promised to implement rigorous new teacher evaluation systems that, among other things, include measures of student learning growth.

«Given the lack of broad - based stakeholder input into the waiver, the unrealistic timelines for implementing the teacher evaluation system under the waiver, the lack of research - based support for evaluating teachers based on student performance on state tests, and the dearth of vetted alternative measures of student learning available to use for teachers other than those teaching grades 5 - 9 reading and math, we recommend the Legislature delay taking action to implement the waiver's teacher evaluation system requirements, and urge the commissioner to continue to negotiate for more flexibility in the waiver regarding the teacher evaluation requirements, as well as to seek an extension from USDE regarding the timeline under which to implement the new system,» Eaton testified.

Using «Multiple Measures» Does Not Reduce Testing: Combining standardized test scores with other kinds of information in teacher evaluation systems — known as the «multiple measures» strategy — does nothing to reduce the disruption testing brings to school routines and student lMeasures» Does Not Reduce Testing: Combining standardized test scores with other kinds of information in teacher evaluation systems — known as the «multiple measures» strategy — does nothing to reduce the disruption testing brings to school routines and student lmeasures» strategy — does nothing to reduce the disruption testing brings to school routines and student learning.

Evaluation systems often attempt to offset the focus on test score data by incorporating other measures of teacher effectiveness, including observations, peer review, and other teacher materials.

(15) If standardized test scores form a substantial part of a school or a teacher's evaluation, there is likely to be considerable pressure to align other measures with the test score data.

Mr. Cerf said districts that want the federal funds must also set up a teacher evaluation system that takes student test scores and other measures of student progress into account — a nearly unheard - of practice in New Jersey.