What is the Best Way to Evaluate Teachers?

[NewtonTrino]

People can be fired under most contracts, what makes you think they can't?

In fact competency is a core of moste valuations, maybe you should actually go to a school and look inside.

In my state when doing layoffs they go with seniority, not competency.

Do you have a state that's different? Sure if someone is totally imcompetent they can (maybe) get them fired. But what about when you need to make cuts? E.g. like now.

 

[theprestige]

IIRC, home emphasis on education and homework outweighs other factors by orders of magnitude. Once I learned that (and that Asian countries with class size of 40 or more lay waste to the US in quality of student education) I stopped being so concerned about

Oh jeeze, it's the part where Ani is riding the giant tick and Padme is laughing. Oh noe, he fell off and is hurt!

Oh, whew! He's just faking to make her laugh. This relieves me.


Anyway, I stopped caring so much about classroom issues per se. But that works in both directions -- the importance of small classes also evaporates. It's not just about teacher evaluations, or books, money, or even public vs. private, compared to home emphasis.

it's not often that we agree on issues, but this is one.
i was a teacher for over 25 years.

the value that is placed on education in the home is a extremely important factor in a student's success.
i live in northern alberta, where the oil patch pays big wages. a 17 or 18 year old kid can make 2-5 thousand a month in the patch. in families that are all patch workers, fewer kids graduate. 4-5 thousand a month working on the rigs trumps high school.

my students tended to work at provincial averages. i had fewer failures than some teachers, but that came at the cost of fewer at excellence, since i tended to work more with the kids that had the greatest struggle.

there is no doubt that the home environment is the strongest factor affecting student achievement.

Lemme re-ask the question, as stated:



How can parent participation be measured?

Can (should) parents be held legally accountable for the failure of their children?

Could the same standards be applied to communities and local governments?

I met with some teachers this morning (six, at church), and they seemed to agree that one of their worst problems occur when parents abdicate all responsibility for their children's education.

So how can the parents be evaluated? Should they be evaluated?

All this discussion about the importance of parent engagement brings to my mind the following points, in a thinking-out-loud kind of way:

• If it's the parents that make the biggest difference, and by so much, why are we so hot to spend all this money on the teachers?
• Wouldn't we be way better off slashing school budgets to the bone, returning most of it to the taxpayers, and spending the remainder on programs to encourage parent participation in educating their children?
• I mean, wouldn't a dollar spent on parent engagement be worth "orders of magnitude" more than a dollar spent on teacher salaries?
• And isn't it possible that parent apathy stems in part from the several decades of wrongheaded hyping of the school and the teachers as the really important part of education?
• And if teachers really aren't as important to education as they're hyped up to be, how much are they really worth, anyway?
• Not only that, but if education is primarily about the parents, then it seems to me our education system is working just fine, and most kids are getting exactly as much education as their parents want them to get.
• Well, except for those parents who have been misled into thinking that it's the teachers and schools that will be doing most of the work.
• And those parents who lack the resources necessary to engage with their children's education as much as they'd like.
• You know who should probably get all the resources teachers' unions are demanding these days? Those parents.

 

[Startz]

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence that teachers are incredibly important to student outcomes. One number often cited is that the difference between a really top teacher and a poor one is 1.5 years of student academic achievement over the course of one year.

Parents are very important. That doesn't mean teachers are not very important. For those interested, I wrote about the logical fallacy involved at http://profitofeducation.org/?p=708

 

[theprestige]

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence that teachers are incredibly important to student outcomes. One number often cited is that the difference between a really top teacher and a poor one is 1.5 years of student academic achievement over the course of one year.

Parents are very important. That doesn't mean teachers are not very important. For those interested, I wrote about the logical fallacy involved at http://profitofeducation.org/?p=708

Oh, I agree that teachers are important. But if parents are "orders of magnitude" more important, and we keep throwing money at teachers, and education outcomes keep not improving the way we would like, don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we're throwing money in the wrong direction? Don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we've been throwing money in the wrong direction for some time, and that the solution isn't to throw more money at teachers, but rather less (and maybe throw more money at parents instead)?

 

[Startz]

Oh, I agree that teachers are important. But if parents are "orders of magnitude" more important, and we keep throwing money at teachers, and education outcomes keep not improving the way we would like, don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we're throwing money in the wrong direction? Don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we've been throwing money in the wrong direction for some time, and that the solution isn't to throw more money at teachers, but rather less (and maybe throw more money at parents instead)?

We don't keep throwing money at teachers. Teacher salaries, compared to other college-educated workers, have fallen over the last several decades. We have greatly increased spending on K-12 schools, but it hasn't gone into higher teacher salaries.

 

[Malerin]

There are is an issue in standardized testing itself:

-aggregate scores, which is what NCLB uses, they do not track student progress individually, they lump them together and set an arbitrary standard. So every student could show marked gains in all areas but the aggregate would not reflect that.

Off the top of my head, here are the issues that impact students:

-low SES and the stress of that life, especially when your parents works and has no car
-family culture, especially older sibs and the like
-neighborhood culture
-family chaos, domestic violence, substance abuse and unstable housing
-violence in the neighborhood and family
-frequent moves as a result of other factors
-teen parents (twenty when your baby is in kindergarten)
-absent parents

and my favorite

There are no provisions made for the slow learners, these are the students who are one standard deviation below the mean to two standard deviations below the mean.

So they have an IQ of 85-70 and they get no extra services, they are not learning disabled because their test scores (in calls and home work) reflect their IQ, they are not cognitively impaired (ie retarded) because their IQ is above 70.

So five teen percent of the population will start behind and loose grounds as they age, they will not keep up with their peers, no matter what. But no extra services for them,

(ie retarded)

 

[Malerin]

People can be fired under most contracts, what makes you think they can't?

In fact competency is a core of moste valuations, maybe you should actually go to a school and look inside.

I've been with the local teacher's union for 8 years now (site rep, VP, and now president). I'm never seen a teacher let go for incompetence. It doesn't happen.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I've been with the local teacher's union for 8 years now (site rep, VP, and now president). I'm never seen a teacher let go for incompetence. It doesn't happen.

The unions must vary in strength. I've seen teachers fired for incompetence from my kids school as well as schools my wife worked at. Well, non-renewed is the term they use.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

As with many things, there is no set criteria but you know it when you see it.

There are some crappy teachers out there, yes. Uneducated, unprepared, untrained. There are some who just plain wrong for the job and should be off working in a cubicle somewhere.

However, it is the students and the parents who should be blamed for the sad state of affairs. In my personal experience, even the best teacher can't help someone from a bad environment who does not want to help him or herself.

 

[theprestige]

We don't keep throwing money at teachers. Teacher salaries, compared to other college-educated workers, have fallen over the last several decades. We have greatly increased spending on K-12 schools, but it hasn't gone into higher teacher salaries.

Thanks for the information. My point isn't so much against spending money on teachers, so much as it is for spending money on whatever it is that really matters right now.

All the greatly increased spending on K-12 schools, would teachers agree that some or all of that increase would have been better spent on parent engagement?

 

[bigred]

I've been with the local teacher's union for 8 years now (site rep, VP, and now president). I'm never seen a teacher let go for incompetence. It doesn't happen.

Good ol unions. :vomit: My understand is that it is rare, at least, although mileages may vary.

All the greatly increased spending on K-12 schools, would teachers agree that some or all of that increase would have been better spent on parent engagement?

I really really doubt it and understandably so. I think money spent on parents would mostly be a hideous waste. Ahole parents are ahole parents and throwing some "parent participation encouragement program" or the like won't change anything, least of all them, in most cases.

Generally though, I really don't think it's about money.

 

[fuelair]

Oh, I agree that teachers are important. But if parents are "orders of magnitude" more important, and we keep throwing money at teachers, and education outcomes keep not improving the way we would like, don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we're throwing money in the wrong direction? Don't we at some point have to consider the possibility that we've been throwing money in the wrong direction for some time, and that the solution isn't to throw more money at teachers, but rather less (and maybe throw more money at parents instead)?

Where have we been throwing money at teachers??? Really, I want to move there!!!

 

[Dancing David]

I've been with the local teacher's union for 8 years now (site rep, VP, and now president). I'm never seen a teacher let go for incompetence. It doesn't happen.

That is the fault of the adminsitration is it not? The power exists but it not used? So fire the principal first, then the assistant superindendant and the superindendant.

I have seen staff fired for incompetance.

 

[Dancing David]

(ie retarded)

What was the point?

Does your school district provide extra services to the slow learners, do you even know?

 

[Dancing David]

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence that teachers are incredibly important to student outcomes. One number often cited is that the difference between a really top teacher and a poor one is 1.5 years of student academic achievement over the course of one year.

And how did they control for student placement in class rooms? Tt is not random. Principals usually assign them.

 

[Dancing David]

In my state when doing layoffs they go with seniority, not competency.

And that is different from any other bussiness , how?

Most bussinesses are even worse, cronism and capricious favoritism exists in teh private scetor as well.

In my district there are two pools, tenure and non-tenure. There is no seniority within the pool, tenured teachers do not have seniority. They can be RIFed after all the non-tenure teachers are RIFed.

Do you have a state that's different? Sure if someone is totally imcompetent they can (maybe) get them fired. But what about when you need to make cuts? E.g. like now.

Most contract have guidelines for how to fire people, so who is at fault?

the people who do not exercise that option?

Core competancy is part of evaluations, you can could be fired for being incompetant.

And how is that different from the common practices in private bussiness, there is usually the same practice?

In fact bussiness is not better at keeping competant employess than schools.

The issue is competancy, and the problem with standard tests is that they do not test for the single largest skill a teacher MUST have, class room management.


[aside]
Now I do have problems with the way staff invoke in the teachers union invoke the union contract when it does not apply. But that is also a problem that the admins need to address, not in the contract, not a union issue.

My union non-certified support staff: secrataries, teacher's aides, techs, operations, maintainenece, everyone who is not 'certified staff', we get fired all the time. But then we DO have seniority.

So if my placement goes away (which it most likely is), I go to the top of the list. I can be passed over for someone with 'nessecary skills' however.

 

[Startz]

And how did they control for student placement in class rooms? Tt is not random. Principals usually assign them.

There are a whole series of studies along these lines. In most, they use value added measures. This controls for student ability, although not perfectly. In some studies students are in fact assigned randomly as part of the experiment.

 

[bigred]

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence that teachers are incredibly important to student outcomes

The fact that statistical evidence is even needed for such an obvious truth itself speaks volumes about the state of education. Good grief.

 

[truethat]

The problem with teacher evaluations is that schools teach to test in order to get additional funding. (at least here in NYC) and that schools are reluctant to fail students who deserve to be failed because it reflects poorly on the school.

Student evaluations that are matched with their results would be a good way to do it in my opinion.

Take the top ten and bottom ten percent of the class and have them evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher. Then examine the opinions as juxtaposed with performance. That would be one way to get a better picture.

 

[Dancing David]

There are a whole series of studies along these lines. In most, they use value added measures. This controls for student ability, although not perfectly. In some studies students are in fact assigned randomly as part of the experiment.

The problem that I see is that besides the fact that good principles spread around the disruptive students (high flyers), other principles punish staff with disruptive students or dump them on new staff.

So you need a tighter control than value added, then there is also the placement of slow students.

That is a serious artifact.