General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 20-fold increase in standardized testing coming with Gates Foundation's "Common Core": [View all]maggiesfarmer
(297 posts)sure, here you go: Huff Post summary links there to full studies, with criticism.
here's where we're at. We have data that shows test scores tightly correlate to the teacher being the overwhelming factor correlating to student scucess, within the scope of public education. I think we disagree on whether those test scores are representative of student learning. the answer is, maybe.
let's limit this discussion to mathematics for the moment. at the K-12 level we're talking pre-arithmetic through calculus. it's fairly objective, builds on itself (both of which I admit makes my argument easier but bear with me) and I actually have a minor in math so I feel somewhat credible here, even though I don't have an education background. Current standardized tests exist which do an outstanding job of measuring those skills. The SAT, ACT and GRE are outstanding examples of this. The CPA exam and GMAT are examples of a standardized tests that many feel do a good job of testing one's skills in applied math. Actually, the Praxis could probably be cited here as well.
Let's assume that we test students annually, K through 12 in math where at the end of each year there tested on a comprehensive level that covers material from K through current year + 2, with emphasis on this years information. If we gather this data each year, soon we'll have trend data that might reveal:
- within a given school system, students average improvement in math skills of 15% YOY; over a three year period, Mr. Jones' 4th grade students only average 10%, while other 4th grade math teachers show the same 15% average. if at the end of 5th grade those kids are back to 15% improvement that says something even stronger.
- within the same school system over a three year period, Mrs. Smith's 4th grade students average 25%, while other 4th grade math teachers show the same 15% average. likewise if after 5th grade, Smith's 4th grade students are back to 15% that reinforces the correlation
both of these indications, along with appropriate review and other evaluation methods, help identify top and bottom performers. again, not suggesting test scores be the only tool in the box. yes, students and teachers are people, not numbers, but numbers can help identify which people are doing the most good, or harm.
now, I'm convinced that I just laid out a logical argument that standardized tests in math are an effective means of identifying top and bottom performing teachers and therefore could be used as an evaluation tool. my reasoning depends on
1. an assertion that standardized math tests could be implemented at the K-12 level where test scores correlate tightly to student's comprehension of math. if we disagree here, let me know. I'm not suggesting that current implementations are ideal -- I'm sure they could be improved
2. an assumption that math is a skill we should be teaching (i.e. I assume that math skills lead to valuable job skills).
3. a basic understanding of statistics and how using trend data to improve the system is not anything like "treating people as a number". if a teacher is identified by trend data as not being a good conductor of information, that should be used as a indicator of "something to look into" -- Again, I'm not advocating that this be the sole means of evaluation. If this sort of trend data allows us to spot a poor performing teacher, isn't that good?