Why don't they simply make every student take a standard test and rate teachers on that?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

Anyone who thinks that is a good idea is a moron!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

The teacher could only teach the material on the test, so that would be setting the curriculum. You agree with nationalized Common Core?

Not the specific curriculum of Common Core or with politicized messages. However, Math, for example, is not political in nature. I believe there should be a standardized Math test.

In fact, I believe the funding of your school should be based on the previous year's median income of everyone who has ever graduated from your school.

Common Core is NOT a curriculum, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

The teacher could only teach the material on the test, so that would be setting the curriculum. You agree with nationalized Common Core?

Not the specific curriculum of Common Core or with politicized messages. However, Math, for example, is not political in nature. I believe there should be a standardized Math test.

In fact, I believe the funding of your school should be based on the previous year's median income of everyone who has ever graduated from your school.

There are already standardized math tests, so you're all set.

Did you just very recently start taking an interest in educational matters? Because you have some pretty uneducated ideas.

Are teachers paid based on the test scores of their students?

Are dentists paid by how many cavities their patients get?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course...students are widgets....they all respond exactly the same to instruction.

No, some are smarter than others.

I'm not opposed, by the way, to teachers being expected to be at least competent, if not great. Do not mistake me. It's not okay to have sub-adequate teachers in our classrooms. But I don't think you measure this by output on standardized tests, because you are talking in some cases about young children coming from a variety of backgrounds who, in some situations, just CANNOT learn. No matter what the teacher does or does not do, or how competent the teacher is.

There are other methods of judging teacher competency that, when blended with student standardized test achievement over time, would give a better picture. But not a snapshot of student test achievement one year and then one year and then one year. Because there are too many learning factors at play over which the teacher has no control.

They would have to create an algorithm that factored in the student's performance at the beginning of the course as well as the performance gains the student has made in the past when making an analysis based on the score. You simply have to minimize subjective analysis.

How would that precious "algorithm" factor in that the student has newly lost his home because his father is in prison, his mother has committed suicide and he is in foster homes now?

You realize humans are not widgets, right, and none of how we respond to anything is "simply"????

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

 

[candycorn]

I don’t think it is a good idea myself.

That being said, going upward from a year-by-year basis and taking a look at Mrs. Henry’s class over 5-10 years is probably a good idea. If the graduates of Mrs. Henry’s math class are constantly failing the periodically given standardized tests…that should be a cause for concern.

I’m guessing that districts or State boards of education never do that sort of thing and trace students who fail or not do well on the test back to a specific instructor.

 

[RandomPoster]

No, some are smarter than others.

I'm not opposed, by the way, to teachers being expected to be at least competent, if not great. Do not mistake me. It's not okay to have sub-adequate teachers in our classrooms. But I don't think you measure this by output on standardized tests, because you are talking in some cases about young children coming from a variety of backgrounds who, in some situations, just CANNOT learn. No matter what the teacher does or does not do, or how competent the teacher is.

There are other methods of judging teacher competency that, when blended with student standardized test achievement over time, would give a better picture. But not a snapshot of student test achievement one year and then one year and then one year. Because there are too many learning factors at play over which the teacher has no control.

They would have to create an algorithm that factored in the student's performance at the beginning of the course as well as the performance gains the student has made in the past when making an analysis based on the score. You simply have to minimize subjective analysis.

How would that precious "algorithm" factor in that the student has newly lost his home because his father is in prison, his mother has committed suicide and he is in foster homes now?

You realize humans are not widgets, right, and none of how we respond to anything is "simply"????

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

 

[RandomPoster]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

Anyone who thinks that is a good idea is a moron!

Anyone who doesn't like it is avoiding quantification and avoiding objective analysis.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm not opposed, by the way, to teachers being expected to be at least competent, if not great. Do not mistake me. It's not okay to have sub-adequate teachers in our classrooms. But I don't think you measure this by output on standardized tests, because you are talking in some cases about young children coming from a variety of backgrounds who, in some situations, just CANNOT learn. No matter what the teacher does or does not do, or how competent the teacher is.

There are other methods of judging teacher competency that, when blended with student standardized test achievement over time, would give a better picture. But not a snapshot of student test achievement one year and then one year and then one year. Because there are too many learning factors at play over which the teacher has no control.

They would have to create an algorithm that factored in the student's performance at the beginning of the course as well as the performance gains the student has made in the past when making an analysis based on the score. You simply have to minimize subjective analysis.

How would that precious "algorithm" factor in that the student has newly lost his home because his father is in prison, his mother has committed suicide and he is in foster homes now?

You realize humans are not widgets, right, and none of how we respond to anything is "simply"????

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

Why do you think that is impossible? Many students today refuse to learn anything or even answer the questions on the test, even if they know the correct answer.

I have watched students take the ACT (which is required) by taking their answer sheet, "Christmas-tree" in random answers and then take a 45 minute nap. How do you think their score impacts the average score of the class?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

Anyone who thinks that is a good idea is a moron!

Anyone who doesn't like it is avoiding quantification and avoiding objective analysis.

In a perfect world, that would be true, but unfortunately that is not the case. Ignoring the realities is what makes you a moron.

 

[Dekster]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

There is nothing objective about results based on third party performance.

 

[RandomPoster]

They would have to create an algorithm that factored in the student's performance at the beginning of the course as well as the performance gains the student has made in the past when making an analysis based on the score. You simply have to minimize subjective analysis.

How would that precious "algorithm" factor in that the student has newly lost his home because his father is in prison, his mother has committed suicide and he is in foster homes now?

You realize humans are not widgets, right, and none of how we respond to anything is "simply"????

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

Why do you think that is impossible? Many students today refuse to learn anything or even answer the questions on the test, even if they know the correct answer.

I have watched students take the ACT (which is required) by taking their answer sheet, "Christmas-tree" in random answers and then take a 45 minute nap. How do you think their score impacts the average score of the class?

That is the fault of teachers who refuse to discipline the students no matter how much the school counselors and psychiatrists plead with them that physical punishment is often underutilized in the classroom. They let the students run the school.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

Haven’t we spent enough years teaching kids how to pass a test instead of actually educating them?

Furthermore, what responsibility do parents have to make sure their kids are actually learning something or do you think it’s all the governments responsibility?

 

[RandomPoster]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

Haven’t we spent enough years teaching kids how to pass a test instead of actually educating them?

Furthermore, what responsibility do parents have to make sure their kids are actually learning something or do you think it’s all the governments responsibility?

We can factually determine their score on a test. You can not objectively evaluate some vague statement about "really educating" them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How would that precious "algorithm" factor in that the student has newly lost his home because his father is in prison, his mother has committed suicide and he is in foster homes now?

You realize humans are not widgets, right, and none of how we respond to anything is "simply"????

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

Why do you think that is impossible? Many students today refuse to learn anything or even answer the questions on the test, even if they know the correct answer.

I have watched students take the ACT (which is required) by taking their answer sheet, "Christmas-tree" in random answers and then take a 45 minute nap. How do you think their score impacts the average score of the class?

That is the fault of teachers who refuse to discipline the students no matter how much the school counselors and psychiatrists plead with them that physical punishment is often underutilized in the classroom. They let the students run the school.

Congratulations! It is only February and you are the frontrunner for Stupid Post of the Year. Teachers do not make the rules, dumbass!

How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

 

[Slyhunter]

If they test students at the beginning of the course and the end of the course, they could objectively evaluate how good each teacher is. Anyone who argues against the practice is against objective analysis of teachers.

The teacher could only teach the material on the test, so that would be setting the curriculum. You agree with nationalized Common Core?

Not the specific curriculum of Common Core or with politicized messages. However, Math, for example, is not political in nature. I believe there should be a standardized Math test.

In fact, I believe the funding of your school should be based on the previous year's median income of everyone who has ever graduated from your school.

There are already standardized math tests, so you're all set.

Did you just very recently start taking an interest in educational matters? Because you have some pretty uneducated ideas.

Are teachers paid based on the test scores of their students?

Are dentists paid by how many cavities their patients get?

by how many cavities they fill.

 

[RandomPoster]

That one student may score low despite the teacher's best efforts, except he's not going to cause the entire class to score low.

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

Why do you think that is impossible? Many students today refuse to learn anything or even answer the questions on the test, even if they know the correct answer.

I have watched students take the ACT (which is required) by taking their answer sheet, "Christmas-tree" in random answers and then take a 45 minute nap. How do you think their score impacts the average score of the class?

That is the fault of teachers who refuse to discipline the students no matter how much the school counselors and psychiatrists plead with them that physical punishment is often underutilized in the classroom. They let the students run the school.

Congratulations! It is only February and you are the frontrunner for Stupid Post of the Year. Teachers do not make the rules, dumbass!

How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

Shut up. Teachers rarely slam students heads into walls, paddle them, chokeslam them etc. when they are verbally disrespectful. They also don't suspend or simply kick the students to the curb enough. A principal I grew up with was let go because a student cocked off, he picked him up by his hair and was going to start slamming his head into the wall, when the kid's wig popped off and the little snowflake ran out of the school bawling. It turned out the kid had cancer and hardly anybody knew. How could he have known that? All the teachers pushed for him to be let go. A guy tries to help out and make a difference and that is the thanks he gets. The schools are turning out troublemakers.

 

[RandomPoster]

Listen, I know nobody likes to be objectively evaluated. It sucks, except there have to be numerical quantifiable performance standards or you have nothing. One reason I suspect teachers don't like standardized testing can be observed in the fact that Education majors score the lowest on standardized testing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I guess you don't understand the mathematical meaning of "average".

Take 9 scores of 100 and average in a 10th score of 0. Your class average is now one letter grade lower thanks to one student!

If one of your students gets an actual zero, as opposed to simply a failing grade like 50, you actually do suck.

Why do you think that is impossible? Many students today refuse to learn anything or even answer the questions on the test, even if they know the correct answer.

I have watched students take the ACT (which is required) by taking their answer sheet, "Christmas-tree" in random answers and then take a 45 minute nap. How do you think their score impacts the average score of the class?

That is the fault of teachers who refuse to discipline the students no matter how much the school counselors and psychiatrists plead with them that physical punishment is often underutilized in the classroom. They let the students run the school.

Congratulations! It is only February and you are the frontrunner for Stupid Post of the Year. Teachers do not make the rules, dumbass!

How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?

Shut up. Teachers rarely slam students heads into walls, paddle them, chokeslam them etc. when they are verbally disrespectful. They also don't suspend or simply kick the students to the curb enough. A principal I grew up with was let go because a student cocked off, he picked him up by his hair and was going to start slamming his head into the wall, when the kid's wig popped off and the little snowflake ran out of the school bawling. It turned out the kid had cancer and hardly anybody knew. How could he have known that? All the teachers pushed for him to be let go. A guy tries to help out and make a difference and that is the thanks he gets. The schools are turning out troublemakers.

Haven't you already demonstrated your ignorance enough on this topic?

 

[mgh80]

My district already does that...what's your point? It's not based on raw scores though, it's based on gains that the students make. For example having a kid score a B who usually scores a D is more progress than a student who usually scores a B and scores an A.

The teacher could only teach the material on the test, so that would be setting the curriculum. You agree with nationalized Common Core?

Not the specific curriculum of Common Core or with politicized messages. However, Math, for example, is not political in nature. I believe there should be a standardized Math test.

In fact, I believe the funding of your school should be based on the previous year's median income of everyone who has ever graduated from your school.

There are already standardized math tests, so you're all set.

Did you just very recently start taking an interest in educational matters? Because you have some pretty uneducated ideas.

Are teachers paid based on the test scores of their students?

We get bonuses based on the gains students make (along with evaluations from the district), so yes.

Is it based on a standardized test or a subjective grade simply granted by a teacher? I'm thinking something along the lines of your students scored well on an age appropriate SAT-like test, you're a good teacher. Otherwise, you're not. Of course, they would take the test at the beginning and end and it would be based on gains like you say.

I'm reading articles saying teachers don't want standardized testing. One article even advocates basing things on teacher subjective grades! The teacher can simply give whatever grade they want.

Subjective is a dirty word when it comes to analysis.

The teacher evaluations are predominantly based on 3 things:

1) Student gains (again not raw scores) based on:
Exams (district wide)
State standardized test for subject content
SAT scores (if applicable, usually they'll count if the student passes the SAT subject portion but doesn't pass the state test...this ONLY counts for subject). I teach English so obviously a student's math score on the SAT or state standardized tests don't count for or against me.

The take the test(s) each year that's necessary. The state standardized (for my subject) ends after the 10th grade-provided they pass it. They compare the scores to the their scores from the previous year. They need to raise their points by a certain percentage in order to count as a gain (I wont type it all out as it's way too in depth for the sake of our discussion but they break the students down into 9 different score ranges and basically the more ranges a kid's score increases, the better it is for you).

The exams are taken twice a year by every student, and again their scores are compared to previous years

2) Principal evaluation (takes many things into consideration, basically a big picture look at your performance). Keep in mind that principals obviously want the best teachers possible in order to boost their own performance scores and the school scores as a whole.

3) Classroom evaluations from the district when necessary (if your scores drop too drop, or for new teachers in their first 3 years of teaching). If you don't require the district to do a classroom evaluation you'll have your principal and/or APs do them. There are 2 kinds of classroom evaluations: formal and informal. Formal the teacher knows a head of time they're being observed (this helps allows them to meet the person ahead of time and ask for specific areas to be looked into, give them a heads up on any on-going situations, etc). and informal is literally when they randomly walk into your classroom and you get observed.

Teachers are then given a score from 1-5 based on their performance. 3 is considered "effective" 4-5 are considered "highly effective" (they both earn a bonus, but a level 5 will receive a larger bonus than a level 4). Level 3 doesn't earn you a bonus, but you probably wont be on anybody's crap list right away either...basically it means you're average. They average your most recent 3 years of teaching to get offset an extremely good or bad year and to get an updated scoring for that teacher. This is why you're only eligible for a bonus after completing 3 full years and if you're onto your 4th year.

Personally I've never received anything lower than a 4. I only say that because I know there's a protocol if a teacher drops below a 3, I'm just unfamiliar with it. From what I understand roughly 30-40% of teachers earn a 4 or better. A level 5 is challenging to get, and a level 4 teacher is an above average teacher.

Sorry for the bullet points, I know it seems pretentious but it just helps me organize my thoughts lol.

 

[mgh80]

Listen, I know nobody likes to be objectively evaluated. It sucks, except there have to be numerical quantifiable performance standards or you have nothing. One reason I suspect teachers don't like standardized testing can be observed in the fact that Education majors score the lowest on standardized testing.

I didn't major in education. I don't mind standardized testing...I view it as a necessary evil. Most teachers I know are ok with standardized tests...but here's the problem. I've been in tons of meetings where we're literally told this:

District personnel: Don't teach to the test
Random teacher: What do you want us to teach then?
District personnel: Teach the skills needed to pass the test

Yes we're literally told not to teach to the test, but to make sure we focus on having the kids be able to pass the test. I teach the mandatory components on my curriculum, usually leave of the optional stuff and supplement my own content in place of the optional material.