Unfortunately it seems like Florida makes this type of stuff up all the time. -cpg
From the Washington Posts Answer Sheet
by Valerie Strauss
In the you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up category, a Florida (no surprise there) state legislator has filed a bill that would require some elementary school teachers to grade parents on how involved they are at their children's schools.
Schools, students, teachers, now parents: The grading frenzy moves on. The bill, HB 255, was just filed in the Florida House by Rep. Kelli Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, says:
“Although the school environment has a great impact on a child’s well-being and academic success, parents and the home environment form the foundation of a child’s present and future life. Without proper parental involvement in all aspects of a child’s life, the child’s prospects to be a well-equipped and useful member of society are greatly diminished.”
Yes, Stargel has that right. It is imperative that students have all kinds of support in their home life to be successful at school.
This, though, raises the question of why Stargel and other legislators who think this parent evaluation system is a good idea have voted to evaluate and pay teachers on the basis of how their students do on standardized test scores.
The big movement in teacher evaluation across the country is to link standardized test scores to student pay through a “value-added” formula that fails to take into account any part of a child’s life outside school.
Requiring teachers to grade parents is a nutty idea. Some parents work two or three jobs and can’t be as involved as they would like to be, and, besides, teachers have enough to do already.
Even if it were possible to set up a reasonable parent evaluation system, there could be no real enforcement mechanism, at least not in traditional public schools. Private schools, and even public charter schools, quietly counsel kids out for bad academic performance; traditional public schools can’t.
Now that Stargel has shown that she accepts the fact that home life has a major impact on academic performance, she and her colleagues should now ask themselves just how hypocritical it would be to keep pushing “value-added” assesssment of teachers.
The legislation calls for teachers to assess how involved parents are in meeting teacher requests for conferences and other forms of communication; and ensuring that children are physically ready to attend school, that they show up on time, and that they complete homework and prepare for tests.
The evaluation then would be part of the student’s report card, and a parent could appeal under a process that would be set up by the Board of Education. Of course, though, there is no real way to make a parent do better.
Here’s the list of things that Stargel’s bill says parents are supposed to be doing:
(2) CAUSES FOR STUDENT UNDERACHIEVEMENT.—The following behaviors with respect to the relationship between a child’s home and school are identified as possible causes for a student’s underachievement:
(a) A child is not physically prepared for the school day to inadequate rest or improper clothing, lack of necessary school supplies, or frequent tardiness or absence.
(b) A child is not mentally prepared for the school day due to uncompleted homework or inadequate preparation for tests.
(c) Communication between parents and the teacher is often written rather than through personal contact and often occurs only when a problem has arisen rather than on a consistent basis throughout the school year
Showing posts with label value-added. Show all posts
Showing posts with label value-added. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Gates twists stats to prove point... again
From NEA Today
By Kevin Hart
One of the country’s leading economists is warning that a Gates Foundation study on value-added teacher evaluation not only fails to meet key academic standards, but that it dangerously misinterprets its own data.
Last month, the Gates Foundation released the first report of the Measures of Effective Teaching project, and the report claimed to find strong evidence for a value-added teacher evaluation model, where teachers are evaluated based on student progress on standardized tests.
But a report by University of California at Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, found that the report was based on flawed research and conclusions that were contradicted by the study’s own data.
“In fact, the preliminary MET results contain important warning signs about the use of value-added scores for high-stakes teacher evaluations,” Rothstein wrote in his analysis of the research. “These warnings, however, are not heeded in the preliminary report, which interprets all of the results as support for the use of value-added models in teacher evaluation… This limits the report’s value and undermines the MET Project’s credibility.”
Rothstein’s critique of the study, scathing by academic standards, found that some of the correlations presented and conclusions reached in the MET research were “shockingly weak.”
In particular, Rothstein wondered how the report can reach its main conclusion that “a teacher’s past track record of value-added is among the strongest predictors of their students’ achievement gains in other classes and academic years,” when the report did not attempt to study the strength of several other possible predictors.
Rothstein’s analysis seems to validate a concern that many educators had about the report when it was released – that it was designed to reach predetermined conclusions. The conclusions that should have been reached, Rothstein wrote, would cast serious doubt about whether a value-added model is useful at all in teacher evaluation.
For example, 40 percent of the teachers who scored in the bottom quartile based on their students’ state standardized test scores actually placed in the top half of teachers when an alternative assessment was used.
That means, Rothstein wrote, that a value-added model based on standardized state test scores is only slightly more reliable than flipping a coin when used to determine whether a teacher is effective.
“In particular, the correlations between value-added scores on state and alternative assessments are so small that they cast serious doubt on the entire value-added enterprise,” Rothstein wrote.
Previous studies have uncovered serious problems with the reliability of value-added teacher evaluations – and the data from the Gates Foundation, once they are interpreted correctly, raise those same concerns. But, Rothstein wrote, the data were not interpreted correctly.
“The [data] analyses do not support the report’s conclusions,” he wrote. “Interpreted correctly, they undermine rather than validate value-added-based approaches to teacher evaluation.”
The real danger, of course, is that the study was heralded by several media outlets and is being used by policymakers and school districts to push for a value-added teacher evaluation model. But using the Gates Foundation research as a basis to push for value-added teacher evaluation is a mistake, Rothstein wrote.
“The design of the MET study … places sharp limits on its ability to inform policy,” Rothstein wrote. He added that it is “especially troubling” that the Gates Foundation is circulating a stand-alone policy brief arguing for value-added evaluations, even though analysis of the MET data do not lend support to the model.
“Even careful readers [of the policy brief] will be unaware of the weak evidentiary basis for its conclusions,” Rothstein wrote.
Value-added teacher evaluations have become a significant topic of debate in public education. The Los Angeles Times last year released a report on the performance of Los Angeles teachers based on value-added data, and judge recently ruled that New York City media outlets had the right to publish a similar analysis of city teachers.
Rothstein’s review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
http://neatoday.org/2011/01/13/leading-economist-gates-value-added-research-deeply-flawed-ignores-its-own-data/
By Kevin Hart
One of the country’s leading economists is warning that a Gates Foundation study on value-added teacher evaluation not only fails to meet key academic standards, but that it dangerously misinterprets its own data.
Last month, the Gates Foundation released the first report of the Measures of Effective Teaching project, and the report claimed to find strong evidence for a value-added teacher evaluation model, where teachers are evaluated based on student progress on standardized tests.
But a report by University of California at Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, found that the report was based on flawed research and conclusions that were contradicted by the study’s own data.
“In fact, the preliminary MET results contain important warning signs about the use of value-added scores for high-stakes teacher evaluations,” Rothstein wrote in his analysis of the research. “These warnings, however, are not heeded in the preliminary report, which interprets all of the results as support for the use of value-added models in teacher evaluation… This limits the report’s value and undermines the MET Project’s credibility.”
Rothstein’s critique of the study, scathing by academic standards, found that some of the correlations presented and conclusions reached in the MET research were “shockingly weak.”
In particular, Rothstein wondered how the report can reach its main conclusion that “a teacher’s past track record of value-added is among the strongest predictors of their students’ achievement gains in other classes and academic years,” when the report did not attempt to study the strength of several other possible predictors.
Rothstein’s analysis seems to validate a concern that many educators had about the report when it was released – that it was designed to reach predetermined conclusions. The conclusions that should have been reached, Rothstein wrote, would cast serious doubt about whether a value-added model is useful at all in teacher evaluation.
For example, 40 percent of the teachers who scored in the bottom quartile based on their students’ state standardized test scores actually placed in the top half of teachers when an alternative assessment was used.
That means, Rothstein wrote, that a value-added model based on standardized state test scores is only slightly more reliable than flipping a coin when used to determine whether a teacher is effective.
“In particular, the correlations between value-added scores on state and alternative assessments are so small that they cast serious doubt on the entire value-added enterprise,” Rothstein wrote.
Previous studies have uncovered serious problems with the reliability of value-added teacher evaluations – and the data from the Gates Foundation, once they are interpreted correctly, raise those same concerns. But, Rothstein wrote, the data were not interpreted correctly.
“The [data] analyses do not support the report’s conclusions,” he wrote. “Interpreted correctly, they undermine rather than validate value-added-based approaches to teacher evaluation.”
The real danger, of course, is that the study was heralded by several media outlets and is being used by policymakers and school districts to push for a value-added teacher evaluation model. But using the Gates Foundation research as a basis to push for value-added teacher evaluation is a mistake, Rothstein wrote.
“The design of the MET study … places sharp limits on its ability to inform policy,” Rothstein wrote. He added that it is “especially troubling” that the Gates Foundation is circulating a stand-alone policy brief arguing for value-added evaluations, even though analysis of the MET data do not lend support to the model.
“Even careful readers [of the policy brief] will be unaware of the weak evidentiary basis for its conclusions,” Rothstein wrote.
Value-added teacher evaluations have become a significant topic of debate in public education. The Los Angeles Times last year released a report on the performance of Los Angeles teachers based on value-added data, and judge recently ruled that New York City media outlets had the right to publish a similar analysis of city teachers.
Rothstein’s review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
http://neatoday.org/2011/01/13/leading-economist-gates-value-added-research-deeply-flawed-ignores-its-own-data/
New analysis challenges Gates study
From the Washington Posts Answer Sheet
By Valerie Strauss
Last month, a Gates Foundation study was released and said to be evidence of the validity of “value-added” measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers by using students’ standardized test scores. But a new analysis of that report concludes that the substance of the report doesn’t support its conclusions.
The report released last month was called “Learning About Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project,” by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation officials Thomas J. Kane and Steven Cantrell.
They used data from six major urban school districts to examine correlations between student survey responses and value-added scores computed both from state tests and from higher-order tests of conceptual understanding. Kane and Cantrell concluded that the evidence suggests that value-added measures can be constructed to be valid; others described the report as strong evidence of support for this approach.
But Economics Professor Jesse Rothstein at the University of California at Berkeley reviewed the Kane-Cantrell report and said that the analyses in it served to “undermine rather than validate” value-added-based measures of teacher evaluation.
The review by Rothstein, who in 2009-10 served as senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers and as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is being published today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education.
The MET report uses data from six major urban school districts to, among other things, compare two different value-added scores for teachers: one computed from official state tests, and another from a test designed to measure higher-order, conceptual understanding. Because neither test maps perfectly to the curriculum, substantially divergent results from the two would suggest that neither is likely capturing a teacher’s true effectiveness across the whole intended curriculum.
By contrast, if value-added scores from the two tests line up closely with each other, that would increase our confidence that a third test, aligned with the full curriculum teachers are meant to cover, would also yield similar results.
The MET report considered this exact issue and concluded that “Teachers with high value-added on state tests tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well.” But what does “tend to” really mean?
Rothstein’s reanalysis of the MET report’s results found that over 40 percent of those whose state exam scores place them in the bottom quarter of effectiveness are in the top half on the alternative assessment.
“In other words,” he said in a statement, “teacher evaluations based on observed state test outcomes are only slightly better than coin tosses at identifying teachers whose students perform unusually well or badly on assessments of conceptual understanding. This result, underplayed in the MET report, reinforces a number of serious concerns that have been raised about the use of VAMs for teacher evaluations.”
Put another way, “many teachers whose value-added for one test is low are in fact quite effective when judged by the other,” indicating “that a teacher’s value-added for state tests does a poor job of identifying teachers who are effective in a broader sense,” Rothstein wrote.
“A teacher who focuses on important, demanding skills and knowledge that are not tested may be misidentified as ineffective, while a fairly weak teacher who narrows her focus to the state test may be erroneously praised as effective.”
If those value-added results were to be used for teacher retention decisions, students would be deprived of some of their most effective teachers, Rothstein concluded.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/research/new-analysis-challenges-gates-.html?wprss=answer-sheet
By Valerie Strauss
Last month, a Gates Foundation study was released and said to be evidence of the validity of “value-added” measures to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers by using students’ standardized test scores. But a new analysis of that report concludes that the substance of the report doesn’t support its conclusions.
The report released last month was called “Learning About Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project,” by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation officials Thomas J. Kane and Steven Cantrell.
They used data from six major urban school districts to examine correlations between student survey responses and value-added scores computed both from state tests and from higher-order tests of conceptual understanding. Kane and Cantrell concluded that the evidence suggests that value-added measures can be constructed to be valid; others described the report as strong evidence of support for this approach.
But Economics Professor Jesse Rothstein at the University of California at Berkeley reviewed the Kane-Cantrell report and said that the analyses in it served to “undermine rather than validate” value-added-based measures of teacher evaluation.
The review by Rothstein, who in 2009-10 served as senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers and as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is being published today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education.
The MET report uses data from six major urban school districts to, among other things, compare two different value-added scores for teachers: one computed from official state tests, and another from a test designed to measure higher-order, conceptual understanding. Because neither test maps perfectly to the curriculum, substantially divergent results from the two would suggest that neither is likely capturing a teacher’s true effectiveness across the whole intended curriculum.
By contrast, if value-added scores from the two tests line up closely with each other, that would increase our confidence that a third test, aligned with the full curriculum teachers are meant to cover, would also yield similar results.
The MET report considered this exact issue and concluded that “Teachers with high value-added on state tests tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well.” But what does “tend to” really mean?
Rothstein’s reanalysis of the MET report’s results found that over 40 percent of those whose state exam scores place them in the bottom quarter of effectiveness are in the top half on the alternative assessment.
“In other words,” he said in a statement, “teacher evaluations based on observed state test outcomes are only slightly better than coin tosses at identifying teachers whose students perform unusually well or badly on assessments of conceptual understanding. This result, underplayed in the MET report, reinforces a number of serious concerns that have been raised about the use of VAMs for teacher evaluations.”
Put another way, “many teachers whose value-added for one test is low are in fact quite effective when judged by the other,” indicating “that a teacher’s value-added for state tests does a poor job of identifying teachers who are effective in a broader sense,” Rothstein wrote.
“A teacher who focuses on important, demanding skills and knowledge that are not tested may be misidentified as ineffective, while a fairly weak teacher who narrows her focus to the state test may be erroneously praised as effective.”
If those value-added results were to be used for teacher retention decisions, students would be deprived of some of their most effective teachers, Rothstein concluded.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/research/new-analysis-challenges-gates-.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)