Scoring and the Role of Standardized Exams
LINK
 |
| Leo Casey |
See also:
Attention NYC Teachers You Have Been Had By Your Union
Leo Casey Responds To NYC Teacher Outcry
(This is the first of two posts on the new teacher evaluations, focusing on the overall
scoring of the evaluations and the role of standardized exams. The second post will
take up the question of appeals.)
scoring of the evaluations and the role of standardized exams. The second post will
take up the question of appeals.)
The 2010 law that established a new framework for the evaluation of New York
educators was a complex piece of legislation, and last week’s agreement to clarify
and refine that law with additional legislation added another layer to that
complexity.
The complexity is unavoidable. It is important to have evaluations based on
multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, just as it is important to evaluate
students based onmultiple measures of their learning: more measures and
more forms of evidence produce more robust, more accurate and fairer
evaluations. Further, multiple measures allowed New York to avoid placing
inordinate weight on standardized exams and value-added algorithms, as other
states have done to very negative consequences. And it was essential that the bulk
of the evaluations be established locally through collective bargaining, with
the law only providing a general framework. These objectives necessarily led
to a high level of complexity.
Go to the article for more information about evaluating teacher performance the right way.educators was a complex piece of legislation, and last week’s agreement to clarify
and refine that law with additional legislation added another layer to that
complexity.
The complexity is unavoidable. It is important to have evaluations based on
multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, just as it is important to evaluate
students based onmultiple measures of their learning: more measures and
more forms of evidence produce more robust, more accurate and fairer
evaluations. Further, multiple measures allowed New York to avoid placing
inordinate weight on standardized exams and value-added algorithms, as other
states have done to very negative consequences. And it was essential that the bulk
of the evaluations be established locally through collective bargaining, with
the law only providing a general framework. These objectives necessarily led
to a high level of complexity.