Valerie Strauss wrote a terrific piece about teacher evaluation in the Washington Post that whacked Rahm Emanuel and the New York Times sharply across their knuckles.
Mayor Emanuel wanted to impose the highest possible weight on test scores to evaluate teachers. The New York Times thinks it is a wonderful idea.
Strauss wrote:
“The Times can say that using standardized test scores to evaluate teachers is a sensible policy and Obama can say it and Education Secretary Arne Duncan can say it and Emanuel can say it and so can Bill Gates (who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop it) and governors and mayor from both parties, and heck, anybody can go ahead and shout it out as loud as they can.
“It doesn’t make it true.
Think of it. All those smart, powerful people agree and they are all wrong. Cue the music about the emperor and his fancy new clothes–not.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Your editorial (9/16/12, A-20)saying that “measuring student achievement is essential” makes two invalid assumptions. The first assumption is that high-stakes testing will improve teaching. High-stakes testing has proven to be a failure in its own terms. Despite promises of proponents, NAEP scores (“the Nation’s Report Card”) are fairly flat over the years No Child Left Behind has been in force. The increases are of the order of one to two percent in total over ten years. Proponents also promised that the majority-minority gap in achievement test scores would be erased. The gap on NAEP tests has diminished by about 12 percent over these ten years. Based on annual federal appropriations of approximately $400,000,000 for grants to states to support assessment, the very modest gains over ten years have cost about $4 billion. This money could have been better spent directly in the classroom than in supporting a growing testing industry. Second, you assume that an achievement test score measures classroom learning. We really do not know what achievement tests measure. Achievement test scores are highly related to an individual difference factor called “test-taking ability,” not classroom learning. Research shows that the methods of constructing achievement tests make them relatively impervious to the effects of instruction. You cite professional criticisms of value-added methods. You should also temper recommendations by considering current knowledge of the tests themselves.
Murray Levine, JD, Ph.D.
letter to NY Times they probably won’t use
Your editorial (9/16/12, A-20)saying that “measuring student achievement is essential” makes two invalid assumptions. The first assumption is that high-stakes testing will improve teaching. High-stakes testing has proven to be a failure in its own terms. Despite promises of proponents, NAEP scores (“the Nation’s Report Card”) are fairly flat over the years No Child Left Behind has been in force. The increases are of the order of one to two percent in total over ten years. Proponents also promised that the majority-minority gap in achievement test scores would be erased. The gap on NAEP tests has diminished by about 12 percent over these ten years. Based on annual federal appropriations of approximately $400,000,000 for grants to states to support assessment, the very modest gains over ten years have cost about $4 billion. This money could have been better spent directly in the classroom than in supporting a growing testing industry. Second, you assume that an achievement test score measures classroom learning. We really do not know what achievement tests measure. Achievement test scores are highly related to an individual difference factor called “test-taking ability,” not classroom learning. Research shows that the methods of constructing achievement tests make them relatively impervious to the effects of instruction. You cite professional criticisms of value-added methods. You should also temper recommendations by considering current knowledge of the tests themselves.
Murray Levine, JD, Ph.D.
I won’t write a post with this, as it would give the Times an excuse not to run it.
Not to go all Godwin, but 80 million Germans couldn’t have been wrong either, right? Sometimes the mere fact that “everyone” is doing it is reason enough to stop and question it, whatever “it” is.
On a related note, NPR had a story this morning about the wonderful effectiveness of Loss Aversion to motivate teachers. This is when a bonus is given up front and then there are threats to take it away. The person being interviewed referred to it as a cross between a carrot and a stick, said that it could make average teachers excellent, and mentioned how well this works in the business world. Barf.
I wish someone would offer me such a bonus so I could loudly and publically reject it!
I was screaming at the radio on the way to school listening to that hogwash. Pure bovine excrement that piece.
Loss aversion is degrading
Diane Ravitch
I am repulsed and insulted just reading about “loss aversion”. I never agreed to participate in someone’s experiment and it’s not included in my job description.
Speaking of bad ideas, NPR ran a story on the Morning Edition claiming the Roland G. Fryer, Steven Levitt and Sally Sadoff study on using loss aversion model for paying teachers for test scores showed “dramatic” improvement in math scores.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161370443/do-scores-go-up-when-teachers-return-bonuses
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo
My son was identified as gifted in kindergarten. (He is presently a doctor.) As a younger elementary student, he was allowed to work in math books several grade levels above his designated grade. (The gifted program was cut due to budget constraints) Sometime in later elementary school (around the “whole language” & “cooperative learning” fads),I was told he would no longer be allowed to work above grade level (new board policy), but would receive “enrichment” activities from his classroom teacher, because research indicated that cooperative learning & whole class instruction benefited those at the low end of the continuum, while not hurting those at the top.
I suggested a study of my own. During math class, they should lock my son in the closet every day for the school year. Then, when given the end of the year standardized math tests, my son would continue to score at the top of the test. Thus proving that locking a child in the closet is appropriate math instruction, as his test scores would continue to be high.
Now we have to worry that teachers of the gifted may loose their jobs because their value added rankings will be low. It’s shameful to see so many children suffer at the hands of ignorant policy makers and the latest educational fad.
Be careful what you suggest. In today’s education “reform” climate, they just might take you seriously.
Dear Dianne,
I just got an email from my boss with an attachment to fill out for my SLO’s. I’m to enter the grades my students got on the tests I was forced to give on material I haven’t taught. The fabulous computer program will calculate a projected score for the student, and measure me based on how Closely I hit the target. Why not take all the teachers out to the middle of a lake and tie rocks around their necks. Throw them in the water, and the ones that sink are the highly efficient teachers. Seriously?!