Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator
The reason it hasn’t been figured out so far is that the Unions will not let it.
If scores overall don’t improve much from the first time around, something is wrong and needs to be looked at. If most kids show improvement, there probably isn’t in issue. If most kids show no improvement year over year with a teacher or two out of the whole bunch, there is a problem. .
|
Guess what? That kind of testing already exists. What it shows is that urban schools have less growth across the board. Schools with kids who come in to kindergarten not reading continue to do poorly throughout their education. Kids in suburban schools come in to kindergarten doing well and continue on that path. The data comes out the same way from school to school across the country. It might pick out an occasional teacher that is not teaching anything, but the administration will almost always know there is a problem with those teachers. Those teachers shouldnt get paid less and the others paid more, the poor teachers should get booted. That is what happens in schools that are able to attract candidates. It still doesn't fix the primary socioeconomic problems that lead to the differences in the cities vs. the suburbs.
The resistance of unions to it is that the people who are trying to implement it are politicians, not statisticians. People who have no idea about variables, correlations, etc. Simpleton politicians can think it sounds good, but it doesn't make it good or effective or beneficial to education. Teachers in the suburbs will appear great and teachers in the cities will appear lousy.
Threaded Mode