What Bloggers Have to Say About Teacher Evaluations

Anyone who has a computer and access to the world wide web has access to the largest pool of information at their fingertips. News can not only be viewed by anyone, anytime, anywhere, but it also creates an opportunity to write and share beliefs and ideas to those willing to take the time to read it. A major outlet for this sharing of news and critique is the blog. The blog allows for written praise, critique, and conversation amongst a wide variation of peers. Although it is not the most unbiased of media - though what isn't these days - blogging creates a unique opportunity for those who do not work in the mainstream media (e.g. various news broadcastings and big-name newspapers) to make themselves and others heard. The heated topic of teacher evaluations, high-stakes standardized testing, and "value-added" measurements (VAM) system of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT) has spiked a great amount of responses from the blogging community, most of which, are not positive reviews of the current status quo.

The view on standardized testing and the VAM system

In general, the response to the use of standardized testing scores to measure the value and effectiveness of teachers has been a negative one. The overarching reason for this is the tests have been deemed unreliable, inconsistent, and an inaccurate measure of an individual teachers worth. When boiled down, the main problems of the use of test scores to are these: statistical error rates, year-to-year test score instability, day-to-day score instability, nonrandom student assignments, imprecise measurements, and out-of-school factors.

The research of Peter Schochet and Hanley Chiang shows that the statistical error rate is 35% of one year's test score data used for measuring the effectiveness of teachers and a 25% statistical error rate of three years' data. In other words, one out of four teachers are at risk of being misrepresented by the score data every three years; an "average" teacher performance may mistakenly be judged as "below average."

Tim Sass, an economics professor at Florida State University is cited for noting that the students teachers have year-to-year have varying test scores that illustrates a great inconsistency in what the data says. Teachers who have been ranked in the top one year may suddenly drop to the bottom and vic versa. It isn't their performance in teaching that is inconsistent, it is the students and their abilities.

A similar effect is seen on a daily basis; a student may be prepared for a test but the events and their physical and mental wellness may fluctuate and cause them to have an "off" day on test day. This too creates an inconsistency in test scores.

The testing is not one-size-fit-all and because of this teachers of special needs, low income, and English learning students suffer. The VAM system assumes the students should be progressing at the same rate and does not take into account those who historically have trouble with standardized testing.

This assumption can be applicable to the learning progress of individual students. Students do not learn in a simple upward motion; mistakes are a part of learning and are important in learning how to do something right. This fluctuating learning curve can affect the score of a single test.

Coinciding factors to the day-to-day score instability are the out-of-school factors. These factors include but are not limited to poverty, food availability, health, and stress. How well a child feels and how well a child is supported in their school work at home has a great effect on how well they perform while in school.

These six main issues with the reliability of the test scores and the correlation with the effectiveness of the teachers are brought up in many of the arguments against this way of evaluating teachers. Those who defend the VAM system and high-stakes standardized testing say that it would serve best if it was not the only measure in teacher evaluations. Those who criticize it say that the VAM and high-stakes system is broken and has been known to be this way for some time. Those who should be evaluated are those who create the tests used for evaluation. Money is needed to fix the whole of the system, but throwing money at the issue of , though it serves to quiet those who would protest, is not the answer.

Thoughts on the New York and Los Angles Times

The reporters from the New York Times have been praised by those in the blogging community for their reports on the inaccuracy of the VAM system. One such reporter, Sam Dillon, who regularly writes on the topic of education policy wrote that "federal Department of Education’s own research arm warned in a study that value-added estimates ‘are subject to considerable degree of random error" and quoted Edward Haertel's, a professor at Standford, criticism of the VAM system saying it was "unstable." He also reported on the National Academies expert's letter to the Education Secretary Arne Duncan and his concerns that "too much emphasis on measures of growth in student achievement that have not yet been adequately studied for the purposes of evaluating teachers and principals."

On the other hand, there was much criticism on the actions of the New York Times and the L.A. Times when they filed lawsuits to allow the VAM data on around 18,000 teachers combined. The L.A. Times succeeded in releasing the information on its website and the information of over 6,000 teachers' ratings was visible to the public. The New York case is still pending on appeal.

Conclusion

According to the blogging community, the "value-added" measurement system is an inaccurate, inconsistent, and unreliable means to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom. The way in which teachers are being evaluated is unfair not only to them but also to their students. In order to prepare for these tests, teachers must stop teaching and start training their students to be able to get the right answers on the tests. Training students to fill in the bubbles is not education. Education, according to Richard Smith in his writing "What is Education?," is the tool students use to reach for their potential and dreams. Education gives students the wisdom and knowhow to become function members of society and prosper. Many have shared their views and are right in criticizing the system set up and this is their conclusion: The system set up by NCLB and RTTT to evaluate teachers benefits neither teachers nor students; the system instead cheats teachers out of their jobs and students of good teachers.