Source: Washington Post
Read Article
Michele Kerr talks about criteria that should be met if teachers are assessed by student test scores. I agree with her completely. One of my favorite parts is what she says about her first point, only including students in teacher evaluations that are present at least 90% of the time:
Without the missing students, the tests won’t yield a complete picture of learning. But the tests’ purpose is to yield a picture of teaching, which isn’t the same thing as learning. Teachers can’t teach children who aren’t there.
And further, her reasoning for positing that students who cannot score at a “basic” proficient level should be “prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression:”
Students who can’t prove they know algebra can’t take geometry. If they can’t read at a ninth-grade level, they can’t take sophomore English — or, for that matter, sophomore-level history or science, which presumes sophomore-level reading ability. Not only is it nearly impossible for these students to learn the new material, but they also slow everyone else as the teacher struggles to find a middle ground.
That point alone could solve the issues of high school students who can’t read at a high school level. If they can’t read that well, why are they in high school? Who failed to do their job by promoting them? They will just fall through the cracks more and more until someone actually sits them down and gives them intensive reading programs until they get it. Because they can be taught, no matter what it takes.
There’s so much more good stuff in this article and I could quote every word she says. It’s a really good read.