Perdido 03

Perdido 03
Showing posts with label Brookings Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brookings Institute. Show all posts

Saturday, March 30, 2013

NY Times Runs Front Page Story That Says Evaluation Systems Need To Fail More Teachers

Because it's only a "highly effective" evaluation system when lots of teachers are declared "ineffective":

Across the country, education reformers and their allies in both parties have revamped the way teachers are graded, abandoning methods under which nearly everyone was deemed satisfactory, even when students were falling behind. 

More than half the states now require new teacher evaluation systems and, thanks to a deal announced last week in Albany, New York City will soon have one, too. 

The changes, already under way in some cities and states, are intended to provide meaningful feedback and, critically, to weed out weak performers. And here are some of the early results: 

In Florida, 97 percent of teachers were deemed effective or highly effective in the most recent evaluations. In Tennessee, 98 percent of teachers were judged to be “at expectations.” 

In Michigan, 98 percent of teachers were rated effective or better. 

Advocates of education reform concede that such rosy numbers, after many millions of dollars developing the new systems and thousands of hours of training, are worrisome. 

“It is too soon to say that we’re where we started and it’s all been for nothing,” said Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research and policy organization. “But there are some alarm bells going off.”

You can see where this is going, can't you?

Grover J. Whitehurst, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, said variations in teacher quality had been proven to affect student academic growth. If an evaluation system is not finding a wider distribution of effectiveness, “it is flawed,” he said. 

“It would be an unusual profession that at least 5 percent are not deemed ineffective,” he added. 

Does the evaluation system at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution deem 5 percent of the employees there "ineffective" every year?

If not, then it must be a flawed system.

Same goes for the employees at Students First and at the NYSED and the NY State Board of Regents and the Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation and the USDOE and all the other places where they promote "teacher effectiveness" and "rigorous evaluation systems".

Let's see the results of performance evaluations at these places.

In fact, let's start with this guy at the Brookings Institution.

What do the performance evaluations in this guy's department look like?

Seriously, he just made a blanket statement that an evaluation system for teachers has to find at least five percent  of those teachers ineffective or it's "flawed."

The same must be true at his institution as well.

Or are they all "above average" at Brookings?

Saturday, November 20, 2010

How The SEC Views Value-Added

The Brookings Institute, corporate shills that they are, released a report acknowledging that value added analysis of teacher performance based upon test scores is problematic and riddled with errors, then said we should use it to evaluate teachers anyway.

Now value-added analysis has been shown to have margins of error of as high as 30%.

The corporate clowns at the Brookings Institute must think a 30% margin of error in rating a teacher is just fine.

Interestingly enough, the Securities and Exchange Commission puts people in jail for those kinds of errors.

Take what just happened to Green Mountain Coffee and the "errors" they made in their earnings reports over three years:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. said Friday it made accounting errors and overstated its profit from 2007 through September 2010.

Fast-growing Green Mountain, under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for its bookkeeping, said it will restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2007 through 2009. The restatement also includes the nine-month period that ended June 26, 2010.

So far, Green Mountain said the accounting adjustments will reduce cumulative net income by $6.1 million to $6.5 million, or 4 cents to 5 cents a share. The internal investigation is nearly complete.

Oops!

No matter - they were only off by $6.1-$6.5 million, which was actually a smaller percentage margin of error than some connected to teacher rankings based upon value-added analysis.

Would the corporate clowns at the Brookings Institute be okay with Green Mountain or other companies they have invested in having such a disparity between stated numbers and reality?

Doubtful - especially if that was a company included in their 401(k) stock portfolio.

So if it's not okay to have those kinds of margins of error in the reporting of corporate earnings, why is it okay to have those kinds of margins of error connected to value added reports of teachers?