tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post5979031288886692473..comments2024-03-20T03:33:22.357-07:00Comments on Skeptophilia: How not to evaluate educatorsGordon Bonnethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-69774323815907204932013-05-30T19:17:43.807-07:002013-05-30T19:17:43.807-07:00So, I totally agree on the larger point of this po...So, I totally agree on the larger point of this post, but your two specific examples are really more an issue of how your APPR agreement was negotiated locally, than they are the idiocy of the state (though there is plenty of that to go around). <br /><br />1. Your pre-assessment process was negotiated in your district among a committee, and your union signed off on it. Here in my district, my AP Bio students don't even take a pre-test, as it is not my SLO course, and if they did, it would have been a collection of questions similar in content and structure to their final. I'm not sure how your district came to decide that the regents grades should be the pre-assessment, but it was done locally, and you should have had input, assuming your union and admin are functional.<br /><br />2. The Slentz-lab stupidity is also contingent on your APPR agreement. So, if you have students who are lab ineligible taking an alternate final, then that score is what will be used for SLO scoring.<br /><br />Again, not disagreeing with your larger point, but the two examples you cite can be mitigated at the district level. Sorry that it sounds like your district has not been a good shield for the rain of NYSED stupidK.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04491414672858230428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-27659705203561023322013-05-30T12:02:57.742-07:002013-05-30T12:02:57.742-07:00Wow, having some kind of evaluation of teachers do...Wow, having some kind of evaluation of teachers doesn't seem so bad in principle, but they always seem to screw it up so bad.Hausdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01690401058367596952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-45075821588649753362013-05-30T10:19:10.266-07:002013-05-30T10:19:10.266-07:00Exactly. It is that last assumption that is the p...Exactly. It is that last assumption that is the problem.Gordon Bonnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-71939899728316169832013-05-30T10:18:47.895-07:002013-05-30T10:18:47.895-07:00I'm absolutely certain that this is correct. ...I'm absolutely certain that this is correct. This doesn't mean, of course, that it couldn't change tomorrow; but it comes directly from Ken Slentz, the Deputy Commissioner. The lab requirement is 30 hours -- and yes, I do enough additional to give a comfortable cushion. But I resent the implication that kids who don't complete the lab requirement, for whatever reason, reflect a failure on the part of the teacher. This is a flawed assumption for a variety of reasons.<br /><br />I'd be glad to do a link exchange. I'll read your posts this evening!Gordon Bonnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-23092320466401769142013-05-30T09:58:32.611-07:002013-05-30T09:58:32.611-07:00Devil's Advocate for a second... The theory ma...Devil's Advocate for a second... The theory makes sense... if the teacher could not get the stduent to complete 30 or 31 labs out of 40 or so over the course of an entire academic year, that does signal some failing on the part of the teacher, PERHAPS. <br /><br />What I reject is the categorical assumption that anything that negatively impacts a student (or impacts a student's score, since that's all the State really gives a crap about, not the students themselves) is assumed to be DE FACTO the teacher's fault, and the institutionalization of that assumption is DESTROYING public education. Professor Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03692105823500600796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-54158761437640752772013-05-30T09:51:55.475-07:002013-05-30T09:51:55.475-07:00Are you sure about this? I taught ELA in NYS for a...Are you sure about this? I taught ELA in NYS for a number of years -- this was never a factor. Regents no-shows were never part of the calculation. Ever. Is it different for Science? In Science, students must complete a requisite number of labs during the course (what is it, 31?) before they're even allowed to SIT for the exam. Are you talking about the kids who don't qualify to take the exam, or simply the no-shows?<br /><br />Please take the time to read my thoughts on my blog, on a VERY similar topic... in this case, the NYS Algebra Regents, the single greatest scam ever perpetrated on public education... Two posts: <br /><br />http://askingquestionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/could-you-take-my-picture-cuz-i-wont.html<br /><br />and<br /><br />http://askingquestionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/honey-i-shrunk-promise-of-education-or.html<br />though, to be fair, the first post kind of cannibalizes the second...)<br /><br />Maybe we can do some kind of link exchange??Professor Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03692105823500600796noreply@blogger.com