Vilson: Welcome back to the PTI program, where the clocks keep on tickin’. Reali! Reali: Chances there will be handicapping for underprivileged schools in these reports: Vilson: Alright, there’s been lots of discussion around the idea of trying to level the playing field for schools and including different measures into teacher evaluation reports based on […]
Vilson: Alright, there’s been lots of discussion around the idea of trying to level the playing field for schools and including different measures into teacher evaluation reports based on the school, the district, and economic levels, for instance. Some say it’s unfair to the people who already have the high-level kids; others say the handicap is necessary for those working in traditionally under-performing schools. What’s your take?
Holland: If we are going to create a fair teacher evaluation system that incorporates student assessment we have to consider the school context in that relationship. You may remember when I posted about this in January when I wrote about Error in the Quest for Teacher Quality. There are far too many factors not to include it. When you consider the effects of false perceptions of evaluators, inaccurate and developmentally inappropriate expectations for students, and unreliable causation for student outcomes, I can’t help but think we need to balance these attribution errors with some handicapping measures. Now, to answer Reali’s question, chances it will be included in the final evaluation as a handicapping factor, a less than significant chance .05%.
Vilson: Yeah, I don’t know. I see what you’re saying, and we’re both on the same page. I also see where there’s a huge influence on behalf of the big urban districts who control much of the education jargon to ensure that those handicaps get in there somehow. I like the idea of a handicap, but it’s going to take forever to teach people that not all percentages are equal. That’s where my concern lies most of all. I give this a 30% chance!