This post is a follow up to the previous, and is based on work in progress.
We conclude with a discussion of three themes in the current political rhetoric regarding school finance that we see as creating significant barriers to substantive reforms. Three arguments in particular, are pervasive in the broader education reform debate, with implications for school funding equity and adequacy:
- First, that through years of court challenges states have largely resolved funding inequities between local public school districts, and the major persistent problems that remain are inequities in local district budget allocations to schools.
- Second, that adopting broad-based, school choice programs necessarily provides equitable opportunities for children via the liberty to choose among high quality alternatives, thus negating concerns over equitable or adequate funding.
- Third, that local public school districts are so inefficient in their basic design and they invariably have more than enough money to do…
View original post 2,769 more words
Why yes, it just did.
The models on which teachers evaluations are tied, are pure junk.
From New York State’s own technical report….
Despite the model conditioning on prior year test scores, schools and teachers with students who had higher prior year test scores, on average, had higher MGPs. Teachers of classes with higher percentages of economically disadvantaged students had lower MGPs.
In other words, it doesn’t matter who the teacher is. What matters is the class. If you are teaching affluent students, you are rated highly; if you are in an economic disadvantaged school, you are rated poorly.
Therefore firing all teachers with low scores, means you constantly replace new teachers into bad schools, keeping even bad teachers in good schools. Therefore the process is flawed.
The problem is this glaring data, gets whitewashed by administrators pursuing their war on teachers.
As per New York’s now famous John King:
View original post 297 more words
Do you remember SB51? That Sokola Bill that no one read, and all were told that it was a no brainer because everyone was behind it, and it passes the Senate Unanimously and the Amendment was not even read; just passed anyway? And in the House, four people tried to slow it down, but it just raced through?
It will be very damaging to our teachers.
It is based on the premise that poverty and blacks are being held back by bad teachers. Therefore pumping up the “rigor” of becoming a teacher will make these students smart….
So how does one prove this?
One looks at the education of teachers from a good scoring school district, and compares it to those teachers from a bad scoring district, and one shows that all the teachers of affluent students came from really good schools and have additional degrees, and all the teachers…
View original post 198 more words
But lets do SB51 anyway? Sure, just follow Jack.
I had the displeasure of waking up to this drivel in my in-box this morning:
“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach teaching.”
yeah… and those completely lacking in critical thinking, basic research and data interpretation skills write op-eds for the Times.
I don’t really teach teachers myself, so I guess I shouldn’t take offense. But I do mainly because the core argument advanced here is so ill-informed and poorly conceived.
Allow me to start by pointing out that I have actually written detailed, quantitative research in peer reviewed journals on the very topic of who’s teaching the teachers. In fact, the article we wrote was done partly in response to the Arthur Levine report cited in the Times op-ed piece. And it’s not as if the article title really conceals its contents:
- Wolf‐Wendel, L., Baker, B. D., Twombly, S., Tollefson, N…
View original post 1,667 more words