6 ms·

It seems like you're not at all understanding what I've been saying. The measure of teacher performance was based on student improvement over time on standardiz

It seems like you're not at all understanding what I've been saying. The measure of teacher performance was based on student improvement over time on standardized tests. It is incredibly valuable to measure a teacher's capability in actually helping students learn and improve. After all, isn't that the sole purpose of teaching? > That's because I didn't understand what your argument was. The usual argument is "teachers unions mean teachers are bad at their jobs so we can't trust their judgement and GPA. Instead, we need to look to standardized tests." That's the argument I thought you were making. Yes, and we've also gone pretty far off-topic from what I was originally talking about at this point. > No, it doesn't. It does give the citation: Then why not lead with that citation and not the very weak conference paper that you chose to lead with? Anyways, you may be right about GPA currently being a better predictor of academic success than the ACT. But, as this article explains: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measures-are-better-than-one/ https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2020/02/gpa-or-sat-two-measu... "In an extended version of their essay, Kuncel and Sackett acknowledge that GPA is the best predictor of student success, but they add: “Even better prediction is obtained by the combination of test scores and high school grade point average.” “Human behavior is notoriously difficult to forecast,” they write, “it would be strange for a single predictor to be the only one that matters. So it is also valuable to consider, whenever possible, how predictors combine in foretelling student success.” If I were to further research this subject, I'd probably start with this book: https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Success-Testing-College-Admissions/dp/1421424967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538578331&sr=8-1&keywords=measuring+success https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Success-Testing-College-Adm... "Although the test-optional movement has received ample attention, its claims have rarely been subjected to empirical scrutiny. This volume provides a much-needed evaluation of the use and value of standardized admissions tests in an era of widespread grade inflation. It will be of great value to those seeking to strike the proper balance between uniformity and fairness in higher education." Edit: also found this article interesting: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-22/grades-vs-sat-scores-which-is-a-better-predictor-of-college-success https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-22/grades-v... One person is quoted as pointing out that an advantage using the SAT is that it can help combat grade inflation because it looks bad to have a really high GPA but really low SAT score. It's also been shown over time that the average GPA keeps going up while SAT scores are flat or declining. Grade inflation is a major problem, and the use of standardized test does help with it.

eesmith 4y ago
> The measure of teacher performance was based on student improvement over time on standardized tests. Except 1) those tests weren't designed for that purpose, and 2) they are a worse measure of student preparedness than GPAs, and 3) they only test those topics which are easy to test in a standardized setting. And as I pointed out, the statistic methods used to find these patterns, like VAM, are intrinsically difficult, and easy to misinterpret. > Then why not lead with that citation and not the very weak conference paper that you chose to lead with? Because it was more informative than the citation you presented, which was a non-peer-reviewed book that I couldn't easily read by a journalist whose results as you presented are contrary to my (limited) understanding of the topic. > I'd probably start with this book Since you think peer review is important, why do you point to non-peer-reviewed sources? Just looking at the authors shows that I expect them to have a pro-standardized testing viewpoint. All three of them work/have worked for a standardized testing company. Sean P. "Jack" Buckley is an Institute Fellow and works with AIR on several projects in the areas of applied statistics, social sciences, and education policy. He is also President and Chief Scientist for Imbellus, a California-based assessment company ... he helped lead the redesign of the SAT at the College Board Lynn Letukas is an associate research scientist at the College Board Ben Wildavsky is/was a senior fellow and executive director of the College Board Policy Center.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  > Except 1) those tests weren't designed for that purpose I don't know if that's true. And even if it were, why would they need to be designed for that purpose to be successfully and correctly used for that purpose? In fact, at one time the federal government required this data to be provided by schools. However, the teacher's unions lobbied hard, and the 2015 "Every Student Succeeds Act" barred the government from requiring this data: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/essa-loosens-reins-on-teacher-evaluations-qualifications/2016/01 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/essa-loosens-reins-on... "But the teachers’ unions see an opening to change policies their members have broadly rejected. They are also far more powerful among state legislatures than in Congress." "The American Federation of Teachers plans to bring its political clout to bear on the issue, too." On the other hand, strong research exist to show that SGPs are a valid and useful measurement: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 "The main lesson of this study is that value-added models which control for a student’s prior-year test scores provide unbiased forecasts of teachers’ causal impacts on student achievement. Because the dispersion in teacher effects is substantial, this result implies that improvements in teacher quality can raise students’ test scores significantly." And the follow-up study: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 "This paper has shown that the same VA measures are also an informative proxy for teachers’ long-term impacts." > 2) they are a worse measure of student preparedness than GPAs GPAs are highly subjective, and more importantly, harder to compare across schools and even across classes. By using standardized scores, for instance, one could track successfully that a teacher's performance remains consistent as he or she moves across schools. Remember, this was about measuring teacher performance, not student performance. That said, if GPAs really were better for teacher evaluation, there is nothing stopping you from measuring student GPA improvement instead of student standardized test score improvement, so I'm not sure what you're really arguing against at this point. > 3) they only test those topics which are easy to test in a standardized setting. Many important topics taught in secondary school are well-understood and amenable to standardized testing, including: math, reading comprehension, grammar, some aspects of science and history, etc. > Since you think peer review is important, why do you point to non-peer-reviewed sources? These books cite peer-reviewed sources and are a great starting point before digging further. > Just looking at the authors shows that I expect them to have a pro-standardized testing viewpoint. Everyone is biased. The NEA spends millions convincing people to drop standardized tests through their advocacy group, FairTest, which serves as one of their front organizations. Much of education academia is biased against standardized testing. Biases are everywhere, and were fairly obviously present in your sources that I checked. At some point, you have to pick a bias you trust more, and I trust the bias that says standardized tests are useful over the bias that says they should be entirely done away with.

eesmith 4y ago

> The measure of teacher performance was based on student improvement over time on standardized tests. Except 1) those tests weren't designed for that purpose, and 2) they are a worse measure of student preparedness than GPAs, and 3) they only test those topics which are easy to test in a standardized setting. And as I pointed out, the statistic methods used to find these patterns, like VAM, are intrinsically difficult, and easy to misinterpret. > Then why not lead with that citation and not the very weak conference paper that you chose to lead with? Because it was more informative than the citation you presented, which was a non-peer-reviewed book that I couldn't easily read by a journalist whose results as you presented are contrary to my (limited) understanding of the topic. > I'd probably start with this book Since you think peer review is important, why do you point to non-peer-reviewed sources? Just looking at the authors shows that I expect them to have a pro-standardized testing viewpoint. All three of them work/have worked for a standardized testing company. Sean P. "Jack" Buckley is an Institute Fellow and works with AIR on several projects in the areas of applied statistics, social sciences, and education policy. He is also President and Chief Scientist for Imbellus, a California-based assessment company ... he helped lead the redesign of the SAT at the College Board Lynn Letukas is an associate research scientist at the College Board Ben Wildavsky is/was a senior fellow and executive director of the College Board Policy Center.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> Except 1) those tests weren't designed for that purpose I don't know if that's true. And even if it were, why would they need to be designed for that purpose to be successfully and correctly used for that purpose? In fact, at one time the federal government required this data to be provided by schools. However, the teacher's unions lobbied hard, and the 2015 "Every Student Succeeds Act" barred the government from requiring this data: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/essa-loosens-reins-on-teacher-evaluations-qualifications/2016/01 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/essa-loosens-reins-on... "But the teachers’ unions see an opening to change policies their members have broadly rejected. They are also far more powerful among state legislatures than in Congress." "The American Federation of Teachers plans to bring its political clout to bear on the issue, too." On the other hand, strong research exist to show that SGPs are a valid and useful measurement: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593 "The main lesson of this study is that value-added models which control for a student’s prior-year test scores provide unbiased forecasts of teachers’ causal impacts on student achievement. Because the dispersion in teacher effects is substantial, this result implies that improvements in teacher quality can raise students’ test scores significantly." And the follow-up study: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633 "This paper has shown that the same VA measures are also an informative proxy for teachers’ long-term impacts." > 2) they are a worse measure of student preparedness than GPAs GPAs are highly subjective, and more importantly, harder to compare across schools and even across classes. By using standardized scores, for instance, one could track successfully that a teacher's performance remains consistent as he or she moves across schools. Remember, this was about measuring teacher performance, not student performance. That said, if GPAs really were better for teacher evaluation, there is nothing stopping you from measuring student GPA improvement instead of student standardized test score improvement, so I'm not sure what you're really arguing against at this point. > 3) they only test those topics which are easy to test in a standardized setting. Many important topics taught in secondary school are well-understood and amenable to standardized testing, including: math, reading comprehension, grammar, some aspects of science and history, etc. > Since you think peer review is important, why do you point to non-peer-reviewed sources? These books cite peer-reviewed sources and are a great starting point before digging further. > Just looking at the authors shows that I expect them to have a pro-standardized testing viewpoint. Everyone is biased. The NEA spends millions convincing people to drop standardized tests through their advocacy group, FairTest, which serves as one of their front organizations. Much of education academia is biased against standardized testing. Biases are everywhere, and were fairly obviously present in your sources that I checked. At some point, you have to pick a bias you trust more, and I trust the bias that says standardized tests are useful over the bias that says they should be entirely done away with.