4 ms·

I don't think your characterization is fair. Read this: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-framing-paper.pdf http://www.gatesfoundation.

by jforman 14y ago

I don't think your characterization is fair. Read this: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-framing-paper.pdf http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-fra... It's a reasonably enlightened approach to outcomes measurement that doesn't rely solely on high-stakes testing. They track: * Measure 1: Student achievement gains on assessments * Measure 2: Classroom observations and teacher reflections * Measure 3: Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge * Measure 4: Student perceptions of the classroom instructional environment * Measure 5: Teachers’ perceptions of working conditions and instructional support at their schools The report associated with the MET program is indeed rigorous research based on this framework. You may disagree with it, but at least represent it accurately.

droithomme 14y ago
It explicitly states it starts with premises they are assuming to be true. You have a nice list but there's one thing you forgot to mention, and intriguingly it's the key new innovation in this project: dystopian police state panoramic cameras installed in 100% of classrooms and a central website run by ETS to upload monitoring videos for evaluation by technocrats. There is no evidence that this is going to help teaching. The assumption is that it will, and the project is funding tests to demonstrate that it is effective, which will be the finding of the "study", because the desired outcome is always the finding of these studies; they are as unbiased and without a desired outcome as pharmaceutical studies to show the safety of a new erection pill.