Is the Wake Count school system not getting the best bang for the buck by offering higher pay for teachers who have master's degrees or national board certification?
At Tuesday's school board work session, school administrators presented data showing the majority of Wake's high-performing teachers don't have either a master's degree or national board certification.
"An important point is we pay extra for the board-certified teachers and the advanced-degree teachers receive extra but the high-performing teachers receive nothing," said Superintendent Tony Tata.
David Holdzkom, assistant superintendent for evaluation and research, presented this handout showing Venn diagrams of Wake teachers who are high performing and have those other degrees and certifications.
High performing is determined by assessing the performance of a teacher's students using EVAAS. Depending on whether the students are showing growth on state exams, teachers will get different ratings.
EVAAS isn't used for some elementary teachers due to the combination of the lack of state exams in K-2 and that you can't calculate growth in third grade.
Based on 2009-10 data, Wake had 104 fourth- and fifth-grade math teachers identified by EVAAS as high performing. Of the group, 62 only had a bachelor's degree, 22 also had a master's degree or higher, 13 had national board certification and 7 had all three.
Of the 101 grade 4-5 math teachers with national board certification, only 20 were identified as high performing.
Of the 207 grade 4-5 math teachers with a master's degree or higher, only 29 were identified as high performing.
The handout indicated similar results for middle school and high school teachers.
School board member John Tedesco said that it shows the need to make sure that the best teachers are being matched up with the students who most need the help.
"If I was a parent, I don’t necessarily want a nationally-board certified teacher or the master’s teacher, I’m going to want the one who will help my child grow," Tedesco said.
School board member Anne McLaurin said presenting something like this at the board table would show people that they do talk about academics. She said people may not watch the work session discussions where they discus these kinds of issues.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta responded by saying they may have a public presentation of the data at a regular board meeting.
Whether the board can and will change things remains to be seen. The difference in pay can be large.
For instance, a Wake teacher with 20 years on her license who only has a bachelor's degree would receive a salary of $49,858.90. If that same teacher got national board certification, the salary would be $55,837.40.
A Wake teacher with 20 years of experience on her license and a master's degree would get a salary of $55,089.50. Add in board certification and the salary rises to $61,704.90.
Teachers can also receive an additional $126 per month for an earned advanced certification and an additional $253 per month for a doctorate.
Wake has the most nationally board certified teachers in the nation. That's in large part because the state helps teachers pay for the cost of certification and then boosts their pay 12 percent if they get it.
UPDATE
Click here for a PDF from EDSTAR that explains the EVAAS system.
Click here for a sample EVAAS teacher report.
Click here to view the policy adopted by the state Board of Education.
Comments
NBPTS
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 06:39 — willynillyIf you do a little digging into who funded some of these studies you will find certain groups with their own political agendas. For example, NBPTS drew questions upon itself when it funded many of the early studies. However, take a scientific approach to this. Go to Google or another search engine....type in NBPTS effectiveness. You will find 3 reports pointing out the lack of effectiveness for every one that shows effectiveness.
BTW Wake County.....yoiu are paying for teachers who never did the process the way in which they were supposed to do it.
1) Teachers copying a winning portfolio.
2) Teachers who stack their class....after school....selected students.....pizza bribes.
National Board Certified Teachers Highly Effective
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 16:58 — kgarrWake County schools are getting “the best bang for the buck” in offering higher pay for teachers who earn National Board Certification. I join many others in responding to the blog in expressing concern about the data presented at one of the recent school board sessions. There is far more research that clearly documents the impact of National Board Certification on student learning and achievement, as well as support for effective teaching—both nationwide and in North Carolina:
· Higher gains on achievement test and greater retention. National studies support NBCTs' impact. In a Congressionally mandated study conducted over a 30-month period, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences found that students taught by NBCTs make higher gains on achievement tests. The report also found that NBCTs have greater retention rates and that the National Board’s assessment process contributes to teachers’ professional development (NRC, 2008).
· Positive Impact on Student Achievement. Elementary students of NBCTs in NC have greater student achievement (4 to 6 percent of a standard deviation) in both reading and mathematics than students of non-NBCTs (Ladd, Sass & Harris, 2007). NBCTs also have a significant, positive impact on end-of-course exams among high school students (in mathematics and reading) and end-of grade tests among middle school students (reading) (Henry and Thompson, 2010).
· Rigorous and Challenging. Only about ten percent of teachers in North Carolina are National Board Certified. National Board Certification is a unique, time consuming and comprehensive process. Both nationally and also in North Carolina, only about 40 percent of candidates seeking National Board Certification achieve it on their first attempt, unlike the statistics for other advanced certificates for other professions or within the teaching profession.
· Keeps good teachers in the classroom. Researchers Goldhaber and Hansen (2007) found that, over an eight-year period, NBCTs were less likely to move between schools and districts or to leave the North Carolina public school system compared with teachers who never sought certification. In addition, the Department of Public Instruction, in a past study, found that 93% of NBCTs were still in education and 91% were still in the classroom.
The professional teaching standards at NBPTS are so rigorous that the state of North Carolina has aligned its new teacher evaluation tool with the National Board standards.
I would urge those wishing to learn more about the effectiveness of National Board Certified Teachers to visit their classrooms and see accomplished teaching demonstrated there.
Karen Garr
so...
Sat, 05/21/2011 - 15:06 — Bob_SconceWhat evidence is there of causation? If everything you list is true, it could be that the best teachers decide to become board certified, and that the board certiication process really doesn't cause any improvement.
Does it matter if there is
Sun, 05/22/2011 - 12:40 — virginiadareDoes it matter if there is causation if board certification identifies and rewards best teachers? I thought that was the purpose.
Hmm...
Sun, 05/22/2011 - 13:22 — Bob_SconceThat is a good point. Seems to be a lot of wasted effort trying to get board-certified, though.
In any case, it's not clear that board certification does indeed identify the best teachers. See, e.g., http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/quickreviews/nbcert/ .
I believe teacher
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 08:09 — virginiadareI believe teacher certification does a much better job of identifying effective teachers than EVAAS does. Karen Garr above makes very good points, as does the piece I referenced before about the flaws in EVAAS and why it is not a good way to evaluate teachers. If you dispute the premise that EVAAS accurately identifies effective teachers, then the study you cited would not prove that board certified teachers are not any better than teachers without the certification. I also thought it was interesting that the study controlled for student and classroom characteristics. Isn't that exactly what EI did that everyone was criticizing?
No...
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 08:29 — Bob_SconceThe main criticism of EI was that it lowered expectations when a student was poor.
I haven't read the literature, so can't really comment, except to say that the value of board certification seems to be an ongoing religious argument in education circles.
Exactly what "controlled
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 08:55 — virginiadareExactly what "controlled for" means!
Please read this
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 20:20 — virginiadarePlease read this timely piece which has another view of using EVAAS to determine which teachers are the most effective. I think it's really scary that Wake is going down this path now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/what-is-joel-klein-talking-about/2011/05/18/AFT62l6G_blog.html
Well I Slammed The Glaring Mistake In
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:13 — chaboardthe board data so let me be fair and point out that THIS comment from the link is one of the most thoroughly stupid statements I've ever heard about modelling:
If different formulas can come up with different results on effectiveness, how objective is it?
Hard to take anything written by the person who wrote that very seriously.
I suppose I'm just setting
Sun, 05/22/2011 - 20:24 — danofncI suppose I'm just setting myself up for you to talk trash about me, but I think the comment makes a lot of sense.
If I have a formula and you have a formula, and we're both measuring teacher effectiveness, we should come to the same conclusions, shouldn't we?
If we don't, then aren't our "value-added" formulas emphasizing different "values"? Who gets to decide which values are correctly emphasized? Especially when someone's career may potentially be at stake?
If you want to measure teacher effectiveness, then administer a test at the beginning of the year, and then administer another test at the end of the year. At that point, you'd have hard raw data about the growth of a certain set of students in a certain timeframe. When you start adjusting for certain things, you are asking for trouble.
Are you serious?
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 07:24 — chaboardIf you want to measure teacher effectiveness, then administer a test at the beginning of the year, and then administer another test at the end of the year. At that point, you'd have hard raw data about the growth of a certain set of students in a certain timeframe. When you start adjusting for certain things, you are asking for trouble.
And finally, your main objection - "who gets to decide?" - proves too much. If we are to throw out objective measures because there is a single subjective component (someone must choose WHICH metric to use) then we have to throw out all subjective measures for the same reason. And we're left with no evaluation. Not good.
See....told you I was just
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:56 — danofncSee....told you I was just setting myself up to be trashed.
In your example, I don't think either teacher would have much to brag about. But, I will say that I think your example is warped because if a kid only knew 25% of what he should know at the beginning of the year, he probably shouldn't be in that grade unless he was in kindergarten. Plus, notice I said "another" test. You seem to be suggesting that it would be the same test both times, and that's not what I intended. You wouldn't give a 4th grader a test in August that was testing what you expected him to know in June of the next year, and you wouldn't give them a test in late May/June that tested what you thought they should have known in August of the prior year.
What I suggested is not really different than what actually happens now. Kids are given assessments at the beginning of the year, and then assessments are done again at the end of the year. There are minimum benchmarks kids are expected to meet. The difference is that those assessments are only really used in parent/teacher conferences.....they aren't reported.
All I am saying is that once you start adjusting for certain things, you are manipulating the data based on someone's idea of what's important.
Sorry If You Thought That Was A "Trashing"
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 19:33 — chaboard....it certainly wasn't meant that way. I'm a lot closer to you on the main issue tha you seem to realize. My apologies.
All I am saying is that once you start adjusting for certain things, you are manipulating the data based on someone's idea of what's important.
But, there's a big
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 19:46 — danofncBut, there's a big difference between a broad brush statement like:
"All students entering 2nd grade should know 'x', and all students exiting 2nd grade should know 'y'"
and a broad brush statement like:
"Students who are F&R don't learn as quickly as non-F&R students, so adjust their expectations downward prior to evaluating their teachers."
You Lost Me
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 07:02 — chaboardBoth of your statements are about student expectations, not teacher effectiveness, so I'm not sure what they have to with the discussion. It's my claim that IF a student DOESN'T "know x entering second grade" any reasonable (results based) evaluation of the 2nd grade teacher should account for that. Similiarly, IF f&r stdents in general DON'T learn as quickly as non-f&r students (and the difference is significant) then any reasonable (results based) evaluation of the 2nd grade teacher should account for that. (Note the "if", btw. IF the difference is real then ignoring it is tantamount to ignoring reality and just pretending the world is as you wish it to be.)
Otherwise you're not evaluating the teacher, you're evaluating the combinsation of teacher plus school and classroom assignment.
Once you make the decision to evaluate a teachar based on results rather than judging subjectively process and ability you .......once that decision is made then HAVE to account for all of the significant non-teacher factors that you know of if the goal is to evaluate only the teacher. Doing less is fundamentally dishonest and logically invalid.
Anyway, we've probably reahed a dead end on this.
I think I'm introducing
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:27 — danofncI think I'm introducing something new in this post, but basically what I would do is measure the students' performance "as is". At that point, in determining teacher effectiveness, you'd measure that teacher against teachers with similar class makeups.
You wouldn't compare a teacher from some school in Apex with 9% F&R with a teacher from Raleigh with 69% F&R and expect the same results from their classes. You would compare teachers with other teachers who are guiding similar groups of students. That would, in essence, account for all of the factors surrounding their students, but not by establishing low expectations out of the gate.
I'm not trying to say that where a teacher is teaching doesn't matter. I know that it does.
Assumptions about F&R
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:33 — lferreriThe problem with this as I see it is that it assumes all ED students will be lower achieving than NED students. That's why I like using EVAAS. A student is treated as an individual with a past history of achievement. For example, a student who has scored at Level IV for several years, whether that student is ED or NED, should be expected to continue to do well. Now that information is available that allows for projections based on individual student achievement, I don't see any reason to make assumptions based on SES or other demographic factors.
I realize that there are limitations to using EVAAS for evaluations. The student needs an achievement history so it can't be used for lower level grades. It also can't be used for classes that do not have an EOG/EOC score. But that same limitation seems to apply to any evaluation method that uses a past score for a prediction.
If we use strictly demographics and ignore past achievement, we are making assumptions about groups of children, and I am not comfortable with that. (In Dallas, they use gender and ethnicity as demographics to adjust expectations. I think that's an example of the problem, and one that brings home the inherent drawback with demographically-based adjustments.)
So....
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:55 — chaboardI don't see any reason to make assumptions based on SES or other demographic factors.
As they age through the school system
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 23:26 — nmoskal"We KNOW that the gap between poor and non-poor (or black and white, or a dozen other demographic splits) performance increases from as kids age through the school system"
And WHY is that? Maybe it has to do with attitudes like yours that we should expect them to do worse and it becomes a self-fulling prophecy? Maybe it is because some educators and people like you discount the expectations of high-achieving ED or black kids just because they are ED or black, which isn't done to NED or white kids? Maybe it is because they place a higher percentage of qualified NED and white kids in advanced classes compared to qualified ED and black kids, which are shoved down into lower tracks because that's where they are "expected" to be? There's tracking based on demographic stereotypes and tracking tends to increase as kids age through the system. Of course, we end up with a growing achievement gap.
Studies
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 22:07 — lferreriFrom the web site www.sas.com/govedu/edu/k12/evaas/index.html#s1=5
But common sense also tells us that downgrading a child's predicted score based on demographics is only justified if we have limited information about that child's past academic success. We can now create individual trajectories. Since we can now do so, I don't see any reason for basing them on demographic generalizations.
If all I know is that, for example, boys tend to score lower on reading tests, then it might make sense to predict a specific boy's score to be lower. However, if I know that this specific boy is an excellent reader as demonstrated by his past achievement, what justification can I have for expecting his future scores to be lower than his past scores? In fact, his past achievement indicates that this particular boy has learned reading well in the past. It is likely he will continue to do so. This kind of gender bias used to be used to say that girls couldn't learn math and science. Even if a girl had done very well in prior science and math classes, people would argue that she was likely to do poorly in the future because "girls don't do well in math and science". People would point to lower scores for girls on tests like the math section of the SATs. Fortunately, that argument isn't used as frequently as it once was.
I might add that I believe some of the adjustments based on demographics may be illegal.
Much too logical.
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 21:02 — HJ2ss2Much too logical.
That is perfectly
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 22:26 — danofncThat is perfectly logical.
The difference is that instead of lowering the expectations for the student and the teacher up front, before that particular kid has done anything in that particular class, I'd judge the kid and the teacher on the progress the kid makes during that year.
Instead of trying to add to or subtract from the kid's performance in order to compare the teacher with every other teacher, why not measure how that teacher did against other teacher's with similar class makeups?
Similar class makeups
Wed, 05/25/2011 - 08:33 — lferreriBut you are defining "similar class makeups" based on what percentage of ED kids are in the class as if all ED students perform at the same level. Why not define "similar class makeup" on the basis of the students' previously demonstrated ability in this subject?
I totally agree with you.
Wed, 05/25/2011 - 08:40 — danofncI totally agree with you. Using demonstrated ability to determine "similar makeup" would be ideal.
But, from where we are (making assumptions for future performance based on economic status), that is a huge change.....mostly because people do accept as fact the idea that ED kids, generally speaking, don't perform as well as NED kids. Raw numbers seem to back up that assertion as well.
All I'm suggesting is that instead of dialing back their expectations in an attempt to be able to measure their teacher against a teacher with NED kids, level the playing field by comparing teachers with similar economic situations for their students instead.
It wouldn't be perfect (and no evaluation system for teachers is likely to be perfect), but I think it would be a huge first step in the right direction.
Currently available system
Wed, 05/25/2011 - 09:54 — lferreriHave you looked at the teacher evaluation system as shown in the link Keung posted above? What do you think? I realize that this system uses past individual student academic performance rather than class academic performance as predictor variables. But it avoids the problem of making demographic assumptions about student abilities. Plus it has the advantage of being immediately available and free since the state has purchased it.
I've worked under two systems where my performance was benchmarked against that of other teachers with no adjustments made, demographic or performance based. Personally I would have welcomed the additional information that comes from the type of teacher evaluation shown above. Just getting the average score for your students compared to the students in other classes doesn't tell you much about your strengths and weaknesses. I used to have to comb through the exam results by hand to get additional information. I also like the fact that the existing system lets the teacher determine if small variations from the mean are significant. I never knew if having my students score a couple of points above or below average was just a random variation or represented an actual difference in effectiveness.
I agree with you.
Wed, 05/25/2011 - 07:09 — HJ2ss2I agree with you.
Easy answer. The principal
Sun, 05/22/2011 - 21:50 — HJ2ss2Easy answer. The principal gets to decide, based on their whim, distortions and subjective criteria. Particularly when someones career is at stake. On a personal note if you look at my performance as measured by EDSTAR, June 2007, you will find that my performance was equal to or better than that of others in the same position, with the same job description.
Please don't read arrogance into the above comment. I've worked hard to be good at what I do. I suspect you might feel the same way in my circumstances.
A school system where being educated....
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 13:08 — bpuli9999is considered not such a good thing.
One commented that it looked like the map showed
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 09:26 — rowdyonea higher proportion of highly effective teachers in the "rich" schools. When my son (white) was in K-2 he was targeted to a school that was surrounded by a housing project, with an 80% poverty level. His kindergarten year was wasted as he had been to pre-school and knew everthing that was being taught. His 1st grade was magnificent, probably the best teacher he ever had. Second grade was awful and we were out of there. Initially, there were great teachers at this school. But there was little or no parental support, (my friend and I served as grade parents all three years and bought and paid for everything for the school parties) and finally the great teachers in this school got burnt out and because of their reputation administration was quick to put them in the "better" schools to hold on to them as surrounding counties would have picked them up.
Maybe these teachers have paid their dues in schools where the students aren't moved to learn and the parents want to blame the school for every problem with the child. I know teachers who dread to go to work because of the obstacles they face between administration, parents, and students. Someone needs to take off the rose-colored glasses and realize that some students are like sponges and soak up everything and when needed they give back.. others are like rocks and nothing gets through, either because of ability or stubborness. Regardless, a child is molded by their home life and the people who raise them. How they do in school is reflective of that and not the money we spend, or the schools they go to, or bussing or teachers or the fairness of it all.
Rowdyone...you were one
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 17:17 — luv2teachRowdyone...you were one observant parent. YOU have hit the nail on the head with your observation and conclusion. The rose colored glasses need to be removed and people need to see the truth behind the lack of success with students in school. Our leaders, and politicians, etc...just WILL NOT admit and publicly say, that the home life is the key to the failure and success of a child's education. They are running out of people to blame and they are running out fast. I hope to see the day that once again...parents will be held accountable for their child's progress in school.
Thanks for your viewpoint, you have made this teacher smile today after reading this blog, that someone sees things the way we see them.
I agree as well
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 17:34 — wakepta123My own 2 thoughts to expand on this. I know from experience that in poverty areas the home life at best is depressing and not fun, at worse terrible to describe. I believe a lot of the money we "add" to education for low poverty schools should be spent on things needed for these students (especially in lieu of hour long bus rides). Maybe they do this already, but I would like to see a totally free after school programs where enrichment programs are offered - like personalized 1 on 1 help in reading and math or whatever the needs are, nutritional snacks and a safe environment for 3-4 hours in the afternoon, 2:30-6:30 - let's send these kids home more nourished, extra help that they need in a smaller setting, and and extra fun in a safe energetic positive environment. I would hope they would come home tired frm a long but active fulfilling day and it would give them strength and hope. I wuld also hope that the WCPSS works with Social services to provide some assistance in the home or to the home for at risk children - kind of a joint effort. I loved school when I was young because my home life was so depressing and unstable - and I hated the weekends. I think a fair amount of the costs for this program could be provided by eliminating other programs that do not work so well. Does anyone know if WCPSS offers this coutnywide and free for all students below a certain income level?
Great ideas in theory,
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 22:01 — HJ2ss2Great ideas in theory, problem is reality. If you really knew what these children experience at home, you would understand why the 3-4 hours in the afternoon might not make much of a difference. Social Services is not always the best resource for intervention. Many "social workers" in the Department of social services are trained in disciplines other than social work. There is a Social Work department in the school system that, in the past, has not been utilized in the appropriate manner. As far as eliminating programs that are unsuccessful, I've been down that road in the past and was prompted to "do as you are told" rather than implement something that would work.
WCPSS Before/After School Care
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 18:22 — local23Is offered in some schools at a very reduced cost based on income. The Y also offers this at a reduced and even free (based on income/needs) for many of Wakes schools. Many teachers do the before/after (if their school offers this) and the teachers make a little bit more money, but when my kids were in elementary they loved being able to get in some early learning from the teachers and of course playing in the gym with the coaches..all around a great program, but I think it has declined in usage, mainly because of all of the MYR issues.
Missing Points
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 07:23 — nriemannIt is a good topic to be discussing. But in addition to the missing data identified by earlier commenters, other important issues were skipped over in this presentation, and no one asked about or discussed them.
1. The discussion assumes that EVAAS provides the complete definition of an effective teacher. Many do not agree, since EVAAS really measures student growth from all sources and according to pertinent EOG/EOC scores only.
2. What EVAAS results, over what period, and for whom resulted in a "highly effective" designation on these charts? It was likely a multiyear measure, but as Shila points out, it's not completely clear how they made their classifications, given the way the tool works. Mr. Tedesco was surprised at how few highly effective teachers we had, but it appears from the slides that the definition is relativistic and would therefore preclude having an majority of highly effective teachers.
3. They didn't discuss the difference in the qualitative nature of the criteria they were comparing: you either have a masters or a certification, or you don't, whereas your status as a highly effective teacher in EVAAS may not be stable over time and conditions.
4. They didn't talk about the fact that you can recruit teachers with Board cert or a masters, while no one has figured out a reliable way to identify, ex ante, teachers who produce high growth according to one particular value-added measure. Correlations between the results of one value-added system and another (or one set of test outcomes and another) tend not to be high.
5. The blog post does not discuss it, but Mr. Tata also produced a map. There was no handout, and it was a ways from the audience, but it appeared to show a high concentration of highly effective teachers in Western Wake and a high concentration of low performing students in Eastern and Southern Wake. His intent was clearly to show that the highly effective teachers were in the wrong place. In the context of this discussion, it is important for people to understand that EVAAS disaggregates for race but not for income, because its designer claims there is no correlation between rates of growth and socioeconomic status. He never showed this data, so far as I know, and there are some reasons to be skeptical of this claim. If the claim is wrong, then Mr. Tata's map might show that rich schools get a disproportionate share of good teachers, as he implied, it might show that more affluent kids help EVAAS effectiveness ratings, or it might show 2-3 other things unrelated to either.
?
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 13:13 — loriac'Mr. Tata's map might show that rich schools get a disproportionate share of good teachers...'
What is a rich school? A magnet school?
More missing points
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:59 — stan_norwalkWCPSS and NC pay their teachers much less than in surrounding states and are below the national average. Some argue that many teachers do not work to get rich. But they do value good working conditions - primarily small class size.
Few are considering leaving a job now. But what happens when the economy revives? Will we see teachers retiring, moving to other jurisdictions outside the State moving to private schools?
As The uber-Conservatives move to dismantle K-12 public and we plunge to 49th or 50th in support level, these scenarios become more likely.
Tata is likely correct in his comments - but the high-fliers are the most likely to leave.
Makes one wonder why you did
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 07:19 — woodstockMakes one wonder why you did not address these things when you and your party were in the driver's seats all those years. Why is it an issue with you now when you are basically biding your time waiting to retire. Were you always this ineffective?
Who knows maybe Obama's lack of attention on, or ability to find a solution to, our nation's economic recovery is really just a teacher retention program.
maybe
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 17:42 — wakepta123There alot of ins and outs with these salary comparisons, including cost of living and taxes, as well as the actually differences, so I would not use that as a blanket cause and effect statement. Also, as far as working conditions, from the teachers I have talked to ability of kids to learn, stable backgrounds and preparedness for school - i.e. no major emotional issues are far more important than class size. Thus the "rich" or affluent areas in general are almost always kids that are easier to teach than poor areas - that is really the crux of the problem with teachers not wnating to teach in poor schools, vs. class size.
Meck BOC chair proposes $40M more for education
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 13:16 — stan_norwalkWithout raising property taxes. So what's Coble proposal?
What is your proposal? You
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 23:01 — starsonoursWhat is your proposal? You are still a member of the County Commissioners aren't you? Such statements should be saved for the day you are not a Commissioner.
Lean across the table and ask him Stan
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 16:27 — FSandYOUor is that too much to ask for you to accomplish in your last days?
I had asked about getting a
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 08:42 — KeungHui (author)I had asked about getting a copy of the map yesterday and was told that it's being revised.
Bravo
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 08:13 — chaboardVery nice summary
not that simple
Wed, 05/18/2011 - 22:53 — snordoneWhen you look at teacher effectiveness data it is not all or none (effective or not). the data are presented as growth in level 1-4. So a teacher may be highly effective at getting growth from level 1 & 2 kids, whereas another may be effective at getting growth from level 4 kids. In my opinion it is about getting these teachers recognized so they can share their best practices in PLTs, and about getting the right teachers with the kids they can help the most.
The fact that they are starting this discussion is excellent.
Agreed
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 08:22 — chaboardThe fact that they are starting this discussion is excellent.
I've found that practically
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 12:56 — Eric_BI've found that practically no one in this discussion about academic performance and test scores knows even the slightest bit about how to judge test data. Ask someone about normal or cumulative distributions and differences between two cohorts in terms of units of standard deviation (z-score) and eyes glaze over.
This is more than just the current board. It's almost everybody. Take a look at the stuff put out by the WCPSS Evaluation & Research department that boldly proclaims that academic achievement gaps are closing based on differences in test score passing percentages. The truth is that gaps are not closing and that gaps between white and black students have remained almost exactly constant since 1994 when measured using z-scores.
True - But Let's Be Clear Here
Fri, 05/20/2011 - 21:27 — chaboard........we're not talking about fancy statistics in this instance. We're talking about the basic math skills to know that proportions are fractions and that comparing two of them requires two fractions. And the basic observational skils to notice that one of the needed denominators is nowhere in sight. We're talking late elementary school word problems here at best.
We never even get to the fun statistical stuff like "is whatever difference that may exist between the two proportions statistically significant" or "does the difference between the two proportions hold any significant predictive power around student achievement".........because our board members don't even understand how to compare two simple fractions!
Ratios, Fractions, and Proportions
Sat, 05/21/2011 - 06:54 — jeffrey1We're talking about the basic math skills to know that proportions are fractions and that comparing two of them requires two fractions.
Touche!
Sat, 05/21/2011 - 08:28 — chaboard<grin>