首页
登录
职称英语
The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teac
The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teac
游客
2024-01-23
35
管理
问题
The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teacher Evaluation Systems
A) One of the primary policy reforms now being employed in states and districts nationwide is teacher evaluation reform. Well-designed evaluations, which should include measures that capture both teacher practice and student learning, have great potential to inform and improve the performance of teachers and, thus, students. Furthermore, most everyone agrees that the previous systems were not really practical, failed to provide useful feedback, and needed replacement.
B) The attitude among many policymakers and advocates is that we must implement these systems and begin using them rapidly for decisions about teachers, while design flaws can be fixed later. However, we believe this attitude to be unwise. The risks of excessive haste are likely higher than whatever opportunity costs would be brought forth by proceeding more cautiously. Moving too quickly gives policymakers and educators less time to devise and test the new systems, and to become familiar with how they work and the results they provide.
C) Moreover, careless rushing may result in avoidable erroneous high-stakes decisions about individual teachers. Such decisions are harmful to the profession, they threaten the credibility of the evaluations, and they may well promote widespread resistance.
D) Finally, we must not underestimate the costs, financial and otherwise, of making large changes to these systems once they are in place. A perfect example is No Child Left Behind—it had many obvious design flaws that were known early on, but few of these have been corrected, even in states’ NCLB "flexibility" applications.
E) In short, given these risks and the difficulty of fairly and accurately measuring teacher effectiveness, it seems short-sighted to rush into full-blown implementation without ensuring that the new systems are up to the task.
F) To that end, we would like to highlight four issues to which states and districts must pay attention in the short term. The first is that the details of the evaluations, some of which may seem insignificant, in fact matter tremendously. Important choices include (but are not limited to): selecting measures, particularly for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects; reporting evaluation results to educators in a manner that is useful to their practice; ensuring accuracy in state data systems; choosing cut scores (if desired) to separate more and less effective educators; and designing scoring systems that preserve each measure’s intended importance, or "weight". All of these decisions are important, but even a quick glance of states’ new evaluation policies under the waivers (弃权声明书) or Race to the Top highlights many decisions that contradict what little we know about effective teacher evaluation systems.
G) And, as is often the case with new policies, the flow of research in this area lags far behind the risky pace of policy making. For instance, a large number of states have chosen as their growth model for teacher evaluation a variant on what’s commonly called the " student growth percentile" (SGP) model. However, recent evidence suggests that value-added models can do a better job of leveling the playing field across classes. Similarly, the Measures of Effective Teaching project offered useful guidance for designing evaluation systems, but its results were released after many states and districts had already made these decisions.
H) A second issue is simply bad timing; The implementation of the Common Core standards and new Core-aligned assessments creates serious complications for new teacher evaluation systems. Perhaps the most important of these is that curriculum, standards, and assessments are not yet in sync (同步的). New York has recently experienced this issue, administering new assessments before teachers have been supported to implement the Common Core through curriculum materials. And, while the stated hope is that the tests, curricula, and standards will perfectly come into adjustment in a few years, if history is any guide this is far from guaranteed.
I) Doing evaluation reform and Common Core implementation at the same time may well be too much for states, districts, and schools to handle. Furthermore, evaluating teachers on the basis of tests that are not in line with what they are supposed to be teaching is a fundamentally invalid use of those data.
J) The third issue is the need for states to avoid being overly prescriptive. Most notably, many schools and districts have well established evaluation systems already in place, and it makes little sense to do away with these systems and force a state-enforced model. Similarly, districts should be given room to experiment with system design and with different ways to use the results for personnel decisions. The state’s optimal role may be to enforce a minimum standard for teacher evaluation, rather than enforcing a particular evaluation model statewide.
K) Fourth and finally, new evaluations—as with any major policy—require significant time and resources to plan and experiment, and there must be substantial capacity building for educators to understand and carry out these systems. Policies should not move directly from the drawing board to high-stakes implementation if the goal is to bring the policies’ effectiveness into full play and minimizing (最小化) their negative unintended consequences. We recommend that schools and districts should have a year for planning and two years of implementation prior to tying ratings to high-stakes decisions.
L) We conclude where we began—as two individuals who believe that improved teacher evaluation systems could indeed help elevate teaching and learning in US schools. We are concerned that the overly quick, insufficiently careful manner in which many new systems are being installed threatens their likelihood of success.
M) Put simply, we need to slow down and work to create the best systems possible. Schools and districts in the middle of the design and implementation process should focus on the details of their systems and partner with researchers and other sites to study system effectiveness. In those places where evaluations are already in force, we would strongly advise policymakers to take a step back and consider our suggestions.
N) And, no matter the situation, high-stakes decisions about teachers should not be made on the basis of assessment data collected during Common Core implementation. Doing so is unfair and inappropriate and may cause serious harm. [br] The teacher evaluation reform should improve the performance of both teachers and students to a greater extent.
选项
答案
A
解析
细节归纳题。定位句介绍了教师评估改革是全国改革的重点。设计完善的教师评估体制能有很大的潜能来改进教师的工作,并提高学生的学习成绩。题干是对定位句的归纳,故选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3387148.html
相关试题推荐
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
TheSeriousRisksofRushingNewTeac
A、Itisfatal.B、Itisweird.C、Itisveryserious.D、Itiscomplicated.C
A、Becauseoftheserioussnowstorms.B、Becauseofalackofsnow.C、Becauseoft
[originaltext] Losingone’sdrivinglicenceintheUKisaseriousmatter—expe
随机试题
[originaltext]WorldEnvironmentDaywasestablishedbytheUnitedNationsG
光传播的正确概念是A.光从一种媒质进入另一种媒质时,传播方向改变 B.反射的光
理财业务是资管业务的一种类型,具有与传统银行业务截然不同的鲜明特征,这些特征主要
"阳胜则热"的证候性质是()A.虚热证 B.假热证 C.实热证 D.
小区里因宠物狗惊吓到自己孩子,孩子父亲很生气,遂对小狗进行殴打,引起狗主人不满,
甲股份有限公司2020年有关所有者权益变动等的资料如下: (1)2020年7月
在组织结构体系中,“达到企业目标所需完成的各项业务工作及其比例和关系”指的是(
银行承兑汇票的承兑银行,应当按照票面金额向出票人收取()的手续费。A:千分之一
根据《建设工程监理规范》监理规划应()A、在签订委托监理合同后开始编制,并应在召
设计成果中包括分部分项工程验收标准和方法,详细程度能够满足非标准设备的设计与加工
最新回复
(
0
)