2. 职称英语
  3. The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teac

The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teac

游客2024-01-23  19
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] Evaluating teachers on the basis of tests that do not accord with what they are expected to be teaching is a noneffective use of those data.
选项
答案 I
解析 同义转述题。定位句指出，如果评估教师的内容不是基于该教师应该教授的内容，那么这就是对数据的无效使用。题干中的not accord with是对原文中not in line with的同义转述，故选I。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3387153.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)