首页
登录
职称英语
The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teacher Evaluation SystemsA)One of
The Serious Risks of Rushing New Teacher Evaluation SystemsA)One of
游客
2024-02-04
24
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,放弃)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 models 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 simple 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,协调的). 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(高风险的)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 Measures of Effective Teaching project might guide the design of evaluation systems if its results were released earlier.
选项
答案
G
解析
细节推断题。定位句讲述“有效教学措施”项目本来可以为新的教师评估体制提供必要的引导,只是它的相关数据传送到各州各区时,当地已在开展改革了。题干是对定位句的推断,故选G)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3422249.html
相关试题推荐
[originaltext]M:Ican’tbelievemyliteratureteacherismakingmereadPride
Would-belanguageteacherseverywherehaveonethingincommon:theyallwan
Would-belanguageteacherseverywherehaveonethingincommon:theyallwan
Would-belanguageteacherseverywherehaveonethingincommon:theyallwan
Would-belanguageteacherseverywherehaveonethingincommon:theyallwan
Would-belanguageteacherseverywherehaveonethingincommon:theyallwan
Virtuallyunknownadecadeago,bigonlineteachereducationprogramsnowdw
Virtuallyunknownadecadeago,bigonlineteachereducationprogramsnowdw
Virtuallyunknownadecadeago,bigonlineteachereducationprogramsnowdw
Virtuallyunknownadecadeago,bigonlineteachereducationprogramsnowdw
随机试题
能抑制T4转化为T3的药物是A.甲硫氧嘧啶 B.甲巯咪唑 C.丙硫氧嘧啶
关于小区供热锅炉房的表述,哪几项是正确的?A.省煤器装设在锅炉尾部烟道内 B.
关于货运中的多式联运的说法,正确的是()。A:多式联运经营人对全程运输承担义务
以下属于商业银行可以从事的十三类业务的有()。A.募集发行债务、资本补充工具
现行的《药品管理法》的实施日期是A:2001年12月1日B:2001年2月28
以下不是药学部门质量管理制度的是A.查对制度 B.交接班制度 C.新药备案制
各种运输方式内外部的各个方面的构成和联系,就是( )。 A.运输系统
世界文化遗产、文化与自然双重遗产和文化景观遗产,符合《世界遗产公约》规定标准的,
属于梅毒的病变有( )。A.硬性下疳 B.梅毒疹 C.脊髓痨 D.黏液性
二灰稳定土有良好的力学性能、板体性、水稳性和一定的抗冻性,其()比石灰土高很多。
最新回复
(
0
)