No, it’s not the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to acknowledge that students’ socioeconomic status is a factor in their educational achievement. It’s a fact, and refusing to acknowledge it leads to labeling teachers and schools in low income areas “failures,” which in turn leads to a host of educational “solutions” that don’t acknowledge the actual problems.
So I’m encouraged that the University of Missouri is looking at a teacher evaluation model that factors in the student population.
Researchers at the University of Missouri have identified a plan to evaluate teachers fairly using a “proportional” system. Cory Koedel, an associate professor of economics and public policy in the MU College of Arts and Science and the Truman School of Public Affairs, says that proportionality would level the playing field among teachers who work with students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
“One of the biggest criticisms of proposed teacher evaluations is that teachers in less wealthy districts with fewer resources will be unfairly evaluated in relation to teachers with access to more resources,” Koedel said. “By leveling the playing field among all teachers, we can mitigate this issue.”
A proportional system will benefit teachers and students in schools in both low and high income areas, according to the researchers.
“Based on evidence from past research in economics, we know that if teachers who teach in disadvantaged districts know that they have little chance of being recognized for their good work, they will be less motivated,” Koedel said. “Also, teachers at wealthier schools may also be less motivated if they know that they have a good chance of receiving positive reviews based only on where they work. Giving all teachers an equal opportunity to be recognized as effective or ineffective would increase effort throughout the workforce, which would be a win for students in K-12 schools.”
It’s lovely to believe that schools and teachers can be miracle workers. Sometimes it’s true. But while our expectations should be high, we need to be realistic in evaluating teachers and schools, and realize that some of the most important factors that go into improving students’ educations exist in the world outside the school.
This article appears in Jan 22-28, 2015.
This is good.
Those areas identified as socioeconomically challenged should have expectations lowered and allowed to simply advance through the grade levels. This will help to build self confidence in the students and then upon graduation, if we can simply increase minimum wage to realistic levels, say $75 or $100 an hour, all can share in the success of America.
Anything less is simply not fair.
Because the School is POOR, and NOT the Students.. right? Because the School cannot provide better ways of teaching, technology, etc.. NOT because the Student (and by extension their family) is poor right? Because that would be Total, BS….wouldnt it? They just have to GET to school, then its ON the School to do the teaching.. and the Teachers to do it right. Any OTHER excuse is just that, an Excuse for failure. WE latinos arent Stupid, no matter what YOU people think.
Well Guiseppe what we have here is a conundrum. The teachers don’t want to blamed, the parents are not held accountable, so we must blame the students.
They just refuse to learn.
No worker wants to be evaluated on the basis of criteria he/she cannot control. This is as true for teachers as it is for any other worker who is not provided the necessary tools and materials to create quality products or services.
There is no “all things being equal” in K-12 public education. All things are not equal, as Safier reminds us, between teaching young people wealthy school districts and their struggling counterparts.
To exacerbate the dilemma facing teachers, the tests to be used to evaluate student performance on the Common Core have not been subject to the same validity and reliability standards as established normed assessments. The good news is that many districts and states have postponed employing the results on these unsubstantiated field tests for the purpose of evaluating teacher performance for 2 or more years.