Sound and Trusted Education Trust Solutions

Recently I pointed to Education Trust and several of their problematic "highly qualified" teacher policy proposals — most notably their overemphasis on value-added assessments in identifying highly accomplished teachers. However, they also recommend “better tools for teachers and administrators” – which are most needed in the No Child Left Behind reauthorization. For example, they call for a “new $750 million curriculum fund for states to develop high-quality, high-level curriculum materials linked to their standards and assessments, and to provide teachers with professional development in using the new materials.” They also call for “$400 million annually in continued federal support for state assessment development so that states can improve the quality of their assessments, with special attention to improving assessments for English-language learners and students with disabilities.” They also call for, like I did several years ago, to invest at least $100 million in state data systems so administrators, teachers, and policymakers can have better information for both policy and practice. I must tip my hat to the Education Trust. Now it is time for us also to invest more in teacher education so all teachers — even before they enter teaching — know how to take advantage of the new curriculum materials, use the innovative assessments, and better serve special needs and second language learners. These proposals also need to be in the reauthorization of NCLB.

Comments

[ms_teacher]

I am all for professional development (when it's good!). However, what usually occurs is that we get extensive training on new curriculum and then that's it. PD needs to be ongoing and relevant to teachers in order for it to be effective.

[Bob]

I think you're on to something important when suggesting more money to upgrade teacher performance.

How much change in student learning do you expect from increasing teacher training? One average standardized point advance on a standardized test(that would be within measurement error, so it would occur by chance, not necessarily from teacher upgrading)? 10 points (that begins to raise questions about the validity of the standardization process)? 100 points (that calls the validity of the standardization process into question)?

In any case, if authorized and funded, your suggestion for more money to upgrade teacher performance would permit school and policy accountants to relate measures of student learning to measures of public spending.

Hmm. Ok. That makes sense.

[Barnett Berry]

Bob. One of the problems is the dependent measure. Because of the technical inadequacies of the standardized tests currently in vogue i am not sure they are the best outcome measures for the kind of teacher development policies proposed. However, we must have student outcomes. How about some of the new performance assessments that are being created?