REPOST: Why We’re Opting Out of the ELA
Repost from the Spectator, October 29. Written by David Cahn and Jack Cahn.
On Wednesday, October 30, we will decline to participate in the English Language Assessment (ELA) that is the first step in the implementation of New York City’s new teacher evaluation regime. We do so because the Danielson Framework, though well-intentioned, is fundamentally flawed in its execution. The consequence of a deliberation process with little transparency or input from key stakeholders (students and parents), the new evaluation system is arbitrary, confusing, and subjective. We encourage our peers to join us in rejecting the ELA by turning in blank examinations.
In theory, teacher examinations are a positive force in education because they incentivize teachers to optimize their performances in the classroom; create an objective, merit-based metric; and allow the Department of Education (DOE) to weed out incompetent teachers. To be successful, however, tests need to measure student improvement during a specific course and credit teachers on this improvement. New York’s teacher evaluation system does nothing of the kind.
Sixty percent of the evaluation is now based on a grade provided by school principals, using a rigid framework with points assigned to specific features of observed lessons. This is meant to hold teachers accountable.
- See more at: http://stuvoice.org/blog/2013/11/12/repost-why-were-opting-out-of-the-ela/?utm_source=feedly#sthash.W1Ww83Sm.dpuf