Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^My caseload takes alternate state assessments designed to showcase application vs. aquisition of skills. The testing objectives are embedded into functional curriculum and the students are assessed for independence and accuracy. It's just another format for testing the same skills.
I'm OK with some form of value-added analysis being a part of the evaluation. That protects SPED teachers and teachers who are assigned low-performing class rosters. Somewhat, anyway. Classes with enough in the way of defiant, disruptive students who wreck lessons don't give the teacher much of a chance, regardless of how good he/she is.
They already are under NCLB. That's what the "Highly Qualified" means..they took a test in the content area and got their certification.
LOL....Yeah, right. You might want to look at what passes for highly qualified. Here, you can teach high school chemistry if you hold a general science certificate that doesn't even require one chemistry class (it requires 12 credits of physical science). I have a friend who took one chemistry class in college (without a lab) who was hired to teach chemistry. Districts like the DI cert because holders can teach any science, qualified or not. She'll be the first one to tell you she is not qualfied to teach chemistry but under the law, she's "highly qualified".
I think a teacher should have a major or minor in their subject area.
Excellent points. The action plans don't appear to be viable for high school teachers. It might work for elementary.
How do you think teachers should be evaluated, then?
Classroom elementary teachers maybe. I'm a special's teacher, I have 600+ students, see them once a week for 50 minutes.
It makes them think about how teaching is evolving and find or even drive the next big pedagogical change.
Participating in state and national level issues in geography is considered a critical part of my profession, and is actually mandatory to receive and maintain certification. This is common in many professional fields.
Oh, I have zero issues participating in my professional organization to further my education. What the statement in the Colorado Standards state is that for me to be an advanced teacher I must:
Quote:
Advocates for the inclusion of teachers in education and government decision making processes.
Sounds an awful lot like joining a union and then becoming very involved with it.
I am not opposed to most of the "teacher preparation" side of Colorado's new tool. I think it is well done (long, but well done). I take issue with statements that are contained within it. For example, "all elementary educators are experts in math and reading and knowledgeable in other subjects (science, history, physical education, music, etc....)." I take issue with this as I am a special's teacher, I teach music. I am an expert in teaching music. I would not say I am an expert in literacy and mathematics, I am knowledgeable about those subjects but you do not want me to teach a child how to read.
I also take issue with the fact that 25% of my evaluation is based on the growth a student makes in literacy and math, yet I do not TEACH those subjects. If students in my school do well on our state testing, my score will go up. However, if they do not, even though I did not have a hand in teaching the children math, science, or reading, my overall score will go down. Even students that move in a week before testing, the teachers will be held responsible for their test scores.
LOL....Yeah, right. You might want to look at what passes for highly qualified. Here, you can teach high school chemistry if you hold a general science certificate that doesn't even require one chemistry class (it requires 12 credits of physical science). I have a friend who took one chemistry class in college (without a lab) who was hired to teach chemistry. Districts like the DI cert because holders can teach any science, qualified or not. She'll be the first one to tell you she is not qualfied to teach chemistry but under the law, she's "highly qualified".
I think a teacher should have a major or minor in their subject area.
That's state specific.
I'm certified in Math and had to have 24 credits of higher level math classes (Texas requirement). Having an Engineering degree (CS) I had more than enough credits on my transcript.
It makes them think about how teaching is evolving and find or even drive the next big pedagogical change.
Participating in state and national level issues in geography is considered a critical part of my profession, and is actually mandatory to receive and maintain certification. This is common in many professional fields.
Oh, I have zero issues participating in my professional organization to further my education. What the statement in the Colorado Standards state is that for me to be an advanced teacher I must:
Quote:
Advocates for the inclusion of teachers in education and government decision making processes.
Sounds an awful lot like joining a union and then becoming very involved with it.
I mean, we are actually expected to lobby congress and state legislatures and provide advice on model bills. We are expected to take an active role in relevant legislation.
LOL....Yeah, right. You might want to look at what passes for highly qualified. Here, you can teach high school chemistry if you hold a general science certificate that doesn't even require one chemistry class (it requires 12 credits of physical science). I have a friend who took one chemistry class in college (without a lab) who was hired to teach chemistry. Districts like the DI cert because holders can teach any science, qualified or not. She'll be the first one to tell you she is not qualfied to teach chemistry but under the law, she's "highly qualified".
I think a teacher should have a major or minor in their subject area.
And if that was the case you'd have an even greater shortage of qualified, talented, dedicated teachers. All goes back to what I've been saying: Make the working conditions poor enough, pay mediocre enough, all while expecting extensive graduate and post-baccalaureate level of education and evaluating based on things somewhat or entirely out of the teacher in question's control and nobody is going to want the job. People aren't even going to pursue the career in the first place, much less stay in the job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
