Teachers should be evaluated according to how their students learn. This is almost as obvious as saying the winner of a football game should be the team that scores the most points. Indeed, the inherent reasonableness of judging teachers by their students’ test scores has spurred many policymakers to demand that students’ test performances be the dominant factor by whidh we evaluate a teacher;s competence.
No, they are not. They usually explain the question and why it could or could not be, but this is a subject They feel strongly about. I do agree that test scores should be included in the school’s competency, but not only test scores.
There are so many ways to measure the competency of a school and test scores are not the way. Some school’s even make their students study for one test, so they get great scores and send those in. That makes no sense at all. First of all, all children learn at a different rate so if there are to “smarter” children at one school is that school better?Also, children usually study for tests and that is about it, specially teens. So, why would test scores be used if it’s one of the only things teens actually study for? Why not submit all grades?I agree that test scores are part of the package, but test scores alone are not a good indication of a school’s competency.
Depends on how you define competency. Academic competency maybe, but it says nothing of other areas such as the availability of extra-curricular activities, the standards of students behaviour, school catering and transport, the schools general atmosphere etc. Very high test scores might be an indication that, rather than the teaching being outstanding, there is just a very high proportion of able students attending. Maybe the school is known not to provide a good facility for less able students; maybe it doesn’t cater to those with learning disabilities; maybe it has issues with discipline- kids who are unwilling, rather than unable, to learn- and, rather than working through students problems, it just kicks them out. An environment completely focused on academic success might not be completely healthy anyway: students solely focused on their grades, surrounded by others feeling the same way, might drop out of things like sport, socialising and creative hobbies. Is it right to put a kid in a situation where an A rather than an A* is a failure- where it doesn’t matter about their individual circumstance- the school’s reputation needs to be upheld.
On the other hand, many would argue that the primary function of a school is to teach its students the material on the curriculum, and the best method of seeing whether it is fit for purpose is to assess how well students know this material: through tests. So the scores do indicate competency of a sort: competency in teaching the material, in motivating students to study, in convincing them that the tests are important, in selecting the material most likely to appear on an exam paper, rather than the most useful material, and drilling it into students heads, so that, though they may have no understanding of the issues involved, they can at least parrot up the facts; competency in fuelling an elitist society, where all that matters is the score you got for maths at age 16.
If test scores do matter, rather than the raw results, the best indication might be students performance against targets, against national averages and improvement during their time at the school, which might balance to some extent the students natural ability, and give a better idea of the teachers’ skill.
Many schools are not educating students at the high levels needed to prepare them to lead successful and productive lives. It is also no secret that many students in these schools have been placed at an educational disadvantage as a result of social and economic factors beyond the purview of the education system. In far too many cases, these conditions have been exacerbated by education policy decisions that deny schools the resources they need, allow poor management to continue unabated, and deprive school staff of quality professional development. To ensure that intervention and assistance plans are targeted effectively–and that states’ and districts’ limited resources are used efficiently–school systems must not only identify which schools are failing, but also why. The following list of indicators is intended to aid in an initial identification process, which should be followed by a more comprehensive investigation procedure, including site
As with everything, they provide information about a school’s competency, but they aren’t the only indicator, and their effectiveness differs depending on the school.For instance, if you were comparing selective schools, then in general their performance on standardised tests is a good indicator of how good each school is. If, however, you compare different public schools in different areas, you have to consider the cohort as well as the school.Additionally, it is possible to cheat this method to make your school look good (some schools only allow their best students to sit statewide exams, and pressure others not to do so).
I believe that test scores are proportional to how much funding is dispersed from the government. Positive test scores can greatly motivate the government to issue more money so that the quality of learning is improved. This may be accredited to cleaner facilities, increased staff support, more scholarship opportunities, etc. On the contrary, government officials may withhold funds for such accommodations for schools with negative test scores and even to the point of considering its demolition on behalf of saving money.