With all, it was now clear that among say eight kids all supposed to be at 4.5-4.8 reading level, making errors A, B, and D (but not C), there were in fact eight kids some of whom were reading all kinds of stuff, some who would only read the newspaper, some who would only read Mad magazine (or look at it anyway) and some who wouldn't read anything at all. Thus the test could only mean something if you never looked at the kids themselves. --James Herndon, How to Survive in Your Native Land, 1971, p. 151 In some quarters, we are moving toward measuring teacher quality without looking at the teachers themselves. Good teachers are ones who get large gains in student achievement for their classes; bad teachers are just the opposite, wrote economist Eric Hanushek (2002). Most of today's growth models, notably the Educational Value-Added Assessment System (originally the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System), rely exclusively on test scores to define or effective teachers. Many people focus on elevating test scores so we can compete with China and India (even though it can be shown that test scores are unrelated to competitiveness). The March 27, 2009, Houston Chronicle announced that teachers in top notch schools with good track records of improving test scores in those schools would be offered combat pay--$10,000 a year for two years--to transfer to troubled schools. Since some of these troubled schools might be reconstituted in spite of getting an ace teacher, one wonders how many aces will be willing to take that risk. While some think the test-score-increase approach is sufficient, Robert Pianta and his colleagues at the University of Virginia beg to disagree. Although these [test-based] studies have been important in laying a foundation for inquiry into classroom effects, they fail to articulate the mechanisms through which experiences in classrooms, specifically teacher behaviors, lead to student learning and positive social adjustment (Pianta and Hamre 2009). Over a number of years, using videos and large numbers of classrooms, Pianta and his colleagues have developed the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). The system has three major dimensions, each with several subdimensions. One major is Emotional Support; and within that, observers examine positive climate, negative climate, teacher sensitivity, and the teacher's regard for student perspectives. A second major is Classroom Organization, which includes behavior management, productivity, and instructional learning formats. Finally, Instructional Support breaks into concept development, quality of feedback, and language modeling. There are separate scoring systems for pre-K, elementary, and secondary classrooms, though the major dimensions and many of the subdimensions are the same. They vary somewhat, naturally, due to differences in students' ages. Some of these dimensions are familiar but have new wrinkles. For instance, to receive high marks for behavior management, a teacher would clearly and consistently communicate rules; be active, not reactive in management; and consistently praise students for meeting expectations. A classroom with good instructional learning formats provides interesting materials and instruction, uses many modalities in instruction, and looks for opportunities that actively engage students. In a related vein, teachers with high regard for student perspectives emphasize student interests, motivations, and points of view; promote students' autonomy; and encourage them to talk and share ideas. Given the criteria above, systems using scripted curricula clearly are not going to score high on CLASS. That is too bad because, according to Pianta, the observation system is reliable and predicts positive outcomes other than just test scores. According to Pianta and colleagues, the average child generally receives moderate levels of emotional support and classroom organization and fairly low levels of instructional support. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Oct 13, 2011
David R Dietrich 
Open Access