Thompson: Reforms Should Be Based On Evidence, Not Faith

Sara Mead's Education Week blog entitled "The Problem With Demanding Proof on Teacher Evaluation" went to the heart of the reason why not-ready-for-prime-time "reforms" provoked the Chicago teachers strike.  Mead argues, "One of the weirder memes I've seen going around the last few days is the notion that 'the real problem here is that there's no evidence the teacher evaluations Rahm Emanuel wants to put in place work.'" She then acknowledges that it is "by and large true that there's no evidence that the evaluation system proposed in Chicago will improve student achievement."  Like so many "reformers," Mead sees nothing wrong about conducting risky experiments on teachers and students. But in her next post, "Value-Added is Not a Magical Black Box," she takes their faith-based logic even further.  She ridicules the idea that the architects of experimental statistical models should have consulted with teachers while designing them.  Then, she argues that "experts," alone should engineer systems ranging from air conditioning to buildings' structure.  However, would Mead feel comfortable in a building where its structural engineering calculations were not tested?  Only in education would outsiders demand that theoretical systems should be imposed before research is conducted as to whether they make sense.  We teachers are used to the "Fire, Aim, Ready" approach to school improvement.  The so-called "teacher quality" movement, however, has taken the evidence-free school of reform to its illogical extreme.-JT(@drjohnthompson) Image via.     

Comments

[Doug]

The very people who design the tests for students declare that they are not designed to test teachers. When are they going to get this?

Finland teaches kids to read far better than we do and has no standardized tests of students or teachers.

[Art]

You said, "Like so many "reformers," Mead sees nothing wrong about conducting risky experiments on teachers and students."

Risky experiments? Lots of luck trying to paint Sara as Dr. Mengele, because what she actually believes is very reasonable:

"We need to move forward with new teacher evaluation systems--but we need to do so with humility, the recognition that no one knows all the answers, and plenty of room for flexibility and revision over time as we learn from the successes and challenges of various models."

[Clint]

I guess that I'm getting into the game late. How would you like to live in Wake County, NC. The school board just hired a superintendent and now they are ready to fire him with about 2 years left on his contract :)

[Education Realist]

"We need to move forward with new teacher evaluation systems"

Begs the question. Why, exactly, do we need to move forward? There's no evidence that teacher evaluation systems are the reason for poor performance by students--in fact, we can't even really establish that students are doing poorly, since we refuse to take ability into account.

[Doug]

The issue is poverty. It is not teacher quality and it never has been.

[Mike Cornelia]

It sounds like you are not a fan of Sara Mead. I think you are right when you say that logic can't be based on faith. That is like hiring an air conditioner repair man and hoping he does the job and everything gets fixed. You are going to want tangible evidence that he did his job to the best of his ability and has proof of what he did. I feel your pain and hope that this extreme logic doesn't effect your job.