I have read many studies, reports, and even a few doctoral papers on this issue. There seem to be some common threads: researchers estimate that factors outside the school classroom, things like: family affluence and background, social status and economic environment, and peer and parental influences can account for as much as 60 percent of the variation in students’ test scores. These findings beg the question of how to evaluate and improve the quality of teaching across the board. Public opinion clearly is most amenable to focusing on teacher evaluations as a way to improve student performance. Hence, the big push by Harrisburg to evaluate teachers more rigorously and for designing a method to “remove” the bad teachers. But the other common thread is that the remaining 40 percent isn't just affected by the teacher. Other factors beyond the teacher can still impact the learning in the classroom. After talking to some of my teacher friends, I have heard some complaints about these unmeasured factors. I think some of these complaints are real and need to be addressed. First, different teachers have very different working conditions and it’s impossible to take them all into account. Second, our schools are as varied as our population. What about the basic impact of the composition of the class? Third, what about variability in testing and tests? Different tests…Different results… What kinds of doubts would this raise? Finally, how about non-cognitive learning? Colleges consider these things important factors for admission so how would we value and evaluate these contributions?
Please don’t misunderstand any of my comments! I support a strong and fair evaluation system as long as it adds value to our educational system.
