Quote:
Originally Posted by OPhiAGinger
There are great teachers who change a kid's life and there are teachers who just phone it in. I want a way to distinguish between the two and I think measuring outcome is the best way to do it.
But I also agree that you can't pin the failures of Timmy's last three teachers on this year's teacher. If he didn't master addition and subration in K-2, there's no way he's gonna grasp multiplication in 3rd grade no matter how dedicated that teacher is. So instead of basing success/failure on the raw score of today's test, why can't we base it on the amount of progress he has demonstrated since last year's test? I read about a school district in southern California who was doing that and I love the idea. Then even if Timmy is not up to grade level on his math skills, Miss Landers is still rewarded for helping him master the basics that he missed before.
|
Which may not be possible in some districts that are inching up past 40 students per classroom. That's fine if you are focusing on the same topic for all students, but if you have to go back and identify deficiencies in half the students and fix those problems while still teaching on level, something is going to suffer. Large classes over 40 students in college are fine because the students who can't keep up are weeded out by pre-reqs. Grade school teachers don't get that luxury.