Categories
Archives by date
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
In the whirlwind of my obligations this year, my reading has lagged, and I am late in recommending and praising two reports published in the first half of 2009: The Broader, Bolder Approach’s accountability report, published in late June. This report suggests combining the use of achievement test data and on-site school inspections for school-level […]
Seeing how too many writers about Race to the Top, tests, and teacher evaluation would have taken actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis that would have led to nuclear war–i.e., seeing the worst in opponents, or maybe seeing posturing as the best path forward for themselves personally or for their positions (sound like the health-care […]
Sick of finger-pointing in the absence of a New York state commission to study how to use test scores in teacher evaluation (including tenure) decisions? Look no further! In this space, we will be conducting our own homegrown commission over the next three months. No need for the New York Assembly and Senate to act! […]
The hoopla surrounding the draft “Race to the Top” guidelines have obscured the long-game strategy involved here. If you think about the structure of the funds–more discretionary money than the U.S. Department of Education has ever had before, competitive grant system, and a set of priorities that the Duncan department has been signaling for six […]
I still don’t have time to expand at length on combining qualitative and quantitative sources of data for teaching evaluation, but given the hoopla surrounding the draft Race to the Top regulations, I should at least provide an update, or rather a bit of a tease for what’s developing into a short paper-to-be. In addition […]