Gates MET Study Stacked the Deck for Test-based Accountability
Journalist Dana Goldstein has written an excellent analysis of what's wrong with the Gates MET study of whether standardized tests, evaluator observation or student surveys do a better job in assessing teacher quality. She boldly presented her article at AEI's Feb 5 2015 conference on: "Is the 'new' education philanthropy good for schools?" It must have been an "emperor has no clothes" moment. In a nutshell, she points out that the MET study asked whether actual observation of teaching, student surveys, or VAM test score measures did a better job of predicting future student test score growth, which "privileges" test scores by using it both as a variable being tested and as the outcome reflecting gains. Her article is also an excellent history of approaches to standardized testing and the role of philanthropy in determining educational measures and outcomes. It's to be published soon and is worth a read here attached.
|MET Study Priviledges Test Scores Goldstein(3).pdf||436.69 KB|