Reflexiones sobre problemas asociados con la evaluación de maestros en una época de mediciones

Translated title of the contribution: Between scylla and charybdis: Reflections on and problems associated with the evaluation of teachers in an era of metrification

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Scylla and Charybdis in this discussion of teacher evaluation are standardized achievement test data on the one hand, and classroom observational systems on the other. These are the two most common methods used to judge teachers’ competency. Both have serious flaws: the former primarily with validity, the latter primarily with reliability. At most these evaluation strategies provide teachers’ and their supervisors information about which to converse. But these two methods have such serious flaws that they should never be used as the primary grounds for rewarding, punishing, or firing teachers. When both methods of evaluation are used to judge teacher competency, the correlation between achievement tests and observational data is quite low. When two methods claiming to assess the same construct do not correlate well, either one or both methods are failing to assess the intended construct. There are two alternatives for navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: “Duties Based Teacher Evaluation” and “Performance Measures.” These methods have much to recommend them, though like all methods of personnel evaluation, reliability and validity issues remain problematic.

Original languageSpanish
Article number54
JournalEducation Policy Analysis Archives
Volume26
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 16 2018

Fingerprint

teacher
evaluation
achievement test
personnel
classroom
performance

Keywords

  • Bad teachers
  • Classroom observations
  • Construct validation
  • Duties-based teacher evaluation
  • Observational instruments
  • Standardized achievement tests
  • Teacher evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{198730d98c3a46afb77b97b088d011b5,
title = "Reflexiones sobre problemas asociados con la evaluaci{\'o}n de maestros en una {\'e}poca de mediciones",
abstract = "The Scylla and Charybdis in this discussion of teacher evaluation are standardized achievement test data on the one hand, and classroom observational systems on the other. These are the two most common methods used to judge teachers’ competency. Both have serious flaws: the former primarily with validity, the latter primarily with reliability. At most these evaluation strategies provide teachers’ and their supervisors information about which to converse. But these two methods have such serious flaws that they should never be used as the primary grounds for rewarding, punishing, or firing teachers. When both methods of evaluation are used to judge teacher competency, the correlation between achievement tests and observational data is quite low. When two methods claiming to assess the same construct do not correlate well, either one or both methods are failing to assess the intended construct. There are two alternatives for navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: “Duties Based Teacher Evaluation” and “Performance Measures.” These methods have much to recommend them, though like all methods of personnel evaluation, reliability and validity issues remain problematic.",
keywords = "Bad teachers, Classroom observations, Construct validation, Duties-based teacher evaluation, Observational instruments, Standardized achievement tests, Teacher evaluation",
author = "David Berliner",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "16",
doi = "10.14507/epaa.26.3820",
language = "Spanish",
volume = "26",
journal = "Education Policy Analysis Archives",
issn = "1068-2341",
publisher = "Arizona State University",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reflexiones sobre problemas asociados con la evaluación de maestros en una época de mediciones

AU - Berliner, David

PY - 2018/4/16

Y1 - 2018/4/16

N2 - The Scylla and Charybdis in this discussion of teacher evaluation are standardized achievement test data on the one hand, and classroom observational systems on the other. These are the two most common methods used to judge teachers’ competency. Both have serious flaws: the former primarily with validity, the latter primarily with reliability. At most these evaluation strategies provide teachers’ and their supervisors information about which to converse. But these two methods have such serious flaws that they should never be used as the primary grounds for rewarding, punishing, or firing teachers. When both methods of evaluation are used to judge teacher competency, the correlation between achievement tests and observational data is quite low. When two methods claiming to assess the same construct do not correlate well, either one or both methods are failing to assess the intended construct. There are two alternatives for navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: “Duties Based Teacher Evaluation” and “Performance Measures.” These methods have much to recommend them, though like all methods of personnel evaluation, reliability and validity issues remain problematic.

AB - The Scylla and Charybdis in this discussion of teacher evaluation are standardized achievement test data on the one hand, and classroom observational systems on the other. These are the two most common methods used to judge teachers’ competency. Both have serious flaws: the former primarily with validity, the latter primarily with reliability. At most these evaluation strategies provide teachers’ and their supervisors information about which to converse. But these two methods have such serious flaws that they should never be used as the primary grounds for rewarding, punishing, or firing teachers. When both methods of evaluation are used to judge teacher competency, the correlation between achievement tests and observational data is quite low. When two methods claiming to assess the same construct do not correlate well, either one or both methods are failing to assess the intended construct. There are two alternatives for navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: “Duties Based Teacher Evaluation” and “Performance Measures.” These methods have much to recommend them, though like all methods of personnel evaluation, reliability and validity issues remain problematic.

KW - Bad teachers

KW - Classroom observations

KW - Construct validation

KW - Duties-based teacher evaluation

KW - Observational instruments

KW - Standardized achievement tests

KW - Teacher evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045517327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045517327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14507/epaa.26.3820

DO - 10.14507/epaa.26.3820

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045517327

VL - 26

JO - Education Policy Analysis Archives

JF - Education Policy Analysis Archives

SN - 1068-2341

M1 - 54

ER -