Saturday, January 10, 2015

Beware of multiple measures

I predict that there will be lots of discussion about testing in connection with "rewriting" the federal education law.  And some of this will be a call for multiple measures, which seems to be a step in the right direction, especially when proponents mention seemingly reasonable assessments, eg student feedback, classroom observations. 

Watch out: Anthony Cody points out that these measures are considered valid by the Gates Foundation only if they correlate with higher test scores (chapters 2 and 3, The Educator and the Oligarch, 2014, Garn Press).


  1. Multiple measures are what has gotten New York state in trouble. 60% of the total evaluation is based on multiple measures (as negotiated by districts), much of that on a single (dog and pony show) evaluation. So now we have 95% of our teachers effective or highly effective and 31% of the kids proficient on (admittedly limiting) state tests. The rubrics being used (Danielson, Marzano, etc.) for teacher evaluation have been reducted to scoring guides rather than for teacher improvement. All of these conversations, for our educators in the trenches, are becoming tired subjects. There's no real improvement and no real understanding of all of the mutliple variables that teachers deal with: poverty, culture, previous grade-level proficiencies, etc. None of it is good science. All of it is offensive to teachers.