Everyone's An "Expert" On Education

A consequence of the Chicago teachers strike is that we're finally seeing how truly clueless our political and media elites are about education. Digby gives us a spectacular example:

Wagner: It's worth noting what the chicago is proposing, student performance on standardized tests count toward 25% of teacher assessment would go to 40% in five years. It's hard to say look, we don't want to be evaluated. You just need to keep paying us what you're paying us.

John Heileman: A shockingly untenable position. There really are at this point in the world of teachers unions those getting with the program and those that are digging in their heels and resisting the program. There are unions that have looked at race to the top, have looked at the fact that a lot of the demands unions have made in the past have gotten in the way of things we should be focussed on, kids and their education, and they are working with reformsers to be adaptive to the new realities. others have dug in their heels. The chicago union right now looks retrograde, looks ridiculous. Rahm will win this battle. [emphasis mine]

"Shockingly untenable." Understand that John Heileman - as far as I can tell - has no experience as a teacher, administrator, or education researcher. I'm not even sure he has a decent background in statistics or econometrics; he's mostly a political writer. And yet, on the basis of... well, I don't know what, he's prepared to say that taking a position against the use of standardized tests in teacher evaluations is "shockingly untenable."

Perhaps we should turn to some more informed opinions. Let's ask a few people who know a little about education:

While those who evaluate teachers could take student test scores over time into account, they should be fully aware of their limitations, and such scores should be only one element among many considered in teacher profiles. Some states are now considering plans that would give as much as 50% of the weight in teacher evaluation and compensation decisions to scores on existing poor-quality tests of basic skills in math and reading. Based on the evidence we have reviewed above, we consider this unwise. If the quality, coverage, and design of standardized tests were to improve, some concerns would be addressed, but the serious problems of attribution and nonrandom assignment of students, as well as the practical problems described above, would still argue for serious limits on the use of test scores for teacher evaluation. [emphasis mine]

And who are these people who hold this "shockingly untenable" view?

Eva L. Baker is professor of education at UCLA, co-director of the National Center for Evaluation Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), and co-chaired the committee to revise testing standards of the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.

Paul E. Barton is the former director of the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service and associate director of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Linda Darling-Hammond is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the American Educational Research Association, and a member of the National Academy of Education.

Edward Haertel is a professor of education at Stanford University, former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment, and a former chair of the committee on methodology of the National Assessment Governing Board.

Helen F. Ladd is professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University and president-elect of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Robert L. Linn is a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, and has served as president of the National Council on Measurement in Education and of the American Educational Research Association, and as chair of the National Research Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment.

Diane Ravitch is a research professor at New York University and historian of American education.

Richard Rothstein is a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute.

Richard J. Shavelson is a professor of education (emeritus) at Stanford University and former president of the American Educational Research Association.

Lorrie A. Shepard is dean and professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder, a former president of the American Educational Research Association, and the immediate past president of the National Academy of Education.

Gosh, do you think these actual research scholars, deeply familiar with the issues of standardized testing and teacher evaluation, might know something that a political writer doesn't?

Now I know how climate scientists feel...