Non so fino a che punto i test possano essere utili nel valutare l’ opera di un insegnante della scuola statale. Di sicuro, se devo pensare alla scuola peggiore possibile, penso a una scuola statale dove i test valutativi hanno assunto un ruolo decisivo. Sottoscriverei quindi queste parole:
A government-run system of teacher compensation, based on test scores, would in some ways be the worst of all worlds. It would create incentives for teachers to “game” the system. It would give too much weight to a noisy indicator of performance. As a result, it would do little or nothing to improve accountability or to reward better teachers.
If you watch the documentary “Waiting for Superman” or read Steven Brill’s “Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools,” you will learn that many advocates of school reform think they know how to increase teacher productivity: Rate teachers according to their students’ performance on standardized tests and fire those who don’t make the grade.
But economic theory suggests several reasons why this approach will probably backfire.
Scores on standardized tests are not an accurate measure of success in later life, because they don’t capture important aspects of emotional intelligence, such as self-control and ability to collaborate with others. The Nobel laureate James Heckman describes noncognitive traits as a crucial component of human capital.
Indeed, research by the economists Eric Hanushek and Steven Rifkin — both advocates of school reform — indicates that neither teachers’ own test scores when they were students nor their educational credentials explain much of the variation in their students’ outcomes. Why judge teachers narrowly on a set of outcomes that are not even predictive of their own success? leggi tutto
Vogliamo tirare le somme? Valutare un prof. in modo oggettivo ha tutta l’ aria di essere una missione impossibile. Si potrebbe dire che… in assenza della macchinetta valuta-insegnanti , non ci resta che…