I agreed that test scores are horribly over-used. What I was saying is that they don't have to be, just because they're used at all. When a teacher declines to communicate with parents at all, the principal knows that teacher isn't doing a good job -- even if the principal also makes excessive use of test scores in other cases.

I don't remember for sure, but I suspect that I mis-read, and was responding to a slightly different statement from you than the one you had actually made.

dan,

in point of fact, they usually do have to wait. under NCLB and RTTT, criteria other than test scores are not necessary to fire a teacher or close a school. of course someone who is being blatantly unethical should be asked to leave, but in many states test scores make up 50% of a teacher's summative evaluation.

at least in my district, there are 7 dimensions of teaching that make up the other 50%. that means things like knowledge, professionalism, communication, assessment, classroom management and so forth count for less than 10% each. i could ignore every e-mail in my in-box all year, but if my lesson plans and grades were in order, and all my students sat quietly and tested well (or had someone cheat for them) i'd be called a great teacher.

anyhow, my point was that the president is using contradictory labels. on the one hand he's saying that teachers should be free from test-based instruction, but at the same time his policy weights tests heavily when deciding who is a "quality" teacher and who isn't. if your livelihood depends on short term student gains on a standardized test, the traditional notion of what it means to be a good teacher has been thrown out the window, under the bus and backed over.

You agree that anyone who demands Bosanek's personal info should be fired for it, right?

Of course not. That's different.

So, you would be fine with everything that was done to Joe The Plumber be done to Bosanek, right??

Michale

Googling her, along with the more sophisticated equivalents available to those who have the budget for it, is in bounds. Coercing her to disclose personal info is out of bounds.

how can you both "keep good teachers on the job," and "stop teaching to the test," when standardized tests continue to be improperly used as the main criterion for determining "teacher quality?"

Standardized tests are over-used, no question. But they're far from being the only criterion. If a principal knows that a particular teacher doesn't bother to answer email from parents and from other school staff, they don't have to withhold judgment while they wait for the test scores to come in.

Simple..

They drunk the koolaid...

Michale

"Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making. (Applause.) "

this is what got the president his biggest bipartisan applause of the evening. well, i have a question. how can you both "keep good teachers on the job," and "stop teaching to the test," when standardized tests continue to be improperly used as the main criterion for determining "teacher quality?"

what nobody in the president's tight little circle seems to be telling him is that value-added figures a teacher's contribution to student test scores at a maximum of about 12.5%, while most of what constitutes actual good teaching does not show up on standardized tests. it's like deciding barbers' pay, job security and prestige based mainly on how straight they cut side-burns, then mouthing platitudes about how "good barbers" shouldn't need to spend so much time cutting side-burns. why didn't anyone in the audience get this?

~joshua

My point is, the Left hysterically dug into Joe The Plumber's life.

Therefore you must agree that it is equally fair for the Right to dig into Bosanek's life...

If she allowed herself to be used as the poster child for "fair" taxes and the like, then she should show what she really pays in taxes...

Otherwise, it's fair game to ask, "What's she hiding"...

Just as the Left asked of Joe The Plumber, "What are you hiding"??

Oh wait...

"That's different", right?? :D

Michale.....

Oh of course...

"It's different"... :D

Michale

There's a difference between denigrating someone, and making intrusive demands. Feel free to denigrate Warren Buffet's secretary all you want. She almost certainly doesn't care what you have to say. But don't expect any reasonable person to agree that she should be forced to disclose normally-private information just because your side would benefit from the talking point.

How many of the 99% can afford a second home??

Between her and her husband, this Debra Bosanek likely makes well over a million dollars a year...

That put's them in the category of millionaires...

Ya know, the people the Left love to attack and demonize???

Michale

Neither did Joe The Plumber...

But that didn't stop the Left from totally denigrating him, right??

Oh wait, let me guess..

That's different...

With the Left, it's *ALWAYS* different...

Michale

Since Obama has made Buffet's secretary the poster child for his STICK IT TO THE RICH campaign, let's see HER tax returns....

Michale

Warren Buffet's secretary!!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

She is so poor and down-trodden.... Definitely part of the 99%......

NOT!!!

Michale

Sorry, DF...

History is gonna repeat itself.. :D

Michale

BTW, when do I win my prize for predicting the non-Newtplosion?

AND, I'm reclaiming my predictions from Iowa: Santorum, Mittens and RP!!!!

Go PATS.

Of course, if that person next to Obama is standing in Obama's path to re-election, then that person is toast....

Michale

"I am analyzing. Not point making"
-Spock, STAR TREK, The Enemy Within

I simply point out the similarities between this and the 1992 election with Obama playing the role of Bush (HW) and Gingrich playing the role of Bill Clinton...

Thereby showing that the more things change, the more they stay the same... :D

A third Party run by Paul absolutely scares the frak out of me... Because it will guarantee an Obama victory...

And this country cannot survive another 4 years of Obama and the Democrats..

Michale

And yet, still lost... :D

Michale

Perot got 19%. So you're predicting what, a third-party run by Ron Paul?

lest we forget, HW turned out to be right. the economy really was turning around on his watch, and clinton got to take credit for it.

Whadi tell ya...

Same old shiny beads and shallow flattery...

Michale

Hmmmmmmmm

Interesting..

In the 1992 Presidential Elections, Clinton was going on and on about how America is in trouble and bad things are happening etc etc..

Bush (HW) used the same terminology that Obama is using....

And we all know how THAT election turned out, eh?? :D

Irregardless of that, America's influence and prestige ARE in decline and only a foo....er... person not firmly cemented in reality would think otherwise...

Michale

Even worse, it was the same old platitudes, the same old shiny beads and shallow flattery that Obama has become famous for...

In short, "move along, nothing to see here"....

Americans have given up hope and told Obama to keep the change...

Michale

That's a tougher question than you might think.

Obama's currently at the top of a "bump" cycle, topping out at just over 46%. This is up from his low of around 43% a few months ago. But, like I said, the trend was topping out a week ago at least.

So any bump he gets here is going to be independent of the previous trend, I think. I'd say he gets about a point-and-a-half bump, for about three weeks, until the infighting over the extension of the payroll tax break fight really heats up in Congress. So, put him at 48%, in a week or two, perhaps falling back after then. That's my humble guess.

-CW