(www.eduwonk.com, April 21, 2011, School Of Thought: Two Low-Key Studies, Big Implications)

This article talked about a couple of studies that took place. The first study looked into the effectiveness of teachers. The researchers would evaluate teachers and follow them after the evaluation year to see how their performance changed. They found that not only did teacher performance increase during the evaluation year, but it also increased during the next years after the evaluation. This seems to show that teachers are actually using their feedback to improve performance. This study is important because teachers who teach subjects that are not typically emphasized on standardized tests have a way to be evaluated. Also, it shows a more credible, reliable way of evaluation, rather than just using students' test scores.

The second study looked into how a program in Washington D.C. of paying teachers more for getting their National Board Certification as well as teaching in poor performing schools. The study found shortcomings in this program. Mainly, the pay incentive was not causing good teachers to change to low-income schools. Rather, the teachers already there were just earning the certification. So, the conclusion was that the program was not doing what it was intended to do.

The conclusion of the article discussed how there was a better way to spend 10,000 dollars ( which is the total amount given to a teacher for getting certification from the National Board and teaching in a low-income school) as well as how we still know relatively little about how to build good school systems filled with good teachers.

This article relates to class because of our discussion of how teachers are evaluated (through student test scores.) I think that the way the study evaluated the teachers is a much better way then the students' scores. Like we talked about in class, a students' test scores may reflect a past teacher's effectiveness, not necessarily the current one. I think that while the program around Washington D.C. was a good idea, it simply did not work out the way intended. I think that the author represents a progressive, student-centered approach because of his backing of the way the teachers were evaluated during the study. Rotherham seemed to believe that the way teachers taught needed to be changed. He is also affiliated with Center on Reinventing Public Education, which did the study.