Teacher Quality Stats--The Why.

In my quest for finding out a new knowledge about teachers and teacher quality, I have spent some time reviewing books and information about statistics gathering, information that is available and trying to figure out a good way to use statistical data to gauge the performance, and therefore quality, of teachers. But first, I think I need to answer a question first. My initial post on the matter (found here) garnered a comment from an anonymous poster:

Better question- what is this data FOR? Considering NCLB wants to use it, if it's created, to classify the bottom 25% of teachers based on such scores as a quota to allow them to be fired?

This is a valid question. My goal is fairly simple, increase the quality of our teaching corps. Nothing more, nothing less.

But to understand what a quality teacher is, I need to know what makes a quality teacher. The traditional knowledge about a quality teacher is based on things like education, experience, certifications, the types of degrees held by a teacher, etc. These are often important, but I don't know, and I mean KNOW for a statistical fact, if these traits which have been traditionally the definition of a quality teacher, actually translate into knowledge and learning in students. In the end, the only thing that matters about a teacher's quality is the success of her students. I cannot think of any rational argument for measuring teacher quality in any other way.

Once we know who is a statistically quality teacher, we can study that teacher, looking for the common traits that lend themselves to success in the classroom for all students. Then, armed with that knowledge, we can begin to build teacher education programs that attempt to replicate those qualities. Now, the identification of poor teachers is going to happen, that is the nature of statistical measurements as opposed to gut feelings about people. I don't doubt the passion and dedication of any teacher, but poor teachers either need to be retrained or dismissed. Their value and impact are likely a negative upon the students and if we as a nation truly care about the education of our children, is it fair to employ a sub-par teacher just because that teacher cares?

Performance is all that matter. I am sorry if that sounds cold and callous, but that is life. I want schools to be centered on the students and only the students. Any adult that inhibits learning for the students needs to be retrained, reassigned or relegated to the sidelines.

The problem we face is that much of the data we collect and know about teachers doesn't actually measure the success of students in the classroom. Everyone throws out all kinds of reasons and anomalies that must be accounted for. For example, the above mentioned commenter noted:

How will you compare 3rd grade at an underperforming school at 30-to-1 with an experienced teacher but 75% turnover, vs. a novice teacher, "average" school, 20-to-1? You can't collect data to evaluate a teacher without at least a minimum statistical percentage of the classroom, what happens when turnover exceeds that?

Are you going to incorporate ELL test scores to equalize that status? What if tests like the CELDT are testing everyday language, not academic language, and what happens when some students are say, a 3 across the board and others are like 2-5-1?

What I am attempting to do is build a model for measuring student success that can account for some of these variables and statistical differences in a classroom. Over time, I am hoping to discuss how to account for these variables. I realize that some of my ideas may not be new, but I want to present some of these ideas in such a way as to perhaps shed a little different light on measure teacher quality.