meritocratic Project Evaluation INVALSI value added
http://www.lavoce.info/binary/la_voce/articoli/invalsi_pro_111.1245760092.pdf
not I think a good system and I have many reservations about it.
As a teacher I should be able, opportunity for reflection and a place to express reservations.
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe value added does not seem sufficiently respectful of the singularity of the lives of individual students and also that of individual teachers.
also the individual results in terms of added value, as correlated with some socio-economic parameters can be obtained easily, I do not think will ever be able to grasp the desired result, namely to measure the quality of the team of teachers who have succeeded or 's effectiveness of the school system to that individual student. In terms of central tendency, I have doubts that the sum of many artifacts, many added values \u200b\u200bassigned to many students, we can derive a valid indicator, that is purged of any effect of context, or that school for that teacher - teaching staff.
I think that the over-simplification is not necessary ... and maybe .
Critical the purpose of this system, which is to be able to reward, that is encouraging more schools and teachers.
Teachers need to be observed and assisted by experts to understand what goes wrong in relationships or educational specifically put in place here and now, without fear of negative consequences and future that are beyond their control.
I do not think that teachers need to measure themselves and at the same time do guinea pigs in an experiment to observe a statistical rather than the professional demands and help to infer a posteriori.
Perhaps students would be entitled to an assessment in real time rather than retrospectively, "the damage done."
The underlying model is this:
" We are sure that you have the skills necessary and sufficient for optimal results we want and not the merits. However, if these results are not achieved is because you are not sufficiently evaluated, differentiated and particularly encouraged to ensure that all resources you have are actually fielded. So now we put in implement the best system in the world to assess the effects from initial and boundary conditions, what is your real impact on learning. Be aware. He'll give you to do. "
What could be the answer to this?
- The pedagogical problem of what is lacking at the level of teacher training will be put aside
- At an organizational level each school will actually move forward. Services profits will be available from good manager even if the same investment and resources on the basis of competitiveness. For fear of a loss of members of the business logic will find volunteers for quantitative improvements and cheap, which may lead to increase the "value added" of a school, but will not lead to an improved quality of training for each student.
- There will be no time to teach every student to think better or the resources to train every teacher to work with the best methods in the classroom, resources to train some teachers as experts in learning and learning difficulties. But they all give great pains to learn how to solve the national questions INVALSI. Have not always been honest (that is, just on general problem solving processes, but on the classification types and the mechanical repetition, that is, on training). Appropriate manuals will come from educational publishing, and they will become more important than the textbooks, while the same textbooks are homologous to structured tests in the selection of themes INVALSI example. After a while 'INVALSI not know what to invent (with the OECD-PISA test that does not happen because they are unpublished). I do not agree about D-31 " If applications are done well, practice is learning to respond. " The inference is unwarranted, because it could be done, if anything, only after verifying the transfer of skills acquired sufficiently different contexts, which can not be done immediately and within the same types of tests, nor can it be done in a way asoggettivo. That this could happen or not depends on what you intend to practice. If there will be a competent mediator of learning, the framework can be built specifically useful and necessary in that particular subject and enhance its deficient cognitive functions, and then it will be inconceivable transference. So knowing how to solve types of problems, though these are general, in itself does not imply the achievement of educational goals which purports to measure. This is pretty serious: you think you can improve microsystems education without hypotheses and theories on it, simply by trial and error. This is the school of the quiz of the license, not the school done by professionals. The determinist philosophy "etichettatoria" that underlies the entire system is unacceptable.
- School of the instigators and leaders of culture and freedom of teaching will become the school of "preparation for the added value," where will the timing of tests INVALSI to decide which method to use will be most appropriate for students of all ages rather than the experience accumulated through years of teaching and the resulting individual choices. It will be so towards approval.
I do not think we need all this. What you need instead?
test type the OECD - PISA, but made from samples of students in every school, across multiple age groups, as deadlines INVALSI. But only once every three to four years. No need for the differential and developmental assessments and contextualized precisely perhaps impossible to obtain. Evaluations are sufficient in an absolute sense of the state of learning at various age groups in each school. The comparison of data three or four years, not individuals, but overall, it is sufficient to ensure that any institution that wants can really understand, design and adjust the shot. The results constitute a useful tool for building awareness national and institutional level, of what should and should not be in the process skills of students of all ages, to build task forces and projects and vocational training for teachers that, recognizing that it is not adapted to new tasks, would be encouraged to form and so committed to supporting the necessary revisions to the methodological benefit of all. If I see that many students of 15 years do not even attempt to find the shortest line connecting five cities on a map between them, given information about what I really do not know take about three years ago and with whom, but I wonder if acceptable to the complete lack of interpretive skills of the text or problem solving, and the answer is - on average pupils n-negative at all, for that age, regardless Differential assessment of any other that I could have done on individual students. The school may well prove whether and what has started to try to improve this aspect from the methodological point of view and dell'organizzazone teaching for three years following the test. The method of the added value that will create additional redundant information, paid for with public money, because the overall capacity to attack a problem and not remain with our hands, once acquired can not be lose. Here we talk about education, not training.
The need to test the system every year all the students in each age set is generated by the need for the differential for each student and each teacher. As if it was necessary to have to check that X has made progress quell'alunno training in problem solving in 10 years with good X1 and then the teacher has lost this ability with the teacher X2 after two bad years. That this could happen or not, this level of monitorabilità should help because the teacher would need to X1 and X2 punishment incentives. And we should accept this level of individualization while we know that in general and on certain skills and attitudes students actually return back during quinquiennio following the primary school system report bugs. And all in tribute to postulate merit. One of the rewards and penalties is a fixation, a preordained policy that you should not call into question. But then realize, in the details of implementation, which will be subject to a thousand sub-criteria - even subjective - award of merit and penalty. The problem of subjectivity, on the other hand, is saddled with the internal management of individual schools, without any guarantee that in this context the much-vaunted meritocratic criterion is still respected, respectable hard to do if a job is part of the team and partly no, and if you do not know where they come from the "added value".
To re-direct the destination of the evaluation system towards more immediate (and cheaper), that is to incentives aimed directly at the teacher training should be an operation of truth by all the employees of the school .
In the absence of this effect seems to be no alternative to the cumbersome set up INVALSI " we give you the test, you compare the results with your student evaluations. If these do not agree to local mind what you teach and as the teacher. Maybe you're not using effective methods to learn how to develop and put the thought in writing, to address new problems, perhaps not promote metacognition, perhaps penalized mechanical errors and incentive strategies for the "six", perceived as more reliable, while our tests require the exploration of various possible solutions, maybe you do lectures and polite passivity and individualism of knowledge, perhaps stimulated cooperative learning and sharing of learning and so on ... Anyway your business. Make up mind local genesis, diagnosis, prognosis of the problems, and always remember that your school is on the horizon the blade of penalty. "
In conclusion I agree with the system described in Part C of the commission's document INVALSI, but not about the destination and the consequences related to that objective. It is the merit that will finalize the project, if implemented, malfunctioning and cumbersome. I would prefer that the experts we are talking about, as well as test preparation, were also made available to support teachers, help them to review the dynamics of educational relationships and directly improve their professionalism. Would seem much less cumbersome. The massive demand for resources to implement the proposed regime deserves to go and bear fruit that something more of a pure incentive criteria: a criterion of understanding of current educational model and the development of better models based on intentional general information that result from the test. At the national level, for example, what do you do at the level of critical thinking and methodology based on OECD-PISA test? In my school, the test was made and passed like a breeze of air. I am convinced that more than 60% of teachers do not even know that it took place. Before going into details of the projects of autonomy of individual institutions, which will require testing regime on all students, and therefore large investment, because you do not get while the general guidelines and does not open a debate on the basis the data we already have? Because there seems to be a refusal to shoot a bit 'of resources in national projects re-professionalizing?
I now read that someone agrees with me and makes it even more critical:
http://www.unibg.it/dati/bacheca/682/34469.pdf
