Anna Kuperman: SLOs are Unfair to Teachers and Students
Anna Kuperman, GoLocalProv Guest MINDSETTER™
Anna Kuperman: SLOs are Unfair to Teachers and Students
Student Learning Objective (SLOs) measure how much a student improves over a period of time in a particular class based on an assessment given at the beginning, middle and end of the year. SLOs count for the majority of a teacher’s evaluation. If a teacher does not show that her student’s have improved, then she is deemed ineffective. The use of SLOs is unfair, inequitable and unproven and therefore a false measurement of a teacher’s effectiveness.
Connecting SLOs with punitive measures in the teacher evaluation model creates enormous amounts of stress for teachers. It demoralizes teachers by forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of unpaid time on a task that has not been proven to improve student performance.
SLOs take away from instructional time with students. Writing SLOs takes away from proven methods that raise student achievement: planning time, grading, writing recommendations, meeting with parents, and professional development (to mention a few of the after hours tasks that teachers complete because we know that these tasks improve our students’ learning and our teaching).
Teacher effectiveness should not be based on student’s ability to learn. Teachers cannot be held accountable for the injustices that students face—poverty resulting in not enough to eat, basic physical and mental health needs not being met, children taking on parental roles, educational budget cuts resulting in fewer services and programs for children. A myriad of issues outside a teacher’s control shape student results on assessments.
SLOs shift the focus from teaching and learning to data collection and evaluation. Principal and teacher time is disproportionately focused on SLOs. Students lose instructional time and are forced to take more tests that are not meaningful.
Administrators, teachers, and students deserve a fair, reliable evaluation system that provides teachers with meaningful feedback. SLOs should be removed from the teacher evaluation model. They have potential as a means of measuring student progress, but should not be used with punitive consequences for teachers.
Anna Kuperman has been an educator for 17 years, currently teaching English at Classical High School in Providence. She is a National Board Certified Teacher, and is an active member of the Providence Teachers Union.
SLIDES: Ranking the Highest Student Loan Default Rates in RI
# 19 Newport Hairdressing
FY 2010 Default Rate: 0
No. in Default: 0
No. in Repay: 12
Enrollment figures: 87
* Newport School of Hairdressing
# 18 Brown University
FY 2010 Default Rate: 2%
No. in Default: 16
No. in Repay: 770
Enrollment figures: 8877
#17 Providence College
FY 2010 Default Rate: 2.2%
No. in Default: 17
No. in Repay: 772
Enrollment figures: 5912
#16 Bryant University
FY 2010 Default rate: 3.4%
No. in Default: 26
No. in Repay: 759
Enrollment figures: 4118
#15 New England Tech
FY 2010 Default Rate: 3.8%
No. in Default: 63
No. in Repay: 1650
Enrollment figures: 4247
* New England Institute of Technology
#14 RISD
FY 2010 Default Rate: 4.2%
No. in Default: 18
No. in Repay: 421
Enrollment figures: 2605
* Rhode Island School of Design
#13 Roger Williams
FY 2010 Default Rate: 5.2%
No. in Default: 60
No. in Repay
Enrollment figures: 5433
* Roger Williams University
#12 Salve Regina
FY 2010 Default Rate: 5.6%
No. in Default: 30
No. in Repay: 530
Enrollment figures: 3098
#11 St. Joseph - Nursing
FY 2010 Default Rate: 6%
No. in Default: 2
No. in Repay: 33
Enrollment figures: 114
* St. Joseph School of Nursing
#10 URI
FY 2010 Default Rate: 6.9%
No. in Default: 182
No. in Repay: 2626
Enrollment figures: 19200
* University of Rhode Island
#9 IYRS
FY 2010 Default Rate: 7.1%
No. in Default: 1
No. in Repay: 14
Enrollment figures: 47
* International Yacht Restoration School
#8 RIC
FY 2010 Default Rate: 9%
No. in Default: 137
No. in Repay: 1511
Enrollment figures: 10976
* Rhode Island College
#7 Empire Beauty-Warwick
FY 2010 Default Rate: 13.6%
No. in Default: 16
No. in Repay: 117
Enrollment figures: 261
* Empire Beauty School, Warwick Campus
#6 Johnson and Wales
FY 2010 Default Rate: 14.6%
No. in Default: 713
No. in Repay: 4873
Enrollment figures: 18,659
#5 CCRI
FY 2010 Default Rate: 14.7%
No. in Default: 141
No. in Repay: 954
Enrollment figures: 24352
* Community College of Rhode Island
#4 NETTS
FY 2010 Default Rate: 18%
No. in Default: 100
No. in Repay: 553
Enrollment figures: 1046
* New England Tractor Trailer School
#3 Empire Beauty-Prov.
FY 2010 Default Rate: 19%
No. in Default: 33
No. in Repay: 173
Enrollment figures: 332
* Empire Beauty School, Providence Campus
#2 Toni & Guy
FY 2010 Default Rate: 22.2%
No. in Default: 2
No. in Repay: 9
Enrollment figure: 0
* Toni and Guy Hairdressing School
#1 Lincoln Tech.
FY 2010 Default Rate: 32.6%
No. in Default: 1228
No. in Repay: 3765
Enrollment figures: 4730
* Lincoln Technical Institute
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Translation service unavailable. Please try again later.