Baker expresses concern that Passing Muster is an example of “…technicians working within the political arena…deferring judgment on important technical concerns that have real ethical implications.” Although the authors of Passing Muster claim no preference for specific types of evaluation systems, their rating system effectively suggests that value-added measures should be the benchmark for evaluating teacher evaluation systems, simply because they are available and not because they are good measures. Baker calls on the authors to admit their bias: “When a technician knows that one choice is better (or worse) than another, one measure or model better than another, and that these technical choices affect real lives, the technician should – MUST – be up front/honest about these preferences.”
Resources related to this item
Baker, B. D. (2011). NEPC Review: Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher Evaluation Systems. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from https://scholar.colorado.edu/nepc/256
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.