only going to be...this statement gets me. This is exactly what a teacher evaluation system should strive to be.

An effective feedback tool leads to growth. In fact we know from John Hattie's work that effective feedback has some of the largest impact on learning.

I want evaluation systems that are based on being effective feedback tools for teacher growth.

Here I agree. We need to make it easier to give principals control over hiring and firing. There needs to be some flexibility in tenure systems.

There is zero evidence that this is even statistically possible. In fact the AERA and a majority of Deans at Schools of Education have come out against this practice.

This is silly we need different leadership and instructional capacity rubrics for school leaders.

This is because SLO's are a failure. Trying to have all teachers base their goals on student growth is a fallacy. I know the "alternative" is to judge teachers solely on HST testing but then you have art teachers judged on reading scores...that's silly...so in an effort to create "objectivity" teachers have to right SLO's. These contribute to overtesting, fall victim to Campbell's Law, and make no sense.

Why can't a goal for an art teahcer be: "Create a community based art show that connects students to local artists..."

Because it can't be quantified.

SLOs need reform.

There is some statistical reasons for doing so. If you are going to use Value Added scores you need multiple years of data. Switching assessments reset the clock.

A delay was statistically required.

Why is this hard to believe? That a majority of teachers would be effective. This idea that we must have a witch hunt to "weed" out ineffective teachers makes NCTQ reports suspect.

Could you imaging saying the same thing about doctors or pilots? Wouldn't you want the vast majority of those flying you throw the sky or taking a scalpel to your skin to be effective or highly effective?