Do they read their own newspaper?

The NY Times ran a story today on a Gates-funded 2-year study of teacher effectiveness. Here is my comment:

Four days ago, the NY Times ran an editorial chiding the NEA and others “clinging to the status quo” who are opposed to regulations proposed by the US Department of Education for states applying for the $5 billion “Race to the Top” funds. A particular sticking point for the NEA — and many highly respected researchers who understand the technical complexities involved — is that the RttT requires states to use student achievement growth measures to evaluate teachers. Now the Times reports that there is a 2-year study underway to “figure out a way to measure exactly who is effective, who is not.” I hope the NY Times editorial board takes note. The reason for NEA and other opposition to the RttT proposed regulations is that WE DO NOT KNOW how to correctly and fairly measure teacher effectiveness, and we are years away from coming up with an scientifically sound approach for doing so. If we knew how to do it, we wouldn’t be needing 2 year studies to figure it out, would we? Since we don’t know how to do it right, the RttT requirements will force states to use whatever half-baked measures can be quickly cobbled together so they can take their place at the federal trough. In other words, teacher evaluations under the proposed RttT regulatons would be based on JUNK SCIENCE, of roughly the same quality used to create the school progress report cards for New York City schools.