[elemenohpee]

> How is it any different than the rest of the working world where you can control some things and you can't control others yet your job is to do the best you can with what you can control?

So the argument is that since everyone sucks at measuring things that any arguments about how a particular system of measurement is ineffective should be discarded?

[crusso]

So the argument is that since everyone sucks at measuring things

You read something into my argument that I didn't put there, so I'm going to disregard it as a straw man.

[elemenohpee]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to create a straw man, just trying to tease out a hidden premise, although I suppose I could have been less of a dick about it.

I think we can all agree that judging people based on things that they have no control over is not an effective way to evaluate them. This happens in education, as the parent comment outlined. This happens in engineering, as you outlined. It does not follow that teachers should be evaluated in this way, or that a discussion about the problems with this method should not take place.

[crusso]

I really appreciate the way you're saying it, but I still think you're reading things into my words ("everyone sucks at measuring things" was not even a hidden premise). Worse, you're not acknowledging the evidence mentioned in the study.

The study attempted to control for things the teacher's couldn't control. They're actually being differentially judged on the parts of education that they can control.

These lines from the article fly in the face of your entire argument: "They also ranked the teachers using a statistical model known as value-added modeling, which calculates how much an educator has helped students learn based on their academic performance over time".

You would need to address them directly in order to mount a credible counter-argument.