Let's make some simplifying assumptions: the survey identifies two causes of poor performance, a lack of academic rigor, and a poor classroom environment (such as a teacher that's mean and unresponsive to requests for help or clarification). Those two categories are weighted equally on the survey - a teacher who gets 100% on the survey is good in both categories, a teacher who gets 0% is bad in both categories, and a teacher has more than one way to score 50%.
So, if both of those factors affect student performance on standardized tests, then there will be a strong correlation between the overall survey scores and the test scores. But analyzing the details of the survey results can offer actionable guidance that the test scores can't - the survey does provide useful information for how mediocre teachers can improve, even when it matches the test scores in predictive power for future test scores.
Comments
Let's make some simplifying assumptions: the survey identifies two causes of poor performance, a lack of academic rigor, and a poor classroom environment (such as a teacher that's mean and unresponsive to requests for help or clarification). Those two categories are weighted equally on the survey - a teacher who gets 100% on the survey is good in both categories, a teacher who gets 0% is bad in both categories, and a teacher has more than one way to score 50%.
So, if both of those factors affect student performance on standardized tests, then there will be a strong correlation between the overall survey scores and the test scores. But analyzing the details of the survey results can offer actionable guidance that the test scores can't - the survey does provide useful information for how mediocre teachers can improve, even when it matches the test scores in predictive power for future test scores.