Mitchell Robinson on Teacher Evaluations

Some unpopular thoughts on teacher evaluation

by Mitchell Robinson

I’ve been working on teacher evaluation for most of my career as a teacher, administrator, and teacher educator; first being evaluated, then doing the evaluation as an assistant principal and subject area coordinator, then helping design a state-wide beginning teacher evaluation initiative. After nearly 40 years in education, all I can say is that the current system is the worst I’ve ever seen.

If the goal of these systems was to get rid of the so-called “bad teachers” that supposedly exist in great numbers in our schools, it has been spectacularly ineffective. Every form of teacher evaluation winds up identifying only between 1-3% of teachers as “ineffective”–yet we continue to spend precious money and time in the vain attempt to purge the system of these “bad teachers”.

Here’s the truth–it’s a colossal waste of time to keep pouring good money after bad in this attempt. Why?

Not because there are zero weak teachers–there are some, though as most will acknowledge, a surprisingly small number.

Because bad teachers self-select, and weed themselves out of the classroom well before any evaluation system “catches” them. Why?

Because the job is too hard to do it without finding any level of satisfaction or fulfillment–and the money isn’t good enough to keep them in the classroom, unlike other jobs where people report low satisfaction, but remain in the job for the financial rewards.

Here’s another truth–we know quite a lot about how to evaluate teachers. And we, quite simply, don’t have the stomach to do it. Why?

Because it requires time, money, and effort. It also requires knowledgeable experts to spend copious amounts of time in teachers’ classrooms, watching them teach, talking about teaching, providing professional development to address the teacher’s reflections on their practice, and targeted feedback on matters of content, pedagogy, and instruction.

I’ve helped design such a system, and even though it wasn’t perfect, it worked better than just about any other approach. It still didn’t “catch” large numbers of bad teachers, though. Why?

Because they just don’t exist.

What this approach to teacher evaluation did do was empower those teachers to “own” their own practice, and to be responsible for their own improvement. It was also a valuable form of professional development for the experienced teachers who served as the “evaluators,” many of whom reported that they learned more about teaching from participating in the process than from other forms of professional development.

You know what isn’t very useful? For non-experts to provide their “feedback” on teacher quality–which in our current environment is most of what we get. All-knowing policy pronouncements from folks who have never attended a public school, never sent their own children to a public school, have no degrees in education, and have never taught anyone anything, but are now–because of how much wealth they have squirreled away, in positions of authority over public education in our country. (Psst…that’s you, Betsy…)

At the risk of sounding rude and condescending, unless it’s about providing evidence of a teacher abusing a child or committing some sort of crime against a child–in which case, as a court-mandate reporter, I’m obligated to go to law enforcement with those claims–I really am not interested in “your thoughts” about how well you think your kid’s teacher is doing. because you don’t know. Why?

Because the teacher one parent thinks is awful, another parent thinks is a hero. It’s why we don’t have the relatives of crime victims serve as the judge and jury for the persons suspected of committing those crimes.

Because they aren’t objective–and they aren’t supposed to be. Parents are supposed to see the world through their kids’ eyes. It’s not their job to evaluate teachers. And unless you are a teacher, or an administrator in your kid’s school, it’s not your job either.

I’ve been teaching since 1980, and get asked to do evaluations of music teachers all the time–and I always say no. Why?

Not because I don’t know what “good teaching” looks like–I do. But that’s just *my* opinion of what good teaching looks–or sounds–like. Because I don’t feel qualified to judge another teacher if I haven’t worked in their context; understand their students, their colleagues and principals, understand their building and district “culture”, who had their job before they did, what are the community’s expectations, what that teacher’s background is, and dozens of other specifics that can’t be captured on the 4-point scale we currently use.

And now, two final notes:

With respect to parents as “consumers”: When you make this comparison it only reveals your misunderstanding of the complexity of teaching and learning. Education is not a business. And it should not be run like one.

My kids have had teachers I thought were great, and ones I didn’t think were so hot. It happens. And when it does, it’s my job to do what I can to help my child keep learning. Not to pretend I know better than them how to do their job–because guess what? I don’t. And neither do you.

With respect to improving parental involvement: You know what teachers want you to do?

§         help their kids do their home work

§  make sure they practice their instruments

§  make sure they get to all school events, concerts, plays, sporting events, etc.

§  travel with them

§  take them to museums and art galleries

§  watch movies

§  read to them

§  feed them healthy meals

§  spoil them with ice cream

§  sing to them

§  play with them

  §  let them know that all those tests they are forced to take don’t tell us anything about how much they know, or who they are

Try to support what their teachers do with them for 7-8 hours per day. And tell them that they should respect their teachers–and model that respect by not complaining about them at home in front of their kids.

New York City DOE Asks For a Waiver From the Newly Revised Teacher Evaluation Law Until the 2016-2017 School Year

New York City Seeks Teacher Evaluation Waiver
LINK

New York City applied for a waiver on Monday from the state's newly revised teacher evaluation law so its changes would be ready for the 2016-17 school year.

The move came after state officials allowed waivers for school districts that wanted more time to implement rules approved last spring by the state legislature and the Board of Regents. The city's new deadline for submitting a plan to Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia would be March 15, 2016, instead of November of this year.

"We want to make sure that our teacher development and evaluation system is high quality and works best for students, teachers and school communities as a whole," said Devora Kaye, spokeswoman for the Department of Education. "Learning to implement a brand new system of teacher development and evaluation at this time would not be best for students and school communities."

The state's new rules were approved after Gov. Andrew Cuomo complained that too few teachers received the lowest ratings under the previous evaluation system; he pushed the state to give more weight to student test scores. Many teachers, school superintendents and parents then cried foul, saying the process was rushed.

(Here are the new regulations with an outline of the changes over the last few years.)

“Commissioner Elia has made it clear all along that districts need to get this right. We’d rather have them request a waiver and work to get this done than to rush into an agreement,” said Dennis Tompkins, a spokesman for the state’s education department.

Evan Stone, the co-founder and co-CEO of a teacher group called Educators 4 Excellence, said his group wanted the city to take the time needed for a smooth transition. 

"We have heard from teachers citywide, and what too often gets overlooked is their reasonable interest in pursuing new and improved policies but their understandable frustration over constant change," he said in a statement. "We should take the time to do this work right." 

The commissioner, who took office in July, addressed other concerns about the evaluations and testing on Monday afternoon at the New York State School Boards Assocation's annual convention, held in a midtown hotel.

She emphasized that she's already granted hardship waivers for small school districts from a provision requiring them to hire outside evaluators to observe their teachers at work. She also promised the state's third through eighth grade math and reading tests in April would be shorter than this year's test.

Elia, who is currently leading a review of the Common Core standards, reiterated her support for higher standards. She said tests can help teachers address their pupils' weaknesses. In a nod to the 200,000 students who opted out of this year's tests, she also said she understood the concerns of many teachers and families.

"Parents in the state have a right to not to have their children participate in assessments," she said, adding that she hoped families would support the tests once they see that they aren't meant to hurt teachers.

Elia urged parents, teachers and superintendents to participate in a survey she's conducting of the standards that will go up on her department's website later this week. Recommendations will then be made to the Regents in January, to be adopted later in 2016.

Several audience members asked Elia why she couldn't just halt the use of both the standards and the Common Core tests until she's done with her review. Michael Hynes, superintendent for the Patchogue Medford school district on Long Island, said it feels like "the road is being paved as we're moving forward."

Elia said the federal government wouldn't allow her to suspend the standards or tests.

"But I can tell you I will be very vocal in what I think is appropriate," she said, adding a note of encouragement. "I also know that as a leader you really can make a difference in what's happening in your districts."

National Public Voice: Carol Burris on the Sham Teacher Evaluation Using Student Test Data

Re-posted from National Public Voice:

Carol Burris on Using Test Scores and Common Core To Evaluate Teachers

Carol Burris

 

Principal’s last advice: Let’s move beyond the rhetoric and really question the Common Core

Value-added scores are a sham metric. They give top teachers negative scores!

Core Debate by Carol Burris, July 2, 2015

LINK

Dear Jayne,
I am writing this letter the day after my last graduation ceremony. The past week has been difficult—full of tearful goodbyes. Although I am certain that my decision to retire was the right one, leaving a school that I love so much has been very painful. But, as I said to the Class of 2015 in my address, quoting Winnie the Pooh—“how lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.”

Your last letter acknowledged our mutual concern about the evaluation of teachers by student test data. Even if it were a perfect measure, and it is far from perfect, the unintended consequences of using test scores in this manner would never be worth the price. Back in 1976, social scientist Donald Campbell predicted what would happen if standardized tests became high-stakes. He wrote, “When test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they both lose their value as indicators of educational status and distort the educational process in undesirable ways.” Certainly, that is a worry you and I share.

You asked what accountability system produces a bell curve in which teachers are measured against each other. It’s called the “VAM” — for value-added model — and each teacher receives a score that is generated by comparing the scores of his or her students with students across the state of Florida, who take the same test and have similar characteristics. That comparison then produces a “bell curve” because scores cluster around the average score, which is converted into the five Florida categories of teacher VAM performance. It may sound reasonable but it produces some inexplicable results where excellent teachers receive bad scores. This was the case of the 2014 Hillsborough Teacher of the Year, who was judged so bad by VAM, his score was negative! We use a similar process in New York, although growth scores are only generated for 3-8 tests.

Jayne, while we both disagree with using student test scores to evaluate teachers, I am wary when you suggest that “multiple measures” and “dashboards” are the solution. Would you be comfortable with test scores being 30% of a teacher’s evaluation? I would not. If using them as a metric comes at the cost of narrowing curriculum and teaching to the test, why would we want to include them at all?

I am not discounting the importance of using student achievement in assessing teacher quality and in helping teachers improve. Prior to the mandated use of scores, I used achievement results to help guide my observations, review teacher lesson plans and design professional development. I worry that vague terms like “multiple measures” lead non-educators to conclude that, if more than one test were used to produce VAM scores, or if you also included observations, using test data is sound practice.

Related: Blended learning emerges as a leading trend in education technology, report says

Now back to the Common Core. I am not sure what you mean when you say that I “personified” the standards and that I believe the Common Core is “the root of the problems we are facing in education.” The Common Core is but one part of a failed reform strategy. The Common Core, teacher evaluation using student tests scores, Common Core tests, the expansion of charter schools and other disruptive change strategies were pushed by the $4.35 billion competitive grant known as Race to the Top. All are presented as interconnected parts of a school improvement plan.

I do agree that other policies associated with the Common Core have negatively impacted the implementation of the standards. I also am (and have always been) a big believer in college and career readiness as our goal. Where we disagree is that I don’t believe that the Common Core standards, even without bad policy, will do the job.

Here is an example that we in New York are living through now. The Common Core algebra test was given in early June. New York students generally take algebra in eighth grade (accelerated students) or ninth grade. Some of our very best students were in tears as they struggled to complete it. Concerns went far beyond our district. Eric Cunningham is a veteran algebra teacher from upstate New York. He wrote an email to parents explaining how difficult the test was and how illogical the curve against which the tests were scored.

First, let’s look at the level of difficulty. Eric refers to question 24, a compound inequality problem which you can find here. Eric is correct when he says this topic was previously taught in New York’s Algebra 2/Trigonometry course, the third course in the high school sequence. Question 24 is now fair game on the Common Core algebra test, which is the first course in the high school sequence, because it tests the Common Core standard CED.A1, which you can find here.

Our students also had a lot of difficulty with question 18 which involved a quadratic equation. The solution included a fraction. My math teacher told me that not only was the topic previously taught in Algebra 2 Trigonometry, but that the inclusion of the fraction made the question inappropriate for even the Algebra 2 course. Could the question be considered an assessment of a Common Core standard? Yes, because there are Common Core math standards that require Algebra 1 students to solve quadratic equations by completing the square.

Related: With Common Core tests, a lot at stake for first-year principal

This level of detail is necessary to help readers understand the problem. We do our students a terrible disservice when we fail to recognize the inappropriateness of many of the standards and accept them in the name of “college readiness.”

The problems with the test go beyond these two questions. Let’s look at the college readiness score bands. It is not difficult to pass the test. For a score of 65%, students need to get 30 of the possible 86 points—which represents getting less than 35% of the exam correct. Given that most of the exam is multiple choice, a good guesser who can do the simpler questions will pass. To get to the Common Core “college readiness” passing (level 4) a student must get 65% of the test right. That “college readiness score” will be the new score needed to graduate high school in just a few years. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But let’s look at the outcome.

Only 48% of Rockville Centre first-time test takers achieved that score. That excludes students who previously took and failed the test—if they were included the percentage would be lower still.

This year South Side High School had no dropouts and our four-year graduation rate was 98%. Should we conclude that only about half of the graduates of my high school are college-ready, and that in the future, only 48% should graduate based on the results of this test?

Related: Are new Common Core tests really better than the old multiple-choice tests?

Every other indicator contradicts that conclusion. Every year, over 70% of our graduates pass an International Baccalaureate exam in mathematics. When I checked last fall, 92% of our entire Class of 2012 was successfully enrolled in college two years after graduation. My summer survey of whether students were required to take remediation resulted in only a handful of students. All were either English language learners or students with disabilities.

So, Jayne, what should I believe? The Common Core test results, which say over half of our students are not prepared for college, or over a decade’s worth of evidence that tells me nearly all of them are? I understand that my school is well-resourced with only a 16% poverty rate. But surely the juxtaposition of Common Core scores with my school’s longstanding track record of producing college-ready students indicates that there is something wrong with the Common Core standards as measured by Common Core-aligned tests. It is time we move beyond the rhetoric and critically question the assumptions on which these reforms rest.

I thank you so much for your willingness to enter this dialogue with me. I have no doubt that you and I both deeply believe in school improvement and our responsibility to create well-educated, caring and thoughtful young adults. While we disagree on the value of the Common Core, my guess is that our core values are far more similar than different. Good luck to you, Jayne, and the very best to you and your wonderful school.

Carol

UFT President Mulgrew on The New Teacher Evaluations, 2013: This Plan is Professional and Fair

Didn't Sir Winston Churchill say "“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” ?

President Mulgrew's member letter on the new evaluation plan for teachers

PUBLISHED JUNE 1, 2013

UFT President Michael Mulgrew (pictured below) sent the following email to UFT members on Saturday evening following State Education Commissioner John King's announcement of the new evaluation plan for New York City teachers that will take effect in September 2013.

 

Dear colleagues,

State Education Commissioner John King said New York City “is not going to fire its way to academic success” as he announced this afternoon a new evaluation system for K-12 teachers that will go into effect in September.

The commissioner’s plan is professional and fair and is designed to help teachers improve their skills throughout their careers. It offers teachers a professional voice in the measures that their supervisors will use to rate them. And despite Mayor Bloomberg’s desire for a “gotcha” system, the new system puts in place stronger due process rights to protect teachers from harassment and from principals who don’t follow the rules. Our biggest concern, given this administration’s terrible track record, is implementation.

The new system came as the result of binding arbitration after the DOE failed to negotiate in good faith with us. In seven months we will have a new mayor, and we’ll have the opportunity in collective bargaining for our next contract to make changes to aspects that aren’t working. 

For now, here are five key points about the new evaluation plan that you should know:

1. Strong due process –Given Mayor Bloomberg’s desire to make teachers ‘at-will employees’and this DOE’s track record of going after teachers, we fought for and won significant safeguards for you. For the first time, we have an independent panel to review teacher ratings that the union believes are based on principal harassment.  We can identify up to 13 percent of all ineffective ratings each year to challenge on grounds of harassment or other matters not related to job performance.  All teachers who receive an ineffective rating will have the benefit in the following year of an independent validator who will not be in the principal’s pocket. We also fought for and won additional arbitration slots that will allow teachers to challenge the process when they can show that supervisors were not following the rules.

2. The complete Danielson rubric –Commissioner King ruled, following the UFT’s proposal, that principals must take into consideration all 22 components of the Danielson Framework for Teaching when rating a teacher. The DOE had wanted to cherry-pick only a small fraction – the most difficult ones. That means everything that you do for your students counts towards your rating, including artifacts of student learning and portfolios, planning and preparation, classroom environment and parent engagement strategies.

3. Meaningful observations –Under this new agreement, teachers will be able to choose the form of observations that they want. One option available to you will require one formal observation, with pre- and post-observation conferences, as well as three informal observations. Teachers can also opt for six informal observations. Under both plans, at least one observation will be unannounced.  After everyobservation, you should receive written feedback, which is critical if an observation is to help you grow as a teacher and develop your skills.

4. Teacher Voice - The new system will allow schools and teachers to customize the student learning portion of their evaluations. Each school will have a committee comprised of an equal number of teachers and administrators who will determine, along with the principal, which assessments each school will use. Only if no agreement can be reached at the school level will the default school-wide measures be used.

5.  Student surveys - The new system also includes a pilot of student surveys, which will not be for stakes in 2013-14. Commissioner King’s plan is that the surveys would eventually become 5 percent of the rating for teachers in grades 3-12. Experts have found that student surveys are not valid in high-stakes settings, and we will be looking at this very closely in the months ahead.

The DOE is already trying to spin this to its advantage. We will be working through Sunday to put together detailed information about the new plan so you’ll have it when you return to school on Monday.

Training the tens of thousands of teachers and administrators in our schools in the new system will not be easy. The Bloomberg administration has failed our schools for more than 11 years, and we can only hope that one of its last acts will be to work with us to implement this new system in the spirit in which it was designed.

Here is the bottom line: The new teacher evaluation system is designed to support, not punish, teachers and to help them develop throughout their careers. That is what we will be fighting for as this plan is implemented.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

Read more: News

Related topics: evaluation

First Look at New Teacher Evaluation Process

City education department awards itself a win on teacher evals

by Philissa Cramer, at 7:59 pmLINK

Before briefing reporters with their take on the teacher evaluation system that State Education Commissioner John King imposed on the city today, the Department of Education distributed a colorful chart making the case that King had sided with with its proposal.

According to the chart, King fell closer to the department’s position than the UFT’s on several issues, including the number of days allotted for arbitration, the use of student surveys, and the length of the agreement. The chart does not mention other issues where the UFT’s positions won out, such as the number of Danielson Framework components that will count or other details about the way observations will have to be documented.

“I consider this a major victory for our students and our staff,” Chancellor Dennis Walcott said.

Union chiefs offer first takes on state-imposed evaluation plans

by Philissa Cramer, at 7:07 pmLINK

UFT President Michael Mulgrew offered what appeared to be a tepid endorsement of the teacher evaluation system that State Education Commissioner John King imposed today,while Mulgrew’s counterpart at the principals union was more favorable about the new plan for rating his members.

Ernest Logan, president of the Council of School Supervisors and Superintendents, said in a statement that his union had actually reached a deal on evaluations with the city Department of Education late Friday, “with the strong intervention of Commissioner King.” He said the deal resembled what had almost been finalized back in January, when the city’s negotiations with the teachers union fell apart just before a state deadline.

Logan praised the new evaluation system, saying that it “preserves many of the same tools our principals are accustomed to while at the same time substantially improving our due process protections and safeguards.” It also provides for helping principals improve, which the old system did not do, he said.

Mulgrew’s reaction was more circumspect. In a statement posted to the UFT’s website shortly after King released details of the plan, Mulgrew expressed satisfaction that teachers will be allowed to challenge the evaluations process before they receive their ratings and that teachers will have an equal say with their administrators in recommending which tools are used to measure student growth.

“New York City teachers will now have additional protections and opportunities to play a larger role in the development of the measures used to rate them,” he said. “Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s desire for a ‘gotcha’ system, as Commissioner King noted today, New York City ‘is not going to fire its way to academic success.’”

But he also signaled that the union has a speedy timeline for seeking revisions to the plan. King announced that the plan would be in effect through the 2016-2017 school year. But Mulgrew said the specifics would remain in effect “unless and until they are altered in collective bargaining with the new mayor who takes office in seven months.”

The evaluation system that King imposed includes some wins for the UFT and some clear losses. Principals will have to consider all 22 components of the Danielson Framework for assessing classroom instruction, which the union wanted. But starting in the 2014-2015 school year, student surveys will count for 5 percent of ratings for almost all teachers — something that the union had vehemently opposed.

The full statements are below. From UFT President Michael Mulgrew:

New York City teachers will now have additional protections and opportunities to play a larger role in the development of the measures used to rate them. Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s desire for a “gotcha” system, as Commissioner King noted today, New York City “is not going to fire its way to academic success.”

The precise measures of student learning established by this ruling will be in effect unless and until they are altered in collective bargaining with the new Mayor who takes office in seven months.

As the UFT requested, there will now be additional arbitration slots that will allow teachers to challenge any violations by supervisors of the new evaluation process before they reach the stage of actual ratings.

The state has also ruled that teachers will be evaluated on all aspects of the Danielson framework, as the UFT had proposed, in opposition to the DOE’s insistence that fewer measures be used.

In individual schools, teachers will have an equal say with administrators on the committee that will recommend the instruments that each school will use.

Despite the Mayor’s claims to the contrary, the major components of the new statewide system – such as the four categories of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing and Ineffective – are part of the statute or are regulations;  as such, have never been subject to “sunset;”  they can be changed by the Legislature or the Commissioner.

And from CSA President Ernest Logan:

After a full day of arbitration yesterday, CSA and DOE reached an agreement on an APPR Plan for Principals. This deal was reached late last night with the strong intervention of Commissioner King, and finalizes the agreement we were on the verge of signing in January. We are pleased to report that our agreement is consistent and reliable as it preserves many of the same tools our Principals are accustomed to while at the same time substantially improving our due process protections and safeguards. For the first time, we’ve negotiated a true yearlong improvement plan for any Principal rated “developing” or “ineffective” with regular cycles of feedback from superintendents. Additionally, we negotiated a strong appeals process, including the step of an independent hearing officer. Our rating scales will continue to yield the differentiated results that our Principal Performance Review has had in the past. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement and will have more details this week.

Teacher Evaluation Funding Follies

David Bloomfield

LINK

 With all of the recent jockeying over the stalled New York City teacher evaluation deal, little has changed in the last several weeks. The governor's threat to withhold state aid has been temporarily enjoinedwhile the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and mayor, also prevented from implementing the State cuts, still seem at loggerheads. And has anyone noticed that the State Education Department's sword rattling deadline for withholding federal funds has come and gone? That possibility vanished because John King was blindsided when Arne Duncan blinked.

King, New York State's Education Commissioner, had previously threatened to suspend or redirect over a billion dollars of federal education aid, including our entire Title I allocation, if New York City and its teachers union did not agree to a formula for job-threatening teacher evaluations by February 15. This unilateral dictate -- holding over three million students as financial hostages to force a supposedly voluntary contract agreement -- was demolished when the U.S. Department of Education headed by Secretary Duncan, stated on February 1 that the agency "had no plans to withhold grant money," as reported by the Wall Street Journal and the city DOE issued a rehashingof its so-far incomplete teacher evaluation efforts that King had already criticized.

The pressure being put on the City and the Union to agree to a set of standardized test-based teacher evaluations is absurd. City schools' potential loss of approximately $250 million in State funds based on Governor Cuomo's decision to punish districts that failed to agree to his January deadline is threatened as contrary to the State's obligations to adequately fund City schools. In a counter-move, Cuomo has reeled in Senate and Democratic leaders to propose repeal of the collective bargaining provision that gave rise to the evaluation impasse.

Most district unions caved to Cuomo's threat since they are more dependent on State money than New York, which is routinely shortchanged by Albany and can withstand this deprivation -- while very serious -- without core instructional impact. Besides, the teachers probably reasoned, it remains to be seen if any are eventually fired as a result of the new evaluation system. Termination hearings are notoriously complex and questions over highly-variable test results may even protect teachers with poor principal evaluations. So it is understandable that union locals would take this calculated risk -- certain money now in exchange for few possible firings later -- in agreeing to Cuomo's now-suspect conditions.

These evaluation funding follies have been perpetrated by politicians, policy wonks, and their deep-pocketed patrons to solve an imaginary problem through an untested solution. Even the conservative TNTP emphasizes that our greatest need is to retain good teachers (however that may be defined) since most teachers of any stripe leave the system early in their careers. In addition to King and Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg has damaged whatever little education credibility he has left by denouncing a sunset provision in the potential UFT agreement, though almost every other State-approved plan contains that element. Even Duncan's Pollyanna pronouncement that New York has made "notable gains" toward implementing its Race to the Top promises is fallacious. As King has noted, we are far from meeting the goals set forth in our RttT and No Child Left Behind waiver (formally, "ESEA Flexibility") proposals. Just as no knowledgeable participant thought there was truth in the phrase "No Child Left Behind" so we are caught again in a duplicitous series of false promises and gamed results.

The next steps? First, King should lose his job, having put the ideological purity of the accountability movement ahead of a billion dollars critical to the education of millions of mostly poor children in his charge. His legal arguments are wrong since, under his own Department's Regents Rule 30-2.1(c), interpreting his statutory powers regarding a teacher evaluation system, no evaluation system is permitted unless there is union signoff. As important, his letter to Chancellor Walcott presumes to speak for the federal Education Secretary in threatening "suspension and/or redirection of federal funds and/or determination that NYC DOE is a 'high risk grantee'" under federal regulations. When Arne Duncan pulled that rug out from King's empty pronouncement, he proved that the commissioner is less interested in kids than in unproven evaluation mechanics.

Second, the new commissioner should renegotiate our RttT and ESEA Flexibility agreements to provide for a more realistic implementation schedule, with substantive changes to student, teacher, and teacher prep evaluation systems more consistent with current research. The Department of Education has never walked away from a RttT or ESEA deal and is unlikely to do so now.

Finally, the governor, having at least temporarily failed to punish New York by withholding funds this year, should keep his powder dry and await results from the teacher evaluation plans already in place before re-imposing cuts next year, as he recently announced. Real cuts = real kids, Governor. Don't do it again without more information.

No one is arguing against hard-headed teacher evaluation and removal of poor performers, tenured and untenured. I have repeatedly written that the probationary period be extended from three years so that principals and teachers alike have time for evaluation and improvement without the premature attachment of increased due process through tenure. I teach my Leadership grad students that it is God's work to terminate a bad teacher. But the current use of student test scores for such decisions is so fraught with unknowns that we do a disservice to all when we pretend they have any statistical utility in personnel decisions. The chief myth underlying this set of political follies is that we know enough to do no harm. Our leaders are jeopardizing scarce funds for children in need to hide their basic ignorance.

David Bloomfield, Esq. is is Professor of Educational Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He is the author of American Public Education Law, 2nd edition, praised by Diane Ravitch as "a user-friendly guide to education law that will prove extremely helpful to parents, teachers, and all others concerned about public education." Teachers College Record called it "a useful and distinguished school law text." 

A former teacher and graduate of Columbia U. School of Law and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs at Princeton U., he served as law clerk to Hon. Robert L. Carter (USDJ, SDNY) prior to joining Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington, DC law firm, where he practiced Education Law. He also served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for New York City before becoming General Counsel to the New York City Board of Education. He was also General Counsel and Senior Education Adviser to the Manhattan Borough President and Executive Director for public education initiatives at the New York City Partnership.

EDWIZE: Setting The Record Straight On Teacher Evaluations

Scoring and the Role of Standardized Exams 

LINK 

Leo Casey

  See also:

Attention NYC Teachers You Have Been Had By Your Union

Leo Casey Responds To NYC Teacher Outcry

Feb. 22, 2012
3:28 pm
by Leo Casey 
66 Comments

Filed under:Education

(This is the first of two posts on the new teacher evaluations, focusing on the overall 
scoring of the evaluations and the role of standardized exams. The second post will 
take up the question of appeals.)

The 2010 law that established a new framework for the evaluation of New York
educators was a complex piece of legislation, and last week’s agreement to clarify
and refine that law with additional legislation added another layer to that 
complexity.
 The complexity is unavoidable. It is important to have evaluations based on 
multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, just as it is important to evaluate 
students based onmultiple measures of their learning: more measures and 
more forms of evidence produce more robust, more accurate and fairer 
evaluations. Further, multiple measures allowed New York to avoid placing 
inordinate weight on standardized exams and value-added algorithms, as other 
states have done to very negative consequences. And it was essential that the bulk 
of the evaluations be established locally through collective bargaining, with
the law only providing a general framework. These objectives necessarily led 
to a high level of complexity.

Go to the article for more information about evaluating teacher performance the right way.