“There are teacher evaluations that are in the report and they are connected to tests, either state tests or locally approved tests,” Cuomo said on Sunday in Syracuse.
Tag: appr
A teacher’s perspective: NYSED Learning Summit
I have found that one of the best parts of being a public education activist is having the honor of meeting so many amazing people from across the state. The fight against the harmful agenda that has been enacted in New York State has allowed me to meet some incredible people from places like Buffalo, the Capital District, the Hudson Valley, and many other locations in our state. However one of the most intelligent, articulate, and passionate people who I have had the pleasure of being in this struggle with is one of our very own PJSTA members, Melissa McMullan. Surely her colleagues at JFK Middle School have long known what I have learned about Melissa over the past year and a half. She is a tireless advocate for our students and a remarkable representative of our profession.
Melissa (@Refusethetests for those of you on Twitter) was able to procure an invite to yesterday’s NYSED Learning Summit that dealt with teacher and principal evaluations. She was able to write up for us her experience. It is a fascinating read…
Last week I learned about NYSED’s Learning Summit, that was to be held on May 7th in Albany, in order to discuss implementing the new teacher evaluation system as prescribed by the New York State Education Law enacted on April 1st with the passage of the New York State budget. This “budget” requires that student growth measures account for 50% of a teacher’s evaluation, with the remaining 50% comprised of observations (part of which would be outside observers). The law wrapped within this budget also ostensibly eliminated permanent certification, and now makes not reporting an address change to NYSED and “actionable offense” much like a sex offender. When Newsday called this a public forum, I immediately wanted to know which members of the “public” were invited. I could not find anyone. So I did the only thing I could think of, I emailed the Board of Regents, and requested an invitation.
I received no response – until three days ago. Regent Rosa emailed a response stating that she would forward my request to the appropriate party. The next day I received a response from the Board of Regents’ Secretary stating that invitations had been given to the appropriate stakeholders, there were no seats available, and I could certainly watch the event via simulcast. That night, livid, I fired off a response that indicated it was no surprise, and that, at the very least, we, as teachers, have been consistently shut out from the very process that centers upon our own work.
Wednesday, at 11:44am, I received a response from the Board of Regents’ Secretary, it read, “A seat has just become available and is available to you. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you will attend.” Elated, I scrambled to write lesson plans for the following day, and gather my family for the four-hour drive north to Albany, searching for a hotel room as we drove. We have been in this fight for a long time. It has been nine years for me. We are not going to win back public schools for our children, without approaching from every angle and understanding the variety of positions.
Today I spent the day, as the special guest of the Board of Regents. It turns out that both Regent Cashin and Regent Rosa were fighting very hard for me to be there. The first thing I learned today, and I learned a lot, is that in general, the Board of Regents is remarkably supportive of teachers, and more importantly, the students we love so dearly. Throughout the day, I was able to hear from superintendents, principals, researchers, teachers, parents and school board members about their varying perspectives on teacher evaluation in New York State. It was an eye-opener.
An overwhelming theme today is the understanding that the New York State 3-8 assessments are flawed. It is undeniable. There is no reliability and validity testing on these tests. Furthermore, they simply were not designed to measure a child’s growth from year to year. A teacher’s growth score is actually based upon how that teacher measures against similarly situated teachers (students with the same socioeconomic class / ability). This means, every year, the distribution follows a normal distribution of scores within each group. Thus, even if every teacher in a group of similarly situated students helped their students show incredible growth, the model requires that some of those teachers are high, the majority is in the middle and some are at the low end. So we have state assessments that at best have never demonstrated reliability and validity (at worst they are developmentally inappropriate), and those assessments are being used to drive an ill-fated teacher evaluation system.
Most panelists agreed that the best component of the teacher evaluation system is teacher observations. When done right, it provides a continuous feedback loop that could ostensibly improve instructional practice. Panelists had some incongruous thought on the outside observer as prescribed by the new law. Some believe it helps provide more objectivity. However, many noted the challenge in time and money this would cause school districts, as well as the potential ineffectiveness of a teacher being observed by a stranger who would not have the kind of relationship with him / her that would support a dialogue that would improve instructional practice.
Aside from the obvious aforementioned issues with the growth score, the much larger issue is the lack of integrity of those scores. Regent Cashin brought up the fact that the American Statistical Society asserts that a teacher can vary a student’s score by 1-14%. Stephen Caldas from Manhattanville College explained that in the state’s own reporting, you will find statistical error of these scores in the 55% range in some areas. This begs the question – what, then, is the value, if any, of the state growth score in measuring teacher performance? Do we have the right to call a teacher ineffective with his tool?
What was most striking to me as a teacher was my own panel when it was introduced. Every other panel filled all six seats at the front to maximize the perspective of each particular group of stakeholders. When teachers were announced, two people went up, Michael Mulgrew, UFT President and Catalina Fortino, NYSUT vice-president. In dismay, I watched as Mr. Mulgrew had his teachers stand up in the audience, but he brought no active classroom teachers forward to discuss their needs in the APPR process. And this is what has been going on for some time. NYSED will say, “we invited them”, and I can say in this case they did, but our own union silenced us.
Those of us like me, the 200,000+ parents who refused to permit our children to take the state assessment made a tremendous impact on the Board of Regents and NYSED. It is very clear that they got the message; we know the assessments are not valid and you will not use our children in this fraudulent practice. Lisa Rudley, from NYSAPE, actually quoted Dr. Rella and said we must ask ourselves “Are the kids okay?”
Lastly, many New York State Assembly members were present. Barbara Lifton, New York State Assembly 125th district, was seated behind me. During a break, she eagerly told me she was present to advocate for teachers. I asked her if she had voted in favor of Cuomo’s budget, and she indicated she had, specifying that she did not want to, but she had no other choice. I emphatically told her a number of times that she caused irreparable harm on teachers and school children. She insisted there was no choice. When I mentioned different aspects of the law, such as notifying NYSED of address changes to avoid being treated like a sex-offender, she appeared shocked, as if this were the first time she heard this. Based upon my conversation with her, it is clear, she did not read the law before she passed it. Claiming that she is advocating for us now is like telling me you are going to find me a good doctor after you broke my leg. We must remain steadfast in holding every single legislator who voted in favor of this budget and its laws responsible for what they did by making sure they do not get re-elected.
In closing, I sat at the Learning Summit with tremendous guilt because I fought for a “golden ticket” and won, while most did not find themselves so lucky. However, I can say in total, this was one of the best days of my career. I sat with the Board of Regents the entire day, and I was given substantial time to share our plight as teachers, and the impact all of this is having on our students. I was also able to speak with Chancellor Tisch alone for several minutes, and explain soup to nuts what had transpired in Comsewogue when our district wanted to contemplate not administering the assessments (yes, the threat to fire the superintendent and entire locally elected board). I explained that we have no use for the current student assessment system, and because of our love and dedication to our students, we are seeking Middle States Accreditation and our own standardized testing that can actually be used to inform instruction.
Teachers, we are on the right track. Mulgrew said we must take back public education. We are in this mess because we allowed outsiders to craft policy for our classrooms. Enough is enough. It is becoming increasingly transparent that all of the deforms they have created are a bust. We cannot allow them to harm our students by permitting them to erode the best practices that we know work. Do not be discouraged. We made tremendous headway by being honest with parents about what we know about the fallacies of the state assessments. We need to continue on this path. Forcing children to take tests for innumerable hours that will only tell NYSED how one teacher fairs against another is an egregious misuse of classroom time. Refusing to allow it will be the undoing of all that has come to pass threatening to decimate public education.
Governor Cuomo Wants to Fire You
Via Newsday…
ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo Sunday called for a state review of all Long Island school districts because many use a union-provided evaluation he said is skewed to favor teachers.
A Newsday analysis of teacher evaluation systems in Long Island public schools found that in many the portion that local districts control is weighted toward ensuring teachers score an overall “effective” rating.
Principals’ judgment of teacher performance in classroom observations and other subjective criteria accounted for 60 percent of a teacher’s overall 100-point evaluation, according to the Newsday analysis. The other 40 points are determined by student test performance.
“Recent news reports found that most Long Island school districts have used their local discretion in teacher evaluation systems to skew the overall scoring to ensure that their teachers are rated only ‘effective’ and ‘highly effective,’ ” said Jim Malatras, the state director of operations, in a statement on behalf of Cuomo. “Most districts adopted the scoring procedures specifically drafted by the teachers unions.”
Seventy of Long Island’s 124 school districts use scoring ranges promoted by New York State United Teachers, the state’s largest teachers union, for the classroom-observations component of job ratings, according to Newsday’s analysis.
State law says the state education commissioner must ensure the local evaluations are rigorous and accurate. Cuomo’s statement Sunday asked the acting commissioner if she found any concerns in reviewing the local evaluations and, if so, what action the state Education Department took.
The teachers union said the evaluations are accurate and Cuomo wants to give more weight to students’ grades, which they argue are statistically questionable in evaluating teachers. Spokesmen for the New York State United Teachers union and the state Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
In other words, Long Island districts are not firing enough teachers, so the state should strip local control of teacher evaluations from those districts and force Cuomo’s junk science evaluations onto those districts. Cuomo’s war on teachers continues and today he has turned his focus specifically on Long Island’s teachers. The time to fight back is upon us.
APPR Rumors
Our friend Arthur Goldstein, who blogs at NYC Educator, has heard a few rumors regarding a new APPR plan.
I don’t have a lot of time right now, but several sources I trust tell me there is already a deal in place for a new APPR plan. They think it will either be a 40% junk science plan, or that it may be a statewide model based on the NYC plan. The NYC plan, while we in NYC don’t much like it, is a better one than those in a few upstate cities that were poorly negotiated. It is not nearly as good as those many small locals came up with.
However, a UFT source I also trust tells me that Mulgrew will indeed fight Cuomo’s APPR efforts. Hopefully we’ll know more after Wednesday’s DA. An agreement could be made to make an NYC-style evaluation statewide, or 40% junk science, and UFT could argue that Cuomo wanted 50% and we kept it down to 40.
The problem with UFT leadership is that everything they do is a victory. When we got the UFT transfer plan it was a victory. When we lost it and got the ATR instead that was a victory. Getting artifacts for ratings was a victory, and losing them was a victory. Getting the entire Danielson Framework was a victory and cutting it down to 8 domains was a victory.
So Mike Mulgrew can’t lose, no matter how miserable UFT and NYSUT teachers become. He is King Midas and everything he punches turns to gold.
Both options are better than Cuomo’s proposal. The NYC-style evaluation would be preferable to a plan in which 40% relies upon state test scores. Still, as Arthur notes, both are far worse than what the PJSTA currently uses.
A Message From Carol Burris
Via principal and public education advocate Carol Burris…
The Governor and Chancellor Tisch are proposing an overhaul of the already flawed APPR system. They propose that the system be designed to find MORE teachers and principals ineffective and developing, in order to be in better alignment with the high percentages of students who are below proficient on the Common Core exams.Their plan would also strip away local school board, superintendent and principal input into evaluation systems, putting more power in Albany’s hands to determine the fate of our teachers and principals.Please read and share Carol Burris’ Washington Post blog which describes Chancellor Tisch’s proposed changes.There are other strategies that the Governor and Mrs. Tisch propose that would severely undermine public education, including the expansion of charter schools. The New York State Allies for Public Education has now published sound, research-based and pro-public school responses. You can read their letter here:Please share this widely as well.Now is the time to contact the Board of Regents, and your legislators, including your assembly member and senator to make it clear that you do not want 1) a state-wide APPR plan imposed from Albany 2) that the doubling of test scores in APPR will cause this system to be even more unreliable and have terrible effects on your students and your schools 3)that you oppose the lifting of the cap on charter schools and 4) you support the evidence based responses of NYSAPE to the governor’s questions – rather than those of the chancellor. Here is a link to a very easy way to do just that. It allows you to easily personalize the beginning and end if you wish.We must all work together to help the members of the Board of Regents and the legislature understand that the Cuomo/Tisch agenda of more privatization and high stakes testing will harm kids and our public schools.Thanks!
Looming Battles for 2015
Happy New Year to our PJSTA members along with any other readers of our blog. Hopefully you had an enjoyable vacation and return to school well rested. You’ll need it. We have a number of developing battles on our hands.
For those of you who may have missed it, New York State’s Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch sent a New Years Eve letter to Governor Cuomo’s aide Jim Malatras detailing what she sees as the necessary changes to the New York State APPR. Carol Burris did a great job breaking it all down on Valerie Strauss’ blog.
Via The Washington Post (emphasis mine)…
New York Chancellor Merryl Tisch has announced her New Years resolution—revise the teacher evaluation system so that Common Core 3-8 test scores can trump all.
Yup. Tisch’s response to the tremendous push back against the Common Core tests has been to add further weight to the test scores.
The short version of what she wants to do now is this—double down on test scores and strip away the power of local school boards to negotiate the majority of the evaluation plan. Tisch would get rid of the locally selected measures of achievement, which now comprise 20 percent of the evaluation, and double the state test score portion, to 40 percent. She also recommends that the score ranges for the observation process be taken out of the hands of local districts, and be determined by Albany instead. Dr. Lederman, start packing up. Merryl Tisch and Andrew Cuomo, whom you have never met, know your talents better than your local school board, your principal and the parents of the children you teach.
…
Although Tisch claims that this is about teacher improvement and mentoring, the letter discloses her true intent. She opines that if a teacher is ineffective in the growth score portion, as Sheri was, she should be rated ineffective overall. In addition,if a teacher has two ineffective ratings they “should not return to the classroom.” Whether those ratings, which are based on a highly discredited model, are accurate or not is moot. They produce a bell curve.
You read that correctly. Regardless of what 60% of your evaluation says, if the growth score says you are ineffective, your entire rating will be ineffective. If you receive two ineffective ratings you will no longer be allowed to teach.
Meanwhile, the evidence has continued to accumulate that evaluating teachers by test scores simply does not work.
In April of 2014, the American Statistical Association, joined other research organizations, such as the American Education Research Association and the National Academy of Education, in cautioning against the use of student test scores, commonly referred to as VAM, in teacher evaluations. The ASA clearly outlined how unreliable this methodology is and noted that teachers’ impact on test scores is minimal–between 1 percent and 14 percent. Understand also that these VAM and “growth” ratings are all relative—pitting each teacher against all others. Even if every child scored in the mastery range on the test, there would still be a percentage of teachers rated Ineffective. It is a sorting mechanism based on an algorithm, which most researchers agree is flawed.
…
The Tisch plan is a power grab designed to snatch away the right of elected Boards of Education to determine what is quality teaching, by shifting it to a formula produced in Albany based on flawed tests. Ironically, these are the same tests which the Governor and legislature say, in law, should have no consequential effects on students. But there is no problem using those tests to boot Sheri Lederman and teachers like her out the door.
Be sure to read the entire article. Burris is always a voice of reason and logic in a debate that all too often is filled with nonsensical attacks on us.
We know that Tisch’s APPR agenda is also Cuomo’s. We know that Cuomo has the support of the Republican controlled, Wall Street funded senate. That includes our local state senator John Flanagan, the chairman on K-12 education who is on the take from noted ed deformers Students First, his top campaign contributor.
Via Capital NY…
Senate education chair John Flanagan said lawmakers should consider limiting school districts’ control over their evaluation plans. “Maybe we should be having a discussion about a statewide protocol,” he said on “The Capitol Pressroom,” a public radio program. “Instead of having 700 disparate agreements, let’s have a menu where you have 10 or 12 options for school districts to get involved in, because all of these things have to be negotiated, and one of the things that the unions jealously guard, which I understand and respect, is the concept of local control. They want to be able to negotiate everything. And yet, I don’t really see anyone out there who is … jumping up and down and saying everything is working really well.”
Voters in the Comsewogue community should take note that their state senator, John Flanagan, supports stripping our district of local control over teacher evaluations and farming it out to Albany.
Our friend Reality Based Educator covered Flanagan on his Perdido Street School Blog on Christmas Eve.
Finally that brings us to this from Governor Cuomo…
Albany has been too concerned with protecting the pension rights of teachers and not enough with the future of students. #NYGov2015
— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 1, 2015
Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post followed up with this op-ed. I am not sure that Cuomo has the juice to launch a pension attack, but it sure seems as though a warning shot’s been fired.
To say we didn’t see any of this coming would be wrong. Much of this was entirely predictable, particularly the APPR stuff. Unfortunately NYSUT leadership has not shown the willingness to fight any of this. Nor will they in the coming weeks and months. To be clear, the fight for public education will have to come from students, parents, and rank-and-file teachers. We’ll have more on the role of NYSUT coming up. In the meantime lace up your boots. There’s a lot of work to be done in 2015.
You’re Now a Number…

Cartoon by Robert Rendo.
Robert Rendo gives free and permanent license to anyone who wishes to use this image in their literature, tweets, websites, blogs, etc. to fight the corporate education reform agenda and to restore public education to educators and cognitive scientists who are maintaining the same fight. While Robert Rendo retains copyright, he encourages everyone to use the free permanent license to utilize the image as advocacy. The sole condition for usage is that the name “Robert Rendo” is credited for the illustration. This notice of free licensure can be used as well and is equally encouraged. If image obtainment is a problem for the reader, please e-mail Robert Rendo at artwork88@aol.com, and he will e-mail the image in any file format the user requests.
