How NYC Teachers Are Going To Be Rated "Ineffective" Based On Test Scores Alone

A piece from Carol Burris in the Washington Post about how one excellent teacher got dinged as "developing" after receiving 58 out of 60 points from her principal's evaluation is a must read for NYC teachers.

This is a cautionary tale that needs to be sent to all your colleagues.

This teacher Burris writes about works in a "small city district."

She received 5 points and 10 points respectively on her state and local test score components.

That's 15 out of 40 points on the test score components.

She received 58 out of 60 points from her principal.

Were she a teacher in NYC, she would have been rated "ineffective" on both the state and local measures, because John King made the cut scores higher in both of those components for NYC teachers when he imposed his evaluation plan back in June (see here.)

This teacher was rated "developing" overall in her district because she received 73 out of 100 points on APPR.

But were she a city teacher, she would have been rated "ineffective" overall despite the 58 out of 60 points she received from her principal because both her state and local test component numbers are in the "ineffective" range and per the Cuomo/Tisch/King decree in Feruary 2012 that both the NYSUT and the UFT agreed to, any teacher who comes up "ineffective" on BOTH the state and local test components HAS to be rated "ineffective" overall.

So, this teacher is rated "developing" in one district, but would be rated "ineffective" in NYC.

That's how King rigged the NYC system to ding many teachers here "ineffective" no matter how they score on the rest of the evaluation.

And the UFT leadership and Michael Mulgrew in particular hailed this rigged system as adding extra layers of protections for teachers.

The reality is, it is rigged to give the district the power to fire many teachers after two years of "ineffective" ratings.

This is what the system was developed and designed to do.

And our union leaders in the both the UFT and the NYSUT signed off on this thing.

They know it's rigged, but either because of political expediency or backroom deals or whatever, they have signed off on this new evaluation system that has been designed and developed to rate many teachers in NYC "ineffective" no matter how well they do on the 60% principal observations.

Don't think that a new mayor can change any of this either.

I dunno how much de Blasio would be willing to change in any case, but even if he wanted to scrap the system and start fresh, he cannot.

The NYSED has this system in place until 2016, it can be redone through collective bargaining, but only if NYSED Commissioner King - the man who imposed this system in the first place - agrees to the changes.

What is the likelihood that John King is going to allow any evaluation system in NYC that isn't rigged to replace the rigged one he imposed this June before the sun sets on the current system in 2016?

Not very bloody likely, in my opinion.

Get ready for a lot of bloodletting and chaos the next four years in NYC schools.

The system Cuomo allowed King to impose that the UFT hailed ensures that many of the teachers here in the system today will be gone by 2017 - either through quitting in disgust from all the insanity of the new evaluation system or through "ineffective" ratings.

And I do not think the word "bloodletting" is hyperbole for what is going to happen in NYC schools.

Remember, Cuomo has called for the "death penalty" for "failing" schools and "failing" districts.

"Bloodletting" is the perfect description for what APPR ADVANCE is going to bring to schools and the teaching profession.