Oral arguments begin in the Sheri Lederman VAM case today.
Diane Ravitch posted information from Lederman's lawyer, her husband Bruce, on how they are approaching the case.
One important thing to note about this case:
NYSED never wanted it to go forward.
They tried twice to have the case dismissed on the "No Harm, No Foul" rule (see here and here), arguing that since Lederman was rated "effective" overall despite the inexplicable "ineffective" rating on her test component, she wasn't adversely affected by the rating.
But under the current law, two "ineffective" ratings overall and a teacher can be fired and the test component part of APPR has been increased to 50% of the overall rating.
Going forward, if a teacher gets an "ineffective" rating on the VAM test component, it ensures an overall "ineffective" rating or, at best, "developing" rating - that means the test component score can and will have an adverse effect on teachers.
NYSED never provided the data for why Lederman went from 14 out of 20 points in 2012-2013 to 1 out of 20 points in 2013-2014 when the test score data was almost identical in both years.
I suspect the reason NYSED never provided the data is because they know the data won't stand up to scrutiny, that it was pulled out of John King's goatee rather than based on some objective, scientific reasoning.
We'll see as the case goes forward whether they've got some rational explanation for why Lederman went from 14 out of 20 points to 1 out of 20 points in VAM when the test data was almost identical.
But I would bet my own VAM they don't.