Perdido 03

Perdido 03

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Why Is Mulgrew Silent On The Cuomo/Regents 40% Test Score Plan?

40% of teacher evaluations will be based upon test scores in NY State.

In order to out this system into effect, the state will have to add tests in every grade at every level.

There is no word on just how the test score system will work.

Will it be value-added?

What will the margin of error in the system be?

Currently the margin of error for the city's value-added system is 12%-35%.

Doesn't seem fair to hold teachers accountable and evaluate them using that kind of system with that kind of MOE.

Now teachers all over the state will be evaluated using some system like that.

And Cuomo wants to make sure that if you don't receive a positive rating on that system, you are fired in two years.

Gee, this is really going to improve the state of public education in NY State.

More high stakes tests, more fear, more "accountability" using systems that have margins of error so large they are close to Mayor Bloomberg's approval rating in NYC.

And what does the UFT have to say about all of this?

Teachers union President Michael Mulgrew, who has been a critic of the city's reliance on state tests for judging schools and teachers, did not take issue with the governor.

"We look forward to discussing the governor's recommendations with the regents," he said in a statement.

The UFT has NOTHING to say about this - because they already agreed to this garbage in the RttT battle, they need Cuomo in the LIFO battle and they have locked themselves into a corner by agreeing that high stakes testing is just fine for evaluating teachers in principle.

Another UFT sell-out or another UFT defeat.

Either way, it's a mess and make no mistake, when this system is put into place, the level of education in the state will decrease dramatically EVERYWHERE.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that that the evaluations will be published in the newspapers and on NY1 too.

That ought to do wonders for teacher recruitment.

Come work a job where you will be subject to a teacher evaluation system that has a 12%-35% MOE and will humiliate you publicly if you don't game that system correctly.


  1. Fear, intimidation, tedium, shaming: if you really loved children, then you'd gladly accept that.

    After all, isn't that what they are also being socialized to accept?

  2. It's the Great American Pastime...burning of the witches...the power elite ALWAYS need public scapegoats to ram through their this case teachers.

  3. I wonder who or what the next global scapegoat will be since Bin Laden is dead. The War On Terror simply isn't catchy enough...

  4. Do you know where the MOE numbers of 12-35 came from? Did the city make them up? I know a lot of teachers, myself included, whose scores varied one year to the next far more than that.

  5. Mr. Talk - the figures come from a study authored by Eva L. Baker, Paul E. Barton, Linda Darling-hammond, Edward Haertel, Helen F. Ladd, Robert L. Linn, Diane Ravitch, Richard Rothstein, Richard J. Shavelson, and Lorrie A. Shepard and released by the Economic Policy Institute in August 2010. The link to the paper is here:

    In summary, one year of scores used, MOE can be as high as 36%. Two years of scores used, 26% MOE. Ten years of scores used, 12% MOE.

    Michael, you got it right - fear, tedium, intimidation, shaming - but you forgot one important piece of Americana - consumption! Don't forget to grow up to be compliant loyal corporate consumers, kiddies!

  6. Sorry, I should rephrase the above comment - the study was not done by Baker, Barton, et al. It was done by Mathematica - but the paper I have linked to was written by the above folks.

  7. Thanks for the info and the thought-provoking post. I've seen various numbers used in different places. Even the DOE's own sample report seems to claim a large MOE (although they call it a "range"--God forbid they allow the word "error" into their vocabulary.

  8. I have the awful feeling that Cuomo blindsided the UFT with this and that Cuomo is in league with Bloomberg. Seems like Mulgrew made a bland, noncommital statement just to have made one and to buy himself some time. Ironically, the walk on Wall St. went pretty well (and Bloomberg was looking pretty bad)--and then this news came out the next day.

  9. Yes - I am starting to agree that it was coordinated with Bloomberg - remember the post I wrote a while back about the deal Cuomo made with Bloomberg over dinner a few weeks ago - here it is.