Is The Tentative UFT Contract Changing How The System Deals With Teachers Rated "Ineffective" On Testing Components?

The tentative contract language is finally available to peruse - you can find it here.

I noticed this:

Measures of Student Learning Options

1. For the 2014 - 15 school year and thereafter the DOE shall create new measures (referred to as “Linked Measures”) for Local and State Measures of Student Learning such that there is an option for each teacher to be evaluated based upon assessment results of students he/she teaches. Some or all assessments are not linked to courses the teacher teaches.

2. For the 2013 - 14 school year, the following process for “procedural appeals” will only apply to “Group Measures” (i.e., measures where teachers are evaluated based on the performance of some or all students they do not teach). For the 2014 - 15 and 2015 - 16 school years, the following process for “procedural appeals” will apply to Linked Measures and Group Measures. For the 2016 - 17 school year and thereafter the following process for “procedural appeals” will apply only to Group Measures. In all cases, teachers with 50% or more of their Local or State Measures based on Linked Measures/Group Measures shall be eligible for the procedural appeals process.

3 . If a teacher receives “Ineffective” ratings in both the State and Local Measures subcomponents and either is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures, and in that year the teacher receives either a “Highly Effective” or “Effective” rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, the teacher shall have a right to a “procedural appeal” of such rating to a representative of the DOE’s Division of Teaching and Learning.

a. If the teacher receives a “Highly Effective” rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, there shall be a presumption that the overall APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective” rating becomes either an “Effective” rating (in the instance where both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents are based on Linked Measures or Group Measures) or a “Developing” rating (in the instance where only one of the State or Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures);

b. If the teacher receives an “Effective” subcomponent rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice, there shall be a presumption that the overall APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective” rating becomes a “Developing” rating if both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents are based on Linked Measures or Group Measures . If only one of the State or Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents be based on Linked Measures or Group Measures , the rating shall be appealed to the principal, who shall have the discretion to increase the teacher’s overall APPR rating. If the p rincipal does not respond to the appeal, the teacher’s overall APPR rating shall be modified to a “Developing” rating.

c. The above - described procedural appeal process is separate and distinct from, and in addition to the appeal processes set forth in the Commissioner’s Decision.

4 . In the event a teacher receives an “Highly Effective” rating in both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning, and neither is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures, and in that year the teacher is rated “Ineffective” on Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, and this results in the teacher receiving an “ Ineffective ” overall APPR rating, the UFT may choose to appeal the rating to a three (3) member Panel consistent with the rules for Panel Appeals as described in Education Law § 3012 - c (5 - a) and the Commissioner’s Decision. However, these appeals shall not be counted towards the 13% of “Ineffective” ratings that may be appealed pursuant to Education Law § 3012 - c (5 - a)(d) and the Commissioner’s Decision.

5 . The Parties agree to meet each fall to review and discuss other types of anomalies in scoring and determine appropriate actions.

Doesn't some of this seem to modify Cuomo's dictum that a teacher rated "Ineffective" on both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning MUST be rated "Ineffective" overall no matter how they do on the other 60% of the evaluation?

Andrew Cuomo's Common Core Ad Is Full Of Distortions And Mistruths

Take a look at the Cuomo Common Core ad his campaign is running and think about the chutzpah it took to make this piece of propaganda:




Here's the script:

Hello, I’m Governor Andrew Cuomo. For all of us, there’s nothing more important than our children and their education is everything.

While the state’s new Common Core curriculum is heading in the right direction, testing on it is premature.

It creates anxiety and it’s just unfair. And their scores should not be counted against them.

I won’t let our children’s scores be counted against our kids.

Please tell your legislator to join me in protecting our children.

Because education is about helping our kids, not hurting them.

Couple of things to say here:

First, as I noted this morning, one of the reasons there are so many tests for kids to take in school these days is because Cuomo's APPR teacher evaluation system mandates that 40% of each teacher's evaluation come from so-called student performance - that means standardized tests or "performance assessments."

Just today we talked at PD about the Measures of Student Learning performance assessments we have to give in April/May so that we teachers can be evaluated for the 20% local assessment component.

Then there are the high stakes state tests the kids already take that will be used to evaluate students themselves as well as go toward 20% of teachers' evaluations.

For 3rd-8th grade students, they may be taking the MOSL tests right after they take the state tests - literally test after test after test.

High school students go from the MOSL tests to Regents testing.

And for what?

So Andy Cuomo can say he's holding teachers accountable with his APPR teacher evaluation system.

If Cuomo really cared about kids, he'd be willing to let districts forego some of the 40% of the teacher ratings based on tests and assessments.

But not only isn't he willing to do that, he's threatened anybody else who even talked about making little changes to the evaluation system.

Somehow these facts didn't make it into the Cuomo ad.

Casey Seilor makes note of something else that didn't make it into Cuomo's ad:

This appears to be the first time that the governor has said that testing on the Common Core is “premature,” which begs the question of why such testing is allowed to continue. Also, if students shouldn’t have their scores counted against them, why should teachers have students’ scores counted against them?

Two good questions, one of which I asked this morning in this post.

Again, didn't make it into Cuomo's ad.

It would be nice if the NYSUT/UFT would respond to these Cuomo ads with the truth about APPR, testing and evaluations, but I won't hold my breath for that.

We'll just have to do some of the pushback ourselves on this - but it's good to see reporters like Seilor noting the inconsistencies and contradictions in Cuomo's ad, essentially calling him on his b.s.

Maybe They Can Use The NY Post And NY Daily News For The Third Grade MOSL Tests?

"If you can read the @nydailynews or the @nypost, you can do college level work," says @joelhota, lamenting many kids graduate hs unready to
— Erin Durkin (@erinmdurkin) October 3, 2013

You can be successful at college if you can read the Post or Daily News?

Try you can be successful at the fourth or fifth grades if you can read the Post and the Daily News.

Not too much in the way of complex text in these rags.

Either Lhota is a moron and reads at a fifth grade level himself or he's trying to suck up to Zuckerman and Murdoch by aggrandizing their papers.

Either way, a stupid comment made by Lhota.

Performance Assessments And Regents Exams

We've been working our way through the first round of "performance assessments" in my school.

We're all little concerned what the June "assessments" will look like and what we'll have to do April, May and early June to make sure we "add value" to our students and they show "growth" on those June "assessments."

At my school, our heavy testing season for the ELA Regents is in January.

While we will have some remedial classes of students who still must pass the ELA Regents in June, many of our students will have gotten through that hoop by June.

It is going to be difficult, however, to simultaneously prep the students who STILL must pass the ELA Regents exam after failing it once for that June test while simultaneously trying to "add value" to their June "performance assessment" scores.

Nonetheless, our headaches will be nothing compared to the schools that have most students take the ELA Regents exam in June.

Those schools will be simultaneously prepping juniors for both the ELA Regents exam (with the increased scoring chart difficulty) and the second round of "performance assessments."

Those two areas will be worth 40% of many teachers' evaluation scores overall (20% for each.)

If teachers come up "ineffective" on both of those scores, they MUST be declared "ineffective" overall.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of these so-called "performance assessments" being given in many schools (they are certainly not going to give teachers an "objective" and "scientific" score - but we'll get to that in a later post), there are going to be an awful lot of freaked out teachers in this city in June.

That, of course, is the rationale behind the entire evaluation system.

Not to offer "feedback" (as the Asshats4Educators people keep parroting because they read it on their Gates Foundation-funded talking points sheets.)

Not to help teachers improve.

To freak people out, to increase the anxiety levels in schools, to move some teachers out by getting them to quit and to move others out by giving districts the tools they need to "i-rate" them and fire them.

That's it - that's all this is about.

Performance Assessment Thursday

We are giving the ELA Measures of Student Learning Performance Assessments to students today and tomorrow so that every teacher in the school can be evaluated to see how much growth students make from September to June.

Because it makes total sense that social studies, science, art, physical education and other teachers outside of English Language Arts be evaluated using the ELA Measures of Student Learning Performance Assessments.

Oh, wait - no, it really doesn't make sense at all.

In fact, James Eterno reports at ICEUFT that even our intrepid UFT leadership seems to understand that:

He then spoke about evaluations and said we would not go back to the old system even though the current process is not that great.  The biggest concern is the Measures of Student Learning portion of the system. He said we had an agreement with the Department of Education in March that fell apart that was much better than the system State Education Department Commissioner John King imposed in his arbitration.

 

He added that there are contradictions in the arbitration and that it isn't going to work but that the point of it is to support and develop the work that teachers do.  He told us he can't understand how a teacher who does not teach English can be held accountable for English test results.  He then stated that this is not the evaluation system we would want a year from now and said it would be fixed in contract negotiations.

That's interesting that Mulgrew is now stating the system as currently imposed isn't so great because he keeps sending us emails telling us how much better it is than the old evaluation system (see here and here for that.)

But I have some news for our intrepid UFT leadership over their hope of "fixing" the problems with the system in contract negotiations with the new mayor.

NYSED Commissioner King, the man who imposed this system on NYC teachers through the 2016-2017 year, has final say on any revisions or changes to evaluation systems through contractual negotiation.

So whatever changes they hope to bring to this system, whatever "fixes" they want to propose, they have to not only get the new mayor on board with them, they have to get NYSED Commissioner King on board.

King has already attacked Buffalo over a side agreement the district made with the union, pledging not to fire any teachers using the APPR system the first year because the system kinks still have not been worked out.

King was outraged that Buffalo wanted to make sure the system worked before using it to fire anybody and he and his boss, Governor Cuomo, threatened to pull back all kinds of funding for the district if they did not agree to use the untested, unpiloted, unfinished evaluation system for high stakes decisions like firing teachers.

This is not the action of somebody who will readily sign off on "fixes" to the current teacher evaluation system he imposed on us.

Now maybe Mulgrew and the next mayor can convince King and his NYSED reformers that the changes they want to the system make sense and are fair and just to everybody involved.

But I have yet to see any glimpse of common sense, fairness or justice from our NYSED commissioner in Albany, so they have an uphill battle at getting major "fixes" to the system through.

As always, hope to be wrong about this stuff.

I hope Mulgrew and de Blasio make an agreement on the system that gets rid of much (or all) of the insanity and makes the system as workable as possible within the confines of the law.

But it pays to be cynical these days around anything in education, so I have my doubts that King will sign off on anything that doesn't look pretty much like what we already have in place.

Unless pressure is put on Cuomo and the other pols in Albany over this stuff, that is.

That would be the only way I see King caving on his "reforms."

Happy Performance Assessment Thursday everybody!

The Measures Of Student Learning Mess Michael Mulgrew Gave Us

As NYC Educator posted this morning, NYC teachers will now have 20% of their evaluation based upon "local" measures of student performance.

For many teachers outside of academic subjects, this means they will be evaluated based on scores of students in subjects other than their own.

For example, art teachers may be evaluated on the scores of their students' ELA or math Regents exams.

Same goes for vocational teachers, physical education teachers, music teachers.

It is possible that even science and social studies teachers will be evaluated on ELA or math exams if schools pick the "default" option provided by the DOE for the local measures component.

How will the city calculate these scores for all these teachers?

They're going to come up with a growth model that they'll reveal in October or November that will align PSAT math scores to math Regents exams and PSAT verbal scores to ELA Regents exams.

Were those tests designed to be used to find "growth" for teachers?  Should teachers who don't teach either math or ELA be evaluated using math or ELA scores?

Sure, why not!

Because it totally makes sense to use math and/or ELA scores for social studies, science, art, music, physical education and vocational teachers to evaluate how well these respective teachers teach social studies, science, art, music, physical education and vocational classes.

Totally makes sense.

As NYC noted in his post, UFT President Mulgrew told the DA last year that this growth model stuff they were creating for the local measures of student learning component was a totally fair and excellent way to evaluate teachers because "In any class...you ought to be able to move kids from point A, wherever they began, to point B, someplace that showed some progress."

How will Mulgrew defend his assertion that growth is the way to go because any good teacher ought to be able to show how their students progressed when most schools are going to be forced to use math and ELA scores for all teachers?

What do ELA and/or math scores have to do with a social studies teacher showing how much progress she/he made with her/his students in social studies?

Why, little to none, of course, certainly none that can be directly attributed to that individual teacher.

And yet, under the APPR system passed by the NY State legislature and signed into law by the governor, under the system that was imposed upon NYC teachers by NYSED Commissioner John King with the approval of UFT President Michael Mulgrew, that's exactly how teachers are going to be evaluated.

There is much more insanity to this system than I can cover in one post, so I'll come back to this over the course of the week and explore more of the mess that is MOSL, the disaster that is APPR.

For today, I just want to remind you that Michael Mulgrew stood on stage with Governor Cuomo, Regents Chancellor Tisch and NYSED Commissioner King in February 2012 to hail this system.

I also want to remind you that Mulgrew was absolutely fine with King being named the "independent arbitrator" who got to impose the local measures component of the APPR system when the UFT and the NYCDOE came to an impasse.

Leo Casey isn't ollecting his double pension at the UFT anymore to come around and shill for this mess, but when critics like Diane Ravitch and Carol Burris were pointing out all the flaws in the APPR system, Casey attacked Ravitch and Burris rather than the system.

That's when you knew that this is the UFT's teacher evaluation system as much as it's Governor Cuomo's or Regent Chancellor Tisch's or NYSED Commissioner King's.

The UFT leadership was in at the development of this system, they hailed it when the impasse over the test score component was "resolved" back in February 2012 and they smiled when NYSED Commissioner King was given the power to impose whatever local measures he wanted to impose as part of the APPR system.

The UFT leadership isn't going to get us out of this mess anymore than Cuomo, Tisch or King are going to.

Teachers are going to have to band together and explain the insanity of this system to parents and to the public over and over and over until we get this system shelved for good.

It starts by educating yourself about the MOSL and APPR systems, then communicating that information to parents and the public.

Let's start with, should science, social studies, art, music, physical education and vocational teachers have their teaching abilities and skills evaluated by using scores their students receive on their ELA and math exams?

Governor Cuomo called this APPR system "scientific" and "objective".

Tell me exactly what is "scientific" and "objective" about evaluating the teaching abilities and skills of science, social studies, art, music, physical education and vocational teachers with scores their students receive on their ELA and math exams?

Will Somebody Explain How The NYSED And NYCDOE Are Going To Calculate These Growth Measures For APPR For Me?

From the menu from hell known as the Measures Of Student Learning that was imposed upon us by NYSED Commissioner John King, we learn that the PSAT will be used as the baseline for growth measurements for ELA and math teachers who teach classes that end in a Regents exam.

Exactly how does the PSAT align to the ELA or math Regents exams?

Were these tests devised to see how much "growth" students made under a particular teacher?

Even better, what if students haven't taken the PSAT (as happens on more than occasion) and they go back to the 8th grade tests?

Were the 8th grade math and ELA tests devised to align with the Regents exams to see how much "growth" students made under a particular teacher?

Of course I already know the answers to these questions.

The answer is no, these tests were not aligned or devised see how much "growth" students made under a particular teacher,

This part of the evaluation will not stand up to court challenge.

There's more in the MOSL system as given to us by Dr. King and implemented by the NYCDOE that makes no sense and will not stand up to court challenges either.

The problem is, this crap is Michael Mulgrew's baby.

He loves growth measures - he even told the DA that.

So what are the chances the UFT challenges this garbage in court?

About the same chance as Michael Mulgrew turns down his double pension or explains how his sister's tutoring company got multi-million dollar contracts from the NYCDOE.

No, we're on our own, folks, but the good news, the MOSL is such a disaster that the negative news stories are going to start almost immediately as parents become aware of the mess that is MOSL and APPR.

As teachers, it is important we tell parents just how badly devised this system is and how much it is harming their children.

Under Danielson, teachers are required to make contact with parents on a regular basis in order to be rated "effective" on one of the Danielson domains.

I plan on making the most of these parent contact opportunities by informing the parents of my students just what a mess MOSL and APPR are and how they are both harming their children.

I suggest other teachers do the same.

Let them know that their kids are going to be taking a whole bunch of extra tests not to assess where their children are but rather to evaluate their teachers.

Let them know all the time you are going to have to spend on test prep in order to make sure students do well on all the tests added this year.

Let them know all the wonderful educational opportunities their children will be missing out on because Governor Cuomo, NYSED Commissioner King and Regents Chancellor Tisch have imposed this evaluation system on NYC teachers.

If every teacher in the city outside the three dozen Educators4Excellence still working in the system work to inform parents about this mess, you can bet by the end of the year, Cuomo, Tisch and King will be feeling some heat over it.

We do not have to take these APPR and MOSL injustices sitting down and we do not have to wait for our union leadership at the UFT, the NYSUT and the AFT to come on board and defend us.

Frankly, the union leadership at the local, state and national unions are not going to do that.

So it is incumbent upon we teachers to band together with other teachers and with parents to bring this system to a quick and speedy collapse.

It is so unwieldy and badly designed that it won't take much to destroy it.

Think the Soviet Union in 1989.

Looked impenetrable from the outside, couple of guys with hammers started knocking away at the Berlin Wall and the next thing you know, the whole system collapsed.

That is the analogy I am going to use for APPR and MOSL throughout the year.

It can be toppled.

It will be toppled.

Take the hammers out of your Common Core toolkit and start hammering away now.

The quicker we hammer away at this thing, the sooner we destroy it.