Teacher Accountability Systems Need Accountability Too

Some drivel in the Wall Street Journal this morning that Cuomo is caving on "accountability"  for teachers - they're very sad about the proposed "moratorium" on using state test scores in APPR.

Somehow the lawsuit Sheri Lederman brought against NYSED for APPR never makes it to their accountability argument.

You may remember Sheri Lederman, the teacher who received a 14 out of 20 on her state test score VAM one year, which fell to 1 out of 20 the next despite her students getting very similar scores to the year before.

The next year, btw, Lederman's test score VAM rose to 11 - so for those scoring at home, it went from 14 to 1 to 11 in three years.

How is it that "teacher accountability" exactly?

There are these jive assumptions in the deform narrative that test score VAM's and the Danielson rubric are "objective" measures of teacher performance.

They're not.

NYSED's test score VAM is so unreliable that when Lederman sued, they twice tried to get the lawsuit dismissed rather than expose how they devised the score.

As for Danielson, the so-called "objective" rubric used for teacher evaluations, ask teachers about the scores they're getting in their Danielson evaluations and many will tell you there is nothing "objective" about the process.

Administrators can use the Danielson to focus on whatever they want to focus on and claim a teacher is deficient in something while ignoring other areas that might raise the overall Danielson score.

To claim there is anything "objective" in a classroom evaluation is to make believe that the so-called judgment of the evaluator comes down from the Mount, along with Moses and the Ten Commandments.

If an administrator wants to give a good evaluation rating to a teacher via the Danielson, he/she will, and if he/she wants to nail somebody with it, they can do that too.

The truth is, the Danielson was devised to give districts the tool to "document" when they want to get rid of teachers, but that doesn't mean the documentation itself is based in reality.

If we're going to talk about teacher accountability, we ought to talk about accountability for the teacher accountability system as well - the assumptions that it is based upon must stand up to scrutiny.

Clearly NYSED wasn't too confident they're test score VAM would stand up to that scrutiny, since they tried as hard as they could to avoid explaining it (or the bell curve they use for APPR) in court.

As for Danielson, I'm now starting to think that every observation should be taped so that teachers have the video to use if they need to counter claims made by administrators in their Danielson evaluations.

There is an awful lot of talk about so-called teacher accountability from politicians, from the media, from ed deformers - but the system that measures so-called teacher accountability almost always skirts its own accountability and lives in this fantasy world where it stands as some objective measure of performance.

Today's drivel in the WSJ is just one more example of that.

Board Of Regents Will Form Panel To "Consider Improvements" To Cuomo's APPR Teacher Evaluation System

From the "Putting Lipstick On A Pig" file:

The state Board of Regents will form a panel to consider improvements to the state's new and controversial teacher evaluation system, the board announced during its Monday meeting.

The work group — whose members have not yet been named — will be similar to others empaneled by the Regents. It is separate from the task force recently convened by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to address issues surrounding the Common Core.

Critics of the new teacher evaluation have expressed concern about the weight it affords to the results of standardized student tests. At their September meeting, the Regents approved the evaluation system, but said the current version is in need of amendment before it can be implemented.

One possible change would be the addition of an appeals board that would let teachers contest poor ratings if they stem from standardized test scores.

A "work panel" to "consider improvements" to the fatally flawed APPR teacher evaluation system doesn't seem particularly meaningful to me.

APPR is currently being challenged in court because of wide and irrational swings in the test component part.

That iteration of APPR that is being challenged only has a teacher rated 20% based upon test scores - since then Governor Cuomo pushed through an increase in test score weight on a teacher's APPR evaluation to 50%.

Trying to improve an evaluation system that uses a flawed test score component with wide and irrational swings is, quite frankly, like putting lip stick on a pig and calling it a debutante.

This is more jive, just like the Obama administration announcing they're using the John King 2% rule for testing (I'll have more on that joke later.)

Given that so much weight is put on testing in rating schools and teachers, the 2% rule is meaningless - and until APPR is scrapped and redone completely, whatever "recommendations" the Regents work panel comes up with won't mean much in the grand scheme.

Cuomo Backs Appeal Process For APPR Teracher Evaluation System

It seems that even Governor Cuomo knows that his APPR teacher evaluation system, with its dramatic shifts in VAM scores and teachers getting dinged as "developing" even as their schools are given excellence awards, cannot be defended as is:

As the Board of Regents moves to create a process for teachers to appeal the findings of their performance evaluations, the idea gained the endorsement of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Both the teacher evaluations and an appeals system for teachers doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive, Cuomo said on Wednesday.

“Yes, I think they should have an appeals process, I think there should be an evaluation process, but it should be fair and it should be transparent,” Cuomo said.

Cuomo, a key architect of the current evaluation system approved by state lawmakers in the March budget plan, told reporters there “should be an appeals process” out of fairness to teachers.

“That evaluation has to be fair and it has to be transparent,” Cuomo said while in Rochester. “It’s only right if a teacher believes that if the evaluation is wrong, they should have a right to an appeals process. You’re talking about their evaluation that could determine their seniority, their raise, etc.”

Cuomo's bending ever so slightly in order to not be broken backward defending APPR.

The Lederman case exposed the bell curve that rigs 7% of teachers as "ineffective" as well as the arbitrariness of the test score VAM (Lederman went from 14 out of 20 to 1 out of 20 in one year's time while her students garnered similar scores on their state tests.)

In addition, APPR horror stories where districts are given awards for the excellence of their schools while the teachers at those schools are rated "developing" on Cuomo's APPR system have surfaced, further making the system indefensible.

Same goes for the stories of teachers at schools slated to be closed, many rated "ineffective" or "developing" one year, then getting magically rated "effective" after they go to other schools that aren't closing.
 
So Cuomo, in order to look fair about his APPR system, says he's okay with an appeals process for it, but only if it's "fair and transparent."

Ah, that is the rub, isn't it?

As has been shown in the Lederman case, APPR is anything but fair and transparent - NYSED refused to tell Sheri Lederman why she went from 14 out of 20 to 1 out of 20 on her test score VAM and twice tried to have Lederman's lawsuit dismissed on grounds that she wasn't harmed since she was rated effective overall (see here and here.)

Cuomo never had a problem with NYSED failing to explain to Lederman and other teachers just how they came to their test score VAM, but now all of a sudden he's in favor of appeals only if they're "fair and transparent."

In fact, Cuomo responded with a straw man argument when he was asked about the Lederman lawsuit, claiming teachers just don't want to be evaluated rather than acknowledging the problems that Lederman raised with the system.

It remains to be seen if by "fair and transparent," Cuomo means the kind of fairness and transparency currently on display in the APPR system and with how NYSED wields it.

I'm skeptical this "appeals process" is anything other than more PR, another "tweak" that will amount to little change when all is said and done.

We shall see.

How Does Governor Cuomo Defend His Irrational Teacher Evaluation System

This story is behind a paywall at Capital NY but here's the summary from their morning email update:

GOOD TEACHERS, POOR SCHOOLS? DISTRICT STRUGGLES TO UNDERSTAND RATINGS—POLITICO New York’s Keshia Clukey: “The same day that Bethlehem schools Superintendent Jody Monroe received a certificate from the state Education Department saying six of her schools were Reward Schools, among the top performing in the state, she also received word that her teachers were some of the poorest performing. ‘It’s hard to explain to a teacher how they could have a score of 17 (out of 20) last year and then a two,’ Monroe said. ‘It’s especially tough when you really can’t explain it … our curriculum hasn’t changed that much.’ The Albany County district, along with other public schools across the state, received its growth scores from the state at the end August, ratings that determine how good teachers are at their job. As in many districts over the past few years, fluctuations in the scores of Bethlehem’s teachers were hard to explain.

“According to the American Statistical Association, the variation from year to year has to do with the model, which the association's president says shouldn’t be used to evaluate teachers.’It suggests something is wrong with the approach, frankly, and possibly the data itself,’ David Morganstein said about the swings in teacher scores...The model doesn’t work, Morganstein said, because the state tests were designed to evaluate students, not teachers. The model often uses incomplete data. For example, it does not include all students’ scores, and the computers themselves can have errors, he said. The formula would work for testing a large group, such as a district or even school, but the margin of error is too large and can lead to wide discrepancies, with teachers scoring low one year, high the next, and then low again, Morganstein said.

“On average, Bethlehem’s elementary school teachers scored about an eight out of 20 in the 2014-15 academic year, ranking them as ‘developing,’ and its middle school teachers were slightly higher at about 12, or ‘efficient,’ Monroe said...In Guilderland, a neighboring school district similar to Bethlehem, teachers scored pretty well, with the majority in the ‘effective’ or higher range, said district Superintendent Marie Wiles, adding that with similar teachers, it doesn’t make sense that Bethlehem’s didn’t do as well. ‘There are just so many issues with (the annual professional performance review) and the calculation of growth score. We don’t put a lot of meaning in them. I hate to say it,’ Wiles said... ‘We don't need APPR .. .The numbers, to us, are not a measure of the quality of the teachers.” http://politi.co/1XDwca7

The symbol of the irrationality of Cuomo's APPR teacher evaluation system is Sheri Lederman, who took the state to court over her test score VAM.

Lederman has gone from 14 out of 20 to 1 out of 20 to 11 out of 20 in the last three years even as students are scoring similarly on their tests.

More and more evidence is coming to light just what a mess Cuomo's APPR is.

And yet, that's the one thing that won't be "reviewed" as part of Cuomo's Common Core Standards/Tests/Curriculum review.

Cuomo has said his APPR teacher evaluation is the "bedrock" of the state's education reform agenda.

Given what a mess the "bedrock" is, it doesn't say much about the reform agenda, does it?

MaryEllen Elia Is Open To Delaying Cuomo's Harmful Teacher Evaluation System

Karen DeWitt at North Country Public Radio:

New York State’s education commissioner said she is open to granting waivers to delay new teacher evaluation for an additional year. Commissioner Mary Ellen Elia said the new systems should not be pushed through hastily because of an arbitrary date.

The latest version of teacher and principal evaluations were pushed through in this year’s state budget by Governor Cuomo. It requires that the reviews be based more heavily on controversial standardized tests. The new plans are due this fall.

The State Board of Regents voted to permit schools that find the deadline too tight to apply for a waiver for a one-year delay. Now, Elia, who’s been on the job since early July, said she is open to granting the waivers if meeting the deadline puts more pressure on already overtaxed school districts. “I don’t think we should put that much more stress on them,” Elia said. “Let them get the waiver and then have the time that they need to really do something that’s good.”

She said the evaluations can be a positive experience if they result in more support for teachers who need to improve some of their skills. “The reality is the teachers are going to be the ones that make it work in a classroom every day for the kids across the state,” said Elia. “So it’s important for us to make sure that this is done appropriately and not pushed through just because of a date.”

Oh goodie - Elia's open to delaying the evaluation system that rates how well teachers are teaching the Common Core standards and Common Core curriculum (EngageNY) that are now under review by Cuomo's third education commission in the last two years.

Oh goodie - Elia's open to delaying the evaluation system that rates teachers based upon the scores of their students on the Common Core tests that 20% of eligible students opted out of this year, the same tests that Cuomo stated were also slated to be reviewed by the Cuomo education commission because parents in New York had no faith in them.

Oh goodie - Elia's open to delaying the evaluation system that a judge is set to render a decision upon after a well-respected teacher in Great Neck went from 14 out of 20 to 1 out of 20 in one year on her state test component and NYSED couldn't explain to her why this was.

Isn't this swell?

No, actually it's not.

The system doesn't need to be delayed - it needs to be scrapped onto the garbage heap and a new one needs to be created in its place.

There is already plenty of evidence that APPR evaluations harm teachers who teach the most vulnerable populations - and more came in today at ICEUFT blog, per James Eterno:

 In April the ICEUFT Blog published a piece in which we publicly admitted that for the 2013-14 school year state data showed that 88% of the teachers at the phasing out Jamaica High School were rated either developing or ineffective. At the time we stated sarcastically that we must be "the worst teachers on the planet." The blog also said these ratings were meaningless.

We concluded the post by making a not so bold prediction that for 2014-15, when teachers from Jamaica were sent to other schools where the student populations did not have as many needs as those at the phasing out Jamaica, we would see much better teacher ratings.

The data is now in for 2014-15 and another ICEUFTBLOG prediction has come true. This year there were no adverse ratings from the 2013-14 Jamaica teachers who were still in the school system. We were perfect.  That is correct. 100% of the teachers who were at Jamaica in 2013-14, who became rotating Absent Teacher Reserves or were assigned to a school in the 2014-2015 school year, have been rated either effective or satisfactory. The only people who didn't receive these positive end of the year evaluations were the three who were fortunate enough to have retired.

How is it possible that we went from 88% of us receiving adverse ratings to 0% in just a year?  We were the same teachers.

Given that the evaluation system rates how well teachers teach the Common Core standards, curriculum and tests that are now ALL under review by Cuomo's third education commission/panel in the last two years, given that the test component of APPR is in the court system right now (described as a "Black Box" of suckery since NYSED can't seem to explain how they're coming up with the test score component numbers), given that teachers who teach in schools with students who score low on tests are getting nailed with "ineffective" and "developing" ratings and then magically becoming "effective" teachers when they move on to schools where the test scores are higher, there is no reason to DELAY the APPR teacher evaluation system and every reason to SCRAP it instead and build another one that is fair, transparent and effective in its place.

I am under no illusion that this will happen.

APPR is Cuomo's baby, he shoved it through in the last budget session because he felt not enough teachers were being rated "ineffective" or "developing," and he's not going to cave on it now just because he's just caved on his Common Core standards, curricula and tests due to parent protests, falling poll numbers and a skyrocketing opt out rate.

In the end, it will go because it is an unworkable evaluation system, it is harming children, teachers and schools, it is non-transparent, often arbitrary in its test component findings and rigged against teachers who teach the most vulnerable populations of students.

But for now Cuomo will ignore the criticism of the system, ignore that it rates teachers based upon standards, tests, and curricula that he admits are flawed, and push from behind the scenes to make sure the system gets put into place in districts or they lose their state aid increases as per the budget law.

Cuomo's been bragging for years about APPR and he isn't about to let the reality of it - that it's an unworkable, harmful mess - cause it to be scrapped.

But as we've seen with the Common Core standards, tests and curricula, pressure for parents can move mountains in Albany, or at least cause intractable, corrupt politicians to act, so the more pressure put upon Governor Cuomo, the Legislature, the Board of Regents and NYSED to junk APPR, the quicker it will end up where it belongs - in the junk yard.

How Does NYSED Explain Sheri Lederman's VAM Scores?

Sheri Lederman is suing the state over her VAM.

In 2012-2013, she received 14 out of 20 on her VAM score as part of the APPR teacher evaluation system rating.

In 2013-2014, she received a 1 out of 20 on her VAM score as part of the APPR teacher evaluation system rating despite having test score results very similar to the previous year.

And for 2014-2015?

Sheri Lederman got her growth score today, 11 out of 20, will be ranked Highly effective #teacherevals http://t.co/0E1qEUmSUl

— Keshia Clukey (@KeshiaClukey) September 2, 2015

For those of you scoring at home, the tend is 14 to 1 to 11.

All in the space of three years.

And Cuomo calls this system "scientific" and "objective."

The judge in the Lederman case is expected to have a decision either this month or next.

More Things Wrong With VAM

Sheri and Bruce Lederman argued before a judge this week that VAM was "irrational...a rating created in a black box that spit out predictions that compared his wife’s students to “avatar students.”

A commenter notes there is even more wrong with VAM:

There are way more things wrong with VAM.
It is good news though that the judge is onto them.
The VAM is also not allowing the teacher to earn a good rating based on their own scores. They are rated based on how other teachers scored.
For that reason you can't know in advance what it is you have to do. The criteria that your score is based on is shifting and not concrete.
VAM is also not transparent so that a teacher can understand in advance how they will be rated as is required by law.
VAM is also purported to be a growth model, however, it is not capable of showing the kind of vertical growth that needs to be measured from year to year.
And let's not forget that the Cut Scores are decided AFTER the kids take the test. And each year the scale changes. Not very scientific if you ask me.
It sounds like the Ledermans case is going well. Finally the charade is being exposed publicly for what it really is: a convoluted SCAM.

Indeed - there is so much that is wrong with VAM as an evaluation model

It's accountability moment has come.

We shall see if it is rated "ineffective" and thrown onto the trash heap where it belongs.

The Irrationality Of New York State's VAM Scores

Carol Burris has a piece in the Washington Post about Sheri Lederman's case against NYSED over her VAM score, which went from 14 out of 20 one year to 1 out of 20 the next despite her students' test scores remaining stable.

Burris points out Lederman is not the only irrational VAM score around the state:

Lederman was not the only teacher in the school to get a poor score. In 2014, 21 percent of the staff at E.M. Baker School received a score of “ineffective,” 21 percent “developing” and 57 percent were “effective.”  Just the year before, not one teacher received an “ineffective” score.

The irrationality was not limited to the teachers of Sheri Lederman’s school, one of the highest performing elementary schools in the state. In 2014, 44 percent of the teachers of the Fox Meadow School in Scarsdale received growth scores that said they were not “effective” teachers with 22 percent rated “ineffective.”  Yet 61 percent of the school’s students were proficient in English Language Arts, and 75 percent were proficient in math—more that double the state’s proficiency rate.   Similar results were found at the high-achieving Harbour Hill School in Roslyn, where 36 percent of its teachers received growth scores that labeled them “ineffective.”

The Lincoln School in Rochester, is a school designated as a priority/failing school by the state. Its proficiency rate was less than 3 percent. In 2014, 100 percent of its teachers received “effective” state scores, with 7 percent being rated “highly effective.”  At another school facing receivership, The Martin Luther King Jr School in Utica, New York, 60 percent of the teachers received “effective” VAM scores and 40 percent were given VAM scores of “highly effective .”

NYSED never showed cause for why Lederman received the 1 out of 20 on her VAM score the year after she received 14 out of 20.  They instead tried to have the Lederman case dismissed twice (here and here), arguing there was no harm to Lederman because she was rated "effective" overall despite the "ineffective" VAM score.

However the case did go to trial and the judge didn't sound like he was buying the "Because We Said So" bell curve argument NYSED showed up with for why Lederman was deemed "ineffective" on her VAM:

The more Ms. Galligan tried to defend the bell curve of growth scores as science, the more the judge pushed back with common sense. It was clear that he did his homework. He understood that the New York State Education Department’s VAM system artificially set the percentage of “ineffective” teachers at 7 percent. That arbitrary decision clearly troubled him. “Doesn’t the bell curve make it subjective? There has to be failures,” he asked.

...

“Did her students learn nothing?” Justice McDonough asked. “How could it be that she went from 14 out of 20 points to 1 out of 20 points in one year?” He noted that the students’ scores were quite good and not that different from the year before.

Back behind the bell curve Ms. Galligan ran. As she tried to explain once again, the judge said, “Therein lies the imprecise nature of this measure.”

Burris writes that a decision is expected in two to three months - the Lederman's have argued that not only Sheri Lederman's rating should be overturned but the court should  “declare the measure an abuse of discretion” because “the State Education Department does not get a pass on unreasonable and irrational actions."

Of course the evaluation system that the Lerdermans have out on trial has been made that much worse by Governor Cuomo and the Legislature this year, with test scores now increased to about 50% of a teacher's evaluation rating, so the "irrationality" of the state's APPR VAM matters greatly and a decision by the judge to declare the measure "an abuse of discretion" will have serious consequences for the governor, the Legislature, the Board of Regents, NYSED and teachers and schools all across the state.

Cuomo Thinks Sheri Lederman And Teachers Like Her Should Be Fired

From the Capital NY Morning Education email:

—At a separate event on Wednesday, when asked about a specific lawsuit from a teacher over a relatively new performance evaluation system, Cuomo said he’s not surprised and expects there her case won’t be the last. “Basically the way the teacher profession worked was, you got a job, you got tenure and then you basically had total job protection for the rest of your life,” he said. “This system says we’re going to have an evaluation system and if you don’t do well in the evaluation system, you could lose your job, so it really is jarring.” Capital’s Jessica Bakeman [PRO]: http://capi.tl/1Q7q3BN

Lederman is suing not because she isn't a good teacher (she is - see the accolades here), she is suing because Governor Cuomo's APPR system found her ineffective on the test based component, giving her 1 out of a possible 20 points, but never explained why she received this score.

This is particularly important since her students passed their state tests well above the state average and her scores were similar to the previous year when she was rated effective on the test component:

The lawsuit shows that Lederman’s students traditionally perform much higher on math and English Language Arts standardized tests than average fourth-grade classes in the state. In 2012-13, 68.75 percent of her students met or exceeded state standards in both English and math. She was labeled “effective” that year. In 2013-14, her students’ test results were very similar but she was rated “ineffective.” The lawsuit says:

This simply makes no sense, both as a matter of statistics and as a matter of rating teachers based upon slight changes in student performance from year to year.

Lederman was deemed effective overall as a teacher because of the other 80% of her APPR rating, but under Cuomo's latest APPR iteration, the test component will weigh as much as 50% of a teacher's rating, meaning somebody like Lederman could have the overwhelming majority of their students pass the state tests with scores well above the state average, still get dinged as ineffective on the test component and be slated for firing in another year if they don't "improve."

I cannot tell you how angry the statement from Cuomo makes me, because it goes to show once again how deceptive and dishonest he is when it comes to teacher evaluations.

NYSED has yet to show why Lederman was rated ineffective on the test component, but Cuomo doesn't much care about the particulars here, only that the system dinged her and therefore she must be ineffective.

NYSED tried to get the case dismissed, arguing the "No Harm, No Foul" rule since Lederman was still found effective overall despite the ineffective test component rating, but thankfully a judge ruled that Lederman's case should go forward.

Now NYSED will have to defend the rating in court, something they have been loathe to do because they know it is indefensible.

But nothing is as indefensible as Cuomo's statement about Lederman and the evaluation system.

Here we have an APPR system that is as hidden from scrutiny as the Wizard of Oz, that inexplicably found her effective one year and ineffective the next with test scores that were essentially the same, yet Cuomo treats the rating as if it is objective reality.

He essentially said yesterday, "Sheri Lederman is a bad teacher" because his flawed APPR system said so.

Unfortunately for him the APPR system is going to go on trial and now NYSED will have to defend it.

Let's see how that court battle goes.

NYSED: Test Results Will Be Used In Teacher Evaluations No Matter The Percentage Of Opt-Outs

From the United To Counter The Core Facebook page:

Over 150,000 with 52% of districts reporting. Estimated 357 of 384 will not make 95% participation. Right now our numbers come from news reports, administrators, union representatives, teachers, and other individuals inside the schools who are willing to give us information. We will verify these numbers by FOIA letters beginning immediately after the math tests.

NYSED says they don't care how many opt-outs there are, they'll still be using test scores in teacher and school evaluations:

A NYSED spokesman said Wednesday that the state would still go ahead with its planned use of the data.

"We are confident the department will be able to generate a representative sample of students who took the test, generate valid scores for anyone who took the test, and calculate valid state-provided growth scores to be used in teacher evaluations," spokesman Jonathan Burman said in a written statement.

This is NYSED's take for now, but Rick Hess wrote yesterday that the more opt outs there are, the less likely evaluations can be based on test scores:

School accountability systems and new teacher evaluation systems rely heavily on these test results. These systems don’t necessarily require that every student be tested, but a “sampling” approach needs to deliberately select which students are. Having large numbers of students simply opt out raises troubling questions about the validity of the results. The biggest problem is the potential bias as to which students are and are not being counted in this school or that system, and how that may skew scores.

There are statistical fixes for some of this, but they rely on trying to adjust for how missing students would have scored . . . and, if educators knew that, they wouldn’t need to administer the tests.

Even if the impact is believed to be manageable by state officials, it may still raise deep-seated concerns about the legitimacy and practical impact of the results. Teachers will have a reasonable claim that due process is being violated if, under the new evaluation system championed by Gov. Cuomo, they’re judged “ineffective” based on results that may be skewed. And parents may revolt if their school is targeted for restructuring based on outcomes that they deem suspect.

NYSED, the Board of Regents and Governor Cuomo can try and push through their test-based accountability system as many of the parents of this state rise up in open rebellion of that system, but you can bet that will be challenged in the courts.

We're looking at hundreds of thousands of students opting out of the state tests this year - perhaps as much as a third (or more) of the students expected to take those tests.

SED hasn't been able to show cause in the Sheri Lederman case for why they rated her "ineffective" on her APPR test component and is instead trying to get the case dismissed on the "No Harm, No Foul" rule (see here and here.)

It seems that SED isn't confident enough in whatever data it has on Lederman to use it on her in court.

Do they really think they can pull a similar game with APPR teacher evaluations and school ratings when hundreds of thousands of students opt out of the state tests and throw the system in disarray and get away with it?

You can bet they'll be in court trying to defend that - and unlike in the Lederman case, they won't be able to argue "No Harm, No Foul."

NYSED Can't Come Up With The Data To Show Why Sheri Lederman Is "Ineffective" On The APPR Test Component

The Times-Union covers the Sheri Lederman story:

In Sheri Lederman's 18 years of teaching, failing her students has never been a concern.

Her employers consider her to be an "extraordinary teacher" and her students' parents refer to her as "one of the most influential educators" their children have ever had. Her students, years after they sat in her fourth-grade classroom, cite her as an integral part in their strong academic careers.

But when the State Education Department's teacher ratings rolled out in September, the Great Neck public school teacher was found to have scored only one point out of 20 — deeming her ineffective — in the Office of Assessment's Growth Score and Rating system. Lederman's students, however, met or exceeded test standards at more than twice the state's average scores since the new testing standards were implemented two years ago, according to State Education Department data.

Lederman is suing NYSED over the "ineffective" test growth score, but NYSED is trying to have the suit dismissed:

Lederman was told by the State Education Department that she can't appeal her growth rating score, because it is a subcomponent of her composite score of "effective" for the 2013-2014 school year. Lederman was told her only option was to sue, so that's what she has done, with the aid of her husband who is serving as her attorney.

Now, the state is attempting to dismiss Lederman's suit, which claims the evaluation system and Lederman's rating is "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion," according to documents filed with the state Supreme Court in Albany. The state argues that Lederman's concern about parents finding out her low score is unfounded, as the information can't be accessed through a Freedom of Information Act Request.

Additionally, the state argues her other evaluation scores are high enough that her low growth rating does not bring her overall composite score to the level requiring disciplinary action, according to court documents.

The State Education Department declined comment on the case, citing the pending litigation.

Okay, they're arguing "No harm, no foul," since Lederman was rated "effective" overall and she faces no disciplinary action as a result of the "ineffective" sub-component rating, but if Cuomo gets his education reform agenda that will make test scores 50% of the APPR rating, this kind of sub-component evaluation will have a major effect on teachers in the near future.

So it's interestin to see that NYSED can't come up with the data to show why Lederman is "ineffective" on her state test sub-component - but they can't:

Neither Lederman nor the district administration has been provided any data to support why she received only one out of 20 points.

NYSED is going the coward's route, looking to have the suit dismissed on the "No harm, No foul" rule, and for all I know, that just may work in this case.

But eventually they're going to have show cause for why teachers are being rated "ineffective" on the state test sub-component - especially if and when Cuomo ups the state test sub-component to 40% or 50% of APPR overall - and then they WON'T be able to argue the "No harm No foul" rule.

NYSUT President Magee Calls Cuomo's Tying Of School Funding To Passage Of His Reforms "Criminal"

From State of Politics:

New York State United Teachers President Karen Magee in an interview on WCNY’s The Capitol Pressroom knocked Cuomo and his administration for withholding the school aid runs — a line-by-line accounting how much school districts are projected to receive in the budget proposal traditionally released when the spending plan is announced — because much of the $1.1 billion spending increase is tied to the governor’s reforms.

“The governor has declared a war,” Magee said. “He’s declared a war on every single teacher in New York state.”

It’s potentially problematic for school districts considering they have to have their budgets before voters in May; the state’s budget is due March 31.

“It just again tells you the governor doesn’t understand how the school districts work,” she said. 

“It’s criminal for the governor to try to strong-arm his agenda through this way,” Magee added.

Strong words from Magee - all well and good.

Now she should back those strong words up with a barrage of ads telling New Yorkers what will happen if Cuomo gets to tie 50% of teacher evaluations to student test scores.

She can start that process by running an ad featuring Sheri Lederman, the award-winning teacher who was rated "ineffective" by NYSED on her test component via their value-added algorithm even though Lederman's students all passed their state tests and scored well above the state average.

She can tell New Yorkers that Lederman is suing the State Education Department over this rating and that so far, NYSED has been unable to provide an explanation for why Lederman was rated "ineffective" even though her students passed the state tests with scores well above the state average.

She can note that if Cuomo gets his way, many more teachers will be rated "ineffective" via an inscrutable NYSED value-added measurement algorithm that nobody from SED or the Regents seems able to explain.

And she can end the ad with Lederman's principal telling New Yorkers that if Cuomo gets his way on the rating reforms, one more "ineffective" rating on the inscrutable, unexplainable NYSED VAM will have Lederman fired and her students losing a highly effective, well-respected teacher.

Strong words on an NPR radio show are one thing.

Backing those strong words up with an effective PR campaign to alert the public to what Cuomo is doing and what the consequences will be if he gets his way is something else.

Strong words from the union president without the effective PR campaign that seeks to win the public over are, in the end, meaningless.

Here's How The UFT And NYSUT Can Frame An Argument Against Cuomo's Teacher Evaluation Reforms

Arthur Goldstein, chapter leader at Francis Lewis High School, posted the following on his blog this morning about UFT President Mike Mulgrew's Q&A with UFT delegates this week:

Mulgrew says we will not fight over evaluation, because then Cuomo will contend we didn't want it. This is an odd position, in my view, because there's now a movement, supported by our insane governor and private-schooled Merryl Tisch, to make state measures 40%, and to rate any teacher ineffective who doesn't meet the junk science standard. A large tenet of the Revive NYSUT campaign to overthrow leadership was that Iannuzzi had initiated the APPR law. They always seemed to forget that he did so with the express cooperation of Mike Mulgrew. The problem, of course, is that teachers really don't want a junk science evaluation system. Evidently, what teachers want is not a factor we consider during a substantive battle.

Now I dunno why Mulgrew says we the teachers unions can't fight Cuomo on the teacher evaluation issue and win.

As Arthur points out in his post, Cuomo and the Regents Chancellor are looking to make 40% of a teacher's evaluation based on state test scores, and any teacher who comes up "ineffective" on that part of the evaluation MUST be declared "ineffective" overall.

In addition, Cuomo and Regents Chancellor Tisch want to have two consecutive "ineffective" ratings trigger automatic incompetency charges against teachers, have those teachers pulled from the classroom and slated to be fired in an expedited hearing process.

Currently a very fine and well-respected teacher from Great Neck, Long Island is suing the state because she was declared "ineffective" on the state test component.

Carol Burris, principal at South Side High School, tells us

Sheri Lederman, is a gifted and beloved fourth-grade teacher in Great Neck, New York. Her principal adores her and relies on her to help mentor her colleagues. Over twice as many of her students have met the state standard than the average percentage for the rest of the state. Sheri is also a scholar. She received the 2012 H. Alan Robinson Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation award for her research on how 10-year-olds learn science. Yet her growth score based on the results of student Common Core standardized tests found her to be an “ineffective” teacher.

Under the present teacher evaluation system in New York, known as APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review), she is not in danger of losing her job.   She was rated effective overall due to the points she received on the local measure of her students’ achievement, combined with those based on the observation of her teaching. But that will change if Chancellor Merryl Tisch has her way. Sheri would be rated ineffective overall, and one more such rating would get her fired.

 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. In a letter to Andrew Cuomo’s aide, Jim Malatras, she explains how she (speaking for herself, not necessarily the Board of Regents) wants APPR to change.

Lederman is suing the State of New York over the "ineffective" rating on the state test component.  According to Burris:

Judge Richard Platkin of the New York State Supreme Court  directed the State Education Department to show cause on January 16, as to why the rating of Dr. Lederman should not be declared arbitrary and capricious — but the state requested a delay until March 20 because, apparently, officials were still assembling their data.

Now it seems to me if you're a teachers union leader and your members are facing a change in an evaluation system that will make test scores 40% of the entire rating, but 100% if the teacher is found "ineffective" on just that 40% component, you have a ready-made TV ad in the story of Sheri Lederman and her "ineffective" rating.

Cut an ad telling Lederman's story, then end it with Lederman's principal saying, "If Governor Cuomo gets his way on this evaluation reform, Sheri Lederman's students may lose a wonderful teacher who exhibits excellence in every facet of her teaching - all because the governor and the Regents Chancellor want to put in place a deeply flawed, error-riddled rating system."

Want to bet that kind of ad would be powerful and turn the debate from "We MUST fire bad teachers!" to "Hey, wait a minute - is this system Cuomo's looking to use going to get rid of excellent teachers like Sheri Lederman?"

Want to bet that kind of argument frame will appeal to parents?

So why aren't NYSUT and the UFT cutting such an ad?

Are they really interested in beating back the coming assault on teachers from Cuomo?

Cuomo And Tisch Double Down On Test-Based Evaluations As The Insanity Of APPR Goes National

Here is the best pushback against the coming reform effort from Governor Andrew Cuomo and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch - the story of Sheri Lederman, a teacher declared ineffective on New York's APPR teacher evaluation system despite her students exceeding state averages on their state tests.

Lederman's story has gone national and makes it to The Atlantic, via The Hechinger Report:

Following a statewide ranking system put into place in 2012, for the first time 20 percent of her evaluation score was tied to local tests and 20 percent was based on whether students progressed on state tests administered every spring. The rest of the rating was based on classroom evaluations. Depending on the final percentage, teachers in New York receive ratings of highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective. Teachers who receive ineffective ratings for two consecutive years may face an expedited dismissal process.

The same year the new test-based evaluations went into effect, New York State launched the Common Core State Standards, which aim to deepen critical thinking and enhance problem-solving skills. And along with the new standards came much more difficult tests, which sent student test scores plummeting.

This was a problem for teachers now dependent on good scores to achieve a rating that didn’t also put their job in jeopardy.

Lederman was an early believer in the Common Core. With a doctorate in human development and educational psychology, she was drawn to the idea that students in different states would possess a similar knowledge base and skill set across an array of different subject areas. But the concurrent rollout of new standards on top of harder tests, not to mention the addition of a high-stakes teacher evaluation system, has more than soured her on the new standards.

Among educators, Lederman is hardly alone in her belief that that the one-two punch of Common Core and new test-based accountability systems is too much to handle and leaves teachers — and students — overwhelmed.

At first Lederman was fine. Nearly 70 percent of Lederman’s fourth-grade students met or exceeded reading and math standards on the new Common Core tests, far above the state average. With a perfect score on her classroom observations and local district tests, she easily achieved an effective rating.

But this year, the state awarded her only 1 out of 20 possible points on the state test ranking, because a new class of students didn’t do significantly better than her group from the year before. Instead, they dropped two percentage points in reading and increased slightly in math. Her 18 students far surpassed state averages in both subjects (often by more than double), and she once again did well on the district scores, but not well enough to overcome the low score on the state portion of the evaluation.

So, Lederman did what any frustrated educator, armed with a litigator spouse, would do. In late October, she filed a lawsuit against the New York State Education Department. The lawsuit alleges that such metrics punish rather than reward excellence, with educators whose students outperform state averages unable to show sufficient progress from year to year. A hearing is scheduled for March 20.

 Lederman’s lawsuit is one part of a major backlash that’s erupted in the last year against both teacher evaluations and the Common Core. The backlash has become mainstream, no longer relegated to teachers and administrators, and has fueled legislation and multiple lawsuits aimed at dialing back the new policies.

Lederman's story can be easily summed up into this bar graph:

The Hechinger Article attempts to rewrite the history of the Common Core and test-based teacher evaluations by making believe they weren't meant to be implemented at the same time - they were.

The Common Core and test-based teacher evaluations were part of a Shock and Awe education policy to scare parents into believing their children's teachers and schools were failing and the public education system was in need of dramatic reform.

The Board of Regents and NYSED purposely set the CCSS test scores so that 70% of students would "fail" them in the hope that parents around the state would rise up and demand dramatic reform of the public education system.

It didn't happen - parents instead rose up against the Common Core and the Common Core tests, with the state educrats getting earfuls wherever they went for their Common Core town halls.

As a result of the parent backlash, Common Core supporter Andrew Cuomo had to agree to a statewide slowdown on using the CCSS test scores for promotion decisions for students.

But now he and his compatriot in education reform, Regents Chancellor Tisch, are pointing to the "failure" rate on the Common Core tests and the "effective" and "highly effective" ratings of teachers on the APPR evaluation system and saying the two should look similar.

Why should 70% of students be "failing" their tests while 90%+ of teachers are deemed "effective" or "highly effective" by the APPR evaluation system goes their argument?

On the face of it, that argument can sound reasonable to people outside the system - until you see a story like Sheri Lederman's that exposes the APPR system as a sham.

How could a teacher whose students performed so well on their state tests be declared "ineffective" by APPR?

Cuomo and Tisch are going to demand that APPR be revised so that 40% of a teacher's evaluations are linked to the state tests.

They are going to demand that any teacher who comes up ineffective on that 40% must be declared ineffective overall.

And they are going to demand that any teacher rated ineffective two years running be removed from the classroom and slated for firing by her/his district.

As The Hechinger article makes clear, other states are slowing down tying test scores to teacher evals for fear of the backlash that unfair evaluations will cause among teachers and parents.

But not Andrew Cuomo's New York State - he's all in on test-based teacher evaluations, saying publicly that APPR done right will be an "objective" way to assess teacher effectiveness.

The big problem he's got is Sheri Lederman and other teachers like her - well-respected teachers, good teachers - who are getting unfairly dinged by the APPR teacher evaluation system as currently constituted and will get it even worse if Cuomo and Tisch get the "reforms" they want.

That bar graph exposes the Cuomo and Tisch evaluation system as the sham it is, as will the lawsuits that Lederman and other teachers file against the state.

Teacher evaluations, particularly the way the merry men and women in reform are developing them these days, are complicated things, but there's nothing complicated about Sheri Lederman's story.

She's gotten screwed by the system and now she's got a case winding through the courts to prove it.