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?

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.

Vaunted New Cuomo APPR Evaluation Plan Not In Place For NYC Yet

Gotham Schools:

The first day of school is Sept. 9, but it will be at least a month before New York City teachers know exactly how they will be graded this year.

The de Blasio administration plans to wait until at least October to decide if it will comply with a new state law and make changes to its teacher evaluation system this year or seek to delay the process. Districts will lose state funding if the changes aren’t in place by Nov. 15, according to the law, but officials have said they will give districts more time if needed.

Excellent - nothing like uncertainty around evaluations.

Reformers seem to love changes, don't they?

Change the tests, change the standards, change the curriculum, change the PD, changes the evaluation system - over and over and over.

The cynic in me wonders if the constant change isn't meant to undermine students, teachers and schools, give reformers their "failure" metrics and data and help them push their privatization agenda.

The pragmatist in me thinks that's exactly the case.

There may be a saving grace this year on the evaluation changes, however.

The judge in the Lederman case is expected to issue a decision later this month or sometime next month.

If the test score component - the NYSED "Black Box" of "We rate you the way we want to and you'll take it and like it!" - is tossed, that could result in the whole evaluation system being thrown out and force Cuomo and the Legislature to start over again.

Won't that be fun?

The likelihood is that the state will appeal a Lederman decision like that, but that would just throw more uncertainty into the system.

And in the end, that seems to be the point of education reform and the Cuomo agenda.

Burn and churn, burn and churn, burn and churn...

NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia Ignores Teachers' Complaints About APPR

NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia spoke to some teachers at Cairo, NY yesterday.

At the beginning of her remarks, she teased out that she would be addressing APPR concerns:

Indeed, Elia began the forum with a tongue-in-cheek question that she never actually answered: "You're probably all wondering, so OK, what is she gonna do about APPR? You are. Let's just get that out there."

The APPR formula has come to be known as the "black box" among teachers at Cairo, who say they still don't understand what metrics the performance review uses or why.

But as is so often the case with MaryEllen Elia, this was a coy PR remark that was never addressed substantively later:

Cairo teachers said they were encouraged that Elia would use their input to improve upon Common Core standards and Common Core-aligned tests. But they left the forum frustrated that their concerns about the Annual Professional Performance Review — the state's controversial teacher evaluation system — weren't treated with the same urgency or consideration.

"If she says it's going to take a while for the kids to get used to the Common Core standards, then why is the APPR being implemented at this time?" said Claire Mackey, a speech pathologist with the district. "If it's going to take years for these kids to get up to the standards, then why are we being judged on them now?"

What a great question!

With 50% of a teacher's rating now based upon these test scores as rolled through NYSED's "black box" - the inscrutable algorithm NYSED uses to come up with the test score component ratings but refuses to show to teachers - why are teachers being judged on the scores now?

And of course the answer is, because Andrew Cuomo wanted it so because his education reformer donors wanted it so and thus it is so.

Elia's just the functionary here, she has no real power to address the APPR mess, but since we all know that's the case, why tease out that she was going to address teacher concerns over APPR in the beginning only to ignore them in the end?

The only recourse to the APPR black box mess is the court system - the judge in the Lederman case is expected to announce a decision either later this month or sometime next month.

NYSED never did show how Sheri Lederman went from 14 out of 20 on her state test component to 1 out of 20 a year later with what were essentially the same scores from students.

I am hearing similar things from teachers this year - that the test score component of APPR seems random and pulled out of a hat by a rabbit high on PCP.

The inexplicable test component ratings that arrive from NYSED based upon an algorithm they refuse to disclose or explain in detail derived from tests that NYSED itself acknowledges are riddled with problems makes the entire APPR teacher evaluation system unfair and unjust.

If MaryEllen Elia truly cared about teachers like she says she does, she would acknolwedge these facts.

Instead she issues some PR jive and continues on acting as the head functionary in the Endless Testing regime.

Being A Teacher These Days Means Walking A Tightrope Without A Safety Net

There's this myth perpetuated by education reformers, politicians and the media that "bad teachers" can't be fired, that once you become a tenured teacher, all you have to do to remain in the job is breathe and not get convicted of a felony.

The truth is far from the myth as this commenter at Perdido Street School blog writes:

Who'd want to become a teacher anywhere? I don't teach in a struggling school (though its close) and the decision to come in to teaching ranks as the biggest mistake of my life. Financially, psychologically, etc. A toll is taken on the psyche when your profession is labeled as the reason for almost all the negative issues going on in our society, relentlessly, no matter how ridiculous. The volume of it and the incessant nature makes one a bit twitchy. It was a stupid call. At least working at Amazon, you are probably paid well for the few years you survive....and then you can go get another job.

The thing that isn't talked about so much, and should be, is that when a teacher is drummed out, for any reason really, they will never teach again in public school. It's an established, formalized, institutionalized, fully-legal blacklisting. So a public school teacher falling under the hatchet of reform faces a much steeper slope out of unemployment than does, say, a corporate person who gets fired. As always, the "accountability" and "disruption" on the corporate side is always somehow lighter than they want to impose on the public side.

A fired teacher is DONE....the one thing they have prepared and trained for is no longer something they can tap on in their job search. (Unless they go to work at a desperate private school that will pay them like $19k a year.) Even admin....they leave or get booted somewhere, they get to become admin somewhere else (see Elia). No deep institutional, legal blacklisting for them! Even principals, AP's, Directors, etc in my district who have been let go for deep incompetence always get another job in Admin by the next school year in another district.

So that's a thing and it matters. For teachers, our options become way way way limited after being fired. We are the ultimate tightrope walkers...no safety nets.

That's right - as I posted this morning, get the "I" rating smeared on your head and you're pretty much done - administrators will look to drum you out (especially if you're a senior teacher higher up on the salary step ladder), the system will look to drum you out (and with two "ineffective" ratings in a row, that can be done in an expedited manner), and no one will look to hire you.

I am in my fifteenth year as a public school teacher, before that I was in grad school and working as both a per diem substitute teacher and an SAT tutor.

I haven't had a job outside education since 1999.

Let's say I get dinged two years running under the new iteration of Andrew Cuomo's APPR teacher evaluation system and get an expedited trip out of my NYCDOE teaching job by 2017.

What would I do for work then?

As the commenter above noted, my experience and my resume is stuffed to the gills with education-related credentials and work.

Good luck to me trying to get a job doing something outside education with that kind of resume, but good luck to me trying to get a job inside education with the "ineffective" scarlet letter.

Walmart greeter here I come.

Welcome to Walmart, welcome to Walmart, welcome to Walmart...

It's time to dispense with the media myth that tenure is a lifetime appointment to a teaching gig.

The truth is, tenure no longer exists and it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to have your career taken from you in an expedited (and rigged) process.

Think I'm engaging in hyperbole?

Head on over to a receivership school and see where you are in two to three years.

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.

With Amplify A Financial Disaster That Loses Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars, What's Joel Klein's VAM?

From the NY Times:

Amplify, a much-heralded push by News Corporation into digital education, led by Joel Klein, a former New York City schools chancellor, is nearing an inglorious end.

News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, said on Wednesday that it would take a $371 million write-down on the education division and would move to wind down the production of tablets for schoolchildren, a key part of the unit’s offering.

Moreover, News Corporation’s chief executive, Robert Thomson, said in an earnings call with analysts that the company was in an “advanced stage of negotiations” with a potential buyer for the remaining education business.

$372 million dollar write down on the ed division.

What's Joel Klein's value-added measurement for that?

While we're at it, what's his value-added measurement for the tablets that set themselves on fire or broke when they flipped over?

It's illuminating when you see this "accountability" people go through their own lives without any accountability.

Why NYSED Never Wanted The Sheri Lederman VAM Case To Go Forward

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.

John Oliver: Let's Put The Tests To The Test

NYSED STILL Doesn't Have The Data To Back Up Sheri Lederman's "Ineffective" Rating On The APPR Test Component

That's the takeaway from the court proceedings detailed in the Times Union:

Sheri Lederman, the Great Neck, Long Island fourth grade teacher who is challenging the state’s teacher evaluation system was in court Monday, where her husband/lawyer Bruce Lederman and state lawyer Colleen Galligan argued about whether the case should be dismissed.

Lederman’s overall rating was ”effective” and she’s tenured with almost two decades in the classroom. But she objected to the testing component, which counts for 20 percent of her overall evaluation but which Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to increase to 50 percent. In her most recent tests, her score year to year fell from 14 to 1 on a scale to 1-20. That’s not the score that she achieved but rather among her students who are tested at the start and then the end of the year to measure ”growth” or how much they’ve learned.

“There is no harm in being rated an ‘effective’ teacher,” Galligan said in moving to dismiss the case on the grounds that Lederman isn’t being harmed and therefore has no standing.

Galligan said the rating doesn’t impact her pay or tenure.

And the testing portion is only 20 percent, for now, of her evaluation.

Bruce Lederman, though, disagreed, saying “It absolutely does have job implications,” explaining that a poor or mediocre evaluation based in part on the test scores could, for example, hurt Sheri Lederman if she were to apply for a job at a new district.

“The teaching profession,” he said, “Is something where grades are important.”

Albany County state Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough had questions for both sides, asking among other things if the dismissal question was ”ripe” or timely in light of other data that was being sought.

After the brief hearing, the Ledermans explained that they had sought detailed data about how the student test scores were arrived, at but the state Education Department doesn’t divulge that information saying their request was ”overly broad” and it could threaten student privacy.

In short, NYSED doesn't have the data to prove Lederman's "ineffective" rating on the test component of her APPR evaluation so they're relying on the "No Harm, No Foul" rule that says since she was rated "effective" overall, there's no reason for the suit to go forward.

Notice too that they're trying to rely on "student privacy" for why they won't show the data.

But that's a jive excuse.

If they have the data to prove that Lederman was indeed "ineffective" on her APPR test component, they should show it to the court.

If they don't have the data, then Lederman's "ineffective" rating on the test component should be overturned and NYSED forced to make the test component ratings transparent to all educators (and only educators - not the press or general public) so that they can see what NYSED is basing the rating on.

To me, the NYSED calculations that have gone into APPR look a lot like Common Core math homework - overly complex, nonsensical and harmful.

We keep hearing how "objective" and "scientific" this rating system is.

Okay, then - show us.

Center For Unions Facts Is Right - Randi Weingarten Is Ruining Public Education

Lyndsey Layton reports the Center for Union Facts is attacking AFT President Randi Weingarten again:

The 11-page mailing, on expensive paper stock, was sent first class to 125,000 households across the country this week.

“I’m writing to you about Randi,” the letter began. “You probably don’t know who Randi is. Most people don’t. The terrible impact Randi has on America’s educational system is something that I hope you will give me a few minutes to explain.”

The writer, Richard Berman, is a D.C.-based corporate communications consultant who is waging a national campaign against Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Berman has run a highly personal attack on Weingarten for the past year, paying for two billboards in Times Square that featured an unflattering two-story image of her, a full-page ad in the New York Times, radio spots and, now, lengthy mailings. He also paid workers to hand out anti-Weingarten flyers during Labor Day weekend in East Hampton, N.Y., where she has a home.

In the mailing, Berman refers to Weingarten as “a vicious individual” who is “on a crusade to stymie school reform and protect the jobs of incompetent teachers — the bad apples that drain so much of our tax resources and sabotage the efforts of parents and caring teachers.”

This is a nasty attack on Weingarten, just as the billboards and other attacks Berman and the Center for Union Facts have launched against her were nasty.

But to be frank, I agree with one part of Berman's attack:

Weingarten and the teachers unions are ruining public education - but for the exact opposite reason Berman gives.

Want to know why there are so many tests in public schools these days?

Because Weingarten and the teachers unions have embraced test-based accountability and the Endless Testing regime.

Want to know why teachers are evaluated using error-riddled value-added measurements based upon test scores?

Because Weingarten and the teachers unions embraced VAM a few years ago and haven't mounted much of a challenge to these accountability systems even now that they're claiming "VAM is sham!"

Indeed, in 2008 Weingarten happily okayed the Teacher Data Reports in NYC that saw 4th-8th grade ELA and math teachers rated using a value-added system with margins of error as high as 87%.

Those reports were published in the New York news media, exposing teachers who had been rated with this error-riddled data system Weingarten collaborated on to public humiliation.

Want to know why Common Core math is confusing children nation-wide and Common Core informational texts have replaced literature in ELA classrooms and children are crying at night over the Common Core homework they're given that doesn't make any freaking sense?

Because Weingarten and the teachers unions have embraced Common Core, have taken money from Common Core proponents like Bill Gates to shill for the Core and have threatened to punch anybody who opposes Common Core in the face.

Want to know why pro-ed deform teacher-hating politicians like Andrew Cuomo are in power and doing all the damage they're doing to public education and the teaching profession?

Because Weingarten and the teachers unions are backing them, engineering putschs when certain union leaders turn against them, then ensuring that there will be no third party candidates to run against them and making robocalls for them when it turns out a primary is closer than it was supposed to be.

Sure, Weingarten and the unions aren't solely responsible for these crimes against children, teachers and public education, but they certainly helped along the way and you can make a pretty good argument that without union collaboration from Randi and the other teachers union leaders, they wouldn't have happened at all.

So I agree with Berman and the Center for Union Facts - Weingarten is ruining education and teaching.

I just don't agree with Berman's rationale for how she's ruining it.

It's not because Randi is out to "stymie school reform."

It's because she is so willing help out the reformers, to collaborate with and shill for the corporate entities, NGO's, billionaires and politicians focused on privatizing the school system, standardizing the nation's curriculum and turning the teaching profession into at-will work with no job protections.

I can't get all worked up over this attack on Weingarten from the anti-union guy - she's done too much damage, engaged in too much duplicity and shilled for too many deform causes and entities for me to put up the barricades and defend her. 

APPR Teacher Evaluation Open Thread

The NYCDOE is supposed to send out final evaluation ratings for educators sometimes between 4 PM and 12 AM.

Anybody get theirs yet?

If so, thoughts?

If not yet, thoughts anyway?

Space Aliens, Yellow Dust And Stars On The ELA Regents...

Normally when I finish proctoring the ELA Regents and see some of my students outside the building after the test, they say that test wasn't so bad, here's what I wrote for this part, etc.

Today when I saw students outside the building, they all said "What was up with that test?"

I also heard:

"What was up with those passages?"

"I wasn't sure about that quote..."

And...

"What was that yellow dust thing about?"

We'll see what the grading chart looks like, but if it looks anything like the charts from last January, June or August, the passing percentages for this ELA Regents exam season aren't going to be too high.

I'll wait to see the scoring chart before I declare today's ELA Regents exam a deliberate doubling down on low test scores in NY State.

But judging by the reaction of students after the test, it's not looking so great.

Carmen Farina And Bill de Blasio CAN Change Worst Excesses Of Ed Deform Movement

I keep seeing this kind of thing around:

.@bethfertig points out Farina and de Blasio can't stop much of testing, which comes from state level - Common Core and teacher eval.
— Brian Lehrer Show (@BrianLehrer) December 31, 2013

To which I replied:

@BrianLehrer @zansari8 @bethfertig Jive excuse to say state and fed mandates mean little change. Plenty can be done!
— realitybasededucator (@perdidostschool) December 31, 2013

Added a couple more tweets to the twitterverse regarding the "De Blasio/Farina Can Do Little To Change Ed Deform Excesses/Testing" meme:

Keep hearing that little can be done about testing by BdB & CF. Not true! They can negotiate changes to evals (1 of 2)
— realitybasededucator (@perdidostschool) December 31, 2013

Can also put pressure on Cuomo, legislature to change APPR eval system that mandates so much testing!
— realitybasededucator (@perdidostschool) December 31, 2013

Students, parents and teachers are in revolt all over the state over the Endless Testing program, the APPR teacher evaluation system that mandates so much of this testing, the Common Core State Standards that provide the content for the overtesting program, and the inBloom data project that tracks the data from all the testing.

It's not like de Blasio and Farina would be swimming upstream against a pro-deform tidal wave if they were to push the state to make changes to the SED ed deform agenda.

If anything, the momentum is anti-deform these days and de Blasio and Farina can ride that wave - if they choose to do so.

How Long Will This Evaluation System Last?

James Eterno described King's imposed system as an incoherent bureaucratic mess and I think that's exactly right.

So much of this system is unworkable in practice and won't improve either teaching or learning.

Of course it's not meant to improve teaching and learning, it's meant to give NYC the power to fire as many teachers as they want as quickly as they want.

But I am not convinced that this will happen before the system collapses from unworkability and court challenges.

Will the VAM stand up to a court challenge?

Will the SLO's?

Will the way they've rigged the 100 point system for the overall APPR to make it almost impossible to be rated "highly effective" or "effective"?

Will allowing third graders to evaluate their teachers stand up to court scrutiny?

I'll admit, I'm not a lawyer, but I have a hard time seeing how something so convoluted and incoherent stands up to court challenges.

And there's the whole unworkability angle.

4-6 observations a year for every teacher using all 22 items on the Danielson rubric, with pre-and post-observation conferences.

How long does that kind of burn and churn system last before there's a mass exodus of administrators out of the system?

I know they want to fire teachers en masse, but where exactly are they going to get the hundreds of new administrators a year they're going to need after the current ones start walking away from the workload?

How about all the extra added paperwork teachers have to keep, the "artifacts" as King calls them, in order to prove they're not incompetent?

Most of the job next year will be collecting crap to play CYA with come evaluation-time.

Seriously, I have a difficult time seeing this piece of crap last more than a couple of years before it goes the way of the hipster goatee (oops - NYSED Commissioner/rookie teacher John King still wears one, doesn't he?)

Make no mistake, there will be plenty of careers and reputations destroyed before this thing falls apart under the weight of its own incoherence and unworkability.

But it will.

The arrogance of King, Tisch, Cuomo and the educrats in designing something so over-the-top and unworkable sows the seeds of the system's own destruction.

Test Scores Now Count For 100% Of The APPR Evaluation

Now that the particulars of King's imposed system are known, I can say that this is a total nightmare.

No wonder the Tweedies are happy.

Here's my favorite part of the new system:

"Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall." 

Last February when Mulgrew and Iannuzzi agreed to drop the lawsuit against the state, the agreement between the state and the unions stated that teachers who showed "zero growth" in the test part of the evaluation had to be rated "ineffective" overall.

"Zero growth," Mulgrew and Iannuzzi assured us, was so bad that nobody would get dinged on this part of the evaluation system.

Ah, but now we find out that John King and the NYSED say that a teacher just has to be rated "ineffective" in the test part to be rated "ineffective" overall.

In other words, the test part is 100% of the evaluation.

Come up "ineffective" on that test part and it doesn't matter about the student surveys or the half dozen observations - you have to be rated "ineffective" overall.

I dunno about you, if I were Mulgrew and the state imposed a radical alteration to the system like that, I would sue over it and tie the evaluation system up in court until John King's goatee turned totally grey.

That's me.

But tonight you can bet the UFT leadership are busy thinking not how they can change this system or get it overturned in court, they're thinking about how to spin this best to the membership.

This is a total disaster for NYC teachers and students.

It would be nice if the UFT leadership would be looking for a way out of this mess that they helped create, but we're going to need some new UFT leadership for us to get that kind of action.

Scarsdale Kindergarten Teachers Evaluated On Third Grade Test Scores

Via Lindsay Crist, Lisa Fleischer in the WSJ:

In many districts, part of a teacher's evaluation will be based on schoolwide averages. For example, in Scarsdale, kindergarten teachers will be judged in part by how students in third grade do on state tests.

Does anybody think this kind of thing will stand up in court?

Hey, you taught this student four years ago - now we're evaluating you on their third grade Common Core assessments!

I'm no lawyer, but I have a difficult time seeing that passing the laugh test in court.

Mulgrew On King's Evaluation System: We Supported And Shaped This Piece Of Shit (UPDATED)

Mulgrew is spinning the evaluation system decision already:

Dear colleagues,
Late on Saturday, June 1, State Education Commissioner John King is expected to release an evaluation plan for K-12 teachers in New York City. It will be done through a binding arbitration process and take effect in September.
The mayor and the DOE will no doubt try to spin Commissioner King’s decision to their advantage. The UFT staff will be working through Sunday to get accurate information about the new system out to you by Monday morning in a form that is both clear and concise.
The process to create a new evaluation system has been long and contentious. The final decision came to rest with the commissioner because the city Department of Education proved incapable of negotiating in good faith with us.
The UFT and the DOE each submitted lengthy proposals to the State Education Department on May 8. Arbitration hearings are taking place in Albany today and tomorrow. Commissioner King will consider the proposals and decide on the final evaluation system on June 1.
We have the opportunity to use our collective-bargaining rights to modify aspects of the evaluation plan during future contract negotiations. Practically speaking, since we are in fact-finding now, if any changes were negotiated, they would not take effect until the 2014-15 school year.
Because the commissioner’s plan must be in accordance with the 2010 state law on teacher evaluation that this union supported and helped shape, we expect it to be fair, professional and focused on teacher development to the benefit of our students. The new evaluation system as set out in state law is designed first and foremost to help teachers improve their skills throughout their careers. Teachers who are struggling will get support tailored to their individual needs.
We have our work cut out for us in September, given this DOE’s terrible track record of translating policy to practice compounded with the fact that they will probably be gone come Jan. 1. We have started working on a professional development plan and we will use our rights to make sure that the new system is implemented fairly. It is a big help that we already have an appeals process for New York City teachers nailed down that will give our members stronger due process rights than they have ever had.
I hope this email clarifies where we are and what we can expect. Working together, we will make this transition. You can count on your union to continue to fight to get you the support you deserve. Thank you for all that you do for our city’s schoolchildren.
Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

Let's repeat - the union supported and helped shape this piece of shit.

Remember that next year when the nightmare commences.

This is Mulgrew's system - he supported APPR, he helped design the SLO's, he promoted growth models, he signed off on the VAM's.

And let's not forget that he gladly conceded power to John King, NYSED Commissioner/rookie teacher, to act as an independent arbitrator in this when King is anything but that.

This is Mulgrew's piece of shit all around.

Remember who to blame when this piece of shit splatters next year.

Not Cuomo.

Not Bloomberg.

Not King.

Mulgrew.

He could have fought this, he could have issued an alternative vision to APPR.

He instead chose to support it.

The problem will not be with implementation by the DOE.

The problem will be with the system itself.

The problem will be that our union helped design it and supported it all the way through.

UPDATE: Very good piece at NYC Eye on the difference between the Buffalo Teachers Federation and the United Teachers Federation in dealing with APPR.

Just more evidence that Mulgrew wants this APPR system.