The New York City teacher evaluations were released, and there was nearly no media coverage.
Mayor Bloomberg noticed. Ad Peter Goodman points out on his blog,
“The mayor didn’t like the original law, didn’t like the law which protected teachers from the public release of the scores and doesn’t like the requirement that the details of the plan must be negotiated with the collective bargaining agent, the union.
“On his weekly radio program he made it clear – he has no intention of negotiating a plan – he’ll accept the $250 million cut in state funding unless the union succumbs to all his preconditions. Apparently he “forgot” that the current law prohibits the release of the scores.”
Goodman checked with principals and teachers and they seemed genuinely puzzled by the ratings.
They don’t know what they mean or how they are supposed to help.
“UFT President Mulgrew announced that 6% of teachers were rated “ineffective” and 9% rated “highly effectively.” In order to be charged a teacher must be rated “ineffective” on their overall score or on the VAM and “locally negotiated” section for two consecutive years. When we consider the “instability” of the scores – wide year to year variation – the percentage of teachers impacted will be quite low.”
So very few teachers will be found ineffective, and anyone who is discharged on the basis of these flawed metrics is likely to sue.
Think of the hundreds of millions wasted on this junk science and how the money might have been used to improve schools.