Principal Carol Burris of South Side High School in Rockville Center, Long Island, spent her Saturday analyzing State Education Commissioner John King’s Educator Evaluation plan. Here is her review:
“When I took a look at the details of the plan imposed by Commissioner King on NYC, I was taken aback. The first thing I noticed was how low the points in the Effective range in the final 60 (other measures) were. These are the points assigned by the principal according to the rubric. I could not understand how the points in the Effective range could be as low as 45. A teacher could be rated effective in the first component, with a growth score of 9 points, effective in the second component the local measure with a score of 9 points and receive 45 points in the effective range established by the commissioner in the final 60 (see page 70) here http://files.uft.org/teacher-evaluation/13%20Attached%20Documents%20to%20NYCDOE%20APPR%20Plan%20Review%20Room%20Submission%20-%20Teachers%20and%20Principals.pdf , but she would be rated Ineffective overall.
“If you add up the points, 9+9+45=63.
In other words, the teacher is rated INEFFECTIVE overall, even though she is Effective in all three categories. At least that is what the statute 3012c would say.
“Let me explain. 3012c, which you can find here: http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2012Meetings/March2012/312bra6.pdf states on page 46 the following when describing points awarded for the local measure:
“(ii) an Effective rating in this subcomponent if the results meet district-adopted expectations for growth or achievement and they achieve a subcomponent score of: (a) 9-17 for the 2011-2012 school year, and for the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter for teachers and principals whose score on the State assessment or other comparable measures subcomponent is not based on a value-added model; or (b) 8-13 for the 2012-2013 school year and thereafter for teachers and principals whose score on the State assessment or other comparable measures subcomponent is based on a value-added model.
“In other words, if the teacher receives a score of 9 – 17 on the local measure, prior to VAM, she is in the Effective category. After VAM, it changes to 8-13. That is defined in the statute. Now look on pages 35 and 36 of the plan imposed by the Commissioner:
“On these pages you will find matrices that award points on the local measure. However, a score of 9 is not in the Effective range as 3012c requires. Rather, a score of 9 is in the Ineffective range. A teacher has to accrue 15 of the 20 points to be Effective without an approved VAM, and 13 out of 15 if there is an approved VAM.
“The entire section is confusing, because it has typographical errors, as it tries to explain the ratings with or without VAM. However, even if VAM is approved this year, the statute does not change. In fact, Effective moves down to 8 points., according to the 3012C.
“Unless I am missing an additional conversion chart, it appears to me that this plan violates 3012C. It gives a weight to test scores that was never intended, and it explains why the points are so low in the final 60. They can be low because John King raised the bar in the local measure, expecting very high student performance, for a teacher to be rated effective in that measure, and that is not in accordance with the statute passed by the legislature.”
I don’t even know how to respond to this insanity – called teacher evaluation, or find the words. Only the detailed sadistic evil NAZI’s would have come close to this millimeter hairsplitting evaluation process. I have no idea how this will ever stop. It just should not exist nor continue.
Actually, these evaluation schemes reach a level that can only be achieved in the fantasy world of movies, i.e., Dr. Evil paraphrasing John King: “That makes me angry, and when Dr. Evil gets angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset, and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset… PEOPLE DIE!” and “Why must I be surrounded by frickin’ idiots?”
All the more reason to throw it in the trashcan.
we all need to understand and accept that fact that all of these evaluations have one goal, to get rid of public school teachers. We originally were sold the idea that we wanted to shoot for highly effective because there would be great financial rewards. I have yet to hear anyone talking about the great money they are getting. I only hear about the fear and confusion these evaluations cause.
Still crazy after all these years.time for those of. Us from the 60’s and 70’s it’s time to say Xxxk the Taylor Law. Anybody with me? I know. Its Monday!!
I started to listen to a video on how librarians may be evaluate and how they should prepare. I had to stop it. What a waste of time and energy. The system obviously is not designed to help anyone improve their practice. I suggest that a representative group of educators from across New York get together and start to develop an evaluation system for Commissioner King, preferably one that will eat up massive amounts of the free time he apparently has too much of.
Oh my goodness! Not sure to laugh or have crocodile tears! What is sad is that in our district, we had an evaluation system that worked, we TIP and Terminate the teachers that need to removed. It is our primary job to be responsible for the quality of instructiion.
We need to mobilize, find politicians who will come on board and repeal 3012-c.
Yes, where do we start?
Don’t be confused, Commissioner King’s goal is to put at much weight on evaluating teachers based on standardized test scores as possible. The whole APPR system is a monumental waste of time for administrators and educators, and results are starting to indicate that it is having no bearing on how teachers are being rated.
Actually, it is worse than I thought. He raised the bar in the same way on the growth measure as well.
I thought it was me with my old and useless mind that wasn’t getting it.Thanks for letting me know I’m not crazy. Working in fear of what will happen if I open my mouth.Now I must fear what will happen if I don’t get doing and getting others to act. Being burnt out what would I do to accomplish the most with the energy I have left.
why is it no one even mentions the Bell Curve they use assumes 6% of ALL teachers are ineffective and 10% developing -both of which can fired after 2 years -in NYC that amounts to approximately 12000 per Year on the chopping block—-
When King released the info a few weeks ago, it was clearly stated that teachers must be rated innefective overall if they get an Ineffective on the 20% objective assessments (test data). Now I cant find that language anywhere. Can anyone direct me to that provision….where is that located?