Hoping to calm teachers’ fears about the state’s new, untested, and probably invalid teacher evaluation system, Commissioner John King announced that only 1% of teachers were rated ineffective.
NYC scores were omitted due to failure to reach agreement on time.
“ALBANY—More than 90 percent of teachers outside New York City have earned high ratings in the state’s first year of mandated performance evaluations, a fact that state education commissioner John King said “should” ease unions’ concerns about attaching “high stakes” to testing in a new, more difficult curriculum.
“King presented preliminary numbers to the state Board of Regents Tuesday morning, announcing that nearly 50 percent of teachers received a “highly effective” rating, which is the top score. Another 42 percent were deemed “effective,” with only 4 percent as “developing” and 1 percent as “ineffective.”
“Teachers who earn two consecutive “ineffective” ratings could be fired under the law. Those with “developing” or “ineffective” will be outfitted with an individualized professional development plan to help them improve.
“The state’s data includes evaluations of nearly 127,000 teachers. So, while about 117,000 teachers were rated in the top two categories, nearly 7,000 teachers got the lower ratings and will require professional development. The remaining teachers were not accounted for in those reports.”
Most researchers consider test-based evaluations to be invalid.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Now how can that be in a FOCUS (formerly SINI) school like ours? A simple solution to having too many “effective” teachers: our administration decided to re-write the state SLO growth bands so that it will be significantly more difficult for teachers to be rated “effective’. Ironic that these same administrators complain when cut scotres are raised so that raw test scores = more “failing” students.
This number needs to include the entire state of New York.
And can someone please help me figure out the math here…1% of teachers are deemed “ineffective” and 4% “developing”, but 70% of children in the ENTIRE state of NY are not meeting the expected proficiency levels in Math and ELA.
THAT math does not not add up.
I don’t know about New York, but in KY there are other dimensions included in a teacher “evaluation”, especially if using the Danielson Framework. In addition, the question could be “what part of the students’ scores are used?” If it’s like most states I’ve read about, it would be growth (whatever that means).
So, yes, once there’s an understanding of how the pieces of the evaluation work together, I’m not surprised that there would be a high percentage of students not meeting proficiency levels but yet a high number of teachers being rated effective.
This just goes to show, I think, that these evaluation systems don’t show the entire picture.
The math works when you consider that the 70% failure rate is only in math and ELA – grades 3 to 8. The The 1% effective and 4% developing includes all teachers in all subjects, K – 12.
Undoubtedly there are ineffective teachers. I have known some – as has everyone in the profession. BUT who and what decides the ineffective teacher: political intrigue or people on the firing line who have been there, done that.
So, let me see if I get this straight; after all the money (misspent), lost instruction, and loss of focus, we find out pretty much what we knew BEFORE the darn APPR was implemented.
Now that’s what I call R E F O R M
Not exactly. We are learning that under New York state APPR, teachers in math. ELA, (esp. grade 7 and 8), and special education are being unfairly singled out as “developing” or “ineffective”.
I’m worried that NYC scores are separated from the rest of the state. If they are they slightest bit “worse”, it will give the city an excuse to treat us the terrible way they’ve treated Chicago and Detroit. This is important to pay attention to because we are electing a new mayor.
It’s scary to see these results actually. Why would I say that?
Because they still maintain control over the scoring bands and can change them to fail or pass as many teachers as they want as well as adjusting the test difficulty and scoring matrixes.
If these results tell us what we knew before – then this whole evaluation bid is an exercise in futility because if the whole premise of the movement is fire the worst and retain the best, you can’t do that if you’re not firing significant numbers of teachers (though you can bring down the cost of teachers through ageism).
If this changes next year dramatically, then the volatility is evidence of just how screwed up this system is.
If it stays the same, and they only end up firing ~1-2% of teachers (assuming some of those who are currently being failed can get ahead of the evaluations for next year and pass) – then the reformers “dreams” of firing those godawful teachers won’t be realized – but I get the feeling they wouldn’t have pushed for this much control and made these kind of moves based on obviously flawed data if they didn’t intend to wield it against those they demonize.
These scores are less than worthless – they are proof that since the curriculum wasn’t implemented and yet these things were still tested, that they are willing to ignore any ideas of evidence or indeed logic to have the power to grade teachers – and it’s obvious they don’t care about who they hurt based on what evidence.
These APPR rating go way beyond CCSS math and ELA. The APPR evaluations includes all teachers in all subjects. Many are being evaluated on simple 10 item MC tests that they wrote. Others are being evaluated on impossible CCSS exams.
My guess is that a principal would have/could have identified that 1% without the expensive, stressful, controversial, divisive, VAM, patronizing systems that now determine that 1%, yes?
Even with a strong union presence, when I taught in Kansas City, MO I noticed that principals knew how best to utilize their staff (tenure did not seem to be a problem). In fact, the problems in that district, to the newcomer who did not stay very long, seemed to come more from the top (duh. . . I realize that is obvious to anyone who knows KCMO, but to those who don’t, they might be tempted to blame unions and tenure for KCMO’s history of problems). I always saw teachers working hard. Unions were new to me and I did not know much about them, but I never saw a situation where a tenured person was dragging everyone down. . .and if they were not strong in the typical classroom, they were well-utilized in classes like ISS or other situations.
Reading all of these accounts about NY reminds me of being in a kitchen cooking a large meal for a lot of people, with certain shortages and maybe only 3 eyes working on the stove and lots of dietary restrictions, but you’ve got it going on and you’re in a groove and everyone is going to get to eat a hot meal, and then someone comes in who is going to fix it all for you and they mess it all up. And then they say, well you’ve got an eye out on the stove.
Thanks.
I thought the same thing. A total waste of time and money
This reminds me of a Steinbeck quote: “I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit.”
This just shows how out of touch John King is. He says these numbers should ease teachers concerns because the ratings aren’t bad. This is an insult! Teachers aren’t criticizing this dumb evaluation system based on test scores because they are selfishly concerned about their ratings. Teachers are concerned because the over emphasis on test scores will lead to less wffective teaching, squash creativity, narrow the curriculum, suck the enjoyment out of learning and on and on… Maybe King lives his life simply worrying about himself but most teachers are driven by a desire to help their students grow as people. He just doesn’t get it!
Sam Blumenfeld writes about the Jeb Bush summit in Boston; here is Sam’s quote on charter schools .. quote: “but they seem to know a lot about making money. ….It’s the tax code that makes charter schools so lucrative: Under the federal “New Markets Tax Credit” program that became law toward the end of the Clinton presidency, firms that invest in charters and other projects located in “underserved” areas can collect a generous tax credit — up to 39% — to offset their costs…. It’s not only wealthy Americans making a killing on charter schools. So are foreigners, under a program critics call “green card via red carpet.” According to a 2012 Reuters report, “Wealthy individuals from as far away as China, Nigeria, Russia and Australia are spending tens of millions of dollars to build classrooms, libraries, basketball courts and science labs for American charter schools.” In other words, the Jeb Bush Summits are congenial places where the new educational entrepreneurs, investors, and foundation folk can meet, make deals, and do it all for a good cause: the improvement of American education. One good thing that libertarians like about the movement is that it favors educational freedom. And such freedom is bound to be messy and experimental, especially with the development of Internet technology. The Summit ended with a closing keynote by Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, and former White House chief of staff for President Obama. No need to describe its contents. He is for the Common Core, financed by the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top.” For Jeb Bush, it gave the Summit a glowing patina of nonpartisanship.”
Do the test designers attest that these test measure teacher effectiveness? Do the test designers attest that these tests are free of bias? Do the test designers attest that these tests scores are reliable? Can the test evaluators match credential for credential to teachers being scored from student exams?
In NY they refuse to release the CCSS aligned exams for analysis and scrutiny. In a world where transparency is expected, why so clandestine?
Perhaps they will have to release them to an agency. OCR enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive Federal funds from the Department of Education.
How is that possible? These scores are wildly contrary and contradict the reality we know too well. Even in the most objective and optimal conditions, no one, not even Finland teachers are likely to produce such high scores. I know NYC has some of the nations best and brightest. LA cannot compete, but somehow there is always more than 1% doing poorly or taking more than his share now that I consider the ironic and unlikely number. More than 1% is responsible for the obscene wealth a few enjoy. There is a 10% facillitating that small faction’s unfair advantage.
I admit math is my weakness but is there some new new math I missed because I cannot figure out the equations that make teachers inadequate then beyond reproach in a few short years. Fear of rubber rooms, flaws in the test before or this test now?
With Deasy’s iPadoclypse coming around my ears in yet another price quote and grand total every other day, it seems like math is not the stable, reliable discipline with only one right answer I have struggled to master most of my life thanks to an awful new math ordeal and that ll fated efforted to go metric when I was in primary school. Math is not really in desperate need of new approaches. My experience is is causes more harm than good. Okay. Maybe we could reconsider algebra as an absolute must in the A-G requirements and liberal arts programs, but unless numbers are objective and abide the magnificent beauty of their infinite possibilities yet singular sum I don’t believe they mean anything.
However, teachers in NYC hold that score up and make sure to remind them the data driven district has to live by the numbers.
NYSED just sent out emails informing school districts across the state that they are officially SUSPENDING THE PARCC EXAMS for 2014-2015 and the future of New York state’s commitment to the PARCC exams is very much in doubt. The email cited reasons for the suspension including, cost to districts and technology logistics. Ding-dong the
Thank you New Yorkers! Let’s hope the tide continues to turn for the rest of us. We must continue to find our voice so we can replicate this action in every test. New Yorkers continue to stand with the rest of us to make a difference until education is returned to the child centered days of pre NCLB!
Unfortunately Pearson, CCSS, and APPR are still dominating our children’s education. One down, three to go. Definitely a step in the right direction.
On second thought – probably two down. If PARRC goes away in NY, inBloom will lose three million “customers.
Our efforts are making a difference! This news is so invigorating! Loss for inBloom =win for students!
In NYC, what happens to a first year teachers who get ineffective rating? I understand that the teacher will receive a TIP–Teacher Improvement Plan but the teacher then has only one year to improve or she is fired? Seems drastic to me. What about working with the teachers you have to assure that they are effective. Are principals accountable for hiring teachers that are ineffective? I think not. Any response would be greatly appreciated.