Newsday on Long Island ran an article about the exorbitant cost of new teacher evaluation programs mandated by the state to comply with its Race to theTop grant.
The editorial board of the newspaper opined in favor of the unproven, heavy-handed plans to judge teachers and principals by student scores.
The superintendent of the Southold, Long Island, schools wrote a wise response to the editorial:
What is the true cost of the new teacher and principal evaluation systems?
“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
-Albert Einstein
When we look at the cost of principal and teacher evaluation (Newsday Editorial, Teacher evaluations usually not ‘unfunded’ 11/27/12) there is a temptation to look at the numbers and come to the conclusion that the benefits of a new system are worth it, except for the complaints coming from educators. Beyond the dollars and cents lurks a far greater cost for something that is bereft with many untested variables. The public at-large rightfully demands a sound return for their investment in taxpayer dollars—whether local property taxes, or precious resources at the state level. Dig just beneath the surface of the new evaluation system and discover the true hidden costs.
Both large and small school districts face the same dilemma regarding the effective design of their respective educational systems. This is true whether we look at establishing a vigorous curriculum, defining the proper role and use of educational technology, determining how we should preserve school infrastructure, as well as what are effective means to monitor and evaluate all facets of the educational enterprise? Examine any public or private initiative or undertaking and you will find both effective and efficient ways to measure what works; you will also find cumbersome, over-intrusive, and costly designs for such systems of measurement.
The presumption that what works in one sector applies equally to others using the same or similar metrics which renders a determination of where quality lives may in fact be shortsighted at the very least, and detrimental to an organization’s mission at worst. The educational establishment is not, and should not be, exempt from scrutiny, or effective means to evaluate results. The current system, well underway, is not such an effective or efficient means to conduct such an evaluation.
The personal and professional opinions of citizens, policymakers, legislators, and practitioners run the gamut when it comes to a prescription for what ails the educational system. Look in one school and you find a drop out rate that should alarm everyone for what it portends in the way of the true cost to society in the years ahead (reliance on social service support, possible incarceration, let alone the human travesty of lives that go unfulfilled). Look elsewhere and you may see aspiring artists, musicians, and the like being nurtured in their respective school community. The aspiration for career and college readiness is not, and will not be, enhanced with an agenda that over tests and under engages students. Measuring the outcomes under a single banner that accounts for all variables would be difficult at best.
The true cost comes not in what we gain from this new system but what we lose with its narrow focus of effectiveness despite an expansive investment of time and energy to render judgments on what that effectiveness may look like. This time is equatable to dollars, but worse, it drains resources from the true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy, our entrepreneurial spirit, and a commitment to preserve our past and find our future. This prescription for measurement would leave the most ambitious and innovative private company ill equipped to compete with a more nimble and creative enterprise that does not find itself in a misguided mode of compliance.
Rather than champion the broad brush approach that is presently being administered throughout every schoolhouse in the state, the editors of Newsday would be well served to critically examine the net effects of this rush to judgment by looking at examples the world over that produce excellent results in school. Countries like Finland and Canada do not use a similar means of evaluation to arrive at an unequivocal definition of success. In fact in some cases you need look no further than right here on Long Island.
David Gamberg
Superintendent
Southold School District
Diane Ravitch's blog 
great comment from Mr. Gamberg. its about time that school administrators start standing up against this nonsensical approach to teacher evaluation.
for what its worth, i don’t think there is any evidence that this approach has “worked” in the business sector. seems to me that the part of the business world that is working well right now is the part that generates bonuses for CEOs, not the parts that create jobs, or strengthen the middle class–which have been, historically, the engines that drive our economy. why we are mindlessly adopting business practices in public education, with no viable evidence that they have worked in the disciplines they were designed for, is one of the great mysteries of the “ed reform” movement.
we also tend to be fascinated with numbers, whether or not they actually hold any meaning. and when we ask the question, “What is the true cost of the new teacher and principal evaluation systems?”, the most important and tragic answer is in the human damage these “systems” are wreaking on our colleagues in the schools. the teaching force is under attack, and the results have been nothing less than a public health crisis: huge numbers of teachers suffering from anxiety attacks, depression, and other related health problems, being driven from the only profession they ever considered entering by blatant, shameless power grabs designed to turn our schools into nothing more than profit centers for testing companies and charter operators.
i hope that more principals, superintendents and school board members follow Mr. Gamberg’s lead and stand up for our schools and our teachers before its too late.
LikeLike
The other thing I find interesting is that current business literature reflects a move away from just using metrics toward a more holistic model of evaluation by top companies, and there is plenty of research on human motivation that supports this. So what’s being foisted on schools is an obsolete model that has been shown to have detriments in the business world.
LikeLike
business literature reflects a move away from just using metrics … foisted on schools is an obsolete model that has been shown to have detriments in the business world.
Good point. And to compound the insult: we’ve not (or are not able) to assess the opportunity costs of Race to the Top.
So where does Deming, Baldrige, and balanced scorecard figure into US Ed’s plans for American public education? Doesn’t anyone Secretary Duncan listens to have an MBA from he last quarter century? This stuff isn’t exactly new!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
LikeLike
Those of us that live on Long Island have been suffering under the constant barrage of the yellow journalistic practices of Newsday.
LikeLike
true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy
Specifically, how has progress on this goal been impacted? What work was put aside to pursue principal and teacher evaluation? Or is this a hypothetical argument about misplaced priorities at the NYS Department of Education?
LikeLike
So, from all of the information we have read on teacher evaluations based on student test scores, we all know that we could make any teacher look incompetent by controlling the student population on which their evaluations were based.
Now , on top of that, how does some kid feel who knows his/her test scores are not going to wow anyone deal with feeling that his/her stupidity had something to do with a teacher he/she likes losing their job? I used “stupidity” purposely because I have taught students as a special education teacher who are convinced they are stupid (their word). How do we convince a student that their worth is not determined by a high stakes test when we use it for such high stakes purposes? They must be dumb if their teacher loses their job because they know their teacher was helping them.
LikeLike
There is nothing new said here. Same old politician way of describing the situation with some suggestions on moving forward. It is a step in the right direction that will separate those great teachers from the ones who are just along for ride.
LikeLike
Problem is, Paul…I don’t see any ‘along for ride’. In fact, I myself surely wouldn’t be getting on this ride if it were my first day. Even without these “effective” and “research-based” and expensive evaluation systems, PK-12 classroom teaching already had a 50% attrition rate. People simply came to their senses regarding an ineptitude or recognized their personal preference for hanging onto some semblance of human dignity, so they walked away from the classroom. That number certainly isn’t going to improve given the current climate and consideration given to our profession. I’m sure it will be much higher the next time it is measured.
How the hell could it not?
LikeLike
This voyage is beginning in Connecticut. Every hour that teachers and administrators focus on the new Teacher Evaluation system, and every dollar they spend on training, materials and systems to keep it working means less for students. Now throw in NEW standards, and new books to match the standards, and more training for teachers, and then a new online test in a year, and the corresponding technology requirements again mean less for students. Lastly, add the fact that in 2014 teachers will set goals and compare them to an entirely different test/standards in 2015. The chance for success is very slim. Again, who loses? That would be every single child in the state of Connecticut who senses the anxiety, stress, confusion, pressure to do well on a test, pressure to deny their developmentally appropriate needs to be children all to feed into a poorly designed and completely non-child centered plan. Who wins? Book publishers, technology companies, professional development trainers, administrators, policy makers….but not children.
LikeLike