The New York Times has a front-page story today about the widespread opposition to Governor Cuomo’s absurd teacher evaluation plan, which would base 50% of the evaluation on student test scores, 35% on the snap evaluation of an independent observer, and only 15% on the school’s principal. The story focuses on Southold, New York, whose superintendent David Gamberg (as reported this morning in the first post) sent a letter to parents explaining their right to opt out of the state testing. The story also shows that parents are opposed to the increased emphasis on high-stakes testing, which will steal time from instruction and cause many schools to drop the arts and other subjects that matter to students.
Unfortunately, the only research cited in the story (though not by name) is the controversial Raj Chetty study that made the astounding discovery that students with high scores are likelier to go to college and likelier to make slightly more money than those with lower scores. The story does not mention the warning by the American Statistical Association that student test scores should not be used to rate individual teachers, and that doing so might undermine the quality of education. Nor does it mention the joint statement of the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association, offering a similar caution about the inaccuracy, instability, and invalidity of ratings derived from test scores.
Junk science is not good science, even when it is endorsed by such eminences as Arne Duncan, President Obama, Scott Walker (Governor of Wisconsin), Rick Snyder (Governor of Michigan), Rick Scott (Governor of Florida), Jeb Bush (former Governor of Florida), and Andrew Cuomo.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The article also does not mention that the *low* scores on the 2014 NYS assessments are entirely due to the predetermined cut scores that assured only 30% of students would be labeled proficient.
LikeLike
Sharon in NY: what you said.
Standardized tests, especially of the high-stakes variety, are no casual affairs. They can be tailored, to within narrow margins of error, to the customers’ requirements.
A 70% fail rate was known in advance. That’s how “good” the test makers are in meeting the ‘needs of the marketplace.’
Or to put it in plain English:
That’s how adept the leaders and enforcers of the self-proclaimed “new civil rights movement of our time” are in sucker punching us.
Shame on them for being such cowardly edubullies. But shame on us if we let them continue to pummel and beat us without bearing in mind the last words said before a boxing match starts:
“Remember to protect yourself at all times.”
😎
LikeLike
In spite of a wildly unexpected headwind for Cuomo on the education front and a number of angles to secure a real victory for teachers, it seems that our union “leadership” may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:
http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2015/03/report-mulgrew-is-negotiating-with.html?m=1
We may lose after all. Not because of Cuomo. Not because of reformers. But because of some of the worst union leadership and thinking ever encountered in American history. If we win, well, then it was luck.
LikeLike
Good post. I will post it on my Facebook page.
LikeLike
“endorsed by such eminences”
LOL
Tongue in cheek, I presume.
Might I suggest: endorsed by such subservient eminences of ill repute?
LikeLike
Add Ted Cruz to your list of fans/promoters of junk science, educated at Princeton and Harvard, candidate for President, and now head of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, including NASA–a major source of information about global warming.. Hope all science teachers monitor this
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/01/13/nasa_trouble_science_denier_ted_cruz_will_oversee_senate_committee_for_oversight.html
LikeLike
Posted to NY Times: I can’t even believe how biased this story is, and how it’s accepted that schools/teachers are ineffective or failing based on tests that were DESIGNED TO FAIL 70% of our students. Can anyone in their right mind not understand that these tests are flawed, so the results are meaningless? We did not all of a sudden go from the majority of our students reaching proficiency on our NYS standards, to the majority failing, because teachers are bad. Common Core rollout was botched, and Pearson tests include poorly written questions which are too long (for third graders, the expectation is that they should be able to read 300 wpm – can you?), the answer choices even according to the EngageNY teacher guide has equally plausible answers and children are supposed to be able to use abstract reasoning (which does not develop until age 12) to discern the correct answer. Adults have problems with these type of questions. On top of that, cut scores are set AFTER the tests are taken and the cut score rises each year so that public schools continue to look like a failure. I am sick and tired of the media participating in teacher bashing. There are privatization forces at work to destroy the public schools system and the first line of attack is our NYS quality teachers. Wisen up. Oh, and PS SmartAsset just scored NYS schools 4th in the nation. We have the 6th highest rate of college attendance. 71% of our students attend college within 12 months of graduating!
LikeLike
I think ALL New Yorkers, or most anyway, are getting smarter by the minute concerning education in our state!
LikeLike
This letter is part of an online petition against the proposed changes. It draws on information from both of the publications referenced above. Cuomo will be bombarded by email each time someone signs. We have a few days left until April 1st – please sign!!!
https://www.change.org/p/andrew-cuomo-dean-skelos-carl-heastie-do-not-approve-the-proposed-changes-to-teacher-evaluation-2
Dear Governor Cuomo,
Long ago, people believed that the world was flat. It took innovation and critical thinking to determine that it was actually round. For some reason, you insist that teaching and learning are flat. To you, they exist on a one-dimensional piece of paper with test questions and scores. In actuality, teaching and learning are holistic, dynamic, and rotating constantly. Teaching and learning consist of living, breathing, growing human beings with feelings, creative minds, and a need for interaction. You are attempting to depersonalize a process that is deeply interpersonal. Only a dynamic, multidimensional measure can capture the true depth and essence of teaching and learning.
Your proposed changes to teacher evaluation are not founded on research or logic; they are founded on misconceptions, just like the misconception that the world was flat. We see through these misconceptions. We are administrators, veteran teachers, new teachers, teaching candidates, parents, and concerned citizens, and we are strongly opposed to your proposed changes for the following reasons:
Your proposal: Base 50% of teacher evaluations on state assessment scores.
Our concerns:
• According to the American Statistical Association, variation among teachers only accounts for 1-14% of variation in student test scores; more influential factors include student and family background, poverty, curriculum, motivation, and other unmeasured factors.
• Scores can change dramatically depending on the statistical methods used to calculate the Value-Added Model; teachers have jumped from developing to highly effective (and vice versa) one year to the next with little explanation other than the makeup of their student population.
• Teachers with consistently high-performing students who have little room for growth on tests can get, and have gotten, poor ratings even though students’ scores are high.
• According to the American Education Research Association, teachers with high-needs populations (special education students and ELLs) are consistently at a disadvantage despite controls in the Value-Added Model because their students are on different learning trajectories and don’t always show growth at the same rate.
• The Value-Added Model doesn’t account for various tiers of special education in its controls, only self-contained vs. mainstream.
• 80% of teachers do not teach state tested grades or subjects. How can we make their evaluations comparable without adding more state tests?
Your proposal: Eliminate all local assessment measures, currently worth 20%.
Our concerns:
· This eliminates opportunities for dynamic and creative performance assessments that better capture the whole child.
Your proposal: Base 50% of evaluations on observations, with 35% conducted by an outside evaluator.
Our concerns:
· Leaving only 15% of teachers’ evaluations to the local administrators that know teachers best is a dangerous attempt to depersonalize and standardize teaching.
· Paying for outside evaluators will be a burden to district budgets.
Your proposal: Require 5 consecutive effective ratings before consideration for tenure. Fire teachers after two ineffective ratings in an expedited manner. Rate teachers no higher than “developing” overall if found “ineffective” in raising test scores, regardless of observation ratings.
Our concerns:
• This would inextricably link tenure to state test scores.
• Teachers may feel more compelled to teach to the test as a matter of job security. This takes the joy and excitement out of teaching and learning.
• Schools may further narrow curriculum and cut programs that are not tested. Art, music, gym, etc. are extremely important for well-rounded development.
• Teachers may be hesitant to work with student teachers for fear it will take away from the focus on test prep
These proposed changes place teachers and students under attack. We agree that students must show growth and teachers must be held accountable, but this is not the way to accomplish that. We implore you to rethink your plan.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens
LikeLike
I have an idea–why don’t all of the citizens of NY State take a test? Then we can rate the effectiveness of each public official by his or her constituents’ results. The officials can also take s test–how about the PARCC?–and Cuomo can be rated by THEIR results. Fair, no?
LikeLike
Sorry–forgot to include the 70% fail rate–silly me!
LikeLike
I took a look at their interactive map.
The data shows why value-added measures are ridiculous and how anything involving numbers is automatically given credence without anyone understanding how those numbers are calculated or what they mean. Here are three school districts that you can highlight from the map:
Jericho
6% of teachers rated highly effective on exams measure alone
90% rated highly effective using the overall measure
Harborfields
2% of teachers rated highly effective on exams measure alone
93% rated highly effective using the overall measure
Wyandach
16% of teachers rated highly effective on exams measure alone
42% rated highly effective using the overall measure
So – are we to believe that the Wyandach teachers are much better than those other school districts, that Wyandach is more accurate in their overall measures?
In fact Jericho and Harborfields are two of the best school districts on Long Island. U.S. News (surely not the last word in rankings either) ranks Jericho as the best high school on Long Island, Harborfields is 10th.
Here are the percentages of students receiving an Advanced Designation Regents Diploma:
(http://www.city-data.com/forum/long-island/2112626-long-island-high-school-rankings-2014-a.html#post34717188)
Jericho 90%
Harborfields 84%
Wyandach 7%
In fact the Wyandach district is highly challenged with many low income residents. Have they outperformed expectations? I don’t know. The other two school districts have median incomes over $100,000. Are they being overrated on the composite measure of effectiveness? I don’t know. The point is not to bash anyone or to praise anyone. The point is to show that the “teacher effectiveness” ratings derived from the state exams are totally bogus, mathematical calculations divorced from common sense and reality, and the worst possible basis on which to either retain or fire personnel. Everyone needs to recognize this.
LikeLike
Wow – if 50% of teacher evaluation is coming from test scores, no wonder schools may have to drop arts and other important subjects! These as well as a sole observer would provide a very one-sided approach to the evaluation, leaving the principal who sees the teacher every day in the context of the school and area with little say. Such an interesting post – thank you!
LikeLike
haileynt1023: thank you for your comments. But let me get a little picky about terminology…
When I was a child, I [mis?]remember a Lenny Bruce [?] joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto. *I use the terms as I remember them from that time.*
To make it short: the Lone Ranger remarks that he sees Indians to the north of them, to the south, to the east, to the west, and it looks like they’re finished. To which Tonto replies: “What you mean WE, white man?”
So when it comes to CCSS and which schools are dropping “arts and other important subjects” and which aren’t—
This blog, 3-23-2014, “Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!”
[start posting]
This is an unintentionally hilarious story about Common Core in Tennessee. Dr. Candace McQueen has been dean of Lipscomb College’s school of education and also the state’s’s chief cheerleader for Common Core. However, she was named headmistress of private Lipscomb Academy, and guess what? She will not have the school adopt the Common Core! Go figure.
[end posting]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/23/common-core-for-commoners-not-my-school/
And it’s not just Lipscomb Academy. Apparently Lakeside School [Bill Gates and his children] and all the other places the leaders of the self-styled “education reform” movement send their children to aren’t dropping anything. What they deny OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN they provide for THEIR OWN CHILDREN in abundance.
Double talk. Double think. Double standards.
An old dead Greek guy would come in handy right about now:
“Hateful to me as are the gates of hell, Is he who, hiding one thing in his heart, Utters another.” [Homer]
😎
LikeLike
Reblogged this on stopcommoncorenys.
LikeLike
Junk science is exactly the appropriate term to describe this phenomenon as it covers so many aspects of the “initiatives” proposed by the current reform movement. I like the distinction at the end between “wrong science” and “junk science”.
From the website:
http://junkscience.com/what-is-junk-science/
Junk science is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.
The media may use junk science to produce sensational headlines and programming, the purpose of which is to generate increased readership and viewership. More readers and viewers mean more revenues from advertisement. The media may also use junk science to advance personal or organizationsl social and political agendas.
Businesses may use junk science to bad-mouth competitors’ products, make bogus claims about their own products, or to promote political or social change that would increase sales and profits.
Politicians may use junk science to curry favor with special interest groups, to be politically correct or to advance their own personal political beliefs.
CAUTION: Being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science.
The scientific method calls for trial-and-error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. (See Junk Science Judo, pp. 43-44)
Wrong science becomes junk science only when its obvious or easily-determined flaws are ignored and it is then used to advance some special interest.
LikeLike
“[Gamberg objected to the idea that districts like Southold should be subject to the same degree of state control as poor urban districts with more obvious struggles.
” ‘Our graduation rate is above 95 percent,’ Mr. Gamberg said. ‘What works in Buffalo shouldn’t be in Southold, and vice versa.'”
I actually applaud Gamberg’s stepping up and owning this. In the words of the outgoing “progressive” NYS Regent Harry Phillips, “When you factor out the poorest kids, we do great.”
They’ve paid a huge artificial housing premium to insulate themselves from those kids. They’ve jacked up their school budgets and property taxes and created zoning laws designed expressly to keep those kids out. They elect state legislators who continually fight state tax increases and do whatever they can to divert funding away from the big cities. They didn’t go to all this trouble to have their children’s school experience compromised just because the kids living in concentrated poverty and hypersegregation can’t get their act together!
The Times piece omitted a very important detail, which is that Gamberg is not only the superintendent of the tiny (850 students), mostly white Southold district; he’s also the superintendent of the tiny (650 students), mostly minority and economically disadvantaged Greenport district. These districts are fairly compact and adjacent. The situation screams out for consolidation, but one of the districts doesn’t want to play ball. Guess which one.
LikeLike
I’m constantly amazed the NYT is so unwilling to air the perspectives and research of the anti-reform community, given the quality and quantity of the evidence suggesting VAM and APPR are arbitrary fantasies that don’t tell us as much as a zip code.
Why is the Washington Post and Chalkbeat able to nail down the credible facts for the reader to make informed decisions, but not the NY Times?
LikeLike