Faced with the highly unpopular law on teacher evaluations rushed through the Legislature by Governor Cuomo with minimal consideration or debate, seven members of the 17-member New York State Board of Regents issued a vigorous dissent. The law requires that 50% of teacher evaluations be based on test scores, a number that is not supported by research or experience. Unlike the Governor and the Legislature, these seven members of the Regents have demonstrated respect for research and concern for the consequences of this hastily-passed law on teachers, children, principals, schools, and communities. They are courageous, they are wise, and they are visionaries. They have shown the leadership that our society so desperately needs. All New Yorkers are in their debt.
I place these wise leaders on the blog honor roll.
The dissident Regents issued the following statement:
Position Paper Amendments
to Current APPR Proposed Regulations
BY SIGNATORIES BELOW JUNE 2, 2015
We. the undersigned, have been empowered by the Constitution of the State of New York and appointed by the New York State Legislature to serve as the policy makers and guardians of educational goals for the residents of New York State. As Regents, we are obligated to determine the best contemporary approaches to meeting the educational needs of the state’s three million P-12 students as well as all students enrolled in our post secondary schools and the entire community of participants who use and value our cultural institutions. |
We hold ourselves accountable to the public for the trust they have in our ability to represent and educate them about the outcomes of our actions which requires that we engage in ongoing evaluations of our efforts. The results of our efforts must be transparent and invite public comment. We recognize that we must strengthen the accountability systems intended to ensure our students benefit from the most effective teaching practices identified in research. After extensive deliberation that included a review of research and information gained from listening tours, we have determined that the current proposed amendments to the APPR system are based on an incomplete and inadequate understanding of how to address the task of continuously improving our educational system. |
Therefore, we have determined that the following amendments are essential, and thus required, in the proposed emergency regulations to remedy the current malfunctioning APPR system.
What we seek is a well thought out, comprehensive evaluation plan which sets the framework for establishing a sound professional learning community for educators. To that end we offer these carefully considered amendments to the emergency regulations.
I. Delay implementation of district APPR plans based on April 1, 2015 legislative action until September 1, 2016.
A system that has integrity, fidelity and reliability cannot be developed absent time to review research on best practices. We must have in place a process for evaluating the evaluation system. There is insufficient evidence to support using test measures that were never meant to be used to evaluate teacher performance.
We need a large scale study, that collects rigorous evidence for fairness and reliability and the results need to be published annually. The current system should not be simply repeated with a greater emphasis on a single test score. We do not understand and do not support the elimination of the instructional evidence that defines the teaching, learning, achievement process as an element of the observation process.
Revise the submission date. Allow all districts to submit by November 15, 2015 a letter of intent regarding how they will utilize the time to review/revise their current APPR Plan.
B. Base 80% of teacher evaluation on student performance, leaving the following options for local school districts to select from: keeping the current local measures generating new assessments with performance –driven student activities, (performance-assessments, portfolios, scientific experiments, research projects) utilizing options like NYC Measures of Student Learning, and corresponding student growth measures.
C. Base the teacher observation category on NYSUT and UFT’s scoring ranges using their rounding up process rather than the percentage process.
III. Base no more than 10% of the teacher observation score on the work of external/peer evaluators, an option to be decided at the local district level where the decisions as to what training is needed, will also be made.
IV. Develop weighting algorithms that accommodate the developmental stages for English Language Learners (ELL) and special needs (SWD) students. Testing of ELL students who have less than 3 years of English language instruction should be prohibited.
V. Establish a work group that includes respected experts and practitioners who are to be charged with constructing an accountability system that reflects research and identifies the most effective practices. In addition, the committee will be charged with identifying rubrics and a guide for assessing our progress annually against expected outcomes.
Our recommendations should allow flexibility which allows school systems to submit locally developed accountability plans that offer evidence of rigor, validity and a theory of action that defines the system.
VI. Establish a work group to analyze the elements of the Common Core Learning Standards and Assessments to determine levels of validity, reliability, rigor and appropriateness of the developmental aspiration levels embedded in the assessment items.
No one argues against the notion of a rigorous, fair accountability system. We disagree on the implied theory of action that frames its tenet such as firing educators instead of promoting a professional learning community that attracts and retains talented educators committed to ensuring our educational goals include preparing students to be contributing members committed to sustaining and improving the standards that represent a democratic society.
We find it important to note that researchers, who often represent opposing views about the characteristics that define effective teaching, do agree on the dangers of using the VAM student growth model to measure teacher effectiveness. They agree that effectiveness can depend on a number of variables that are not constant from school year to school year. Chetty, a professor at Harvard University, often quoted as the expert in the interpretation of VAM along with co-researchers Friedman & Rockoff, offers the following two cautions: “First, using VAM for high-stakes evaluation could lead to unproductive responses such as teaching to the test or cheating; to date, there is insufficient evidence to assess the importance of this concern. Second, other measures of teacher performance, such as principal evaluations, student ratings, or classroom observations, may ultimately prove to be better predictors of teachers’ long-term impacts on students than VAMs. While we have learned much about VAM through statistical research, further work is needed to understand how VAM estimates should (or should not) be combined with other metrics to identify and retain effective teachers.”i Linda Darling Hammond agrees, in a Phi Delta Kappan March 2012 article and cautions that “none of the assumptions for the use of VAM to measure teacher effectiveness are well supported by evidence.”ii
We recommend that while the system is under review we minimize the disruption to local school districts for the 2015/16 school year and allow for a continuation of approved plans in light of the phasing in of the amended regulations.
Last year, Vicki Phillips, Executive Director for the Gates Foundation, cautioned districts to move slowly in the rollout of an accountability system based on Common Core Systems and advised a two year moratorium before using the system for high stakes outcomes. Her cautions were endorsed by Bill Gates.
We, the undersigned, wish to reach a collaborative solution to the many issues before us, specifically at this moment, the revisions to APPR. However, as we struggle with the limitations of the new law, we also wish to state that we are unwilling to forsake the ethics we value, thus this list of amendments.
Kathleen Cashin
Judith Chin
Catherine Collins
*Josephine Finn
Judith Johnson
Beverly L. Ouderkirk
Betty A. Rosa
Regent Josephine Finn said: *”I support the intent of the position paper”
i Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Jonah Rockoff, “Discussion of the American Statistical Association’s Statement (2014) on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment,” May 2014, retrieved from:
http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.html. The American Statistical Association (ASA) concurs with Chetty et al. (2014): “It is unknown how full implementation of an accountability system incorporating test-based indicators, such as those derived from VAMs, will affect the actions and dispositions of teachers, principals and other educators. Perceptions of transparency, fairness and credibility will be crucial in determining the degree of success of the system as a whole in achieving its goals of improving the quality of teaching. Given the unpredictability of such complex interacting forces, it is difficult to anticipate how the education system as a whole will be affected and how the educator labor market will respond. We know from experience with other quality improvement undertakings that changes in evaluation strategy have unintended consequences. A decision to use VAMs for teacher evaluations might change the way the tests are viewed and lead to changes in the school environment. For example, more classroom time might be spent on test preparation and on specific content from the test at the exclusion of content that may lead to better long-term learning gains or motivation for students. Certain schools may be hard to staff if there is a perception that it is harder for teachers to achieve good VAM scores when working in them. Overreliance on VAM scores may foster a competitive environment, discouraging collaboration and efforts to improve the educational system as a whole. David Morganstein & Ron Wasserstein, “ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment,” Published with license by American Statistical Association, April 8 2014, published online November 7, 2014: http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2330443X.2014.956906. Bachman-Hicks, Kane and Staiger (2014), likewise admit, “we know very little about how the validity of the value-added estimates may change when they are put to high stakes use. All of the available studies have relied primarily on data drawn from periods when there were no stakes attached to the teacher value-added measures.” Andrew Bacher-Hicks, Thomas J. Kane, Douglas O. Staiger, “Validating Teacher Effect Estimates Using Changes in Teacher Assignments in Los Angeles,” NBER Working Paper No. 20657, Issued in November 2014, 24-5: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20657.
ii Linda Darling-Hammond, “Can Value Added Add Value to Teacher Evaluation?” Educational Researcher, March 2015 44, 132-37: http://edr.sagepub.com/content/44/2/132.full.pdf+html?ijkey=jEZWtoEsiWg92&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr.
I wonder if it is significant that these courageous and wise NY Regents are all women.
Looks like they are creating “herstory.”
Finally, we have educators running the Regents.. However, I still am appalled at people referring to Bill Gates as if he is some kind of educational expert because he spends so much money on it. He has been wrong over and over.
IO – Right and right. Gates empire of computers is a shambles. People shun Windows 8 and WindowsPhone (which I enjoy) is a pariah in the mobile phone community.
He poo-pooed solar power repeatedly (while going “all in” on Gen IV nuclear) and is wrong again.
Over a decade ago he said the “future is very noisy” as we’d be inputting data to computers via voice which still is a long way off.
In short, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, but Gates has been consistently wrong. His big scores have been on making money, taking gov’t investment at MIT, claiming it as his own, and pushing out an inferior series of computer OSs, then moving his HQ across state lines to evade taxes, but somehow we’re supposed to believe he’s an expert at anything when he’s been selling snake oil for years.
No thanks, Bill Gates.
You’re spot on, InsideOut.
The proposals of the dissident Regents are far more reasoned and reasonable than the scorched earth policies of the governor. It is clear they want to build a better system and future for all stakeholders.
“Last year, Vicki Phillips, Executive Director for the Gates Foundation, cautioned districts to move slowly in the rollout of an accountability system based on Common Core Systems and advised a two year moratorium before using the system for high stakes outcomes. Her cautions were endorsed by Bill Gates.
yes, of course, the GF is a model of caution when it comes to implementing policy.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
GF only issued their “caution” after the American Statistical Association position paper came out which made it clear that using VAM for evaluating individual teachers is a bad idea for a whole slew of reasons.
The suggested two year moratorium on “high stakes” (not even on VAM itself) gave GF and others “breathing room’ to let the furor over VAM (in places like NY and Florida) to die down.
In other words, it was little more than a delaying tactic.
The research on VAM and other standardized test based accountability systems for teachers is already in. Waiting two years changes nothing. It was a bad idea when GF issued their “caution” and it will still be a bad idea 2 years later (a year from now).
“Last year, Vicki Phillips, Executive Director for the Gates Foundation, cautioned districts to move slowly in the rollout of
an accountability system based on Common Core Systems…”their gigundo steam roller.Fixed.
Agreed.
The Chetty quote: “First, using VAM for high-stakes evaluation could lead to unproductive responses such as teaching to the test or cheating; to date, there is insufficient evidence to assess the importance of this concern. Second, other measures of teacher performance, such as principal evaluations, student ratings, or classroom observations, may ultimately prove to be better predictors of teachers’ long-term impacts on students than VAMs. While we have learned much about VAM through statistical research, further work is needed to understand how VAM estimates should (or should not) be combined with other metrics to identify and retain effective teachers.”
An embarrassing concession to self-serving lies.
“First”: only those consciously pandering to their own best interests at the expense of many many others can use such mealy mouthed phrases as “unproductive responses” to describe “teaching to the test” and “cheating.” Look up Campbell’s Law (or as Chetty describes it in the Vergara trial, “Campbell’s Conjecture”). And Campbell’s Law has been amply demonstrated, and proven to exist, in practice.
“Second”: word salad and cognitive dissonance that reeks of a studiously self-serving agenda that conveniently ignores reality in favor of the mirages of mathematical intimidation and obfuscation aka VAM. And it ignores what the American Statistical Association, among others, has stated.
The third and last sentence. If the actual data and the actual experiences of those being experimented upon by the “thought leaders” of self-styled “education reform” like Dr. Raj Chetty count for anything, then VAM estimates of any type should be eliminated. Deleted. Disappeared.
Back to genuine learning. Back to genuine teaching.
And to use the cruel business lingo to Chetty and his technobully peers: time to get working on the positive inputs to public schools like smaller class sizes and hiring and retaining all the certificated and non-certificated staff necessary, and an end to the massive waste and fraud associated with phony teacher outfits like TFA and the like.
Lakeside School for everyone. No excuses. Whatever it takes.
😎
KrazyTA
I happen to believe (as you do) that Chetty knows full well the game that is being played — because he is one of the ones playing it:
In one breath, pretend to adhere strictly to what can be validly concluded from statistics (that VAM is unstable, and has very poor correlation with [not causation of] student test scores — at best –, that it may say nothing at all about other student outcomes) and in another breath provide testimony about the “wonders of VAM” (my words, of course) in a prominent court case that claims tenure violates students’ civil rights.
There are a lot of folks who have no idea about VAM. As you indicated in another post, they just parrot what they have been told (by people like Chetty and Hanushek). If ignorance is bliss, these folks are in Shangri La — though ignorance is no excuse.
But unfortunately, Chetty is not among the latter crowd. He certainly understands the serious “concerns” that ASA and others have brought up (repeatedly) about the use of VAM for evaluating individual teachers.
People like Chetty need to be called out by their colleagues — eg those in the statistics departments at Harvard and elsewhere. The fact that so many remain silent makes them complicit in the use of junk statistics against teachers which in some cases can lead to the loss of their very livelihood.
SomeDAM Poet: in my first major job out of HS, I worked with a lot of WWII vets.
They were a pretty varied and opinionated bunch but let me tell you two things about them, to a man:
1), “I was just following orders.”
That was a complete and utter non-starter with them
2), “Silence is consent.”
To be silent in the face of abuse and glaring injustice, and by one’s lack of action and words to oppose such so as to give the impression that one agreed with it, was a complete and utter non-starter with them.
I was young. Just out of HS. I learned me a thing or two from them.
Sheepskins lining one’s walls attesting to narrow expertise don’t substitute for decency and honor.
Or as they would say to me, often disagreeing with my opposition to US government policy in Vietnam: “I saw friends die so that you had the right to disagree with me or your government.” And they were proud that they had secured me that right.
I have never forgotten that.
And I always said, very simply, “Thank you.”
😎
“No one argues against the notion of a rigorous, fair accountability system.”
I do. First, the word “rigorous” means “severe or harsh”. That’s not something I want inflicted on kids or teachers. In fact, I’m not sure “fair” and “rigorous” can really belong in the same sentence. It’s sort of like saying “a gentle beating”.
But more fundamentally, there is the implication that public education, as it was before “reform” was not “accountable”, which is simply false. Public schools have always been open to the public. Anyone can go and see the books, speak to the principal and/or the teachers, tour the building, observe classes, attend concerts/plays/science fairs/open houses/etc., attend a school board meeting, etc. The people who have not, historically, been accountable and need to be are the politicians and administrators (including, in this case, the Regents) who control the funding, resources and support. Let’s set up a “rigorous” accountability system for them.
I agree. The concept of accountabilty has been corrupted to mean outcomes only, no excuses, with stack ratings still in place and these further truncated to HEDI classifications…highly effective, effective, developing, ineffective.
There is no justification for using scores on standardized tests as if these are a valid, reliable, and an objective proxy for student achievement. This malpractice is made worse when those test scores are repurposed multiple times to rate teachers, principals, schools, and districts. The psychometric literature is clear on this…only use tests for the purpose they were designed for.
The treatment of Vicki Phillips and Bill Gates as authorities on education is as insulting as thinking economists have any special wisdom about the real work of teachers.
Recall that Bill Gates invested at least $38 million in the infamous “Measures of Effective Teaching” project planned by Harvard and Dartmouth economists Kane et al who thought they could offer proof of the efficacy of VAM, the equally invalid Charlotte Danielson observation protocol, then tossed in a student survey designed by an economist, with questions biased to reward teachers who engaged in particular methods of instruction.
So, there is less here than meets the minds of well-informed teachers who are struggling to focus on students, one at a time, and without much evidence of support or accountabilty for the other side of the lever of accountability…including policies designed to demean the work they do in addition to budget cuts.
Dienne, do you have a blog?
Where are Regents Young and Tilles? Both apparently “talk the talk,” but don’t “walk the walk”? People should write to them.
dorothy in Brooklyn: You hit the nail on the head–or two heads.
Dear Diane,
Regent Tilles was FULL on board with Tisch years ago, saying how teachers were failing, how he could captivate EACH audience with a 40 minute session as guest lecturer/teacher in any school in NYS.
Then he claimed an about face, but let’s hear his excuse for not standing up for teachers today.
Talk talk talk… and screw the public.
This may be the fallout of having family money like Tisch (NYU) or Tilles (LIU Post) and not having to hold a full-time job.
The most frustrating part is when you realize that none of this was devised for the purpose of improving anything. The only goal of Cuomo is to fire teachers and replace regular public schools with charters. These Regents have good intentions, however, the premise that anyone in the legislature and particularly Cuomo are interested in a valid system that encourages improvement in public schools is faulty. They simply do not care at all.
This is all very nice, but were these proposals on the minds of the Regents when they unanimously voted to hire MaryEllen Elia as NY State Education Commissioner with no public input? Did they ask her what she thought of them and receive a satisfactory response? If she did respond satisfactorily, did they then ask her to explain her sudden change of heart, since these proposals fly in the face of her years spent carrying water for the so-called reformers?
Absent a real challenge to Regent Tisch, who is the ideological overseer and explicit Overclass representative on the Regents, I take this to be an effort by these folks to cover their asses and have something to point to when ever-more parents opt-out from the tests next year and challenge the inappropriateness and lack of validity of the tests.
I agree, Michael. The whole APPR principal letter, signed by more than 1000 principals, was triggered just a few years ago by the governor’s proposal of 20% based on test scores. The 20% only looks minimal in the face of the 50%–who knows, possibly the intent was never to get to 50%, but to make the 20% look palatable by proposing 50.
It should be 0%. The end.
This.
Thanks, kk.
Michael, it’s most likely Tisch had the votes to hire Elia either way, so the unanimous vote was to give Elia the benefit of the doubt. It might remind you of Obama getting the Nobel prize as a way of the world community begging him not to expand US wars.
You very well might be right, though we all know how that turned out in Obama’s case, with the US going all-in as the Empire of Chaos.
Can these regents be shipped to Indiana?
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
This is not courageous but simply the status quo. As long as there is even 1% of a teacher’s evaluation based on these invalid measure, they remain high stakes and therefore unacceptable. Parents will not see this as a step forward or a step of thoughtful dissidence but a long overdue step that should have been taken ages ago when these policies were first introduced! This is a way to add sugar to a plate of rotten meat and trying to make it more palatable. Where is the spine in our education leaders? This is rotten and parents will opt out in huge numbers next year. No fooling us!
First there was a lone voice of reason on the Regents in Rosa, then came Cashin – check their voting records and you’ll see that they’ve been trying very hard to change the direction of Tisch and many of the other Regents that Tisch controls – the voices of Rosa and Cashin were to a degree why many of the NEW Regents were appointed by the legislators. Despite the fact that this “dissident” group may still not have a majority on the Board of Regents, they are getting very close to putting enough pressure on the other Regents to sway a majority. These are some of the factors that most people simply don’t know but things are getting very uncomfortable for Tisch and some of the other Regents that tend to simply going along with Tisch. Direct your anger and frustration on those Regents who did not sign the document – not those who did. Don’t spend too much time fretting about the new Commissioner, it’s the Regents that will direct the Commissioner not visa versa. They will probably go after the tests next but they need a majority of the Regents to change the overall direction. There are Regents that are very loyal to Tisch – question them before casting aspersions on those who are giving her a taste of her own medicine.
Thank you for remembering.
Let’s put some lipstick on this pig and make it fly….
(ugh)
Don’t quit fighting
Please! a tempest in a teapot, and their dissent about the new Gates Commissioner of education.
Clarity
It is clear that you have been following the changes on the Board of Regents.
Thanks
Thank you Regent Rosa for doing the right thing for many years with or without the support of your fellow regents. And thank you for being the one regent that takes the time to respond to my emails and letters. Hats off to you!
What they should do is just like the regents passing mark. If a child get $%65 or even %70 and higher the student learned but didnt master. But hey do we all master in every topic.
Which also means the teacher reached this child and help them achieve.
Not everyone is a master student in every subject.
Also release all of the tests back to teacher and parent and for next years students to study from. No secrets. Like the current regents test.
or a system like this one. Isnt this the real way businesses succeed?