The Lederman challenge to Néw York’s teacher evaluation system will be heard tomorrow morning at 10 am in the court of Judge McDonough at 16 Eagle Street in Albany. If you are within shouting distance, show up to give Sheri moral support. But mind your manners and respect the decorum of the courtroom.

Categories New York, Teacher Evaluations

26 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Melinda says:

August 11, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Did NYC teachers ever settle their contract? Buffalo teachers are going on a dozen years…

LikeLike

Reply
- John says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 10:59 am
  
  Twelve years with no salary increase?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- Jack says:
  
  August 15, 2015 at 9:08 pm
  
  Regarding the testing and opt-out issues, these two videos are mandatory viewing:
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvKVkitKOgk
  
  and
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=545&v=P_Eiz406VAs
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Bilgewater says:

August 11, 2015 at 10:47 pm

I hope she and her attorneys beat the chocolate pudding out of the reformistas who pushed and still support the unfair VAM model.

LikeLike

Reply
M says:

August 11, 2015 at 11:45 pm

just because it is complicated doesn’t mean it is a fair representation of reality.

LikeLike

Reply
- TC says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 12:41 am
  
  Yes, at minimum, outside of math and language teachers, it is a total farce.
  If even that much is not acknowledged, it is an insult to the sanctity of science and critical thought.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
daet2012 says:

August 12, 2015 at 12:03 am

I just read The Mirage, a recently released study by TNTP. For those interested in new teacher advice and the development of early career teachers, this a must read. Mirage essentially makes the case that current efforts to improve teacher quality through professional development are not having the desired results. I am not particularly surprised by the report. This post is my initial reaction to and thoughts about the report. I plan to engage in deeper exploration and research into the issues it raises and the topics to which it directs our attention.

The study is based upon one huge assumption. The assumption is that the current system of teacher evaluation is efficacious, at least in the schools studied. To determine the effectiveness of professional development Mirage relies most heavily on changes in performance reflected in the summative evaluation ratings of teachers. This assumption does not fit with my own experiences, observations, and involvement in and knowledge of teacher evaluation processes. I served on the advisory panel for the Widget Effect another TNTP study that documented the sorry state of teacher evaluation. Apparently, TNTP is convinced that as a result of that study, school administrators have dramatically improved their practices and now are accurately discerning levels of performance. Having fixed the evaluation problem, TNTP now is moving on to professional development matters. I would need see evidence to support that concept before accepting the premise. I know efforts have been made, but I am not at all convinced that they have been all that successful at this point. Futhermore, I suspect that implemenation of evidence-based evaluation systems and training connected to them very well may have been more faithfully implemented in the charter setting than in the other schools. If so, the impact of professional development may be less responsible for documented improvements in performance than is more accurate and consistent evaluation processes.

Attempts to improve teacher evaluation systems rely upon the use of evidence-based processes such as the Danielson Framework. I can tell you, however, that in the scores of school districts with which I have had experience since the Widget Effect was published in 2009, I have seen little real improvement in teacher evaluation processes. Illinois enacted a Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) in 2010. PERA is structured to address the issues and concerns identified in the Widget Effect. Every evaluator has been trained in evidence-based evaluation processes through crash online training modules provided by Growth Through Learning.

My sense is that there has been some marginal improvement in teacher evaluation overall, and the number of ratings less than excellent certainly have increased. If this raising of expectations resulting in lower ratings occurred in the study schools, it certainly would skew the results as measured by ratings. I see frequent examples of misapplication of the Danielson Framework in my field work. Issues such interrater reliability while given lip service are not being addressed by districts. There is real lack of consistency in the emplementation of PERA. An attempt to measure the efffectiveness of professional developemnt success as defined by improvement in evaluations over time, it would not be helpful in the districts and schools I observe regularly.

TNTP seems to be making the claim that the districts/schools they studied are somewhat representative of all others and that their findings have application for schools in general. I maintain that for school districts in West Central Illinois evaluation processes would not be a reliable element with which to conclude professional development is or is not working.

Earlier, I indicated a lack of surprise by the finding in Mirage. My acceptance of the notion that professional development is not very effective in its current state, is not based as much upon this study as it is upon several decades of experience with professional development efforts in a number of settings. As a classroom teacher on the receiving end of training planned for me by those who assumed to know what I needed and who made all kinds of assumptions about what I might or might not be doing in the classroom, I was often less than receptive to the offerings. Presentations and activities frequently were framed so poorly that before I could engage the activities I had to overcome what felt like insults to my practice and intellignece. So, while my initial reaction to the study is one of skepticism about the methodology and underlying assumptions, I tend to agree with its conclusions. Further as I look at its recommendations, those too seem to be on target. It seems to me only common sense that teacher attitudes about their practice is extremely important and their involvement in deciding which experiences they should focus upon should be a given. In education, common sense is often not so common.

Part of the PERA reform in Illinois requires that teachers receiving a rating of needs improvement must have a Professional Development Plan put into place within 30 days of the assignment of the rating. The vast majority of PDPs I have seen, are prepared by the evaluator with little if any involment of the teacher even though that is not the letter or intent of the law. These plans are not focused dialogues and action plans about the teacher’s practice as intended. From the standpoint of the teacher, the evaluator has made a judgment about her performance with which she is likely not in aagreement and is imposing a set of activites that must be done in order to satisfy the evaluator not necessarily to improve practice. The dynamic is not one that supports professional initiative and growth. The study notes that teachers tend to rate themselves better than their evaluator ratings. The assumption is that the evaluator ratings are objective and the teacher assessments of their practice are subjective and laden with blindspots. I could show many cases in which the reverse is true. Regardless, until teachers are convinced that the evaluator ratings are meaningful and useful, professional development activities related to them are not likely to have the buy-in of teachers. This precisely why in my view the current level of expenditures of professional development are not yielding the desired outcomes.

I would suggest the TNTP do additional research with regard the current status of teacher evaluation. If I am wrong and the sad state of affairs described in the Widget Effect have been addressed and teachers across the land are now being accurately and fairly evaluated, the Mirage findings are likely to be valid. If, however, the issue of teacher evaluation persists, it calls into question the findings and conclusions of the Mirage. It would tell us the focus ought to still be upon improving the evaluation process.

I can find ample evidence that changes are underway in teacher evaluation. The Center for Public Education has a nice outline of these in Trends in Teacher Evaluation: At a Glance. What I do not find and doubt yet exists is evidence that these changes are having the desired outcomes. It is a little like assuming children have learned because with taught them. Or, that teacher practice is improving because resources have gone into providing professional development experiences for them. The inputs do not guarantee the desired outcomes. That seems to be the basis behind the whole assessment and accountability movent. We have to find wasy to measure growth and not rely upon our efforts going in as evidence of improvement seems, right? Let’s apply the same logic to attempts to improve teacher evaluation. How do we know it is getting better?

I would encourage others who work in the field as teachers, admininstrators, union staff… to share your thoughts about teacher evaluation and the doubts I have expressed here about the Mirage. Does your experience support the notion that since 2009, teacher evaluation has become effective and that ratings of teachers are now reliable measures of their actual performance?

LikeLike

Reply
Jack says:

August 12, 2015 at 12:30 am

Here’s a preview of some of tomorrow’s proceedings:

LEADERMAN ATTORNEY:
“Your Honor, I would next like to introduce the following two videos as “EXHIBIT’s K and L.”

(rolls out a cart with large flatscreen TV and DVD player combo)

“In pursuit of requisite high VAM scores, my client has been forced by her principal to sit through teacher training like this:

(presses play on the remote)

EXHIBIT A:

” … so that she can then teach her students like this:

EXHIBIT B:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnxRVPiMSg

“We also would like to introduce an amicus brief from Amnesty International, in which the practices on display in these videos were outlawed as torture according to the Geneva Convention of 1921.”

(passes documentation to the bailiff)

————————

…. anyone else feel free to add to this parody…

LikeLike

Reply
- eleanor says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 8:50 am
  
  The hands behind the back is really creepy … I remember when my cousin first came back from boot camp, he stood with downcast eyes and his hands behind his back. We suggested he relax. His reply? “I am relaxed.” McDonald’s class is too militaristic for my comfort.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - retired teacher says:
    
    August 12, 2015 at 9:02 am
    
    A friend of mine got a Fulbright to work in a small rural Chinese school. Her husband and young son came with her. Her son attended the local school where he had to sit like this all day or get his knuckles smashed by the local torturer or “teacher.”
    
    LikeLike
- Jack says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 12:19 pm
  
  *** Ms. McDonald vs. Ms. Ferguson — You Make the Call! ***
  
  What’s really scary is that Ms. McDonald and her school Nashville Prep Charter School proudly posts this garbage on-line for all the world to see.
  
  What responsible parent would want their kid subjected to this kind of ridiculous abuse and educational malpractice?
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDnxRVPiMSg
  To contrast this with another approach, watch this below.
  
  Last week, COMEDY CENTRAL’s comedy duo Key & Peele did a spoof where a TV program covers teachers and teaching the way ESPN’s “SportsCenter” covers football. —
  
  “TeachingCenter”.
  (Go to: 2:00)
  
  Halfway through (2:00) they do a parody of a football replay & blow-by-blow analysis of a teacher conducting the same kind of class as Ms. McDonald’s—a social studies/history class where historical facts are being reviewed.
  
  This part is called “The Highlight of the Day” and features “star history teacher Ashley Ferguson.”
  
  It shows how, contrary to Ms. McDonald, Ms. Ferguson doesn’t treat each student as an identical, interchangeable non-entity, requiring everyone to regurgitate facts back to her, and do so, whole group, in silly, robot-like chanting.
  
  In lieu of this abomination, Ms. Ferguson asks a history question, waits, patiently looks around the room, then takes into account that there is an “introverted” student named “Max” in the middle of the room, who feels isolated, or who has isolated himself from the class.
  
  (This is a humorous comparison to a quarterback looking around to see which receiver to throw the ball to… for those not acquainted with football)
  
  “ANALYST 2: “She looks left, looks right… looks past the students with their hands up.. ”
  
  When Ms. Ferguson calls on Max, the two excited analysts explode:
  
  ANALYST 1: “Oh come on! See what she did there?! She’s bringin’ an introvert into the discussion, y’all? That’s a ‘Teach of the Year’ play! Right there!”
  
  ANALYST 2: “That’s right. You know the confidence gained by Max by answering that question correctly will enhance his performance for the rest of the year.”
  
  ANALYST 1: “No doubt! … Coming up… ”
  
  (Go 2:00 … though the whole thing is hilarious)
  
  (Funny stuff… though less discerning viewers might
  think the piece endorses using test scores as a valid measure of teaching. It doesn’t.).
  
  Which teacher would you want for your children — Ms. McDonald, or Ms. Ferguson?
  
  This entire parody offers up a Bizarro World where everything is backwards. For example, you have to listen closely during the “Teacher Draft” sequence. They describe the family background of the Number One Draft Choice teacher, who, as a result, will soon sign a multi-million-dollar contract.
  
  (1:24)
  “His father, livin’ paycheck to paycheck, as a humble Pro-Football player… “
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- Ponderosa says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 8:18 pm
  
  This is not my teaching style and not quite to my taste, but let’s be fair:
  
  1. There is a lot of singing and chanting, which is a lot of kids like.
  
  2. There is a lot of praise and success going on.
  
  3. These fifth graders have learned important civics and geography that many of my seventh graders do not know (and many adults do not know).
  
  4. They’ve obviously repeated these chants many times. Repetition is good practice, in my book. As much as we are conditioned to reflexively pillory drill, it is and always will be an indispensable part of learning things by heart. And as much as we think Google has made learning facts obsolete, the truth is that learning facts will never be obsolete –unless we think ignorance is a fitting condition for humans.
  
  This is not my dream classroom, but let’s give credit where credit is due: it does have some virtues.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - Pauline P. says:
    
    August 12, 2015 at 10:55 pm
    
    No, it doesn’t.
    
    LikeLike
deb says:

August 12, 2015 at 6:11 am

Jack,
Thanks for the laugh. This needs to be picked up by a comedy show.

LikeLike

Reply
NYSTEACHER says:

August 12, 2015 at 8:25 am

I am confused/under-informed:

As this case has to do with the “old” APPR, what impact can it have going forward with the “new” APPR, one way or another?

What are the potential outcomes and (real) impacts on the future of APPR in NYS?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Best wishes to Sheri and her husband!

LikeLike

Reply
- M says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 8:47 am
  
  New rules mainly change the percentages and the observation system and eliminate SLOs.
  
  If her rating is thrown on substantive reasons because of the growth formula which is the same, it could set the precedent for every negatively growth rated teacher to have their score disregarded which would effectively torpedo the new law.
  
  I don’t know if the judge just has the leeway to agree with Sheri or not (invalidate her score or not) or to order the state to fix the law prescriptively by needing human review or fixing teachers who teach students at the top of the VAM heap (though that would seem almost legislative so I am guessing he can mainly agree whether the law was broken or not)
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

August 12, 2015 at 8:27 am

OMG

LikeLike

Reply
Rhonda says:

August 12, 2015 at 9:53 am

God bless the Ledermans for exposing the unfairness which impacts the sanity and livelihood of teachers.
Frank Serpico would be proud for bringing this outside the agency.

LikeLike

Reply
Susan says:

August 12, 2015 at 10:34 am

What the Ledermans are asking from the court are:
1. To declare her growth score null and void because it’s arbitrary and capricious
2. To show that the VAM model violates the Education Law in at least three ways. It does not allow a teacher to know in advance what it is she/he is expected to do because it is not transparent. Essentially it is not a growth model because it is not able to show vertical growth from year to year. Also it’s not possible for each teacher to get all the points. It’s set up so that you are not rated based on your absolute results but instead based on how you compare to others’ results. Therefore all teachers can’t get all the points. And they are also going to point out that with top performing and bottom performing students the model totally breaks down.
3. They will address that teachers due process rights are violated because there is no human review.
I have actually read through many of the affidavits, and I can tell you we all need to keep a copy of the Education Law on our desks because we’ve been taken for fools.

LikeLike

Reply
- Robert Rendo, Nationally Board Certified Teacher says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 1:47 pm
  
  One of the cruelest ironies is that teachers across the nation are a primary “imparter” and dispenser of English language arts. That means we teach and preach and shape and cultivate our students to be readers, comprehenders, and critical thinkers. We push a love for reading and the mechanics of how to do it like there is no tomorrow.
  
  But teachers themselves don’t quite behave the same way because they don’t read up on politics, they don’t read up on voting records, and they don’t voice themselves outside the schools as private citizens. Inside the schools, it is harder to do so, understandably, because the system and vested interests are far more complex. Being a team player has its place, by many means.
  
  But at the very least, that teachers as private citizens are such passive, uninformed sheep – most of them – has indeed become the eighth wonder of the world.
  
  What do most teachers – and most Americans for that matter – need to be told with good intentions?
  
  Grow up!
  
  Start reading.
  
  The information you need to read is neither classified nor hard to access.
  
  Grow up . . . . .
  
  Knowledge is power.
  
  Why get angry when you can just get even?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Akademos says:

August 12, 2015 at 11:38 am

Pre-trial coverage:

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s3876990.shtml

Suggestion for the defense:
Half of team shout, “Loud noises!”, while the other half mouths ‘watermelon’.

LikeLike

Reply
- Akademos says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm
  
  Trial coverage so far.
  
  http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/08/8574104/evaluation-system-irrational-teacher-argues-court
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Akademos says:

August 12, 2015 at 5:40 pm

More court coverage.

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239754/testing-opponent-says-system-flawed-judge-asks-if-arbitrary-capricious/

LikeLike

Reply
- Jack says:
  
  August 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm
  
  I just read the TIME-UNION piece, and some thoughts came to mind…
  
  First, there’s the “ceiling effect” when judging someone based on a growth model of data. This is a handicap where, in raising your “growth” data, you have nowhere or almost nowhere higher to go, or there a circumstances present that make it very difficult to go higher.
  
  Here’s how “ceiling effect” works. I’m not sure, but Ms. Leaderman may be sort of in the position of former Lakers’ coach Phil Jackson, whose past teams have won 70 or more games in multiple seasons, which is rare in NBA history.
  
  The argument goes like this: If the team that Jackson coaches wins, for example, 74 games one year, then only 71 games the following year—again, both phenomenal achievements—he would then get an “ineffective’ rating on his team’s “growth.” Since the system is a bell curve, it could mandate that 7% of all coaches MUST be given an “ineffective” rating… no matter what. He might be in that group.
  
  Conversely, a coach who went from, say, 11 wins one year, and then “grew” to 14 wins the next year would be awarded an “effective” growth score… even though he would be benefiting from the opposite phenomenon— the “floor effect”… the opposite of the”ceiling effect” hampering Jackson. Thanks to the “floor effect,” this coach had nowhere to go but up, and that fact made it a lot easier to do so than in Jackson’s case.
  
  The variable in both of those cases is, of course, the players… the analogy in education being the students. The quality of the students a teacher receives–and more importantly, the quality of the parents… are they involved, college-educated, etc.? … is a big piece of this puzzle.
  
  Let’s look at other variables in other jobs.
  
  There are some jobs where the person performing it has total control over the outcomes.
  
  For example, a mailman is given a square half-mile or so that he has deliver mail to every day. While there may be variables inhibiting his job performance—weather, dogs blocking access to the mailboxes, whatever—for the most part, that mail carrier is in control of 100% of his job. If he fails to deliver mail to the entirety of his territory every day, there’s no one to blame but him.
  
  Another example could be a gourmet cookie maker, who has the job of making sure that exactly 20 jumbo chocolate chips are in each of the jumbo chocolate chip cookies he or she makes by hand (this is making me hungry 😉 ). In this case, the worker is again in 100% control over producing the quality demanded of him—20 chips-per-cookie.
  
  If the mail carrier or cookie maker doesn’t deliver the results demanded of him or her, he or she has no one to blame but himself.
  
  I could present endless such examples.
  
  On the other hand, a teacher’s job is not like that. It’s more akin to that of a dentist’s, or say, a personal fitness trainer’s. In those cases, no matter how talented or inspiring you are in your job, your student / dental patient / fitness client may lack the same dedication or innate ability to deliver optimum results. Not all students / dental patients / fitness clients are equal… a factor beyond the control of the teacher/dentist/fitness trainer.
  
  Now what do I mean by innate ability? Let’s examine the dentist’s dilemma. Based on the chemical makeup of a person’s mouth and saliva, some people are more prone to get cavities—given the same foods consumed by the patient. Those patients are “special” ;-). They will have to be a lot more aggressive in their home care, diet, etc. to avoid cavities. In addition, their outcomes also dependent on how they are supported by the family members they live with.
  
  Other patients, for the same reason, will be innately and significantly less prone to cavities, and thus, will have to work less hard, and not have to be as prudent in their diet… to achieve the same result.
  
  That’s beyond the dentist’s control.
  
  The other thing beyond the dentist’s control is the same thing that’s beyond the personal fitness trainer’s control. At each visit, the dentists can give the patient the best pep talk ever, demonstrate proper brushing and flossing technique, and provide him with free brushes, toothpaste, floss, ACT anti-plaque mouthwash, etc. as the patient walks out the door.
  
  However, after that, it’s up to the patient to deliver and complete the “homework” which the dentist assigns to that patient. If he or she never or rarely brushes/flosses his teeth, never washes with ACT, or eats too many jumbo chocolate chip cookies (I’m getting hungry again 😉 ), is it the dentist’s fault when the patient comes back with cavities… resulting in fillings, root canals, and tooth extractions?
  
  Would we have ratings for dentists, or pay those dentists based on such “data”? Of course not, but that’s what Campbell Brown and so-called “corporate refomers” want for public school teachers (but strangely, not for her own kids, who attend Heschel, a rich kids’ private school where none of the teachers are evaluated based on students’ test scores.)
  
  “Your patients had more cavities, so we’re paying you less, and if you don’t improve, you’re fired… And you over there, your patients had less cavities, so we’re paying you more, and giving you a promotion.”
  
  Does that make sense? I didn’t think so.
  
  As for the personal fitness trainer, I’ve spoken to them and their clients also vary wildly, and not just in their innate ability, but also in their mental determination and performance during 1-on-1 training. Some clients approach these sessions with a ferocity that matches the trainer’s. These clients always give more, or do more than is asked of them. This also is hopefully reinforced by their spouses, significantly or family members… another factor beyond the control of the fitness trainer.
  
  On the other hand, other clients will not progress, no matter how talented or inspiring the trainer is in the performance of his job. In the context of a training session, they don’t even want to break a sweat, and barely do a thing, instead content to complain to the trainer about their spouses or their jobs or their kids, or whatever. With the latter, they may as well stay at home, for all the good the training is doing…. another factor beyond the control of the fitness trainer.
  
  Furthermore, it may be the case that no one in the client’s life outside of the gym—spouses, significant others, family members, etc.—is encouraging them, or reinforcing their efforts to get in shape, and stay in shape. Their family members a’re not doing so, and may NEVER have done so in their lives… and so they might not even want that client to excel in the first place. Misery loves company.
  
  This leads to the next part… the homework.
  
  A fitness trainer might train someone Monday-Wednesday-Friday, while giving his client the “homework” he should do on Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday-Sunday—i.e. 30-60 minutes cardio, 30-60 minutes weights… and most important, maintain a good diet… the real killer for some people’s efforts to get in shape.
  
  If the client does little or none of the “homework,” then also gorges himself on Hostess Cupcakes, slabs of fatty ribs, baskets of seasoned curly fries, buckets of pasta with rich sauces, etc. (Are you hungry yet? 😉 ), should the fitness trainer be held responsible for the poor results of the client?
  
  Of course not.
  
  To carry this analogy further, if fitness trainers were judged this way, this would lead to them avoiding certain potential clients, or even whole gyms. There’s a Gold’s Gym near my house with a predominantly gay clientele. For the most part—excuse the stereotype—the gay men are much more finicky about keeping their bodies fit. They work extremely hard in the gym and they watch what they eat. (Oh how I envy this attribute;-).) In this hypothetical scenario, all the trainers whose pay is merit-based are going to flock to work here.
  
  Meanwhile, regarding another other gym with—excuse the stereotype again—hopelessly apathetic, overweight straight guys who can’t or won’t do the work, both at the gym and at home… no trainer being paid on merit will want to go anywhere near that gym and train those folks. Evaluating the trainers who have these men as clients based on “merit”??? Would that be fair?
  
  To carry that analogy further, some folks—straight or gay—are genetically pre-disposed to be overweight (Samoans for example) and have greater difficulty getting into shape, or staying in shape. No trainer who’s being paid based on merit will ever want to have those “special” folks as their clients.
  
  That’s all I’ve got to say for now.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Akademos says:

August 13, 2015 at 2:15 pm

Was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ the only way to go with this, legally speaking?

LikeLike

Reply
Akademos says:

August 15, 2015 at 7:55 am

Report on trial by Carol Burris, intro by Valerie Strauss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/15/controversial-teacher-evaluation-method-is-on-trial-literally-and-the-judge-is-not-amused/

LikeLike

Reply