Archives for category: Principals

After Commissioner John King had a disastrous meeting with parents in Poughkeepsie, he canceled his remaining five open meetings. But the Board of Regents decided what was needed was even more meetings, so King is now holding more meetings around the state, though so far not in New York City.

At his first new round of meetings, one principal got up and spoke fearlessly about what was happening in the state. This was his statement:

“Dr. King, My name is Tim Farley, from Kinderhook, NY, and I am the proud father of four school-aged children and I happen to be an educator of 22 years. Since this is now a listening tour, I would like to offer you three suggestions from the field followed by a question.

1. We do not want your corporately-backed Common Core. We don’t like it. We don’t like it as parents and we certainly don’t like it as educators. Common Core has not been properly field tested and we do not want our children used as guinea pigs for one of Bill Gates’ newest whims.

2. We do not want inBloom or any 3rd party vendor to have access to our children’s once private and confidential information. We know it’s now legal because those in power literally changed federal law in 2011 just so they can do what they are currently doing. We demand and immediate cease and desist on this wide-spread data collection and specifically, the now mandated “Data Dashboard”.

3. We demand an end to high stakes testing. It isn’t NYSUT that wants to curtail tying student scores to teachers’ ratings of effectiveness; it is us, the parents. We know that the ratings are meaningless and it is unfair to the students and to the teachers.

Now for my question: We know that the NYS Education Department used SAT scores of 560 in reading, 540 in writing, and 530 in mathematics, as the college readiness benchmarks to help set the “passing” cut scores on the 3-8 NYS Tests. These NYSED scores, totaling 1630, are FAR higher than the College Board’s own “college readiness” proficiency cut scores for students as young as 9 years of age. Why did you anchor the cut scores to 1630 on the SATs instead of the College Board’s 1550? And I have NYSED’s benchmark study here for your reference.

Thank you.”

A comment by a parent at Jenks Middle School, where the principal, Rob Miller, is being investigated for encouraging parents to opt out of a field test. (I mistakenly referred to him as the superintendent, he is the principal).

As you will read here, the parents are fed up with the endless testing:

“As a JMS opt-out parent, I can attest that this was a parent-led move. Of course Principal Miller had contact with Ms. Barnes and those who had questions, but there’s a difference between answering questions and instigating trouble. Barresi’s vindictiveness is well established; her SDE had earlier published personal details of students appealing the withholding of their diplomas. These details included troubled home life and disability information — all identifiable by name for the world to see.

“Jenks parents are nowhere near finished standing up for our kids by challenging the takeover of our classrooms by the corporate assessment complex. And Barresi is gone after Nov. 2014, if not in the primary. It’s just a question of how many backs she’ll try to stab on the way out.”

Jersey Jazzman reports on the annual meeting between State Commissioner Chris Cerf and the New Jersey superintendents. Unlike previous meetings, there were few questions, few signs of life.

Have they given up, JJ wondered. He unites a news story, which says:

“Compared with previous convocations at which tensions were high and questions were plentiful, the more than 300 school leaders gathered yesterday at Jackson Liberty High School appeared to be getting used to the new world order under Cerf and his boss.
Gary McCartney, the South Brunswick superintendent and president of the state’s superintendents group, which hosted the event, said he saw the three years of convocations with Cerf as a period of evolution.

“I think people are beginning to assimilate,” he said. “In the first year, it was kicking and screaming, hoping (the initiatives) would go away. The second was wringing your hands and whining, thinking they would go away. Now you say, I don’t have any more tantrums, I think we’re going to do this.”

JJ points out that any one of the three superintendents in the room knew more about education than Cerf and his Broadie fellows.

He writes:

“The primary function of this blog over the past three years has been to catalog the many sins Christie and Cerf have committed against New Jersey’s public schools, including:

*A failure of state control in Newark, Paterson, Jersey City, and now Camden.
*Cerf’s insistence on bringing unqualified, poorly-trained staff into the NJDOE and the large urban districts.
*A despicable retreat from funding equity in our schools.
*The imposition of an innumerate teacher evaluation system that has never been properly field tested.
*The imposition of bizarre schemes that have never worked, like merit pay.
*The imposition of curricular and testing changes that have never been properly vetted.
*A rampant expansion of privatization that both undermines democratic control of our schools and rewards poor educational and fiscal practices.
*The lowest morale of the NJ teaching corps seen in a generation, precipitated by Christie’s blatant lies to educators about their compensation, his truly reprehensible behavior in public appearances, and his personal hypocrisy regarding his own children’s education.

As JJ says, “They only win when you give up.”

Help is on the way.

I am speaking to the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors on October 17. They will hear you, JJ. They will hear you loud and clear. They will not give up. And they will win, despite the efforts of Cerf and Christie to break their spirit.

This principal works hard to support his staff and inspire them.

This principal protects the children in his school.

This principal learned that the State rated him as a 9.

Nine out of twenty.

That meant that no matter how many more points (out of 80) he might accumulate, he could never be rated “Highly Effective.”

So, in the spirit of evaluation madness, he decided to offer nine suggestions for State Commissioner John King (who by the way, has less experience as an administrator than the principal who wrote this post):

1) Our children, staff and communities are much more than a number. Instead of trying to reduce us all to a number (evaluative scores, test results, rankings, etc.) please take the time to get to know us and know what we are doing well because we are more than a number. 
 
2) Figure out what schools are doing well and try and emulate those practices instead of trying to make us all fit into the same box. I understand it’s difficult to know what’s going on in each school because there are thousands of schools in NYS, but a more robust understanding of the current landscape throughout the state would be greatly appreciated. Are there issues throughout the state? Yes! Are there schools and districts that need to improve significantly because the children deserve better? Yes! But, why must educational reform in NYS be rooted in what’s wrong in our schools instead of what’s right in our schools? Instead of feeling pressured to get our test scores up, I would much rather spend time sharing and collaborating with colleagues from around the state about best practices – these practices are what make a difference in the daily lives of children.
 
3) Give us time to shift, implement and take risks with our practices! We just adopted and implemented the Common Core State Standards all within the last year (many districts are still working on the implementation) and yet already, we are all being assessed against these standards. How is that fair? Just because a teenager passes his/her permit test and takes a few driving lessons, doesn’t mean he/she are ready to race at the Daytona 500! Instead, we need time to experiment, fail and problem solve without being judged. Give us time!
 
4) Take feedback from the people working in schools, with children, to help enhance, modify and improve various mandates and policies. We are living APPR each day – let us tell you what should change! We administered the Common Core NYS Tests to actual children – let us tell you what happened and what could be changed. We are struggling to “fit it all in” – let us tell you what could possibly change. Instead of implementing all these sweeping large scale changes across the entire state, things should have been piloted or tested in pockets so State Ed could have worked out the kinks before imposing it all on every child and educator in the state. 
 
5) Evaluating a teacher based on how students perform on high stakes testing is not a reliable measure (check out this article about the issues with value added models). The scores for individual educators will go up and down each year with little ability to predict where they will end up. So, what’s the point? For example, I know of an educator who received a 2 out of 20 last year but this year received a 13 out of 20. My guess is that next year the same educator will have a totally different score because of the student population. The number fluctuates dramatically each year and that is because there are too many variables to control for when evaluating an educator against how their students perform on high stakes testing. Eliminate this part of the APPR plan – let’s implement something more robust and thorough (maybe a digital portfolio) and less quick and dirty (ratings that are based on high stakes tests that rely heavily on multiple choice questions).
 
6) Change the NYS Tests! Instead of letting them be so one dimensional with an over abundance of multiple choice questions, give our children an opportunity to show you what THEY know and can do in the areas of literacy and mathematics. Instead of trying to trick them with multiple choice questions that many adults cannot answer and trying to exhaust them with days of testing, give them a chance to evaluate, synthesize, think critically and apply the skills they have to solve real life problems and situations. This way, we can have a true understanding of what our children know and can do. Instead, currently, all we can really figure out is if they bubbled in the right answer – not WHY they bubbled it in just if they did. The current testing situation, where the results are used to evaluate educators, does NOT work. Furthermore, it seems that NYS is saying that we can assess college and career readiness with how students perform on multiple choice tests – REALLY?!? We need to consider multiple data points – not just the results of one test! By considering multiple data points we do not have to rely on annual standardized state testing to evaluate our students or educators. For example, our students could be tested independently every three years, starting in third grade, using a standardized test. This way, we will have data points that span from elementary to high school graduation. Additionally, there should be group task oriented assessments during the years between standardized tests where the students must collaborate to solve a set of real life problems. Furthermore, our students should be expected to maintain a digital portfolio that will feature work from all content areas that will be scored against rubrics generated collaboratively between teachers and students. By integrating all these assessments we can use multiple data points to determine student growth over an extended period of time and across all content areas, not just in Mathematics and English Language Arts. Multiple data points mean that we do not have to rely on summative assessments for evaluation purposes and instead we will have access to formative assessment data that can help us meet the needs of our students in real time and give every student an entry point to learning. 
 
7) Give us data we can use to inform instruction and help our children learn and grow! Our children spend hours taking these tests, which we are never allowed to see again, and we receive the results just in time for the next school! What’s the point? We cannot do anything with this information because we don’t have all the pieces in a timely fashion. As educators, many of us dedicate our lives to using as many assessment points as possible to help us plan and guide future instructional decisions to best meet the needs of our children. The data from NYS seems to be used for one purpose, and one purpose only, to judge.       
 
8) Implement policies and mandates that foster and expect the use of 21st century skills and innovation in our schools! Challenge us to make technology a regular part of instruction- not an add on. Ask us to encourage our children to collaborate for the purposes of thinking critically and creating – that is the root of innovation. Innovative thinkers who are willing to keep failing until they perfect their vision are the ones changing the world and affecting the global economic landscape – not the people who can pick the correct answer on a multiple choice test.
 
9) Don’t use our children and educators as pawns in some massive money making scheme. Let Pearson figure out other ways to make money. Don’t try and privatize public education and turn it into a business. Our children should be the focus – each and every day we should be driven by doing what is best for our children; not what is going to put more money into the already fat pockets of different individuals and corporations. 

How many times have we heard that the a Chicago Public Schools are broke? Isn’t that why CPS laid off thousands of teachers and closed 50 elementary schools?

But wait: this week, CPS gave a $20 million no-bid contract to a for-profit corporation called Supes Academy to train principals.

CPS Superintendent Barbara Byrd-Bennett worked for Supes Academy until April 2012.

“The size and the circumstances surrounding the contract have raised eyebrows among some outside observers. The contract with Wilmette-based Supes Academy is by far the largest no-bid contract awarded in at least the past three years, according to a Catalyst Chicago analysis of board documents. In addition, CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett worked for the company as a coach up until the time she came on board at CPS as a consultant.

“There’s also conflicting information about Byrd-Bennett’s involvement with another company owned by the same individuals who run the Supes Academy.

“Andy Shaw, president and CEO of the Better Government Association, says that a large, no-bid contract such as this one deserves scrutiny.”

Scrutiny? I’ll say. Chicago has several excellent institutions of higher education that could have done the same job for far less money. Was this a necessary expenditure at a time when the schools don’t have enough teachers and at being closed, allegedly to save money?

David Kirp writes that the frequent firing and turnover of coaches in the National Basketball Association is destabilizing, and the same is true in the superintendency of school districts. Of course, bad superintendents should be removed, but when the superintendent is doing a good job, they should have time to get something accomplished. The bottom line is that school districts need stability, not churn or upheaval. The same is true for schools, where stability promotes a strong culture and good working relationships. Just as coaches need time, so do principals and teachers.

Kirp is the author of “Improbable Scholars” and is a professor of public policy at Berkeley.

The following comment was posted on the blog by a teacher at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in response to Ben Austin’s open letter to me, in which Austin defends Parent Revolution’s campaign to oust the school’s principal Irma Cobain.

The teacher writes:

.
Mr. Austin claims that “every teacher who signed that 2011 petition is now gone, and the school has gotten even worse since then.” There are exactly TWO teacher names on that petition. One of those 2 transferred to another school, and the other retired. The remaining names are staff members, 2 of whom are still at Weigand, and 1 State Preschool Teacher who holds neither a Bachelor’s Degree nor a California Teaching Credential.

As to Mr. Austin’s claim that the school has “gotten even worse since then,” does he mean that our staff is worse than in 2011? If Ms. Cobian drove teachers away, why have we all decided to leave with her? I wish Mr. Austin had been there today, our last day of school at Weigand. There were many tearful goodbyes, and some students expressed fear about not knowing anyone next year. In fact, this entire week, students have been asking us teachers whether we are going to be there next year. Their tension is palpable, their desire to seek out that “yes” so evident, even if they cannot express it in words. It broke my heart each time I answered with a “no, I won’t be here next year.” Even more difficult was trying to explain why.

Mr. Austin goes on to say “When I see kids attending schools like Weigand, I see kids who are going through a whole lot more at home than I could have ever imagined as a boy, but who don’t have a safe place where somebody believes in them, supports them and loves them.” Mr. Austin, how DARE you imply that we don’t do all this and MUCH more for our students? Anyone who teaches knows that we teachers willingly give our blood, sweat, and tears every day for our students. This is especially so in a community like Watts. You have NO IDEA how much of our personal and family lives we have sacrificed for our students at Weigand. When have you ever set foot on our campus? I have taught at Weigand for 11 years, and let me tell you, the staff at Weigand these last 3 years is without a doubt the most professional, intelligent, and passionate group of teachers I have ever had the privilege of working with in my 16 years as an LAUSD educator. Most of those teachers were recruited by Ms. Cobian herself, because she knows talent when she sees it. Perhaps our test scores dropped because we were actually TEACHING under Ms. Cobian’s leadership, and not simply drilling for the next assessment.

We left Weigand today relieved that this Parent Revolution nightmare is over for us, crushed for our students, and determined to help others FIGHT against your agenda.

— Fabiola Banuelos, dedicated veteran teacher, Stanford University graduate, who will go where I am better appreciated.

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

I earlier posted about the 21 teachers who resigned their positions at Weigand Elementary School to protest the ouster of their principal Irma Cobian. That was 21 out of a teaching staff of 22.

Not one of them knows if he or she will have a job next year. Theirs was an act of courage and integrity. They demonstrated the meaning of valor and principle.

Two members of the honor roll–both thoughtful, dedicated educators–disagree about Néw York’s plan to evaluate educators, in this case principals.

Carol Burris, the principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, was selected by her colleagues as principal of the year in Néw York. Mike McGill is superintendent of schools in Scarsdale, one of the state’s most affluent and excellent districts.

I honored Carol in the past for leading the fight against the state’s ill-considered test-based evaluation plan. I honored Mike for his stalwart opposition to the state’s demand to make testing the centerpiece of its vision and for his vision of what good education is.

Here, Mike takes issue with Carol’s critique of the state plan to evaluate principals. He thinks she didn’t go far enough in resisting a mindless technocratic bureaucracy bent in stamping out the last vestige of professionalism and independent thought.

Mike McGill writes:

Why the New York Value-Added Measure of Principals is Flawed (Part II)

New York Principal of the Year Carol Burris has been pushing back against the misuse of metrics in teacher evaluation. Now, in a letter to the Board of Regents, she’s taken on the Value-added Method (VAM) that’s being used to calculate 25 percent of principals’ performance rating.

I have concerns about the state’s approach as well, but I have to admit that I feel a bit ambivalent about her going public with hers. More on that in a minute.

Ms. Burris is concerned that Albany is going to measure principals on an uneven field. She says their scores will be calculated unfairly: Individuals’ ratings will reflect the performance of very different student populations that take different tests whose rigor differs.

She also worries about unintended consequences. Will schools advise students to avoid more challenging courses so their scores will be better?

Will they drop distinctive local programs so more students can take more state tests, so principals will have a better chance of getting better scores? Will principals in troubled schools leave and go where student populations are more stable, problems are fewer, and results better?

I’m not sure which unhappy outcomes are most likely, but I can’t imagine that the state’s plan will be especially productive in the end.

So why am I ambivalent about Ms. Burris’s message? It’s a matter of being careful about what you wish for.

Having observed the Albany mindset in action over the years, I find my own thoughts eliding quickly to another unintended consequence.

If, as Ms. Burris says, inconsistent measurement is the problem, there’s an easy solution. To be sure all principals are rated the same way, we could just make sure all schools in the state offer exactly the same program so that all kids take exactly the same tests.

Evaluation will drive instruction with even more of a vengeance.

The approach would be a little extreme, and to be fair, even our friends upstate might not want to go that far. Still, the technocratic impulse is to see complex difficulties as technical problems and then to solve them with mechanical fixes. And where schools are concerned, that impulse can lead to places nobody should want to venture, at least if he or she is interested in an innovative and distinctive education. More regimentation isn’t a prescription for excellence.

Okay. My comment about being ambivalent was a little tongue-in-cheek. But my experience here in the self-proclaimed “State of Learning” does give me pause. So just in case it might sound as if there’s a simple technical solution to the problems in Albany’s evaluation plan, let me offer four other reasons there isn’t.

One: VAM is supposed to compensate for the fact that different teachers or principals serve different populations.

So, for example, it compares those who work primarily with English Language Learners with others who do too. But VAM doesn’t distinguish among many other less obvious conditions that influence children’s learning. So in theory, it may level the playing field for people who work with different populations. In the real world, it doesn’t necessarily.

Two: Mathematical models can identify individuals whose students have progressed more or less on state tests. But that doesn’t mean that the student “output” can be attributed primarily to a particular person’s “input” in any particular case. The preponderance of research continues to indicate that statistical bias and random “noise” in the data skew VAM calculations and make them unreliable. We also know from experience that VAM results are unstable; for no evident reason, someone who’s a “high performer” this year may be a “low performer” next.

Three: Principals can’t control students’ or teachers’ actions tightly enough to be directly accountable for state test scores. For example, what if a new principal’s faculty is full of internal tensions, veterans are burned out or a significant number of students see school as irrelevant? She can’t unilaterally change work rules or conditions. She can’t fire tenured people for being apathetic. She has to work with the students she has. Realistically, how accountable can she be for achieving good VAM results, especially if she’s only been in the school for a short time?

Four: Value-added is only part of the state’s evaluation formula. A lot of the rest of a principal’s score depends on observations and other evidence. Supervisors are supposed to use objective criteria to score this evidence. (“The principal can express an educational vision. The principal holds meetings where he shares his vision,” for example.) Unhappily, however, this approach de-emphasizes capacities like the ability to use good judgment or to work well with people. Those qualities elude statistical measurement, must be judged subjectively, and don’t fit the evaluation model very well. Of course, they’re also among the most important things effective leaders do in the real world.

Those are four reasonable concerns about the premises underlying the state’s principal evaluation scheme.

But will anyone in Albany care?
In the world of education today, policy makers and practitioners stare at one another across a broad divide.

Basically, they’re working from different systems of belief. Many out here in the field say the theory that drives current policy is disconnected from reality. Our counterparts in state capitals and Washington tell us they know best and that we’ll just have to stay the course.

The way out of this unproductive tableau is through authentic dialogue. But that means those in the seats of power must want to listen.