UPDATE: James Eterno, NYC teacher has posted a petition, urging the Governor and the legislature to repeal the state law which ties teacher evaluation to test scores. This is unlike the current bill, which continues to tie evaluation to alternative assessments or the state exams, unreliable, unfair and statistically invalid ways of rating teachers. Instead, NY schools would return to locally determined teacher evaluation methods that existed before Race to Top, Arne Duncan and Bill Gates managed to dupe the state and the teachers union into adopting the current dysfunctional system.
A new bill, passed
by the NYS Assembly and being considered by the
NY Senate as S08301, would change the teacher evaluation system in the state
for (at least) the fourth time since 2010.
Despite the claims of NYSUT, the state teacher union, a careful
reading of the bill does not indicate that it would de-link teacher evaluations from
student test scores.
Instead, teacher evaluations would continue to be partially
determined by student “growth scores,” which in turn would be based on “alternate assessments” as approved
by the NYS Education Department or where desired locally, still based on the state
exams. Thus, the concerns
expressed by the NY State School Boards Association, the New York Council of School Superintendents and
other education groups, that this bill, if passed, could mean even more testing for students, appears warranted, since the state exams will continue to be given anyway,
as mandated by federal law.
More discussion of the teacher evaluation issue, which NY
State can’t seem to get right, is in an column written by Gary Stern
of LoHud News, in which he calls
the system “a ghastly mistake that won't die.” Diane Ravitch argues
that the currently teacher evaluation law, called APPR, should just
be repealed, and the decision how to evaluate teachers should go back to the
districts, as it was before the promise of Race to the Top funds lured the
state to create a new system based in part on student test scores. My view? If the law is not
to be simply repealed, there should be hearings, public input and careful
consideration as to what should replace this complex and unreliable mess of a system, rather than the current bill.
The below detailed analysis was written by Deborah Abramson-Brooks of the Port Washington
Advocates for Public Education and NY State Allies for Public
Education.
_____
Can
we PLEASE settle this once and for all?
The
proposed legislation -- recently passed in the NYS Assembly with a "same
as" bill now sitting in the NYS Senate -- is all about amending the
current teacher evaluation law, NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d. The proposed
legislation affects only *some* of section 3012-d; those portions of 3012-d
that are not addressed in the proposed legislation remain intact. Accordingly,
it is IMPERATIVE that the proposed legislation be read in conjunction with
existing NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d. If you like to use a ruler and red pen,
feel free to put the documents side-by-side and start red-lining, or adding!
Myth
#1: tests will be decoupled from teacher evaluations. FALSE.
I
have seen/heard waaaaay too many comments suggesting that the proposed
legislation permanently decouples testing from teacher evaluations.
Sorry, no.
Teacher
(and principal) evaluations remain segmented into two categories: student performance
and classroom observations. According to the proposed legislation, student
performance will continue to be based on some type of assessment, whether it's
a state exam, or some "alternative assessment" that SED will approve.
The difference is that the NY State Education Department will no longer be able
to mandate that a district MUST use the STATE test scores for teacher
evaluations; rather, this is subject to local collective bargaining discretion.
The
legislation would also ELIMINATE THE USE OF CERTAIN RULES TO DETERMINE A
TEACHER OR PRINCIPAL'S OVERALL RATING, and make permanent provisions that
prohibit grades three through eight ELA or math state assessments scores from
being included on a student's permanent record." (my emphasis added)
TRANSLATION:
1) SED is precluded from mandating that districts use the grades 3-8 state
exams and/or Regents exams to evaluate teachers; BUT NOW, districts can
*choose* to use the state exams to evaluate a teacher/principal, or some
alternative assessment approved by SED, via local collective bargaining.
Myth
#2: no more growth models! FALSE.
As
mentioned above, *some* type of test/assessment must still be tied to the
teacher evaluation. Some districts may choose to use the state exams in
grades 3-8.
Some
districts may choose to use Regents exams for high school teachers. (It
remains to be seen if SED will allow districts to use Regents exams for all
teachers, or only those whose classes culminate in a Regents Exam.)
Other
districts may decide to use one of the SED-approved alternative assessments,
which come with their own growth models, i.e., NWEA MAP, and which are no more
reliable for this purpose than the state exams. Whichever assessment is used, some type of
growth model will likely be required by SED, or else how would a district
determine student growth, a requirement that remains mandated in the state law?
See NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d(2)(c): “Student growth’ shall mean the change
in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in
time;” and NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d(4)(a) which also discusses student growth.
Whichever
assessment is used, expert statisticians have been sounding the alarm bells
that *any* test-based growth model – whether VAM (Value-Added Model) or the SGP
(Student Growth Percentile), or some other model -- used for high-stakes
considerations should immediately be viewed with great suspicion. Many experts, including Diane Ravitch, call these
models “junk science.” The AmericanStatistical Association has come out against this method of evaluating
teachers, and there is an entire website called VAMboozled,
written by expert statistician and Professor Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, who
explains in detail why growth models based on student test scores are an
unreliable and unfair way to evaluate teachers.
Finally, in the lawsuit
filed by Great Neck teacher Sheri Lederman, Justice Roger D. McDonough of the
New York State Supreme Court found that the portion of the NYS teacher
evaluation statute that linked student growth scores to the teacher’s evaluation was irrational and produced results that
were “arbitrary and capricious,” and ruled that the teacher scores and ratings
that flowed from them were illegal. At that point, however, the Legislature had
already voted on a moratorium against using state test scores in teacher
evaluation until the school year 2019-20.
The moratorium is coming to its end; thus this bill.
Now
let's read the entirety of the current APPR law, NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d
(a/k/a part of The Education Transformation Act of 2015), alongside the
Legislature's red-lined/green additions version to THAT LAW, and see what else
changes/stays/gets added. Here is NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/education-law/edn-sect-3012-d.html
Subdivision
1 of 3012-d remains intact. That section provides: "Such ANNUAL
EVALUATIONS SHALL BE A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS including
but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination,
and supplemental compensation. Such evaluations SHALL ALSO BE a significant
factor IN TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT including but not limited to
coaching, induction support, and differentiated professional development."
Translation: high-stakes employment decisions remain.
Subdivision
2, Definitions, remains intact.
Subdivision
3, Ratings, as in H-E-D-I (meaning Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and
Ineffective) designations, remain intact.
Subdivision
4, Categories; continue to define APPR by student performance along with classroom
observations. Translation: tests continue to be linked to APPR.
What
changes: *For the first student performance subcomponent: 1) "a teacher shall have a student learning
objective (SLO) consistent with a goal-setting process determined or developed
by the commissioner, that RESULTS IN A STUDENT GROWTH SCORE;" 2) the
law continues to say: "for any
teacher whose course ends in a state-created or administered assessment, such
assessment MAY be used as the underlying assessment for such SLO" --
meaning the state tests can still be used as the underlying assessment for the
SLO; but 3) the mandate to use a growth score based on the state exams is
eliminated.
What
else changes: *For the optional second student performance subcomponent: a
district may locally select a second measure and be either: (A) BASED ON A
STATE-CREATED OR ADMINISTERED TEST (again, meaning the state exams); or (B)
based on a state-designed supplemental assessment (again meaning the state exams).
The state-provided growth model mandate
is eliminated.
This
language in 3012-d(4) remains intact: "The
commissioner shall determine the weights and scoring ranges for the
subcomponent or subcomponents of the student performance category that shall
result in a combined category rating. The commissioner shall also set
parameters for appropriate targets for student growth for both subcomponents,
and the department must affirmatively approve and shall have the authority to
disapprove or require modifications of district plans that do not set
appropriate growth targets, including after initial approval. The commissioner
shall set such weights and parameters consistent with the terms contained
herein." This gives a whole lot
of power to Commissioner Elia, who has in the past put great reliance on
unreliable standardized exams.
In
addition, the entire provision regarding classroom observations remains intact.
Subdivision
5, Rating Determination. 1) The draft legislation completely removes what must
happen to a teacher or principal who is rated using two subcomponents in the
student performance category and receives a rating of ineffective for both. 2)
BUT... it otherwise leaves the HEDI matrix intact, which in essence means
student growth scores and teacher observation are weighted 50/50, and sometimes
the student growth portion is given more weight.
Subdivision
6, Prohibited Elements, entire section left intact. So, for anyone claiming
that student portfolios could be used instead of standardized exams, check out
subsection (a):
“The following elements shall no
longer be eligible to be used in any evaluation subcomponent pursuant to this
section: a. evidence of student development and performance derived from lesson
plans, other artifacts of teacher practice, and student portfolios, except for
student portfolios measured by a state-approved rubric where permitted by the
department.”
And
for anyone saying that unit tests (meaning designed by the classroom teacher)
could be used to measure student performance, check out subsection (d) that
rules out the use of: “any district or regionally-developed assessment that has
not been approved by the department.”
Subdivision
7 continues to ensure that the process by which weights and scoring ranges are
assigned to subcomponents and categories is transparent and available to those
being rated before the beginning of each school year. The draft legislation
completely removes what must happen to a teacher or principal who is rated
using two subcomponents in the student performance category and receives a
rating of ineffective for both.
Subdivision
8 says a student may not be instructed, for two consecutive school years, by
any two teachers in the same district, each of whom received a rating of
ineffective under an evaluation conducted pursuant to this section in the
school year immediately prior to the school year in which the student is placed
in the teacher's classroom.... remains intact.
Subdivision
9 regarding the right to terminate a probationary (non-tenured) teacher or
principal remains intact.
Subdivision
10 regarding the local collective bargaining representative negotiating with
the district remains largely intact.
Subdivisions
11 and 12 remain intact.
Subdivisions
13 and 14, looping 3012-d to 3012-c (which outlines the subcomponent scores
that align to H-E-D-and I) remains intact. NYS Ed. Law section 3012-c here: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/education-law/edn-sect-3012-c.html
Subdivision
15 remains intact.
The
draft legislation adds a new subdivision 16, to provide that 1) the grades 3-8
state tests "shall not be required to be utilized in any manner to
determine a teacher or principal evaluation required by this section;" 2)
SED (Commissioner Elia) is required to promulgate rules and regs providing
alternative assessments that may be used; 3) the selection and use of an
assessment is subject to collective bargaining law; 4) any unexpired collective
bargaining agreement in effect on the date this proposed legislation takes
effect (if ever) stands until the entry into a successor collective bargaining
agreement, and a successor collective bargaining agreement must comply with
applicable law and timelines, etc.
Translation:
all new collective bargaining agreements must comply with the amended APPR law
(if it passes) or, conversely, whatever assessments are used in the district’s
teacher evaluation system must be negotiated with the union.
And
finally, the draft bill discusses the grades 3-8 test scores vis-a-vis a
student's permanent record. (FWIW, this issue is addressed in NYS Ed. Law
section 305(45) – not NYS Ed. Law section 3012-d.)
NYS
Ed. Law section 305(45) provides: "no school district or
board of cooperative educational services may place or include on a student's
official transcript or maintain in a student's permanent record any individual
student score on a state administered standardized English language arts or
mathematics assessment for grades three through eight, provided that nothing
herein shall be construed to interfere with required state or federal reporting
or to excuse a school district from maintaining or transferring records of such
test scores separately from a student's permanent record, including for
purposes of required state or federal reporting."
The most recent expiration date
for that provision was December 2018; the recent budget bill amended that expiration date to
December 2019, via Chapter 59 of the Laws of 2018. The draft legislation seeks to eliminate the
expiration date altogether. NYS Ed. Law section 305 here: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/education-law/edn-sect-305.html
Happy
red-lining!
***********************************
2 comments:
Great post. If you want to see the evaluation system go, join 1,200 who have already signed our petition to repeal the evaluation law.
Let's make it a big campaign issue in the governor's race.
I removed an earlier comment because I didn't see the update where you linked to our petition.
Thanks for linking to it.
Post a Comment