A court decision on the teacher data reports that will hurt our kids

It is unfortunate that the day after a court decision held that NY teachers should be evaluated by use of multiple assessments, with student scores on state standardized tests only one minor factor, today, the appellate court said that the DOE could release the teacher data reports to the public, based only on these same test scores. 

Most testing experts agree that these reports are highly unreliable and reductionist, and they will unfairly tarnish the reputation of many excellent teachers:

1.     The state tests were never designed for such a purpose – and are technically unable to make year to year judgments on “progress” or value added. 

2.    Many studies have shown the extreme volatility of these measures, and how the results differ even from one sort of test to another.  See Juan Gonzalez’s column on how DOE consultants themselves believe these reports are highly unreliable; here are links to the original documents revealing this, obtained through a  FOIL.

3.    As John Ewing, former executive director of the American Mathematical Society, recently concluded, ”if we drive away the best teachers by using a flawed process, are we really putting our students first?  Mike Winerip reported on a top-notch NYC teacher who was denied  tenure in just this manner.

If NYC goes ahead and releases this data it would likely be the first school district in the country to do so willingly and enthusiastically; when the LA Times generated its own value-added data for Los Angeles teachers, the paper was widely criticized.  Chris Cerf, former deputy Chancellor and now acting State Superintendent of NJ schools, was originally in charge of creating the teacher data reports; he promised that they would never be used for teacher evaluations and that the DOE would fight against any effort to disclose them publicly. In a 2008 letter to Randi Weingarten, Cerf wrote: "It is the DOE's firm position and expectation that Teacher data reports will not and should not be disclosed or shared outside the school community."

Chancellor Walcott should think twice before releasing this data, if he cares about real accountability, the morale of teachers,  and the potential damage to our kids.

Here are some of the recent studies from experts on the unreliability of this evaluation method:

Sean P. Corcoran, Can Teachers be Evaluated by Their Students’ Test Scores? Should they Be? The Use of Value-Added Measures of Teacher Effectiveness in Policy and Practice. As  the author concluded from his analysis, “The promise that value-added systems can provide a precise, meaningful, and comprehensive picture is much overblown… .Teachers, policy-makers and school leaders should not be seduced by the elegant simplicity of value-added measures. Given their limitations, policy-makers should consider whether their minimal benefits outweigh their cost.”  

Economic Policy Institute, “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scoresto Evaluate Teachers.” 2010.

National Research Council, Henry Braun, Naomi Chudowsky, and Judith Koenig, eds., GettingValue Out of Value-Added: Report of a Workshop, 2010: “Value- added methods involve complex statistical models applied to test data of varying quality. Accordingly, there are many technical challenges to ascertaining the degree to which the output of these models provides the desired estimates.”  

John Ewing, former executive director of the American Mathematical Society, current president of Math for America;  MathematicalIntimidation: Driven by the Data; “Why must we use value-added even with its imperfections? Aside from making the unsupported claim (in the very last sentence) that “it predicts more about what students will learn…than any other source of information”, the only apparent reason for its superiority is that value-added is based on data. Here is mathematical intimidation in its purest form—in this case, in the hands of economists, sociologists, and education policy experts…And if we drive away the best teachers by using a flawed process, are we really putting our students first?"

Sean P. Corcoran, Jennifer L. Jennings, Andrew A. Beveridge, Teacher effectiveness on high- and low-stakes tests; April 10, 2011. " To summarize, were teachers to be rewarded for their classroom's performance on the state test or alternatively, sanctioned for low performance many of these teachers would have demonstrated quite different results on a low-stakes test of the same subject.  Importantly, these differences need not be due to real differences in long-run skill acquisition…

That is, teachers deemed top performers on the high-stakes test are quite frequently average or even low performers on the low-stakes test. Only in a minority of cases are teachers consistently high or low performers across all metrics… Our results… highlight the need for additional research on the impact that high-stakes accountability has on the validity of inferences about teacher quality. "

The court decision on the closing schools, and Klein's ongoing defiance of the law

Yesterday, Judge Joan Lobis of the State Supreme Court ruled that Chancellor Klein's actions to close 19 schools were illegal and should be blocked.

The decision to close these schools has been met with tremendous protest from parents and teachers alike, because of the devastating effect on their children, their communities, and the public school system as a whole.

Neverthless, the Department of Education sent out a message late Friday that the high school admissions letters would go out anyway this weekend, excluding all the schools originally slated for closure.

That is, none of these schools would accept students, even those 8500 students who had listed these schools as one of their choices. Instead, they would receive another letter, "stating that, should the schools remain open, they may select one of them."

Clearly, Klein is trying to ignore the court decision and as a fait accompli, close these schools down no matter what the court says, by starving them of students.

This is similar stratagem to what he did when he lost the court case to close zoned neighborhood schools and replace them with charter schools , because he refused to ask for the mandated approval of the local Community Education Councils--- and then sent letters to all the parents at these schools anyway, recommending that they take their kids out of these schools.

If Klein goes ahead with this plan to send out acceptance letters without the schools he had proposed to close among them, he should be held in contempt of court and thrown in jail; not to mention disbarred.

The arrogance and hubris of those who run our schools never ceases to amaze, and their utter disregard for the views of parents, the law and the truth itself. They have gotten so used to having their way, no matter how arbitrary and irrational , that they act as though immune from all external limits.

The court decision is based on three, clear findings of fact:

1. The Educational Impact Statements required by law were cursory and inadequate. Specifically, they "failed to provide any meaningful information regarding the impacts on the students or the ability of the schools in the affected community to accommodate those students" shut out of these schools.

For example, they did not show where students enrolled in LYFE centers for students who are pregnant or those with small children might find similar programs targetted to their needs elsewhere.

2. Lack of public notice: the DOE failed to provide hard copies of these proposals to CECs, Community boards, Community superintendents, and SLTs. Simply posting them on the DOE website was insufficient.

3. Lack of community involvement: The DOE failed to hold joint hearings with the School Leadership Teams and Community Education Councils of the affected schools, as required by law. Some members of these groups were invited to participate in hearings after the fact; but even then, had no role in running the hearings or devising the way in which they would be held.

Unmentioned in any of the articles so far is that the court decision should nullify all the co-locations of charter schools and other schools approved by the Panel on Educational Policy over the last three months, because of similar deficiencies in the process.

Here is the statement we sent out yesterday, after the court decision was released:

Today’s court decision is an important step forward for the rule of law. It is also a confirmation of the necessity for a genuine public process to inform and improve arbitrary and rash decision-making at the Department of Education.

So far, the process has been a mockery; with no attempt to involve the parents in a meaningful way, or to provide the sort of careful analysis that should precede these critical decisions.

In January, Class Size Matters submitted detailed comments on the school closings, pointing out the utter inadequacy of the educational impact statements, here.

Department officials should take another look, perform the careful scrutiny required by law, and for once, involve the public in the process of decision-making, before taking such ill-considered and illegal actions.

If they did so, they would find that in many cases, it would be far better to support and improve these schools, rather than close them down.

A great holiday present for our kids, and please help us help you!

There’s great news today, and a holiday present for NYC public schoolchildren! Yesterday, the NY State Supreme Court rejected the city’s attempt to lease half of the sports fields on Randall’s Island to twenty private schools for the next twenty years, without first going through the mandated process, including review by the local Community Board and City Council.

Class Size Matters helped organize this lawsuit in 2006, when the city decided to unilaterally grant two thirds of these fields to the private schools, and this is the second time in two years that the court ruled in our favor. Yesterday, we were rewarded with a slam dunk decision, in which Judge Marilyn Shafer said that the city's arguments were “inherently incredible,” and ordered the city to pay court costs and fees to our (pro bono) attorneys, because of their attempt to evade the earlier ruling. (The decision is posted here; see also the Daily News, Times , NY Post and WNYC.)

The court ruling caps an eventful year for Class Size Matters, in which we’ve been busy advocating for all NYC students to be provided with smaller classes and a better opportunity to learn. We led the “Build Schools, not Prisons” campaign to alleviate school overcrowding, and recently the city added 5,000 seats to the capital plan. We co-authored a report on the growing numbers of students discharged from our schools but not counted as dropouts. We published a book on the Bloomberg-Klein educational record that received attention as far away as Australia and Thailand.

We helped form the Parent Commission to advocate for a better school governance law with more real parental input, and together with other public school parents, created NYC Kids Pac, to support candidates who will work for positive change in our schools.

We continue to offer news and information to parents through our two list servs, contribute to and manage the NYC public school parent blog, and also started a column on the Huffington Post. Finally, as mentioned above, we just a won a major case that will hopefully ensure the right of all NYC students to have equal access to the sports fields on Randall’s Island for years to come. Just some of our nearly 100 press clips from the past year are posted on our website.

Please be a part of this effort by contributing what you can. We rely on your financial support. Just click here, or on the link below to give a tax-deductible donation.

Anyone who donates $50 or more will receive a free copy of our acclaimed book, NYC Schools under Bloomberg and Klein, what Parents, Teachers and Policymakers Need to Know, with essays by Diane Ravitch, Debbie Meier, Steve Koss, Patrick Sullivan, and others.

Help us achieve our goal: that the city will finally fulfill its obligation to provide all public school children with smaller classes, a quality education, and a better chance to learn.

Please make a tax-deductible contribution to Class Size Matters now!

Happy holidays and a happy New Year,

Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters

No more building schools on toxic sites without environmental review!

The decision from the NY State Supreme Court that there should have been a full environmental review before the School Construction Authority starting building a school complex on a contaminated site in Mott Haven is justly deserved – congrats to Dave Palmer and the people at New York Lawyers for Public Interest who worked so hard on this case. As usual, the city’s attorney has an incredibly unconvincing response:

“Ms. Noteboom said it was more practical to come up with a [environmental] plan after a cleanup had started so that the plan “can take into account the actual conditions at the site after the cleanup is done.”

What? It makes no sense to do the environmental assessment afterwards – rather than before. This is yet another instance in which the city has shown absolutely no regard for the health and safety of our kids.

Moreover, by skirting the necessary environmental review, the School Construction Authority may in the end spend more money and more time to try to remediate a toxic site than they would if they found a less contaminated land elsewhere. See this excellent oped from last year by Dave Palmer which makes this very point, among others.

We have noted previously on this blog the apparent determination of this administration to build public schools on toxic sites without properly addressing the risks to our children – and once these schools are built, their refusal to properly remediate the contamination – here, here and here.

The city claims that contaminated brownfields are the only open land available for schools – but clearly, this is not the case. It may indeed be the only land that nobody else wants—and cannot be cleared for the benefit of private developers, which appears to be the city’s highest priority: to serve the interest of developers at the expense of our children.

In the new five year capital plan, released last week, nearly $1 billion of the meager $3.7 billion to be spent on new school construction is being held in abeyance, for “potential site specific/environmental/code costs.”

I have never seen this line before in a capital plan – and it makes one fearful that the SCA is planning to build as many schools as possible in future on toxic sites.