Commissioner Elia resigns; let's hope for a better one next time!

The serious concerns we expressed yesterday and shared with the Board of Regents about NYSED's new proposed privacy regs were overwhelmed in news of Commissioner Elia's sudden resignation.  What wasn't reported on in the media crush, at least as far as I've noticed, is that the Regents were set to discuss whether to fire her during their annual retreat that started yesterday afternoon.  Clearly, Elia jumped the gun with her announcement and as a result, she was able to control the narrative, with many of the news stories featured overly positive review of her regime.

Last year, the final RAND report on the teacher evaluation project was released, showing that the initiative she led in Hillsborough County before she was fired by that school board and came to NY had no positive results and in fact, resulted in less access to effective teachers for high-needs kids.  In addition, the initiative left the district in severe fiscal disarray.

I recall when NYSAPE members and I met with her after she was first appointed in 2015.  We detailed the issues with the invalid, overly long and developmentally inappropriate state tests and Common Core standards, as well as many other problems ranging from the state's refusal to oversee the increases in NYC class sizes to their laggardly pace in enforcing the 2014 student privacy law.  She said very little, but ended by claiming that somehow, all the problems with the tests would be solved by putting them online. Never did I suspect it would take four more years for them to issue regulations to enact the 2014 student privacy law, and when they did they would attempt to eliminate the ban against selling student data or using it for marketing purposes.


During her time in NY, she never seemed to grasp just how awful the tests were, and compounded their abusive nature by administering them untimed, which led to some children spending up to six hours or more a day trying to make sense out of them, until they collapsed in frustration. Nor did she make the changes in the standards that many of the early childhood experts on her own advisory committees demanded. Her modus operandi seemed to be to form myriad committees and advisory boards, and post numerous surveys, but then pretty much ignore all the public input she received.

As the NYSAPE press release says, let's hope the Board of Regents work with parents and other stakeholders in the appointment of  a new Commissioner this time who will steer the state in a better direction; the last four have been pretty awful.  The press release has a hopeful title.  We shall have to see whether indeed this the end of the state's long-lasting, damaging corporate reform agenda.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 2019
More information contact:
Lisa Rudley (917) 414-9190; nys.allies@gmail.com
Jeanette Deutermann (516) 902-9228; nys.allies@gmail.com
NYS Allies for Public Education - NYSAPE
As NY Closes the Door on Commissioner Elia’s Corporate Reform Agenda, NYSAPE Urges the Board of Regents to Include All Stakeholders When Choosing Our Next Commissioner

MaryEllen Elia was the wrong choice for NY in 2015 when she was appointed as Commissioner by the Board of Regents and former Regent Chancellor Merryl Tisch. The Commissioner continued to demonstrate throughout her tenure an unwillingness to move beyond her corporate reform agenda, resulting in NYSAPE’s repeated call for her resignation. The children of NY deserve a state education leader who will put their well-being at the forefront of all education policies.

“In 2015, NYSAPE sounded the alarms when Commissioner Elia was recruited by national and local education leaders to run NY’s education department as she did in Florida, with privatizing, common core, and high stakes testing, as her main priorities.  As the new leadership and education philosophy of the Board of Regents shifted towards child-centered learning, Commissioner Elia was focused on creating a culture of fear, misinformation, and intimidation throughout NYS school districts,” said Jeanette Deutermann, co-founder of NYSAPE and founder of Long Island Opt Out.

“Under Commissioner Elia’s direction, our children and schools continued to endure abusive, excessive testing, developmentally inappropriate state standards and data privacy breaches.  At every turn, Elia circumvented the Board of Regents and failed to steer public education policies in the right direction,” said Lisa Rudley, Westchester public school parent, Executive Director and co-founder of NYSAPE.

“The student privacy regulations just released by the State Education Department were the last straw,” said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters and co-chair of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy.  “After waiting five years for NY Education § 2-d  to be enforced, state officials just proposed regulations that would allow contractors to sell and use personal student data for marketing purposes, in direct violation of the language of the law. And she has failed to deliver any of the annual reports required since 2014 that would detail the progress in following up on data breaches and parental privacy complaints.”

“We urge the Board of Regents to work with parents, advocates and other stakeholder groups in appointing the next Commissioner. Our children deserve a Commissioner who will move past the current test-and-punish regime, and towards a whole-child education and project-based learning,” said Chris Cerrone, a Western NY school board member, teacher and a co-founder of NYSAPE.

“The New York State Education Department under Commissioner Elia was never straight with parents regarding the state's high-stakes testing program. Rather than present neutral information, the department engaged in deceptive practices, including creating PR "toolkits" designed to persuade families of the legitimacy of the tests, even though a growing number of respected educators and researchers have questioned their effectiveness. I hope her successor will be more focused on equity and partnering with schools rather than punishing them,” Kemala Karmen, co-founder of NYC Opt Out.

"Elia repeatedly feigned inclusivity, exaggerating stakeholder input, such as the role of teachers in creating standardized exams, the ESSA implementation workshops where a popular Opportunity Dashboard was stealthily removed, and the “public” comments on teacher evaluations which were never made public. Elia also never responded to requests asking for the research showing the scientific validity of standardized testing, nor would she make public the invisible scoring formulas which make the results unverifiable,” said public school parent and NYC educator Jake Jacobs.

New York must get it right this time. The children of New York and our public schools can’t afford to wait any longer for the education leadership they deserve.

​
NYSAPE is a grassroots coalition with over 70 parent and educator groups across the state.

###

NYSAPE urges a NO vote on the bill that will continue to link teacher evaluation to test scores

Update:  1/24/19: The bill was approved by the Senate and Assembly, despite more than 1,300 emails opposing it, as it  keeps the state's teacher evaluation system linked to student assessments.  A good oped which explains this issue by Aaron Pallas was published in today's Daily News here.


1/23/19: Today, please call your State Senator and your Assemblymember to urge them to vote no.  More info and a script are  on the NYSAPE website here.

Despite the misinformation about this bill, it continues to link student test scores to teacher evaluation in ways that are invalid and potentially damaging, as the below press release from NYSAPE points out.  Though now the tests will be locally selected from a list created by the Commission, this may include the state exams or another assessment, in which case students would face double the amount of testing.  And the dreaded HEDI matrix will remain in force.  You can read a copy of the bill yourself.   

A meeting on the bill will be held by the NY Senate Education committee at 10:00 AM on Tuesday; you can email your legislators by clicking the link on the message below, and/or call them. Calls have more impact generally than emails.

The teacher evaluation system in New York state was originally left totally up to districts, where it should return.  If this new law is passed, it will be the ninth change in the state teacher evaluation system since 2008 by my count.  More on the history of these various laws and regulations here and here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 21, 2019

More information contact:

Lisa Rudley (917) 414-9190; nys.allies@gmail.com

Jeanette Deutermann (516) 902-9228; nys.allies@gmail.com

NYS Allies for Public Education - NYSAPE

Link to Press Release

NYSAPE Urges Legislators to Vote NO to APPR Bill that Will Permanently Link High-Stakes Testing to Teacher and Principal Evaluations

This week, the NYS Assembly and Senate are expected to pass a teacher/principal evaluation bill that will amend the way NYS evaluates teachers and principals. Parents and educators who have taken a stand against the damaging effects of high-stakes testing vehemently oppose this legislation. Rather than the minor tweaks proposed in this legislation, we demand an immediate end to the mandated use of student test scores and student performance measures in the evaluation of educators and the closure of schools. Parents and Educators implore lawmakers to slow down and do further research. Please Take Action and write to your legislators in Albany to stop this speeding train!

Contrary to the claims of some supporters of the legislation, a close examination of the bills indicates that they continue to link teacher evaluations to student growth as measured by test scores and give the state education commissioner the power to shut down or take over schools based on state test results.

Reports of “decoupling” test scores from teacher evaluations are misleading and do not tell the whole truth. The proposed legislation does nothing to dismantle the current test-and-punish system. Under the proposed legislation, a district is no longer mandated to use the flawed grades 3-8 state assessments for evaluative purposes. However, districts must still use some type of test to evaluate teachers and principals.

How would this legislation work? School districts would still be required to administer all state assessments, but would have a choice between using the grades 3-8 state assessments for teacher evaluation or a different test altogether. If a district chooses not to use the grades 3-8 state assessments, the district must then select a separate assessment (often in addition to state exams) to be used in their evaluation plan. In addition to doubling down on high-stakes testing, the proposed legislation will logically lead to even MORE testing for students.

Despite the American Statistical Association and the National Science Foundation’s conclusion that evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores produces statistically invalid results and does not improve learning outcomes, these bills ensure that 50% of teacher and principal evaluations will continue to be based on student assessments. This is hardly a victory. (For more on the 50% issue, see this article.)
​
Bianca Tanis, special education teacher and public school parent said, “I am disappointed by the misinformation campaign surrounding these bills. They perpetuate the same junk science that forces educators to teach to a test. At the end of the day, there is nothing about this legislation that is pedagogically sound.”

“Many professional organizations representing educators and stakeholders have expressed serious misgivings. The legislators must take the time to do further research and make an informed decision,” said Lisa Rudley, Westchester County public school parent, Ossining School Board member, and founding member of NYSAPE.

“We understand that some support of this legislation focuses on local control and the ability of school districts and local unions to choose their own tests for evaluation plans through collective bargaining. However, these bills put the burden of evaluating a teacher squarely on the backs of children through test performance. An evaluation system that pressures children and ignores research is reckless and morally flawed,” said Jeanette Deutermann, leader of Long Island Opt Out.

“The receivership component of the law means schools can be closed because a handful of students perform poorly on state tests. The stakes attached to these exams have never been higher. In no way does it help teachers become better at their jobs or schools to improve. This legislation does not even come close to decoupling high-stakes testing from the ways we evaluate our teachers and schools,” said Kemala Karmen, co-founder of NYC Opt Out.

Education historian Diane Ravitch points out, “The current teacher evaluation law (APPR) was passed to make New York eligible for federal funding from the Race to the Top program in 2010. Under this law, 97% of teachers in the state were rated either effective or highly effective. The law is ineffective. It should be wholly repealed, rather than amended as proposed. Let the state continue setting high standards for teachers and let local districts design their own evaluation plans, without requiring that they be tied to any sort of student test scores.”

Jamaal Bowman, Bronx middle school principal, said, “It is time to bring together parents, scholars, students, doctors, educators, and all who care about our children to create policy that equitably nurtures the brilliance in every child. Why are we still discussing teachers and standardized tests without discussing the toxic stress that greatly harms our children daily, and the lack of opportunity that exists for so many children across the state?”

“The entire idea of basing teacher evaluations on student growth is not only invalid, it is destructive. It alters the relationship between students and teachers--poorly performing students become a threat to job security. Districts will create new metrics that are just as unreliable and invalid as those based on the grades 3-8 test scores and Regents exams,” said Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education and a former New York State High School Principal of the Year.

“The day has come to call on all legislators to legislate and for all educators to educate. We need our legislators to stay out of the way when it comes to creating educational policy, especially when it has to do with evaluating teachers and principals. We need to bring trust back into the educational space. It all starts with trust, and we must trust the fact that using any test score to evaluate an educator is not only wrong, it’s just bad practice,” said Dr. Michael Hynes, Patchogue Medford School District.

The parents and educators in NYS who voted in this new legislative body are relying on them to slow down and take the necessary time to enact research-based legislation that will protect children, educators, and local control.

Please Take Action and write to your legislators in Albany to stop this speeding train!
NYSAPE is a grassroots coalition with over 50 parent and educator groups across the state.

###

Would the new teacher evaluation bill fix the dysfunctional test-based system that currently exists? The answer is no.

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 following is from a NYS Assembly press release:

"THE LEGISLATION WOULD REMOVE THE MANDATE that state created or administered assessments be used to evaluate a teacher's or principal's performance. The Commissioner of Education would be required to promulgate regulations providing ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENTS FOR DISTRICTS THAT CHOOSE NOT TO USE THE STATE ASSESSMENTS. The selection and use of assessments would be subject to collective bargaining. The bill would also eliminate the use of the state-provided growth model in a teacher or principal's evaluation. ALL TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVE (SLO) consistent with a goal-setting process determined or developed by the Commissioner.

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!

***********************************