We all suspected that teachers who work with disadvantaged students, minorities, English Language Learners, and Special Education will have much lower test grades under the badly flawed and unfair Teacher Evaluation System (TES). Now combining the flawed TES with the untested Common Core has resulted in teachers who instruct "high needs" students with very disappointing results. One of the most important and respected educators in our State, 2013 "Principal of the year", Carol Burns has published the results of the 8th grade New York State tests for 2013 and the numbers for all the groups are bad, real bad. The table below shows the percentage of New York State students who passed the 2013 Common Core based test.
Group.....................................................% Passing
All............................................................34
Poverty Level.............................................20
Hispanics...................................................16
Black........................................................12
English Language Learners.............................7
Special Education........................................5
When you look at the highly complicated "value added method" (VAM) in the State "junk Science" equation. I guarantee you that the adjustments for the five groups are not
adjusted for the actual ratios found in the 2013 test scores but at a
much lower percentage difference. The result is that teachers who are
instructing the five groups will get much lower VAM scores and in danger
of being labeled ineffective". Worse, for New York City teachers, if their VAM numbers are deemed "ineffective" they will be rated "ineffective" no matter how well they do on the other parts of the TES.The use of Common Core in the 2013 State test has dramatically widened the income/racial academic achievement gap to grossly unacceptable levels. Below, the table compares the percentage difference between the academic achievement gap for the 2012 State test with the 2013 Common Core based test.
Group................% Difference 2012................ % Difference 2013
Disadvantaged....ELA 6....Math.7.....................ELA.22......Math.19
Black/White........ELA.7....Math.10...................ELA.27......Math.30
Hispanic/White....ELA.8....Math 7.....................ELA.24......Math.22
Special Ed..........ELA.34..Math.33....................ELA.49......Math.47
Its obvious that the State Department of Education has failed the students by bringing out the Common Core without setting up and testing a curriculum to properly implement it. Furthermore, the State failed to provide or fund "professional development" for teachers to understand how Common Core will be taught. The result are poor student scores, low teacher morale, and most importantly "ineffective" teacher ratings that will lead to unfair teacher terminations. The most "at risk" are those teachers who teach "high needs" students, the very teachers the students need the most and that's a shame.
NYC Educator has also wrote about the State's flawed roll out and how it affects his students and himself.
Seriously though Chaz, instead of writing a sarcastic post I will simply ask why, why is all this allowed if you and many many others feel it's not fair? Why is it allowed? Why is it not corrected? Maybe the powers that be don't agree with you and everyone else. They could care less maybe? We all know that these dumb kids equal bad results. For years I've always said if your working in a dumb school with dumb kids, you're screwed. It's all about the students like it's all about the players. Watch the Miami Heat win again this year (Bronx Science) and watch the Knicks fail again (Murry Bertrum). The schools are based on the kids, not the teachers.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:53
ReplyDeleteGood question but our union remains silent and the media ignores these serious issues.
If I was UFT President I would start an advertizing blitz including a billboard at Times Square.
My mostly middle class NYC 8th graders did ABYSMALLY last year on the ELA. They worked their behinds off, yet they couldn't finish the test. They cried pitifully because they left out so many questions and knew they did poorly. What chance do Special Education kids have?
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that it was not the fault of their ELA teacher, who is one of the finest educators you'd ever care to meet.
If the model is designed properly, it will control for things like free lunch eligibility, ELL status, etc. Per VAM one of the lowest rated teachers in the city was a middle-school math teacher at Anderson, the highest-scoring K-8 school in all of New York State. GS had a good piece on this: http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2012/02/29/why-its-no-surprise-high-and-low-rated-teachers-are-all-around/
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly an interesting piece. I can really pound my teachers one by one, no matter if they're great like Anon 9:15. I would destroy Anon 9:15, purposely infusing Sped kids into his mix. It's simple to rate a teacher ineffective. What a simple set-up tool we have discovered in the Danielson framework. If you are in an unfortunate school with a nice Sped population and a percentage of ELL's, well you're basically done. You have no chance on the MOSL measures. Your 40% is cooked. It's unreal how easy they made it for us to clear away the people we don't like. It's a popularity game that most teachers don't realize. The gavel is coming Down and you'll be fired after 2 straight Ineffectives, which plenty of you will receive.
ReplyDeleteChaz
ReplyDeleteWhy would teachers be screwed? Under the new mosl. If the school picked growth as their method for evaluation then as long as the special need students showed growth from last year the teacher rating would actually be effective
Anon 5:39
ReplyDeleteNot true! The growth model still has benchmarks and your students must meet those benchmarks to be deemed effective on the NYS test.
Anon 5:39
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your logic that the growth model is an advantage to teachers who work with disadvantaged students. Can you please explain this to me?
Generally speaking...disadvantaged students make up the majority of at risk students....or low performing. A qualified or effective teacher has more room for growth with this population. It is actually harder mathematically speaking to show growth on high performing students
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:42
ReplyDeleteI spoke to a union official familiar with the growth model and they don't think you are correct. Depending on your student cohort it could be an advantage or a disadvantage since it compares your students with others.
Overall, they believe only time will tell if this "junk science" has any validity.
Anon 8:42
ReplyDeleteI teach in a transfer school and we are terrified that our students don't care about "student growth" they just want the credits.
We have the "growth model" and even our Principal is fearful that based on the "test" he and his staff will be found "ineffective".