Wednesday, December 12, 2018

My Response To The New York Post Editorial.

In Today's New York Post there is an editorial  that wants to end the teacher evaluation moratorium that links children's test scores with teacher evaluations.  The editorial falsely claims that the moratorium protects lousy teachers rather than the real reason for the moratorium.  That scientific studies have shown that a teacher accounts for only between 1% and 14% of a student's academic growth.

The New York Post editorial also failed to mention the  Sheri Lederman case where the judge found the linkage between teacher evaluations and her students growth was based upon an incorrect algorithm, "junk Science".

Furthermore, the  editorial failed to mention that the moratorium was limited tto grades 3 to 8.  High school teachers were still evaluated based on Regents test scores.

Finally, all teachers are evaluated by their administrators and if the teacher is lousy, they can be terminated. either immediately if they are untenured or, if tenured,  through an administrative hearing by a State appointed arbitrator.


Anonymous said...

Not to stray too far off topic but quick question: I read the there is a UFT committee looking into seeing if it would be possible to get us our 2 observations this year instead of waiting until September of next year. NYS law says all we need is 2 observations. If a tenured teacher was rated effective or higher in previous years, there is NO REASON for the UFT/DOE needs to wait till next year. In fact, I read the entire new contract and there is no wording in it that I saw which states that the 2 observations have to start in September. Our contract begins in the middle of Feb and as such, we should not have to be subject to more than 2 observations for tenured/effective teachers. Any info on this topic would be appreciated.

Chaz said...

My understanding is that the two observations will start in the 2018-20 school year.

Anonymous said...

Yes, that is my understanding. However, I read that at one of recent delegate meetings a motion was approved to set up a committee to see if the 2 observations can start this year. I would like to hear from anybody who has info on this.

Prehistoric pedagogue said...

Why bother to evaluate teachers at all if the quality of teaching has such a minimal effect on educational growth?

Anonymous said...

President Trump cancelled white house christmas luncheon for media this year. We all really owe it to the donald for giving it to the dishonest media who has been so dishonest to us here in nyc in every form from atrs to principals.

The press in this country really are the enemy of the people and we educators here in nyc know first hand how deceiving and dishonest the press really is. Even Melania Trump said in her interview yesterday that the press should focus on important issues rather than lying and looking for gossip and this is a woman of few words.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:25 the problem is you bow down to the "trumpinator" or in YOUR case you would bend over for him!! trump is more dishonest as the press. only stupid people like you follow blindly. back on point. teacher evaluations can only work if the evaluator is open and experienced. as a former atr I would sometimes be observed by newbie administrators who were barely teachers.

Anonymous said...

Prehistoric pedagogue said...
Why bother to evaluate teachers at all if the quality of teaching has such a minimal effect on educational growth?

Good is true that parental influence, poverty, IQ, effort, curriculum/supplies and school safety are far more impactful than the individual teacher. I'd evaluate ALL the effects on educational growth if I could. Good luck with that project.

Jonathan Halabi said...

Why bother to evaluate teachers if teaching has such a minimal effect on "educational growth"?

What do you think they mean by "educational growth"? That which can be measured. And the only way they can measure is a test. They say "growth" but they mean "test scores".

Most teachers, at least in NYC are fine. "Satisfactory" was how we used to be rated. But someone who's not, not satisfactory, and there are always a few, there's a lot more to them then whether or not the scores are ok.

It's a mistake to accept "educational growth" as a yardstick, ie, that our teaching does not matter, just our kids' test scores do.

We need to overturn the state law. Which means, as a start, change our leaderships' minds, or change our leadership.


Anonymous said...

This system makes no sense.
The teachers with 3020A’s have the highest pass
rates on the regents. Figure this one out .

Anonymous said...

Teaching will be a temp profession in a decade or so.

Online courses will eliminate the need for expensive people with licenses.

"Facilitators" and lab techs will be the majority of the teaching force one day.

We are a dying breed - the career teacher - the storehouse of specialized knowledge willing to pass it on.

Our civilization (Western Civ) ran out of steam and began to get disillusioned and turn on itself.

We have young white kids marching in the streets now demanding the abolition of white people and everything they created. All civilizations must fall. It is now our turn.

TJL said...

6:41 is on to something, it is why I don't have a problem with "the Matrix" and counting test scores (which we in the high schools still have, the "moratorium" only refers to 3-8).

I know I am one of many mid-career or veteran teachers who are saved by the Matrix; we get "E" or "HE" on the test part because we teach our kids the content the right way and they do well on the Regents. However many have "D" on the observation side because we don't emphasize socialist group work, we keep our desks in rows, etc. The E or HE on the Regents brings you up to an E overall regardless of the dubious observations.

Chaz is right that the "growth model" is largely junk science, but so is Danielson on the observation side. Lowering or eliminating test scores on our year-end evaluation is a net negative if it simultaneously means increasing the influence of the Danielson rubric.

Anonymous said...

4 03
Trump already named bloomberg if he runs for pres against trump. He named him "little mikey"

Anonymous said...

I totally agree that the Matrix is a good thing. The tests have saved many a teacher from shitty admins who give them a "D" on their observations.

Anonymous said...

@1:14 if you were running for president trump would call you "idiot graduate from nyc" except that would be the truth!