New Evaluation System--Is It Happy Dance Time?

I've been to a lot of events in which the beauty and wonder of the new evaluation system has been placed in my face. It's now, it's wow. And it's so much better than the old one, because the matrix will make everything better. Now, you can just match up this rating to that rating, and there are no more nasty numbers and averages to fret over.

And here's the thing--now you don't have to worry if your principal tells you to do some crazy nonsense. If you and he don't agree, it goes to the default option, which is everyone getting rated by schoolwide measures. This makes the junk science more valid because the larger the sample, the more valid it's likely to be. For example, if your sample is small, say, just a few classes, who knows how they are composed?

You could, for example, have a group of repeaters, and who knows why they're repeating? Maybe they have learning disabilities. Maybe they don't know English. Maybe they just don't like studying. Maybe they hate the subject you teach. Maybe they just hate you. Who knows?

But here's the thing--it appears to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone who teaches Regents classes is going to be rated by the Regents classes. Common Core? Too bad. No moratorium for high school teachers. That's for 4 to 8 English and math only, last I looked. Can you go school wide for the Regents scores? No. Can you go department wide for the Regents scores? No.

You're on your own. The American Statistical Association says that teachers affect test scores by a  factor somewhere between 1-14%. But that's too bad for you, pal. If that small group of kids you teach doesn't do as well as you need them to, you could be screwed. Now of course there is the possibility that your supervisor could rate you well, and that could save your ass, or at least keep it from getting rated ineffective.

But wait a minute--isn't the whole advantage of this thing, the one I've heard Michael Mulgrew praise on numerous occasions, that it's supposed to save you from the unfettered power that the principal used to wield? Haven't we been told at meeting after meeting how those horrible principals used to write S or U and there was nothing we could do about it until we added this valuable junk science to the equation? Oddly, I don't remember anyone being freaked out under the S and U system. I see everyone freaked out over this one.

But I'm just a lowly chapter leader working in a school every day. I'm sure from the vantage point of the 14th floor at 52 Broadway, where no one teaches more than one class and everyone is rated S or U if at all, things look different. The only thing that really puzzles me is why they aren't up in arms clamoring for the right to be rated by this fantastic new system.

Now here's a thought. Since there are indeed one or two small-minded, vindictive administrators out there, what on earth is to keep them from making teachers they can't stand teach Regents classes full of students who won't do well? Were they to do that, they could sink their prey by observing things that didn't happen and failing to see things that did. I've mentioned before that I've seen video evidence of one such observation. This leads me to wonder how, exactly, we've improved on the old S/ U system. This is particularly true because under that system the burden of proof was always on the DOE.

Now it's possible that if you don't have all Regents classes you will be evaluated by some sort of blend--your Regents classes and whatever measure non-Regents teachers get. We shall see. And you may say, "But hey, NYC Educator, the issue is not so much the system itself as its abuse by crazy supervisors." Now, you may be right.

But here's the thing--union leaders think the supervisors are so crazy that adding junk science to evaluations makes them better. Supervisors are so bad that this is an improvement, evidently. And of course, with the burden of proof on the teacher and the possibility of rigging the game with unfavorable Regents classes this could give supervisors more, not less power.

Perhaps we could've addressed the problem of supervisory incompetence head-on. Instead, leadership is subjecting teachers to this nonsense, painting a happy face on it, and dancing as fast as they can trying to tell us how happy we should be. When I talk to teachers about it, they're just not feeling the love. And neither am I.

Random Numbers

By now, you've gotten your evaluation report in your DOE email. You may or may not understand it. I won't pretend to. Activist blogger Jonathan Halabi wrote something on Facebook that caught my eye, and I asked him to expand it and share it here. He looked for meaning in the MOSL in a way that wouldn't have occurred to me. After he did that, I sent him my evaluation, and he found it to be about as meaningful as his own (and likely yours too). See for yourself:


I was just evaluated by a list of numbers that could have been random



I took the last two digits of 71 of my last year students’ student ID numbers (OSIS), put them in order, and made a list.



I asked a random number generator to give me 71 numbers from 1 to 100, I put them in order, and I made a list.



I took my “student growth percentiles” from my teacher evaluation, all 71 of them, put them in order, and made a list.



Can you tell which list is which? You probably cannot.  All three of these lists, they appear very similar. Look for yourself:



1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 22, 25, 25, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 33, 35, 36, 42, 42, 42, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 51, 52, 52, 56, 58, 58, 58, 58, 62, 62, 63, 63, 65, 66, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 80, 80, 81, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 94, 94, 95, 98



1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 9, 11, 14, 14, 14, 16, 16, 17, 17, 20, 20, 23, 24, 27, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 34, 35, 41, 41, 43, 46, 48, 48, 48, 50, 51, 53, 58, 61, 62, 62, 63, 63, 63, 64, 66, 67, 67, 67, 69, 73, 75, 75, 76, 76, 77, 78, 78, 78, 79, 79, 81, 81, 81, 83, 85, 85, 87, 95, 95, 96, 97



2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10, 10, 10, 13, 16, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 28, 28, 28, 28, 31, 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 38, 40, 40, 41, 42, 48, 52, 52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 59, 62, 62, 63, 64, 66, 66, 67, 67, 69, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 91, 96, 97, 99



Here’s a hint:  the average of the first list is 51, the average of the second list is 51, and the average of the third list is 49. Doesn’t help, does it?



Statisticians can examine data to see how “spread out” it is. They use something called “standard deviation.” The standard deviations for these three lists? 27, 28, and 28. Still doesn’t help.



The real list is as random as the random list. Next year they might as well base my score on my students’ ID numbers.

What Mike Mulgrew Doesn't Know About APPR

I've been going to the DA and taking notes the last few months. One theme I hear from UFT President Michael Mulgrew is that people like me are hysterical, that we don't understand what a great improvement this system is. You see, since a smaller percentage of people get negative ratings under this system, it's better. That's it. There is no nuance, no accounting for people's feelings, and no awareness whatsoever what working teachers go through.

After all, Mulgrew is not a teacher. I don't know how long he was in the classroom, but he certainly isn't there now. Some of the UFT officers and DRs teach one class, but single-class teachers aren't subject to the APPR system that Mulgrew helped negotiate. They still get rated S or U, and I haven't heard of anyone rated U for teaching one class. If I were a supervisor, with 5 million observations to do, I probably wouldn't even bother with those people.

I teach in a good school, and I don't have bad ratings. I will almost certainly be rated effective this year, though I won't know until September. I've been observed four times and, as far as I know, none of them went badly. So let's say things go as I expect. Let's say I don't get a negative rating, I don't have a Teacher Improvement Plan, I don't have to meet with my supervisor each week to discuss why I suck and how I can suck less. Let's say they don't send a UFT Dementor Teacher to determine whether or not the burden of proof is on me or the DOE when they try to fire me.

Here's what I feel. I feel it's another two years before they can bring me to 3020a and move for my dismissal. Let's say I don't go senile over the next few years and I continue to get decent ratings at my school. Am I at peace? No, I am not. Because I honestly don't trust the MOSL, the junk science that will determine the rest of my rating.

Right now it's not too bad. I'm on the committee at my school and we've decided, wherever possible, to use the broadest measures possible so no teacher is tied to the scores of his or her classes. This makes sense to me because actually, classes vary. Beyond that, a crazy supervisor could stick a teacher with a class that would do poorly. Or an honors class could fail to go from 98% to 99%. That class could sink to 97%, which would clearly indicate the failure of their teacher via junk science metrics. We don't want teachers to suffer for things like that. Also, we don't want teachers in competition. We don't want teachers to feel they'll be hurting themselves by, for example, tutoring students of a colleague.

I teach ESL and for the last few years have been teaching beginners. I love doing this, but not everyone does. And it strikes me as risky. This is because the new NYSESLAT test is all about Common Core and nothing about acquisition of English. Oddly, I still cling to the fiction that helping kids acquire English is my job. But everyone knows fiction plays just about no part whatsoever in Common Core. Few seem to know that acquisition of academic English does not happen instantaneously, and must be preceded by basic conversational English.

I now wonder whether I'm on a suicide mission. The state can attach my rating to the ridiculous and invalid NYSESLAT exam and say I suck and must therefore be fired. I'm not clear on how and when they will do that, but it seems inevitable. The new Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts plan will also bring in total strangers who know nothing about me or my kids to observe, and they are doing this specifically to create more negative ratings. It's not like this is a great secret. Cuomo openly complains we aren't firing enough teachers. I've got thirty years in and if they fire me my family and I won't be living on cat food. Better me than one of my younger colleagues.

Mulgrew can ridicule me and all of us who oppose junk science. He can call us paranoid, cranks, whatever. But he has no idea what we, all of us, are going through.

Too bad because, given that, he cannot and does not represent us at all.

We Are the Bearers of Hope

It's a reformy world. All sorts of money seeks and follows demagogues like Michelle Rhee and Eva Moskowitz. They get in the media and spew their blather unchallenged about whatever they like. Always, the bottom line is unionized teachers as scapegoats. The only solution is more and more selective test prep factories. If they can pick the best kids and get rid of the undesirables, they can post better test scores, which in their world is the sole factor that determines whether or not a school merits existence.

But we won't shut up. Big voices like Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson and Carol Burris are out there, loudly proclaiming the truth. When Eva Moskowitz attempts to spout her nonsense in a fair forum, multiple voices of reason stop her dead in her tracks. There are more of us than there are of them, we love our children, and we will not give up no matter how much money they fight us with.

In our own schools we are dispirited by the junk science evaluation system, terrorized by the whims of imperious supervisors. Mulgrew, displaying no connection to what we feel, boasts of how few teachers are rated ineffective. Talk to one of those teachers, facing job loss, and you'll instantly see how little consolation it is. At the same time, Mulgrew boasts to the DA that John King finds our system among the best in the state because so many of us are rated developing and are on improvement plans. You see how that works? It's good because so few teachers have adverse ratings, but it's also good because so many teachers have adverse ratings. It must be a greatly comforting to reside in the Unity Caucus echo chamber.

Everywhere I go I see teachers afraid of their own shadows. They're terrified they'll get poor ratings for no reason. They're afraid their small-minded vindictive supervisors will target them. They won't sign grievances because they fear that will make them targets. Consequently the Contract means nothing. You want me to put up a bulletin board and include a rubric that parents will neither comprehend nor care about? Fine. You have no time for me to do it? That's fine too.

Mike Mulgrew still thinks the evaluation plan is the best thing since sliced bread, and it's likely as not because he's never tried artisan bread that you cut with your own knife. After all, he took part in the creation of the law. He's proud to have made junk science a factor in teacher evaluations. Though he, like just about everyone, doesn't understand the MOSL, he has people who do, and while none of us actually understand it, the formula somehow worked, spitting out only a tenth of NYC teachers as sub-par.

Of course the consequences for those teachers can be draconian. If your supervisor gave you decent ratings and you're on a humiliating "improvement plan" simply because of junk science, that can be incredibly demoralizing. Of course if you were rated ineffective, and face 3020a dismissal charges with the burden of proof on you rather than DOE, you're facing the loss of your very livelihood. And yes, junk science can be the deciding factor placing you there. Then you're at the tender mercies of some UFT member who saw fit to join the rat squad.

Mulgrew, unlike working teachers, has nothing to be afraid of except an election that's heavily rigged in his favor. He well knows that most teachers find it so ridiculous they throw their ballots in the trash.

That's where we are. But there's no advantage in being afraid, I'm afraid. If indeed your supervisor is a bully, tolerating abuse won't make him any less of one. I've seen people who have opted to keep quiet so as to avoid retaliation end up the subjects of retaliation anyway.  There's no upside to fear, be it justified or simply garden-variety paranoia.

Those of us who see the truth must speak it. Those of us who see what's right must preach it. We must prop up our brothers and sisters who are fearful and oppressed. We must point to others who say the truth. These are tough times and there are those who'd leave us for dead.

But we're far from it. And for our own sakes and for those of our children, we can't give up. The fight's not easy, and the fight's not fair. But we have the numbers and we will prevail. There is simply no other option.

MOSL and the Ten Commandments

Every school needs to determine precisely how junk science is utilized to determine teacher ratings. In our school, we tried to make measures as broad as possible. Wherever we could, we did not tie teachers to ratings based on their individual students. We felt this was unhealthy. For example, if some kid came to me asking for extra help, it would probably be less than optimal for me to say, “Screw you, kid, because you’re in Miss Grundy’s class.”

I probably wouldn’t say that in any case, but I would never want to be in competition with my colleagues. This places me in opposition to the prevailing reformy winds, which cry, “Fire the lowest 5, 10, or 90% of all teachers.” That’s also nonsense. But the entire notion of MOSL is nonsense, and if you’re involved you have no alternative but to choose the nonsense that suits you best.

The trend in my school was highly effective ratings in the building. This left a lot of happy teachers. But alas, most of us, myself included, were dragged down to merely effective after our junk science scores were averaged in. On the flip side, a lot of developing ratings were pulled up to effective.  As chapter leader, pissed off though I was about my rating and those of most of my colleagues, I felt we had more or less done the best we could.

My school, though, tends to do well. I’ve spoken to other people who’ve seen highly effective ratings dragged down to developing, and there are a few cases I’ve heard of that went from highly effective to ineffective. Hopefully cases like those will be corrected on appeal. Most appeals will go to the chancellor, where precedent from Klein on has been a rejection level of almost 100%. Our new agreement allows UFT to present 13% of cases to independent arbitrators, who will hopefully be more reasonable.

The consequences of poor ratings can be dire. Developing is not all that bad, though not all that good either. The primary consequence, aside from damage to your pride and such, is a TIP, or teacher improvement plan. Theoretically, the teacher and admin will collaboratively work out a plan to improve whatever needs improvement. Should that be the junk science portion of the rating, it will be an uphill battle indeed. Reliable studies suggest that teachers effect test scores somewhere between 1 and 14%. And of course if your supervisors are insane, the TIP could be torturous.

You may not appeal a developing rating. However, you will not face 3020a dismissal charges based on such ratings either. Ineffective ratings are quite a bit more threatening. Should you get one, you will be visited by a dementor validator who will decide whether or not you suck. Should the validator decide that in fact you do not suck, your principal can still bring you up on 3020a dismissal charges the next year. However, the DOE will have to prove you suck.

If the validator gives you a thumbs-down, saying yes you do suck, you will then have to prove that you do not suck. This basically robs you of that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing, which can be more than a minor inconvenience, what with poverty, health care, homelessness, and minimum wage employment all out there to welcome you.

So the decision of your MOSL committee can be a very serious thing. Do you know what your school’s MOSL committee decided? Did it work last year? Was it changed this year? What has worked for you and your colleagues? What hasn’t? And why on earth are we asked to make such high-stakes nonsensical decisions in the first place?