GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

I’d like to point out that despite the DOE’s various excuses for not reducing class size, including the claim that class size doesn’t matter, in the “value added” model used in the teacher data reports to evaluate teacher effectiveness, class size is the ONLY factor under the school system’s control.

This is an admission on DOE’s part that the larger the class, the less a teacher is expected to raise student achievement. All the other factors in the model pertain to characteristics of the students themselves, such as economic status, prior test scores, absences, etc.

I discuss this on the parent blog here: http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2009/02/bloomberg-administration-blames-parents.html

Unfortunately, the class size data is extremely unreliable at the middle shcool and esp. the HS level, so that the class size factor used to help evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness will likely be inaccurate, and thus the information yielded by these reports wrong.

DOE hasn’t put a penny into improving the accuracy of its class size data, which still counts both CTT classes in HS as two separate classes; also they use HS data as late in the year as possible, in order to take credit for the thousands of kids who drop out between Sept. and January.

Maybe, just maybe, common sense and anecdotal reports matter here. We know that schools have turned into test prep factories. We know that this seriously detracts from teaching and learning. We know that schools are not teaching subjects not regularly tested – the arts, social studies, AIDS education, physical education, etc. We know that cheating goes on. Such a policy will bring out the worst in schools and teachers, not the best. We know what kids need to learn and what teachers need to teach – not a mystery. Let’s get down to teaching.

Re “UPDATE: DOE asked me to take down the RFP, which apparently you have to pay a fee to see, unless you’re a reporter. Thoughts?”

Aren’t we ALL reporters?

Click hyperlink for another treat.

I actually said — that the city was trying to be a thought leader. I am not trying to hedge my bets. We need systems that help us measure the impact of individual teachers because we know that good teachers make all the difference.

The problem right now is that this test is too narrow and that too many educators are resorting to horrific instruction and drill. However, teaching wholistically is not going to work either. This new system requires a mix of teaching wholistically while targeting specific skills in context. This is hard and not enough people are doing it. The way out of this problem is national standards, radical innovation of the assessments so that they also measure skills in context and wholistically.

Below I have linked to a fantastic explanation of the past and the possibilities for innovating assessment.

We need to figure out how to create assessments that we can teach to that will actually push our instruciton to higher levels and not short change our students. http://www.educationsector.org/media/media_show.htm?doc_id=830339

If teachers will be evaluated on the basis of test scores, I have advice for them that will guarantee high scores for almost all their students. Teachers need to remember these three words: location, location, location. I taught school for 42 years before retiring in 2007. During this time I taught in affluent, middle-class and very poor areas. In the rich school, most of my students scored above the 85th percentile on standardized tests; in the middle class schools most scored around the 50th percentile and in the impoverished school below the 10th. It was very obvious to me (and heavily supported by research) that these scores correlated closely with socio-economic factors.

My advice to new teachers: Appy only in districts with high test scores. If you can’t get a job in one of these schools, apply to be a substitute until there is an opening. To veteran teachers: Apply for a transfer to an affluent school in your district. If this is not possible, gather as much evidence of student achievement in the fall (tape recordings, tests, compositions etc.) and get other teachers to observe your students. In the spring, give your own evaluations to show progress. This evidence can be used to counter the results of standardized testing, which may or may not represent growth made by your students during the year. Yes, I want poor children to have the best possible teachers but not until these dedicated professionals are assured of fair evaluations.

Linda,

Until one studies the “value added” calculation, one cannot simply say, “teach where the scores are high.” The proposed formula puports to measure value added — not just test scores — or I’d agree immediately.

One of the problems with DOE’s School Progress Report Cards MIGHT be repeated here: misguided notions of how to measure “progress” might be echoed in how to measure “value-added.”

If Teacher A teaches in Affluent School, where kids score at 85th percentile, year after year, what value has the teacher added? 85 – 85 = net zero.

If Teacher B teaches at Impovershed School, where kids score at 10th percentile one year, but say 30th percentile next year, for a net increase of 20 percentile points, is Teacher B a better teacher?

Which teacher kept his or her kids 35 points above the mean? Which teacher didn’t even have 20 points of “headroom” over 85?

What might the results be if Teachers A and B switched places for year 3? Who knows. So why make a pay differential that falsely rewards for value-added. And I haven’t even looped back on socio-economic or family variable or variables outside the teacher’s control yet.

P.S. Is the Chancellor’s pay dependent on how his system educates kids? Just a thought. Cheers.