GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Facism would involve oppression; this is about doling out extra dollars, for prorgrams the administration sees fit to support. That’s not facism; it’s democracy.

Elizabeth:

The NYS reg allows the “teacher use of student data” to be used in teacher tenure evaluation, not the “student data” itself … under the awkward phrasing one could argue that NYS falls under the regulation … perhaps the phrasing was intended … the legislation calls for the regulation to be revisited during the 2010 legislative session … with the governance “follies” and the absence of a permanent SED commish I doubt anyone in Albany is giving it much scrutiny … and w/ the health care legislation tottering I wonder whether Obama wants to spank core supporters …

Dissenter,

You call the law stupid, but it’s actually quite sensible. We would not want to base teacher evaluation on data that we have good reason to believe are not under their control. Given the poor — or at least incomplete — mapping of the standards to the tests, these tests are rather poor measures of teachers abilities to do their jobs. But even worse, the lack of showing of instructional sensitivity seems to indicate that they are in no way measures of teachers abilities to do their jobs.

When we actually have tests that are instructionally sensitive and representitively test the standards that teachers are required to teach, the law will be stupid. But until those two conditions are met, it is a very smart law. The very fact that so many relatively uninformed people think that it would be a good idea to use the existing sort of test data to measure teacher performance make the law all the more appropriate.

Or to put this more simply: The tests don’t measure that. So, don’t use them to judge that.

As for trying to link to class size reduction? How much would CSR costs? What would the capital costs be to build the classrooms and schools needed? Given the overcrowding in NYC schools, how long would it take to purchase the land and build the facilities for CSR?

This money has nothing to do with CSR, and wouldn’t come close to addressing the needs of such a program.

Ahh, something from Dissenter on class size reduction. I must be dreaming.

Michael … you’re a sophicated guy … ALL fed legislation contains hundreds of pages of fine print telling localities what they can and cannot do … money w/o strings only is promised by those offers e-scams from Nigeria!

Everyone is forgetting that teaching is not a contest, but a profession. Our nation has develop this obsession with data that no one is not looking at our goals of preparing the students for the future. The race to the top will bring out the worse in everyone who’ only interest in getting money. The outcome will be fraught with fraud, corruption, and deceit. Our society has reached the lowest and power and greed have taken over the education system. We keep pointing at the teachers for the outcome of our society. But, no one wants to point at the parents’ responsiblities of being their for their children so that teachers can do their job of teaching. If race to the top is to be used to evaluate teachers, then administrators MUST teach a class of at least 30 low-functioning students, who are NOT truant, who are not on the list of discharge, and who are not in shelters. These administrators should show their data and their passing rates to the teaching staff and how the grades were determined. Then based on the evaluation of the administrators, which is completed by a team of top teachers within that school, can the race to the top be equitable and fair.

Peter and others -
Apologies for the confusion. The quip about “string-pulling” at 5:43p was mine, in response to Peter at 4:43p.

Ceolaf:

While Congress writes the bill, once it becomes law the federal agency, part of the executive branch writes the rules … the Stimulus dollars, the source of the Race to the Top funds, gives wide discretion in rule making to the executive department overseeing the funds … I suspect that the reauthoriization of NCLB, probably with a name change, will be far more specific …with major congressional battles over “puntative” versus “supportive” for “failing” schools.

Here’s a suggestion. You could change the law with language to the following effect: “NY state supports the use of standardized student test scores for teacher evaluation after these methods haved passed rigorous scientific review demonstrating that they accurately and equitably identify the true effect of teachers on student outcomes.”
That would slap the ball back into the nitwits’ court while stopping any implementation dead in its tracks. The clueless wizards proposing the use of test scores for teacher evaluation have no idea of the insurmountable statistical hurdles facing such a system, so you could get the money and send them scurrying back to the cubbyholes to come up with a scheme that would only end up embarrassing them in the end. If there had been a scientific review process for DOE’s travesty of an accountability system (imagine eduwonkette on the panel!), it would have been DOA.

Peter & KitchenSink,

Obviously the executive branch writes the regulations. But those regulations must fit within the legislation. There is a whole body of law regarding the leeway and discretion that the executive branch can have in this area.

I am asking if — perhaps even suggesting that — the kinds of conditions that the executive branch is trying to attach to these funds are not consistent with the authorizing legislation. I think that the executive branch is overreaching on this one. There was no intent to use these funds to force states to change their own laws — quite unlike how congress authorized the DOT to pressure states to change their speed limits and seat belt laws.

I do not know if any state will actually sue the federal government on this, but there clearly is a case to be made. It would be up to the courts to rule on this matter. But the power to write regulations is not unlimited, and is — Bush’s signing statements not withstanding — subservient to congress’s right to write legislation.

Peter,

Having read NLB from start to end, it was pretty clear that the DOE acted within the letter and the spirit of the legislation. It allowed Title I funding to be conditional on the NCLB testing and sanction paradigm.

I haven’t read the current legislation cover to cover myself, but I don’t think think that it says anything about state tenure laws or the use of student data to evaluate teachers. The questions that CT (?) asked about NCLB regulations were within the confines of what the NCLB legislation said. I believe that these conditions are clearly outside the scope of the legislation, and therefore quite problematic.

Of course the states wouldn’t get any money unless they win the case or change their laws, whichever come first. That should go without saying.

I’m not sure why you think that “with Health Care in serious jeopardy the Obama guys are not going to risk alienating teachers and their union.” Are you saying that Obama & Co will now back off of demanding charter caps be lifted, tenure laws made more strict and allowing the use of achievement data to measure teachers? All three of those positions run against against teacher union positions. This is not about the NCLB authorization. This is about the Race to the Top funds, and that is going on right now!

So you’re saying these purportedly anti-union pieces of regulation are dummies set up to be easy give-backs to keep the unions in their pocket for the health care push? It actually sounds plausible.

Does anyone other than union officials actually read AFT and UFT press releases, which are pure propaganda?

We have learned to watch what the AFT/UFT leaders do, not what they say. Just as the AFT was on the NCLB committee (remember the “it could have been worse if we didn’t have a seat at the table” argument) we can see in NYC how the UFT agreed to various form of using data to measure teachers (oh, but a principal can’t make you bring the results with you for an interview – wink, wink) and various forms of merit pay -er – bonuses for results based 90% on high stakes tests – which the AFT/UFT says in press releases are we too overemphasized – but why not take the money anyway – wink, wink.

I have spent the last 10 years attempting to understand how “education” does its business. As a parent, private educator, curriculum developer and citizen of a small town, in a small county, in a big state and an enormous nation, I have come to understand that no matter what laws we enact, there cannot be any movement forward in education until parochial interests are set aside and the children elevated to the fore of the conversation.