GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

How is it that anything with a margin of error as wide as 35% is “in the public interest” to release?

Seriously.

The MOE doesn’t matter?

Would President Obama trust a political poll with a 35% MOE?

Would Mayor Bloomberg trust a company that had a 35% MOE in the reporting of its financial data?

The answer is no in both cases.

But when it comes to teachers, well, all that matters is “accountability”.

So what if the “accountability measures” are unreliable and damaging to a person’s reputation (once they are published in the newspapers.)

So what if the MOE is 35%?

All that matters is that we “get tough” on “bad teachers”!

Never mind that this “system” has as good a chance as slandering “good” teachers as it does of picking out “bad” ones.

This is the union’s fault for agreeing to these things in the first place, but now it is completely in the UFT’s interest to NEVER go to the table and negotiate a new teacher evaluation system.

We’ll see if the leadership has the guts to do that.

I suspect they don’t.

But when an “accountability system” with a MOE as large as 35% is going to be used to bludgeon good professional teachers, there is no reason to do anything to make it easier for Bloomberg and the DOE to get on with the bludgeoning.

When they release this info I am betting that teachers will be physically threatened and probably be hurt.  I hope these teachers SUE the DOE and anyone that posts the info.  I know Mulgrew, in the past, said that the UFT would ‘help’ anyone who had problems because of the release of data.

Forget the errors, there are some really scary parents out there.  I know teachers who have been threatened.  I know teachers who have had to flee their classrooms. 

How will the union help those untenured teachers with an extension of probation (some are on their 2nd extension) when they are terminated based on the faulty TDR?  At will employees are at risk of losing their teaching position because the MOE will be the end of their teaching career?  I agree with RBE.  The union must look 10 steps ahead of what the DoE’s next move will before making any more negotiations that will cost the members’ career.  These deals with the DoE are undermining the teaching profession.

assuming this decision is not reversed, a lawsuit against the DOE for releasing public agency records in response to FOIL requests would be a gigantic waste of your union dues.  

file a FOIL request, see what happens.  

*officially FILING even Looking forward to seeing them.

i preferred the version where you were the FOIL request. reminiscent of the “just a bill on capitol hill” film. 

i preferred the version where you were the FOIL request. reminiscent of the “just a bill on capitol hill” film. 

I hate to say this, but I don’t think we – as teachers – should be hypocritical here. Either we’re for this, or we’re against it – all of it.

I hate to say this, but I don’t think we – as teachers – should be hypocritical here. Either we’re for this, or we’re against it – all of it.

They wouldn’t pay for it.  But, I’m sure they find other ways to help.  They can go to the press and make it news.  I go to the delegate meetings and I can tell what really pisses off Mulgrew and what is just show.  This really gets under his skin.  I’ve learned to read him pretty well and I know when he is talking out of his a$$.  This and bedbugs really bothers him.  I wish other things bother him as much as this. 

i haven’t researched this area in a long time and i haven’t seen the briefing in this case, but having read the decisions of the trial court and the appellate division, it would seem to me that there’s at least some possibility that the court of appeals could go the other way on this.  the trial court reviewed the DOE’s decision to release the TDRs under an extremely deferential standard that’s the usual standard for reviewing any government agency decision.  under that standard, the court asks not whether the decision was correct, but whether there could be any rational basis for the decision.  (in laymen’s terms:  was the decision insane?)  the appellate division held that the trial court got that standard wrong, and that it should have reviewed the decision to see it it was “affected by any error of law.” i don’t know offhand whether that standard would take the analysis into a “de novo” territory.  the appellate division found that even under the proper standard, the DOE’s decision was proper.  but it’s possible that the court of appeals could reach another conclusion under that standard.

. 

that ship has long sailed.  that guy was publicly vilified on these message boards hundreds if not thousands of times.  you’ll be able to google that stuff in 2025.

also, i should have noted that i think you’re being too dismissive of the public/private distinction.  freedom of information laws are extremely important tools for making government accountable and accessible.  we haven’t always had them, and we shouldn’t take them for granted.  on the other hand, there are few principles that are more essential to american law than the principle that the government is democratic (“of the people, by the people, for the people”) and has limited power over private individuals.  the fourth amendment says that the government has no right to enter your house without a warrant.  the warren court said that you have a “right to privacy.”  if you want to enter my house, and i refuse to let you enter, you can ask the police to knock the door down for you, but they won’t.  the reason they won’t is because neither you, nor the police, have the legal right to do that.  and the reason that neither of you have that right is because it has been decided that my privacy is worth more than your interest in getting inside my house.  

it’s a good rule, i think, though you’re welcome to disagree.  it’s based partly in the principle that people should be allowed to be left alone, and partly on the conclusion that it’s not worth disturbing that principle just so some random citizen, with no probable cause and no exigent circumstances, can nose around in another man’s business.i understand that your point is essentially one about privacy — if we’re talking about truly “private” information, what’s the difference who you work for? either way, it’s  embarrassing and uncomfortable for the person whose privacy is at stake. and that’s true. but the difference is that there is a countervailing principle that weighs against your privacy interest — the interest in making government accountable.  that’s how the balancing test that the court applied in this decision today came about.  you balance individual privacy rights against public accountability.  maybe we don’t like the results all the time, and maybe the process can be unfair, but it’s just not correct to say that there is no philosophical basis on which to argue that freedom of information requests should apply to any private citizen.     

To the extent the TDR’s have a 50 point margin of error, they are as subjective as any Principal’s written feedback. Mine shifted 50 points in the course of one year, so I speak from experience. When you can find the research to back up TDR’s as correlated to actual educational progress outside the test scores alone, then you can lecture me on how they are linked to government accountability. That said, you seem like a nice person, so I send you genuine smiles, despite the disagreement

Who is this flerpo troll???

You mean like Barack Obama?

My take on the VAA controversy….http://www.southbronxschool.com/2011/08/not-more-of-this-value-added-assessment.html

in all fairness, mark, i can be cranky sometimes. 

I saw the handwriting on the wall two years ago and made moves to transfer out of classes that end in state tests into classes that do not.  Now, as my fellow teachers are worried and broken, fretting that their little darlings may bomb the test just for fun (and negatively impact the ratings of the teacher,) I sit back and relax.  I am a highly rated teacher by all measures.  The DOE keeps trying to make me a ‘master’ teacher, but I demure.  As some comments here have suggested: no teacher in his or her right mind would stay in a high needs school, and have subjects that end in state tests, if they could help it.  We love teaching and we love our students (most of them, anyway), but who wants their job security tied to a student body of really broken kids?  I can only do so much with students who come from broken homes, who are in gangs, who are seven grade levels behind (no joking here) and who take little interest in learning no matter how much fire-juggling I do.  I bring them up when they’re with me, but most of my students will never reach anywhere near grade level no matter how many master teachers they have.  So I try my best and they grow, but not fast enough for the task master that is the DOE which fails to recognize reality and let us teach what the kids really need to make real progress. 

Jay1, you stated it correctly.  There are no master teachers out there that can bring students who are 5-7 years behind, and not interested in learning to bring them to grade level.  The DoE should recognize, if they understand child development, that teaching and educating students is the most important part of a child’s growth and development, even their growth brings them only 4- 5 years behind their peers instead of 5-7 years.  It is unrealistic to think that a child will learn everything that he/she has lost in those 5-7 years in one school year.  If a child shows growth, celebrate.  But those students with so many challenges in their personal life will have no or very little growth.  For those children, the DoE should look at the data and provide all the necessary services, such as social workers, attendance teacher, psychologist, and any other services that will help them emotional so teachers can then help them academically. 

 instead of 5-7 years.  It is unrealistic to think that a child will learn everything that he/she has lost in those 5-7 years in one school year.  If a child shows growth, celebrate.  But those students with so many challenges in their personal life will have no or very little growth.  For those children, the DoE should look at the data and provide all the necessary services, such as social workers, attendance teacher, psychologist, and any other services that will help them emotional so teachers can then help them academically. 
.