Agreed, Good Idea, But Bad Design By NY State

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 10/10]

At Elwood's BOE Work Session on Oct 6th, we finally learned some specifics about what the State has done in implementing the teacher performance appraisal process. Like many things in life, specifics trump generalities any day of the week.

Thanks to some candid descriptions by the Superintendent of Schools, and some useful dialogue among trustees as well as some residents, we now know what NY State has done, and we also now know that what the State has done seems to have been done "more to us rather than for us."

There was general agreement during this discussion that education in New York would benefit from an enhanced teacher performance appraisal process, but the State seems to have created not only a new unfunded mandate in creating their version, but they also seemed to have created a highly flawed system which could create unintended consequences as well as increase costs dramatically.

First of all, the data which would be required to be gathered, managed, and submitted to the State by each school district, in addition to what is presently submitted, would require a dedication of district resources that will not be paid for by the State.

Second, the use of State student assessment data as 20% of the performance appraisal calculation will place, perhaps in unintended ways, an increased burden upon students themselves, whose scores on such specific tests will now be part of a process which could determine which teachers will subsequently be subject to dismissal if that teacher's overall score is
below a certain level for a specified period of time.

Third, the State has set itself up, and in so doing has set school districts up, for what would seem to be a perpetuated challenge process whereby an unhappy teacher, and/or union representatives, could delay any appropriate significant action by a school district for years longer (and it seems beyond definition at this point) than the theoretical appraisal process would allow. As the old line goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

Fourth, the State's new process would even seem to make it more difficult for school districts to determine the suitability of one of the very, very few areas of a school district's current ability to manage quality control among its teaching staff, namely, with probationary teachers. Right now a district has discretion with this class of new hires, but it seems that the new State structure could even make a district subject to delaying tactics and possibly challenges from new hires.

The reaction of trustees and residents alike indicated that what the State has designed is the wrong thing for us and other districts.

As BOE Vice President Dan Ciccone put it, "Do we need accountability, absolutely. Do we need appraisals, absolutely. But this is not what we need."

One resident agreed and noted that this State design would put too much burden on the students, as well as the staff managing all of the data.

Another resident noted that many employers, including his company, use a 360 degree review. As background, that is one which basically gathers reviews of one staff member by (a) their customers (in this case it would be parents), and (b) by their peers (in this case it would be other teachers), and (c) by their superiors (in this case it would be the building principal and central office administrators).

Yet another resident indicated that everyone is being held accountable at their own jobs, but that school districts definitely need to get rid of unfunded mandates.

To all of the above, I would say "Amen."

For me, Albany long ago became a four letter word, but it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

As additional background for this issue, as well as to provide a review of the foundation-setting which Elwood had for this evolving State action, I have reprinted an excerpt from my community commentary, titled "Important Presentation on Staff Performance Evaluation Process," which was published on 12/10/10:

"...there were some significant “compromises” by the State Education Department as a result of pressure from the New York State United Teachers, which is the 600,000 member union in NY State....Dr. Friedman reminded everyone that “the devil is in the details,” and that these changes need a great deal of clarification. He also reminded us that when we consider measurements of various aspects of performance that can and should be used to determine staff value, that “not everything that can be counted, counts, and not everything that counts, can be counted.”

Anyone who would like a copy of that commentary, with its attached early-stages analysis done in November of 2010 by Ron Friedman, should simply send me an E-mail with that request.