New York City Schools Measure Teacher Performance with Student Tests

[Chef Dave]

In an article published by the New York Times last January, the New York City School District announced a pilot test that was so contentious that some building administrators wouldn't even tell their faculty that they were part of a district pilot test.

Some 2,500 teachers are being assessed based upon student performance data. The information will be used to make decisions regarding tenure, evaluations, and bonuses. It is also possible that individual teacher ratings may be made public.

Randi Weingarten, the union president of the United Federation of Teachers, has said that the union will oppose the city if it tries to use this information for tenure or formal evaluations. She also opposes the publication of teacher ratings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/nyregion/21teachers.html?fta=y

[irish223]

With the current trends in education policy, this seems inevitable and unfortunate. I really hope it doesn't come to that though.

[jsfowler]

That is pretty much how it is done here. They look at end of the year test scores and that could possibly determine your placement for the next year or even if you are hired back at all. When test scores come back, they are presented in many different types of reports. One lists all students in alphabetical order with their various scores next to their name. Another can be separated by homeroom so that different classroom's scores can be compared.

In a way, I don't see that it is such a bad idea to look at teachers' scores. I mean, if students are divided equally (like at my school) and the same teacher has the lowest scores year after year, then there is a problem. It should not totally be based on test scores but I think they are a good indicator of how they stack up to the other teachers in the building.

[irish223]

In theory, I agree with you, js. In practice, there are so many variables that can affect a student's outcome on state testing, and I believe that it could also be abused. Plus, I'm afraid that some teachers would resort to cheating. In my district, I know of one teacher who regularly cheated on the state tests by changing her students' answers, even though the results of the tests were not used for any evaluative purpose.

[Chef Dave]

In a way, I don't see that it is such a bad idea to look at teachers' scores. I mean, if students are divided equally (like at my school) ...

I guess it depends upon how districts use this information.

If assessments are made on a building by building basis, that would be one thing ... but if you assess teachers who work with children from low income families, and then turn around and compare their performance with teachers who work with kids from the affluent Upper West Side, you've got a problem.

Once you start switching student demographics around, you invalidate the comparison.

It's easy for the average teacher to shine if most of your kids are on or above grade level. It's a great deal more challenging to work with kids who are below grade level.

[MissTeach]

That is pretty much how it is done here. They look at end of the year test scores and that could possibly determine your placement for the next year or even if you are hired back at all. When test scores come back, they are presented in many different types of reports. One lists all students in alphabetical order with their various scores next to their name. Another can be separated by homeroom so that different classroom's scores can be compared.

In a way, I don't see that it is such a bad idea to look at teachers' scores. I mean, if students are divided equally (like at my school) and the same teacher has the lowest scores year after year, then there is a problem. It should not totally be based on test scores but I think they are a good indicator of how they stack up to the other teachers in the building.


"If students are divided equally" are key words. At our school, we have some teachers who teach only honors classes. We also have teachers who teach remedial classes and special education classes. Also, all of our teachers are intergrating math, reading, and writing into their classes. As a result, we have begun to think of ourselves as a team. If individual teacher's scores were to be evaluated, I believe it would become more competitive and not as much teamwork. However, I do understand your point about one teacher's scores being low every year.

[RibbityRibbit]

I wouldn't mind if the ranking was based on more than test scores... for example, parents are asked to do a survey at the end of the year about the teacher. The principal does an eval, the other teachers at the school do one on the teacher's ability to work as a team member, students also report on the teacher.

Somehow in all that data, some good information will be gathered.

Also, if it wasn't based on the state test, but some evals done at the start of the year, or the end of the previous year, compared to evals done at the end of the current year to determine student growth. If a kid comes into the class three grade levels behind, and comes out one behind, the teacher should still get credit for that, even if the kid doesn't pass the test.

[carrieSAtoUSA]

I guess it depends upon how districts use this information.

If assessments are made on a building by building basis, that would be one thing ... but if you assess teachers who work with children from low income families, and then turn around and compare their performance with teachers who work with kids from the affluent Upper West Side, you've got a problem.

Once you start switching student demographics around, you invalidate the comparison.

It's easy for the average teacher to shine if most of your kids are on or above grade level. It's a great deal more challenging to work with kids who are below grade level.

I totally agree. I work at a school with there is quite a wide variety of student demographics and our classes are grouped according to ability / language levels. There are other schools in our districts where the kids are from higher income families, so their end results are always better. Our schools are compared in the newspaper at the beginning of each school year, and bonuses are given to each school based on the performance of the EOG's : did the school perform according to a set of rules, did the students show growth, etc.? It puts a lot of stress on the teachers, especially those that have the classes with the children that will never be able to show the growth that their peers have, just because of the way they are. I could go on and on - but for space sake, I won't! It's very frustrating!!!

[jsfowler]

I guess it depends upon how districts use this information.

If assessments are made on a building by building basis, that would be one thing ... but if you assess teachers who work with children from low income families, and then turn around and compare their performance with teachers who work with kids from the affluent Upper West Side, you've got a problem.

Once you start switching student demographics around, you invalidate the comparison.

It's easy for the average teacher to shine if most of your kids are on or above grade level. It's a great deal more challenging to work with kids who are below grade level.

I completely agree. However, let me make this statement. My school is in a very low socio-economic area - it varies from year to year, but this year over 80% of our students received free or reduced lunch.

There is a scholarship to the University of Kentucky that is given to one 8th grader every year. The criteria is...good grades, teacher recommendation, low income, parents did not attend college. You would not believe the number of students I have that can compete for this scholarship...my adopted niece won it last year! Full ride to UK and any graduate program upon acceptance.

My point in saying all of this is...school in a low income area is not an excuse for poor test results. I am not saying that anyone HERE is trying to use this excuse, but I know of alot of schools that do.

[Chef Dave]

My point in saying all of this is...school in a low income area is not an excuse for poor test results. I am not saying that anyone HERE is trying to use this excuse, but I know of alot of schools that do.

I agree.

I am sure that you will also agree that schools in low income areas face a longer uphill struggle than schools in other areas.

In addition to poverty, you may have: kids from broken homes with no appropriate role models in their lives, gangs and gang violence, and drugs.

Add in a weak/inept administration who lack the capability or backbone of controlling their schools, stir in "social promotions," replace a seasoned faculty with a high percentage of novice teachers, take into account low faculty morale due to high turnovers and lack of administrative support, and just for the heck of it, put the school in an old building with growing maintenance issues that forces administration to choose patch and pray versus the purchase of new computers and supplemental teaching supplies ... and you have problems.

This is part of the reason why I oppose the notion of "trial by fire" for novice teachers. Novice teachers need to be mentored , cultivated, and developed into dependable teachers. They don't need to be tossed into the fray in schools that nobody wants to teach at with kids who are at high risk for dropping out.

Inner city schools need highly qualified teachers and strong capable administrators to offset demographic issues.

I regret that for the most part, this is not happening in our nation's schools.

[Chef Dave]

I just found this article on line.

New York City and state teacher unions spent $3 million in lobbying efforts to block a measure backed by NYC Mayor Bloomberg and New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, which would have allowed student-performance data to be used in determining teacher tenure.

The money funded ads, billboards, professional lobbyists, and the cost of transporting teachers to Albany to attend hearings and to lobby lawmakers.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/news/regionalnews/teachers_buy_albany_105793.htm

[silvana]

In an article published by the New York Times last January, the New York City School District announced a pilot test that was so contentious that some building administrators wouldn't even tell their faculty that they were part of a district pilot test.

Some 2,500 teachers are being assessed based upon student performance data. The information will be used to make decisions regarding tenure, evaluations, and bonuses. It is also possible that individual teacher ratings may be made public.

Randi Weingarten, the union president of the United Federation of Teachers, has said that the union will oppose the city if it tries to use this information for tenure or formal evaluations. She also opposes the publication of teacher ratings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/nyregion/21teachers.html?fta=y

In England we already have that, its called performance management .....basically you set your tartgets with a school manager and your pay award is related to your ability to reach your target....
I do not feel it is that contentious in this post modern word accountability rules everything. We as aducators are subject to the same conditions and values as others who provide services...I think if you do your best you have nothing to fear

[MissTeach]

In England we already have that, its called performance management .....basically you set your tartgets with a school manager and your pay award is related to your ability to reach your target....
I


I wouldn't have a problem with the way you do this in England. You could look at your students previous scores and what they are weak in and lacking. Then you could set a realistic goal. But a system where you only look at the scores is not a fair system.

[silvana]

I agree, and no picture of a child can be based on a narrow perscriptive test, teacher assessment must also play a part in this. I think managers have to value teacher judgements and professionalism if this system is to work.

[christine]

In England we already have that, its called performance management .....basically you set your tartgets with a school manager and your pay award is related to your ability to reach your target....
I do not feel it is that contentious in this post modern word accountability rules everything. We as aducators are subject to the same conditions and values as others who provide services...I think if you do your best you have nothing to fear

Here's my issue with this idea. How do you make sure everyone is setting equitable goals? A few years ago, we were all told to set a language arts goal. My students were all well above grade level and I thought that didn't seem like such a good use of my time and all too easy to accomplish. Instead I set a goal that looked at reducing the achievement gap in my social studies classes. I almost made my goal. Of 60 students, 25 of whom were free or reduced lunch, I had a total of 3 students who did not pass the end of the year assessment. One of whom was f/r lunch.

I didn't meet my goal. Period.

My guess would be, under the system in England, it wouldn't matter that I almost made my goal. It wouldn't matter that my goal was quite ambitious. It wouldn't matter that had I followed the initial directions I would have easily met any language arts goals I set.

How do we make sure that people set ambitious, but obtainable goals without lowering expectations across the board so that everyone looks like they've made their goal?

[silvana]

Firstly in the UK each child is expected to make 2 points in any given school year. You would set your targets accordingly, all children are individual and so are their goals. Special needs children have much smaller steps than children who are making normal progress. In the UK you would never set a whole class target, you are human , you would look at the biggest needs and target them. So in my class my target was to raise my level 2c children to 2b.
I have managed to raise all but 2 of the group of 8, all I need to do is show that I have put measures into place. The fact that most have risen will be a celebration in my school. My managers will accept my target as reached because when you are dealing with human beings it is rare to ever reach 100 %
With performance management the key is to set SMART targets...eg sensible, manageable, achievable, realistic targets......don't set your self up to fail,but always look to improve the learning. I think no professional would really set easy targets...but call me sentimental..=)

[DarrenB]

Like many have said, this sort of informal teacher grading is taking place across the nation. The tests are designed to gauge how well students are reading, but in NC, those results "trickle up" to measure how well the teacher, the principal, the school, the district, and the county is doing with regards to the rest of the state.

Since in NC, all students take the same test on the same day (per grade level), the stats, when looked at from that distant a perspective can be very informative. But the closer you look at these stats, the less informative they become. I've seen so many times that students who made great gains the year before tend to make little gains or even big losses the next year. I've often joked that I want a class of students who only made big losses the year before on our End of Grade Tests. That way their scores couldn't help but come up for me!

Now NC understands this and has started analyzing student data over the course of two years, but the main issue still exists for schools- and for teachers. It is so difficult to compare apples to oranges, or even apples to apples. But if you're like me, it's hard not to take personally the one-time performance of your students.

It took me years to realize that the reading tests actually do measure how well students can read information and apply it to questions. But teaching reading and motivating students to take tests is a different skill entirely.

The entire testing issue is so complicated already, adding more pressure and consequences based on their outcomes will only make it more difficult and eventually, less meaningful for what they were originally designed- an individual gauge of someone's reading and mathematical ability on one day.