Parent Trigger, Teachers Union Triggered, Common Core, And Arne Duncan…Baller
WSJ’s David Feith digs into teachers union parent trigger pushback. And NYSUT digs into the recent teacher evaluation deal in NY including some misinformation reported by The Washington Post. A lot of bad information out there right now about how NY will work. Robert Pondiscio digs into the Common Core literacy issue (4th graf is a classic).
I’m digging this really great pass from our hoopster Secretary of Education.









February 27th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
http://gothamschools.org/2012/02/16/uft-wins-third-party-review-for-some-ineffective-teacher-ratings/
February 27th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
What did Sarah Palin say ’bout a pig and lipstick?
February 27th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
And Andrew saw everything that he had brought about, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
February 28th, 2012 at 7:51 am
Funny. The Duncan pass itself is a Rohrshach on teacher evaluation.
a. The guy he passed to blew the layup. So Duncan does not get credit on the stats sheet for an assist. This would be the “teacher succeeded (good pass) but the kid didn’t learn (other guy blew layup)” view.
b. On the other hand, there were a ton of missed layups in the game, and Duncan still ended up with the most assists. Ie, he was indeed the best passer, and stats showed he was best passer.
In the end, measurement works if you have a large enough sample size.
February 28th, 2012 at 11:52 am
The NYSUT president’s linked article starts by saying that the NYSUT has always supported using students’ test scores in evaluating teachers? How did this guy ever get elected teachers union president? And in NY of all places?
There are so many non-teacher-controlled variables impacting students’ test scores (and so many adverse side effects inherent in rating teachers by students’ test scores) that no informed disinterested (that is, non-political) person could seriously support giving significant weight to students’ test scores in discharging or rewarding teachers. Definitely, no way that someone paid to represent teachers’ interests could reach this result.
February 28th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
I agree with LaborLawyer: I can’t believe that the NYSUT president unashamedly supports using such a blatantly flawed measure (VAM) to evaluate his own teachers, even if such measure is only used for ‘part’ of the evaluation. Given the HUGE problems w/ VAM (when used to measure the teaching effectiveness of an individual teacher), I would think the union would be against its use for any evaluation purpose of its members. Who’s paying his salary, anyway?
February 28th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Usually, Andrew beats up on teachers and their unions, implying that there’s a disconnect between what the teachers want and what leadership does.
This case is an exception.
One local leader had harsh words for the NYSUT president:
http://lancasterteachers.com/Response%20to%20feb%2016%20agreement.pdf
March 4th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Naming Names, Andrew Rotherham style.
Here’s some information that AR favored VAM got her the “Worst Teacher” in NYC:
http://www.edwize.org/the-true-story-of-pascale-mauclair
March 6th, 2012 at 12:55 am
More on the VAM Sham:
(from that scurvy dog, Michael Winerip):
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/nyregion/in-brooklyn-hard-working-teachers-sabotaged-when-student-test-scores-slip.html?_r=2&hpw
March 6th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Phillip: Thanks for the link to the NY Times article (above), which comes out strongly in support of teachers and against the misleading practice of evaluating teachers solely by their student’s VAM scores.
I especially enjoyed reading the reader comments on the NY Times piece, which further detail the problems w/ using VAM (in fact, I’m surprised the article itself didn’t contain more of this information, such as the effect of many confounding variables on the scores).