Teachers Measured on Test Scores: UFT Gives Away the Rest of the Store

See follow-up postings

I am practically rendered speechless at the joint announcement by KleinGarten that the UFT and Tweed have agreed on a plan to measure teachers by the standardized test scores of their students. But don't you see, it is for the teachers' own benefits so they can improve. It will NEVER be used against them Randi maintains. It "once and for all closes the door on using student test score data to evaluate teacher performance." Huh? But you see, Randi really feels there is too much testing but agrees to merit pay and now this program that, guess what? Puts even more emphasis on testing. Does she have 3 sides of her mouth to speak out of?

Let's see now. Jennifer Medina reports in the NY Times:

In introducing the pilot program, Mr. Cerf said it would be a “powerful step forward” to have the teacher measurements made public, arguing, “If you know as a parent what’s the deal, I think that whole aspect will change behavior.” But this week, he said that for now the reports will be treated as personnel records not subject to public-records laws.

And this goody:

Principals interviewing prospective teachers from other schools would be permitted to ask candidates for their reports, but the candidates would not have to provide them.

Well, teachers, in particular ATR's looking for a job, when a prospective employer asks you for your report: JUST SAY NO! That ought to get you the job.

Here are some goodies from Randi's letter to UFT District Reps:

Although the teacher is the most important factor in student learning, there are many other influencing variables that are outside the teachers’ control, many of which cannot be precisely measured. [You see teachers, I just sold you down the tubes but I am really sympathetic.] That’s why we have opposed the use of student test score data sorted by individual teachers for high-stakes decisions such as tenure, evaluation or pay. [Let's see now. They'll fire you before you get tenure by saying it wasn't your students' performance but you wore the wrong color shirt. And evaluate you on this basis? Nahhhh!]

Now this Randiism is even better:

In our agreement, which is spelled out in a joint letter appearing in this week’s Principals’ Weekly that is being issued this evening (reprinted below), the DOE makes it clear to principals that the results of these analyses must not be used for evaluation purposes. Instead, they should be used to help teachers strengthen their instruction and to help the school plan instructional and professional development strategies. In addition, the data is available only to the principal and the individual teacher, unless that teacher decides to share it.

Like many other types of data and other professional tools, this information can be a powerful instructional tool if teachers have the access, understanding and time to use it properly to assess and address their own strengths and weaknesses. But used improperly, it can be seen as a tool of intimidation and punishment. The chancellor and I issued the joint statement in order to ensure the most productive and positive use of these reports.

The commitments expressed in this joint letter should reassure members that the data will not be used against them. However, we must at the same time be prepared to respond to any violations of this understanding. Chapter leaders who believe that the letter or spirit of the agreement is not being followed should alert their district reps immediately.

Really, I can't go on. So I'll post Marjorie Stamberg's comments this morning on ICE-mail. You can read the full texts of Randi's letter to Dist. Reps (who must be holding their sides laughing). the joint letter, and the full NY Times article on Norms Notes. Note- the teacher portal URL in the joint statement is http://schools.nyc.gov/Teachers/default.htm.

Marjorie Stamberg Comments:

Now the District Reps are being asked to tell us that the joint Klein-Weingarten letter linking teacher performance to student test scores is some kind of victory for teachers! Weingarten insists it won't be used to deny tenure or for annual teaching rating. Not going to be used punitively?! This has about as much credibility as Treasury Secretary Paulson's assurances up until two weeks ago that the economy was fine. Can I interest you in a bridge that's up for sale?

The union should "just say no" to the whole idea of linking test scores to teacher performance. Instead, they buy into it, with a caveat on how it supposedly "won't be used." But it's just plain WRONG, by all measures of pedagogy as well as basic union principles.

First off, what this will be used for is for teacher bashing--in the New York Post, Daily News, Times, and the rest of the mainstream media who for years have blamed teachers for the failures of a public education system run by people who are dead set opposed to public education.

The fact that Randi has a joint letter with Joel Klein on something like this speaks volumes about the union's failure to combat head-on the assault on public education and on teachers and students by these educational counter-reformers. This whole exercise is based on this battery of endless standardized tests which has grievously distorted public education, leading to the wholesale elimination of music and arts programs to slashing social studies, science and in a number of cases eliminating sports programs and recess.

The joint letter makes much of how providing the information about the performance of each student on standardized tests will supposedly help the teachers to improve his or her educational technique by knowing more about their students' progress or lack thereof. The fact of the matter is, the information on a student-by-student basis, on different area studies (ELA, math, etc) is already available to schools and teachers on ATS.

The only thing this program will do is provide a listing of such scores that will convey no new educational information and can only be used for "evaluating a teacher." The joint letter claims that this will not be used for determining tenure or annual ratings. This is a transparent fiction--the principle will sit there with this information staring them in the face and ignore it?

Furthermore, there's a long history of using what are intended as diagnostic tests for purposes of "evaluation and exclusion." At the City University, the old WAT test was supposed to be used to determine which areas an incoming student needed remedial help. But then in the late 1990s, the Giuliani regime through it's agent Herman Bedillo turned this into a prerequisite for graduation and was used to exclude students from graduating.

Here we have Unity Caucus once again greasing the skids for Bloomberg/Klein's union busting!

--Marjorie