Jumping on Leo Casey Defense of Ed Eval Deal From Critics Ravich and Rest of World

I hear Leo Casey over at Edwise is defending the ed eval deal after the assault by:

• Diane Ravitch -- with the scary title of A Dark Day for New York,  
• LI Principal Carol Burris at the Answer Sheet ---Carol will be speaking at the GEM conference on ed evals on March 15) and 
• pretty much everyone else as you can see at Perdido Street School (Ravitch, Gonzalez, Pallas Take On Cuomo's New Teacher Evaluation System).

One has to find it pretty interesting that long-time UFT/AFT ally Ravitch has pretty much gone ballistic on them. (Don't look for an invite to speak at the AFT convention this summer).

UFT to auction off spots for inclusion in 13%

I just don't have the patience to dig into the particulars -- I take the position with so many others that high stakes tests (as opposed to tests useful for diagnosis and correction) are a waste of time and money and have been saying to -- even proposing resolutions at Delegate Assemblies as far back as the late 90's. So I'll just leave it to others to address Casey's defense. [WARNING: CASEY IS DOING A PART 2].

This insightful parsing of Casey came in anonymously. Darn, wish I could take credit

Casey: “With evaluations based on multiple measures, evaluations will be more comprehensive, more accurate and fairer, and in sharp contrast to other states such as Florida and Tennessee, the role of standardized testing in the evaluation will be minimized.”

This is hard to see from reading the SED summary that says “Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall.”   In this context, multiple measures would seem to mean one thing: multiple ways to fail.

Casey bases his argument on the fact that the 20% left up to local bargaining will not be standardized tests: but “an authentic assessment of student learning” based on some other not yet agreed-upon process.  He adds:  “I know of no significant New York district where the local union has agreed to the use of standardized state exams as the basis for the local measures of student learning.””  (Today King restored the SIG grants to Rochester and four other cities because they had submitted evaluation plans acceptable to him; no news yet as to what they involve. ) 

Casey goes on: When the UFT was working on developing performance assessments as the local assessments for the 33 Transformation and Restart schools, one of our agreements with the NYC DoE was the development of a system of weighting that would account for the academic challenges of a teacher’s students.

So what happened? Not clear if DOE really agreed to non-standardized tests as their local assessment component, especially as the DOE issued an RFP over the summer for 408 new citywide standardized tests – some of which were conveniently called performance assessments.  Indeed, “performance assessments” is another phrase like “multiple measures” which seem to have multiple meanings depending on the eye of the beholder.

It is also true that many districts are cash-poor and may adopt the state tests simply because they don’t have the funds to develop and score their own assessments.

Casey doesn’t mention that Commissioner King has the authority under this agreement also to reject any local assessment that is not “rigorous” or “objective” enough; in general, King doesn’t sound particularly open to portfolios etc:

“All evaluation plans are subject to review and approval by the Commissioner to ensure rigor, quality and consistency with standards;

·  The Commissioner has the authority to require corrective action, including the use of independent evaluators, when districts evaluate their teachers positively regardless of students’ academic progress.

In a footnote, Casey mentions something even more startling:  that “The law envisions that once the State Education Department has developed a valid value-added model for measuring growth in student learning, which it has yet to do, the state component can grow to 25%, while the local component would shrink to 15%.” 

I wonder who gets to determine whether the state’s value-added model is “valid” or not.  The Regents?  So far the majority of members have rubber-stamped anything that King or Tisch want them to do.

Casey concludes by echoing the words of the corporate reformers:  “While a change of the complexity required by the new teacher evaluation system is daunting, it should not lead us to romanticize a failed evaluation status quo.”

-----------

Next up is a long piece by blogger Assailed Teacher: Leo Casey “Sets the Record Straight” on the New Teacher Evaluations who closes with

As much as I would like to believe Leo Casey’s characterization of the foremost historian on American education’s concerns as “alarmist”, I do not see anywhere in his post today where he silences those alarms. All I see is a dark time ahead for the children and teachers of New York City.
This does not even touch on how the new evaluation regime destroys tenure for teachers. According to Leo Casey, his next installment will address this concern. I can only say I hope it goes over better than his latest defense of this horrid new system.

HS Chap Ldr John Elfrank-Dana comments at his blog Labor's Lessons:

Teacher Evaluation and the Lesson of Teaching for the 21st Century (RIP)

---------
And then there's Eric Przykuta, president of the upstate NY Lancaster Central Teachers Association with a scathing assault on NYSUT for making the deal, calling NYSUT dues a "horrible waste of hard-earned dollars." He closes with:

I find you and your organization wholly ineffectual and ineffective. Teachers can not sit idly by facing financial ruin while you enjoy your wine and chocolates. You offer no clout in Albany and services that can be duplicated less expensively. NYSUT dues are a horrible waste of hard-earned dollars that members of this Association can put to better use and receive a better value in so doing. You will be notified in writing regarding our future association with your organization.

Here are some links he includes:

Letter to Iannuzzi in response to February 16, 2012 Agreement
Letter to Iannuzzi in response to NYSUT RTTT 2010 Agreement
Links Relating to Teacher Evaluations

And a link to a news report.
Naturally, as expected, Mike Antonucci over at Educational Intelligence Agency has some fun with the view from the right. I'm including this because I know how much Leo looks forward to my citing EIA and since he pretty much reads this blog full time (check this video for proof) I'm sure he'll enjoy the reference.

Eric Przykuta is upset about what he sees as a NYSUT sell-out on the issue of teacher evaluations. He sent a rather pointed letter about it to NYSUT president Richard Iannuzzi.

“Your pandering is shameful,” Przykuta wrote. “You have done nothing to protect teachers or advance our agenda as professionals to be respected. NYSUT caved under pressure and ran from the good fight.”

But it’s the final paragraph that drops the big hammer:

Przykuta wants to hold a summit of local union presidents in Western New York that, according to one published report, would discuss “severing ties” with NYSUT.

I doubt this will amount to much, especially since natural ally Phil Rumore (see item #2 here) thinks the letter was “a little over the top.” Still, if a bunch of mid-sized locals break off and form their own organization, I have the perfect name for it: NEA New York!

It might cost a few bucks to buy the old domain name back from the odd dudes who own it now, but there’s probably a stack of old stationery and envelopes lying around that will help keep costs down.

Well, there it is. We can look forward to Casey's Part 2 where he will tell you that tenure is totally unaffected, followed by a fund-raiser auctioning off slots for those who want to be included in the magic 13%.