Public dissension is rare among the New York State Board of Regents. But as further proof that concerns about the new teacher-evaluation law go well beyond the state’s teachers unions, a group of Regents have come out against the law.
Seven members of the prestigious 17-member group issued what they described as “Position Paper Amendments” to the Annual Professional Performance Review. Education historian Diane Ravitch published the full document, which is signed by Regents Kathleen Cashin, Judith Chin, Catherine Collins, Josephine Finn, Judith Johnson, Beverly Ouderkirk, and Betty Rosa.
The document is a politely-worded piece that challenges several aspects of the APPR, which at Cuomo’s urging during budget negotiations, requires that 50 percent of the evaluations be based on student test scores. The dissidents are not suggesting that lawmakers should get rid of APPR or that it should be softened into meaningless puffery.
But the general theme is undeniably frank: develop an evaluation system that’s based on research so that it has value and integrity.
Some of their recommendations for the state: give districts more time to develop meaningful evaluation plans; work with teachers and administrators to come up with a more collaborative process; review Common Core; and to consider alternatives to the new law.
Their word of caution about causing further disruption in the classroom through erratic and sloppy rollouts of ever- changing policies is understandable considering what happened with the introduction of Common Core.
Rochester’s local regents, Wade Norwood and Andrew Brown, are not among the defectors taking a stand against APPR and Common Core. But both are accessible and without question committed to helping Rochester’s children. And thankfully, they’re open to listening to alternative views.
This article appears in Jun 10-16, 2015.
Over the past 25 years, I’ve seen a lot of evaluation practices come and go. One thing that has remained consistent is the inability to close the achievement gap between city and suburban students. Maybe we should stop attempting to close gaps and makes comparisons and simply teach students “where they are!”
There is great research out of the Center for Education and the Economy that highlights what it takes for students to be college and career ready. Instead of the state using research to guide us through multiple paths, they have used politics to guide us to a one-size-fits-all approach to educating students and evaluating teachers. This is an empty-headed approach that only benefits the state’s “numbers game” making for easy data tabulation to justify political agendas.
If student achievement is truly at the heart of every educational policy makers vision, then they will develop and implement a system of education that had multiple paths to obtaining an education, with career in technical education as one of the focus areas. This would undoubtedly change to achievement outcomes for many student, as well as, improve performance scores for teachers!
Student who want to go to college will still be able to do so, under the Regents pathway. But students who prefer to go to work, get a skilled trade career, or enter the military won’t be denied an opportunity just because they could not pass 5 regents exams and courses like Geometry Regents, Algebra II and Trigonometry, courses that less than 5% of the nation needs to pursue certain fields of study in college!
What’s the BIG SECRET? Well, we all know that their is a lot of money to be made in failing public schools in high poverty area. But this mindset is developed through what I call “Big Business Conditioning.” As we can see, this approach has only worked for Big Businesses that services schools. But it has had a devastating impact on businesses that serve the local community due to the lack of a continual pouring in of a qualified workforce for the school district.
If we are serious about combating poverty, than we must first reverse this condition!