Teachers Union Sues to Halt Release of Teacher Evaluations

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The teachers' union is going to court to stop the city from releasing reports rating teachers based on student test scores.

The suit seeks to block the media from obtaining what are called "teacher data reports." These reports determine how much of a difference an individual teacher makes on students' achievement, based on students' math and reading scores. But the union doesn't want teachers' names revealed to the public.

"There was an obligation on the behalf of the Department of Ed. to protect the teachers who were doing this work," says United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew. "And now they have gone back on their obligation."

Approximately 12,000 elementary and middle school teachers were rated by the city. Various media organizations have filed requests for the teacher data reports from 2008-2009, the latest year available, and the Department of Education was planning to release them this week. The DOE said it respects the union's right to sue, but that it believes the public has a right to this information and will release it Friday unless a court order stops it.

"That will be for a judge to decide," said Department of Education spokesperson Natalie Ravitz.

The union also claimed the formula for rating teachers based on how much of a difference they made on student test scores is "unreliable, often incorrect, subjective analyses dressed up as scientific facts." The measurements are supposed to isolate a teacher's impact on student performance by also factoring in poverty, race, gender and other issues. But the union called that "a complicated algorithm" and sent reporters the graphic below. The UFT said it obtained this from the Value Added Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which was hired by the city to create the teacher data reports. It's not know if this is the same formula now being used in NYC.

Ravitz, at the Department of Education, said teachers are trying to have it both ways. She noted that the United Federation of Teachers signed on to the state's winning Race to the Top application — which included a proposal to rate teachers in part with student test scores.

But Mulgrew said the city's teacher data reports rely too heavily on exams — exams the state has acknowledged were too easy until it made them tougher to pass this year.

"Parents have been told all their children are doing better than ever, and all of a sudden all of the test scores came crashing down," Mulgrew said. "Those invalid tests are the same tests being plugged into the unreliable formula [used by the city]." 

Mulgrew claimed the union also looked at 20 of the teacher data reports and found 13 had corrupted data, such as teachers assigned to the wrong students. But he doesn't dismiss the use of data completely.

"Teachers want to do as much as they can to help children," he explained, referring to the union's agreement in 2008 to take part in the data reports. "We saw the possiblity of working inside a pilot to develop a program that might lead to a useful tool for us to help children, then we went and did it."

Mulgrew said the reports are being given too much weight, however, now that New York City is using them, in part, to determine teacher tenure.

"Value-added" reports like these are highly controversial. The Obama administration has encouraged states to use student test scores to measure teacher effectiveness, without making them the sole criteria. But academics have questioned their validity and say the jury's still out when it comes to creating the perfect formula. New York University Assistant Professor of Education Economics Sean Corcoran studied New York City's teacher data reports based on 2007-2008 test scores (he was not given the names of individual teachers or even schools). He found the biggest problem was imprecision.

"Each teacher's value-added estimate is exactly that, it's an estimate of their contribution to student learning," Corcoran said. "It's not clear that these models take into account other factors driving differences in achievement." Such as poverty or class size.

"So therefore you're left with a very big margin of error around the resulting estimates," he said.

But he added, "New York City is doing as good a job as any place with these models and I think the fundamental problem is with the models and not necessarily what New York City is doing."

In late August, the Los Angeles Times released its own analysis of 6,000 teachers. It used data collected by the district that had never been added up before to measure a teacher's individual impact on student achievement. Teachers' unions and several academics objected to releasing the names of individual teachers and questioned the validity of the data. But U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised the Times for releasing the reports.

Here in New York City, UFT President Michael Mulgrew suggested there wouldn't be an issue if the Department of Education redacted the names of the teachers from its reports."

That is not something they have offered us, and that is something we would look at," he said.


More in:

Comments [7]

Magda from NYC

Grading a teacher based on students'stest scores is so unfair and inaccurate.... A teacher's professional performance depends on many variables besides he is or her ability to teach... It also depends on the quality of the school administration support... The students' academic levels you are working with .... And most importantly the level of parents' involvements at home.... Everyone involved is responsible for our students' success.... It takes all of us to make it happen....

Oct. 27 2010 07:31 AM
Micheal from Rockland

Wht aren't the Administrators being focused upon also!

Oct. 21 2010 08:25 PM
Russell from Manhattan

Don't miss the egregious video provided by the DoE at their "teacher data reports" link, folksily narrated by the "project director." It demonstrates exactly how the statistics used are designed to be unfair to teachers:

(1) "Value-added" refers to the difference between a student's scores and those the student would have received if hers were an "average teacher." So even if we believe the data, only "better than average" teachers add value according to this model. The statistical problem, of course, is that there can be never be more than 50% who are "better than average." Most teachers are statistically guaranteed to "underperform"!

(2) The model assumes that any teacher can identify the specific reasons for any given student's performance, prescribe an intervention, and apply it successfully--thereby becoming a candidate for "above average" status (as long as most other teachers fail to remediate quite so successfully).

Even assuming that a teacher can diagnose problems whose causes, in general, have been difficult or impossible for researchers to agree upon (e.g., reading problems!), the model assumes that every teacher has discretionary resources to address those problems. In a word, even if the data is brilliantly accurate: NOT!

The Department of Education should be ashamed of itself not only for wasting our money on such pseudo-science, but also for promoting this project by both assuming and cultivating ignorance.

Oct. 21 2010 02:51 PM
Brian from Bronx,

I assume teachers care about teaching and the success of their students. This metric is a cudgel against the core aspect of a unionized workforce: job security. Teaching should be a good union job. High needs populations, like schools with significant percentages of students performing below grade level, need extra support not threats of faculty firing and closure. When that support is provided, when the harder work of teaching in a failing school is appreciated, the teachers themselves will want to get rid of bad colleagues. Teaching should be judged on what teacher's do - lessons, classroom performance, projects, student work - not how the student's do on expensive, educationally questionable standardized tests. But, supportive thoroughgoing teacher evaluation is more expensive, and this DOE wants to cut costs.

Hey DOE, fund and fix failing schools, build adequate capacity - Our children need room to learn! - and stop wasting money on consultants.

Oct. 21 2010 01:45 PM
jennifer m. from NYC

Your statement that these data alone show "the difference an individual teacher can make on students' achievement" is false, and indeed what is being debated in court. Please make a clear difference between description and interpretation. The above statement is a debatable interpretation, not a "fact" and should be stated as such.

Oct. 21 2010 01:34 PM
Shino from NYC

A while ago there was a research study that showed the effect of kindergarten teachers on the income levels of students as adults. What I took away from that study was the fact that there are many factors involved in educating a child. Since kindergarteners are not tested (god forbid), it is obvious you cannot evaluate teachers solely based on standardized test scores.

I really don't care how my daughter's teacher did with her students in terms of test scores. I see what my daughter is learning every day and the progress she is making. That is what I will judge my teacher by, not by test scores.

Oct. 21 2010 10:20 AM
Gregg Lundahl from New York City

The major point of educational reform has been missed. Students learn many things in the classroom. A great teacher vastly influences a student over the extent of their lives. Students are taught: process, self discipline, curiosity, creativity, respect, maturity, social skills, tenacity, humor, and what it means to be a human. Students who have attendance issues are often shuttled to schools that have been designated as, what are known in the business, "Failure by design schools". Teachers out of favor with their supervisors can be given students who have the highest propensity not to improve. And why would our best teachers now want to go to the highest need schools if better students would offer security to their careers? The recent activity at the New York City Department of Education further proves the lack of judgement of our Chancellor and the Mayor of the City of New York. Politicians can not be trusted to run school systems.

Oct. 21 2010 05:57 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


Latest Newscast




WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public


Supported by