light of day

City releases Teacher Data Reports — and a slew of caveats

When the Department of Education’s embargo of Teacher Data Reports details lifted at noon today, news organizations across the city rushed to make the data available.

The Teacher Data Reports are “value-added” assessments of teachers’ effectiveness that were produced from 2008 to 2010 for reading and math teachers in grades 3 to 8.

This morning, department officials including Chancellor Dennis Walcott and Chief Academic Officer Shael Polakow-Suransky met with reporters to offer caution about how the data reports should be used. They emphasized the reports’ wide margins of error — 35 percentage points for math teachers and 53 percentage points for reading teachers, on average — and that the reports reflect only a small portion of teachers’ work.

“We would never advise anyone — parent, reporter, principal, teacher — to draw a conclusion based on this score alone,” Polakow-Suransky said.

Most of the news organizations that filed Freedom of Information Law requests for the ratings plan to publish them in searchable or streamlined databases, with the teachers’ names attached. GothamSchools does not plan to publish the data with teachers’ names or identifying characteristics included because of concerns about the data’s reliability.

At least two other news organizations that cover education are also not publishing the data: the local affiliate of Fox News, according to a representative of Fox, and the nonprofit school information website Insideschools.

Department officials are asking schools not to release the reports to parents. They issued a guide today advising principals about how to handle parents who demand that their child be removed from the class of a teacher rated ineffective.

“Resist changing student/teacher assignments mid-year, as doing so is disruptive to all students’ learning,” the guide advises.

“We definitely will not be moving kids around based on a data point that is two years old,” Polakow-Suransky said today.

Joel Klein, who was chancellor when the reports were launched, was a public champion of the idea that releasing teacher ratings would empower parents to demand better schools and teachers for their children. He argued publicly that the ratings of individual teachers should be released after news organizations filed legal requests for them.

But Walcott began distancing himself from that position almost immediately after becoming chancellor last year. And last fall, his administration announced it had stopped producing the reports, citing a new state teacher evaluation system that will include value-added measures. Walcott explained in a Daily News column today that he is not thrilled that teachers “might be denigrated” as a result of the data dump.

Today, Walcott and Polakow-Suransky argued that Klein’s initial stance was justified — at the time. “What we’re looking at in 2012 is quite different from what Joel was looking at in 2010,” Polakow-Suransky said.

Because New York City adopted value-added measures relatively early, he said, the ratings were in fact among the most sophisticated measures available at the time. But even at the time, the ratings were not meant for public consumption or to be used in high-stakes decision-making, he said.

Polakow-Suransky acknowledged one exception to the high-stakes decision ban: School officials did use value-added ratings to inform decisions about whether to grant some teachers tenure.

We reported last year that principals said they were being prevented from granting tenure to teachers whose students had low test scores, particularly if they were among the roughly 12,000 teachers annually to receive a data report.

Polakow-Suransky said today that 133 teachers up for tenure last year were flagged because of low value-added scores. More than a third of the flagged teachers received tenure after their principals and superintendents determined that other factors carried more weight, he said.

The city released reports for about 18,000 different teachers over the course of the three school years during which they were produced. About 12,000 teachers received reports in each of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, and about half of them received two because they taught both reading and math. (A smaller pilot group received reports in 2007-2008.)

Because many teachers’ students were tested in both math and English, some teachers were given two different value-added ratings for a single year — below average in one subject and above average in the other.

The reports also indicate whether teachers were found to have done especially well at boosting the test scores of particular types of students, such as students with disabilities, low-income students, or students who are considered English language learners.

Department officials said 77 percent of the teachers who received reports are still working in the city schools.

Next week, ratings will be released for teachers in schools for students with severe disabilities and for charter school teachers. The release of charter school teachers’ data reports reverses the department’s earlier decision not to release them because charter schools had opted into the Teacher Data Report program voluntarily.

Officials cautioned that the scores were especially unreliable for teachers with relatively few students. That group includes elementary school teachers, who typically had fewer than 30 students factor into their scores.

They also said reports are less reliable for teachers whose students were either all high-performing or mostly low-performing. The difference is due to the nature of the state tests, which were designed to distinguish among middle-level students — those just above and below the state’s proficiency cutoff. As a result, small differences among students at the top and bottom had an outsized impact on a teachers’ rating, Polakow-Suransky said.

The issue was one of several lessons learned that Polakow-Suransky said the city has flagged for the State Education Department, which is building its own value-added algorithm to be used as a part of new teacher evaluations.

The state is working with the American Institute of Research to build its model; the city’s model was designed by a research center at the University of Wisconsin.

Other lessons Polakow-Suransky identified include the importance of publishing value-added scores in the context of their margins of error and the need to create a way for teachers and principals to verify data.

The city introduced a verification system that teachers could use two years into the Teacher Data Report project. Less than 40 percent of teachers signed in to use it, but a significant number of them found major errors. For example, three percent of the teachers who signed in discovered that they had been marked as teaching classes that they had not actually taught.

In their lawsuit attempting to stop the ratings from being released, United Federation of Teachers officials identified more than 200 such errors. UFT President Michael Mulgrew said today that the errors showed that the city had not been respectful of teachers in developing or releasing the ratings.

“This was a complete debacle in terms of how the DOE has handled [the reports] and the mismanagement of the data inside of the system,” he said.

Asked whether he thought the state’s model would avoid the pitfalls the UFT identified in the city’s reports, Mulgrew said, “I’m not confident.”

But he said the state’s evaluation requirements are an improvement over the Teacher Data Reports because the new evaluations will showcase the value-added calculations alongside other measures of teacher quality.

magnetic fields

Three Indianapolis schools recognized for diversity, but local efforts to integrate are still underway

PHOTO: Alan Petersime
School 27

Three Indianapolis public schools can claim a new title: 2017 National Magnet School of Distinction.

The prize, given annually by a national group promoting the themed schools, recognizes schools that boost student achievement, promote diversity, and have strong community ties. Among this year’s 244 winners nationally are Center for Inquiry Schools 2, 27, and 84, all part of the Indianapolis Public Schools district.

“Being recognized as a Magnet School of Distinction provides just one affirmation to the collective CFI School family that their philosophy, tireless work ethic, community support, and relentless journey to provide students with the absolute best inquiry based education is paying dividends to their students, to IPS, and to the larger community,” said Greg Newlin, the district’s academic improvement officer, in a statement.

The three schools use the International Baccalaureate curriculum. And their students are more likely to be white and more affluent than at the average district school. The schools’ demographics vary widely: School 27 is well integrated, with about 39 percent white students and 41 percent black students. In contrast, School 84 is nearly 83 percent white this year in a district where students of color make up 80 percent of enrollment.

That could soon change. After a series on segregation from Chalkbeat and the Indianapolis Star exposed how rules about magnet school admission gave the most privileged families in the district an edge at sought-after schools, the school board last year voted to adopt policies designed help more low-income students win admission to magnet schools. The new policies could reshape who enters the schools this fall.

“Magnet schools were born out of the civil rights movement and were intended to help school districts to reintegrate,” IPS board member Gayle Cosby said at the time. “We want to make sure that magnet schools are not actually serving a different purpose in our district.”

The award to the Indianapolis schools is the second tier that Magnet Schools of America hands out. Schools that have especially strong academic performance can earn a different title: schools of excellence.

First Person

I’m a teacher, not an activist. Here’s why I’m joining the March for Science this weekend

PHOTO: Creative Commons / Jeremy Wilburn

I became a science teacher because there’s nothing I love more than talking about science. This Saturday, I’ll march for science in Cleveland because there’s nothing I believe is more important than defending science in our society and our classrooms.

My love affair with science goes back to my seventh-grade teacher, Mr. Hurst, who took a hands-on approach to science education. Through labs and real-world investigations, my classmates and I discovered the complexity of scientific discovery. While I originally pursued a career in lab research, I soon realized that my true passion lay in teaching – that I could fulfill my love of science by delivering the same quality of teaching that I’d received to the next generation.

I’m marching for science on Saturday because every student deserves such a strong foundation. A well-rounded education should be a reality for every child in America – and that must include science, technology, engineering and math. Without it, our country won’t be able to solve the very real crises looming just over the horizon.

The world’s population is growing exponentially, consuming a limited supply of natural resources at a faster pace. We rely on nonrenewable forms of energy that we’ll inevitably exhaust at a great environmental cost. Medical advances have slowed the spread of infectious disease, but our overuse of antibiotics is leading to a new generation of drug-resistant pathogens.

Our children need to know what they are up against so they can design their own solutions. They need an education that enables them to think analytically, approach a problem, tackle new challenges, and embrace the unknown. That’s exactly what good science education does.

Still, I understand that some may wonder why teachers are marching – and even if they should. Some will inevitably accuse teachers of “politicizing” science or stepping “out of their lane.”

But marching for science is distinct from the kind of political statements I dutifully avoid in my role as a teacher. To me, marching is a statement of fact: without science teachers, there is no science education; without science education, there is no future for science in America. Science teachers and their classrooms are the agar in the petri dish that cultures our students’ scientific minds. (Did I mention there’s nothing I love talking about more than science?) In any movement for science, teachers have a role to play.

Marching, like teaching, is to take part in something bigger. Years from now, if I’m lucky, I might glimpse the name of one of my former students in the newspaper for a scientific discovery or prestigious award. But by and large, it’s my job to plant seeds of curiosity and discovery in a garden I may never see.

On Saturday, I’ll be there alongside doctors and nurses, engineers and researchers, and citizens from all walks of life who love science and want to see it valued and respected in our country. We might not see the fruit of our labors the day after the march, or even after that, but the message we send will be clear.

If you’re a parent or student – maybe one of my own – I hope you see that passion for science on full display around the nation this Saturday. I hope you see why having committed science teachers like myself and my colleagues is inextricably bound to the fate of our world. I hope that recognition grows into action to support teachers and demand universal access to an excellent science education, like the one I strive to provide every day in my classroom.

Sarah Rivera teaches engineering, biology, biomedical science, and environmental science at Perry High School in Perry, Ohio. She is also a member of 100Kin10’s teacher forum.