By the numbers

91 percent of city teachers rated effective or higher in first round of new evaluations

PHOTO: Jackie Schechter

Updated, 2:15 p.m. — Far fewer New York City teachers received the highest possible rating on last year’s evaluations than teachers in the rest of the state, according to numbers released Tuesday by state officials.

Of the 62,184 city teachers evaluated in the 2013-14 school year, 9.2 percent earned a “highly effective” rating, though nearly 60 percent of teachers outside the city earned that distinction. Still, 91 percent of city teachers earned one of the top two ratings, with 82 percent of city teachers rated “effective,” 7 percent rated “developing,” and 1.2 percent rated “ineffective,” the lowest possible rating.

Outside of New York City, the numbers skewed toward the higher ratings: Only 2 percent of teachers in the rest of the state were rated developing and less than 1 percent were rated ineffective. Those numbers indicated that the city’s evaluation system was more reliable than the ones negotiated in other districts, state education officials said, not that fewer top teachers were working in New York City schools.

“Our teachers are not getting feedback about their relative strengths and weaknesses,” said Assistant Commissioner Julia Rafal-Baer, referring to the large numbers of teachers in other districts rated highly effective.

The data offers a first glimpse of how the new evaluations — the result of a years-long legislative fight and a contentious dispute between city and union officials — played out in New York City, which debuted the new method in the 2013-14 school year. This is the second year of data for the rest of the state.

The high number of teachers earning the highest ratings sets the stage for another push to change the evaluations, something that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said he wants to see this year. It’s also likely to be fodder for advocates like Campbell Brown and Mona Davids, who are suing the state over laws they say make it too difficult to remove ineffective teachers.

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 10.59.33 AM
PHOTO: NYSED

“The ratings show there’s much more work to do to strengthen the evaluation system,” Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the Governor, Legislature, NYSUT, and other education stakeholders to strengthen the evaluation law in the coming legislative session to make it a more effective a tool for professional development.”

New York City’s evaluation system is different from those in place in the rest of the state in large part because it was imposed by State Education Commissioner John King after the city and the teachers union were unable to negotiate a plan. Rafal-Baer noted that the plan’s differences from other districts resulted in “significant principal control” and the option to allow teachers and teachers to use video in their observations.

Under the state’s new system, determined by a law passed in 2010, teacher ratings in New York come from three components. Sixty percent of the evaluation comes mostly from classroom observations, 20 percent comes from student learning measures determined by the state, and 20 percent is based on student learning measures determined by the district.

The city’s scoring system set a higher bar for what scores were needed to receive effective and highly effective ratings. For instance, more students needed to hit learning goals for their teachers to be highly rated under the city’s plan.

“A well-developed evaluation system – with four, much more nuanced ratings, instead of only two – helps us identify and provide specific support to struggling teachers, as well as identify those who do not belong in the classroom,” Chancellor Carmen Fariña said in a statement.

The system’s four possible ratings were meant to better distinguish teacher quality, and its supporters said that the evaluations would help resolve the disconnect between teachers’ almost uniformly high ratings and the low number of students who graduate high school prepared for college-level work.

The evaluations’ proponents also said they would also help districts root out the lowest-performing teachers by allowing districts to use ratings to fire or deny job protections. In recent years, supporters have begun to say that the new evaluations are better used to spur teacher improvement.

But as the state simultaneously transitioned to Common Core-aligned tests that factored into some teacher evaluations, lawmakers created a “safety net” to ensure teachers could not lose their jobs or be denied tenure for low student scores. (Gov. Andrew Cuomo still hasn’t signed that legislation.)

Statewide, the distribution of ratings is similar to data from the 2012-13 school year, which the state did not release until this August. In total, 94 percent of teachers and 92 percent of principals earned one of the top two ratings that year.

survey says

We asked Indiana teachers why they’re leaving the classroom: ‘Death by a thousand cuts’

PHOTO: Getty Images

In her first classroom at Indianapolis Public School 79 in 1977, art teacher Teresa Kendall had five whole potter’s wheels to herself. Plus clay. And a kiln.

She was under orders from her principal, she remembers, to make sure her students “have all the art they can have.”

Nearly 39 years, five layoffs, and four school districts later, she returned to Indianapolis Public Schools, where she was told there were just a handful of potter’s wheels in the entire district. She managed to get her hands on one, rescuing it from an unused classroom at Arlington High School.

Chalkbeat asks Indiana teachers: Why did you leave the classroom?

“It’s a huge difference,” Kendall said, comparing her situation to other schools she’s seen. “It just puts a knot in my stomach when I think about it … I think about what my kids at [School] 105 have to do without.”

Kendall said she spent hundreds of dollars on supplies, and she was overwhelmed by having to configure her 28-seat classroom to accommodate 62 students. At the end of last year, she decided to leave teaching altogether.

“It was the most solid community school I’ve ever been in, in all of my career,” Kendall said. “I miss it tremendously. But I couldn’t stay there.”

Carrie Black, an Indianapolis Public Schools spokeswoman, said classes might have been large at one point when the district was working to hire a substitute for a teacher on family leave, but the principal at School 105 said there were enough tables and chairs for the whole class. The principal also said teachers were told they could be reimbursed for supplies.

“Under no circumstances was she required to supply her art room in any way, shape, or form,” Black said. “So if she did, those were decisions she made on her own.”

More than 60 former Indiana teachers responded to a Chalkbeat survey about why they decided to leave teaching, a problem that policymakers and state lawmakers have said is part of the reason behind this year’s efforts to raise teacher salaries — which some educators and advocates say don’t go nearly far enough. Across the country, teachers have gone on strike and protested to demand better pay and working conditions, stirring up national conversation about the challenges they face.

Kendall, who has two master’s degrees, made $48,000 when she left IPS. The most she’d made, she said, was close to $62,000 when she taught in Lebanon. Now, she’s a paralegal.

The former teachers, from schools all over the state, reported a wide range of salaries over the years — from as low as $26,000 to more than $66,000. Now out of the classroom, they have found jobs as nurses, bus drivers, engineers, insurance agents, and seasonal park rangers. Some are unemployed, stay-at-home-parents, or graduate students.

While many former teachers said low pay or stagnant salaries contributed to their decisions to find other careers, more cited increasing responsibilities for reporting and testing, dwindling support and coaching from administrators, and “punitive” teacher evaluations.

Here is a selection of their reasons for leaving, lightly edited for clarity and length.

Too little pay

  • I had a third child and my entire paycheck was going toward insurance and childcare. I couldn’t afford to work.
  • State laws were being introduced that would make it next to impossible to ever increase my salary, or even to bargain to try to keep pace with the cost of living.
  • I was 20 years into teaching and felt undervalued, overworked, and underpaid for my education, training, and role as a teacher. I had reached the top of the pay scale and there was not room to advance. I didn’t want to become an administrator. Our insurance was steadily rising and with no pay raises, we were making less than what I had started with 20 years ago. My wife and I were both teachers and we both had to take part-time jobs to help pay the bills.
  • The level of stress, the constant demand on more and more of my time and energy with no compensation, and the low wages! Also the constant micromanaging!
  • In my 12th year I was making less than I did in year one. Health insurance was too costly, parents were overbearing, and the amount of accommodations needed for students was out of hand.

Too much testing, politics, and red tape

  • I couldn’t take any more of the state legislature’s disrespect of teachers. The loss of school funding, punitive evaluation methods, and absolute lack of willingness to truly listen to educators about our needs and what goes on in a classroom made me realize it wasn’t worth it anymore.
  • The constant change in state testing.
  • I had had it with ISTEP and school accountability practices demanding measurable outcomes and driving learning away from what we all know are best practices.
  • There was constant assessing without allowing kids to be kids and grow socially and mentally. Spent more hours assessing than teaching.
  • The time required to be spent on more red tape and paperwork instead of just doing what I knew was best for kids was too much.
  • I was working 10-12-hour days just to get state-mandated paperwork done AND papers graded. I loved my kids, I loved my school, I loved my principals, but I hated meetings every morning to appease legislators who are clueless, and I hated having to prove what a great teacher I was.
  • The time the job required meant my son and I were at school until 8 or 9 every night. All that time and dedication with no guarantee of a job? No thanks.
  • Teachers were treated as if we were entry level employees who could not make any decisions for themselves.
  • My afternoon classes had 39, 38, and 40 students. The Rise rubric [for teacher evaluations] made everyone feel like they were failures before even being evaluated.
  • I was dealing with burnout, and I was tired of working as many hours as I did and being as undervalued as I was. It felt like I constantly had administrators, parents and community members telling me what was wrong with how I did things.
  • I was expected to assign at least 10 math problems to every student every night. Since I had about 100 students, that’s about 1,000 math problems every night. Bottom line, time with my family is more important.
  • I felt overwhelmed by what the legislators were inflicting on us, the lack of true support from administrators, and just the stress that is teaching even in the best of times. Most of all — I was exhausted, I guess. Death by a thousand cuts, more or less.

negotiations

Aurora school board reverses course, accepts finding that district should have negotiated bonuses with union

Students in a math class at Aurora Central High School in April 2017. (Photo by Yesenia Robles, Chalkbeat)

Following weeks of criticism, the Aurora school board on Tuesday reversed course and accepted an arbitrator’s finding that a pilot bonus system violated the district’s agreement with the teachers union.

The Aurora school district rolled out an experiment last year to offer bonuses to some teachers and other staff in hard-to-fill positions, such as psychologists, nurses and speech language pathologists.

The teachers union argued that the plan should have been negotiated first. An arbitrator agreed and issued a report recommending that the pilot program stop immediately and that the district negotiate any future offerings. The union and school board are set to start negotiations next month about how to change teacher pay, using new money voters approved in November.

When school board members first considered the arbitrator’s report last month, they declined to accept the findings, which were not binding. That raised concerns for union members that the district might implement bonuses again without first negotiating them.

Tuesday’s new resolution, approved on a 5-1 vote, accepted the full arbitrator’s report and its recommendations. Board member Monica Colbert voted against the motion, and board member Kevin Cox was absent.

Back in January 2018, school board members approved a budget amendment that included $1.8 million to create the pilot for incentivizing hard-to-fill positions. On Tuesday, board member Cathy Wildman said she thought through the budget vote, the school board may have allowed the district to create that incentive program, even though the board now accepts the finding that they should have worked with union before trying this experiment.

“It was a board decision at that time to spend that amount on hard-to-fill positions,” Wildman said.

Board president Marques Ivey said he was not initially convinced by the arbitrator’s position, but said that he later read more and felt he could change his vote based on having more information.

Last month, the Aurora school board discussed the report with its attorney in a closed-door executive session. When the board met in public afterward, it chose not to uphold the entire report, saying that the board could not “come to an agreement.” Instead board members voted on a resolution that asked the school district to negotiate any future “long-term” incentive programs.

Union president Bruce Wilcox called the resolution “poorly worded” and slammed the board for not having the discussion in public, calling it a “backroom deal.” Several other teachers also spoke to the board earlier this month, reminding the newest board members’ of their campaign promises to increase transparency.

Board members responded by saying that they did not hold an official vote; rather the board was only deciding how to proceed in public. Colorado law prohibits schools boards from taking positions, or votes, in private.

The board on Tuesday also pushed the district to provide more detailed information about the results of the pilot and survey results that tried to quantify how it affected teachers deciding to work in Aurora.