For the 2015-16 school year, student test scores were supposed to account for 40% of the annual rating for high school teachers in New York with the other 60% based on observations. Teachers at the elementary and middle school level had the Common Core tests removed from their ratings altogether. However, this little clause in the New York City Department of Education's Advance Overall Ratings Guide means student test grades actually account for 100% of the rating for some teachers:
*NOTE: According to NYCDOE’s New York State Education Department-approved APPR Plan, if a teacher is
rated Ineffective for both State and Local MOSLs, s/he will receive an Advance Overall Rating of Ineffective.
I saw this actually happen this year with a teacher who scored more points than needed to avoid an ineffective rating but because of the ridiculous use of a discredited growth model for student test scores on totally unreliable/invalid tests that didn't count for anything for students, the teacher has been rated ineffective overall. How can anyone let this happen?
65-74 total points should equal a developing rating.
75-89 total points should equal an effective rating.
If the teacher only gets 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the state testing part of Measures of Student Learning and only scores 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the local part, the teacher automatically receives an ineffective rating.
Therefore, test scores count for 100% of the rating for some teachers.
A union worth anything would be out on the streets before they would let one person be rated ineffective based on this absurd, highly flawed evaluation system.
I think if the UFT shirks its responsibility to these teachers, it is time for someone on their own to do a follow-up to the Sheri Lederman lawsuit where a judge has already thrown out a ridiculous rating under this awful state law that the UFT supported.