We need to fix the APPR law
The following was written by Tom Dolan (Superintendent of Great Neck), Patrick Manley (Superintendent of Franklin Square) and me. It was rejected as an Op ed piece in the Times and Newsday…
APPR- A modest proposal by those tasked to implement it
Much of the current debate on high stakes testing and common core implementation can be traced back to the passage of the APPR law. It wasn’t until student achievement on State exams was tied to teacher evaluation that testing became an issue; after all we have had 3-8 grade testing in place since 2001. Oddly no discussion is currently underway to fix the genesis of the problem. The putative purpose of APPR was to improve teacher performance. However even a cursory review of its implementation will reveal that the system was not designed to achieve that purpose. Consider the following:
- The same system was imposed upon all teachers across the State without any differentiation. No consideration was given to how a teacher or District was performing or historical data. This is something you can liken to providing all patients in a hospital with the same medication with no effort to diagnose what ails them.
- The tests used to assess teacher performance are designed to measure student achievement. To employ another simple analogy, this would be similar to looking at a patient’s blood work to determine the efficacy of a Doctor’s efforts. There are too many variables to establish a direct correlation.
- Even in the face of universal agreement that the common core standards upon which the aforementioned tests are based have been poorly implemented, there were those who insist that teacher evaluation continue in unmodified fashion simply because it is “time to do so”.
- Finally, the forced implementation of lower scores on the tests that would be used to evaluate teacher performance makes obvious that there are at least extraneous, if not alternative, motives at work in the delivery of these teacher scores.
Each special interest group has attempted to explain possible reasons for this disconnect. They include private corporations that will see great financial opportunity in creating and scoring tests that stand behind these efforts. Those same organizations are likely to see earning opportunity in creating textbooks and review materials to help schools assist students to prepare for these tests.
Perhaps by painting a belief that there is a universal failure of public education special interest groups and a few elected officials will find it easier to privatize it; that debate is also taking place. The failure to address the obvious flaws in the APPR law lends credibility to this argument.
Professional teacher organizations need to work collaboratively with politicians to resolve this issue. No one who considers themselves a true educator is afraid of higher standards for accountability. However, no one who is been paying attention to the drama surrounding the teacher evaluation debate over the last few years believes that the system that has been designed will achieve that purpose.
An alternative to developing such a system would be to rely upon educators to assist in its development and take just a little bit more time to do so collaboratively. The convoluted system currently in place essentially tests children to assess adults. The traditional 3-8 State exams (as required by Federal law) represent scores for approximately 20% of the State’s teachers. In order to evaluate the remaining 80% of teachers many districts implemented additional exams. Districts had to submit and obtain approval on Student Learning Objectives (SLO’s) that demonstrated how each teacher would be assessed for 20% local and 20% State exams. (areas for which a State exam didn’t exist the District created one). The over testing of children was inevitable; more importantly it is unnecessary.
A more productive APPR process would gather multiple sources of data over a period of time that ultimately determines whether or not is qualified. Teacher qualification is determined through the certification process. The APPR should gather information over a five year period that assesses teaching practice, student achievement (where applicable) and teacher certification exams to ultimately determine whether or not a teacher retains his/her certification. The current requirement of 175 professional development hours is loosely constructed and offers little in the way of teacher assessment.
The law needs to be simplified. It should group teachers into two categories: 1) classroom teachers whose students take a State exam and 2) all other teachers. Sixty percent of both categories should be classroom observation and performance. The process to obtain this score should be the only locally negotiated decision. It would streamline the submittal and approval process tremendously and eliminate the Student learning Objectives (SLO’s). In category 1 the remaining 40% should be 20% student achievement and 20% content exam, developed by an outside vendor and given to the teacher. The results of five years should be averaged together to determine if the teacher earned recertification. If a teacher fails to achieve recertification at this point, they would be called upon to develop a one year plan to address their deficiencies, with support from the district and oversight by the State. In category 2 – no student achievement data need be considered. That 20% should be replaced with an additional exam for the teacher on current practice and methodology. These teacher exams are already being developed as part of the new EdTPA teacher certification process. In addition, College schools of education must be offered ownership in the process. They should be involved in preparing teachers to take these exams. Any part of this proposal can be tweaked and adjusted but the critical piece is simple- stop testing children to rate adults. Adults are perfectly capable of taking their own exams and demonstrating their own competencies. This scenario not only allows the Governor to continue his quest for teacher accountability it enhances it. It eases parental concerns about high stake testing and allows teachers a five year window to demonstrate that they are effective. Isn’t this a ‘win-win’ for everyone involved?
