The Not-Quite-Good-Enough-Chancellor and her Sidekick?

Bowing to the painfully obvious, even the stacked panel assembled by Commissioner Steiner voted to deny Cathie Black the waiver she needs to overcome her utter lack of qualifications to be NYC's schools chancellor. But our very clever Commissioner had something up his sleeve: he gave the panel a third choice besides "yes" or "no": a co-chancellorship of sorts with someone who actually knows something about education. Bloomberg promptly submitted a revised waiver application, adding man with education credentials Shael Polakow-Suransky to help out the corporate exec formerly billed as the only person who could do the tough job of NYC schools chancellor.

What good can come of this scenario?

Looking through the very long list of things Suransky will be responsible for, one can’t help but ask: will there be anything left for Cathie Black to do besides wielding the budget ax? That certainly entails “difficult decisions” (as Bloomberg never tires of reminding us), but it’s hardly worth the highest salary in the city. Ms. Black should have the decency to cut her salary to $1/year, which she can certainly afford and will go a ways towards plugging that gaping “public interest” hole in her résumé (at the press conference announcing her appointment, Bloomberg actually talked about her husband’s public service, LOL).

And why is this new position--formally, Senior Deputy and Chief Academic Officer-- necessary? At the press conference, Bloomberg dismissed all questions about Black’s lack of credentials or prior interest in education by claiming she would rely on the formidable cadre of education experts put together by Klein, especially the deputy chancellors. Suransky is already a Deputy Chancellor and Chief Accountability Officer--why does he need a different title if Black was going to rely on him and the rest of her team (including presumably former Klein heir-apparent Eric Nadelstern) for all things education anyway? It's also worth noting that the very qualities that make a good CEO don’t make a good team player (that’s quite different from getting subordinates to work as a team); many companies have tried the dual-CEO route, often after a merger--–it doesn’t work. The Economist recently summed it up this way ("The Trouble with Tandems"):

Almost all these relationships have ultimately come unstuck. That should hardly come as a surprise because joint stewardships are all too often a recipe for chaos. Rather than allowing companies to get the best from both bosses, they trigger damaging internal power struggles as each jockeys for the upper hand. Having two people in charge can also make it tougher for boards to hold either to account. At the very least, firms end up footing the bill for two chief-executive-sized pay packets.

Why should we believe DOE is any different? Especially since the very logic of naming Cathie Black to lead it is that education should be run like a business?

Teacher Sex Data Reports to be Made Public

Banned from use by Tweed

Leibman to forge unique value-added data set.

Ed Notes Exclusive:

Gotham Schools had these bullets today -

• Hundreds of teachers have reported errors on their data reports. (GothamSchools, Daily News)
• Researcher Eric Hanushek says teachers’ scores should be public even if they’re flawed. (Daily News)

These were just a few of the hundreds of recent headlines over one of the major controversies over the past few weeks - the release of teacher names and data reports. Education reform poster boy Hanushek doesn't really care if the reports are accurate - just find the nearest teacher and string him or her up.

It seems that Chancellor Joel Klein urged the press to do a Freedom of Information request and had the info in their hands before they hit the "send" button. Anyone else asking uncle Joel for info has found it was easier to get data from the Kremlin.

The scores are based on a value-added concept - measure teachers based on how their students do from one year to the next even though the value-added approach has been unproven with variations of up to 30-40%, meaning that the same students can take tests on different occasions and results will be skewed. The idea of judging a teacher's career based on a one test day snapshot strikes some people as more than a little witchcrafty. But with a witch with a shot at a Senate seat in Delaware, why not go in that direction?

More teacher data reports to come
But the story doesn't stop there. A crack investigation team at my Education Notes Online blog has discovered a new wrinkle on the story.

In the interests of the public right to know, Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg have ordered a new round of tests to judge teacher proficiency. Starting in the 2011 school year, every NYC teacher will be required to have sex on October 15 and again on April 15 at the same time of day, the exact hour to be determined. Strict time limits will be enforced.

Their partners must fill out an extensive rating sheet, which will be computed into a number. They will be rated from Levels One to Four. They must reach at Level 3 to be considered proficient. All teacher scores will be released to the press in June 2012.

"We decided to give teachers a year to get their skills up," said a DOE spokesperson. Former DOE testing czar Jim Leibman will head up the program and will design a value added component to assure fairness. "We are looking for some improvement in performance on the April 15th test from September 15th," said the spokesperson. "Untenured teachers will be fired if there is no improvement in 3 years. Tenured teachers are another issue. We've maintained that tenure is a huge issue. We will go to the state legislature to try to try to reduce the size of this problem."

"What about inflation," we asked, thinking of the recent scandals on test scores? The response was, "Absolutely no artificial devices will be allowed. None of those blue pill thingies, for instance."

"But how can you monitor all this activity?"

"Ah, we received 100 million dollars in stimulus money from President Obama and education secretary Arne Duncan to install cameras in teachers' bedrooms. The live feeds will also be made available to the public. After all, parents have a right to know if their children's teachers are proficient."

  
The UFT announced it would bring a legal challenge for all teachers who could prove the data reports were inaccurate. But if in the legitimate case of Level Ones or Twos the teachers sex life might face reconstitution or a complete shutdown. A UFT spokesperson said, "if the statistics are not good, we can't argue that improvements are needed."
 

-------------------------

D24 CEC Meeting Last Night - Depty Chan Shael Suransky

Seriously folks, below is an email from District 24 (west/central Queens) parent Marge Kolb on last night's (Oct. 26) meeting with Tweed's Shael Suransky, who some people say is a good guy. His personality seems to be able to deflect criticism from some quarters - you know, if they guy is likeable he gets some rope - look out for post-Klein likability ed deformer with ed credentials - they are the most dangerous. But you tell me after reading this - note how Marge is incredulous.

He stated that Chancellor Klein could have released the ratings at any time but is choosing to wait for the UFT legal case to be decided. I questioned him about Klein's editorial in The Post advocating for the release of the scores and he said that the editorial DIDN'T say that - it simply said the scores should be released because the law requires it [Marge comment: unbelieveable!]

Sure. Requires it. When Klein was the instigator in getting the FOIL going. The UFT actually seemed useful for a change, though the D. 24 mentioned might be Unity hack Rosemarie Parker.

Our D24 Chapter Leader then distributed copies of an October 1, 2008 letter from Chris Cerf to Randi Weingarten which stated "In the event of a FOIL request for (Teacher Data reports), we (the DOE) will work with the UFT to craft the best legal arguments available to the effect that such documents fall within an exemption from disclosure."

Wonder what Shael had to say about that. Suransky's Clintonesque parsing of words does not make him a good guy. I say qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

I'm glad I was there to witness Leonie kick his ass at NY Law School back in September. (See links below the fold.)

Click below for Marge's complete report:

Suransky, the Deputy Chancellor for Performance and Accountability, was a guest speaker at last night's D24 CEC meeting. (He, at least, is a former NYC public school teacher, AP, and Principal, unlike many of Klein's top advisors...)

He discussed School Progress Reports and the growth percentile analysis. This is a statistical analysis that looks at students at comparable schools to see how much they improved and then grades your school based on your students improved performance versus your peer schools ("value-added"). For the Teacher Data reports, more individualized student criteria are considered (27 factors according to Suransky). Special Ed students are now being weighted differently to give schools extra credit: Self-contained +.25; CTT +.15 and SETTs +.10.

Suransky was questioned extensively about the release of the city's teacher ratings. (FYI he said the FOIL was received in August following the articles about California teacher ratings being FOILed and released.) He stated that Chancellor Klein could have released the ratings at any time but is choosing to wait for the UFT legal case to be decided. I questioned him about Klein's editorial in The Post advocating for the release of the scores and he said that the editorial DIDN'T say that - it simply said the scores should be released because the law requires it (unbelieveable!). Our D24 Chapter Leader then distributed copies of an October 1, 2008 letter from Chris Cerf to Randi Weingarten which stated "In the event of a FOIL request for (Teacher Data reports), we (the DOE) will work with the UFT to craft the best legal arguments available to the effect that such documents fall within an exemption from disclosure."

Marge Kolb
D24 Parent

Leonie kicks Shael's ass:

Education Notes Online: Leonie Haimson KO's Tweed in a Knockdown

Sep 16, 2010

But the bludgeoning they took from Leonie Haimson at NY Law School where she appeared with the DOE's Chief Accountability Officer Shael Suransky almost made me feel sorry for them. Almost. Her amazing Powerpoint presentation was not ...

Leonie Smackdown Redux- Updated

Sep 16, 2010

I wrote late last night about the New York Law School event featuring Class Size Matters' Leonie Haimson and the NYC Department of Education's Chief Accountability Officer Shael Suransky. But it was late and this piece, Leonie Haimson ...

Follow Up on Leonie at NY Law and Exclusive Video Interview

Sep 17, 2010

Shael went on about how Finland was successful because it attracted the best students to teaching; I talked about how in Finland they give a lot of respect to teachers,and alot of autonomy. And I 

Want to see a video of Leonie giving her powerpoint presentation at another event?

Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters, at The Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID) Ed Forum

Leonie lays waste to the ed deformers with this powerpoint presentation.

http://vimeo.com/15989872

Why the school grading system, and Joel Klein, still deserve a big "F"

Amidst all the hype and furor of the release of today’s NYC school "progress reports", everyone should remember how the grades are not to be trusted. By their inherent design, the grades are statistically invalid, and the DOE must be fully aware of this fact. Why?

See this Daily News oped I wrote in 2007, in which all the criticisms still hold true, “Why parents and teachers should reject the new grades”.

In part, this is because 85% of each school’s grade depends on one year’s test scores alone – which according to experts, is highly unreliable. Researchers have found that 32 to 80% of the annual fluctuations in a typical school’s scores are random or due to one time factors alone, unrelated to the amount of learning taking place. Thus, given the formula used by the Department of Education, a school’s grade may be based more on chance than anything else.

(source: Thomas Kane, Douglas O. Staiger, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Imprecise School Accountability Measures, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Autumn, 2002.)

Now Jim Liebman admitted this fact, that one year’s test score data was inherently unreliable, in testimony to the City Council, and to numerous parent groups, including to CEC D2, as recounted on p. 121 of Beth Fertig’s book, Why can’t U teach me 2 read.” In responding to Michael Markowitz’s observations that the grading system was designed to provide essentially random results, he admitted:

“There’s a lot I actually agree with, he said in a concession to his opponent…He then proceeded to explain how the system would eventually include three years’ worth of data on every school so the risk of big fluctuations from one year to the next wouldn’t be such a problem.”

Nevertheless, the DOE and Liebman have refused to comply with this promise, which reveals a basic intellectual dishonesty. This is what Suransky emailed me about the issue, a couple of weeks ago, when I asked him about it before our NY Law school “debate.”

“We use one year of data because it is critical to focus schools’ attention on making progress with their students every year. While we have made gains as a system over the last 9 years, we still have a long way to reach our goal of ensuring that all students who come out of a New York City school are prepared for post-secondary opportunities. Measuring multiple years’ results on the Progress Report could allow some schools to “ride the coattails” of prior years’ success or unduly punish schools that rebound quickly from a difficult year.”

Of course, this is nonsense. No educators would “coast” on a prior year’s “success”, but they would be far more confident in a system that didn’t give them an inherently inaccurate rating.

Given the fact that that school grades bounce up and down each year, most teachers, administrators and even parents have long figured out how they should be discounted, and justifiably believe that any administration that would punish or reward a school based on such invalid measures is not to be trusted.

That DOE has changed the school grading formula in other ways every year for the last three years also doesn’t give one any confidence….though they refuse to change the most fundamental flaw. Yet another major problem is while the teacher data reports take class size into account as a significant limiting factor in how much schools can get student test scores to improve, the progress reports do not.

There are lots more problems with the school grading system, including the fact that they are primarily based upon state exams that we know are themselves completely unreliable. As MIT professor Doug Ariely recently wrote about the damaging nature of value-added teacher pay, because of the way they are based on highly unreliable measurements:

…What if, after you finished kicking [a ball] somebody comes and moves the ball either 20 feet right or 20 feet left? How good would you be under those conditions? It turns out you would be terrible. Because human beings can learn very well in deterministic systems, but in a probabilistic system—what we call a stochastic system, with some random error—people very quickly become very bad at it.

So now imagine a schoolteacher. A schoolteacher is doing what [he or she] thinks is best for the class, who then gets feedback. Feedback, for example, from a standardized test. How much random error is in the feedback of the teacher? How much is somebody moving the ball right and left? A ton. Teachers actually control a very small part of the variance. Parents control some of it. Neighborhoods control some of it. What people decide to put on the test controls some of it. And the weather, and whether a kid is sick, and lots of other things determine the final score.

So when we create these score-based systems, we not only tend to focus teachers on a very small subset of [what we want schools to accomplish], but we also reward them largely on things that are outside of their control. And that's a very, very bad system.”

Indeed. The invalid nature of the school grades are just one more indication of the fundamentally dishonest nature of the Bloomberg/Klein administration, and yet another reason for the cynicism, frustration and justifiable anger of teachers and parents.

Also be sure to check out this Aaron Pallas classic: Could a Monkey Do a Better Job of Predicting Which Schools Show Student Progress in English Skills than the New York City Department of Education?

My unvideotaped debate with DOE's Suransky re NCLB, testing, and NYC's dismal results

On Wednesday, September 15, I was invited to New York Law School to debate Shael Suransky, NYC's Deputy Chancellor for Accountability, about NCLB and the negative effects of high stakes accountability systems.

I also took the opportunity to rebut the claims of impressive progress in student achievement in NYC that DOE continues to make, even after the state test score bubble has burst, and to point out the many errors in Chancellor Klein's written statements concerning this issue.

Unfortunately, NY Law School did not allow Lindsey Christ of NY1 or Norm Scott of Education Notes to videotape the event, reportedly because of pressure from DOE.

Lindsey was quite annoyed, and said she had never been barred from taping any such forum, either at NYU, Columbia, the New School, CUNY or SUNY.

For more on what transpired, you can see Norm Scott's accounts here and here, and the email exchange between Lindsey, the very testy VP for PR at NY Law School, and me.

As many people have asked for it, I am posting my powerpoint here, part 1 and part II. If you would like me to present it to your organization, please email me at classsizematters@gmail.com

-- Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters