Editorial: 40% for tests adds up right

Originally published: May 17, 2011 6:27 PM
Updated: May 17, 2011 8:15 PM

Newsday

Something shocking happened among New York's custodians of public education on Monday. For a fleeting moment, common sense prevailed.

Under intense pressure from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the state Board of Regents adopted a teacher and principal evaluation program that is markedly tougher than the one previously under consideration.

Under the new plan, up to 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on student growth as measured by state tests. In the earlier plan, this component was going to be just 20 percent. Another 20 percent was to be based on locally selected assessments -- which can now be replaced by the state tests, if school districts decide to do so. And if a teacher gets the lowest rating -- "ineffective" -- on both measures of student achievement, then "ineffective" will be the teacher's overall rating, regardless of any other measures of evaluation.

The state teachers union, whose love for evaluations rivals that of Superman for kryptonite, immediately vowed to stop cooperating with state officials in implementing the new scheme. The union also said it's considering a lawsuit.

This, of course, is not so shocking. Teachers unions everywhere are allergic to having their members evaluated on student test performance, an imperfect but useful measure that is perhaps seen as too easily accessible (and comparable) by the public. The unions -- and other critics -- say the tests aren't designed for teacher evaluation, will give teachers the wrong incentives, and will lead to the tragic firing of some good teachers.

But it's worth bearing in mind that there's no good reason why teachers can't just be evaluated like everyone else with a job, which is to say by their bosses. Principals could evaluate teachers, and then superintendents could evaluate principals. Life with public-employee unions makes this impossible, which is why the state has to figure out such an elaborate system to do what everyone else accomplishes as a matter of course.

We've been skeptical that any evaluation framework produced by the political system and accepted by the unions will be truly effective, but the Regents took yet another laudable step on Monday to toughen up evaluations. Under the plan originally put forward, 60 percent of teacher evaluations were to be based on a grab-bag of "other measures." But on Monday, the Regents decreed that 40 of that 60 percent must come from multiple classroom observations -- giving more power to principals. Evaluation of principals was also toughened, with 40 percent based on a supervisor's assessment and the rest based on "ambitious and measurable goals" jointly set with superintendents.

These changes are big because various aspects of the evaluation scheme are subject to collective bargaining district by district -- including how much of the evaluation will depend on the state exams. By imposing tougher measures at the state level, as the Regents have done in adopting the governor's proposed changes, these things can't be sacrificed -- or squandered -- at the negotiating table. In the world of public education, this is what progress looks like, and it's welcome.