Letters: Readers respond on teacher evaluations
How can New York State United Teachers president Richard Iannuzzi say that we are rushing into teacher evaluations and it will “cost” the taxpayers and students ["Teachers union: State rushed evaluations," Letters, Nov. 26]?
I realize that Iannuzzi has the responsibility to represent the teachers as a union leader, but this is about the students and America. Look at how American students are performing when compared to others worldwide. That, itself, is an embarrassment.
Whom should the taxpayer blame — politicians, or the teachers and their union, who have stood in the way of performance standards and evaluations for countless years? The performance of our students was not addressed by Iannuzzi in his letter. America needs to match up more closely with the testing results of the countries that have left America in the dust. It is time to stop talking and threatening the public and take action.
Mary Adrian, Huntington
Too many districts, too many superintendents, too much money being spent and not enough coordination or consolidation ["The cost of teacher evals," News, Nov. 23]. The most efficient and cost-effective approach would seem to be for the state to administer the program, with chargebacks to each district. With all of the talent working on this initiative, one would think they could come up with solid, cost-effective tools to evaluate our educators.
Robert Biancardi, Valley Stream
I’m puzzled by the lamentation over the cost of teacher evaluations. Last year I spent more than $5,000 out of my own pocket for the evaluations required to maintain my medical board certification. My employer demands it, and my patients benefit from it.
Is teacher evaluation worthwhile? If it is, then we have to accept the fact that it will cost money.
Dr. Daryl Altman, Lynbrook
Newsday was right on the money calling superintendents whiners ["More whinning on evaluations," Editorial, Nov. 27]. We spend more than $25 million a year for 124 superintendents. The City of New York budgets $213,000 for one chancellor, and the city has almost three times the number of students. Here, annual spending per child can range from $18,000 to well over $40,000. No amount of spending money would ever be enough for these overpaid whiners.
Patrick Nicolosi, Elmont