Letters: Grading teachers' success

Once again, Newsday's editorial board gets it wrong ["Focus on our students is lost," Sept. 23]. Asserting that the New York State United Teachers is in "opposition" to teacher evaluations and "stymie(s) every attempt" to measure teacher effectiveness is totally inaccurate. Clearly, Newsday doesn't know the truth, doesn't care to know the truth, and doesn't feel any obligation to report the truth.

In 2010, NYSUT worked with the state Education Department to craft legislation that significantly enhances the teacher evaluation process in New York. The new law became the cornerstone of New York's successful Race to the Top grant, which brought $700 million to New York.

Since then, NYSUT has worked diligently with all stakeholders to craft meaningful evaluation tools to support high-quality teaching. NYSUT's evaluation measures, developed in partnership with six pilot districts, including Hempstead, is one of only four approved by the Education Department for statewide use. NYSUT's work has been recognized as exemplary by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and is funded by Innovation Fund grants supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates, Carnegie, Ford, Mott and Broad foundations.

To be clear, NYSUT fully supports a comprehensive, fair and objective system of evaluating teacher effectiveness. NYSUT only challenged specific regulations it believes violated the law -- and a Supreme Court justice agreed and invalidated those faulty regulations.

If we are going to talk about evaluating performance, then newspaper editorial boards should be rated on their ability to get it right. In this case, Newsday failed miserably.

Richard C. Iannuzzi, Latham

Editor's note: The writer is president of the New York State United Teachers union.
 

Clearly, teacher evaluation is a responsibility of the schools of education that produce our teachers ["For teachers, time to make the grade," News, Sept. 25]. Perhaps, having fallen into the trap of social engineering -- emphasizing diversity and inclusion over merit, ability and knowledge -- they now don't want anyone to look hard at the quality of their product. But, parents and school boards should look very hard.

Evaluations, as proposed, are worthless: 20 percent may be concrete (student test scores) but 80 percent is subjective, but worse, subject to negotiation by teachers unions. Do we let parents and students negotiate 80 percent of the grading process and, thus, the students' final grades?

We need thinking like that of the engineering professor who said, "I will not risk the public's safety by passing a student who cannot get 75 percent of the problems correct." Neither should we accept any teacher who cannot demonstrate student improvement. We need to know that we are getting the service and the outcomes for which we pay so much.

If colleges with degrees in education cannot lead in this effort, they should get out of the way and let some qualified engineers and managers solve the teacher evaluation problem.

Gunther Geiss, Southold

Editor's note: The writer is a former Adelphi University professor.
 

Another month, another story about teachers' salaries ["LI teachers tops in salary," News, Sept. 22]. The speed with which people respond to this topic online, and the negativity that is spewed, has run its course. My suggestion for all of those who disapprove of teachers' salaries is this: Run for your local board of education.

I believe that all teachers go into education for the same reason, and that is because we truly enjoy teaching children something new every day. Similar to coaching, many teachers didn't enter the field of education for the money. We do it because we love it.

The teachers I know appreciate the benefits that teaching offers. However, the implication that we teachers live in the lap of luxury is a farce.

Dave Sonkin, Babylon
 

Your editorial "Focus on our students is lost" [Sept. 23] blames unions for mediocre and incompetent teachers and claims that NYSUT has blocked any reasonable evaluation policy. Both claims are factually incorrect.

A teachers union has no part in deciding who is granted tenure. Essentially, untenured teachers are the same as probationary employees at any other job: They can be terminated at any time without reason. However, unlike probationary employees at other jobs, a teacher's evaluative period lasts three years instead of three to six months.

Three years should be plenty of time for a competent administrator to determine whether a teacher is a keeper or a slacker. However, if a new teacher is weak in the classroom, it is an administrator's job to help him or her improve. Most administrators would rather be perceived as the magic mentor who turned around a poor teacher than the person who hired the mediocre teacher and has to admit the mistake by letting the teacher go.

The editorial reads as though Newsday is unaware that all new contracts negotiated in New York must include an APPR (annual professional performance review) agreement that rates teacher effectiveness and permits districts more flexibility in improving or terminating teachers who are rated "ineffective" two years in a row. NYSUT agreed to an APPR formula that counts standardized tests as 20 percent of a teacher's evaluation.

When the Board of Regents arbitrarily changed that figure to 40 percent this year, NYSUT went to court. Insisting that the Board of Regents abide by the law hardly qualifies as "rush(ing) to court to stymie every attempt" to evaluate teachers.

Jane Weinkrantz, Centerport

Editor's note: The writer is the communications chair for the Plainview-Old Bethpage Congress of Teachers.
 

I am a teacher, just entering my 10th year. I spent the first 10 years of my professional life in sales and manufacturing. I know how performance goals work.

Each year, I have roughly 60 sixth-grade students for whom I take responsibility in providing reading and writing instruction. The students are reading anywhere from a third- through eighth-grade level. I honor each student, where he or she comes from, and work incredibly hard to push each one forward.

Enter the ELA, New York State's English Language Arts Exam. My students must earn a 3 or above to be deemed proficient. The percentage of correct answers needed to achieve this has gone from 72 percent in 2008, to 69 percent in 2009, to 82 percent in 2010, to 75 percent in 2011.

The question we must ask ourselves is, how do we accept this test as a measure of our children's reading and writing skills, and the quality of our teachers, when the benchmark required to be considered proficient has been inconsistent?

When I think back to my days in sales, in what some call the "real world," I knew what my sales goals were, and I was able to track my progress over time. If we want to be clear on the quality of our teachers and knowledge of our students, then it behooves us to set up a system that would measure that clearly and equitably from year to year.

Melissa McMullan, Wading River
 

I am writing to address a recent letter commenting on the length of a teacher's work year ["Teachers and their time off," Sept. 2]. I am sure we can all agree that we want our children taught by intelligent, empathetic and well-educated individuals.

These are the very qualities private industry seeks for its leaders. When we hire a teacher, we automatically ask him or her to surrender the possibility of a lucrative private opportunity. Because applicants value the chance to teach our children, they willingly do so. It is patently unfair then to measure them by the number of days they teach. Rather, value them by their contribution to students and society, and the sacrifices they make to do so.

Jessie Nelson, Lindenhurst