East Hampton Principals Join Peers in Opposing New Educator Evaluations

Three principals say they stand in unison with over 400 other principals across Long Island in opposition to a new state mandate which would change public schools' evaluation process for educators, placing more emphasis on standardized testing and grading each teacher and principal on a scale of 1-100.

The new evaluation process - titled an Annual Professional Performance Review, and went into effect starting September - came about as a result of amendments made in state education law in 2010 in an effort to secure Race to the Top funding, which the White House said is designed to promote "innovation, reform, and excellence in America’s public schools." New York state was one of four states nationwide to secure "tier one" funding, grabbing nearly $700 million.

"I am firmly opposed, as are the other principals, to the evaluations the state is mandating," said Chris Tracy, the principal at School. "We have wonderful teachers in this school and we do a thorough observation and evaluation process in our school ... There are little victories every day in the classroom, and a single snapshot with a single test does not indicate that."

While Principal Adam Fine was the only EHSD principal to sign the letter as of Thursday, Tracey and Principal Keith Malsky said they just didn't sign it in time, before the letter went public.

Principal Eric Casale, Principal Jeff Nichols, and Montauk Principal Jack Perna did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Amagansett Principal and Superintendent Elanor Tritt said she agrees with her colleagues that the proposed changes are not properly developed. However she is focusing her efforts on other things - "the business of educating our kids" - since she doesn't think the mandates will be lifted.

"I don't anticipate the state changing its mind," she said. "So I'm not going to spend the efforts, because I don't have the confidence the state is really listening to input from administrators."

Under the new system, teachers and principals receive a rating of 0-100 with 20 to 40 percent of their score coming from their students’ test performance.

Tracy said the school district's current teacher evaluation consists of multiple in-class observations per year for non-tenured teachers. Tenured teachers undergo a less extensive evaluation each year.

"The key is to be thorough with teachers through their first three years," said Tracy, who has been with the school district for 17 years. "This way, by the time they are tenured, they've already shown that they're more than competent."

In addition to backing their current systems, the principals' open letter (attached as a .pdf document) decries the new accountability structure as unproven, citing another letter signed by 10 academics from universities from Stanford to Columbia that states: "Value-added models of teacher effectiveness do not produce stable ratings of teachers."

Fine, along with his colleagues who signed the letter, would prefer to see the program tested before it is fully implemented. However, according to a Newsday article, any significant changes to the plan at this stage in the game could jeopardize federal funding.

"I would like to see an evaluation program that is tested/piloted and is designed to meet the needs of our school," said Fine, in a statement, on Friday. "This program will hold everyone accountable for instruction of the courses they teach and the building I supervise."

Under the APPR, educators are rated on the following basis:

• 20% -- student growth on state assessments or a comparable measure of student achievement growth (increases to 25% upon implementation of a value-added growth model);
• 20% -- locally-selected measures of student achievement that are determined to be rigorous and comparable across classrooms (decreases to 15% upon implementation of a value-added growth model); and
• 60% -- other measures of teacher/principal effectiveness.