This article focuses on the current educational reform movement in New York State resulting from the state's receipt of $700 million in Race to the Top (RTTT) money. Specifically, the article will focus on one aspect of the RTTT requirement, which requires that school districts develop teacher accountability systems that are based in part on test data, i.e., the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR). We will provide an account of how the New York State Education Department's implementation of RTTT has changed the role of educators, eroded autonomy in publicly controlled schools, promoted a culture of mistrust, diverted funds from the classroom to meet governmental directives, and paved the way for corporate vendors to profit from taxpayer money. Finally, we will examine whether the APPR policy developed to hold teachers accountable using an objective metric is a reliable and valid one.
Research Design
We examine the APPR legislation passed by both the legislative and executive bodies of New York State by focusing on field guidance documents and legislation released by the State Education Department (SED) as well as memos we received from SED. We also review how school districts have decided to implement APPR in their local environment. Finally, articles appearing in the press about the APPR have also been surveyed to ascertain key themes about the question whether teacher effectiveness can be objectively measured by those standards set forth by the SED.
Conclusions
The APPR policy as it is currently implemented is an unreliable tool in measuring teacher performance. Its subjectivity and inconsistent implementation calls into question the core purpose of this reform, i.e. to rid schools of poor performing teachers, while identifying those that are excellent. The implementation of RTTT and APPR has deteriorated the quality of public education in New York State by creating confusion through untested policies, creating a culture of distrust, diverting money from the classroom to for profit vendors, and developing a pedagogical methodology of teaching to the test.
HallingerP., & HeckR. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
HurshD. (2013, January 7). Raising the stakes: High stakes testing and the attack on public education in New York. Journal of Education Policy. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.758829
16.
JohnsonA. W. (2009). Objectifying measures: The dominance of high-stakes testing and the politics of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
MarzanoR. J., WatersT., & McNultyB. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
20.
McCaffreyD. F., KoretzD., LockwoodJ. R., & HamiltonL. S. (2004). The promise and peril of using value-added modeling to measure teacher effectiveness. [Research brief]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
21.
MehtaJ. (2013a). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
MehtaJ. (2013b). The penetration of technocratic logic into the educational field: Rationalizing schooling from the progressives to the present. Teachers College Record, 115(5). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16889
23.
MeyerH.-D., & BenavotA. (2013). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Oxford: Symposium Books.
24.
MeyerH.-D., & SchillerK. (2013). Gauging the role of non-educational effects in large-scale assessments: Socio-economics, culture and PISA outcomes. In MeyerH.-D. & BenavotA. (Eds.), Pisa, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (Vol. 23, pp. 207–224). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
25.
MitchellK. (2012). Federal mandates on local education: Costs and consequences-yes it's a race, but is it in the right direction? (No. Discussion Brief #8) (pp. 1–20). New Paltz, NY: Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach, New Paltz: State University of New York at New Paltz.
26.
National Research Council (U.S.). (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. (HoutM. & ElliottS. W., Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
NYS Testing Program. (2012). School Administrator's Manual: Grades 3-8 English Language Arts and Mathematics Tests. Albany: New York State Education Department, University of the State of New York. Retrieved from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/sam/ei/archive/ei-sam-12w.pdf
30.
NYSED. (2011a). Guidance on New York State's Annual Professional Performance Review Law and Regulations. Albany: New York State Education Department, University of the State of New York.
31.
NYSED. (2011b). New York: Race to the Top State Scope of Work. Albany: New York State Education Department, University of the State of New York. Retrieved from http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/statesow.pdf
32.
O'BrienB., & PasciakM. B. (2012). Feeling the pinch with school budgets; school administrators across Western New York have been struggling to create budgets while facing the new state tax cap law, making tough cuts and asking teachers for concessions. As a result, many voters heading to the polls will find increasing budgets with schools offering less. The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY). Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-31359332.html
33.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.New York: Basic Books.
34.
RavitchD. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America's public schools.New York: Random House, Inc.
35.
SahlbergP. (2011). Lessons from Finland. American Educator, Summer, 34–38.
ShulmanV., SullivanS., & GlanzJ. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 407–425.
