Some editorial writers get it, and some don't.

Let's examine two recent editorials which address the topic of avoiding the loss of federal Race-to-the-Top funds because NY has no teacher-principal evaluation system in place. The Buffalo News sees it this way:

"Finally, the well-being of students is going to take precedence over the well-being of the teachers unions....The only ones rubbing salt into the wound are intransigent unions putting the interest of their members above those of students. Why wouldn't anyone wanting the best for students welcome an evaluation system that, in some small part, factors in student performance? Good teachers should want to eliminate the bad apples for the sake of students and their own reputations." Click here to read the full editorial.

The Utica Observer-Dispatch took the time to identify the root of the problem: "Here’s the problem: The law on a teacher evaluation system was originally developed in a cooperative effort between the state and NYSUT. It called for 20 percent of an evaluation to be based on test scores, 20 percent on local assessments and 60 percent on principal evaluations. But at the last minute, the plan was changed, calling for up to 40 percent of a teacher’s grade to be determined by statewide test scores. NYSUT filed suit, and last August, a court agreed, saying the second 20 points in the evaluation could not come from the same measure. That’s been appealed."

It seems to be a simple concept. NYSUT cooperates with the state in developing--and passing--a law making 20% of a teacher's evaluation based on test scores. The state unilaterally changes that to 40% (although, as we pointed out in the last blog post no standardized test exists which would apply to almost 80% of the state's teachers). NYSUT sues to block this change and, last August, a court agreed with NYSUT. Then, the state appeals the ruling. So how is it that the union is accused of dragging its heels over the issue?

The Utica paper continues: "...it was disingenuous of the state to essentially renege on the deal by changing the rules afterward to allow up to 40 percent of a teacher’s — or a principal’s — evaluation to be based on state standardized test results. That’s ridiculous. An education plan that encourages teaching to the test is a bit dubious to begin with, and giving 40 percent weight to standardized tests results reinforces that and takes local initiative out of the equation. That’s not acceptable. Apparently the court felt so, too." Click here to read the entire Utica editorial.