By Sarah Khoja ‘13
Can you put a number on the “true total classroom effect”? How about “student characteristics”? “True total school effect”? If you answered no, chances are you probably don’t work for the New York City Education Department.
The city used those factors and more like them to determine a teacher’s evaluation number. The formula, like any good formula, has several sigmas, even more sub-variables, numerous brackets and lots of squiggly Greek- looking symbols.
On February 24, around 18,000 New York City teachers were assigned a number from one to 100, derived from the formula, otherwise known as “A Value- Added Model for a Given Subject, Grade, and Year”.
The idea that a teacher can be given a number is not only disturbing to the general population, but is degrading towards teachers.
This has been a trend over the past decade, trying to numerate a teacher’s worth by calculating the overall student progress on standardized tests. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 declared that states must start testing students in grades 3 through 8 in Math and English, annually. States were required to give these tests and in return they received federal school funding. The main goal was to observe these scores and grade schools based on the progress of the students.
However, student achievement on test scores is a terribly shaky basis for teacher evaluations because it is affected by several factors. A common enough fact is that student achievement is closely linked to home life, family income and/or personality. Essentially, the Board wants to make teachers culpable for factors that they have no control over.
In addition, the Educational Testing Services, ETS, has admitted this actuality. In fact, according to Ben Hammer from Business Library, ETS released a report which detailed more than a dozen factors related to student achievement. These factors range from birth weight to class size.  
Also according to Ben Hammer, Sharon Robinson president of the ETS Educational Policy Leadership Institute said “The research shows that the achievement gap is not only about what goes on once kids get into the classroom. It’s also about what happens to them before and after school”.
Now, aside from the lousy pay, the under appreciation, extra hours and the occasional rude little child that they must endure, teachers also have to worry about being publically humiliated for factors that are literally beyond them. In addition, there are flaws hidden in this complicated formula.
Take Ms. Smith, for instance. She was a good teacher, whose students had outstanding test scores and the parents simply adored her teaching methods, yet she still received a score below average on this evaluation chart. Clearly, she had helped those students cheat and told wild lies to their parents. Right?
Wrong. A New York Times Article, “In Teacher Ratings, Good Test Scores Are Sometimes Not Good Enough” written by Sharon Otterman, stated that there were 73 cases like Ms. Smith’s. The explanation for this isn’t Mayor Bloomberg’s secret ploy to sabotage teachers and fire them; rather the formula bases its score on improvement. Students must improve so that their teachers won’t fail. If they already have a high score, it may be fioolish to expect them to approve. If they have a low score, is it the teracher’s fault, or might it be because of some element in their home life, like illness, poverty, poor housing, unfamiliarity with English, absent parents, etc? However the Department of Education in its infinite wisdom, disregarded these factors and with the 53 percent margin of error, went and publically posted these teacher evaluation scores anyway.
According to a New York Times article, “A Way to Rate Teachers, With Flaws”, writer Michael Winerip explained the margin of error: if someone was rated a 40, they could be “as dangerous as a 13.5 or as inspiring as a 66.5”.
Ms. Ilene Klasson, math teacher, who didn’t agree with this formula or process, shook her head and said, “You cannot measure teacher performance with this [formula]. It makes no sense.”
And the city expects parents and other people to view teachers according to this number. Basically they graded the grader. Ironic isn’t it?
Another teeny little problem in this evaluation process is the fact that all teachers aren’t required to give the standardized tests to their classes. An article, written by Stephanie Banchero from the Wall Street Journal, “Teacher Evaluations Post Test for States”, explains that only about 30 percent of classroom teachers in the U.S teach grades or subjects covered by standardized tests. Math and English are heavily weighted, but what about Social Studies, Science and other the other subjects?
This problem branches out into other smaller problems. Some teachers teach one class that requires a standardized test, but at the same time they teach another class which requires no such test. How are they evaluated? How are teachers without any tests evaluated? How did the Board overlook this problem?
Then of course I realized I knew the answer all along. Those teachers don’t matter. I mean who needs art and history, right?      
I applaud the City for twisting their priorities and managing to turn good education standards into a crusade against teachers, I see the genius behind it.
Teaching skills can be improved through innovative workshops, where educators could learn from their peers and receive constructive criticism. This could include meetings where certain teaching techniques could be evaluated, rather than the teachers themselves.
Shaming teachers won’t help them teach better. Most probably, it would do the complete opposite. Think of it like thi:s he Department of Education just put dunce caps on several teachers. This is not only entirely useless, but it makes the students lose respect for their teacher.
Rather than trying to put their efforts into creating inventive ideas like afterschool programs or during school workshops for the students, the DOE has efficiently managed to take at least three steps backward. The school system is hanging on by threads which threaten to break at the slightest disturbance.