Bloomberg Parents Deserve to Know Teacher Evaluation Results

Bloomberg: Parents Deserve to Know Teacher Evaluation Results

Mayor Bloomberg has spoken out about the new teacher evaluations law, saying that he would have stood in the way of laws that restrict parents’ right to know.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spoken out about the new teacher evaluation laws proposed by Governor Cuomo, saying that parents have a right to know their results.

In response to the proposal by New York State Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch to change state law to prevent the public release of teacher evaluations in the future, Mayor Bloomberg said, “I would be opposed to any law that tried to restrict parents’ right to know,” writes Dana Rubinstein at Capital New York.

Bloomberg spoke about the release of teacher-evaluation data , saying that they served a public purpose:

“The arrogance of some people to say that the parents don’t have the ability to look at numbers and put them in context and to make decisions is just astounding to me. Parents have a right to know every bit of information that we can possibly collect about the teacher that’s in front of their kids. This is about our kids’ lives. This is not about anything else.

“And no evaluation system is ever gonna be perfect. Every elected official stands up and says ‘we want an evaluation system.’ Well, this is one that was created. It’s very thoughtful.”

This comes after the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) lost their appeal to prevent New York City from releasing performance reports for thousands of teachers.

Bloomberg said:

“I’m not so sure that that’s bad … This is not like police and fire. You think about it. Police and fire, we assign a cop or a firefighter to a station, to a post, to a firehouse, to a piece of equipment. And all of the firefighers and all of the cops are changed. Not only are they interchangable, we deliberately move them around, because that helps their careers and they learn more things and they’re better able to perform their jobs …

“Education is different. A teacher is in front of that child for the whole year … You get evaluated every day. They look at what you write and they look at whether people read it … I get evaluated every day. God knows you guys all write and talk about the job the mayor is doing every single day.”

He summarized that the data belongs to the public:

“There’s nothing wrong with an evaluation system. And the arrogance that says, ‘Oh, they’ll never understand the numbers.’ That may very well be. I hope not. But nevertheless, this data belongs to the public, and it certainly belongs to the parents of the kids who have been given to us to change their lives and give them an opportunity that, if they don’t get it now, they’re never gonna have for the rest of their lives.”

Comments

tiredteacher

March 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm

no what they deserve is a collection of evaluative data that makes sense

not statistically invalid numbers collected based upon a system with no scientific basis.

but you need to pander to the masses instead of trying to come up with a solution

Reply
Joe

March 7, 2012 at 3:53 am

TiredTeacher, are you basically implying that parents aren’t intelligent enouh to make sense of the data they are given?

Reply
- Kevin
  
  March 7, 2012 at 3:55 am
  
  I’m not unsympathetic to TT’s arguments that the evaluation system is not scientifically robust enough for prime time, however, I am decidedly uncomfortable with the “parents don’t know what’s good for them” rhetoric constantly present in these arguments. “Pandering to the masses?” Really?
  
  Reply
tired teacher

March 7, 2012 at 5:26 am

yes it is pandering to the masses. People want definitive answers, we don’t have definitive answers, so let’s give them data that is inaccurate and practically useless. While we are doing that, then let’s tell them it is accurate and useful.

how is that not pandering to the masses? we don’t have definitive data about teacher quality, or even how to measure student learning, these standardized assessments only tell us one very specific piece of information and people are using it as some general all encompassing piece of data.

and why do we keep doing it? because that is what people want to hear, and the politicians are trying to give people want they want so they can get elected.

and explain to me Joe where i ever said that parents can’t understand? That is not the crux of my argument about this at all. Even when i argue parental trigger laws and parental controls are bad, it isn’t because they can’t understand it is because they are biased, strongly biased to favor their individual children which makes them ill-equipped to make decisions for them all, and they are not experts on how individuals and groups learn.

sorry Joe, i’m not you i don’t make broad sweeping claims with no basis in fact.

Reply
- Linda Brees
  
  March 7, 2012 at 6:19 am
  
  Kevin, no one is arguing against making data available to parents. However, it’s naive to argue that, seeing it comes from the school, parents will treat it as definitive when it is hardly that. TT explains it very well: we’re giving them numbers that mean basically nothing and allowing them to think they mean everything.
  
  Reply
Brother Ted

March 7, 2012 at 8:02 am

I have a working definition of data that’s “inaccurate and practically useless.”

“Any form of public teacher evaluation, now or in the future, that ever places any accountability on anyone.”

It’s not that anyone opposes accountability as a concept — quite the contrary. They’re just against any & every *particular* accountability plan that might ever results in any actual dismissals. It’s always that THIS PARTICULAR PLAN happens to be terrible!

Reply
- tired teacher
  
  March 7, 2012 at 8:23 am
  
  show me a plan with accurate data
  
  oh wait you can’t.
  
  so instead you fling hyperbole and inaccurate generalizations.
  
  Reply
- Linda Brees
  
  March 7, 2012 at 9:26 am
  
  Brother Ted, when administrators are given more power to fire teachers, they choose not to use it. Why do you think that is?
  
  Reply
Denise

March 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

I have no problem with the public knowing the format of a teacher’s evaluaiton. However, should they be made public to be picked appart by the ones who don’t like that teacher’s politics? By those who blaim all their kids’ failures on the teacher and not on their parenting? If this would be the case, then perhaps we should have every person’s evaluation made public from Joe Schmoe at the Pizza Mart all the way up to the President. We are all evaluated for the hiring and firing policies. However, only the employee and the employers, be it a person or a board, should be privy to that information. Privacy should still mean something. Sometimes the PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW gets in the way of the public needing to mind their own business.

Reply
Bloomberg: Parents Deserve to Know Teacher Evaluation Results | reignacademy.com

March 8, 2012 at 7:44 pm

[...] http://www.educationnews.org Posts Related to Bloomberg: Parents Deserve to Know Teacher Evaluation ResultsWalcott: NYC [...]

Reply
Shameful and Degrading Evaluations of Teachers by Politicians

March 19, 2012 at 10:37 am

[...] York. For example, New York City Major Bloomberg has said that he would oppose any attempt to restrict parents’ right to know teacher [...]

Reply
Green Goat

March 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm

Parents have the right to know who is funding all these politicians pushing these education reforms. (ex. Their buddies who have figured out a way to skim off public funds meant for schools….)

Really…. parents are not going to look at this data. Parents can look at their childs grades online, any time, in my district. By looking at the logon records very few do.

Cell phones, video games, texting and internet is the priority of students and parents.

Reply
Flo

June 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm

The October 25, 1979 issue of the New York Law Journal contained the decision of the NYS Supreme Court, Kings County, in Blecher v. Board of Education, City of New York. The court stated:

Petitioner brings this article 78 proceeding to reverse, annul and set aside the order and determination made by respondents on May 30, 1979 and for an order requiring respondents to supply the documents requested.

By letter dated March 5, 1979 petitioner made fourteen requests of respondents for documents and records in their possession pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) as set forth in Schedule A of said letter (Exhibit A).

By letter dated April 20, 1979 respondents denied seven of the fourteen requests (requests 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14) on the ground that “no such list” is kept and three of the fourteen requests (requests 8, 9 and 10) on the ground that the documents sought were “privileged personal data.” (Exhibit B)

By letter dated May 3, 1979 and pursuant to section 6 of the Uniform Rules and Regulations for All City Agencies Pertaining to the Administration of the Freedom of Information Law (“Uniform Rules”), petitioner appealed to the Secretary/Counsel of respondents the denial of the requests made. (Exhibit C)

With respect to respondents’ claim that “no such list” is kept in denying requests 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, petitioner pointed out that the original requests were for an opportunity:

“To review and copy all records that are in the custody, control or possession of the Board of Education or its employees, servants, and agents thereof that relate or refer to, or when appropriate, constitute or pertain in any way to the inquiries set forth on Schedule A annexed hereto…” (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner also pointed out in said letter that the respondent Records Access Officer’s response of “privileged personal data” was wrongly asserted for requests 8, 9 and 10
since section 89(2)(c)(i) of FOIL clearly states:

“Unless otherwise provided by this article, disclosure shall not be construed to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision:

i. when identifying details are deleted

By letter dated May 30, 1979 (Exhibit D), the respondents denied petitioner’s appeal stating:

“The Public Access to Records Officer has provided information to substantiate the denials of access on the basis of lack of existence of such lists in the forms requested. (Items 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14) and personal and privileged data. (Items 8, 9 and 10).”

Respondents have failed to furnish the information sought under the items requested which are the subject matter of the denial contained in respondents’ letter of May 30, 1979. Petitioner contends that the determination of May 30, 1979 by respondents with respect to her FOIL requests was and is illegal in that they wrongfully and in disregard of law denied her requests for records within their possession, custody and control.

It is petitioner’s position that she is entitled to access to documents and records that contain the information sought even if the Board never compiled a “list” of the information specifically requested. In support of her contention she cites the case of Gannett Co., Inc. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD2d 309 which permitted “access to those lists and documents which specifically identified employees…” holding that such a result was consistent with the Legislature’s declaration “that government is the public’s business and the public, individually and collectively and represented by a free news media should have unimpaired access to the records of government.”

Petitioner’s requests were not for a specific list or lists but for records as set forth in Schedule A attached to her initial request which are reasonably described. (see Dunlea v. Goldmark, 85 Misc. 2d 198, mod. on other grounds, 54 AD2d 446, aff’d 43 NY2d 754)

It is petitioner’s contention that respondents’ assertion of “privileged personal data” is wrongfully set forth and the respondent board must produce the documents requested under request numbers 8, 9 and 10 which are as follows:

8. All letters Mrs. Wolfe has written in the last ten years which evaluated or commented on a teacher’s ability or fitness to teach.

9. Please supply copies of all complaints, either formal or informal, filed against Mrs. Wolfe with the Board of Education, the Commission on Human Rights for the City of New York, or with the United Federation of Teachers in the last ten years.

10. Please supply all correspondence pertaining to the letters or complaints referred to in inquiries 8 and 9.

The cases interpreting both the old and new Freedom of Information Law authoritatively indicate that the respondents must afford petitioner access to the requested documents. The new Freedom of Information Law is broader and more liberal than the previous Law in that, instead of authorizing access to certain enumerated records, permits access to all government records other than those specifically exempted (see Montes v. State of New York, 94 Misc. 2d 972). Under the Freedom of Information Law (section 84), the Legislature set forth its reasoning in enacting the Freedom of Information Law:

“The Legislature hereby finds that a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public and when the public is aware of governmental actions. The more open a government is with its citizenry, the greater the understanding and participation of the public in government…

The people’s right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of confidentiality.”

Section 87(2)(b) P.O.L., provides that records are exempt from disclosure if they would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 89(2) of FOIL. Section 89(2)(b) defines an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as:

“i. disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories or personal references of applicants for employment;

ii. disclosure of items involving the medical or personal records of a client or patient in a medical facility;

iii. sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes;

iv. disclosure of information of a personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party and such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it; or

v. disclosure of information of a personal nature reported in confidence to an agency and not relevant to the ordinary work of such agency.”

The objections provided by subdivisions i, ii, iii and v are not relevant to the objection interposed by respondents. (see Montes v. State of New York, supra)

a) Two conditions must be satisfied before the exemption provided by iv applies:

There must be…

(1) Disclosure of information of a personal nature when disclosure would result in economic or personal hardship to the subject party and

(2) such information is not relevant to the work of the agency requesting or maintaining it.

Both clauses must be applicable in order to make the section operative and that when records are relevant to the ordinary work of the agency, this exemption does not apply (see Gannett Co., Inc. v. County of Monroe, supra).

Evaluations of teachers and criticism of their ability or fitness to teach are certainly relevant to the work of respondents (information sought by request 8 of petitioner and are discoverable).

The complaints made regarding this principal and the correspondence relating to same are also discoverable (Walker v. City of New York, 64 AD2d 980; Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 83 Misc. 2d 125; Pooler v. Nyquist, 89 Misc. 2d 705). These cases clearly indicate that complaints, reprimands and evaluations contained in a personal file are “final determinations”, not exempted by section 87(2)(g) of FOIL.

Evaluations, complaints and correspondence thereon are all either final determinations or documents leading to such final determinations discoverable under FOIL (Pooler v. Nyquist, supra; Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Mosczydlowski, 58 AD2d 234).

Accordingly, the petition is granted. The determination of respondents dated May 30, 1979 is reversed, annulled and set aside. Respondents are directed to give access to petitioner for the documents and records requested and to make them available for inspection and copying at petitioner’s expense.

Submit judgment.

Reply