L.I. teacher's lawsuit on evaluation rating is microcosm of issues of APPR fairness

On Board Online • August 31, 2015

By Cathy Woodruff
Senior Writer

The complex calculations the State Education Department uses to factor student test scores into teacher evaluations are on trial in a court case to be decided in Albany.

The computations that pegged Long Island teacher Sheri G. Lederman as "ineffective" in fostering her students' academic growth amount to "a statistical black box that no one could find rational," her husband and attorney, Bruce H. Lederman, argued in State Supreme Court.

But Assistant Attorney General Colleen D. Galligan, who represented state education officials at the arguments on Aug. 12, defended the state's growth model as valid and meaningful. In court papers, the state said just six of Lederman's 32 students performed as well as or better than expected on their state tests, and the remaining 26 student scores were below what was expected.

"Her (Lederman's) students did grow significantly less than other similar students grew during that school year," Galligan said. "In this case, Dr. Lederman's students did worse (on math and English Language Arts tests) than 98 percent of similar students across the state, so the growth score is rational."

In her lawsuit against the state, Sheri Lederman is seeking to have her rating of "ineffective" on the student growth component of her 2013-14 Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) score declared invalid.

She also is asking Acting State Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough to decide that the way the state calculates and applies student growth scores to annual teacher evaluations is so unreliable that it is, in legal terms, arbitrary and capricious.

Lederman has broad support from her school community in Great Neck. The file in her court case includes affidavits from her elementary school principal, the district's former superintendent, and several parents praising her work.

"The Great Neck public schools support Sheri Lederman and are proud of the stand she's taking for all teachers everywhere," Great Neck School Board President Barbara Berkowitz told On Board.

Though her overall APPR rating for 2013-14 was "effective," Lederman contends that the complex algorithm used to calculate her individual impact on the growth of her students is flawed and incomprehensible. In her lawsuit, she asserts that her "ineffective" rating on student growth should be declared invalid, and so should the growth scores of every other teacher in the state.

In court papers and oral arguments, the Ledermans noted that Sheri Lederman's fourth-grade students consistently scored well-above state standards on their state math and ELA exams - a circumstance that they argue actually worked against her in the application of New York's growth model calculations.

A "ceiling effect" ensured that it would be highly unlikely - or even impossible - for her students to show substantial improvement over the already-high scores they received in third grade, they said. Bruce Lederman said there was at least one student in his wife's class who would have had to earn a score higher than was actually possible on the fourth grade math test in order to meet the projections of the state's growth model.

"The prediction of a computer, based on an algorithm, is not a fact," he said. "They are comparing her students to what I would call 'avatar' students, hypothetical students."

If a child who received a perfect score on a state math test in third grade misses one or two questions on the fourth grade math test, he added, "that does not mean that the child did not grow academically."

In 2012-13, Lederman received 14 points out of a possible 20 in student growth, which was deemed "effective." In 2013-14, she received just 1 point out of 20 or "ineffective." But her students' scores, overall, were strong both years.

Galligan, however, said the fact that Lederman's students scored well on the tests isn't relevant to the question of whether they grew academically or how much their teacher contributed to their growth. That is because changes in her students' test scores are compared in the context of "similar" students statewide, including those with similar scores on tests the year before, she said.

"While (Lederman's) students' achievements may have been above the state average," Galligan argued in the state's legal memorandum, "they were far below what they should have been, based upon these students' prior performances."

Moreover, the state's lawyers say, "the teacher of historically low-achieving students should not be penalized because her students come to her with deficiencies, nor should the teacher of historically high-achieving students be rewarded because her students come to her already above average."

In his questions from the bench, McDonough focused repeatedly on the use of what he described as a bell curve for distributing teacher ratings among the four "HEDI" categories: highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective. The curve helps to ensure that the bulk of teacher scores will be clustered around the average ("developing" or "effective"), a few fall at the extreme top ("highly effective") and a few at the extreme bottom ("ineffective").

"If you have a bell curve, someone has to be forced into that lowest category," even if all ratings or scores are between 90 and 100 percent or between A+ and A-, the judge said. "Some percentage has to be 'ineffective.' Isn't that subjective?"

Bruce Lederman likened the use of the curve to a game of "Survivor" or a "rank-and-yank" system of management, which he said ensures that some employees who fall within the lowest rankings will lose their jobs, even if all do excellent work.

But while McDonough hinted at his own disenchantment with the curve, he also chided Lederman: "That's the same bell curve teachers have used for generations, to their students' dismay, right?"

Galligan said the mechanism is one way the APPR system helps prevent school districts from making blanket claims that all their teachers are terrific, just because all or most students have high test scores.

"This is just one tool that helps compare how that teacher is doing, compared with others across the state," Galligan said. "The goal is to identify those teachers who really aren't doing a very good job, so they can get additional training or make it possible that they won't be teaching our students," she said.

After the hearing, Sheri Lederman told reporters that her poor growth rating "made me question who I was as an educator for a short time."

But eventually, Lederman said, she and her husband decided they needed to fight the system in court.

"Every teacher, every administrator, every child is impacted by this ridiculous notion that in order to do our best in the classroom, we have to be monitored by the State Education Department and the state Legislature," she said. "I don't know a single educator who doesn't feel accountable to her own students in the classroom every day."