NYC Teacher Evaluation Data Show Charter Schools Perform No Better Than Public


DUH. That's what every other study has been saying for years!
What you showed yesterday was not a no-correlation, it was a modest correlation. Don't make shit up.
@2: You're right. I've changed the word "absolutely" to "almost."
As a rule, privatizing government services has nothing to do with providing those services "more efficiently" (although that is invariably part of the justification) and everything to do with siphoning tax dollars into private bank accounts.
What is happening in NYC simply reflects what the most comprehensive national study on the impact of charter schools showed. A few are better (17%), most are worse (37%) and the rest perform about the same as comparable public schools. Those who support charters aren't bothered by facts.
This chart itself shows almost none of the things you claim, but the bottom line is that far more rigorous studies have developed value-added models that can discern the difference between those that seem to be adding value and those who do not. I'm not saying this information should be ignored, but you need to balance this information with the peer reviewed studies that point mostly (though certainly not unanimously) in the other direction.
@6: You need to state what you're attempting to convey in more clear fashion. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Statement #1:

This graph proves that when it comes to adding ‘value,’ teachers are generally the same.

Ok, the graph "proves" go on...

Statement #2

This does not mean that I think there are not great teachers and that there are not lousy teachers.

Sure, an extremely "lousy" teacher could be one who is absent most of time, or only lectures for 10 minutes...the outliers. And an extremely "great" teacher could say, visit the home of every C or below student and give them extra tutoring.

Statement #3:

This just means that the value-added calculations are not able to discern the difference.

Really? Does it "just mean" that?

Here's my interpretation. The data and the charts are accurate. What is shows is that the job of Teacher is much more formatted than you would expect. It's more similar to the job of Accountant, say, than Pro Athelte.

With an Accountant, you generally expect a "banded" level of competence. Yes, you can get super-duper performance, but good enough is...good enough!

With a Pro Athlete you expect a very wide range of very testable performance. A player can have fractions of a stat difference between other players, and people consider those relevant.

I take this data to mean, that the role of the Teacher is much more as a functionary within a system. That is not to put down the talents. The basic talent level could be high -- just that it is subject to the gradations of talent that a Pro Athlete is.

People have this image of "Great Teacher" as being the Robin Williams type of guy, who makes his students "live the history" by dressing them up as medieval knights, breaking away from class to go to "New York City" explore.

But the reality might be that the basic script of a district's lesson plan is a reasonably good machined template. It is an oar behind which they need people strong enough to row. Nothing wrong with that. It simply requires a suppression of ego and perseverance to make it work...not running through meadows and dancing on hilltops while shouting Wordsworth.

"Sure, an extremely 'lousy' teacher could be one who is absent most of time, or only lectures for 10 minutes...the outliers."

A teacher who only lectures for 10 minutes is probably more likely to be on the GOOD teacher end of the spectrum than the "lousy" end.
@8 I'm with you, although what you wrote pretty much matches how I interpreted Rubinstein's comments.

But anyway, let's say all of what you said is just so. Now... is slashing the budget of the schools (by, say, $40M) going to help or hinder the students?

Is an endless witch hunt for those elusive terrible teachers who have tenure going to solve the problems in education?
Yes, slash the education budget but add money to evaluate teachers based on test scores. Exactly what part of that makes sense?
How about instead of "charter schools" we call them "Animal Farms," and paraphrase the quote from that famous Orwell tome, "Some Schools are More Equal Than Others"?
@11 That makes PERFECT sense if you own the company that sells the tests that evaluate the teachers, or if those owners are backing your career.

Which adequately explains the Department of Education policies for the last 11 years, Michelle Rhee, Maria Goodloe-Johnson, etc., etc. In other words, "education reform" at all levels and in both major parties.

Just say " FUCK, NO" to Ed Reform!
Figures don't lie but liers sure do figure.