New York Principals: APPR Position Paper 3 20-Feb-12
Concern #3: Tax Dollars Are Being Redirected from Schools to Testing Companies, Trainers and
Outside Vendors
School budgets must now be built within the constraint of New York State’s 2% Tax Cap law. Due to the
details of the APPR regulations, district funds must be funneled to staff development and outside scoring
even as New York State taxpayers’ precious dollars are funneled to testing companies and other vendors.
At a time of economic crisis, this leaves fewer and fewer dollars for our classrooms. According to a recent
report by the New York State Superintendents entitled, At the Edge
8
, 81% of all superintendents are
worried that they will not have the funds to implement APPR in a way that would best serve their
students’ needs.
a) As recommended by the Regents reform agenda, all building principals receive ten days of
training and superintendents receive seventeen days of training during the first year of
implementation. Taxpayer funds to these outside training sessions are typically $120 per day per
person. Conservative estimates put the state-wide mandated costs for this training in the range of
several millions of taxpayer dollars. Recognizing that many other supervisors will be required to
attend this training in order to evaluate teachers, these costs will continue to balloon.
b) The need for a rapid turnaround in test scores (so they can be included in end-of-year
evaluations) coupled with an increased emphasis on exam security will result in increased costs
for districts. Tax dollars will be diverted to outside companies in the areas of test development,
exam security and data analysis. These dollars diverted to testing companies may well range into
the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide at the same time that funding for instruction is cut.
Our Recommendations
1. School-wide achievement results should be used as part of every teacher’s and principal’s
evaluation.
Schools are learning communities. An evaluation system that even partially bases an individual
teacher’s evaluation on his or her students’ scores ignores the reality that student success is
often predicated on the work of many adults in a school, as well as out-of-school factors that
are actually more responsible for student success
9
. Non-classroom-teacher factors account for
roughly 85-90% of the statistical variation in students’ test scores
10
. Reading teachers, resource
room teachers and ELL teachers provide critical skill support to our students. Guidance
counselors, social workers, psychologists and deans provide social-emotional support for
students. Thus, student scores reflect the work of many school personnel, as well as the
influence of families and the effort of students. Schools operate best when there is cooperation
among all faculty members and when all are accountable for every student’s learning
11
. If
students’ test scores must be used as part of educators’ evaluations, we recommend that a score
be used in a global manner. That is, that one index which incorporates school-wide
achievement results be developed and used as part of each teacher’s and principal’s evaluation.
Districts, based on the needs of their students, should have the final say in what achievement
factors comprise that index.
8
The Council of School Superintendents. (2011). At the edge: A survey of New York State School Superintendents
on fiscal matters. Retrieved on October 16, 2011 from:
http://www.nyscoss.org/pdf/upload/AttheEdgeSurveyReportFINAL.pdf
9
Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D. & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational
productivity. Education Economics 7 (3) pp 199-208.
10
See Hanusheck, E., Kain, J. & Rivkin, S. (1998). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Retrieved
October 16, 2011 from http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/pdf/Hanushek_NBER.PDF.
11
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Best Practices for enhancing student
achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.