The New York State Education Department released statewide teacher evaluation statistics this week, calling local attention to lagging teacher ratings in the Syracuse City School District.

Excluding New York City, which is still in its first year under the new evaluation system, New York state teachers ranked in the 2012-2013 school year as 7 percent highly effective; 76 percent effective; 11 percent developing and 6 percent ineffective, according to an Oct. 22 New York State education department press release. Comparatively, Syracuse teachers ranked as 2 percent highly effective; 58 percent effective; 33 percent developing and 7 percent ineffective.

“I certainly don’t think that the evaluations represented where our teachers are at,” said Pat Body, school board president, noting that the evaluations failed to recognize teachers’ commitment to their district. “We have really good teachers in this district who are committed to their kids.”

Body pointed to rushed negotiations in the district when determining evaluation measures as well as an emphasis on students’ standardized tests results for the low numbers. But, Jeremy Grant-Skinner, executive director in the district’s office of talent management, attributed the difference between Syracuse statistics and state statistics to how evaluations are implemented locally.

“The state allowed a lot of flexibility across the state, so I just think our teachers did not get evaluated in the same way that some of the other districts did,” Body added. “Our teachers are much better than what the evaluations showed.”

The evaluation system — which Grant-Skinner said is in its first year of implementation across the district after it was used to evaluate only certain teachers in the 2011-2012 school year — is structured so that 60 percent of a teacher’s evaluation is based on observation and 40 percent is based on student performance. Each of these categories additionally takes into account district-specific measures that are agreed upon, in Syracuse, between the school district and teacher’s union.

“We can’t really compare across districts,” Grant-Skinner said.

He emphasized that the evaluation system is intended to help teachers improve. When a teacher is rated developing or ineffective, such as the approximately 560 teachers in the Syracuse school district, he or she develops an individualized improvement plan that draws on resources such as school principals and fellow teachers.

The positive development emphasis stands in contrast to the punitive nature of past evaluation systems, he added, which sometimes served only to put teachers on notice that they were about to lose their jobs.

“It couldn’t be any further from these improvement plans,” he said. “We’re focused wholly on helping teachers to get better each year and recognizing them when they do great work.”

Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch echoed the sentiment in the press release that accompanied the statistics. “The purpose of the evaluation is not to create a ‘gotcha’ environment,” she said, noting that the evaluations serve to target professional development and provide support and feedback to educators.

The Syracuse City School District already places a significant emphasis on professional development for teachers, Grant-Skinner said, especially since Sharon Contreras became superintendent in 2011. One out of every $30 the district spends goes toward professional development, he said.

Teachers’ strengths and weaknesses are gauged and addressed through programs such as Saturday Academy or additional professional development days for teachers specifically in the district’s seven Innovation Zones, which pilot school improvement strategies.

Ultimately, Grant-Skinner said, the overall Syracuse teachers’ evaluations are positive for the district.

“Ninety-three percent of our teachers are in the top three rankings,” he said. “It speaks to a foundation of success in the district. It’s our teachers that are going to fuel success for the students.”

Published on October 30, 2013 at 12:48 am