This article, co-authored with Mary Dietrich and published in both the Plattsburgh Press-Republican and Adirondack Daily Enterprise back in January of 2015, was our response to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to increase the value of standardized test scores on teacher evaluations, a proposal that ultimately passed the legislature and then was abandoned by the Governor only a few months later.  It can be viewed online here or here.

Teachers and teachers unions were not the only ones unhappy with Gov. Cuomo’s education proposals. As the Lake Placid Central School District superintendent and school board president, we, too, were very disappointed with this week’s State of the State speech and its accompanying budgetary figures.

The governor proposed increasing spending for public education at a level half of that recommended by the Board of Regents, and most of the governor’s increase is tied to passage of his teacher evaluation proposals which – in our opinion – are misguided at best and potentially damaging to schooling, teaching and learning. He did not mention reducing or eliminating the Gap Elimination Adjustment, which suggests that – in his estimation – repaying resources withheld from our public schools is a low priority. It’s a mistake to assume that resources don’t matter to our public schools. They do, and our school programs suffer when we assume otherwise. We hope that the Legislature will reconsider the Board of Regents’ recommendations to increase state funding for schools by $2 billion.

We also believe that it is a mistake for the governor to think he is advancing the teaching profession by basing teacher evaluations on standardized exam scores and attaching tenure decisions to the outcomes of such misguided evaluations. Reputable scholars like Linda Darling-Hammond and Diane Ravitch, and research organizations like the American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education reject claims that teacher evaluation systems derived from standardized test scores accurately measure teacher quality. However, the governor, Chancellor Tisch, Secretary Duncan and others continue to promote this conception as an article of faith – a panacea not grounded in research or reality. Meanwhile, to implement this flawed belief, schools must deplete our already limited resources: time, money and energy. The misspent effort detracts from the good work of schooling and teaching that is happening throughout our region. It is a mistake to hinge increased funding on adopting these practices, and we hope the Legislature will ultimately reject the governor’s hardball tactics.

While we both disagree with many of the governor’s ideas, perhaps our biggest disappointment was the tone of his speech. In our district, teachers and administrators have worked closely and cooperatively to adjust to the demands of recent educational reform measures. While he may refer to the present system as “baloney,” it should not go unsaid that the governor is disparaging a system that he helped to introduce and execute. It has to be very demoralizing for teachers to hear the governor’s remarks after all the hard work they’ve put into implementing the Common Core Learning Standards and adjusting to the Annual Professional Performance Review evaluation system. His disrespect is misdirected and without merit.

However, not all of the governor’s new proposals are unwelcome. Providing seed money for Pre-K 3 programs is a positive first step, and maintaining (though unfortunately not increasing) state support for Pre-K 4 programs will continue to benefit some of New York’s children during their critical developmental years. The Master Teacher program that Mr. Cuomo supports and praises – though still limited to math and science teachers – provides ongoing collegial support for teachers who are committed to improving their practice and energizing the profession. Anti-poverty programs that the governor referred to in other areas of his opportunity agenda can go a long way to helping children by supporting families and helping to repair struggling communities. And while we were heartened to hear the governor raise important concerns about income inequality and the decline of the American Dream, too few of his proposals adequately address social inequality head-on, while too many of his ideas will do much to proliferate it. The impact of these anti-poverty programs to public education is significant because social inequality continues to be at the root of our most troubling educational problems.

Overall, the governor’s education proposals will do little to support children, families and teachers in the many ways that are needed. We will need to work closely with the Legislature to push back against misguided proposals and to push forward where additional help is truly needed. We can – and should – do better.