The Houston Federation of Teachers has convinced a federal court that HISD’s former practice of measuring teacher effectiveness through the use of “Value Added Measures” improperly threatened teachers with a deprivation of procedural due process.  The district was using complex algorithms, developed by an outside contractor, to calculate the effectiveness of teachers in improving student learning.  Each teacher received an EVAAS score (Educational Value-Added Assessment System).  However, teachers were not given access to the algorithms because they  were deemed proprietary trade secrets.

HISD filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. It was granted with regard to claims of substantive due process and equal protection. But the court emphatically rejected the Motion as it pertains to procedural due process.  The court held that the secrecy of the process left the teachers ill equipped to challenge a proposed termination based on “effectiveness.”  Key Quote:

On this summary judgment record, HISD teachers have no meaningful way to ensure correct calculation of their EVAAS scores, and as a result are unfairly subject to mistaken deprivation of constitutionally protected property interests in their jobs. HISD is not entitled to summary judgment on this procedural due process claim.

The debate over “Value Added Measures” will no doubt continue, but this case sends a strong message that overly complex, secret formulas that teachers cannot meaningfully challenge will not survive in court.

The case is Houston Federation of Teachers v. Houston ISD, decided by the federal court for the Southern District of Texas on May 4, 2017.  You can find it at 2017 WL 1831106.

DAWG BONE: TEACHERS DIDN’T ACTUALLY WIN THIS ONE, BUT THEY PREVENTED THE DISTRICT FROM WINNING.  FOR TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS IN TEXAS, THAT COUNTS AS A WIN.

 File this one under: TEACHER EVALUATION

Tomorrow: Another “John Doe” case based on student-to-student harassment.

The 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of Florida’s Value Added Model (VAM) of teacher evaluation.  The court came very close to saying that the Florida scheme was unwise and unfair.  But it passed muster under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

Consider this: teachers who taught science, social studies, art and music were evaluated in large part based on how their students did on math and English tests.  Did you get that? These are teachers who don’t teach math or English.  But 50% of their evaluation was based on how their students did in subjects these teachers do not teach.

Teachers who taught in grades where there was no state mandated testing were evaluated in large part based on how kids whom they did not teach fared on the state tests.  Testing started in third grade.  So a second grade teacher is not being evaluated based on how her students fare. She’s evaluated based on all the kids she does not teach.

Hmmm.  So we have teachers’ performance being evaluated based on student performance in subjects the teachers do not teach; or based on the performance of students the teachers’ don’t even know.  Florida considers this a good scheme.

The 11^th Circuit did not endorse the scheme, but it did say that it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.  That’s all that is required to satisfy the Constitution.  The case is Cook v. Bennett, decided by the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 7, 2015.  It is cited at 792 F.3d 1294 (11^th Cir. 2015).

DAWG BONE: JUST BECAUSE IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DOES NOT MEAN IT IS FAIR, OR WISE.