It's Rating Time!

For several years now I've been writing about the junk science ratings to which we've been subject. I've gotten in shouting matches with people who thought it was a great thing that the principal's judgment would no longer dictate how we'd be rated. They gave examples of how the junk science could contradict the principal's opinion. I'm with another chapter leader who got a rating almost identical to mine.

And golly gee, the junk science didn't help us at all. In fact, both of our administrations declared us highly effective, but the junk science said we were merely effective, and that brought both of our ratings down. Imagine that. My colleague just said, "It's the only test I can get an A on and then not get an A."

Of course, this could work differently for other teachers. If admin had deemed me developing or ineffective, it would have brought up my score.

Here's another thing to consider. All of our schools choose different MOSL models, and even within schools different departments utilize different models. If any of this were remotely scientific, how could we apply completely different standards to not only teachers of different departments, but also teachers of different schools? Had we chosen different methods, would we have different ratings? If so, on which astral plane does that have any validity?

My top secret rating is below. How did you do? How do you feel about it?

I think it's utter nonsense.

OVERALL AND SUBCOMPONENT RATINGS:

The overall APPR rating is based on the sum of three subcomponent scores: Measures of Teacher Practice (60%), State Measures (20%), and Local Measures (20%). Ratings are determined using the scoring chart below.

Measures of Teacher Practice State Measures Local Measures 0-60 points: 56 0-20 points: 17 0-20 points: 17 Highly Effective HEDI Rating Effective HEDI Rating Effective HEDI Rating

Overall Rating 0-100 Points: 90 Effective HEDI Rating Safety Net Result: N/A