This paper was to analyze the issues and concerns associated with the New York City Teacher Evaluation from 2005 to 2013. I have recommended three policy options to New York State Assembly and one of them was considered to be the best way to solve the problem.

1. 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the New York State Assembly
FROM: Max B Trezil, Education Policy Analyst
DATE: July 15, 2013
SUBJECT: Reducing the number of underperforming teachers in K-12 schools in New York
City.
I. Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the policies that permit underperforming
teachers in elementary and high schools to remain teaching in the school system. In January
2013, a report notes that about 3% of K-12 teachers are deemed unsatisfactory in New York
City schools (StudentsFirstNYC, 2013). Furthermore, this report notes that the unsatisfactory
teachers are not evenly distributed among the schools, but that in 30 schools, 20% of the
teachers had an unsatisfactory rating (StudentsFirstNY, 2013). At your request, I will identify
policy changes that would deal with the problem of reducing the number of underperforming
teachers in K-12 schools in New York City.
II. Problem Assessment
The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) is a component of the municipal
government, New York City. With over 1.1 million students, more than 1,700 separate schools,
some 75,000 teachers and a budget of $24 billion annually, this department covers all of the
five boroughs in New York City (http://schools.nyc.gov/default.htm). The New York City
teachers’ evaluation system includes academic tenure, originating in the 1920s, for teachers
who pass a probation period of three years. The tenure system was designed to offer protection
to teachers against incompetent administrators, angry parents, age discrimination and other
forms of prejudice. In the New York City school system (K-12), teachers go through a
probationary process. For three years, they teach under the supervision of a master teacher.
They take part in various types of professional development: Usually after three years, and if
there are no bad marks on their record, they are granted tenure. With tenure, they can be fired
only if they commit a terrible crime. The due process of firing a teacher is extremely difficult
and lengthy, involving administrative hearings. Today, this tenure plays role in keeping some
poor teachers in the New York City public school system. It makes it both difficult to remove
underperforming teachers as well as to manage the overall school system. It is difficult, but
useful, to measure teacher performance. The fundamental question is how to measure teacher
performance in order to reduce the number of underperforming teachers in the elementary and
high schools in New York City? If teacher performance were measured, it would be easier to
take a teacher through the hearings, and thereby leading to their removal which is possible
under the current collective bargaining contract between the United Federation of Teachers
UFT and the City of New York, also exist in the New York State education law 3012-e.
Medina (2010) reported “New York’s public school students were being poorly educated. Just
38 percent of the state’s eighth graders passed the math test and 48 percent passed in reading.
In New York City, those numbers were 23 percent and 35 percent, respectively”. Even though
some increase in student test scores has occurred in recent years, approximately 74 percent of
city students were deemed proficient in math and 58 were deemed proficient in reading it still

2. 2
insignificant compared to statewide scores that are 81 percent in math and 69 percent in
reading. There are many factors that influence student performance, one of which is teacher
quality. School climate, adequate resources, safety and time are significant to a student’s
learning (http://educationnext.org). Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff (2012), pointed out that
students who have highly effective teachers were likely to do better in life, attending college
and earning higher salaries.(http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/). According to studentfirst.org
(2013), the New York City school data showed there is a major difference between students
that are being taught by highly effective teachers and those who are being taught by
unsatisfactory or U- rated teachers. The graph below shows there are 9.10% high college
readiness schools, 32.05 medium readiness and 58.86% low college readiness. By contrast the
schools taught by U-rated teachers scored 72.55 % low college readiness schools, 22 %
medium and 5% high college readiness level.
Data retrieved from studentfirst.org about New York City school.
In addition, Medina (2010) reported, “there are about 1,100 teachers who do not have
permanent classroom jobs but draw full salaries; the city spends roughly $100 million annually
on the pool”. Today, the numbers of teachers that do not have classroom jobs and still draw full
salaries are approximately 550. These teachers are among those that have been accused of
wrong doing or deemed infective, but due to the tenure policy, they cannot be fired or removed
without a long, drawn-out and expensive process. The Wall Street Journal (2008), reported “ In
New York City, it costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher; the city last year dismissed 10
out of 55,000 teachers; New Jersey fired precisely 47 (of 100,000) in the 10 years ending in
2005” (http://online.wsj.com).
The actions that are forcing this analysis are: 1) there are 3% of K-12 teachers deemed
unsatisfactory in New York City schools and 20% of the teachers had an unsatisfactory rating,
and 2) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the president of the United Federation of
Teachers (UFT) failed to reach an agreement over a teacher evaluation proposal in January
2013. Inability to reach an agreement on the evaluation proposal caused New York City

3. 3
Department of Education to lose $450 million in state and federal funding, money that could
have improved the school system. According to Baker (2013), the problem has yet to be solved
due to the conflict between Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Michael Mulgrew of UFT. Mayor
Michael Bloomberg wants to end tenure and install strict teacher performance reviews to
identify and fire poor teachers, while retaining the good teacher. The AFT wants to keep the
current tenure policy and teacher evaluation methods in place. Union members are fighting to
prevent too much power to flow into the hands of school administrators (www.nytimes.com).
In 2001, the federal government established No Child Left Behind Act (P.L.107-110), an
education law that requires states to set up accountability systems in order to continue to
receive federal education funds. In 2009, the Race to the Top (RTTT) was established as part of
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) also known as the “federal
stimulus” act. Since 2009, the federal government’s Race to the Top, a competitive grant
program, has acted as a catalyst to reform teacher evaluations in K-12 school districts
throughout the country. To receive this competitive grant award a state has to show that they
are complying with federal standards for teacher evaluation. The No Child Left Behind Act
provided foundation for Race to the Top but, The NCLB requires states to make reforms in
order to continue receiving federal funds they are already getting while the RTTT is voluntary
but required more competitive ways of measuring student, teacher, and school performance.
Meanwhile, the NCLB and RTTT are both currently in effect and focus on standards and
assessments, data and accountability, effective teachers and principals, and ways of turning
around low-performing schools into high-performing schools. Depending on how well the state
complies with the federal standards, it can be granted up to $4.35 billion. The New York State
Legislature voted Education law 3012c, mandating all New York school districts to make
significant changes on their school system, including implementation of new measures and core
components to evaluate teachers in order to comply with the state and federal education laws.
Policy Timeline
2000: The beginning marked by the developments of new public policies that are focus on
teacher evaluation practices. The concepts of teacher quality and accountability began to
emerge as well as teacher performance and student achievement.
2002: New York State agrees to let Mayor Michael Bloomberg take control of the New York
City school system away from an Education Board and local school boards.
2008: The Mayor introduced a new evaluation system labeled the “Principal Portal to serve as a
framework of decision making, allowing the principals to find resources necessary to evaluate
teacher and enhance students’ achievement.
2010: New York State passed a new education law 3012-c, mandating significant changes to
teacher evaluation. The 3012-c law required all classroom teachers to be evaluated annually on
a 4-point rating scale (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective), with 60% of a
teacher’s evaluation based on measures of teacher practice. In this 60%, student surveys, parent
surveys and teacher portfolios must be included and 40% must be related to student test scores.

4. 4
2013: New York State Department of Education revised the New York State Education Law
3012-c, to require that every school district has a robust educator evaluation system that fosters
teachers' ongoing development, with open doors for implementation, which means the schools
district can decide how it should be implemented. (http://schools.nyc.gov/). In this new
evaluation system, teachers will no longer rate satisfactory and unsatisfactory, they will be
classified in four categories “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” or “ineffective” and
an “ineffective” rating two years in a row is grounds for termination.
III. Literature Review
Chetty et al..., (2012) believed that students who have highly effective teachers were likely to
do better in life, attending college and earning higher salaries. They pointed out,“It is quite
plausible that aspects of teacher quality which are not captured by standardized tests have
significant long-term impacts. This raises the possibility that other measures of teacher quality
(e.g., evaluations based on classroom observation) might be even better predictors of teachers’
long-term impacts than value-added scores, though the signal content of these measures in a
high stakes environment could also be degraded by behavioral
distortions”(http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu). Taylor and Tyler (2011) also studied teacher
evaluation based on observation to help teachers improve their performance, and pointed out
that there are different methods to determine teacher performance (http://www.nber.org/). They
also pointed out that teacher quality is very important but it varies widely which means there
are different method and different strategies to figure out teacher performance. Rockoff &
Speroni, (2011), said “we find that these subjective evaluations have substantial power,
comparable with and complementary to objective measures of teacher effectiveness taken from
a teacher’s first year in the classroom” (http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu).
McGuinn (2010) stated that “a teacher should be eligible for tenure after a certain number of
years of service, but tenure should not be granted automatically at that juncture. The state
should articulate a process, such as a hearing, that local districts must administer in considering
the evidence and deciding whether a teacher should receive tenure. Evidence of effectiveness
should be the preponderant criterion in tenure decisions.The minimum years of service needed
to achieve tenure should allow sufficient data to be accumulated on which to base tenure
decisions; five years is the ideal minimum” (www.americanprogress.org). Phillips
(2009) argued “tenure policies may have an opposite effect by removing incentives for a
teacher to perform well. Once a teacher secures tenure, the link between teacher performance
and career or financial incentives is severed. Teachers know that it would be difficult and costly
for the school board to fire them. The, therefore have little financial incentive to perform well”
(http://dspace.library.cornell.edu). Both Phillips and McGuin believe evidence of effectiveness
is necessary in deciding teacher tenure.
The California Teachers Association (2013) stated that the purpose of an effective teacher
evaluation system is to inform, instruct, and improve teaching and learning; to provide
educators with meaningful feedback on areas of strength and where improvement is needed;
and to ensure fair and valid employment decisions. An effective evaluation system must
include both formative and summative methods that must be integrated with quality
professional development and the necessary resources and support for teachers to improve their
practice and enhance student learning.(http://www.cta.org,). Weisberg et al...(2009), believed

5. 5
the purpose of teacher evaluation systems is to serve as the primary mechanism for assessing
teacher performance. Weisborg et al (2009) demonstrated how one teacher’s performance can
differs from any other. They said “school districts fail to acknowledge or act on differences in
teacher performance almost entirely when it comes to officially appraising performance and
supporting improvement; a culture of indifference about the quality of instruction in each
classroom dominates” (http://widgeteffect.org).
Partee (2012) reviewed many studies to show how states and schools districts are building and
developing new teacher evaluation systems with multiple measures of teacher effectiveness.
According to Partee, “these reforms are inspired in part by the U.S. Department of Education’s
competitive grant programs, including Race to the Top, which require new standards and
assessments in our public schools, data systems capable of measuring student growth, and
human capital systems designed to recruit, develop, and retain effective teachers”
(http://www.americanprogress.org). According to the California Teachers Association, “a good
evaluation system must reflect the complexity of teaching and learning, and focus on teaching
practices that best support student learning. Teachers are certainly important to the success of
their students, but student learning is not influenced by just one teacher” (http://www.cta.org).
The States of California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are some of best practices of teacher
evaluation in the nation (source, date). These states use multiple indicators to conduct teacher
evaluation and combinations of many factor that influence student learning.
In the State of California, the majority of teachers are not required to to be evaluated annually.
There a probationary period where teachers are being evaluated once a year but permanent,
tenured teachers are evaluated every other year until they have been with the district for 10
years. After ten years of experience a teacher may be evaluated once every five years. In June
2012, the California Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Deasy that teacher evaluations must
consider student performance, including test scores, in order to comply with state law
(studentsfirst.org, 2013). Connecticut evaluates teachers using a formula: 40% involves teacher
observation and professional practice, with 60% based on student scores and other factors,
including school wide student learning indicators, surveys (10%) and student feedback (5%)
(Partee, 2012).Connecticut incorporates student growth into evaluations, but statutorily limits
the significance that student learning can play in determining a teacher's performance to 22.5%
of the weighted formula (studentfirst.org, 2013).
Rhode Island requires districts to develop a comprehensive educator evaluation system that
includes student growth and classroom observations as significant factors. Beginning in 2011-
2012, Rhode Island used a statewide growth model to measure student growth. The state has
also established rigorous criteria for the development of student learning objectives
(studentsfirst.org, 2013). Along with observation, professional development and teacher
practice count for 40 % of the total evaluation. The state also required feedback from peers and
parents, including surveys (10%) student survey 5% and state wide growth as learning
indicators to measure teachers’ performance.
IV. Stakeholder Analysis:
There are five stakeholders identified that have power to influence the policy changes to solve
the problem linked with the New York City teachers’ evaluation. These Stakeholders are:

6. 6
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City; Dennis Walcott, Chancellor of New York city
public schools; Michael Mulgrew, President of United Federation of Teachers (UFT); Dr Maria
Fletcher, President of the New York State Parent Teacher Association (NYS PTA). Michelle
Rhee, founder and CEO of Studentfirst.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg believes that teachers should achieve tenure based on how well
they perform on mandatory classroom observations by principals and other administrators, as
well as how well their students do on standardized tests (Baker, 2013)
Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott is committed to cultivating teacher talent; expanding school
choices for families so that students attend schools that best meet their individual needs;
creating strong partnerships with parents; and preparing students to graduate from high school
and succeed in college and careers (http://schools.nyc.gov).
UFT President Michael Mulgrew represents K-12 New York City teachers. The UFT
believes that tenure protects teacher against arbitrary dismissal without justification. He
embraces tenure as a defense against discriminatory practices. He believes if the City wants to
have great teachers, the City should invest in professional development for the teachers and in
evaluation methods that will fairly assess teachers along several dimension, including accurate
measurement of student performance (Baker, 2013).
President Maria Fletcher represents the New York State PTA which currently has an
estimated membership over 400,000. The State PTA aims to engage more effective policies and
programs through family-school collaboration in order to promote students success. The PTA
supports state and local government in developing and implementing effective teacher and
principal evaluation systems in order to improve educators’ capacities, parent’s involvements
and student academic achievement. She is lobbying on behalf family involvement in education
policy.
Michelle Rhee is an education activist, and an outspoken voice for school-reform and
measuring teacher performance. Rhee believes that no less than 50% of that teacher’s rating on
performance evaluations should depend upon student test scores. Ms. Rhee also partnered with
school districts, state education agencies; non-profit organizations and unions to transform the
way schools and other organizations recruit, select and train highly qualified teachers
(http://www.studentsfirst.org).
Table 1 Environmental Scan Matrix:
Stakeholders Michael
Bloomberg
Dennis
Walcott
Michael
Mulgrew
Maria
Fletcher
Michelle
Rhee
Description NYC Mayor NYCDOE
Chancellor
UFT President PTA-NYS
President
founder
and CEO
of
Studentfirst
Causation Lack of teacher
accountability.
Lack of a fair
evaluation
system.
Lack of
collaboration
from the
Lack of
parent and
teacher
Lack of
high-quality
teachers

7. 7
Mayor. involvement.
Crisis One of many
issues
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Proximity Close Very close Close Close Close
Means Ensuring a
better
evaluation
system
Ensuring a fair
evaluation
system.
Ensuring job
security for the
teachers.
Involve
parents in
educational
policy
decisions
Fire poorly
performing
teachers
Ends
Desired
Students
achieve high
scores
Students
achieve high
scores;
teachers
increase their
professional
development
Teachers have
job security.
Parents attend
education
meetings
Students
achieve high
scores
Essential to
Solution!
Yes, Sign or
veto legislation
No. Yes, collective
bargaining
agreement must
be respected
and perhaps
changed
No. No
V. Options Specification
The following three options will be examined and analyzed to determine the effectiveness on
addressing the New York City public school teacher’s evaluation problem:
Option one--empower principals as managers by reforming the State law that grants tenure
virtually automatically to all teachers after three years, while they are still learning their
teaching skills. This is an alternative that is based on school administrator empowerment and
teacher accountability to motivate them to work harder. Assuming teachers know what to do
therefore they don’t have to worry about job security. Some critics have said, this law has an
enormous handicap how school administrators manage their staff. This law make it difficult to
remove ineffective teachers one their tenure has been well established. This option will be
implemented be the New York city Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott because he is the most
appropriate person to implement this option. In addition, this option will require three
components: Student performance data as part of the evidence to be considered in the
evaluation; professional development growth following two to three years; Peer assistance and
review support for underperforming teacher before the dismissal.
Option two- establish a rigorous and student focused implementation of the new evaluation
system a component of principal and school-based accountability measures, including
principal evaluations, school progress reports and quality reviews. It is one of the best
alternatives to bring changes that will affect the quality of education that being received by
student. Using an evaluation system that focus on will makes the evaluation process more

8. 8
effective, fair and reliable. They have been said that some teachers may have received unfair
advantage depending on the school administrators, but in this system everybody is being
evaluated. If we want to keep the tenure system this option has great deal to create a positive
impact on teacher evaluation. The current evaluation is still under negotiations between the
City and its teachers union. A success in those negotiations will be a critical step to addressing
teacher quality as well as inadequacy and inequity in teacher performance across the school
system.
Option three- prolong the probationary period to five years before earning tenure and provide
significant salary increases to highly effective teachers who stay in the classrooms of high-
needs schools. This option would be implemented by Denis M. Walcott Chancellor of the New
York City Department of Education. If we want keep tenure law, this option projects one of
the best alternative because in a five year period, teachers are expected to have a certain amount
of professional development that would enable them improve their teaching and student
learning.
This alternative uses a combination of multiple educators to evaluate teacher. It also requires
student-learning goals that, teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn.
This alternative contains three components in order to earn tenure: First, in five years teachers
must develop a portfolio of high quality student work sample or assessments. Secondly,
teachers must be in constant classroom observations by peer and administrators. Thirdly, to
improve students learning and teacher performance, the state should mandate comprehensive
teacher evaluations based on multiple measures based on student growth, classroom
observations, and student surveys including student and principal feedback.
Table 2 Options Specification
Options Option one Option two Option three
Description Empower principals as
managers by reforming
the State law that grants
tenure virtually
automatically to all
teachers after three
years, while they are
still learning their
teaching skills.
Establish a rigorous and
student focused
implementation of the
new evaluation system a
component of principal
and school-based
accountability measures,
including principal
evaluations, school
progress reports and
quality reviews.
Prolong the
probationary period to
five years before
earning tenure and
provide significant
salary increases to
highly effective
teachers who stay in
the classrooms of
high-needs schools.
Implementation
Responsibility
Denis M Walcott Denis M Walcott Denis M Walcott
Mechanism of
Effect
To increase the
accountability of
teachers
To eliminate bias and
promote a fair evaluation
system.
To increase flexibility
of hiring and firing
teachers
Cost Moderate High Low
Legal
Constraint
High High Moderate

9. 9
Position of
Dennis
Walcott.
neutral Neutral Supportive
Position of
Mayor Michael
Bloomberg.
Supportive supportive Supportive
Position of
Michael
Mulgrew.
Unsupportive neutral Su Supportive
Position of Dr
Maria Fletcher.
Unsupportive Supportive Su Supportive
Rachel Rhee Supportive Supportive Su Supportive
Degree of
Consensus
Don’t agree Don’t agree Agree
VI. Options Analysis
To measure the degree of effect of the three options presented in the previous section and to
address the problems accounted with teacher evaluation the following criteria will be taken into
account are: political feasibility, financial feasibility, administrative feasibility, Fairness and
equity, effectiveness, and Legal constraints. The options will be ranked on a scale of low,
medium and high where high will represent the options that are highly feasible, medium will
represent the options that moderately feasible, and low will represent that are least feasible to
be implemented.
Political Feasibility will measure how the alternative politically acceptable or what percentages
of the voting from the legislature in favor this alternative in city wide.
Administrative Feasibility how easy is this to implement this policy.
Financial Feasibility, how much will it cost to improve the quality of using this alternative, or
how many dollars will be required to implement this alternative.
Fairness and Equity will measure how this alternative may impact and change for the benefits
in the society, also how the outcome will be desirable for everyone.
Effectiveness, will measure how much of an improvement in education quality will this
alternative produces.
Legal constraints will measure whether the any change of the policy would require the creation
of new laws.
Option one- Empower principals as managers by reforming the State law that grants tenure
virtually automatically to all teachers after three years, while they are still learning their
teaching skills. This option has a low political feasibility to increase accountability among
teachers because it will be hard to find a consensus between the political key layers. The
percentage of voting for this option is low because the majority of the city councils support the
tenure policy. This option is administrative feasible at a high level to increase accountability
among teachers and to improve student achievement because the infrastructures are already in
place. This option also is financial feasible at a medium level because it will cost less to

10. 10
improve quality of education and eliminate waste in order to facilitate the daily operation of the
DOE. Fairness and equity would a challenge for this option because it may not be fair for
everyone. Even do, the desire outcome is to improve the education system for all children in
New York City but the stakeholder may see it different that is why this option is ranking at a
medium level. This option is at a low level of effectiveness because to implement. The legal
constraint for this option is low because it will require a major policy change and the creation
of new laws. They will have some opposition from the teachers union (UFT) because for them,
this option will be beneficial only for students but detrimental for teachers.
Option two- Establish a rigorous and student focused implementation of the new evaluation
system a component of principal and school-based accountability measures, including
principal evaluations, school progress reports and quality reviews. This option has a medium
level of political feasibility because it has a high percent of chance voting from the legislative
in favor of the city wide. Administrative feasibility for this option is very low because it would
not be easy to implement. It would be in conflict with the infrastructures that are already in
place. Also, this option is not financial feasible or the degree of financial feasibility for this
option is very low because it not cost effective; it will represent a financial burden for the city.
They will have to contracting out of evaluators to the school to evaluate principal that is why
this policy option is not financially acceptable. In addition the city has already a budget
problem it cannot afford to bring another one. Fairness and equity for this option is very high
because is eliminating biases, it more reliable because they have been reported an unfair
advantage depending on the school’s administrators. This option is measure very medium in
effectiveness because it costly, financially burdensome, administratively unacceptable and
there is no way we can convince the stakeholder to be agree on it. In term of legal constraint,
this option is medium because we don’t need any policy change or any law amendments.
Option three- Prolong the Probationary period to five years before earning tenure and
provide significant salary increases to highly effective teachers who stay in the classrooms of
high-needs schools. To increase student learning, teacher effectiveness because in a five year
period, teachers are expected to have enough experiences that would enable them to perform
very well. This option is political feasible at a medium level because we may have some
supports from the teachers’ union and the PTA a well as Studentfirst. This option is
administratively and financially feasible at a high level because the infrastructures are already
in place and easy to implement. Also it will cost less to improve the quality of education.
Equity and fairness are ranking high for this option because in five teachers are guaranteed
tenure. In term of effectiveness this option has a high feasibility because it will definitively
improve teachers’ quality and student learning. Finally, Legal constrains for this option is
moderate because it will require some policies change and amendment of the previous laws.
Table 3: Options Assessment
Options Option One Option three Option three
Description Empower principals as
managers by reforming
the outmoded State law
that grants tenure
virtually automatically
Establish a rigorous and
student focused
implementation of the new
evaluation system a
component of principal and
Prolong the
Probationary period to
five years before
earning tenure and
provide significant

11. 11
to all teachers after
three years, while they
are still learning their
teaching skills.
school-based accountability
measures, including
principal evaluations,
school progress reports and
quality reviews.
salary increases to
highly effective
teachers who stay in
the classrooms of
high-needs schools.
Political
Feasibility
Low Medium Medium
Administrative
feasibility
High Low High
Financial
Feasibility
Low Low High
Equity/fairness
Medium
High High
Effectiveness
Low
Medium High
Legal
Constraints
Low Medium Medium
VII. Recommendation
The most feasible and effective option is to prolong the probationary period to five years before
earning tenure and provide significant salary increases to highly effective teachers who stay in
the classrooms. This option is financially feasible and administratively feasible. This option is
effective because there will be an additional few years to discover teacher performance before
tenure is achieved. This option is fair to students, administrators and teachers. This option has
more political support than the other options.

12. 12
References
Baker (2013) “No Deal on Teacher Evaluations; City Risks Losing $450 Million”
Retrieved in March 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/>
California teachers Association CTA (2011), Teacher Development & evaluation
Principles, retrieved July 2013, from <http://www.cta.org>
Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff (2012), The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers:Teacher Value-
Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood, retrieved fromhttp://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu
Educationnext.org (2013), Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching? By Eric S. Taylor
and John H. Tyler, retrieved from < http://educationnext.org>
Phillips, Elizabeth(2009),the Effect of Tenure on Teacher Performance in Secondary
Education, retrieved from. <library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/14234>
Medina, Jennifer (2010) “Teachers Set Deal with City on Discipline Process” Retrieved march
20, 2013 from <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/>
New York City Department of Education (No Date), The New York City Department of
Education is the largest system of public schools, retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov
McGuinn, Patrick (February, 2010), Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,
retrieved from,www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2010/02/pdf/
Partee ( 2012), Using Multiple Evaluation Measures to Improve Teacher Effectiveness,
Retrieved july,2013 from < http://www.americanprogress.org>
Rockoff & Speroni,(2011) Subjective and Objective Evaluations of Teacher Effectiveness:
Evidence from New York City, retrieved from <http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty>
StudentsFirstNY ( 2013), Unsatisfactory: The Distribution of Teacher Quality in New York
City, retrieved from < http://www.studentsfirstny.org>
Studentsfirst (2013), state policy report card, Comprehensive Evaluations, retrieved July 5
from <http://reportcard.studentsfirst.org/policy-discussion>
Taylor and Tyler (2011), The Effect of Evaluation on Performance: Evidence from Longitudinal
Student Achievement Data of Mid-Career Teachers, retrieved from http://www.nber.org
U.S. Department of Education, (2009) Race to the Top–Game-Changing Reforms, retrieved
March 2, 2013, from <http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop>
Weisberg and Morgan (2009), The Widget Effect, Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act
on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness, Retrieved from <http://widgeteffect.org>