Great Neck teacher Lederman to pursue lawsuit over state evaluation

Joe Nikic

The lawyer for Great Neck Elementary School teacher Sheri Lederman said Friday the fourth grade E.M. Baker Elementary School teacher should feel optimistic about her challenge against the state Education Department’s methods for evaluating its teachers.

Bruce Lederman argued last Wednesday in state Supreme Court in Albany that the statistical model the education department uses to evaluate teachers performance is inaccurate and unreliable.

“Seven percent of teachers are automatically assumed to fail and all they can argue is that the computer doesn’t lie,” said Lederman, a Manhattan real estate lawyer who is representing Sheri Lederman and is her husband. “The judge seemed very well informed on this.”

Assistant Attorney General Colleen Galligan represented the state Education Department and was in favor of the current evaluation system, calling it “rational,” according to a report in Newsday. 

Efforts to reach Galligan were unavailing. 

Currently, the state’s Education Department uses a computer system that analyzes standardized test scores to determine a teacher’s “student growth score.” The score is based on the improvements made by students over a year-long period. 

Lederman, a longtime educator in the Great Neck School District, filed suit in 2014 after she was rated her “ineffective” on a portion pertaining to student exam performance just one year after she was rated “highly effective,” according to court records.

During the 2012-13 school year she received 14 points out of 20 on her teacher’s evaluation growth score. She received a 1 out of 20 on the “student growth” portion of the state’s three-pronged teacher assessment for 2013-14.

“The problem is that if the computer says that Sheri is a bad teacher, then Sheri is a bad teacher,” her husband said. “It ignores everything about Sheri and the type of teacher she is.”

Then Great Neck Superintendent of Schools Thomas Dolan and E.M. Baker School principal Sharon Fougner submitted affidavits in support of Lederman earlier this year

In his affidavit, Dolan wrote Lederman’s record as an educator is “flawless,” and that the district has not received an explanation for her score from Albany.

“In an era where teacher statistics are sometimes published, or may eventually become public information, either through freedom of information requests or otherwise, improper identification of exceptional teachers as ineffective cannot be allowed to occur,” Dolan wrote.

Bruce Lederman presented affidavits at the hearing from parents of her students and several high-level educators who supported her stance of unfair teacher evaluations.

Among the affidavits was Aaron Pallas, the Arthur I. Gates Professor of Sociology and Education at Teacher’s College at Columbia University, who submitted an affidavit in late February against the current system of teacher evaluations. 

Pallas is also a member of the seven-person panel asked by the New York State Board of Regents to discuss possible issues involving teacher evaluations. 

In his affidavit, Pallas said  “I make this affidavit to (a) highlight issues that I previously raised, which remain completely unrebutted, (b) further express my expert opinion that Respondent’s Growth Model is not measuring student growth as defined in New York Education Law Section 3012-c(2)(i).”

The respondents referred to by Pallas are assistant commissioner for accountability of the Office of P-12 Education at the state Education Department, Ira Schwartz, and Managing Economist at American Institutes for Research, Daniel Sherman, both of whom supported the state Education Department in the case.

The state education department and American Institutes for Research have a contractual agreement to implement a state growth model used in evaluating teachers with a computer-generated score. 

In their affidavits, Schwartz and Sherman explained why the system works and how it provides the scores for teacher evaluations, but did not address Pallas’ argument.

Schwartz declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. Efforts to reach Sherman were unavailing.

In his affidavit, Pallas said  the “Growth Model was, in my professional opinion, flawed because it pre-determined that a set percentage of teachers would be ineffective regardless of actual effectiveness and student achievement. Respondents completely ignore my analysis.”

Sheri Lederman was quoted following the hearing that she felt compelled to challenge the state’s evaluation system.

“It’s my obligation as a fourth-grade educator to teach children about the establishment of government, about civics, and the things they need to be active, educated citizens when they become adults. They understand the notion of what’s right and fair and what’s wrong and unjust. If I can’t model that myself in this case, I’m doing my children an injustice in the classroom” said Sheri in a report published by the Politico business website.

Lederman, a Jericho resident, alleges in the lawsuit that the current evaluation model “actually punishes excellence in education through a statistical black box which no rational educator or fact finder could see as fair, accurate or reliable.”

According to the lawsuit, 72.2 percent of Lederman’s students in 2013-14 met or exceeded state standards in math and 61.1 percent met or exceeded standards in English, about twice the state average for fourth graders. They scored slightly higher in English and slightly lower in math the previous year.

A court ruling is expected within 60 days of the Aug. 12 arguments. 

Share this Article