tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post6672357974352984816..comments2024-03-07T15:25:26.971-05:00Comments on ICEUFT Blog: KING DECIDES ON TEACHER EVALUATIONSJeff Kaufmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11728874415155394751noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-8819970541086044442013-07-10T09:55:03.688-04:002013-07-10T09:55:03.688-04:00It looks as though the only way a principal can sa...It looks as though the only way a principal can save a teacher is by giving that teacher students to teach who the administration knows will show growth on the tests.<br /><br />The opposite is also true. Want to get rid of a teacher, give him/her a class that will not show much growth. Many schools have gone back to tracking. Those with high functioning students are not going to show that much growth in their test scores. Those who are more needy may not either. many of the neediest students have been placed, illegally, in ITC classes - regular ed and special needs students (many of whom are not in the best placement) all lumped together in larger classes than we have seen in recent years.<br /><br />Also untenured teachers are going to be under the same microscope as tenured teachers. The revolving door is going to get faster. Teachers, as all veterans know, need time to "grow' and learn. Time to try things out, make mistakes and test stratgegies. This evaluation system does not allow for any of that. <br /><br />As for time, my school was a pilot school. The administrators and the "talent coach" did not have time to doo all the observations and feed back let alone get it all into the computer. Feedback was minimal and usually on paper, not face to face in a sit down collaborative situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-64601583166485188202013-06-05T06:08:33.494-04:002013-06-05T06:08:33.494-04:00It is another one of Mulgrew's delusional stat...It is another one of Mulgrew's delusional statements, as the Titanic starts to sink, aside from his claims that teachers gain in choosing their means of observation/termination, that this is arbitration. <br /><br />No, it's not arbitration. <b>NYSED is not a labor-management arbitration committee!</b>GeoKarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11463970361326939857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-75557873827532394642013-06-04T20:35:43.436-04:002013-06-04T20:35:43.436-04:00Arbitration is done by a third party agreed to by ...Arbitration is done by a third party agreed to by the two disputing parties, right? <br /><br />If King or individuals selected by King issued this ruling, on what basis can Mulgrew claim that this ruling is the result of an "arbitration?" <br /><br />Appealing to King after agreement with Bloomberg proved impossible is like the next step in a grievance procedure, just going higher up the management chain. The grievance is pointedly different from an arbitration. <br /><br />If Mulgrew is misrepresenting the ruling as an arbitration I think this is a vulnerable point worth pressing on. If this misrepresentation can be established it might be a solid first step towards unraveling Unity's spin and alerting the membership to a double cross. <br /><br />The ruling shows once again that the Unity caucus' triangulation response to the corporate reformers is bankrupt. Cuomo/King is no better than Bloomberg/Walcott but to admit this would call into question Unity's whole game plan, their entire trajectory since the 1968 strike. Better to misrepresent this humiliation as an outcome of an arbitration rather than face the fact that a bully has just taken your lunch money. 'Oh no, I wasn't mugged, It was just a loan.' <br /><br />I think that we are crossing into new territory here if Unity seeks to incorporate this ruling into the contract for member ratification. Its not just business as usual for UFT Inc. <br /><br />Contract enforcement was something union members traditionally viewed as serving our interests. If the contract incorporates the rulings of the boss it might as well be a "yellow dog" contract. Its the bosses contract, not ours. The "union" leadership that urges ratification of such crap moves the UFT one step closer to company unionism.<br /><br />UFT members need a broad based fair contract committee that unites all who can be united with. Its our contract, not the corporate reformers. Sean Ahernnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-44296280983834082432013-06-03T11:31:29.089-04:002013-06-03T11:31:29.089-04:00One thing I learned over the years from buying new...One thing I learned over the years from buying new cars- If the dealer is happy when you drive it off the lot, you didn't get a good deal. So, why is Mulgrew so happy if Bloomberg is? <br /><br /><b><i>Bottom line:<br />1. They have more ways to fire us.<br />2. They can fire us faster.</i></b><br /><br />That's all I need to know.<br /><br />My sign for the Fair Contracts Rally: <br /><br />"Teacher Voice"<br />HELP!!jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17689606461811818488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-44882293013237081792013-06-02T12:52:19.389-04:002013-06-02T12:52:19.389-04:00I agree Reality Based EducatorI agree Reality Based EducatorJames Eternohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578647381229034792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-79539326654761666152013-06-02T11:38:20.610-04:002013-06-02T11:38:20.610-04:00James,
Thanks. I hope Jeff does weigh in on this...James,<br /><br />Thanks. I hope Jeff does weigh in on this question, because I would really like to know if King's interpretation of the law - from "zero growth must be rated ineffective" to "ineffective on one part means ineffective overall" - would stand a court challenge. That seems like a seismic shift in APPR, making the test part effectively 100%.<br /><br />Norm, <br /><br />The UFT will try and spin this, but the devil is in the details and it's hard to see how even the most naive teacher will see this evaluation system as a win. Not once this gets up and going and is used as the bludgeon it is meant to be. In 12 Step, vernacular, this is like hitting bottom. Even the most oblivious drunk can't miss the damage from this! The UFT can try and spin, but once the system is up next year and work loads increase 100-fold and everyone is on edge about getting VAMMED or SLO'Ed or Danileson'ed, the spin won't matter. reality-based educatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01712885202661371924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-65201668924586343782013-06-02T10:21:30.511-04:002013-06-02T10:21:30.511-04:00Thanks Chris. Not very encouraging but enlighteni...Thanks Chris. Not very encouraging but enlightening.James Eternohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578647381229034792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-38373528812947154472013-06-02T10:15:56.144-04:002013-06-02T10:15:56.144-04:00I wish you well. We have a similar system in place...I wish you well. We have a similar system in place here in Florida, although testing counts for 50% of your evaluation and if, like me, you teach a non-tested grade/subject your score is taken from a school wide average. Whatever the rating is on your test score subsection becomes your rating overall -- the other 50% (Danielson stuff) has no impact at all.<br /><br />In other words, my rating for last year was based upon the test scores of students I had never met nor taught, since I had changed schools the previous year. <br /><br />Principals are finding it nearly impossible to meet the requirements of walkthroughs and observations with pre- and post- conferences so much is being fudged. The promised professional development and support never showed up, of course, and never will due to "budget constraints". They just keep adding more and more ways to get you.<br /><br />Start planning the farewell parties for all your friends and colleagues, starting with Title I schools where the testing scores are never high enough and never will be under the CCSS assessments.<br /><br />Polish up your resumes and start training in computer skills or whatever else you need for employment in another profession. Unless you teach upper middle class kids with very supportive parents in elite schools you are soon to be let go from your profession. <br /><br />We even had a teacher of the year rated ineffective based on the scores of the kids at another school last year -- because she is a primary teacher and her grade isn't tested. <br /><br />Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric and the mewling of the UFT these evaluation systems were conceived and are designed for one purpose only: to get rid of high-cost, tenured teachers ASAP.Chris in Floridanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-42420142820667843622013-06-02T10:06:54.990-04:002013-06-02T10:06:54.990-04:00Norm-I think I know this is no victory but just as...Norm-I think I know this is no victory but just as you put out some ed deformer material (E4E) on Ed Notes, I am putting out the UFT's spin and people can do with it what they like. <br /><br /> Reality Based Educator-King interprets the education law. What we see in his release is his current interpretation of that part of the law. Your question would be better answered by Jeff. I hope he gives it a go. James Eternohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578647381229034792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-31129754484318822612013-06-02T08:57:56.057-04:002013-06-02T08:57:56.057-04:00James,
There comes a time when there is no need to...James,<br />There comes a time when there is no need to be "fair." The UFT has its massive machine to get out the word about this victory. The leadership has declared war on its own membership.ed notes onlinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15018047869059226777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15921757.post-78537012552712043692013-06-02T08:19:47.435-04:002013-06-02T08:19:47.435-04:00James,
Two Februaries ago when Mulgrew and Iannuz...James,<br /><br />Two Februaries ago when Mulgrew and Iannuzzi caved to Cuomo, the change that was made to the test part of the evaluation law was that teachers who showed "zero growth" on that part of the evaluation would be automatically rated "ineffective" overall no matter what. <br /><br />Now it's teachers who are rated "ineffective" on that part will automatically be rated "ineffective" overall.<br /><br />My question is, how can King change the criteria arbitrarily like that? And isn't it a good reason to sue?<br /><br />I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you would have a good case that the evaluation system is not using the same parameters agreed upon by all parties back in February 2012 and therefore should not stand.reality-based educatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01712885202661371924noreply@blogger.com