Nixon came out for a repeal of the teacher evaluation law. That is a major step forward. Teacher evaluation is at least on the table for this legislative session in Albany. However, this is no time to be celebrating. It's a time to push for much, much more.
We learn from Chalkbeat through Michael Mulgrew that the State Assembly has been working on changing the teacher evaluation law for months. Here is Mulgrew's quote on Nixon's support for repealing the evaluation law:
“We are happy to hear of any and all support for a measure to limit the problems of standardized tests. But let the record be clear: we have been working with legislators and the executive branch for months to reform New York State’s obsession with and misuse of standardized tests,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “Ms. Nixon’s 11th hour public statement on the bill – while it may score political points – won’t help it get enacted.”
Isn't it funny how the actual bill was introduced on the same day as Nixon came out for repeal of the evaluation law?
I do not think this bill goes nearly far enough toward restoring teacher dignity in NYS, especially in NYC because we are still rated based on assessments that were never designed to rate teachers or principals and nothing changes on observations.
This is from the Albany Times Union on the bill:
COLONIE — As members of the New York state’s major teachers’ union are gathering for their annual convention, Assembly Democrats have proposed a bill that would end mandatory test-based teacher evaluations.
The measure, sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan, who chairs the education committee, says that state-created tests “shall not be required to be utilized in any manner to determine a teacher or principal evaluation.”
“It has become increasingly clear that standardized tests do not fully account for the diversity of our student populations,” Assembly Democratic Majority Speaker Carl Heastie said Thursday in a statement about the bill.
If I understand the bill correctly, we get the state exams taken out of our evaluations although we may still use them if we want to. No big win.Meanwhile, multiple Danielson observations and some other state, city or locally created exams or student growth portfolios (subject to grading by God knows who in NYC) remain in our evaluations.
If the grading is controlled locally, this could be a step backwards for NYC. I saw how an assistant principal manipulated grading to sink someone's rating. The potential for abuse in NYC is huge.
This is a bill that looks like it is more for public relations than fixing the system. It may be an attempt to end the opt out from testing movement and also silence Cynthia Nixon's campaign on the teacher evaluation issue. Hopefully, people will see through what appears at first look to be just a slightly changed version of an awful evaluation system.
For example, unless I missed something, anyone rated ineffective twice still carries the burden of proof in a termination hearing. No tenured teacher carried that burden under the old Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory system. The bill looks like it was created by, you guessed it, UFT President Michael Mulgrew.
Please, please, please continue to get people to sign our petition to repeal the entire teacher and principal evaluation laws and return it to the old Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory system.
13 comments:
Under the current system, the principal can lie about what occurred in the lesson. Then she/he can write it in stone. This must not continue.
It seems to me that the whole HEDI thing was eliminated in the new bill. (All the items pertaining to HEDI were scratched through in red ink) Danielson is a NYC thing I believe, correct? That means it can be eliminated in the next contract. The 2 observations part of the law stays in place as state law, but once again, we could get 2 observations in the next contract via bargaining. In other words, it seems 100% possible for NYC teachers not to be rated under Danielson and have 2 observations in the next contract IF Mulgrew pushes for it. Please, please chime in on your thoughts over this.
The petition is great but we need a petition to specifically explain to Mulgrew the Moron that Danielson is an unacceptable rubric to evaluate teachers and that teachers should be able to CHOOSE whether or not test scores will be included. I teach Special Ed and I have always had to teach a Regents course. NO TEST SCORES should be linked to any SPED/ELL teacher's job performance. If other teachers, who have the luxury of teaching AP kids or whatever, want test scores to count then fine - but it must be a choice. I don't like 4 observation but what bothers me more is the randomness of the observation.
NO test score!
No drive-bys using Danielson!
And James I wish you would run for UFT president!
I am am not sure what to make of this bill. Seems confusing as the poster above mentions. If we don't get a return to S/U and the elimination of Danielson I will not call any of it a victory. The bigger question is why the Hell is Mulgrew now piping in by saying that he has been working with the legislature for months to change the evaluation system? Not 2 months ago Mulgrew said the the current evaluation system is a "model" for the rest of the state. Why does he not support the complete repeal of the evaluation system and bring back S/U? This is what we want. More importantly, Nixon is right on point saying we need to repeal the entire thing. This is the news we want to hear. I sweat to God, if Mulgrew fucks this up I am going to stand in front of 52 Broadway with a giant "Mulgrew is a SELLOUT" sign.
Highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective are still in the bill.
Here is the actual language. HEEDI is not going anywhere in the new bill.
If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation category,
9 and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's composite
10 score shall be H;
11 [(2)] b. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego-
12 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
13 ite score shall be H;
14 [(3)] c. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego-
15 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite
16 score shall be E;
17 [(4)] d. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego-
18 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
19 ite score shall be D;
20 [(5)] e. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego-
21 ry, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
22 ite score shall be H;
23 [(6)] f. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego-
24 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
25 ite score shall be E;
26 [(7)] g. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego-
27 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite
28 score shall be E;
29 [(8)] h. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego-
30 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
31 ite score shall be D;
32 [(9)] i. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego-
33 ry, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
34 ite score shall be E;
35 [(10)] j. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego-
36 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
37 ite score shall be E;
38 [(11)] k. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego-
39 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite
40 score shall be D;
41 [(12)] l. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego-
42 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
43 ite score shall be I;
44 [(13)] m. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate-
45 gory, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's
46 composite score shall be D;
47 [(14)] n. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate-
48 gory, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's
49 composite score shall be D;
50 [(15)] o. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate-
51 gory, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's compos-
52 ite score shall be I;
53 [(16)] p. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate-
54 gory, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's
55 composite score shall be I.
This is the oldest con in NYS politics: the "one house bill."
A one house bill is one that can pass the Assembly or the Senate but not both--and, therefore, has no possible chance of becoming law.
Both parties, the Rs in the Senate and the Ds in the Assembly, regularly propose and pass "bills" to make a political point without any expectation, or concern, about whether the bill make it through the Legislature--much less get signed by the governor.
If the Ds can ever resolve the mess about their Senate caucus and take control of it, then a "one house" bill can be passed by the legislature and sent to the governor. Imagine the negotiations that would be required to get the governor to sign a bill like this even if the Legislature passed it.
A "one house" bill can, of course, serve as the basis for developing public policy.
At this point, this draft is a piece of political posturing which may, at some point, become the basis for a new evaluation process.
Why is their red crossmarks on all of the HEDI in the new bill? If HEDI is still in the bill it is total bullshit. We need to be backing Nixon 100% on her plan to repeal the evaluation system. Me also thinks that doucchebag Mulgrew is behind all of this crap. I hate that turd more than anyone on this planet.
Email your Assemblyperson and tell them the bill is not good enough. I emailed my Assemblyman and asked for the text of the bill bc it was not yet on the Assembly website. He sent it to me. Then I emailed him this (Part of what follows was previously posted by James): The NYS Assembly needs to consider the absurdity of the evaluative tool used to judge teachers while teachers are observed by their supervisors. The rubric created by Charlotte Danielson was never intended to be used to evaluate teachers. Teachers cannot continue to be evaluated on factors beyond their control. Imagine if you were judged based on the work ethic and emotional stability of every single one of your constituents. I wrote the following a couple of months ago and thought by sharing it with you, it would give you a better understanding of how this rubric is being used inappropriately. In NYC, where I work, this rubric is being used as a weapon to destroy good teachers' careers. ---The Danielson Rubric describes an ideal classroom setting and was never intended to be used as an evaluative tool against teachers. Examples: A rubric that rates a teacher “developing” when he/she “attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior among students, with uneven results” (Danielson 2a) is not a fair rubric. A rubric that rates a teacher ineffective because “students' body language indicates feelings of hurt, discomfort, or insecurity” (Danielson 2a) having nothing to do with how that particular teacher treats her particular students is not a fair rubric for teacher evaluations. Teachers do not just teach emotionally well-adjusted children from idyllic families and communities. We teach all kinds of children who live under various conditions. These conditions have a major impact on the emotional well-being of children. Children experiencing emotional distress due to factors beyond their teachers’ control quite often have trouble concentrating in class yet to be considered “highly effective” under Danielson, “Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in the lesson” We teach children with selective mutism and other speech and language and learning disabilities yet Danielson doesn’t take this into account. Students’ emotions have an impact on their academics, and students’ emotions are impacted by many factors beyond any teacher’s control such as homelessness, marital stress in their home or divorce, loss of employment of a caregiver, physical or emotional abuse, mental illness, bullying outside of their classroom, personal illness or illness of a loved one and many other factors too numerous to list. Holding a teacher accountable for these factors that are beyond a teacher’s control is not reasonable and yet that is what some of the components under Danielson demand.
Roseanne McCosh
You left out that administrators are permitted to lie about what occurred in the observation.
This bill is no help to us.
I emailed my reps and told them so. See below.
Dear Assemblyman,
NYS laws 3012-c and 3012-d need to be abolished. Teachers have not improved their craft due to these laws. We have only become more stressed and exhausted due to the toxic environment that they have created. Using the test results of another person to rate my work is absurd. Using the Charlotte Danielson rubric for unannounced observations is equally absurd.
A10475 does nothing to improve the situation. It is merely a horse of a different color.
Lori Matta
Anonymous 1:36. I didn't leave anything out. One person cannot be expected to write all that needs saying. I said what I wanted to say to my assemblyperson. Every teacher with a Danielson concern should be emailing their concerns to their assemblyperson and state senator and demand change---real change not the bs A10475 bill James wrote about. All of us who read James' blog should be organizing members in our schools to take action. We are making strides at my school. My delegate has taken the reins of organizing. I will help her in anyway she asks. The reality is not every teacher is as informed as they should be. So my delegate has taken the responsibility to keep members informed. She and I already emailed our respective Assemblymen. Her next step is to get our staff to send similar emails. As James has said a million times---grassroots organizing of the rank and file is the only way to get real change. There are other teachers in my school who have volunteered to organize and unite our staff. We can't just complain. We have to act. When I go off into happy retirement land in a couple of years I will rest easy knowing I personally took steps to get the brothers and sisters I am leaving behind to take action. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. It's our job to get those good people to do something. Roseanne McCosh
Roseanne is so right. We have the power but must use it collectively. We have exposed the public relations stunt that is this bill for what it is. However, we must step up and get involved to have a real impact.
Post a Comment