Take a look at these questions on testing:
High-stakes Testing
- Do you believe in annual, federally mandated testing as required by ESSA?
- Should testing results be used to determine school takeovers and closures?
- Do you believe that teachers should be evaluated by student test scores? (If they say yes or as part of multiple measures) What evidence do you have to show that is an effective way to evaluate teachers in light of most of the research that says it does not work?
- Do you believe that student test scores should be used to determine teacher salaries? In other words, do you believe in merit pay?
UFT President Michael Mulgrew as far as I know supports federally mandated testing and opposes parents opting their children out from state tests. He also has not opposed too many school reorganizations that displace teachers over the last few years. UFT policy for a long time was to support closing schools. School closings and reorganizations are often based on low student test scores. The UFT didn't lift a finger against school closings until opposition forces in the union stood up and protested loudly. Even then we had to do most of our fighting locally. Our contract actually endorses closing schools in its preamble.
On the question of rating teachers based on student test scores, Mulgrew may be one of the biggest proponents in the country for using student test scores to evaluate teachers. Research be damned.
As for merit pay, the UFT under now AFT President Randi Weingarten participated in a merit pay program for a few years based mostly on student test scores. It was schoolwide, not individual, so Randi claimed it would lead to cooperation. This merit pay was so idiotic that even the deformers in management in NYC abandoned it.
The Network for Public Education is way ahead of the UFT-NYSUT-AFT when it comes to opposing high stakes testing. If people ever wonder why many so called progressive politicians take anti-teacher positions on certain education issues, it looks like they are just echoing union leaders and of course their big bucks contributors (who also give money to our unions in some cases) rather than listening to rank and file educators.
Testing has in fact saved many a teacher in NYC who got rated "developing" on their observations as long as their test scores were effective. As a cluster teacher, I am a fan of testing as it is a good defense against any insane principal who might otherwise try to give me or other teachers a "developing" rating. As for the kids, they will get tested anyway. This is all politics, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteOne of the great myths is that the test scores save your rating so you are safe. I have seen people rated effective overall get discontinued and the UFT could do nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe four days of testing in the elementary and middle schools are developmentally inappropriate. Saving your rating, not necessarily your job, on the backs of the kids is a very questionable strategy.
Probationary teachers who are discontinued unfortunately have no good defense. They can be discontinued by a principal for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. Is it fair? Absolutely not, but this post is about testing, not about probationary teachers being discontinued. However, tenured teachers have in fact been saved via test ratings. If you really want to talk about testing, then maybe there should be no annual testing at all. However, since tenured teachers are currently being evaluated using testing, then I for one say that the NYC model is ok for now. It is sad to say, but this is a harsh friggin' world out there today. Teachers have families, homes, and lives that are directly attached to testing. If my job, or thousands of other NYC teacher jobs can be saved due to the testing aspect of our evaluation, then I am in 100% support of it. If you, or anybody else has a better idea, then please share. Oh yeah, saving your rating pretty much saves your job as a tenured teacher in most cases. Lastly, I am NOT a Unity hack or shill.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any e evidence that fewer tenured teachers have been terminated, forced to resign or charged under the current evaluation system? The better ratings are a nice illusion but they don't mean you are safe.
ReplyDeleteI am the parent of a ten year old daughter. The testing needs to go. Giving a few hundred teachers a meaningless better rating is not worth what it costs.
No jobs are being saved. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it please. DOE uses whatever tools are available and uses them well against teachers. They will throw in misconduct with incompetence to get someone.
ReplyDeleteAsk 100 teachers if they would rather go back to S or U with no Danielson or test based teacher evaluation or the current system, I think 90 would rather have S or U.
The UFT has known for many years that observation reports are pure hogwash!
Deletehttp://source.nysut.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=709
They are “individual opinions of a teacher’s lesson.”
Mulgrew v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (31 Misc.3d 296)
www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20110201256
Why are observation reports continuing to be created in any format, including according to the Danielson Framework?
From the case 12:15 cited:
DeleteThe UFT's reliance on Matter of Elentuck v Green (202 A.D.2d 425 [2d Dept 1994]), in which the Court held that it was proper to withhold lesson observation reports, is misplaced. The Court there held that lesson observation reports are not statistical or factual data as they consist solely of advice, criticisms, evaluations and recommendations prepared by the school's assistant principal.
Is that the part you are referring to?
Observations are evaluations.
From 12:15 PM:
DeleteThe following quotation from Judge Kern’s decision contains the language I cited:
In the present case, unlike in Elentuck, the determination by the DOE that the TDRs are statistical data has a rational basis. Unlike lesson observation reports, which are individual opinions of a teacher's lesson, the unredacted TDRs are a compilation of data regarding students' performance.
99% for s or u, not 90.
ReplyDeleteI was the person who said I support the current testing aspect of our evaluation. I want to make it clear that I support that aspect as the CURRENT aspect of our evaluation. Do I want to go back to S/U and gut Danielson? Of course I do. However, that is not what is happening right now. Can I prove that thousands of teachers have been saved via the testing aspect of our evaluation? Again, no. But, as a very long time reader of this blog, many, many, teachers have stated on various posts that they have in fact been saved by the testing aspect of our evaluation. The fact is that kids in the USA have been subject to state and local annual tests for over 40 years. Annual testing is not going away for kids. (even elementary kids) The problem is how these tests are being used. Of course I would like to see no linking of tests to our evaluations but for now it works. Get rid of any linking of tests and bring back S/U and I will be a happy camper. The reality is that NUSUT and the UFT have not been making that fight and as such, we are currently stuck with this linking. At least these testing scores are saving many teachers. Are they hurting some teachers? Yes, but I think it is less that those who are being saved in my opinion. There must be some data on this subject and we would all like to see it. (Oh yeah, many incompetence charges are indeed brought against tenured teachers being rated ineffective or developing due to evaluation ratings.)
ReplyDeleteI was rated Developing on observations and then AP gave my MOSL tests that the kids did not care about to a friend to mark to seal my ineffective. The only reason there is not more of this is because administrators are still figuring out how to game the system.
ReplyDeleteAs bad as the tests are at least many of you are rated on tests the students take in the subject you teach. I am an "arts" teacher and am rated on what ever subject they want to attach me to, occasionally I get to pick (depending on the school I was in at the time, this year I don't even know). That is not right at all and no one seems to be making any stink about it. To the first cluster teacher who posted, how are you going to feel when the kids bomb the ela of math test and then you get a crappy rating? It's just wrong that art, music, gym, and all other cluster and electives teachers are over looked and have our fates in the hands of other teachers and admin. Even worse they want to hold us to bullshit danielson standards as much as all the "real teachers". It's garbage just like our school system chancellor and mayor.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you all go read today's NYC EDUCATOR blog. (July 23rd blog) The blog clearly states actual examples that many teachers have in fact been "saved" by MOSL test scores which bumped up teachers developing ratings to effective ratings. This clearly shows that test scores in NYC can be a good backup to save teachers against insane administrators.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the ones that move downward because of the test scores, especially in more difficult schools?
ReplyDeleteWhat about everybody James? As mentioned, this is a dog eat dog world in NYC. You take your chances wherever you work. If these test scores are helping many teachers then thats a good thing. If they are hurting some teachers, that is a bad thing. We need to see the data to see if more teachers are benefiting from the use of tests or are being hurt from tests. And yes, yes, yes, we all want to see no linking of tests, gutting of Danielson, and a return to S/U. However, that does not look it is happening any time soon. The fact is that there are a ton of crazy admins out there who rate teachers unfairly on observations. Many of these teachers are indeed saved by test scores. You should write a new blog titled "Who Has been Saved or Hurt by our Current Observation System." Let the teachers who read this blog chime in. I think you and I would like to see what teachers have to say. I'd bet that 75% of teachers would respond that they were saved by MOSL and 25% were hurt by MOSL. (And yes, it is extremely unfair for those 25% of teachers who were hurt by MOSL which is why we need to gut the entire NYS evaluation law)
ReplyDeleteIf teachers are being saved by MOSL scores the answer is to go after the reasons why not defend bad tests as saving teachers.
ReplyDelete