Dear Mr. Mulgrew:
It has come to our attention that principals across the NYC DOE have been distributing a new framework of Danielson for evaluation of pedagogues. Since IPCs have not been happening we find this very troubling. The Danielson Framework for teacher evaluation is part of State Education Law, the new framework which adds on additional components for evaluation is UNLAWFUL and INSIDIOUS.
We seek to demand that the UFT reject any framework or rubric that purports to measure teacher effectiveness in a remote setting. There is no sound basis in theory or practice for using one, and to say that there are known “best practices” for remote learning when it hasn’t been developed and practiced for a full year, and only under the extenuating circumstances of a pandemic, is inappropriate and needlessly adds to the stress and confusion that teachers are already under in these unprecedented times. Most building administrators have no experience in teaching or evaluating teaching in an online setting. Any framework or rubric that purports to accurately gauge teacher effectiveness in an online setting cannot possibly be based on pedagogical research because such research simply does not yet exist for this scenario.
Adding an arbitrary, untested framework/rubric to an already confusing mix of ever-changing DOE directives regarding online schooling, will do nothing but cause confusion and add stress for all stakeholders. There is no sound pedagogical reason for doing so, and any idea that this absurd practice will in any way support or help teachers is completely misleading and disingenuous.
The UFT has been silent on this. We need you to take a firm stance in opposition to this unsound and damaging proposal.
The UFT Solidarity Caucus