Danielson: What We Lost – Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

Danielson’s Framework for Effective Teaching has been widely criticized as an evaluative tool by many respected educators including, ironically enough, Charlotte Danielson, herself. Without going too much into the history of the Framework it’s important to note that the four domains of effective teaching are, allegedly, the full description of what makes a teacher effective. According to Danielson’s books the Framework describes aspects of teaching that are essential to effectiveness. Others have tried to create general descriptive systems to analyze professions but few, if any professions actually use these descriptions to evaluate performance. One of the reasons is that there are many ways to perform effectively professional. In fact one might say that the very nature of professionalism is to be able to adjust one’s strategies and tactics in different ways under different situations.

But, of course, John King has, with DOE and UFT approval, made this framework 60% of our evaluations. While the general notion of using such a framework in this way undermines our Contract it will become clearer as we go through the framework.

First up, component 2a. Danielson’s Framework is divided into 4 domains and 22 components. Domain 2 and 3, the “on stage” domains represent ¾ of our 60% or 45% of our total grade. This is due to the observable nature of these domains. Domain 1 and 4, dealing with planning and professional responsibilities, deal with components that are “off stage” and not directly observable and must be inferred to be measured (more about this in another post).

Getting back to 2a a teacher will, starting next year, be rated on the type of environment that he or she creates in the classroom through teacher and student interactions. The framework concludes that teachers who use respectful talk, read body language and maintain fairness will demonstrate effective teaching in this component. Clearly a classroom that has respectful students who are treated fairly will undoubtedly have a classroom that is conducive to learning and the teacher has a part in inculcating this environment. But to rate the teacher and thereby making her responsible for these outcomes is absurd. There are so many factors that go into student behavior including school culture, student backgrounds and administrative support that to leave a teacher “out there” under this component shows just how insane this framework is for evaluative purposes.

When I was first assigned to a yearlong suspension center for students in the Bronx who were found to have committed some pretty heinous infractions I was assigned as one of four teachers in the site. The students rotated from subject to subject in each of 4 rooms. My room and the science room were separated by a wall with windows so the science teacher and I could see each other’s classes. Half way through my class one of my students yelled out, “Hey look, they’re tying up Mr. M.” Sure enough the science teacher was being duct taped to his chair. After school safety released him all I could think about was that they were coming into my room next.

Would my “rapport” with these students permit me to actually teach? Would the lack of any administrative intervention contribute to my ability to maintain respect in my class?

While it is very unclear just how an evaluator would actually evaluate on this component it is pretty clear that being evaluated on this component undermines the spirit if not the letter of our contract. Does this mean that teachers working in what the DOE euphemistically calls “hard to staff” schools can never be effective?

Perhaps under the new system a teacher who learns not to sit in his chair to be duct taped might score some effective points.

NO REGENTS EXAMS TO GRADE SO IT'S BACK TO JAMAICA

The Regents marking started today with many social studies teachers from a number of schools being sent to Cardozo High School for all day marking of global history and US history tests on computer. Social studies teachers from around the city are being sent to selected schools to score exams. A private company was to have scanned all of the exams that students took last week onto computers by now.

This morning there was a problem after we marked for a couple of hours.  By 11:00 am there were no exams left to grade and we have once again been sent back to our home schools. It appears many of the exams have not been uploaded yet into the system.

Who said this would be a more efficient system for marking regents exams?

Perhaps it is time for teachers to count our miles for gas and ask the mayor for some reimbursement. At least he can give us metro-cards for our troubles so we can find buses or trains to take us back and forth between our home schools and these testing centers if there is going to be all of this down time this week while they iron out the kinks in this system.

I feel my carbon footprint growing  Mr. Mayor.

Danielson: What We Lost – The Lesson Plan

While the ink is drying on John King’s decision and our Union touts how great Danielson is as an evaluative tool it is becoming clearer just how much our current contract was changed without a single vote from one of our members. Of course there is much that will be decided and practice may be implemented in different ways in different schools but there are some changes which could cause major problems to future employment.

Under 8E of our contract a lesson plan is for the use of the teacher. Who knows what we gave up to get this provision in our contract but it was important enough to stop principals from routinely collecting lesson plans or forcing teachers to spend punishment time creating documents. An extraordinary example of the abuse was when a bilingual Chinese teacher who wrote her lesson plans in Chinese was given a letter to her file because the principal could not read the plan and would not allow her to translate it.

Similarly a more experienced teacher who has good command of her pedagogy need not write down every aspect of a lesson to demonstrate good planning where a newer teacher might need some prompts. It’s like going to a good friend’s house who has just moved upstate. The first visit you put his address in MapQuest and follow the detailed turns. By the fifth visit you’ve figured out shortcuts and don’t need a map.

Lesson planning is essential to effective teaching. Danielson recognizes this in Domain 1. But evidence of good lesson planning is how the lesson is preformed, not in a piece of paper a supervisor must rate you on.

Under Danielson 2 out of our 22 rated components specifically deal with the lesson plan, component 1e and 1f. Under component 1e, the lesson plan is mentioned as part of a teacher’s design for coherent instruction. Here a highly effective teacher will have a lesson plan that “clearly indicates the concepts taught in the last few lessons” and that “the teacher plans for his students to link the current lesson outcomes to those they previously learned." An effective teacher “reviews lesson plans with her principal; they are well structured, with pacing times and activities clearly indicated.” An ineffective “teacher’s lesson plans are written on sticky notes in his grade book.” Source:  Danielson 2013 Rubric-Adapted to New York Department of Education Framework for Teaching Components.

Similarly, component 1f, designing student assessments, appears to evaluate a lesson plan based on how well it “indicates correspondence between assessments and instructional outcomes.”

To be clear, both before King and Danielson and after King and Danielson you need a plan. It’s just now the plan is not for the teacher and it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve driven to your friend’s house; you better have a copy of the turn by turn directions or you may be rated ineffective.

NEW TEACHER RATING MATH: EFFECTIVE ON TESTING + EFFECTIVE ON OBSERVATIONS = INEFFECTIVE OVERALL

Long Island Principal Carol Burris has examined Commissioner John King's ruling on NYC teacher evaluations and found it does not follow the law.

According to the analysis Burris did, a teacher can be rated effective on the two testing components, effective on the observations (other measures) and still receive an overall ineffective rating. 9 + 9 + 45 = 63!  9, 9 and 45 are all effective scores but a teacher needs 65 overall points to receive a grade of developing and avoid an annual ineffective (equal to unsatisfactory) rating.

Next year teachers will be rated highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective instead of the current satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  Two annual ineffective ratings in a row and there is a presumption of incompetence which will mean teachers will then be guilty until proven innocent when the DOE goes for termination.

Everyone needs to read the June 15 piece on Diane Ravitch's fantastic blog as this is unbelievable.

Where is the UFT on this?  It looks like they are too busy praising Dr. King's new evaluation system to have noticed any flaws.  UFT President Michael Mulgrew said: "The commissioner's plan is professional and fair and is designed to help teachers improve their skills throughout their careers."

REGENTS MARKING

There was no confidentiality agreement to sign this year on day one of Regents marking so I guess I'm free to talk about the experience.

Two of my colleagues and I from Jamaica High School were sent to Cardozo High School this morning to be trained on how to grade the Global History and Geography or United States History and Government Regents Exams.  Apparently, we don't know enough to figure out how to mark papers on our own and nobody at Jamaica can tell us how to do it even though our assistant principal had the training. Social studies teachers from all over were sent to a few central marking centers to grade.

The people at Cardozo High School were very nice and quite professional.  I have no complaints with the treatment there. In fact, I was elated to see old friends who had been excessed from Jamaica and others who I hadn't seen in a long while.

After we spent much of the morning reviewing how to score, we were sent to computer rooms to take a tutorial on how to read exams that have been scanned into a computer.  Thanks to somebody next to me I actually completed the lesson promptly.  Then, we were sent back to our home schools for the afternoon.

We have to return to Cardozo from Monday to Thursday next week to grade all day.  Now, here is a question for anybody who knows someone at Tweed: If the student test answers have been scanned on centralized computers, and we are using our DOE accounts to access them, why can't we stay in our own schools to grade them?  We don't have the actual papers; we are scoring electronically.  Our assistant principal could have told us how to grade and given us the computer tutorial.  Believe it or not, even at Jamaica we have computers.

We could grade papers from students from all over the city, that have been scanned onto centralized DOE computers, just as easily from a computer at Jamaica as one from Cardozo. We logged in like we do any DOE function. If we were back in our home schools, we would also still be available if our students came in to ask questions concerning other matters or if administration needed us for an emergency.

Is Tweed afraid we might cheat if we were in our own schools marking papers where we can't even see the names? Maybe they are worried that we could play some music while grading.  Administration at Jamaica could make sure we don't violate any rules.

If anyone has an answer, please tell us why we have to use computers at Cardozo instead of using computers in our home schools?

I want to repeat that I am not complaining about going to Cardozo.  I will gladly spend most of next week there but it seems extremely inefficient.  Consider this Mr. Bloomberg: How many gallons of gas were wasted with teachers driving back to their school today after the training?.

MLC RALLY

I just returned home from the Muncipal Labor Committee Rally outside City Hall Park.  Turnout was OK and the people were spirited.

There was a healthy contingent of UFT people in the mix that included a group from the Movement of Rank and File Educators caucus who were handing out a MORE leaflet. There were also workers attending from many other municipal unions.

It was great to talk to old friends and make new ones but do these rallies accomplish anything besides allowing us to let off some steam?  Since all of the municipal unions are without labor contracts, a unified huge public gathering was a great idea. Rallies should not be called for the sake of having a rally but rather they should be used to build the labor movement.

A protest can be one way to encourage rank and file involvement so we can up the ante at a later date.  Do you see that occurring now that this event has passed? I hope so but I fear the bulk of the UFT's energy will be placed in political action to try to get a "friendly" mayor elected.

In my opinion teachers will need more than a protest and a political endorsement to win back the respect and rights we have forfeited over the last few years.

However, at least we had some fun this afternoon.

CHECK OUT THE DEVILISH DETAILS OF KING'S EVALUATION SYSTEM THAT CAN BE APPEALED

Thanks to some friends for sending out Commissioner King's evaluation decision.  I have spent a great deal of time today reading the entire King ruling and so should everyone who reads this blog.

It is basically a convoluted, muddled mess of incoherent bureaucratic nonsense that most teachers, including me, will take a long time to figure out.

Upon first reading, it is abundantly clear that the the DOE clearly won the so called "arbitration".  Take for example the new arbitration days that have been added to address complaints that the DOE is not complying with the procedural requirements of the new teacher evaluation system.  The UFT is calling this a due process gain. I would disagree on that point and here's why.

The UFT gained 15 days for arbitrators to hear ten cases per day.  That means out of 75,000 teachers, 150 will be able to grieve to an arbitrator that procedures in the new system aren't being followed. Does that make any of you feel your due process rights have been expanded?

We'll have more to say when we study this in greater detail.  For now, people are asking if anything can be done.

Jeff Kaufman sent me the law and there is an appeal process if the UFT would choose to use it.  Here is the section of the law:

THE  PARTIES  MAY  MAKE  AN APPLICATION TO THE NEW YORK STATE  SUPREME COURT TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE DETERMINATION OF THE  COMMISSIONER PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED ELEVEN OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES. THE COURT'S REVIEW SHALL BE LIMITED TO  THE  GROUNDS  SET FORTH IN SUCH SECTION.

The UFT would have to argue that King exceeded his constitutional authority, which would be a tough standard to meet but otherwise expect a new universe when we return in the fall.

Reality Based Educator said it best in a comment on the piece that was posted this morning:

"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."

KING DECIDES ON TEACHER EVALUATIONS

State Education Commissioner John King has made his decision on NYC teacher evaluations.  We haven't seen the entire ruling yet but readers can see his press release below.

We were fairly certain Commissioner King was not going to issue a ruling favorable to teachers because the new teacher evaluation law is deeply flawed.  Unless he was a wise man who understood how the City is trying to get rid of as many teachers as possible, there truly was very little hope for much to come out of this so called arbitration that teachers would like.

Here is a quote from Chancellor Dennis Walcott, taken from Gothamschools.org, reacting to King's decision:  "I consider this a major victory for our students and our staff."

Here's a quote from UFT President Michael Mulgrew from a later Gotham piece: "I wanted a plan I thought was fair and more importantly followed the spirit of the law, and I think we have the beginning of that."

A reader can accuse me of selectively quoting but I think one can get the feel for the general sentiments of both sides from Walcott and Mulgrew's words and it's not good for teachers.

The question I have is: Where is the full decision?  It was supposed to be released on June 1.  Instead, all we have are press releases and email reactions. There is a great deal of speculation but we need to see the specific details to maybe find some silver linings in these ominous clouds.

For now this is the biggest part that should keep teachers awake at night:

"Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective 
assessments must be rated ineffective overall. Teachers who are 
developing or ineffective will get assistance and support to improve 
performance. Teachers who remain ineffective can be removed from 
classrooms."

That is from the state's press release.  What it means is if the kids don't do well on whatever assessments they take that teachers are being judged on, it's bye, bye teaching career after two years.  

We already knew from the law that two years of ineffective ratings means a teacher is presumed to be incompetent. In the new 3020a process for termination of tenured teachers, the burden of proof will shift to the teacher to prove he/she is not incompetent.  This is a huge change.  In the current system, the burden of proof is on the Department of Education to prove a teacher is incompetent. (The ICE blog has complained about the UFT supporting this change in law for a long time.)

To put it another way, teachers will be guilty until proven innocent. The law effectively already limited tenure. The whole battle the last couple of years has been to see how easy or difficult it was going to be to get to that stage where a teacher is in a hearing where he/she is presumed to be incompetent. Mulgrew claims there are plenty of due process safeguards.  I hope he is right but I am very skeptical. 

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.

Examining the rest of King's evaluation framework, I don't see much for teachers to be happy about. Teachers will have either a minimum of four to six observations. Therefore, even if the students pass the tests, administration can still rate teachers ineffective.  In addition, student surveys will make up 5% of the annual evaluations.  

We still need to see the final ruling in its entirety to judge this completely but right now I would say people should be very concerned.

To add insult to injury, the UFT looks like it is mostly losing the evaluation war and we didn't even get the two 4% raises that most other city employees received years ago without givebacks. Instead, the UFT is in fact finding awaiting a non binding decision that Bloomberg will more than likely ignore and leave to the next mayor.

We do attempt to be fair here at ICE so here is UFT President Michael Mulgrew's full email to members followed by Commissioner King's press release.

Dear colleagues,

State Education Commissioner John King said New York City “is not going to fire its way to academic success” as he announced this afternoon a new evaluation system for K-12 teachers that will go into effect in September.

The commissioner’s plan is professional and fair and is designed to help teachers improve their skills throughout their careers.  It offers teachers a professional voice in the measures that their supervisors will use to rate them. And despite Mayor Bloomberg’s desire for a “gotcha” system, the new system puts in place stronger due process rights to protect teachers from harassment and from principals who don’t follow the rules. Our biggest concern, given this administration’s terrible track record, is implementation.

The new system came as the result of binding arbitration after the DOE failed to negotiate in good faith with us. In seven months we will have a new mayor, and we’ll have the opportunity in collective bargaining for our next contract to make changes to aspects that aren’t working.

For now, here are five key points about the new evaluation plan that you should know:

1. Strong due process – Given Mayor Bloomberg’s desire to make teachers ‘at-will employees’ and this DOE’s track record of going after teachers, we fought for and won significant safeguards for you. For the first time, we have an independent panel to review teacher ratings that the union believes are based on principal harassment.  We can identify up to 13 percent of all ineffective ratings each year to challenge on grounds of harassment or other matters not related to job performance.  All teachers who receive an ineffective rating will have the benefit in the following year of an independent validator who will not be in the principal’s pocket. We also fought for and won additional arbitration slots that will allow teachers to challenge the process when they can show that supervisors were not following the rules.
2. The complete Danielson rubric – Commissioner King ruled, following the UFT’s proposal, that principals must take into consideration all 22 components of the Danielson Framework for Teaching when rating a teacher. The DOE had wanted to cherry-pick only a small fraction – the most difficult ones. That means everything that you do for your students counts towards your rating, including artifacts of student learning and portfolios, planning and preparation, classroom environment and parent engagement strategies.
3. Meaningful observations – Under this new agreement, teachers will be able to choose the form of observations that they want. One option available to you will require one formal observation, with pre- and post-observation conferences, as well as three informal observations. Teachers can also opt for six informal observations. Under both plans, at least one observation will be unannounced.  After every observation, you should receive written feedback, which is critical if an observation is to help you grow as a teacher and develop your skills.
4. Teacher Voice - The new system will allow schools and teachers to customize the student learning portion of their evaluations. Each school will have a committee comprised of an equal number of teachers and administrators who will determine, along with the principal, which assessments each school will use. Only if no agreement can be reached at the school level will the default school-wide measures be used.
5. Student surveys - The new system also includes a pilot of student surveys, which will not be for stakes in 2013-14. Commissioner King’s plan is that the surveys would eventually become 5 percent of the rating for teachers in grades 3-12. Experts have found that student surveys are not valid in high-stakes settings, and we will be looking at this very closely in the months ahead.

The DOE is already trying to spin King's announcement to its advantage. We will be working through Sunday to put together detailed information about the new plan so you’ll have it when you return to school on Monday.

Training the tens of thousands of teachers and administrators in our schools in the new system will not be easy. The Bloomberg administration has failed our schools for more than 11 years, and we can only hope that one of its last acts will be to work with us to implement this new system in the spirit in which it was designed.

Here is the bottom line: The new teacher evaluation system is designed to support, not punish, teachers and to help them develop throughout their careers. That is what we will be fighting for as this plan is implemented.

Sincerely,

Michael Mulgrew

COMMISSIONER KING RELEASES NYC TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL EVALUATION PLAN

New York State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr. today released his teacher and principal evaluation plan for New York City.  Legislation enacted earlier this year mandated that King impose an Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) plan for any district without an approved plan in place by May 29.  New York City is the only district in the state to fail to meet that deadline.  The APPR plan King announced today will remain in force through the 2016-2017 school year – and under state law, remains in place in perpetuity – unless and until a successor APPR agreement is reached through collective bargaining and is approved by the Commissioner.  King said the plan announced today following submissions and testimony from affected parties, will identify excellence, facilitate high-quality professional development for principals and teachers, and provide each principal with the autonomy to build a strong staff while protecting teachers against arbitrary and capricious actions. 

It's time,” King said.  ”The students have waited too long.  The plan I’m announcing today creates a multiple-measures evaluation system that’s fair for teachers and principals.  More important, it will help improve teaching and learning and give New York City students a much better opportunity to graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers. There are strong measures to help remove ineffective teachers and principals, but let’s be clear: New York is not going to fire its way to academic success.  The key to this plan is the training, support and professional development that must be put in place to help teachers and principals improve their practice.”

King congratulated Chancellor Dennis Walcott and Council of School Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan for their successful efforts to reach an agreement on a New York City principal evaluation plan, which is reflected in the plan imposed by the Commissioner.  Pressed and encouraged by the Commissioner throughout the arbitration hearing, both sides made meaningful compromises to reach a negotiated resolution.  King said the agreement will help principals improve their practice and ensure every school in the city is led by an effective leader.

King said, “Over the past 15 months, the real purpose of this evaluation reform has been lost in the drama surrounding the negotiations.  At the end of the day, this is all about helping teachers teach better so students can learn better.  This plan does that.  “The plan gives principals the tools they need to improve instruction in their schools.  It will help struggling teachers and principals get better and help good teachers and principals become great.  The plan builds on the strengths of the evaluation plan previously in place for principals in New York City.  And, for the first time, the City has an evaluation plan that recognizes excellent teachers who can serve as models and mentors for their colleagues.  The challenge is to bring the best teaching practices to every classroom in New York City.   Today, we’ve moved a little closer to that goal.”

In 2009, the New York State Board of Regents launched an ambitious reform agenda focused on the straightforward goal of ensuring all New York State students are prepared for college and career success.  The four pillars of the state's agenda are:

:

• Implementing the Common Core standards

• Building instructional data systems that support student success

• Recruiting, developing, retaining, and rewarding effective teachers and principals

• Turning around the lowest-achieving schools

In support of that agenda, in 2010 the Legislature adopted and the Governor signed into law Education Law Section 3012-c, a new law governing teacher and principal evaluations.  In recognition of New York’s leadership in education reform under Board of Regents Chancellor Tisch, the U.S. Department of Education awarded New York a nearly $700 million Race To The Top grant.  Under Governor Cuomo’s leadership, the teacher and principal evaluation law was amended in 2012 to ensure greater rigor and effective implementation, including a requirement for the Commissioner to approve all evaluation plans (see Attachment A for details).

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and its bargaining units failed to meet the statutory January 17, 2013 deadline to fully implement standards and procedures for conducting evaluations and as a result did not qualify for an increase in state aid for the 2012-2013 school year.  The state budget adopted earlier this year required any district that did not have an APPR plan in place on or before May 29, 2013, would have an evaluation plan imposed on it by the Commissioner after a  two-day arbitration proceeding.  Based on extensive evidence and the Commissioner’s judgment as to the best interest of the students in New York City, on June 1, 2013 the Commissioner imposed standards and procedures necessary to fully implement an APPR plan within the district.

Highlights of Commissioner King’s Plan for NYC Teachers:
State Growth 20% Note: Could increase to 25% if the Board of Regents approves a change to a value added model.	State-provided growth scores in grades 4-8Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) For teachers in core subjects with state assessments, state assessments must be used For teachers in core subjects without state assessments, NYC performance assessments reflective of the Common Core Standards must be used For all other teachers, menu determined by NYSED Student performance targets for SLOs approved by principals with input from teachers
Locally Selected Measures 20% Note: Could decrease to 15% if the Board of Regents approves a change to a value added model.	NYSED Menu of Options School-based measures of student learning committee (4 members selected by principal, 4 members selected by UFT) to allow for both teacher and administrator input Committee recommends measures to principal from menu determined by NYSED Principal may reject recommendation and apply default school-wide measure
Other Measures: Observation Process60% for K-2 (and 3-12 Teachers in 2013-14)55% for 3-12 Teachers in 2014-15 and beyond	Danielson (2013): 22 components must be observed annually via observations and teacher artifactsTeachers will have a choice between two options and indicate which option they have chosen at their initial planning conference in the beginning of the school year: Option 1: (a) min. of 1 formal; (b) min. of 3 informal (at least 1 unannounced) Option 2: min. of 6 informal (at least 1 unannounced) Teacher may authorize observation by video
Other Measures: Surveys5% for 3-12 Teachers in 2014-15 and beyond	Tripod Student Surveys in Grades 3-12: City-wide pilot in 2013-14, full implementation in 2014-15 and beyond
AppealsGoverned by Education Law Section 3012-c(5-a)	Chancellor’s Appeals: Ineffective only 4 hour maximum per session Year-round (including summer months) Panel Appeals (harassment or reasons not related to job performance): Limited to 13% of teachers rated ineffective (as determined by UFT)
Streamlined Process to Resolve APPR Compliance Issues	15 expedited compliance issue resolution hearing days Exclusive mechanism for resolving APPR procedural compliance issues Shall not be used by an individual teacher to challenge that teacher’s annual professional performance review

Highlights of Commissioner King’s Plan for NYC Principals Imposed With Agreement of NYCDOE and the CSA:
State Growth 20% Note: Could increase to 25% if the Board of Regents approves a change to a value added model.	State-provided growth scores in schools with grades 4-8State-provided growth scores in high schoolsFor small number of principals without state-provided growth scores: Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) State assessments (where applicable) All others: NYCDOE and CSA collaborative decision-making process with 8/1 deadline; if no decision by 8/1,  NYC performance assessments reflective of the Common Core Standards
Locally Selected Measures 20% Note: Could decrease to 15% if the Board of Regents approves a change to a value added model.	Selected metrics from the NYC Progress Reports
Rubric for “Other Measures” 60%	NYC Quality Review Rubric (2012-13) Two supervisory visits by superintendent or designee (at least 1 unannounced)
Appeals	Ineffective only Hearing officer selected from a panel of experienced educators jointly appointed by NYCDOE and the CSA Hearing officer makes recommendation to Chancellor who makes final decision

The Commissioner’s decision and the posted Review Room plans are scheduled to be available by 8:00 PM this evening.

Requirements of Education Law Section 3012-c (as amended in 2012)
Annual evaluations with regular feedback	Required for all teachers and principals
Clear rigorous expectations	NY State Teaching Standards Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for principals
Multiple measures	40% Student Performance (growth on state tests and/or other locally-selected measures) 60% Other (observations, school visits, surveys, etc.): -       A majority (at least 31 percent) of the 60 percent must be based on classroom observations by a principal or trained administrator. -       There must be multiple observations and at least one observation must be unannounced.
Multiple Rating Levels	Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall. Teachers who are developing or ineffective will get assistance and support to improve performance. Teachers who remain ineffective can be removed from classrooms.
Regular Feedback	Frequent, ongoing and linked to development opportunities
Significant	Factors into employment decisions, supplemental compensation
Appeals	Appeals must be timely and expeditious and districts may terminate probationary teachers/principals or grant or deny tenure while an appeal is pending.
Rigorous	All evaluation plans are subject to review and approval by the Commissioner to ensure rigor, quality and consistency with standards. The Commissioner has the authority to require corrective action, including the use of independent evaluators, when districts evaluate their teachers positively regardless of students’ academic progress.

GET READY FOR DUELING ANNOUNCEMENTS ON KING'S EVALUATION "ARBITRATION" DECISION

          The following piece is taken from last Friday’s UFT weekly update for Chapter Leaders.  My take is both the UFT and city are planning to claim victory when State Education Commissioner John King releases his arbitration decision on Saturday.  I am very skeptical; the devil will be in the details.

         

The UFT expects to receive a decision from the state on Saturday, June 1 about the new evaluation system for teachers in New York City. The state’s decision will come out of binding arbitration between the union and the city’s Department of Education, which will culminate in two days of hearings in Albany in late May (this week).
           The arbitration is necessary because of the Department of Education’s failure to negotiate in good faith. Upon release of the state’s binding arbitration ruling, the union will carefully comb through it. The UFT’s staff will come into work on Sunday, June 2, to prepare a fact sheet and other materials that will explain the details of the evaluation system to members.               

UFT President Michael Mulgrew warned delegates at the May 22 meeting to expect the DOE to read the state ruling differently than the union. He said the union will fight to make sure the DOE implements the evaluation system correctly: as a tool for supporting teachers and helping them develop throughout their careers. Chapter Leaders should be aware that in response to a question from a delegate about the DOE’s planned team training in the Danielson Framework for Teaching, Mulgrew said, “We never signed off on this. We don’t approve of it.”

Is there anybody out there who believes the new evaluation system will be a tool for "supporting teachers and helping them develop throughout their careers?"

At Jamaica, we have had multiple "low stakes" administrator observations being done to practice for the new Danielson framework.    I had seven administrators in my room, some from Jamaica and some from outside,  for a class last week. I would call that an unnatural environment for learning. I believe this type of observation is quite disruptive to the learning process.   It is good to know the practice is not signed off on by the UFT.

DA REPORT: ARE MEMBERS BEING PLAYED WITH THE MAYORAL ENDORSEMENT PROCESS?

Just about everyone is aware that AFT President Randi Weingarten is helping raise money for Bill Thompson in the race for New York City Mayor. Only those who truly want to believe the UFT is independent from the AFT took the UFT at face value when at yesterday's Delegate Assembly it was stated that they hadn't made a decision yet on who to endorse.  Maybe officially they have not endorsed a candidate but all signs point to Thompson.

Since Thompson is supported by Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents Merryl Tisch, a true ed deformer who is no friend to teachers, the UFT move in this direction is curious and would have been a great topic for debate at the Delegate Assembly.  However, the Union did not have a discussion on the issue and instead just had the Borough Representatives give short reports on how the mayoral forums in each of the boroughs with the four top Democratic candidates went. The floor at the DA was not opened for Delegates to voice their opinions on the candidates.  So much for democracy.

Onward to the rest of the meeting where there was an unusually short report from President Michael Mulgrew.  I missed most of it so this is from a friend's notes

Fact Finding
Contract is going through non binding arbitration process. We presented our case and told them that we are the lowest paid teachers in the region and certainly deserve a salary increase.  (I don't know if this was mentioned but the UFT has also been arguing that the projected deficits in the city budget always end up turning into surpluses at the end of each fiscal year so there is money for salary increases.)

June 12 Labor Rally
There will be a huge Municipal Labor Committee rally of all the city public unions at 4:00 pm on June 12 (same day Randi Weingarten will be in town raising money for Bill Thompson.) Mulgrew wants us to promote this rally and bring everyone.

PCB Settlement
The Department of Education has agreed to fix the PCB problem by 2016 to settle a lawsuit, This is years earlier than they originally planned.

Mayor's Race
We need the person who has the right policies but also someone who has the team in place to win the election. (Political Director Paul Egan also reported.)

Staff Director's Report

Staff Director Leroy Barr promoted the June 12 rally and told us that the officers, the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly would all be meeting on June 19, the day the UFT will be endorsing a mayoral candidate officially.  Apparently, they want to keep the endorsement a secret.  (Does anyone believe it won't be Thompson?  This looks like the worst kept secret on the planet.)

Questions 

(period shortened by five minutes to ten minutes)

Question: What is the UFT plan for implementation of the new teacher evaluation system?

Mulgrew Answer: UFT does not agree with training being done by DOE.  We are not recommending that teachers attend the training.  DOE believes a good lesson plan=a good teacher.  We don't support this notion.

Question: How can UFT protect older teachers being harassed by a Principal?

Mulgrew Answer: Put the Principal on the UFT's Principals in Need of Improvement list.

Question: How can we get a new facility for Coop Tech building that is being torn down?

Mulgrew Answer: Coop Tech is only BOCES program in NYC.  Mayor giving away city assets.  In order to tear down a school they need to build a new facility with the same number of seats but they should build one with more seats because new luxury apartments means we will have more residents in the area so Coop Tech and other schools in the neighborhood will need more seats.

NEW MOTIONS

Resolved the UFT supports our sisters and brothers at the legal services association UAW Local 2320 who were forced to strike on may 15 and urges the management of legal services NYC to immediately negotiate a fair contract with its staff.

It was unanimously added to the agenda and then carried unanimously.  John Antush from MORE introduced it.

A motion on re-instituting Glass Steagall was ruled not necessary because it is already UFT policy.

Special Order of Business

1. May City Council Endorsements

Manhattan District 2          Rosie Mendez--Democrat

Bronx District 15               Ritchie Torres-- Democrat

Queens 20                         Peter Koo--Democrat

Queens 22                         Costa Constantinides-- Democrat

Queens 26                         James van Bramer--Democrat

Queens 31                         Donovan Richards--Democrat

Brooklyn 33                      Stephen Levin--Democrat

Brooklyn 39                      Brad Lander--Democrat

Brooklyn 41                      Darlene mealy--Democrat

Brooklyn 42                      Inez Barron--Democrat

Brooklyn 47                       Mark Treygor--Democrat

Staten Island 50                 Steven Matteo--Republican

All carried easily.  There was opposition to all of them from Marjorie Stamberg who objected to all Democrats and Republicans and wants a new working class party to support.

The only candidate opposed individually was Ritchie Torres from the Bronx who was a no show at all of the events to help Lehman High School.  The Delegate from Lehman was adamant that this man does not deserve our support.  The UFT leaders said he was great and the Unity faithful rubber stamped the endorsement and ignored the member in the school impacted by Torres. (I voted with the member from Lehman.)

2. Resolution to support June 12th Rally for fair Contracts for all New York City Municipal Workers

All 100 bargaining units are without contracts; the mayor won't negotiate in good faith so the Municipal Labor Committee is organizing a huge rally at City Hall Park on June 12th from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm.  This carried unanimously

3. Resolution to support the labor rights of Bangladeshi garment workers.

This carried unanimously.  There was also an amendment from Abe Levine calling for union organizing rights for Bengali workers.

4. Resolution to support the 2013 Gay Pride March

This carried easily.

Should the UFT be endorsing bill Thompson for mayor?  There won't be a discussion at the Delegate Assembly until after the decision is made. You can comment if you like here.

KAREN LEWIS AND ENTIRE CORE SLATE WIN LANDSLIDE IN CHICAGO ELECTION

In a union election that had implications beyond Chicago, Karen Lewis and CORE were easily reelected yesterday.  Preliminary results show that CORE received about 80% of the vote in yesterday's Chicago Teachers Union election.

Congratulations!

George Schmidt's Substance provides the numbers.  It looks as though the turnout was much better than the 20% among active teachers we had here in NYC's recent UFT election. (Based on what Substance said, it was around 60%.)

Chicago teachers walked the walk by going on strike last year.  Now they have given an overwhelming mandate for the leadership that led them out on the picket lines.

If only this Chicago fire could spread.  Hey, why not?

CHICAGO TEACHERS NEED TO REELECT KAREN LEWIS TOMORROW

In the Chicago Teachers' Union, they have a one day election in the schools (I take it the retirees don't vote for who will represent the active teachers like here in NYC). On Friday, May 17, the Chicago Teachers Union is having their election.

We followed last year's Chicago strike and its aftermath fairly closely and although it was not a total victory by any means, nothing will send a stronger and clearer message to the forces that are trying to destroy public education than the overwhelming reelection of Karen Lewis and her CORE caucus in the May 17 balloting. She deserves a second term.

CORE didn't stop the school closing madness with the strike but they did show unions can fight back at the grassroots level.  Their courageous strike resulted in a decent contract with solid financial and teaching condition gains. I don't think there is much doubt that it is better than what they could have achieved without striking.

A big CORE victory in the election will be a nightmare for the people who want to privatize (charter schools) education. A CORE loss will put another Unity style top-down, "Let's collaborate with management" group back in charge of the Chicago Teachers Union.

For an in depth analysis of the election, see Jersey Jazzman, Ed Notes or go right to Chicago and read the latest in Chicago's Substance where there is an endorsement.

Like our friend in New Jersey, we also usually don't get involved in union elections outside our own local but this one is too important and clearly has national implications.

We need three more years for Karen Lewis to lead the resistance against the people who want to kill the unions and end public education as we know it! It's up to you Chicago teachers.

REPORT FROM MONDAY'S UFT EXECUTIVE BOARD

This summary came from our friends who were in attendance at the latest Executive Board meeting.

From Monday's executive board:
During Mulgrew's report he said that the teachers are being singled out for worst prospects by the mayor, compared to other city workers. He said that the contract talks are officially going into fact-finding, and that Bloomberg is giving his official fact-finding testimony on June 12, a Wednesday.

Additionally, Mulgrew has secured official support from the Municipal Labor Council for a rally, 4 pm, the same day, outside City Hall, with the theme, Fair Contracts for All. He says that it will be one that he'll push for a big turnout. Mulgrew said that teachers have been working under terrible working conditions.

From another observer:

There was a very interesting exchange between Michael Mendel and an Absent Teacher Reserve who spoke during the Open Mike period.  In the course of the ATR's presentation, the question of unsatisfactory ratings for ATRs who are observed in subjects unfamiliar to them was raised.  Mendel then gave, and repeated several times, what appears to be the UFT's official position on the frequent Unsatisfactory observation reports being given to ATRs who are purposefully being observed while teaching in subjects they know nothing about.  (The ATR at the mike gave the clear example of a science teacher who was observed while teaching a music teacher's program.)  Mendel's response was that the union anticipates that there will be very few ATR U-Ratings at the end of the year.  The evidence he cites for this is that there were very few ATR U-Ratings last year, and no one expects that to change this June.  This, however, in no way speaks to the question of the frequent U observation reports that are being given out.  This appears to be a scam that principals are operating.  It allows them to continue to refuse steady employment to ATRs assigned to their schools.  As long as they continue to justify their refusal to accept the ATRs sent to their buildings as permanent employees, they can keep receiving a steady stream of "free" labor -- paid for by the central Board -- for as long as this insane system continues.  The moment they agree to "hire" an ATR permanently, the salary is charged to the school.  This is more than enough motivation for many, many principals to want to keep the ATR merry-go-round in constant motion.

HOWEVER, if anyone remembers, the original spin that the UFT put on its acceptance of the crazy ATR system now in effect was that constantly moving ATR's from school to school on a weekly basis would give the ATRs more opportunity to be seen by lots of principals, so that they would have better opportunities to be hired permanently.  Of course, this has never materialized.  Indeed, the clever little principals have turned the situation around, and have found a way of demonstrating to the Board that all these people who are passing through their doors are indeed unsatisfactory.  No need to hire them.  But our union's response seems to be:  "It's all right.  Don't worry.  There won't be many ATR U-ratings at the end of the year."