Posts Tagged 'Teacher evaluation'



DANIELSON AND TEACHER EVALUATION

October 2011

There has been much discussion of the “Danielson framework” – an evaluation system based on the work of Charlotte Danielson, designed to promote professional conversation and growth. Clearly Department of Education administrators are abusing the framework, using it to promote drive-by observations, using it for ratings when no system has been agreed.

The professional conversation piece – really the part Danielson herself created – is interesting. In the right hands it might even be pro-teacher. But today, that’s not the point.

In the hands of administrators who do not collaborate, this framework becomes a weapon pointed at us. Michael Mulgrew, Ernest Logan, and Dennis Walcott wrote a letter seeking to curb abuse of the framework. But why was the letter necessary?  Did hundreds of principals independently misunderstand the DoE’s intention? Or in the toxic atmosphere of Bloomberg’s third term, do many principals assume their job is to go after teachers? Reports from many schools testify to the lack of collaboration.

We continue to be extremely concerned. Who is evaluating us, and what are their credentials, what is their experience? Will outsiders evaluate? Are administrators with little or no teaching experience qualified to evaluate us? How many observations will occur? What protections will we have against abuse, what safeguards? What will the teacher improvement plan look like? How will the appeals process work? In the current system, we lose all our appeals of U-ratings. How different will the new system be?

The New Teacher Evaluation

September 2011

THE NEW TEACHER EVALUATION

Are you in a Transformation, Restart, Talent Management Pilot Program, or just plain “traditional” school? Heard about the new Teacher Evaluation model? Has your principal already announced that your school will be moving into a new evaluation system? One with Network “Leaders” or outside consultants who will be observing teachers under the new Danielson inspired evaluation system up to 12 times a year.

Back in May of 2010, New Action opposed the teacher evaluation system proposed by the Board of Regents. The legislation, subsequently adopted, bases 20% of each teachers’ rating on test scores. Fortunately, our state union, NYSUT, just successfully challenged NYSED’s attempt to unilaterally allow it to be increased to 40% in some districts.

More significantly, we opposed the Spring 2010 proposal because it could well be the end of tenure as we know it. No matter what evaluation system is developed tenured teachers can be dismissed after 2 “ineffective” ratings. In a system that is fair and collaborative perhaps a new approach to rating teachers could work. DOES ANYONE believe that we are working in an atmosphere of collegiality? Just look at the 40% of new teachers who had their probation extended. Can you imagine what will happen when administrators can get rid of veteran teachers by giving two straight years of ineffective ratings?

New Action has sent out the warning signals. We rightfully opposed the agreement leading to the Race to the Top legislation. Today we have some concerns:

  • We are losing nearly 100% of the appeals process for U-ratings and discontinuances. Unless the appeals process for challenging ineffective ratings is independent of DOE control how can any of us support the new teacher evaluation system?
  • Who are the “experts” who will be observing and rating teachers – new and veterans? Are they licensed New York City administrators? Are they outside consultants or are they hired by agencies hired by DOE to evaluate us?  And are we looking at the pedagogical qualifications of Leadership Academy principals?
  • We should not rush to any agreement unless the DOE shows good faith by totally changing the current appeals process. Why should we believe that they will abide by a new appeals process until they start handling the current process fairly?

New Tenure Plan

You Could Be Removed (after 2 years) before the Letters in Your File (after 3 years)

New Action opposes the teacher evaluation system just proposed by the Board of Regents, with support from the NYSUT and UFT leaderships.

The proposal would base a significant part of each teacher’s rating, up to 40%, on test scores. We do not believe that even the best test of student achievement can provide an accurate measure of teacher effectiveness. But in New York State, where we know, and our union has repeatedly told us, the tests are broken?  Or, in New York City, where the City tests and Acuity tests are even worse?  Basing ratings on any tests would be bad enough, but on these?

The proposal would invest even more importance in standardized tests than they already have.  There would be pressure on teachers to do additional test prep. There would be pressure on teachers to inflate grades. Principals are already pressured by the poorly named Progress Reports to inflate grades, to play with numbers, to cheat. This proposal would establish that as the norm, would create schools and districts where the test scores and how to inflate them become the common culture. Our children our already over-tested.

The UFT just passed a resolution against extending testing down to K – 2. We should not be giving the state or administrators more reason to test kids, more reason to push teachers to teach what’s on the test rather than teach what the kids really need.

The proposal would change satisfactory and unsatisfactory, S and U, to “ineffective,” “developing,” “effective,”  and “highly effective.” Two years in a row of “ineffective”  ratings could lead to a 60 day termination process – no matter how senior the teacher, no matter how experienced, no matter whether they have tenure.

Back in January, in the face of similar proposals, made by AFT President Randi Weingarten, Michael Mulgrew wrote:

[these] proposals would require a climate of collaboration and trust that simply does not exist here.

Hundreds of schools have abusive administrators who are making life hell for our members. We have witnessed the drive to harass and get rid of senior teachers. We have witnessed new teachers being pitted against our veterans. The Bloomberg/Klein push to fire last years U-rated teachers and all of our ATRs FIRST is part of the picture. Will these same administrators now be “fair minded? Collaborative? Will they craft a fair “corrective” plan for “ineffective” teachers.

If we, the UFT, fought these changes, and they were forced on us, that would be different. If we brought our strength to bear, and tried to back the Regents down, but did not succeed, that would be different.

We voted for the Michael Mulgrew who stood tough on school closings. For the Michael Mulgrew who drew a line in the sand to protect ATRs , who fought school closings, and who stood up to Bloomberg and Klein. We expect nothing less on teacher evaluation and tenure.

Our union must step back and withdraw support from this proposal.

  • Say yes to protecting tenure.
  • Say no to more testing for kids.
  • SAY NO TO RATING TEACHERS BASED ON TESTS!

Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
February 2026
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  

Blog Stats

  • 404,100 hits