GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

UFT Members for E4E,

I am genuinely happy for you that you seem to work in a school where the best teachers are always clearly and fairly recognized, and that your administration is obviously competent/experienced/ethical enough to do so, since you seem to have no fear as a hard-working and effective teacher that you would never be “chosen” to be laid off. However, to claim that any senior teacher who is against “merit-based” layoffs must truly be of poorer quality is unfair and ignorant of the system at large. In my school, several high-quality and effective senior teachers have been continiously attacked, harassed, and a few “pushed out” in one way or another, to the bewildermant of the entire teaching staff. I’ve heard of the same situation in many other DOE schools, especially those with many of the inexperienced school leaders Bloomberg’s Leadership Academy has seemed to produce. I have almost a decade in the system, have been chosen to teach an advanced class, been asked to lead professional development sessions for my collegues, am often requested by parents, and am constantly asked by collegues, especially newer teachers, for advice on curriculum. Yet I can and will not ever support “merit-based” layoffs that will ultimately be decided, or even “calculated,” by the current crop of school leaders, many of whom are, at best, just too inexperienced – and often just downright incompetent or fearful of senior teachers, to make fair decisions.

Source?

Teach for America people who think they know everything after three years? I find it VERY hard to believe that anyone from that organization would be so arrogant. They are usually much more humble than that…

Why are we attacking them? Because their arrogance (yes, arrogance) and know-it-all attitude after not even 3 years of teaching is insulting. It’s insulting on their school level, and it’s insulting to teachers everywhere, especially those that have been in this profession as long as they’ve been alive. There is no quick-fix to this problem, except in Sydney and Evan’s world. That’s the whole TFA mentality. If Sydney and Evan were such fabulous teachers, they’d be staying with it. Instead, they’re leaving their beloved students that Sydney so voraciously goes up to bat for in her NY Post editorial. They think they’ve learned it all, and have nothing to gain from colleagues who have been teaching for years. As a teacher in their school, I and my colleagues are sick and tired of their attitude. And sticking with the issues at hand does involve their relationship: the whole thing is comical, at best.

Since neither of these 2 probably plan on actually making a career out of teaching I suggest they turn in their cards and demand that UFT dues stop being deducted from their checks.. This whole things smells like a red herring to me. It is divide and conquer politics. How convenient that this story gains steam as the city is lobbying to take away seniority from the teachers union in conducting layoffs.. No other union is being threatened with this.. Heck no other TEACHER union is being threatened with this. The suburbs do seniority layoffs.. not one young teacher out there is looking to start their own union over this.. Look no union is perfect but raising a storm will only weaken all of us including these 2. Do they think the city will respect them when its their turn to bargain? maybe these two just to plan to grab their ankles and bend over at the table.

Agreed…they shouldn’t bother paying union dues since they are anti-union. It’s obvious in their organizations beliefs and values. Yes, I’ve had conversations with them. They know everything, like I said. They refuse to listen to voices of reason and experience, some with 30 years in the system.

Insider, I only asked if you knew it was going on in other places because you said it wasn’t in an earlier post, “heck no other teacher union is being threatened with this.” I was hoping this could be an informed dialogue, but after your last post I realize that I might as well reach out to educators for excellence – they seem at least able to communicate about issues that are relevant to all of us in a calm, professional, and informed manner.

If Evan and Sydney are really genuine and want to “help the kids” then they should really look at the bigger picture here. Instead, they are pushing for legislation that only encompasses a small group of teachers who aren’t as effective as the rest. Now, if they want to really make a difference and “protect the kids”, why not start an organization for ending high stakes testing and bringing back more child-centered activites into the classroom instead of test prep? How about trying to lobby for more professional development in schools to educate those ineffective teachers they want fired? How about starting an after-school organization for the kids? Do some real work that could reach kids. There are so many ways to help the children of NYC instead of starting an organization that is your jump-off into a political career or something thats going to look really good on your law school application one day. I think they are way in over their heads.

I am thrilled that these two might be influencing policy. I would much rather people who have done it AT ALL (3 years is BETTER than none) than someone who is only concerned with numbers and the easy way out (in my mind the easy way is LIFO)

Anyway, they just want to make sure people are doing their job. They are not telling teachers that they are good/bad. They just want to set up a system for evaluation. If you are against that, you are against becoming a better teacher. And if that’s the case, what about your students?

As many of you have mentioned, there are many people that write/influence policy for our schools, without having any authentic school experience. If Evan and Sydney are in fact finished in teaching and going into politics or law, shouldn’t it be viewed as a positive that they do have 6 years of teaching experience between them. I’m not going to say they are expert teachers, but they have gone through the system. They have worked with our kids, worked with our teachers, and gained an understanding of the issues affecting our schools. That’s more than I can say for Bloomberg or Klein. So why all the attacks and complaints? I think it’s great that they are bridging the gap between policy makers and teachers.

I think the risk of senior teachers disproportionaly taking the hit if we do away with LIFO is too great.. Hey instead of teacher layofss why don’t klein and bloomberg ditch the consultants.. Its comical how much the city wastes on these people.. I walked past my old high school last week and the consultant that used to work with the APO in the building was walking out the door. Now whats wrong with this pictures you might ask? How about the fac that the school is being phased out. So what is he consulting her for? how to scuttle a ship? Before I became emotional about these two vapid robots my original point still stands.. Teachers need to band together now not fracture off into two different unions.. This doesn’t mean good teachers support bad teachers any more then they used to but LIFO is still the fairest way to do layoffs. Its simple and without bias.

If you don’t have an interest in Evan and Sydney’s personal life, then let’s take a look at their professional life. Not to justify the personal attacks, but most posters are on the outside looking in. The faculty at their school has a differnet view and opinion of Sydney and Evan because they are inside actually interacting with them on a daily basis. The whole organization seems hypocritical to most (not all) members of the staff and this is why….Evan and Sydney are calling for a revamp of teacher evaluation and merit-based pay while they are not even exemplar teachers. Evan has little to no classroom or behavior management skills which lead to very little effective teaching and learning. His tests scores, which are also publicly displayed in the school, are not good either. It is very apparent to his colleagues what his capabilities in the classroom are (and I guess if you can’t take the heat you must get out of the kitchen). With the new legislation that Evan supports, he surely would be laid off first or not making very much money with the ‘merit based pay’. Sydney is a good teacher but nothing exemplar and surely does not stand out among the rest of the faculty.
Now, knowing them and their classroom practices this all seems very hypocritical and unauthentic to most of the staff. Everyone knows they have taken the LSATs, everyone knows they weren’t going to stay in the profession. It was just a matter of time before they left to do something else. But now, they are walking a fine line with this new organization and pushing for something that is directly going to affect the jobs and lives of teachers (which Evan and Sydney will no longer be). It is very easy for people at their schoo to see that their intentions are not genuine. Evan and Sydney need a starting point to their political careers and they picked educational reform and an extremely sensitive, controversial issue. So yes, people are angry and insulted becasue it feels like a slap in the face to the dedicated hard working teachers. Evan and Sydney may think they are doing it for the good of the students but really what they are doing is stirring a dangerous pot that could adversely have a negative affect on a ton of good qualified experienced teachers. I hope they see that. And I agree, they are in way over their heads.

So Evan and Sydney are paper tigers?

First of all, Evan and Sydney are both great teachers! I work closely with both of them and have spent time in their classrooms. It is impossible not to notice Sydney’s incredible patience and positive impact on each child she teaches. Evan works tirelessly to make sure each of his students succeed. Secondly, I know for a fact there are many teachers at my school who support E4E. I am beyond confident that Sydney and Evan are valued members of my school. Finally, I am disappointed in the tone of comments towards Sydney and Evan. We are supposed to be a school community working together for the kids. You can disagree with the ideas of E4E but posting lies about your colleagues is disgraceful.

But PS 86 Teacher, why then are Evan’s test scores near the bottom?

Here are the real facts, there is no need to google anything. PS 86 has tracked classes meaning that the top few classes have all of the students who have high scores and good behavior from the previous year (A, B, and C classes are how we refer to them). I am looking at the print out of the school scores from last year, both ELA and Math. The only classes that have better scores than Evan’s in the 6th grade are the A, B, and C classes and he had one of the two bottom classes. He had almost all 3′s a few 2′s and a few 4′s. he did not receive a single one on either test last year.

The real issue here is value added data as I am sure E4E and Evan would argue. We would need to see where his students came in and how much they improved to know what effect he really had on his students. At this point, the only people that have access to that information are Evan and our administrative staff. I have no idea how he performed in this area. I am in Evan’s classroom once a week and the progress that he has made with some of his students is amazing. His class has at least 11 IEPs and many students who have had behavior issues for many years. He also just received another student who was causing too much disruption in another class and I have never heard him complain.

Evan is not the best teacher in the school and I don’t think he would claim that he is, but he has contributed a great deal to his grade and his students in his 3 years. He also told me today that he would be at 86 next year.

I am not sure who this “large group” of teachers that are so against Evan and Sydney are, but I can promise they have not approached him about anything and ever been turned down. Evan has been receptive to all of my suggestions and seems to be genuinely interested in becoming a better teacher. He was also genuinely interested in my comments about education reform, which do not align with his. He had open ears and we have spoken several items and i think that both of us have learned from each other. I would be sad to see Evan leave 86, to leave teaching, and I know the school and students would be worse off with out him.

I am excited by the macro vision of E4E to find an alternative way to hire and retain the best educators for NYC students. Implicit in the vision of E4E is that these educators – should the vision of E4E take flight – would be a mix of veterans and novices; it does not take much of a discerning eye to see that there are strengths and weaknesses in both camps.

It is unclear to me how the founders’ performance in their respective classrooms over the past three years lays the ground for their credibility in establishing E4E. I searched the E4E website and didn’t find any dogmatic approach to eliminating “last in first out” or establishing a fair, merit-based system – am I missing something? For those who are criticizing the inexperience of these teachers – at exactly what age can they legitimately begin to question their new profession and challenge their colleagues to make positive changes?

You know the problem here is that we are taking the DOE line..”teachers are the problem” and running with it with this E4E gargage.. We’re making heros and martyrs out of the 2 finks and losing site of what is happening..We are allowing ourselves to be blamed and giving creedence to the DOE line that the problem with education in the city is the teachers.. Enough of the people posting on here are teachers so I ask all of you.. How many of you think teachers and teacher quality is what needs to be fixed?

What kind of teachers these two young people are is not particularly relevant to the debate. The issue is what they are proposing (and the curious coincidence that it occurs at precisely the same time as other attacks on teachers and seniority, and the public forums that have magically opened up to them), the ideologies that are embedded in it, and how it would play out in practice.

Long-time teachers have every right to be skeptical about their proposal, since TFA functions as a combination human resources department, recruiter for leadership training and union-busting fifth columnist cadre for corporate ed deform. Look no further than its role in the shock doctrine tactics employed in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where the unionized teachers were unilaterally fired and the school system privatized. Guess who brought in the bright-eyed, idealistic scabs? Yes, Wendy, there’s a special place in hell for people who manipulate the idealism of naive young people (carefully selected for their lack of historical awareness and unexamined class biases), and use the rhetoric of social justice for the selfish ends of the rich and powerful.

I’m always struck by the Stepford Wives quality of TFA rhetoric: “Achievement gap…buzz, whirr, click… value added… great teachers…buzz, whirr, click… innovation…”

Ah, innovation. Yes, just like the “financial innovation” that TFA’s hedge fund and investment bank patrons gave us in recent years, and with ultimately the same results.

Should the proposals of these two go-getters become official policy, the practical result will be the further destruction of teaching as a career, and the the further chaining of students and teachers to numbers that are determined and manipulated by people with agendas that have nothing to do with education, but everything to do with the encroachment of private interests into the public schools.

Meanwhile, Sydney and Evan will most likely follow the path of most TFA alumni: off congratulating themselves for the cup of coffee they shared with the “underprivileged” while they await their interview at Goldman Sachs.

“Report Launch with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and NYC Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein”

You have to be kidding!

norm where are you paraphrasing that line from?

The records went computerized in 1983, and it says on the cite that those certified before that may not be in the system. Your brother’s name could be there for something else that was submitted to the state under the realm of education (fingerprinting, for example). NYC boasts that 100% of their teachers are certified. This is not the case, as evidenced by 2 individuals teaching in the same school. Now I don’t blame this entirely on Sydney and Evan, because the very system they work for and are challenging are allowing them to serve in a roll that they are not certified to do so. Why shouldn’t they work each day and collect a paycheck despite not being held to the same standards as everyone else? What bothers me more is Sydney using certification in her editorial in the NY Post as a means of teacher qualification, when she herself is not certified. Again, another example of why she needs to learn to keep her mouth closed.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/New-York-NY/New-York-City-Teachers-Experience-Matters/114089568615636

Do you know for a fact that she is not certified? Because I am certified and I just typed my name into that system and my information did not show up. If that is the only evidence as to certification then you are probably working from inaccurate information. And I definitely was NOT certified before 1983.

If your name is not in that system, you are NOT certified. That is the state registry of all certified teachers; districts use it to verify your status as paper certifications are no longer issued. If your name isn’t in there, you probably should look into that.