GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

soft sell (updated)

Union president pitches evaluation deal to his membership

The day after the state and union announced a deal to use student test scores in teacher evaluations, United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew faced his members last night at a meeting of the union’s ruling body.

A UFT chapter leader sent us this report from the monthly delegate assembly, comprised of representatives of the teachers at each school. The account offers a glimpse of how Mulgrew is pitching the deal to teachers, many of whom are skeptical of the plan:

The scene was surreal to start. The room was packed but the tone was hushed.  It felt like the crowd had come to listen to Mulgrew explain himself and the recent overhaul of the evaluation system.

Mulgrew disputed press accounts that test scores will make up 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, the chapter leader said. State test results will account for 20 percent, Mulgrew explained. Another 20 percent of the evaluations will come from students’ progress on local measures of student learning. The local assessments, which could be tests but don’t have to be, must be negotiated locally between the city and the union.

Chancellor Joel Klein has already expressed displeasure over how much of the plan is left to negotiation. Colorado and Louisiana, by contrast, are both pursuing evaluation overhauls that would base 50 percent or more of a teacher’s rating on student test score progress.

Here’s our rundown of the evaluation deal, and the chapter leader’s full account of the meeting is below the jump:

He began by going through what he called ”inaccurate” reporting by the NY Times.  He had prepared an FAQ sheet that answered some of the questions that members might have.

He mentioned that this new system only calls for 20 percent of overall score to come from tests. He also stated that there were parts that had yet to be negotiated by the Union — like the Value Added scores.  He stated directly that this did not change the tenure system.

As he went on, you could feel the tide of the delegates turning — he was starting to bring comfort to those who were anxious about this deal.

There were good questions and voices of dissent from the crowd. Some asked why this had been brokered secretly without teacher input.  According to Mulgrew they had done this to keep the DOE and Klein out of the negotiation.  This was a deal with the state, he said.

UPDATE: Norm Scott has posted several other accounts of the meeting, and delegate response to Mulgrew’s message, on his blog.

And here’s the FAQ document on the deal that union delegates received last night. The document insists that the new evaluation plan does not make it easier to fire teachers deemed ineffective. The deal allows for teachers who receive ratings of “ineffective” for two years in a row to go through expedited termination hearings.

  • archie

    Mulgrew’s a sellout and complete disappointment. There’s no way this backroom deal has any bright side for teachers.

  • roget

    So, are we, taxpayers and parents, supposed to be consoled that the UFT leader is already selling his members on the likelihood that the teacher evaluation plan will be diluted and ambiguous enough to protect all but the most obviously lousy teachers.

    Teachers in need of development will be the gray category where barely acceptable staff will be granted tenure and find cover in pursuit of uninspiring, mediocre careers. Nice going Mike. I tremble for the kids.

  • GGW

    Really good journalism.

  • Peter

    The Delegate Assembly was packed, with the overflow in another room, the debate went on for over an hour, about a dozen speakers, points of order, etc. The final vote was overwhelmingly in favor.

    The debate raised many questions, Mulgrew answered in detail, the new plan, if it becomes law, would not come into effect until the 11-12 school year, there is a great deal of work to be done. What was particularly attractive was that teachers would be involved in creating the student evaluation tools in non-tested grades. In addition, the necessity for the principal and the teacher to create a plan was seen as a major improvement over the principal only current evaluation system.

    The biggest cheer came when a speaker said if Klein was opposed he automatically supported.

  • miss teacher

    Peter, I also get some comfort from Klein’s issues- if he loved it, we’d be toast. I absolutely have some concerns- my current principal is very fair but nearing retirement and I don’t know what the future holds. The teachers, in teams, are actually the ones who configure the classes in my school and it usually works well- but again, that’s something my current principal supports.

    But I can’t embrace this 100% because I just have no trust in Klein or Bloomberg. At all.

  • Pogue

    Joel: Mike, I need something.  I got Duncan and the mayor all over me over this RttT money.

    Mike: I tell you what.  I’ll give you teacher evaluations based on tests.

    Joel: Really?!  What do you want in return?

    Mike: Nothing.  I’m fine. Just make sure you sound like you’re unhappy with it. They ain’t gonna’ buy it if you’re ecstatic.

    Pogue: Am I too cynical?  Maybe.   Have I been screwed by my own union by backroom deals before?  Definitely.

  • philip nobile

    The lowpoint of the DA was the highpoint of Unity arrogance and emptiness. Sounding like gangster union head Johnny Friendly in On the Waterfront, UFT Secretary Michael Mendel squashed skeptics bellowing: “Yes, we didn’t go to the membership [on the secret teacher evaluation deal]. We are the leaders of the union.” Translation: If you don’t like the deal,

    drop dead.

    Same for the TRC agreement, also conducted behind closed doors without consulting us rank and file rubber roomers. Not only has Mulgrew refused to meet with dissatisfied reassigned members, The Teacher lied about the popularity of the agreement among us.

  • Pingback: Perspectives on teacher evaluation reform - EdVANTAGE Blog - The Official Blog of the New York State Council of School Superintendents

  • An Effective Teacher says…

    So, if we have several students who cut classes, refuse to do any work, and cause disciplinary problems in my class and we notify their parents, then do the parents get “fired”? No. Instead these students who are excluded from charter schools and “left” for public schools will have even more power to decide whether or not we have a job. Great.

    Furthermore, how will this system fairly test Gym and shop teachers as well as academic teachers? If our gym teacher has 50 overweight kids and they don’t slim down, will he/she get fired? Maybe, they should also evaluate the cafeteria aids too on this then.

    The system is failing. This will not solve the problems. Real reform does not come from testing students, senseless PD, or outright blaming teachers. It comes from listening to what teachers need.

    We’re the ones in the trenches – yet no one asks “what do we need to teach these kids better?”

  • Bronx teacher-lady

    Well said, Effective Teacher. As as an effective teacher myself, known for years of raising student achievement, I fear the year I get a class like I had a few years ago, with a handful of students so misplaced and disruptive that virtually no learning went on. The only thing I got from the administration was blame, even though I am known as having strong classroom management skills. When I explained this to a sympathetic non-teacher friend, he replied, “Well, I guess that can happen from time to time.” Can happen?! It happens in an average of 2 or 3 classrooms on average in my school every year, as I’m sure it does in many other NYC schools with my school’s demographics. Now, not only will teachers have to deal with a completely torturous school year where they fear for their students’ physical and emothional safety, not to mention academic growth, they can now lose their job for it? All it takes is a vindictive principal and/or a highly paid teacher, and such students wind up in those same teachers’ classrooms two years in a row, and even the best teachers’ careers are over.

  • Peter

    Bronx Teacher-Lady:

    Currently you are “judged” solely by your principal based on his/her judgements, a series of subjective observation reports culminating in a rating. Under the proposed system 20% of the “judgement” will be based on student growth achievement data, adid you get better results than their teacher last year? Instead of a single “phototgraph” the ELA?Math test scores, the score will be over time. The second 20%, local tests negotiated with the union may be student portfolios … instead of 100% principal judgement, 60% principal judgement and 40% data … which is fairer to the teacher?

  • http://nyceducator.com NYC Educator

    Peter,

    You’re assuming the test scores will be valid. You’re assuming the tests will test skills taught. You’re assuming the preposterously low standards of recent years will not be corrected and lead to subsequent declines. You’re assuming that there is validity to “value-added” models. You’re also assuming the previous year’s scores will not have been juked. You’re assuming the principal will not base the 60% at his discretion on the 40% of tests.

    You’re assuming quite a bit, in fact. My experience would lead me to none of the above assumptions.

  • Peter

    NUC Educator:

    Currently the only metric is principal judgement … while the proposed plan raise many complex issues isn’t it better than the principal-rules system?

  • http://nyceducator.com NYC Educator

    I don’t know, Peter. It seems to me a distinct possibility that a teacher could be judged ineffective for two years based on test scores. It’s easy for me to imagine a principal basing his 60% on the remaining 40–and hard to imagine a Leadership Academy guy ignoring the 40 in favor of reality. It’s also very easy for me to imagine a teacher being targeted by the same principal with tough classes. It seems that would not require much work on the part of a principal.

    My other reservations stand as well.

  • Michael Fiorillo

    The UFT leadership is speaking doubletalk to its members to justify the new evaluation procedures.

    When asked why they agreed to 40% of the evaluations being based on test scores, their response is, “It’s not 40%: the other 20% is to be negotiated locally.”

    When asked why they negotiated this with Steiner and Tisch in total secrecy and then sprang it on the membership, their response is,”We didn’t want to negotiate with Klein.” in other words, they didn’t want to negotiate it locally.

    So which is it?

    Steiner, Tisch – and don’t believe the spin, Klein, too – must be smiling over this one. Needless union capitulation that forever embeds the false accountability and testing culture in the classroom AND $700 million worth of patronage to the consultants and testing firms.

  • Vote NO

    This “horror” of an evaluation process will ensure that the highest needs students will have the weakest teachers. Principals will program their “least desirable” teachers with the highest needs students to build a case against those teachers. When the kids “bomb” the standardized assessment, the principal can write up an observation to “substantiate” that the students’ performance on the exams was the teacher’s “fault,” and two years later that teacher will be dismissed.

    High quality teachers will “shy away” from teaching the high needs kids as well. They don’t want their ability to “pay their mortgages” determined by low performing students’ performance on standardized assessments.

    This deal can make NYC a very undesirable place for prospective teachers who would like to have a long career in teaching.

  • Bronx teacher-lady

    Peter,

    Yes, right now I am judged solely on my administration’s subjective opinion, but at least I would get a due-process hearing before losing my job & my tenure. Under the proposed system, 2 years of negative ratings, still based on mostly subjective measures (who do you think reviews the portfolios?) and “supported” by test-scores that could not possibly fulfill value-added standards because of an unusually unruly class, and I’m jobless 60 days later, no questions asked.

    Also, from what I know of value-added, it does not expect that students will only be able to make the same amount of progress they have the year before. Therefore, if Johnny behaves terribly in year 1, makes little progress, and repeats the same pattern in year 2, both teachers will receive poor value-added ratings as a result. I’ve also heard that under the current value-added formula, if a child makes an unusual amount of progress one year, he is actaully expected to make less progress the next. I imagine, if this works in reverse, then Johnny’s 2nd-year teacher would be considered more incompetent than his 1st. This also does not take into account the test scores of all the other children who Johnny’s unruly behavior may be impacting. And since classes are rarely composed of the same students from year to year (in my school, with an extremely transient population, this never even happens with our “looped” classes), there really would be no comparing the progress of groups of students, with all of their different attributes, from one year to the next or one teacher to another.

    To summarize — no, I do not want any of my evaluation based on test scores in the current environment, whether the consequence is the loss of my job or a slap on the wrist. Even when looked at under value-added criteria, there are too many factors out of my control and too many opportunities for vindictive principals to make sure a targeted teacher can never meet this criteria.

  • Jeff S

    Must reading for all of you (including Peter)…a long article in the magazine section of the NY Times online (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html

    Article is quite one sided but tells the story of how Cuncan and many of these clowns who are educational reformers have been able to sell you all down the river and how Randi did very little to protect the teachers in DC and now how she and Mulgrew are doing the same to NYC teachers. If you guys don’t see the handwriting on the wall, I feel sorry for you. And the UFT can claim how wonderful this new evaluation system is for teachers…the bottom line is that you will be given up your tenure protection. As it stands now, an unsatisfactory rating of a teacher is subject to hearings and before a tenured teacher can lose his or her job, a 3020A hearing is required……all this protection will be gone. Great job AFT and UFT.

  • Peter

    A Typical 3020 Hearing

    Management in discipline/discharge cases has the obligation to prove, by preponderance of evidence, the charges proffered against the teacher.

    The principal testifies that he has observed the teacher on many occasions, the observation reports are submitted into evidence. The principal asserts that each observation was proceeded by a pre-observation conference and a conference after the observation, the teacher did not incorporate suggestions, argued that the suggestions were not valid and insisted that his methods of teaching were effective. The teacher, says the principal, resisted all efforts to change their instructional methodology and has a harsh and overly demanded relationship with student.

    On cross examination the principal admitted that he had limited teaching experience, no prior supervisory experience and frequently asked advise from his mentor, a retired principal, who was not available to testify.

    The Guidance counselor, testifying under subpoena, related a number of incidents when students came to him crying after confrontations with the charged teacher. Under cross the counselor could not remember dates or how many children came to him.

    Two young teachers, voluntarily, testify that the charged teacher does not volunteer for unpaid after school tutoring, does not attend voluntary planning sessions and is generally uncooperative. On numerous occasions they have seen the charged teacher berate students.

    A parent testified that the teacher has called her repeatedly to complain about her talking her child out of school, she alleges that he blames her for her child’s academic failings.

    The teacher testifies that the he does not believe that the methodology espoused by the principal is effective. Claims that the principal is “out to get” him, that his failure to be “collegial” is irrevelent. His lawyer puts into evidence, over the objection of the management attorney observation reports from prior principals that are praiseworthy. On cross examination management puts into evidence, over the objection of the union, letters from prior principals reprimanding the teacher for being overly harsh with students.

    A parent and a student who knew the teacher ten years ago praise the teacher.

    under the proposed new system:

    The Teacher Data Reports (or some equivalent tool) are put into evidence … remember the Reports compare the teacher with other teachers teaching similar students. If the Reports show that the teacher has scores equal to or higher than other teachers, the arbitrator would to give weight up to 25%, and the converse.

    Under which system is a teacher better protected?

  • Jeff S

    And Peter…..the fact is only 3 tenured teachers in the past several years have been fired for incompetence (which is what we’re talking about here, not corporal punishment which is not covered by this agreement anyway……I would prefer my chances in the former because, as you said, the supposed excellent results achieved by the teacher would only count 25%….it would seem to me that the 3020A hearing you described would be won by the teacher…….and if we have the reign of terror being pushed by the incompetent, uncertified, unqualified lawyer masquerading as an educator, there wouldn’t be enough management (prosecutors) or arbitrators in the world to carry out all these hearings. The idea, as you are describing, is indeed to make it easier to fire a tenured teacher whether justified or not. This is indeed an attack on tenure (just ask the Principals how much good the protections CSA promised them when they gave in on tenure have actually benefitted them.

  • Jeff S

    So Peter…after reading some of your responses and reading the Times articles today while you’re trying to throw out the union spin what this is is a direct attach on the protections teachers have enjoyed pre Klein. Now of course, if somebody is truly incompetent, I am not one saying they shouldn’t be subject to dismissal provided it is properly documented. That is what the probationary period is all about. And pre Klein, for the most part, Principals wsere competent enough to properly judge teachers and especially in the high schools they were assisted by properly qualified Assistant Principals. While it is true that from time to time there have been some administrators who were not the greatest, that happens of course in all fields of endeavor. For the most part, the old time Principals and Assistant Principals were properly trained, were not under any quota systems to “get” so many teachers and were able to properly document cases where it was necessary to take serious actions against teachers (again we’re talking run of the mill unsatisfactory classroom stuff, not corporal punishment or worse). You yourself in your example as well as the Times article makes it quite clear that what this is all about is making it easier to dismiss tenured teachers. While many in the public might think this will improve instruction in the classroom, in the hands of the many new inexperienced and dare I say incompetent Principals, it will be devestating to teachers in general.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Events Calendar

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031