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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

My other reservations stand as well.

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

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.

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?

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?”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.