GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

I am curious who the paid members of the E4E policy team are.

I think one of the better suggestions in the policy paper was having a rubric for administrator observations to make expectations and goals for teachers clear. I also think that student voice is important.

The largest problem with the proposal is rubber stamping the decision that 40% of evaluations are going to be based on one standardized test score using a value added data.

Aside from the fact that VAM data is notoriously unreliable, the real danger is they type of curriculum narrowing that occurs when 40% of an evaluation is based on one test.

The other problem with VAM data is that it provides no actionable information for teachers to change their practice. It will not help me to know how many student failed their ELA exam or what percentile I am in. For teachers to improve, they must know what the trends are across their students. What types of questions did most students miss and what are the specific skill deficiencies students have?

Finally, if we are going to accept this type of evaluation for teachers, there really needs to be the same evaluation at every level up to district leaders.

I wonder why the district leaders don’t start by evaluating themselves first?

Every time you mention E$E in any of your pieces, I just want to print it out and use it as toilet paper.

Its very likely that many districts will be basing the 15% on the same test as the 25%. Nothing in the law says that they are not allowed to do that.

I understand that the law leaves 60% undefined. E4E’s proposal addresses the undefined 60% as well as rubber stamping the 40% based on standardized tests.

Aside from suggesting rubrics, this proposal will provide me with no better understanding of my strengths and weaknesses as a teacher.

12 year teach, just to give you a heads up: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/education/24tests.html

Just using the lede to explain where that other 15% may possibly come from:

“New York City education officials are developing more than a dozen new standardized tests, but in a sign of the times, their main purpose will be to grade teachers, not the students who take them.”

Ruben, 

I agree with you that establishing a climate of trust, with plentiful opportunities for authentic dialogue and feedback around instruction, is essential to any system of evaluation. This is why I and other teachers in the VIVA Project focused much of our recommendations for a new system of evaluation to be developed within the framework of a professional learning community (you can view our recommendations here: http://bit.ly/lqgq6Q). Without an established structure of professionalism and collaboration within a school, evaluations–no matter how well constructed–are in danger of becoming just another meaningless mandated activity.

I also agree with you that student surveys are a promising component of an effective system of evaluation. At first, we were a bit skeptical about whether student input could be trusted, but Ronald Ferguson’s extensive work in this area, as well as the MET Project’s preliminary findings, demonstrates that well-developed surveys are an invaluable source of feedback.

If anyone wants to see an example of a student survey as developed by Ferguson’s Tripod Project, look at pages 12 & 13 in this research brief from the MET Project: http://bit.ly/kBv4E4

How can a union scab like Ruben talk about trust?

The Teacher-Principal Evaluation law requires the school district to negotiate the plan under PERB rules, we keep the same rules until new procedures are in place, Could be a long time. However the Department will be aggressively moving to move instruction to the Common Core with far more principal interactions in classrooms and with instructional dialogues … see below from DoE to principals,

·          Engage in short, frequent cycles of classroom observation,[1]  collaborative examination of student work, and timely, specific, evidence-based feedback teachers can act on to increase the rigor and effectiveness of their instruction (throughout 2011-12). Teachers should receive feedback on student work on Common Core-aligned tasks and on successes and challenges related to reaching all students, including students with disabilities and English language learners.
[1] The short observation and feedback cycle does not take the place of formal evaluations. The difference between an informal and formal observation as stated in the current collective bargaining agreement is that formal observations require a pre-observation conference. For probationary and tenured teachers, evaluators may conduct as many informal observations as deemed necessary and do not require a pre-observation conference. There is no minimum amount of observation time required for a formal observation. Engaging in informal observations with teachers is complementary to the formal observation process.  

Just use Ruben. But thats like using cr@p to remove p00p.

Ruben if you like evaluations so much why did you go to a grade that doesn’t have any? Your scores were terrible when you were in the fourth grade. Is that why you changed grades?

Have you gotten tenure with those scores?

How much money have you taken from Gates and Co?

Just use Rubens face. His beard is good for those hard to reach places.

You are so full of yourself! It should always be about the kids. I remember when teaching meant learning how  to teach kids for mastery learning. 

This whole GS rag is toilet paper and Ruben is the turd.

After you Rise & Shine, use GS for your “Remainders”

Just read your blog post on your poor scores. http://www.bronxteach.com/2011/06/looking-for-lessons-when-your-students.html. Considering that this is your 4th year and your children are still failing at an alarming rate, and your scores are well below what you expected, why do you continue to teach? Is that why you now teach 3rd grade, so that you won’t have to be judged by your sub-par scores? Why do you want others judged that way when you’re too refuse to do it yourself?

Michael Fiorillo,
“you expect us to “trust” administrators, ever more of whom are Leadership Academy grads”

This type of administrators do not deserve to be called “academy grads” there are other adjectives that are more appropriate. Their inexperience, lack of  interpersonal skills, lack of administrative competence, is evident to all of those who have worked with them.

Wait just a minute here. I could have sworn I had posted a link to something I had written in my blog, on topic, regarding Ruben’s post. Oh oh. I realize it now. I forgot.

In light of my indiscretion that has been corrected by my new overlords here at Gotham Schools, I think it is time that the nattering naboobs of negativity leave Ruben Brosbe alone. He is a fine young man, a fine young teacher with fresh ideas. The sooner we embrace Ruben and E4E and see the good they are doing the sooner we will be happier as teachers, as educators as human beings.

I implore all who have commented here with a negative statement to immediately edit those statements to praise for Ruben.

Wow, bold claim. You discredit yourself by assuming that the teachers who spend weekday nights at the E4E offices discussing evaluation systems from around the country have impure motives. What do you think their motives are, if not teacher accountability and student achievement?

I think their motives are whatever Mr. Gates tells them their motives are.  Why else would he give them thousands of dollars  – or do you think most teachers have the money to rent office space?  E4E members discredit themselves by: 1) posing as ed. authorities while having little experience to back their positions or ideas, 2) selfishly trying to skip their place in line over more experienced educators without paying their dues, 3) having Ruben Brosbe as a spokesperson and 4) being scabs and fifth columnist Quislings for Walmart, Microsoft, Buffett, Broad, etc.  whose only concern regarding public education is to break unions, tap into tax levy funds, and create a docile, disposable, subservient workforce that do not have pensions or healthcare.  By the way, the standards for grammar and usage are much relaxed for this type of forum.  This is why no one said anything when you wrote, ” Wow, bold claim.” which has improper structure, usage, no punctuation, etc. 

It’d difficult, due to your involvement in E4E, and some of your remarks in this article, to find you particularly credible. 

You don’t get it and you never will. Its so much deeper then you will ever understand.
Your into grammar and I’m into whats right and you have no idea whats professional.
G.C. gets it and all you care about is grammar.
Truth is your not an educator just some smart kid who wants to show how wise you are.I have seem so many like you in my term as an educator and most of them became administrators. Wake up your on the wrong side of the issue. Thank you GC 

Grade5Teacher,

You can take a pig, put lipstick on it, it could graduate with an Ivy League diploma, take Bill Gates’ money, it can have happy hour with Joel Klein, lobby for Michelle Rhee’s policies, and be the darlings of the NY Post…but it’ll still be a pig!

You are not working hard enough. You have all this time to sell out your fellow teachers and make life more miserable for them. When they are using this time to be with their families and recharge for the next day.The motives are clear and thats why your ideas will be thrown out with garbage.

Thank you for sharing your insights from the perspective of a teacher.  I plan on sharing this with some principal friends to give a new perspective