GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

It’s a real shame that the DOE and UFT can’t come to an agreement on this. Didn’t the UFT just agree to a Danielson-based evaluation model with Green Dot New York? Why can’t they do so more broadly? Where is the leadership here? Seems like the UFT is more focused on serving sandwiches to the Occupy Wall Streeters than in doing their job. Not sure what the DOE is thinking, but shame on both of them…kids suffer again.

The Danielson Framework, certain to be implemented with incompetence and malice by the DOE, is a trap for teachers, ultimately intended to have administrators meet a de facto quota of U ratings with a high-tech checklist. It’s implementation has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of children.

That it’s been adopted by Green Dot is reason enough to question it, as teachers there have no tenure or seniority protections, something the DOE is itching to impose on the public schools.

And by the way, UFT members have been working for two years without a contract; given that, and the acceleration of school closings, reorganizations and charter invasions, the union should refuse to negotiate anything with them until they give us a raise and cease their aggressive attacks on the public schools and the profession.

What’s with all of the preconditions? This isn’t the Middle East, these are kids lives. The DOE is surely incompetent, but I just don’t believe that they are as nefarious as you say. The system is so broken that we could stand some bold leadership and new thinking.

As for Green Dot, I just don’t buy that because it’s a charter school, it’ll never work in district schools. Is an evaluation system not scalable? Aren’t the unions always complaining that there isn’t enough cooperation between charters and district schools? Here’s a way for district schools to adopt sme best practices. We owe it to ourselves and our kids to take some risks in an effort to improve conditions.

The problem that the UFT has in negotiations with the DOE is that since mayoral control there has been little good faith between the parties. The department if you recall lied to the union over the use of data that the department stated would not be used for evaluations then did an about face and said they could be used to evaluate teachers. The unions primary function to its members is to offer contractual protection regarding their licensing. The department by its own actions has created an atmosphere that offers no room for good faith. Therefore everything must be in writing after negotiations. The UFT is correct in this matter.

The  Danielson  Framework  is  being  used  to  fire  teachers.  That  is  its  ONLY purpose.   The  union  has  a  responsibility  to  protect  its  members.  A  new  evaluation  model  should  be  used  to  improve  teaching,  not  chase  all  the  teachers  out  of  the  system.

Negotations imply both sides will put something on the table that the other wants. What has the DOE/city put on the table for the UFT that it desires. All I see are continued threats and budget cuts and misuse with intend to harm.

As to the Race to the Top Money. Keep it. It’s not earmarked for teachers salaries, reduction in class size. It’s earmarked for training on how to make us work harder for less salary, less benefits, and less job security. I’m underwhelmed.

What has the UFT put on the table that the DOE would want?  I’m not being flippant.  I haven’t read about either side being particularly eager to negotiate. 

Could somebody please explain to me why the UFT would be willing to use the Danielson model? I am not an educational “expert” but aren’t there many more teacher evaluation frameworks out there that are a tad more simple and teacher friendly? Any info on this subject would be appreciated.

I am in a school that is piloting the new evaluation model using the Danielson framework and it is indeed quite confusing. We had a two hour professional development session on this a day or two before the new school year started. Teachers had no input on whether or not we even wanted to be involved in the pilot. The principal is already putting observations in our files based upon the Danielson rubric which is illegal! 

The city might as well give up on school reform, and public education in general.  The only thing that might possible change in NYC is the amount of money spent.  Let’s review.

The UFT is opposed to teacher evaluations based on the boss’s discretion, because that would “hurt teachers who don’t particularly get along with their supervisors” and don’t want to move on to another job.  Well, that’s the system virtually everyone in the private sector faces but fine, that’s a fair argument, given the kind of management you usually get in the public sector.

So the reformers take the bait and try to come up with something objective that has nothing to do with the individual supervisor instead, like say the change in standardized test scores.  But the UFT is opposed to that because test scores don’t really measure good teaching — qualitative judgement is required.

So which is it?

The UFT is opposed to individual teacher evaluation because, well, a school is a collective, collaborative enterprise, and individual evaluation pits teachers against each other.  Fine.

So the reformers take the bait and close entire “failing” schools, judging the teachers there collectively.  But the UFT is opposed to that, too, because most of those teachers must be good teachers as individuals.

So which is it?

I suppose having ten evaluators of different racial and other backgrounds (to eliminate bias) sit in every class working with a teacher for a year to help them, and then another year to document deficiencies, might be enough to suggest that perhaps a teacher should choose another line of work.  But will all the money going to retroactive pension enhancements, the DOE is more likely to eliminate the office of the principal to save money.

There is no acceptable solution other than a somewhat worse education than NYC children have received in the past for somewhat more money.  Did I have the UFT explained several years ago or what?

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/spitzer_suozzi_and_reinhold_niebuhr.html

But you know what, as I’ve said none of this matters.  What matters is the 1995 retroactive pension enhancement, the 2000 pension enhancement, the 2008 pension enhancement, low taxpayer pension funding for a few years under Giuliani (as part of the 2000 deal), and the fact that none of that was paid for — running up the cost with interest.  It’s why I can’t even get interested in all these little battles.  It’s game over.

If the next Mayor has any sense, he or she will point out that the teacher’s contract and the pension laws control everything that happens in the schools, and wash their hands of them, like Giuliani.  After all, net of rising spending on the retired, we’re going back to Giuliani-era resources even with higher spending (and taxes) overall.