GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

first take

Deal lays framework for new evals; city appeals issue smoothed

A compromise between the state and its main teachers union will refine the state’s teacher evaluation law and make it easier for local districts to implement new evaluations, Gov. Cuomo announced today.

Cuomo had said that he would impose a new evaluation system if a deal did not come by today.

The announcement suggested that some of the most pressing issues at the state level had been resolved but that significant questions remained wide open here in New York City. The city and UFT have settled at least part of their dispute about appeals for teachers with low ratings but have not actually agreed on a new evaluations system.

Cuomo announced the deal during a a press conference in Albany, where he was joined by State Education Commissioner John King, NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi, and UFT President Michael Mulgrew — but no officials from New York City. Mayor Bloomberg is holding a press conference at City Hall this afternoon to discuss the deal.

We’ll have more details about the content of the agreement, which is a statewide framework that would tweak the state’s 2010 evaluation law, later today. Cuomo will be submitting bills today to formalize the agreement through the budget amendment process.

What’s clear is that it gives Cuomo some of what he wanted last spring when he asked the Board of Regents to increase the weight of test scores in teacher evaluations. The agreed-upon framework allows districts and their unions to agree to use state exam scores for a second 20 percent of evaluations set aside for local assessments — but they can’t use the exams in exactly the same way the state does. Instead, they’ll be able to crunch the numbers a different way or substitute their own assessments, which the State Education Department would have to approve.

It’s also clear that while the agreement represents a leap forward for the city and UFT, it does not end their disputes. The city and union agreed only to an appeals process for teachers with low ratings — resolving a major sticking point in negotiations over teacher evaluations at 33 schools that had been receiving federal funding.

But it does not actually represent an agreement on a new evaluation system. Other issues that were unresolved when negotiations broke down over the appeals question are still up in the air. Plus, the negotiations that fell apart were only for the 33 schools that received School Improvement Grants. The city, like all districts, now has until Jan. 16, 2013, to finalize an evaluation system using the framework NYSUT agreed to today.

“Are there continuing, outstanding issues when it comes to education between the city and the UFT. Yes, yes, that is clear,” Cuomo said. “We never said we were going to resolve all the open issues.”

The one issue that was resolved, about the appeals process, represents something of a loss for the city. Bloomberg’s position was that the school chancellor should have the final word on all appeals. But Mulgrew said the agreed-upon appeals process — which Cuomo said would go into effect by the end of 2012 and enable the city to receive a 4 percent increase in school aid — brings in third-party validation for some ratings.

He also said the process included safeguards against low ratings issued as a means of harassment.

Cuomo lavished praise on Mulgrew during the press conference, saying that the union leader had “worked extraordinarily hard … and has been extraordinarily reasonable” through the negotiation process.

A major open question is whether the city will go ahead with its plan to “turn around” 33 struggling schools, which would require half of their teachers to be replaced. Bloomberg had proposed turnaround as a way to circumvent a requirement that the city negotiate an evaluation deal for teachers in those schools. But with the sticking point in those negotiations resolved, the city could continue the school improvement strategies already underway there. The city is set to make its case with the state next week for why federal funds should continue flowing to support those schools

Mulgrew signaled today that he thought the evaluation should take turnaround off the table. But he signaled that the city had not said clearly that it would.

“”If the mayor chooses he can speak to us about putting in a SIG application,” he said in Albany. “You can ask him. I think he has decided he’d rather close schools than fix them.”

  • Manhattan70

    What time is Bloomberg’s press conference this afternoon?

  • http://twitter.com/nycdoenuts nycdoenuts

    I remember Leo Casey writing a piece for Edwize just after negotiations broke down saying that the appeals process was the only sticking issue between the UFT&DOE. If that’s resolved, then what other issue is there? I’m so confused.
    But, as a teacher, I really like the fact that A) I won’t be fired JUST because my students score poorly on state exams (which WAS the case before) and B) if the mayor rates me ineffective, I can, potentially, appeal outside to independent arbitrators.

  • Ericactor44

    Mulgrew Rules! Bababooey!

  • Guest

    There has been no resolution on the appeals process between Bloomberg and the UFT. Based on my reading, Cuomo okayed a theoretical appeals process for the UFT, but said that it would have to be approved by Bloomberg.

    I don’t understand why the union would move forward with a theoretical appeals process. It would have been easy enough to call Bloomberg and say “sign this agreement on an appeals process.”

    From Cuomo’s office:

    “Today’s announcement also includes an expedited and streamlined appeals process for the New York City School District that becomes effective on January 17, 2013 if New York City and the UFT agree to an overall evaluation system.”
     

  • Billy

    My reading of the deal seems different. It seems to me that if a teacher is rated “ineffective” for one year, the following year they will be matched with an independent evaluator who will judge the performance of the teacher during that following year. If the teacher is again rated “ineffective” the evaluator will decide if the rating is fair. However, what seems like a real possibility is that a teacher can get two “ineffective” ratings due to poor test scores. (Observations may still be great) If the test scores do not improve there is really nothing an independent evaluator can do. Again, this is just the way that I read the ruling and it is complicated as heck for sure. Also, the UFT/DOE still have to to hash out a lot of details. 

  • YOURCOPSBROKEMYLEG

    GOV CUOMO WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING THESE SCHOOLS TO  BE CLOSE?MY HUSBAND IS BEING HARASS BY THE ADMINSTRATED AND LOTS OF HIS PEERS. HE IS A HARD WORKER. THE SUPERVISORS HAVE BEEN TAKING PICTURES IF HIS LESSON PLAN BUT NOT OF ANYONE ELSE> THEY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING HIM AROUND THE SCHOOL FOR NO REASON AT ALL. HE HAS BEEN IF THE SYSTEM FOR FIFTHTEEN YEARS. HE IS HATED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND ASST      
                  PRINCIPAL WHICH TOLD THE OTHER TEACHERS TO SPY ON ME. HOW
                  WOULD YOU FEEL IF THIS WAS HAPPENING TO YOU? THEY GAVE HIM
                     TWO “U”RATING FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!

  • Guest

    You may not understand why but reading this we all do.

  • Nycdoenuts

    That last part-about whether or not teachers must be rated ineffective if the tests are low- is something I’m confused over. I thought that, since the other 20% must be used differently depending in the district (and that our district, the NYCDOE, wanted to do something different with local assessments anyway), that this threshold the state had wanted was gone. But Leonie Haimson read it the same way you did. At this point, I’m guessing I’m wrong about that, but I heard clearly that in cases of harassment (when a principal is going after a teacher just because) that the state would sponsor an independent arbitrator to handle the second appeal (teachers would stil have that first appeal).

    I didn’t hear anything credible about an independent evaluator (I did hear Walcott use that phrase, but he also used the phrase ‘highly ineffective’, a category that doesn’t even exist, (It’s ineffective, developing, effective, highly effective), so it doesn’t sound like he has much of an idea of what he’s talking about in the first place (disconcerting as he his the schools’ chancellor, but whatever. Im used to it anyway). Curious to know where you heard or read that from. 5 hours later and I’m stil confused!

  • Nycdoenuts

    That last part-about whether or not teachers must be rated ineffective if the tests are low- is something I’m confused over. I thought that, since the other 20% must be used differently depending in the district (and that our district, the NYCDOE, wanted to do something different with local assessments anyway), that this threshold the state had wanted was gone. But Leonie Haimson read it the same way you did. At this point, I’m guessing I’m wrong about that, but I heard clearly that in cases of harassment (when a principal is going after a teacher just because) that the state would sponsor an independent arbitrator to handle the second appeal (teachers would stil have that first appeal).

    I didn’t hear anything credible about an independent evaluator (I did hear Walcott use that phrase, but he also used the phrase ‘highly ineffective’, a category that doesn’t even exist, (It’s ineffective, developing, effective, highly effective), so it doesn’t sound like he has much of an idea of what he’s talking about in the first place (disconcerting as he his the schools’ chancellor, but whatever. Im used to it anyway). Curious to know where you heard or read that from. 5 hours later and I’m stil confused!

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

Archives

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