Leo Casey explains the UFT’s skepticism on principals’ petition against new state evaluations. (Edwize)
The city has released 2012-2013′s academic calendar; the first day of school is Sept. 6. (Insideschools)
A roundup of the full slate of state Senate and Assembly budget legislations proposals. (Edvantage)
Rachel has been Tweeting tonight from a Brooklyn meeting about “turnaround” proposals. (GS Twitter)
A new study says “bubble kid” strategies stem from federal plus state pressure. (Inside School Research)
Jessica Lahey: Fancy, attractive new technologies don’t offer me much as a teacher. (Core Knowledge)
A parent recaps what she told State Education Commission John King when she met him. (SchoolBook)
An ESL teacher laments her culpability in costing students their first language. (No Sleep Til Summer)
Pressing on with added-value analysis, a teacher finds variation within the same class. (Gary Rubinstein)
On the absurdity of comparing charter schools’ Teacher Data Reports to district schools’. (Shanker Blog)
Nearly half of students who stuck with a prep program got into specialized high schools. (SchoolBook)
Nobilep
I attended one of Leo Casey’s chapter leader seminars in ’08-’09 in which he ridiculed the value-added nonsense. And the next thing we knew, Mulgrew signed on to the 20% deal without consulting the membership. It is backroom deals like this that destroys his and Leo’s credibility.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm
The Shanker blog states: ”
The article is a pretty remarkable display of both poor journalism
and poor research. The reporters not only attempted to do something they
couldn’t do, but they did it badly to boot.”
What is the value-added score for these reporters? Don’t they merit a visit to their homes by a writer and photographer asking them about their poor reporting? Maybe even question their neighbors about their personal habits. #aneyeforaneye
Guest
leo’s plan is to make the evaluation process so complicated teachers are protected by the mess.
JEFF S
The big problem, of course, is the quality of the Principals or as I should say better, the lack of quality. The vast majority of Principals appointed under Emperor Michael I’s reign and by his lackeys Klein, Black and Walcott, are unqualified to be Principals. They lack the experience necessary to be a master teacher which is the prime role of a Principal. So one can understand the reluctance of the UFT ato put the fate of teachers entirely in the hands of these incompetents.
And it’s also clear that that the amount of work needed to introduce the Danielson Frameworks is overwhelming and one would suspect the UFT has one eye on imposing procedural roadblocks into it (which I don’t necessarily disagree with).
Finally, the UFT has to know, and I’ve seen Randi make reference to it, that especially on the secondary level, standardized tests do not exist to do a value added thing and base 20% of a teacher’s rating on these non existant exams. And what about the other 20%. It all goes back to what a Principal should be and is under the warped vision of Emperor Michael I and his lackeys.
Vote NO!
No, The new APPR is so complicated, punitive, and loaded with “gotchas,’ that it will be impossible for any teacher to avoid the “terminal double ineffective” for more than a few years.
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm
How funny that Leo Casey talks about protecting teachers from principals when the UFT aided and abetted handing over so much power to principals especially with the open market system of hiring that gave them such power and no resistance to the DOE plan to make them all powerful. Remember the controversial 2005 provision limiting the right of teachers to file letter in file grievances which was at least some check on the principals. Now teachers are feeling that they are getting more cover on the dangers of ed eval from principals than they are from their own union.
Flerplunk
So you believe every teacher in the system will be fired within 5 years?
Vote NO!
If the evaluation law is implemented as it was negotiated, a very large number of teachers in NYC will be terminated, or forced out in the next 5 years.
Flerplunk
Ok, well, “a very large number of teachers” is not quite the same as all teachers. How many is “a very large number”?
Isn’t a critical factor in this analysis what kind of curve, or whatever you’d call it, will apply to the student-performance portions of the performance review? I agree that if you need 65 points to get a rating higher than ineffective, a teacher that scores a zero out of 40 possible points in the two student-performance categories will always be rated ineffective. But it’s not at all clear to me that huge numbers of teachers will be scoring zero in those categories. Am I wrong to think it’s too early to think the worst will happen?
Vote NO!
A large number would be at least half. It’s hard to state an actual number because a lot could happen over 5 years. If the labor market remains weak, more teachers will attempt to hold onto their jobs. If the labor market recovers, it could be far higher than half the teachers. NYC had a hard time retaining teachers with a normal labor market, when “S or U” was used for evaluation. Under the new evaluation rubric, a recovering labor market would be catastrophic to many city schools. You will get a lot of “one foot teachers” once they get that first “ineffective.” as well.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.