Comments on: State attaches several strings to city’s bid for “turnaround” aid

By: burned

burned — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:24:00 +0000

I wonder: how many staff in Turnarounds would be willing to protest in front of UFT hdq?

By: East Sider

East Sider — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:43:00 +0000

As I wrote the burden is substantial on the union – if your District Rep is not responsive contact the Boro Rep and the UFT Staff Director. You need the posted criteria and should ask the principal for the scoring rubrics, they can redact the names ,,,

By: Tsis

Tsis — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:53:00 +0000

I can grieve this decision? With whom do I speak to? Like I said; my UFT district leader has been largely incommunicado to me or anyone else in this school affected.

By: East Sider

East Sider — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:45:00 +0000

Tsis
Unfortunately the union lost an arbitration case when they challenged the definition of :qualified” in the 18D rules – the arbitrator said committees should be given “wide discretion,” however, you can ask for the rationale and the scores – the burden is on the grievant to show the decision was “discriminatory, arbitrary or capricious.”

By: Tsis

Tsis — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:50:00 +0000

I was just told I will not be rehired in my closing turnaround school. I have never had a U rating or U lesson observation in my 13 years. I have no discipline letters. I had 2 absences this year and no lateness. All I was given was a letter stating we will not be rehiring you at this time. To add insult, a 1st year teacher here WAS rehired! When I asked my UFT district leader (I am the chapter leader here), he said he could not comment on this since he was on the 18d committee. He did apologize though which made everything much better! The UFT and DOE are in together in this evil process. To hell with both of them.

By: claudius

claudius — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:10:00 +0000

While It sounds good if ratings are subjective to use test scores but as a book published Ph.D. in statistics, I can tell you how DOE uses test stats is completely unreliable and worse than subjective for reasons published many times. Probably best way to rate teachers is using 2 independent observers tho how to implement this is tricky. Interestingly, the UFT-DOE draft eval agreement does bring in 2nd independent observer but only after the first unsatisfactory year end rating.

By: East Sider

East Sider — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:02:00 +0000

The 18D staffing rules go back to the early nineties …schools closed and the new schools in the building only had to accept 50% of those “qualified,” the difference was those not chosen were able to avaail themselves of “priority” excessing … they had some choice of here they were sent … the new schools commonly accepted well below 50% … remember the school redesign models emanate in federal regs, the ATR mechanism is of NYC making

By: Jjkemp

Jjkemp — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:42:00 +0000

Almost all employees are evaluated without a mandated, codified framework in place. Imagine, the horror.

By: nycdoenuts

nycdoenuts — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:56:00 +0000

I love seeing how for some these issues raise valid concerns having strong implications on people’s careers and yet for others, serve as cute little kickballs that can be used as small minded sarcastic comments on education websites.

Fun fact: Under the current observation system, there is no mandated, codified framework for approaching subjective classroom observations (like Danielson’s). Observations are carried out in an inconsistent (dare I say “capricious”?) manner along a fuzzy set of criteria that certainly change not just from school to school, but from observer to observer within a school -it’s just as Roma Giudetti eloquently articulated.

Like I always say, there ‘outta be a permit for people allowing them to write -or comment- about education issues. I wonder sometimes, if there is any acceptable way of evaluating these commenters as we issue (or deny) these permits.

By: Jjkemp

Jjkemp — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:16:00 +0000

“gine an A/P rating someone poorly at the behest of the principal. Observations are highly subjective. One principal’s or A/Ps great lesson is another one’s unsatisfactory.”

So then use objective measures like test scores. Oh, wait, those aren’t acceptable either. Because there’s no acceptable way to evaluate teachers.

By: Roma Giudetti

Roma Giudetti — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:12:00 +0000

Many people have written about being unsatisfactorily rated during a classroom observation so it would be easy to get rid of them in the turnaround schools. I don’t know much about what’s happening in those schools but it is easy to imagine an A/P rating someone poorly at the behest of the principal. Observations are highly subjective. One principal’s or A/Ps great lesson is another one’s unsatisfactory. For example in my school during the QR my principal brought the reviewer into her two favorite teachers’ classrooms and the reviewer was not impressed. My principal was highly offended. She couldn’t understand how the reviewer wouldn’t see these teachers as highly effective. The reviewer, however, didn’t find their lessons “rigorous” enough. Another common complaint these days.

This is why I and many other teachers are against using any measure that relies on one person’s eyes and ears to hire or fire teachers. Over the years I have grown so tired of hearing about classrooms being “too teacher-centered.” It’s silly. There are times in the classroom where I speak (sometimes for up to 15 minutes!) and then the kids do something when I’m done explaining or modeling or giving examples. Kids themselves tell me they are tired of being taught by other students. They want a teacher to teach them. As usual, we go off the deep end in some of these techniques and methods. We don’t ever trust the classroom teacher to know when it’s time to be “teacher-centered” and when it’s time to be “student-centered.” Observations merely demonstrate the whim and mood of the observer at the time and not the teacher’s effectiveness and they should never be used as a basis for hiring or firing people.

By: Save our schools

Save our schools — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:55:00 +0000

The new principal of W.C. bryant High School is either chasing out good experienced teachers, or ordering APs to rate teachers unsatisfactory on good lessons. This is a sham, but the irony is that a lot of ex-students thought she was a bad teacher.

By: Manhattan70

Manhattan70 — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:20:00 +0000

At LIC the interviews started out with about 50% being rehired, now in week three it’s about 80%. Make of it what you will.

By: Turnaround Teacher

Turnaround Teacher — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:08:00 +0000

Just saw the way my comment came out. I meant 30%

By: Pinkflowers72

Pinkflowers72 — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:46:00 +0000

“Qualified” seems to be a relative term @ Lehman HS. Many of the “qualified” people hired back are either the kiss asses of the departments, or the few french fries short a happy meal type.

By: old teach

old teach — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:53:00 +0000

A few years ago the DOE decided to eliminate the special education district late in the spring. Then UFT President Randi Weingarten had the union take the DOE to impact bargaining over the matter. As a result the DOE was mandated to hire at least 50% of the teachers serving in that district to be rehired. I know as I was a member of the UFT personnel who served on the hiring committees. Teachers were allowed phone interviews from Europe, the Caribbean, wherever they were during August of that year. I see the same result in this mess created by the Bloomberg administration as the UFT should prevail via arbitration. In this case however with the large number of employees involved I hope that the school hiring committees will be unable to fulfil their obligations and the schools may stay intact for another year. It is quite possible. Cami Anderson was the superintendent of the special education district at that time, Ira Korashen was the UFT District Representative. Check it out!

By: claudius

claudius — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:15:00 +0000

yes, i noticed same thing. APs went around making sure a lot of teachers got unsatisfactory ratings on observations beginning round March-April for exactly that reason, in many cases over half the department. Any picky thing was singled out, or just made up entirely as justification. It was very dishonest,unethical, and shameful. But what can you expect of a DOE which has been lying with the statistics and policy all along to justify their ideological union busting and privatization agenda?

By: Save our schools

Save our schools — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:01:00 +0000

In W. C. Bryant High School the principal has been ordering to rate a certain number of teachers unsatisfactory since february so they will be unqualified to be invited back

By: claudius

claudius — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:19:00 +0000

At our school, much fewer than 50% have been hired back – about 20% total.. It seems that only 50% of those who apply and are “qualified” need be hired back according to the DOE. Qualified does not mean having an appropriate area license it seems but whether you meet all those very detailed “qualifications” listed on job spec. It seems most don’t according to the principal’s subjective judgement.

By: Turnaround Teacher

Turnaround Teacher — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 04:45:00 +0000

What school do you work at that is removing 50% of the staff? At lehman they are going after about 307I