GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

no connection alot of groups believe they are putting students fiest

What does it mean to “tighten” a teacher evaluation? It’s pretty easy to get a U these days. Also not sure what “work-rule overhaul” refers to. Does that mean taking away our rights or making us work longer?

What a waste of time. 

 At this point ladies and gents there are 2 categories of teachers: 1) the ones who are unsatisfactory 2) the ones to “soon be”  unsatisfactory.  Ask yourself what category are you presently in or will be shortly? Now this should be a question for school surveys. Why isn’t it? Imagine  what it feels like knowing what your rating for the year (June) is going to be in January?

“Things” that teachers have been U on/ or could be  the “new evaluation” have been the following: Not having a Why or How aim, not eliciting the aim, not having a question mark at the end of your aim, not having a checklist, not having an exit slip, not differentiating, not having your class in groups, student not signing the late book, a fight happening in your classroom while administration is in there, a student cursing another student or maybe you, a student not feeling well and their head was down on the desk, a student eating in class, a student sleeping, a student coming in late, student not signing the late book, a student asking to go to the bathroom and not signing the bathroom book, a student singing in class, a student throwing something,  a student walking out of the room without a pass, having your lesson plan but not holding it in front of you and reading it, windows open too high, handouts that are not clear or”crooked”, student work not displayed, your name /class not on your bulletin board, no rubric, not using the Promethean board/Smart Board, or having a “technology problem”, teacher has bad handwriting, teacher was nervous, teacher forgot what he/she was saying, shades broken in your room, room not decorated, did not write the standard on the board, not having a fire sign in the room, teacher not feeling etc. Well I know that I could not mention everything but did I leave anything out? Yes these ARE things that teachers have been given a U. I am not saying all these things at once I am saying any ONE of these things. I’m sorry that I am not the perfect teacher and good luck to those who are

DOE Dept.of ERROR  Common “BORE” another idea

Very soon there will be two categories of teachers: “Lucky” and “Not Lucky”. Those fortunate few teachers who work for veteran principals who actually were principals themselves may have a chance to survive a while once the new evaluations are put in place. These will be the “Lucky” teachers. On the other hand, everybody else who works for corrupt Leadership Academy/DOE stooges or Bloomberg goons might instantly become U-rated. These will be the “Not Lucky” teachers. However, with VAM/test scores counting for ALL TEACHERS under the new evaluations, we’ll all have targets on our backs sooner or later. Sad days for sure.

I think it’s unfair to group stereotype individual teachers just because they enter teaching through TFA, whatever TFA’s broader politics are. There are some dedicated teachers who do stay, and I think we should be careful not to engage in broad reverse age discrimination here which can only divide us. It is true that the DOE in practice is age discriminatory in my opinion, so let’s focus where we can effect change in the next mayor election.

I’m interested in the recommendation that the State create “innovation zones.” This has something that, I can only imagine, is based on the similarly named program in New York City and—with any luck—will resembles the city’s program in practice as well. I teach at a school that has been involved in the iLearnNYC initiative for the last three years and, in my experience, it has been a phenomenal program that has continued to evolve and improve upon itself each year. The programs that fall under the umbrella of the City’s innovation zone—iZone 360 in addition to iLearnNYC—encourage schools to rethink how they approach instruction in order to maximize the benefit for their students.

The program has allowed us to offer courses to our juniors and seniors that we would not have been able to offer otherwise (most notably: AP courses). It allows us to be more flexible with our scheduling and use the time students spend with their teachers having rich discussions about the content they were introduced to outside of the classroom. Additionally, as part of the program, we now have access to a wide number of instructional media like NBC Learn and Discovery—not to mention the equipment we’ve received as part of the program, which has been a tremendous blessing.

Basically, it’s saved us money and allowed us to do a better job serving our students and I’d like to see something similar at the state level and based on what’s happening in New York City.

 I knew someone who got a U during an observation of a full-period test because some students finished early and weren’t given work to do.  This was in retaliation for something political that had no connection to the classroom.  This terrific young teacher became discouraged and ended up quitting.

Imagine if we had a group like E4E, but for real teachers.  I have to think they would be trying to get rid of principals who don’t do a good job of supporting and evaluating teachers, rather than blaming the union for those situations (see yesterday’s Daily News, op-ed page).  I wonder if Gotham Schools would take them as seriously as it does E4E.

Just curious: A “U” rating is used for formal observations and end of year evaluations only. Why/how was a principal formally observing an observation that involved your friend implementing a full-period test? In other words, did this teacher have a pre-observation? If so, why was a full-period test the focus of the “lesson”? Was this teacher tenured and did he or she chose not to have a pre-observation for the formal? If this was the case, he or she still should have known that the principal was coming to observe them for a formal observation during a particular period. I don’t know why any wise teacher would choose to implement a full-period test as the focus of a formal observation. Please note, I hate E4E and am sick of the reform nonsense/gotcha hit squads that the DOE are sending out for sure. But, please answer my question above.

 Jo Jo, just to clarify, this was a U observation, not a rating, and the teacher was untenured.  I don’t remember the circumstances regarding the pre-ob.  There may have been on with the AP about a different observation around the same time, but the principal’s observation was definitely a surprise.

I brought up this incident in a harassment hearing for another teacher’s grievance.  This practice of conducting an observation during a test was defended by the DOE representative as “not unheard of”.

You can get a U for ANYTHING honey! Notice that the things that I mentioned had NOTHING to do with teaching. NOTHING!! That’s my point. Yes a principal can do anything he/she wants with or without a pre-observation with the mayor’s blessing! The new evaluation is not in effect but many principals are doing it anyhow and rating teachers ineffective. Telling the staff that it doesn’t count yet they find away to count it Unsatisfactory/Ineffective = the same thing. I know a principal that just came into a teacher and was trying to U this person. He asked for a “lesson plan”  and a copy of the test and then asked still trying to nail him ASKED THE STUDENTS WHAT ARE THEY DOING RIGHT NOW? He then told him that he did not like his Aim: TEST. In addition did not like his Do Now: Study for test 10 minutes and then put everything away. He wanted a full explanation something like, How can we test what we have learned? and a Do Now: How have you studied for this test? Some bullshit like that. He did not U him but wanted to as you can see from the example that I just gave you.Look I understand that they have a “quota” of U’s to make but this is ridiculous and don’t tell me that there isn’t a quota. That Danielsen is a”checklist” to bury all the teachers. It is NOT to help. I am NOT convinced. As far as the mayor saying we get raises every year? It shows that he knows nothing. I’ve taken more money out of my pocket over the years even with teacher’s choice. What a joke  this year $45.00. What profession do you know where you take money out of your own pocket. And as far as the summer? that’s the time that’s given back to me from the time that is “stolen” from me all year. When I’m doing things on my own time and my own dime!  Even then we are not even! I’m signing myself, Teacher of the year for having the balls to tell it like it is!!

Ms. Remis, Thank you for responding. I think you may have missed the main point regarding my correspondence below. I don’t know whether or not Dr. Smith provided “expert testimony related to the issue of culturally and historically relevant curriculum and instruction [during] the [so-called] hearing phase,” but that’s not the main point. The main point regarding the [so-called] “new New York State Education Reform Commission,” is, as Dr. Smith noted below: “Obvious is the absence of any of the New York State experts of color, such as Vice Chancellor of the Board of Regents (emerita) Dr. Adelaide L. Sanford or Dr. James Turner, Founder the Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell U., who were likely to have insisted upon culturally and historically relevant curriculum and instruction” — as part of recommendations to the Governor relative to reforming public education, especially urban, public education. With regard to “ideas for shaping the implementation of the commission recommendations,” I would suggest that you share this email string “with [your] colleagues” and the Governor. I would also suggest that you all contact Dr. Smith and other New York State experts of color (such as those mentioned here), and seek their assistance in ensuring development and implementation of culturally and historically relevant curriculum and instruction — as part of the formal recommendations to the Governor. It would be much appreciated if you would inform of your intentions regarding the latter suggestion. In accordance with the January 2, 2013 Democrat and Chronicle article at the link below — SOME of the recommendations that the so-called “new New York State Education Reform Commission” has made thus far, sound a lot like they were lifted directly out of the corporate education “reform” movement’s play book, which I believe is essentially the same play book that your organization, (Parent Power Project —http://parentpowerproject.org/founding-director.html) supports. I also believe that this explains (at least in part) your inclusion as a member of the Commission. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130102/NEWS01/301020038/New-York-education-reform Dr Smith, I hope you don’t mind me volunteering your expertise. FYI (in case you’re not aware): Ms Carrie Remis (who is NOT a City of Rochester resident) is (as far as I know the only person from the Finger Lakes Region who serves on the Governor’s Commission. As it relates to her role on the Commission, supposedly (unless my understanding is incorrect, and I don’t believe it is) — she is serving as a parent-”representative”. Many of us (Rochester parents) do not accept “representation” by people who are not chosen by us (as Ms. Remis was not). In fact, many of us believe that she generally subscribes to ideas and belief systems regarding education reform, which are, in some ways, diametrically opposed to our own. Sincerely,Howard J. EagleRochester City School District ParentRetired Rochester City School District High School Social Studies Teacher (23 years) Adjunct Lecturer, SUNY@ Brockport (10 years); Grassroots Community Activist (30-Plus years)