GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

guest perspective

January 14, 2013

Improving Teachers And Principals Go Hand In Hand

by Kim Marshall, at 3:42 pm

By now, everyone knows that if the Department of Education and the UFT don’t agree on a new teacher evaluation system by this Thursday, the city will lose $250 million in state funds, resulting in budget cuts that will harm children’s futures. With a looming deadline like that, a settlement will probably be cobbled together at the very last minute.

The danger, in my view, is that the outcome will be suboptimal, splitting the difference and producing an evaluation plan that satisfies nobody and fails to improve teaching and learning. Far better for city and union leaders to step back, look at the bigger issues, and use this crisis to forge a better outcome.

Why hasn’t this dispute been settled earlier? From my work in the city’s schools over the last decade (coaching principals and giving workshops to teachers), I can see legitimate concerns on both sides.

The Department of Education wants to replace the antiquated Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory teacher rating system with a 4-3-2-1 rating scale (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective), with Level 2 describing the kind of mediocre teaching that’s been so difficult for principals to pinpoint and remedy over the years. Tweed also wants principals to use short, frequent, unannounced classroom visits (in addition to traditional full-lesson visits) to get a more accurate picture of what teachers are doing on a daily basis. The idea is to change mediocre and ineffective practices and dismiss persistently ineffective teachers. The department also believes administrators should use before-and-after test scores to evaluate some teachers (this is part of the state’s Race to the Top application).

UFT leaders are concerned about unannounced classroom visits: Might less-than-competent administrators (and they are definitely out there) use them as a “gotcha” or not know what to look for in classrooms? There are also worries about replacing the current Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory ratings with the proposed four-point scale using a detailed scoring guide: Is the rubric too cumbersome to be helpful for classroom visits, and are administrators trained to use it? And there’s concern about using test scores to evaluate teachers: Researchers around the nation have warned about major psychometric and implementation problems with this logical-sounding idea, and the track record when New York City published the test-based evaluations of 18,000 teachers in 2012 was not impressive.

Is there common ground? I believe both sides should be able to agree on the following propositions. First, all New York City children deserve effective or highly effective teaching in every classroom they walk into, moving them toward college and career success. Second, there is no place for mediocre and ineffective teaching in the city’s schools, and a four-point rating scale, implemented fairly, can help identify and change problematic practices. Third, teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there and struggling teachers (once identified) deserve expert support and coaching. Fourth, ineffective teachers who don’t improve in a reasonable amount of time should be shown the door. Finally, the key to a good teacher evaluation process is competent principals who are held accountable for the quality of teaching in their buildings.

This last point might be the key to revamping the evaluation system. The New York City schools’ current administrative structure  — with networks, clusters, and community superintendents — results in principals not having an immediate boss with a manageable number of schools and the authority to hold them accountable for the skillful support and evaluation of teachers. The city has depended too much on data and infrequent school inspections and doesn’t have enough authoritative boots on the ground. This must change before teachers will feel safe with the innovative evaluation practices being proposed.

In New Jersey, Newark’s schools were recently reorganized along more effective lines — area superintendents are responsible for about 12 schools and have the authority to get into their buildings on a weekly basis and make sure good things are happening for children. If New York City reorganized along these lines, appointing about 150 area superintendents each responsible for 12 schools, things would change overnight. Are there 150 tough, talented, and fair-minded administrators out there who could handle these new jobs? You bet there are! The state is requiring new principal-evaluation procedures as well, and these new local honchos would be in the forefront of making it work.

With a structure like this in place, teachers should be willing to embrace short, frequent, unannounced classroom visits, which are amazingly accurate and informative. Many teachers around the country have stopped using the laughably ineffective annual dog-and-pony show process because they realize that frequent, short visits (always followed by face-to-face conversations) are less stressful and maximize supportive coaching, early intervention where there are problems, and continuous improvement. A four-point rating scale linked to a good rubric has distinct advantages for teachers: It provides a shared understanding of good (and not-so-good) teaching and gives teachers a clear sense of where they stand. Nobody wants a mediocre or ineffective teacher in the classroom next door, and an accelerated process of support and professional development for underperforming teachers, followed by dismissal for those who don’t improve, is a moral and educational imperative.

The issue of using test scores to evaluate teachers is trickier, and the UFT is right to be concerned. But while researchers and politicians battle this one out, the New York State Education Department has developed a much better process for including student achievement in teacher evaluation. In districts around the state (but not yet in New York City), teacher teams are deciding on Student Learning Objectives, testing students at the beginning of the year, and documenting learning gains for their principals. This is the best way to make student achievement part of the teacher-evaluation process, and the Big Apple should work to make it an integral part of continuously improving teaching and learning.

So why don’t the city Department of Education and the UFT agree on the broad outlines of a truly effective teacher-evaluation system, hold onto the $250 million, and implement the plan fully when the new system of teacher and principal support and accountability are in place? New York City’s students deserve no less.

Kim Marshall, a former Boston teacher, curriculum director, and principal, now works as an independent consultant with a particular focus on teacher supervision and evaluation. He is the author of Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation (Jossey-Bass 2009, second edition in press).

Print Print
  • wise owl

    Danielson is a “glorified checklist” that basically ANYBODY can do. You don’t need to be an administrator to know how to do it. It “looks” impressive, but it doesn’t impress me. They made this easy so that the someone who NEVER TAUGHT can be an administrator and know what to look for.  That is the REAL REASON that Tweed/Doe came out with it. How else could these “no experience data robots” know how to observe a teacher? They are churning them out of  the Leadership academies, online A.P. courses be able to do an observation on a teacher.  Maybe I should become an “On-Line teacher” I can sit home in my pajamas and just make sure that my face looks decent and teach from home. Actually I can get a mannequin and put it in front of the computer and dress it up to look like me, make a recording of myself and not even be there! If someone comes to my house to do an observation/evaluation ( Danielson) of me I will make sure that I am home at that time. Imagine I get nominated for teacher of the year? It could happen ladies and gents!  And by the way charter school lovers? I heard that you don’t have to be a licensed teacher. The kids teach themselves in a computer room and ANYONE can monitor it. That’s how they save on licensed, certified teachers. Now  is this person observed via Danielson? I am not buying into this new evaluation. First the Sandy victims are getting their money and now they are not. WE have no contract. The Danielson and the new evaluation DO NOT EXIST , DOES NOT COUNT For example: Let them ALL concentrate on the mess that they caused, (NOT A TEACHER!!!!) on special ed funding. Let’s not forget about that. SCREW the new evaluation! Somebody wants it to make money off! Another one for the “Word Wall”

  • wise owl

    You want DATA? I’ll give you  DATA.  As you move up the salary scale so does your chances of getting a U on an observation/rating. How come that’s not on ARIS? Would you like any more DATA? I know many new teachers that are already disgusted. They see that they are not being tenured even though many of them have earned it. They see their future all around them. Many administrators do not want veteran and new teachers to talk to each other because we might “infect” them with the TRUTH. When I first started as a teacher who did I go to? A veteran teacher. Why would I go to another new teacher that was  just as lost as I was? I got a U on an observation for the first time in almost 25 years because I went to a union meeting and spoke out. The principal was in my classroom “coincidentally” the next period. There was a “spy” at the meeting and I knew it but spoke anyway. I resent teachers who “repeat” to the principal. But some teachers have A.P. licenses and will do ANYTHING to get a job, and that includes backstabbing another teacher. Well this is my DATA. This is my STATS. And believe me there is a lot more that I could say.

  • Vote in REAL MAYOR

    When the DOE closes schools BUT keeps Boys and Girls HS open with a 38% graduation rate, you can’t take anything serious.  Everything goes out the window at that point.  Everything is just a joke because there is no leg to stand on, it’s a disgrace and the wrong message.  The system is a joke and cannot be fixed.
    Who cares about evaluations and $250 million.  It’s a joke, 1% of the budget, so we lose out on $250 million, we still have BILLIONS.

  • Mike

    It’s not clear to me why a good principal would care whether or not the evaluation scale was  4-3-2-1 or S-U.  How would the 4-level system make principals able to improve mediocre teachers or get rid of bad teachers in ways they currently wish to do but can’t?

    Also, how do the Student Learning Objectives avoid the same type of psychometric and implementation issues that the standardized tests do?    How do I design an objective system for measuring student growth in my classes if the PhD’s can’t do it?  And even if I could do so, this method of evaluation, as you describe it, sounds like it would require that I spend a huge amount of time and effort documenting my competency rather than improving my craft.  This sounds like a punitive and bureaucratic solution to a problem (tolerance of bad teaching) that is not my fault.  I’d rather they just survey the kids about whether or not I do a good job, judge me on that instead of Learning Objectives, and let me put my energy into teaching.

  • wise owl

     I have more DATA! The new evaluation will be another “SEISIS”. Another “brilliant idea” coming out of TWEED and the DOE that’s a failure and more work for us to do on our own time. They caused the mess and who do you think is going to have to clean up their mistake? You got it!  The truth is ladies and gents that they haven’t a clue on how to improve the school system. That’s why they have all these “meetings” PD, dept, etc. hoping that we do.  While these meetings are going on our work is piling up. God forbid we could have one “meeting” a month for a teacher to catch up on paperwork etc. We  do not look forward to these meetings at school, it only means more paperwork for us. Enough already!!! Let’s take into account the following” kids who don’t come to school, LTA’s, kids who constantly get suspended, kids who could not care less, kids who do not study, kids who don’t do homework, kids who don’t do classwork, kids who sleep in class, kids who did not eat breakfast, kids who are in and out of shelters, kids who are unprepared, kids who are disruptive, kids who have learning disabilities AND have problems with the English language, kids who are not good test takers to begin with etc. Are we taking THIS into consideration on the new evaluation? Do you honestly think that a teacher who deals with these kind of kids will have the same stats as teacher who doesn’t? So how can we all be measured the same way? Does one size really fit all?  In addition, A teacher who is in an undesirable school/neighborhood cannot and should not be measured the same way. Teachers are people  with feelings not robots. And we all have different personalities as well. No we are not all the same! I am sick of hearing DATA!! Get Robbie the robot to teach!

  • Proteach

    This article is filled with false platitudes and empty statements. Embarrassing. Gotham schools shame on you. The author is a joke.

  • A.S.Neill

     

    I agree that the current eval system really doesn’t work, so
    all teachers, parents, and the public should really want a new system of some
    sort. The current system is almost completely arbitrary and depends entirely on
    the personal characteristics of your principal. If he/she is reasonably mature,
    fair, and genuinely concerned with helping teachers improve, as a teacher you
    won’t even notice that you need a new eval system. On the other hand, if you
    are unlucky enough to land in a school where the principal is inept, has
    emotional or social skill deficiencies, dishonest, or has other neurotic quirks
    (check the DSM III), you are going to be in for a rough ride sooner or later,
    with very little recourse. I don’t think giving principals more supervision is
    going to help. It may sound good, but no teacher I know trusts the DOE to do
    anything right. They’ve seen the evidence.

    I believe using an explicitly defined rubric with a graded
    1-4 scoring over a number of teaching categories is an improvement, at least in
    principle. An arbitrary principal at least cannot be totally arbitrary and the
    feedback from an honest principal would be quite helpful. But a neurotic,
    immature, revengeful, dishonest, and/or immoral principal can still just make up
    whatever they want to distort reality, so ultimately teachers do not have
    secure protection even with this setup.  

    But there are two new features of the eval system that seem
    to be in place. A lot has been said how unfair the limited 13% proposed
    grievance procedure will be. But here’s the context. This is for the union to
    use only at the first year end rating of teachers with a U which they believe
    they can win outright, usually for clear harassment and anti-union behavior.
    The 13% comes from the fact that the union never won more than 13% of
    grievances on year end ratings before Bloomberg lowered that success rate to virtually
    zero. So this is an attempt to return to an earlier approximation of what was
    fair prior to Bloomberg’s total disregard of the grievance procedure.

    The real value, however, in the new eval system, is the
    second year independent monitor/mentor that must be used after the first year U
    rating. This is entirely new, and for the first time, subjects the principal’s
    rating to an outside independent observer/mentor’s recommendations of that
    teacher. Unless that independent outside observer/mentor agrees with the
    principal, the principal’s rating will likely be overturned at any hearing
    before termination at least on that part of the evaluation. Naturally, this
    outside person must be agreed by the DOE and UFT, but that person cannot be a
    DOE employee, and in effect should be equivalent to an independent arbitrator
    who actually works with the teacher.  

    This is extremely valuable, since this is the first time
    there has been any independent verification or alternative to the principals’
    evaluation of a teacher. In fact, this person’s independent evaluation
    will   be decisive in any termination hearing, not
    the principal’s evaluation.  While not
    perfect, this is much better than the eval system in place now, at least for
    this part.

    However, the real problem remains that the above part of the new
    eval system is only 60% of the total eval rating. The other 40% comes for
    student improvement data, and this is really where there are major problems. Every
    fair, informed independent observer knows that the improvement scores based on
    standardized data is a statistically flawed model when applied to teachers and
    contain an extremely large random element. That’s the good part.

    The bad part is this data can still be distorted or easily
    be manipulated against any teacher by the principal at the school level. First
    of all, many teachers do not know who their students are until well into
    October (yes, it’s true, many large HSs cannot program correctly), so the base
    line for improvement is already skewed. And at many “failing” [sic] schools
    there are huge absence rates, so there may be no baseline at all. Also, there
    are many schedule changes during the year, so say you’ve been doing well all
    year and your students are going to smash the Regents in June. Great. Suddenly
    you notice your top four students are transferred out to the principal’s pet
    teacher, and you get four new students transferred in who sleep on top of their
    desk, or have shown up two days all year.  Bingo, you’ve just been bagged! Good luck with
    that. And that’s just one way it can be done. And this is just for the 20% of
    data improvement scores based on standardized tests.

    But the second 20% of data is also extremely problematic
    since it can easily tip the balance of a total eval, and there is at present no
    indication how this will work. Already the evidence is clear that the DOE is
    preparing to use the other 20% in the same manner at the first 20%, just at the
    school level. If they are successful at this, then the new eval system will be
    dead on arrival, since the first 20% will be mostly random or distorted, and
    the second 20% decided and manipulated by principals, which together can negate
    or tip the balance of the 60% of the new eval system which is basically positive
    (at least in my opinion). I’ve found it wise never to trust administrators with
    sensitive statistical data. Usually they have trouble enough just reading and
    interpreting the contract fairly.

    Hopefully, the UFT understands all this in its current
    negotiations. That is why the UFT recently won’t even discuss the new eval
    system details until the specifics of the implementation are discussed first. But
    given the DOE’s track record of broken promises and disregard for fairness, we
    may expect a very long time before any evaluation system is in place if the
    union stays the course.  Personally, I
    cannot imagine why anyone would want to teach in NYC in this uncertain and
    hostile environment.   

     

  • East Sider

    Transparency: The Kim Marshall rubric is one of the models approved by the State for use in teacher evaluation plans … The key to any plan is the converations that occur between supervisor and teacher and among teachers. I would hope that supervisor-teacher teams will observe classes, that teachers will observe each other and that a peer assessment plan will evolve as relationships mature. Today, in too many schools, classroom observations are mechanical and supervisors are educational leaders in name only. The assumption that 150 area superintendents would improve the school district is distressing. Creating communties of learners within schools and among schools should be the goal.
    Unfortunately the current Ouchi, “Schools That Work” model has not worked … appointing a principal as “CEO” is not a leadership-management model.  

    Let’s begin by selecting a chancellor who is respected by principals and teachers, a school district leader who can “teach.”

  • wise owl

     I read the article concerning Boys and Girls High School. This is a “sample of what goes on behind closed doors: backroom deals to get your school to stay open. This would not be the first school to do this and it certainly won’t be the last. There are a lot of schools who manage to fly low under the radar including mine because of who the principal knows. Meanwhile they make it hell on earth for their staff. You wish they would close down to get rid of the stress. I don’t understand why RICHARD CONDON, SCHOOLS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR has not gone there to see what’s going on. I am waiting to see if this school gets an A rating.  I hope that Condon reads this column. If not he needs too.

  • Mike

    Very interesting.  Just to be clear, though, it’s “appeals” and not “grievances” you’re referring to.

  • Bronx teacher-lady

    While principals should definitely be held accountable for more than just their test scores, which currently make up the majority (I believe 85%) of school report cards, having area superintendents who supervise 12 or so schools each is not the solution. This has been tried before, during Klein’s first “reorganization,” except they were called, I believe, local instructional superintendents (LIS). Many were just as inexperienced and ineffective as the principals they were supervising. The one in charge of my school (a Bronx elementary school) only had experience as an out-of-state high school principal and had no clue what good teaching at the early childhood looked like. Unless the DOE is willing to hire truly experienced administrators, preferrably who have worked their way up within the system, as these area superintendents, it will be the same situation all over again of inexperienced LIS’s leading inexperinenced principals.

  • Rafika

    This is a fascinating article and discussion.  Assessment, counseling and professional development need to be integral parts of any professional environment, as well as the ability to cull those who are not meeting the minimum requirements.  Too many fields suffer from personnel who lack motivation to improve or the adequate support they need in order to do so.  This is a multifaceted problem that requires accountability on all sides, particularly with respect to the educational system, where our children’s lives and our nation’s future hangs in the balance.

  • Gregster

    The S/U rubric for observations have worked fine for many years and I do not see any problem with it. (Nor do many other veteran principals) As mentioned by some of the other commenters below, a good principal knows good teaching and does not need a “gotcha list” created by the DOE hit squads to evaluate a teacher. With the new Danielson and implementation of VAM scores, teachers will loose their homes, kids will hate school, and nobody is going to want to enter the fear-based teaching profession. I feel sorry for kids, teachers, administrators and parents, who once all worked together for what is best. Now, corporate goons who are all Hellbent on making a buck are pulling the strings in the education profession. Many thought this was just a conspiracy, but it is now a wide open fact.

  • KitchenSink

    I don’t know where you have been teaching and leading, butthe hundreds of teachers and principals I have met over the years almost universally think the U/S system is either a joke OR something to be manipulated. It has not worked “fine” and it has not helped anyone improve.

  • KitchenSink

    I think you mean at the end of your comment, “why anyone who is not adept at new tricks to CYA would want to teach in NYC…”

  • Second Career Bronx Teacher

    I absolutely believe that principals need more direct and accountable supervision and suppport from superintendents and the current superintendent/network organization does not work! How can you be supervised by a network you can replace ??? How can you be the superintendent to so many schools that it is impossible to adequately supervise your schools. Accountability at the superintendent/network level is practically non-existent!!! If this was fixed, superintendents and network leaders jobs should be at risk whenever a school under their supervision is identified at risk of closure. Teachers cannot be the only ones held accountable. Administration must become the primary source of accountability. Administration must be trained, developed and held accountable for teaching and learning and management of each school at the principal and superintendent level. This would clear up 90% of the nonsense that is going on now and reduce significantly all the school closures. 

  • Doc58

    That is simply not true. As an administrator who has implemented the Danielson model I can assure you that effective teachers are recognized and ineffective ones are prioritized to either become better or move out. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?

  • Gregster

    Hey KitchenSink. If I remember correctly you are a charter school administrator so you are not effected by all of this new evaluation nonsense. However, there are tens of thousands of hard working NYC teachers that will now face loosing their homes and the ability to put food on the table due to a new evaluation system that uses faulty data and a gotcha mentality. I am NOT an administrator. Rather, I am an 17 year veteran teacher. I have never met a single teacher in my career who is “unsatisfied” with the current S/U system. I also have never met a teacher who is yearning for more constant evaluation. Lastly, I have spoke with quite a number of administrators and they have informed me that Danielson is a nightmare of paperwork.

  • wise owl

    Sing God Bless America when the administrators walk in

  • just curious

    How long did you teach before you became an administrator?

  • LadyO

    I taught for two years in Montgomery County, MD after teaching for a number of years in Orange County, FL. When I arrived at my MCPS school, my principal was in PAR. That means after one year on the job, he was found to be an ineffective leader. One of the complaints was that he bullied teachers. As a result, he was assigned a mentor and received assistance during his second year. (If he failed to show improvement, he would be fired.) He had over ten years experience as a principal in another state prior to that position in MCPS. In the two years I taught there, he changed greatly and was a wonderful leader. He needed time and help and he got it.
    They have the same system for teachers and other administrators. Everyone is held accountable. Everyone does the job they are assigned. Everyone receives the assistance they need to grow professionally.  

    MCPS is a top-performing county. Go figure.
    This is my fifth year teaching in NYC and I have taught at two schools. I have taught alongside amazing teachers and teachers so horrible I get angry. The first administration I worked for used intimidation to get “results.” At my current school, my administration believes in teamwork and community. I know that I am lucky. NYC does not perform near the top. Not surprised.  
    But I frequently think of Darwin.  

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

11 comments so far today
View all comments »

RSS Feeds

Newsroom posts Community posts All GothamSchools content

Archives

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

Copyright Notice