Since the NYSED has developed a "student growth" algorithm back in 2012 to evaluate teachers, experts have stated that the State algorithm does not accurately represent student growth and should not be used to evaluate teachers. Despite a ground breaking report showing that only 1% (high schools) to 14% ( K-2 Elementary schools) of a student's growth is affected by any one teacher, the State required 40% of a teacher's evaluation be based upon high-stakes tests. Unless something changes, a teacher's evaluation will be based upon 50% of these high-stakes tests, starting next year, despite a four year moratorium on the use of the Common Core based high-stakes tests for grades 3-8.
The testing mania is supported by the education deformer organizations, charter schools, the media, Governor Cuomo, and yes, UFT President Michael Mulgrew who will punch you in the face if you oppose his Common Core based tests. That's correct our own union President supports Common Core based high-stakes testing to evaluate teachers. Of course, Mikey is not subject to these tests himself.
Fortunately, a Great Neck elementary school teacher decided to sue the NYSED on their growth algorithm and a judge handed down a decision that invalidated the 2013-14 evaluation for the teacher claiming it was "junk science" and not valid to determine a teachers effectiveness. In fact, the judge called the growth model "arbitrary and capricious" and not based on good science. The Answer Sheet article about the decision is a must read and can be found Here. If you want to read the entire Sheri G. Lederman decision you can read it Here.
Maybe this is the beginning of the end in the test crazy education deformer effort to demonize teachers and hopefully we will see the pendulum swing back to teacher autonomy in the classroom and making learning fun again for the students.
9 comments:
The Danielson rubric is also arbitrary and capricious. Bring back S or U and put an end to multiple pop in drive by observations. The old way was fine no matter what Mulgrew says.
I still don't get it. So for THIS year, are we being evaluated with 50% test scores or is it 100% principal evaluation?
The old way is infinitely better than the new way. No argument there. The only thing that I personally didn't like about the old way was that (depending on the rating administrator) One single component that was checked off in the box as "U" could potentially outweigh every single other component that was rated as "S" in one's overall end of the year rating/performance.
I know one teacher in the school that I used to work in who got a U for the year because he made a joke at the end of his formal observation that did not sit well with the principal.
Chaz talked about another teacher receiving a U simply for getting a ltf.
Whoever doesn't file a lawsuit that is being destroyed by Danielson and MOSL is not thinking straight. This decision proves the observation system is flawed. Flood the courts with these lawsuits because now this is evidence that nobody should be losing their license through such and arbitrary and capricious process.
Still doesn't matter. Danielson's is the big elephant in the room. It is a cudgel that principals use on us to oppress us and treat us unfairly. It is rife with possibilities for abuse.
Hello. Is it possible for someone to explain Article 17, Rule 10 of the contract? This states that a teacher can never be excessed if he/she has completed 20 years of service in his/her license area. Is this a solid rule? I indeed have 20+ years in my subject area in high school, so does that mean I can never be excessed (unless the school is closing, which it's not). Thanks. Any feedback would be grateful.
Can't sue if you're unenured
Thomas you can file an article 78!
An article 78 is very expensive and there's still a good chance that you might not win. And what's ironic is that if you are able to get back into the DOE then your basically starting out all over again in trying to get tenure. None of this nonsense applies to schools outside the DOE
Post a Comment