An Independent Voice That Advocates For The Classroom Educator Without The Corrupting Politics Tied To Our Union And DOE Leadership.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Is There A Disconnect Between The Union And The City When It Comes To What The "Teacher Evaluation System" Should Consist Of? Yes There Is!
The more I read, the more I believe that there is a disconnect between the union and the City on what the final "teacher evaluation system" will consist of. A little history is necessary. The negotiations for a "teacher evaluation system" was stalled over the appeals process for teachers who were found "ineffective" two years in a row. The union wanted the present 3020-a appeals process to continue with an independent Arbitrator to determine if the teacher should be terminated while the City wanted the Chancellor to make the decision, after an internal DOE hearing. The State intervened and a compromise was reached which allows the teacher rated "ineffective" to take their case to the 3020-a Arbitrator but the burden of proof for 87% of the teachers found "ineffective" is on them to show that they are not incompetent. Poor odds indeed! However, it turns out there are some very important issues that were not resolved and it now seems both sides do not see "eye-to-eye" on the "teacher evaluation system". Let's look at some of these differences.
The union has suggested that the City has tentatively agreed to a 85-90% minimum student attendance rate for the student to count on a teacher's "value-added" score. However, nowhere does the City agree to the student attendance value. In fact, the State does not allow for a student attendance provision in the approved "teacher evaluation system" and has refused such a waiver from the Buffalo School District. Here. While, the union insists that the City has agreed not to use truant students, I do not believe that the City will agree to this on the final "teacher evaluation system".
City Standardized Tests:
In the uproar of the DOE idiocy of banning 50 topics, including evolution, poverty, vacations, etc. The fact that these banned topics refer to City standardized tests. Why would you need City standardized tests if the State is giving their own tests? The answer is simple, the other 20% of "locally agreed measures" will be the "City standardized test"! Look at the DOENUTS blog for more information on this. I also recommend the assiledteacher blog as well. I guess the union's idea of "teacher directed academics " as a part of this component is not part of the DOE's.
The union and City have a real disconnect on the 29% of the objective measures of the "teacher evaluation system". The union has strongly hinted that the 29% will be based upon some form of "peer review" while the DOE wants an undefined teacher portfolio analysis who will be evaluated by the school's Administration. I have heard this DOE proposal from a "Children First Network Manager" and have no reason to disbelieve it based upon the DOE's past practices.
I am increasingly convinced that, despite the union's statements, there are some serious issues remaining and wide disagreements in what the final "teacher evaluation program" should include. Maybe it would be best to wait for Mayor Bloomberg to leave office and let the DOE fight with the SED on the possible loss of a 4% State increase for the 2013-2014 school year.