This is the blog section of the PURE Reform website. Please leave your thoughts and comments here.
PURE Reform has created this blog as a forum for parents, teachers and community members to share information and voice concerns regrading the reform process in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Although we would like to foster constructive dialogue, PURE Reform does not edit content. The views expressed by bloggers in this forum are not necessarily views held by PURE Reform.
To comment on an existing topic, go to the line at the bottom of the post for that topic that begins "Posted by..." That line will list "1 comment," "2 comments," etc. Click on "comments," then leave your comment in the box provided. To post as Anonymous, no registration is required, OR you can choose an identity.
To suggest a new topic, go to this month's post labeled "Start a New Post" and add your comment (as described above) about the new suggested topic. PURE Reform will use these comments to start new posts.
She worked for Bush and is so open minded she changed her mind."
18 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You really need to make the links on the home page real links as those with a touchscreen can not cut and paste to get to the link. Just seeing the URL in the text means it needs to be typed into a browser bar. The iPad and tablet users, and those on phone devices will love you for this assistance.
"IF we are serious about school reform, we would change our efforts from the current punitive approach to a strategy of building a strong education profession and attending to the conditions of children's lives. Instead of closing schools that are often the most stable institution in the neighborhood, we would be improving them. Instead of firing experienced teachers, we would be making sure that they have the tools to do their job. Instead of ignoring poverty and its negative consequences, we would be designing programs to help families and children. Instead of creating programs to insert inexperienced teachers, principals, and superintendents into our schools, we would take steps to recruit, support, and respect those who work in our nation's schools."
Please, Linda Lane and Company take heed and REVERSE your current MO! PPS is being destroyed under the current philosophy and protocols!
The 1:09 entry here are the words from Diane Ravitch's concluding statement. (This prefaced the entry but was not included in the previous blog.) Attribution is critical for depth of understanding.
the boe needs to deep six the rise teacher evaluation system the system is too cumbersome administrators are so bogged down in its paperwork that their school leadership responsibilities are being compromised there so many quality observations that can be done that provide excellent feedack and allow the principal to use his or her skills in the classrooms rather then writing at their desks this system really needs a fresh start away from the top down failed leadership of roosevelt et al to a shared model.
"Focusing teachers" predates RISE, which is the new evaluation tool for determining if we are doing our jobs. I have a principal I really trust so when I was "risen" the experience was positive and reflective and kind of interesting. However, it does take up a lot of time for both teachers and administrators. And you can definitely see some subjective sounding areas that you feel like could be easily used for trying to get rid of someone who you simply don't like.
"Focusing" sounds like a process than is needlessly hurtful and destructive. There must be other ways to bring about improvement- maybe RISE w/out the focusing? When did focusing begin anyway?
Focusing is shorthand. "Teacher Improvement Plan" is the official title of this process. You might hear of teachers "being put on a plan" or "being focused" and it means the same thing. The terms are still used now. "Focusing" has been a term in the district for a long time -- at least twenty years, I'm thinking.
In theory, focusing is meant to help teachers get better at what they're doing. Because it involves a lot of paperwork, principals tend not to focus anyone unless they really want to get rid of someone, so "to be focused" has taken on an ominous meaning. No one gets focused to just better their craft of teaching. It just means they want to fire you.
I think RISE is, in spirit, supposed to address this. You can talk about areas for growth in a non-threatening way without putting yourself at risk of losing your job -- we all have areas for improvement, of course. But the longer I teacher in this district and the more exposure I have to principals who have pulled some shady things (on me, on close colleagues) the more distrustful, cynical and sometimes paranoid I become.
I have a principal right now with whom I work very well. We actually had this kind of conversation during my RISE evaluation. We actually discussed a principal with whom I had seen some of these "shady things" happen and my current principal validated my feelings and bridged the gap between teacher and administrator and the discussion was very productive and positive. Sadly my principal is part of the old guard and will likely retire soon, which will be loss to the district.
Anyway, I hope this helps with the RISE and focus questions.
Well, focusing is the answer to that common complaint that "you can't fire teachers."
You can fire teachers, with or without tenure, as long as they are not doing their job and you have followed all the procedures. Yes, it takes time, yes, the teacher is given a chance to improve, yes, it's a lot of paperwork and observations.
It always makes me angry to hear that you "can't" when it's truly a lazy administrator that's the reason.
NOW, I think what's changed in the time since MR is that focusing went from being the process with which a teacher either improved or left, to a standard practice. Principals have been told that they have to focus teachers -- that they should have a certain percentage of teachers on an improvement plan or face a plan themselves...
THAT'S where the problem really comes in. If you have to focus, you're going to look to people you don't like, if you have to focus some schools are going to lose perfectly good teachers, etc.
I'll weigh in and say that one administrator admitted to me, completely off the record, that they (our building admins) were told they had to focus at least two teachers. This, however, is vehemently denied by central admin. The PFT used to deny it too, but even they are now starting to change their toon (at least privately).
Hehe meant to say "change their tune," but maybe my original word choice is more appropriate, given the cartoon state of the relationship between the PFT and PPS.
18 comments:
You really need to make the links on the home page real links as those with a touchscreen can not cut and paste to get to the link. Just seeing the URL in the text means it needs to be typed into a browser bar. The iPad and tablet users, and those on phone devices will love you for this assistance.
Ravitch's words sound so familiar. I think I have heard many of the same thoughts expressed by parents at EFA meetings, (for many years).
"IF we are serious about school reform, we would change our efforts from the current punitive approach to a strategy of building a strong education profession and attending to the conditions of children's lives. Instead of closing schools that are often the most stable institution in the neighborhood, we would be improving them. Instead of firing experienced teachers, we would be making sure that they have the tools to do their job. Instead of ignoring poverty and its negative consequences, we would be designing programs to help families and children. Instead of creating programs to insert inexperienced teachers, principals, and superintendents into our schools, we would take steps to recruit, support, and respect those who work in our nation's schools."
Please, Linda Lane and Company take heed and REVERSE your current MO! PPS is being destroyed under the current philosophy and protocols!
The 1:09 entry here are the words from Diane Ravitch's concluding statement. (This prefaced the entry but was not included in the previous blog.)
Attribution is critical for depth of understanding.
the boe needs to deep six the rise teacher evaluation system the system is too cumbersome administrators are so bogged down in its paperwork that their school leadership responsibilities are being compromised there so many quality observations that can be done that provide excellent feedack and allow the principal to use his or her skills in the classrooms rather then writing at their desks this system really needs a fresh start away from the top down failed leadership of roosevelt et al to a shared model.
Is the rise system what makes some teachers "focused"?
Is the rise system what makes some teachers "focused"?
You can copy paste with the IPad.
Clicking (on an iPad and even on a computer with a browser) is much, much, much easier.
I don't think gmail blogs are set up for hyperlinks. I have an IPad & PC. (No, I do not work at the central office!)
Btw, how did all central admin get IPad's, and who funded it?
"Focusing teachers" predates RISE, which is the new evaluation tool for determining if we are doing our jobs. I have a principal I really trust so when I was "risen" the experience was positive and reflective and kind of interesting. However, it does take up a lot of time for both teachers and administrators. And you can definitely see some subjective sounding areas that you feel like could be easily used for trying to get rid of someone who you simply don't like.
"Focusing" sounds like a process than is needlessly hurtful and destructive. There must be other ways to bring about improvement- maybe RISE w/out the focusing? When did focusing begin anyway?
Focusing is shorthand. "Teacher Improvement Plan" is the official title of this process. You might hear of teachers "being put on a plan" or "being focused" and it means the same thing. The terms are still used now. "Focusing" has been a term in the district for a long time -- at least twenty years, I'm thinking.
In theory, focusing is meant to help teachers get better at what they're doing. Because it involves a lot of paperwork, principals tend not to focus anyone unless they really want to get rid of someone, so "to be focused" has taken on an ominous meaning. No one gets focused to just better their craft of teaching. It just means they want to fire you.
I think RISE is, in spirit, supposed to address this. You can talk about areas for growth in a non-threatening way without putting yourself at risk of losing your job -- we all have areas for improvement, of course. But the longer I teacher in this district and the more exposure I have to principals who have pulled some shady things (on me, on close colleagues) the more distrustful, cynical and sometimes paranoid I become.
I have a principal right now with whom I work very well. We actually had this kind of conversation during my RISE evaluation. We actually discussed a principal with whom I had seen some of these "shady things" happen and my current principal validated my feelings and bridged the gap between teacher and administrator and the discussion was very productive and positive. Sadly my principal is part of the old guard and will likely retire soon, which will be loss to the district.
Anyway, I hope this helps with the RISE and focus questions.
Yes, it does help- have to be careful not to blame MR for everything.
Maybe RISE can now replace focusing as a kinder approach more in line with what we would like to model for students.
Well, focusing is the answer to that common complaint that "you can't fire teachers."
You can fire teachers, with or without tenure, as long as they are not doing their job and you have followed all the procedures. Yes, it takes time, yes, the teacher is given a chance to improve, yes, it's a lot of paperwork and observations.
It always makes me angry to hear that you "can't" when it's truly a lazy administrator that's the reason.
NOW, I think what's changed in the time since MR is that focusing went from being the process with which a teacher either improved or left, to a standard practice. Principals have been told that they have to focus teachers -- that they should have a certain percentage of teachers on an improvement plan or face a plan themselves...
THAT'S where the problem really comes in. If you have to focus, you're going to look to people you don't like, if you have to focus some schools are going to lose perfectly good teachers, etc.
It did seem kind of Rooseveltian.
I'll weigh in and say that one administrator admitted to me, completely off the record, that they (our building admins) were told they had to focus at least two teachers. This, however, is vehemently denied by central admin. The PFT used to deny it too, but even they are now starting to change their toon (at least privately).
Hehe meant to say "change their tune," but maybe my original word choice is more appropriate, given the cartoon state of the relationship between the PFT and PPS.
Post a Comment