On another post Anonymous wrote:
"Pittsburgh's problems have gone national. Check out this latest edition of EDUCATION WEEK.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/22/18pittsburgh.h33.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mrss&cmp=RSS-FEED
Nina Visgitis could not be reached for comment. Why not? This was a national opportunity to tell the PFT story."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Lopping off the bottom 15% of teachers doesn't SOUND too bad, if a reliable and nonbiased evaluation system could be designed. But does that mean that in year 2 another 15% are fired? And then in year 3 another 15% are fired? Who would sign on to work in a system like this, unless they had no other options? And how would we prevent teachers from being viewed as unsatisfactory simply for resisting administration experiments that later proved to be flawed anyway, such as ALA's? The PFT is right to object.
Inside info-- when confronted with actual human teachers even Ms. Nina was shocked at the results-- when you KNOW great teachers it is hard to confront what happened with VAM and Rise....
After reading this article, it sound like EdWeek receives Gates money too, is that correct?
I don't understand why they said Lane scuttled the teaching academy because the union wouldn't give up seniority as a consideration for layoffs. She cut the academy because the school district couldn't afford to run it--any of it--and knew they wouldn't be able to hire its grads either, even with layoffs. The academy teachers were going to be paid a salary while enrolled there. Such old news, too. That happened three years ago at least. Who cares now? Union busting. Dirty work, that's all. Wants to turn employees into slaves.
Maybe this is for another thread but, is there an evaluation system for administrators? I don't mean those at CO although it is certain from previous post they have their problems and issues. I mean the few principals who started every school without provided students with schedules and teachers with class rosters on the first day. The few principals who change the master schedule three and four times a semester( without warning to students or teachers) because they just couldn't right the first time. Does this happen in the Fox Chapel or Upper St. Clair School Districts? Probably not but it's ok for our lowest performing schools. If you want effective teachers you have to set them up to be effective. Every classroom management book or text states, teachers should plan for their class before the first day of school. How is a teacher supposed to plan for the year if they don' t who their teaching or often what their teaching (subject) until the second or third week of school after school has already started. I garantee this is happening in the schools with school performances scores below seventy. If you want effective wasn't effective teachers you have to set them up to be effective.
Question above:
And how would we prevent teachers from being viewed as unsatisfactory simply for resisting administration experiments that later proved to be flawed anyway, such as ALA's?
That is a serious question I guess.
I'd say apples and oranges.
A teacher in the classroom has certain evaluations. Those are apples. Then there is the administrative leadership objections. Those are oranges. To question, at the right times, to counter propose, in the right spirit, to discount and shine a light on failed policies, in civil ways, has NOTHING to do with one's performance in the classroom.
Finally, the classroom evaluations should have nothing to do with the objections to overall district strategies.
The two should be clearly different.
Now, what we can't have are teachers that bitch to the students. We can't have a lot of complaining in the classroom rather than solid instruction.
To the ones in the day-to-day saga of PPS, the Teachers Academy (Brashear and elsewhere?) are old news. They pulled the plug on that effort after yanking around a lot of teachers and principals and spinning a lot of hype. Sure, water over the darn damn of the past.
But, to the public, that shifting change of heart is fair game and should be on the table in terms of evaluation of PPS leadership.
The overall body of work, in recent times, should include the Teachers Academy miss-fire.
"Evaluations SHOULD have nothing to do with objections",,, SHOULD us the operative word, in reality objections have not been well tolerated beginning with the MR era. And as long as time spent is not objective I think older students should be able to hear teachers legitimate concerns.
Mark, I don't know if you are in proximity to many teachers, but the atmosphere of fear is beyond palpable in PPS. I can't imagine what teacher would stray off of the scripted curriculum, let alone "bitch" ad infinitum about RISE to the students.
Truth be told, I have not seen or heard of many 'lacking' teachers since the days of "site based management" a decade ago. You see, building principals got rid of the fat because they simply had to what with budget limitations being handed to them by the board.
THOSE building principals make THIS lot look laughable, at best.
Someone asked if there is an evaluation for administrators. If you mean building administrators, I understand that this is in the formative stages and is being tweaked.
But as a taxpayer, the only evaluation of Linda Lane that one needs to know is the continual downward spiral of student test scores.
With a forced curriculum, it tells you all you need to know about her leadership: complete failure.
And where the Promise is concerned, let's unearth the drop out rate of kids who somehow made it through to graduation, took the money, and couldn't hack it. Those stats are out there. Let's see them. And when we do, we can make an evaluation of the assistant superintendent's 50% grading policy: complete failure.
The last nail in the coffin of this district central administration should be the flight of Pittsburgh's families to other academic alternatives.
With that in mind, how do these people have jobs? How does a school board vote to give Lane a raise?
And Questioner, many thanks for your opening post. It's clear to me that you have learned what RISE truly is: a blank check for district administrators to go after anyone one they want. In essence, it is a salary dump.
There are schools where a few teachers use a similar technique ("almost everyone failed the test") so they can pick and choose the end result, and schools where to their credit, and despite whatever other problems they may have, that would never fly.
10:07 it is called re-writing history.
11:13 Mark, I am surprised that you sound a bit pollyanna-ish. Once at an open house, I had a lively discussion with a GREAT teacher, now retired. I wouldn't ever think he bitched about stuff but know that he thoughtfully approached his superiors with objections to changes. When we parted he looked at me like I might be the last person on earth on his side. There are far too many lines in the sand.
Saying nothing just perpetuates PR approaches of pretending everything is terrific when it is not. And students recognize when there are problems, and if teachers refuse to acknowledge that anything is wrong it makes the students doubt themselves or their teachers.
Solidarity brought the strength to raise issues-- not a union that suggests resigning to anyone not drinking the kool-aid.
9:24, well said. I would say that it behooves all teachers to keep good records. Document everything. And make sure that if you are in an untenable situation, you have a good labor lawyer. I hear that many teachers have such lawyers and have sued the district. I can only applaud them.
Agreed, 4:13. The PFT is no friend to teachers---especially veteran teachers, the true targets of Linda Lane and the people who champion RISE.
It's a salary dump, plain and simple. Getting to know good labor lawyers is a plus in this era. Any teacher who has been a survivor of two decades in what often times is a cesspool, and then is suddenly told that he or she cannot teach effectively---needs to be proactive.
It's unfortunate. It's not cheap. But you have to do what's right for you and never, ever give in to the bullying tactics of Lane and PPS central administration.
Hire a lawyer and go after these people.
Enjoyed Randi Weingarten's reply to Berman in today's Trib. I don't agree with everything she alludes to---and especially don't appreciate the comments about teachers being 'tired of the adversarial relationship with administration' nor he many comments about the formative stages of the evaluation system--but I did like the fact that she made Berman look like the carpetbagger he is to the reading public.
Clearly, she knows how to write better than our local "union leader."
Blast from the past:
https://vimeo.com/12153781
Labor cooperation is part of the message from PPS Superintendent Mark Roosevelt.
Here is Dr. Lane speaking about the teacher evaluation dispute.
http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/openGraph/wid/0_7lty6vn7
In the video Dr. Lane speaks of progress already made. Really? Where is the proof that this evaluation system will advance the teaching profession and improve outcomes for children?
She explains that teachers only need 1/2 of the points to be proficient. But, how are the points given? Is it a reliable system? Again, where is the proof?
We are supposed to have faith that the system will accurately identify the worst teachers in the district. If it doesn't--oh well, at least it is better than what we had 4 years ago.
Any attempt to criticize the system is equated with wanting to lower the standards. Pointing out that the system is flawed and teachers are not being fairly measured is not asking for lowered standards. In Washington DC teachers were fired and in some cases given bonuses in their flawed evaluation system. Is this what we want?
At the very least, we need to demand a conversation. By we I mean parents(like me), students and community members. Teachers jobs are at stake--they have too much to lose.
I agree, when does the public meet with the administration, Board Representatives, PFT, Mayor Peduto and City Council Representatives? We are all in this together for the betterment of the city. Increasing Pittsburgh's population is based on three major considerations: jobs, taxes and school performance in the areas of safety/academics/attendance and graduation rates. Then other considerations such as safety in the city, housing costs, advanced educational and training opportunities, the arts, health care, sport venues, parks and recreation and nightlife impact into one's decision.
This is what the union really cares about. Perhaps the SEIU could take over the pft
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/01/28/Union-members-pack-Pennsylvania-Capitol-to-protest-dues-collection-bill/stories/201401280144
Post a Comment