No Two Troublemakers Are the Same

by Recovering ATR

You know how sometimes it seems as if 99% of your problems whittle down to two students? That's the case this year with a Terrible Twosome that I'll call Johnny and Bobby, for the sake of anonymity. On the surface, Johnny and Bobby are very similar in personality and behavior. They're streetwise, and probably could be very successful if they ever directed their energies towards something positive. As it stands now, they spend all their time being disrespectful, racist bullies. Johnny and Bobby have made racist, sexist remarks in class all year long, they both are awesome liars, and their very presence unnerves the other students. And to be honest, they were unnerving me as well.

Yesterday was a particularly bad day for the Terrible Twosome. Bobby's mother actually came to the school insisting that I had said something I hadn't said. I showed Bobby's mother a letter Bobby had written me apologizing for his rude, disrespectful behavior in class and Bobby's mother looked embarrassed but started with a litany of excuses about why Bobby would make such comments. I also told his mother that once in class Bobby had begged for some candy because he said he was hungry, and I gave him a tangerine, and he had two bites, said "Ew it's squishy!" and threw it away. Bobby's mother laughed in delight. "Bobby hates squishy food, he's always been a picky eater," she said. She went on that he was an "angel." I tried to stifle my laughter. I quickly saw that calling Bobby's mother for bad behavior was going to be useless, as she was a total enabler.

Bobby knows this too. "You can't do anything to me," he once taunted. "My mom is not going to do anything, she loves me and gives me everything I want and tells me to be myself." Since Christmas he's been showing off his new cell phone, ipod touch, clothes, and other goodies bought from Mom.

Johnny, on the other hand, I dragged into my AP's office yesterday where I forced him to give me a working number for his home, since the number listed on ARIS was a number to a senior citizens' home. Johnny made up a whole bunch of more lies about me to the AP, screamed and yelled for about 20 minutes, before finally giving me the numbers. "I never get in trouble," he said.

Ten minutes later I was on the phone with Johnny's mother. "Oh boy," she said, like she already knew. I started with the usual euphemisms: "Johnny is a real leader, and he has a lot of positive qualities ..." before recounting the various ways in which Johnny was using his leadership qualities to cause mayhem. "We'll straighten this out right away," the mother said, her voice already sounding angry. "This is unacceptable and this is not the first phone call I've gotten from teachers, you will see a new Johnny tomorrow," she finished.

Today both Johnny and Bobby came to class. Johnny looked like a different Johnny, indeed. He sat where I told him to sit, he was quiet and diligent and finished his test without a peep. Bobby was on the opposite end of the room and without Johnny couldn't start any trouble. The class went by without any disruption from either.

Point of this story? Well, in the day when seemingly everything is blamed on the teacher, this shows that actually, it's the parents who make the biggest impact. The only real difference between Johnny and Bobby is that Johnny's parents are obviously more proactive than Bobby's parents. I called Johnny's parents once, and Johnny comes in the next day looking shellshocked. I called Bobby's parents I don't know how many times, and all I got was excuses and accusations. Now I know how to control Johnny's behavior, but Bobby? What can a teacher do if the mother finds Bobby calling Asians "monkeys" and women (insert obscene word for a female body part) cute?

But I forgot, it's all the teacher's fault.

Song of the Week

 Hula Girl

The Growth Model in Medicine

-->

We all depend on doctors. They have a very good reputation, are highly educated, and we tend to trust them. Here’s a disturbing statistic, though. As western medicine is organized now, 100% of patients tend to die.

Clearly, there’s something wrong with this system. If 100% of patients die, what value are doctors adding? Sure, some say, they can provide medicine, surgery, and advice that often puts off the inevitable. But why should Americans, including children (whom we place first) invest countless millions of dollars in something that guarantees only death?

The only solution, as far as I can tell, is to institute a system that rewards good doctors. For example, I myself have seen many doctors, yet I'm not in as good shape as I was twenty years ago. I have less hair, and it's not quite the same color it used to be. Furthermore, I'm a government employee, and the taxpayers have subsidized my health insurance. Why on earth should they be paying for this?

 We need to offer merit pay to doctors who can reverse the aging process. Let's face it--everyone wants to be young and beautiful. People pay millions chasing this ideal. Yet our doctors go to school for years, study all sorts of things, and still people grow old and die.

Mayor Bloomberg is looking a little under the weather lately, to tell you the truth. It baffles me that he doesn't champion this cause.

It certainly makes about as much sense as anything else he's done lately. 

Inside the Top Secret UFT Evaluation Committee

We have come into possession of this top-secret recording and transcribed it for you below.

Please come to order. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Opposed? The minutes are approved. Please place them in the shredder, Mike Shulman.

I'm Mike Shulman, dammit! Mike Shulman used to be vice-president of UFT!

Thank you for sharing that, Mike. Are there any opening comments?

How can we use value-added to judge UFT members? Hundreds of teachers lost their jobs in DC! Won't that happen here?

The chair rules the member is out of order. (screaming in background) The member will be quiet or once again spend the meeting in the copy room listening to Mike Shulman. (audible protesting ceases immediately) Are there any other comments?

Yes, we've been looking at negotiation since 2010. We've now got one week to work out this entire system. Do you really think we can get this done fairly in one week?

Well, we're doing the best we can. Is there anything else before we get down to the business at hand?

Well, yes. The press is making a big deal out of how we can lose 250 million in funding. That's one percent of the education budget, but Bloomberg has cut 14 percent of the budget since 2007. Shouldn't we be letting the public know about that?

Well, it's always dangerous dealing with the press. That's why we're so circumspect about it.

What does that mean?

It means we don't bother with PR. We leave that to Tweed. Now please, can we get down to the business at hand?

What is that?

What are we going to call opponents of the junk science system?

Idiots?

Jerks?

No, we need something more compelling.

How about if we call them ugly? People hate it when you do that.

No, we need to think of something new.

I know. Let's call them Tea Partiers.

I like that. It has a ring to it.

All in favor?  All opposed?

The motion is carried. Peter Goodman can blog it. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

I second the motion.

Top secret meeting is adjourned.

Teabaggers All

The new line from UFT leadership is that anyone who opposes junk science evaluation, which they helped write into the law, is a Tea Partier. To them, this is code for people who just say no to everything--they are simple-minded, contrarian galoots who speak only to hear the sound of their own voices, or to create problems for no reason whatsoever. However, by their standard,we are in very good company here.

Diane Ravitch is a Tea Partier. She's written extensively on why VAM is junk science. Just days ago, she praised Hamburg, NY teachers for voting down a junk science plan. A huge difference between Hamburg, NY and New York NY is that Hamburg teachers, rank and file, actually got to vote on this system. This is a big plus for those of us who believe in democracy, where the people have the ultimate voice. What is the word for people who don't believe in democracy?

Nonetheless, Ravitch has been a consistent and outspoken opponent of VAM, growth model, or whatever it is they're calling this weeks rat juice.

Aaron Pallas is a Tea Partier. Pallas has written brilliantly, in various venues, on the lack of validity of so-called value added. He had a great piece about how 400 DC teachers were fired on standards that may have been invalid. Many of us here see people fired for no reason and say to ourselves, "This is absolutely unacceptable." It's very tough to make the argument we're simply being negative for no reason.

Principal Carol Burris is a Tea Partier. She's written repeatedly for the Washington Post on the myths and misconceptions of this system. She's likened it to building a plane while in the air, and explained very clearly why that may not be the best of ideas.I've seen her speak against it, and find her eloquent and persuasive. Furthermore, she has very definite ideas about where this is leading. But, according to UFT leadership, she's an empty-headed Teabagger making trouble for no reason whatsoever.

One third of New York State Principals are Tea Partiers. They signed a petition opposing this evaluation system. I've spoken to principals who say they'll have no time to do anything but observe, and that this will certainly cut into the time they would have spent helping struggling new teachers. In fact, despite what Leadership Academy grads (many of whom have little or no classroom experience) may say, the fact is that helping teachers is really one of their primary roles.

Finally, AFT President Randi Weingarten is a Tea Partier. She specifically referred to value-added modeling as junk science, earning kudos from not only Diane Ravitch, but also from yours truly. Yet, by the definition set forth by my UFT leadership, not only all those mentioned, but I too am a Tea Partier.

Still, it's pretty distinguished company in which I find myself. Let UFT leadership engage in juvenile name-calling, if that's how they feel they can best defend this abomination they wish to foist upon us.

Sticks and stones.

The New Skill Set for Effective Teachers

by Recovering ATR

I go to a lot of dance performances, and sometimes the dancers are performing new "experimental" choreography. Sometimes the new choreography is wonderful, and everyone goes home happy. But there was one particular performance of a new dance that was so excruciatingly bad that when the dancers came out towards the end for a curtain call they looked mortified. Like "please don't remember me for this."

This particular mortified look can be found on people with some self-awareness when they're forced to make a presentation that they know is just complete nonsense. I remembered the dancers when my AP held a department meeting this week and explained the new Regents grading protocol. To help along with the process he prepared a powerpoint lecture. I was assigned to take the meeting minutes, so I think I paid more attention to him than most people in the department. His speech and the lecture went something like this:

"Ok in January some teachers will be going elsewhere whereas some teachers will be staying here where they'll be joined by a lot of other teachers from other schools and we'll be grading the exams of students from schools that don't include us and the schools of all the teachers who will be joining us for grading meanwhile proctors be very careful because all our tests have to be labeled packaged and shipped to another site and be sure you take attendance carefully because once the exams are finished they have to be boxed immediately and shipped so we can't account for any missing exams but if all goes smoothly then our students' tests will be graded and uploaded to AIS and the exams we grade will be uploaded to AIS so it will all work out and here's a flowchart I made of all the instructions proctors have to follow but I can go back a slide or two if you guys missed any of the steps and by the way I attended an all-day seminar on this and these are the new rules and ..."

At this point a teacher interrupted him and said, "With all due respect I teach AP Physics but I haven't the foggiest idea what we're supposed to do."

The AP drew a deep breath. "Well, here's the flowchart."

Intransigent veteran AP Physics teacher: "I looked at the flowchart. I still have no idea what the rules are."

Awkward pause. So I piped up with what I thought was a joke: "This is like UPS!"

The AP to my surprise looked relieved. "That's EXACTLY what it's like! We have to handle the exams like UPS would, with packaging, labeling, and shipping to the right destination."

Um, okay then.

UFT Mouthpiece-If You Oppose Junk Science, You Are a Tea Partier

Holy scrape the bottom of the barrel, Batman. I guess Diane Ravitch, who just applauded the Hamburg teachers for rejecting such a plan, is a Tea Partier too.

UFT Sponsors Blockbuster Film--We Will Back Down Immediately and Unconditionally

After the astroturf folks brought out two propaganda films, neither of which exactly hit box office gold, the United Federation of Teachers has decided to sponsor its own film, to bring the true story of education "reform" to Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack. It's clearly been difficult for the astroturfers to get their message across, as their ideas are supported neither by research, practice, or any objective semblance of reality.

The UFT film will focus on bold leadership willing to tackle tough issues. For example, it will show how real leaders are unafraid of taking on the anti-teacher media and political demagogues who use teachers to deflect from societal problems like overwhelming poverty, learning disabilities, and limited ability in English. It will show them facing these problems head on and coming up with practical solutions.

For one thing, it will portray a heroic union leadership ready and willing to negotiate an evaluation system, even though said system will end tenure as we know it and result in firings of hundreds of teachers for no defensible reason. When people complain that teachers will be denied tenure based on unreliable test scores, the leadership will tell them how meaningless tenure will be under the new law, and of course that will be the absolute truth.

It will show how, via determined leadership, solutions will be found to the nagging problems of democracy. In Hamburg, NY, where rank and file actually got a vote, junk science was overwhelmingly defeated. But in NYC, by restricting voting to bodies consisting of people beholden to union leadership for free trips to conventions, or possible non-teaching gigs, there will be no further discussion of the nasty issue of letting the actual rank and file vote on these innovative moves. This, of course, is all in the name of solution-based unionism.

The working title is We Will Back Down Immediately and Unconditionally, and it will refute the nonsensical portrayals of union as an obstacle to "reform." It will contain interviews with scores of ATR teachers who've been reformed out of their jobs, and it will show that they've been replaced with young teachers with little or no experience. It will show how teachers now get letters in their file for no reason whatsoever and have no recourse. It will demonstrate how 87% of working teachers can get rated ineffective with no means of appeal unless they're willing to pony up tens of thousands of dollars to go to court.

You'll see teachers patrolling lunchrooms and bathrooms across the city rather than teaching or preparing classes. Finally, you'll notice the sea change of teachers doing nothing but prepping students for the tests on which their careers now depend. While this will be of no benefit whatsoever to hapless public school students, the inevitable failed test-takers will result in more corporate-sponsored charters. As said charters cream all the best test-takers, more neighborhood schools will close and profits will increase dramatically for privatizers.

And it's all done with the absolute blessing of the union. Get your eight bucks ready, because the theater's already begun to heat up those garbage bags full of popcorn.

It's Not Value-Added! It's Growth Model!

The latest round of negotiations to bring junk science to New York City is about to begin, and boy do they have surprises for us! One is that yes, your Regents exams will indeed be used to determine whether or not you are fit to keep your job. I'd previously been under the impression that since these tests were not designed to determine whether or not we add value, they would not be used for that purpose.

Boy was I wrong! It turns out the city can make up some pre-test, then give the Regents exam at the end of the year, and figure out how well you did. And that's not value-added because there's no complicated mathematical formula attached to it, and no one's fretting over how many high-poverty students you have, or how many ESL students, or how they're disabled. It's just straght scoring.

If anyone watched the Michelle Rhee Frontline piece, you can see how well that worked out. There was Rhee, in front of everyone, declaring the amazing gains schools had made under her brilliant guidance. And that made a great deal of sense until all those erasures started showing up, and people said things like there was a better chance of winning the lottery than posting such incredible gains so quickly. So there you go. If you want to do well under the growth model, do it the old-fashioned way--cheat. Hopefully whatever merit pay that entails will be spent before anyone finds out.

Seriously, I have made inquiries, and my understanding is the growth model has no more validity than value-added. In fact, because it fails to consider external factors, it could indeed be worse. That's what the UFT is discussing with the DOE right now, and it's entirely possible they could come to an agreement before Cuomo's January 17th deadline. This is because a potential 1% cut in the city education budget is very important. What is of no importance whatsoever is the UFT contract, which expired over three years ago. Also of no urgency is the fact that educators have not had a raise in four years, despite the 8% raises all other city employees got.

So don't worry about those things. Just remember, as UFT officials will tell you, under the current system, principals have way too much power. The way to correct that, of course, is by making your evaluation 20%, 25%, 40%, or possibly 100% junk science and hoping for the best. So what if hundreds of DC teachers were fired as a result of a similar system? So what if good teachers get fired for no reason? So what if it's abundantly clear the only reason reformy types like Gates and Rhee even float these evaluation systems is so they can fire as many teachers as possible?

The important thing to remember is that, since value-added has such large margins of error as to be completely unpredicatable and unreliable, you may get a good value-added rating, even if you're the worst teacher on God's green earth!

So stop being such a Gloomy Gus, and start hoping for the best!

Bloomberg's Successors

Recently. the New York Times ran a story about whom Mayor Bloomberg may have been grooming as a successor. The story mentioned such names as Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and all of us reading it knew they were as far as could be from real consideration. For one thing, neither of them really shares the goals of this particular mayor. For another, it's doubtful the mayor's ego could fit in another room with either of these individuals; just witness the rocky relationship he's had with Governor Andrew Cuomo. Clearly the original list, from a Bloomberg letter we've managed to acquire, was edited at least somewhat by Howard Wolfson.

Dear Howie,

Here's my dream list of mayoral candidates in case I decide not to buy run for a fourth term. Please clean it up and release it to the press.

1. Vlad the Impaler Now a lot of people give this guy a bad rap, as he's alleged to have killed tens of thousands, but those numbers are surely exaggerated. Even so, we're not actually looking to kill people. We'd just like to fire about half of working teachers. Whatever may have been the true story here, that seems doable. And of course when they go yammering on about contract, the impaling tools could be brought out. Not that we'd ever use them, of course. But negotiation is largely an art of mastering appearances.

2. Genghis Khan Surely someone who can build an empire could construct a strong network of charter schools. The entire notion of invading public schools, tossing out the leadership, and bringing our own people in has proven troublesome. Sometimes there are protests, pickets and speeches going on that get inconvenient press coverage. Were we to parade in with horses and medieval weaponry the stories would look much different, and the sign-carrying pinkos would disperse in no time at all.

3. The Spanish Inquisition Yes, I know technically that is not an individual, so we could not actually place that name on a ballot. But everyone knows, for example, the tweets of Students First NY come from a single individual rather than an organization. All we would need would be someone who represented their goals. Getting people to agree with us by any means necessary would lessen the need to rationalize the decisions of my rubber-stamp PEP. Certainly threats of torture or confiscation of property might persuade people to accept reformy ideas that have no basis in fact. This is particularly true when the reformy stuff benefits no one but my pals who might profit from it.

4. Eva Moskowitz What can I say? The woman is a genius. Without so much as a single gunshot the woman has wrested school space from those cursed union bastards. Sure there's a lot of turnover, but teachers are a dime a dozen nowadays, and it's always possible to squeeze 200 hours a week of effort from someone. Once they burn out, we simply open up another can.

I think any of these candidates would do a great job, but if you have any ideas. or you want to add anyone, feel free.

Fondly,

Mike

E4E Member Demands Evaluation Process

by guest blogger Suzy Surething

As a beginning teacher, I need guidance. Under the current evaluation system, I'm simply not getting what I need. I mean, sure, my AP observed me, and said I was unsatisfactory. But what does that really mean? I really need to know whether or not I am excellent or ineffective, and this observation does not measure that at all.

For example, I was criticized because several students were throwing chairs out the window, and my AP claimed that was a safety hazard. Now I'm not saying it was not a safety hazard, because it's true that anyone traipsing through the courtyard could have been hit in the head by one of the chairs, and when the teacher desk went out, I must admit I too had some concerns. But the problem is the narrow focus on things like what actually goes on in the classroom.

I can't argue that the three fistfights that broke out during the period were ideal, especially when the AP tried to break up the last one and suffered a broken jaw. And the ambulances outside the window did prove a huge distraction to my class. It was hard to teach while the various victims were being wheeled out by the paramedics. I think, in fact, that my AP should have taken that into account. I'm also upset that I would get this observation. The fact is, thirty minutes into the period, the AP was taken to the hospital, and we at E4E believe there should be full period observations.

But what really bothers me is that this observation does not take into account the most important aspect of what I do--standardized test scores. I will admit there are a few issues in my classroom, but who's to say that they won't show excellent gains by June if we continue with the program? I really can't depend on these observation reports that don't show what value I added.

Sure, there are cynics and skeptics who ask, well, Suzy, why don't you design your own tests and see how the kids do? Well, honestly, do they really think that I could design a test like the good folks at Pearson education? I mean, if I knew how to design tests, why would we even need companies like Pearson?

In any case, I have tried giving my own tests, with varying degrees of success. The last time I did that, though, the boy in the third row said it was too hard, and set the classroom on fire. Well, between the fire alarms and the evacuation, it was impossible for me to collect all the papers before they burned. And I don't mind telling you that I got another observation report that day, again for less than a full period. This is just one more reason why we need a fair evaluation system that uses standardized testing. I'm tired of being judged by what goes on in my classroom. The only true measure of whether or not my students are learning is to see whether they improve on tests.

And I know I am not unsatisfactory. I am excellent. Once we have a true evaluation system in place, I will prove that. Or I will get a good-paying gig with E4E so I don't have to bother with the classroom again. Either way, it's important we get a good evaluation system in place.

UFT Democracy

I was pretty surprised to read this on the ICE-UFT Blog yesterday. A lot of us have issues with what the UFT determines to be democracy. For example, at a recent DA, a motion to have rank and file vote on any new evaluation system was denied. This, ostensibly, was to preserve the power of the DA. Actually, in a democracy, ultimate power belongs with the people, in this case, the rank and file.

When we vote in UFT elections, all branches vote for all reps. This is because, a few decades ago, the uppity high school teachers had the temerity to vote for a New Action VP (back before New Action became an arm of Unity). To preclude this from happening again, rules were changed. Thus, elementary teachers, who vote overwhelmingly for Unity, now help high school teachers choose their VP. This is akin to having Texas and Oklahoma help New York select their US Senate reps.

In any case, I'm amazed at the contents of this. Most amazing is that this District Rep put this into writing. He apologized for people at his meeting speaking their minds. Apparently, his meetings are not for that purpose. His meetings exist so that he can tell chapter leaders what to tell their constituents. According to him, they were elected as chapter leaders so they could transport messages from UFT leadership to their members. And UFT leadership, according to him, know what's best and cannot ever be criticized.

Now, here's the thing. I'm certain transmitting messages from leadership to membership can be a useful service. Of course, if that's all chapter leaders do, the UFT could simply email whatever it wanted members to hear directly and eliminate the middleman. In fact, the UFT has a huge email list and often does just that.

A chapter leader represents not UFT leadership, but rather the membership of his or her school. It behooves a chapter leader to be well-informed, and by that I do not mean asking leadership what to think and then thinking it. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of UFT chapter leaders belong to the Unity Caucus. To join, you must agree to disagree with the caucus only within the caucus, and to publicly support any and all caucus/ UFT positions.

To wit, a Unity chapter leader must support mayoral control, value-added evaluation, the 2005 Contract, and the process of sending ATR teachers school to school, week to week. A Unity chapter leader must support the Open Market as a superior system to that in which there were no ATR teachers, because there are more transfers under this system than there were under the old one.

To me, someone like that is not a leader, but a follower. It's very sad that the UFT chooses to let only those who will follow orders lockstep into leadership positions. It's weakened us to have leaders like that. A chapter leader would earn my vote by representing my interests, even if they conflicted with those of UFT leadership.

I'd put my faith in a chapter leader who was independent and thoughtful, precisely someone like James Eterno, who wrote the piece to which I linked. The District Rep who wrote this?  His notion of democracy very much resembles that of Mayor Bloomberg, who gets 8 of 13 votes on the PEP. That means that no one can ever win a vote against Mayor Bloomberg.

However, on the UFT Executive Board, and in UFT leadership, no one even gets a vote against Unity/ New Action. There are precisely zero opposition reps in the UFT. This DR has a lot of gall speaking out against duly elected chapter leaders. Does he find even that vestige of democracy so inconvenient he must rail against it?

In fact it's the rank and file members in a school who determine which chapter leaders they want, and why they want them. It behooves our leadership not only to keep it that way, but also to expand real democracy.

They seem to like it in Chicago!

Reality Rules Vs. Reformy Rules

A few weeks ago, reformy types got all excited when Diane Ravitch mentioned that the heroic teachers at Sandy Hook were part of a union. Some of us thought that was significant, since every day brings us a new story about the perfidy of unionized teachers. But reformy folks went all Amazing Kreskin on Ravitch, saying what she meant was non-unionized teachers are not heroic. Furthermore, she was only advancing her own personal cause, promoting the teacher union. That Ravitch does not belong to a teacher union was neither here nor there.

This caused a lot of discussion on Twitter, on this forum, and elsewhere. Reformy folks prohibit any sort of speech that leads to conclusions they have not already made, and they reserve the right to declare what writers have in mind, even if writer's words bear no actual resemblance to their conclusions. After all, they must know best, or why would folks like Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg have all that money?

In short, we are prohibited from saying anything they may deem offensive, or anything they may infer to be offensive, no matter how outlandish their inferences may be.

However, if you are a reformy type, like, say, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the rules are different. Basically, you may say anything, no matter how outlandish, and if it happens to be overtly offensive, so much the better. For example, the other day Mayor Bloomberg compared teacher unions to the NRA. Apparently, after an unspeakable atrocity involving guns, one in which unionized teachers sacrificed their lives to protect children, it's okay to compare them with a group that advocates more access to the firearms used in taking the children's lives.

That's fine.

Now let's get to the actual comparison. Mayor Bloomberg says most NRA members are not on board with NRA policies. I have no idea whether or not that's true, nor did Mayor Bloomberg support his statement with any cites or stats. He goes on to suggest that most teachers want a new evaluation system, and that they assume this as-yet unestablished system will somehow result in better teachers.

First of all, I don't know a single teacher, a single working person who gets exercised about lack of evaluation. "Gee, I wonder whether or not I'm doing a good job. I can't tell because I have absolutely no way to determine whether or not I'm working hard or goofing off." Few teachers say, "The only way I can determine whether or not I'm doing a good job is by the scores my students get on tests I did not write."

The exception, of course, is the fifth columnists over at E4E who support every reformy thing that comes down the pike. Otherwise, how would they get gigs running E4E rather than wasting their time in classrooms like the rest of us. Since they're likely the only teachers (or ex-teachers) Tweed bothers to talk with, it's understandable that Mayor Bloomberg may take the position their views are representative of working teachers.

He's wrong, of course.

And it is nothing less than disgraceful and disgusting, at this time, that he would muster the audacity to compare working teachers with gun advocates. If Mayor Bloomberg had any character, he'd resign. And if he had one iota of conscience, he'd publicly apologize to the tens of thousands of working teachers he outright slandered.

UFT Evaluations: Painted into a Corner

There's an interesting UFT commercial airing right now. It criticizes Mayor Bloomberg, rightly so, for being an intransigent galoot. But it goes on to demand a fair evaluation system. Now, who, aside from Mayor Bloomberg, could oppose such a thing? Not I. I support a fair evaluation system, just as I support Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way.

Yet I fail to see how it is possible for us to achieve one under the law our union leadership helped craft. The law calls for, depending on when and whom you ask, 20, 25, 40, or even 100% value-added measures. This means, roughly, we give kids a test, then test them again later, and whatever gains they make in that test equal your value as a teacher.

What's problematic here is that there is no validity whatsoever to this method. Furthermore, when it was used last year, the margins of error were so large as to be preposterous. Can you imagine Mayor Bloomberg using such methodology to figure out where he stood in a political race? "Well, Mr. Mayor, we have you winning by five points, give or take 55."

No one would depend on such a thing. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's only 20%. That means 80% of your rating will depend on other factors, like AP observations, a portfolio, or what gets reported on the principal's secretary's Ouija board. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Ouija board says you're one heckuva teacher. Your AP thinks your DO NOW is the best she's ever seen. You're golden, right?

Well, not necessarily. In fact, under the current regime, your school will remain open or close based on test scores. Your principal will keep the job or not based on test scores. Now it's conceivable that principals will exercise principle, and fight to keep those teachers they deem good. It's been done before. However, it's inevitable that some principals will keep only those who keep their scores up, and further keep them only so long as said scores stay up. People are funny when you put guns to their heads.

So my problem is this--I see no way, no way at all for there to be a fair evaluation system that comprises junk science. This is exacerbated by an insane system that closes schools based on test scores, and will surely be made worse when working teachers lose their jobs based on test scores. Not only that, but having examined and graded hundreds, thousands of standardized tests, I'm not even persuaded the writers of those tests are qualified to test the subject matter, let alone those who teach it.

So, yes, we should have a fair evaluation system. But how on earth can we achieve it when the law constricts us to incorporate junk science? How is it fair to use junk science to determine whether or not people are allowed to work? How can it be?

If anyone has a serious answer, I'm all ears.