End Danielson - NYC Rank and File Stand Up - PS 8X Solidarity - 50 UFT Members Rally in Front of School

Only the left can organize? MORE evidence to the contrary  -- .... an esteemed colleague in ICEUFT. 

Now it is time for all of us to come forward to join the effort to repeal the evaluation law and tell the world we have had ENOUGH! .... ICEUFT blog

The always awesome Roseann McCosh sent James and I a wonderful little note earlier today about an action 50 teachers at her school, PS 8x, took this morning. This school is not a hot bed of left-wing activists. In fact, quite the opposite. Roseanne did sign up 30 members of her staff to join MORE in the 2016 election. So PS 8 on the whole supported MORE in spite of its left wing politics.

If I had to name one of the leading organizers in the UFT, Roseanne, a former Unity Caucus CL who saw the crap early on, would be at the top of my list.

When we hear of red state teacher revolts we often find that the militancy rises out of the ranks, not from an organized push from left wing activists or union officials. In fact, many in the red states are not left but center, and even right.

Some at PS 8 refereed to MORE as "those hippy dippies." But if they feel even a leftist group is fighting for them and against the Unity machine, politics doesn't matter. I wish more MOREs felt the same about people on the center-right instead of viewing them as deplorable(s).

Here in NYC, while there are many issues of concern, there are certain push button issues, like Danielson. There has been a lot of talk in MORE over the past 6 weeks about taking the kind of action PS 8x took. The red state revolts and the action at PS 8x are examples that my esteemed colleague in ICEUFT is on to something. (Also see: Why We Choose to Leave MORE - John Giambalvo and Mike Schirtzer).

Hello Norm and James,

I've attached 2 pictures. This morning approximately 50 UFT members stood in front of our school building for 10 minutes as an exercise in solidarity. We decided at our last union meeting to start with a gathering in front just to show unity as union members. We didn't want to scare anyone away by getting too militant too quickly. A couple of signs were made by one teacher and when everyone saw them they quickly got on board with “End Danielson” and teachers have had “Enough.”

Once we realized everyone liked the ideas behind the signs we got everyone to chant, "End Danielson Now" "Teachers have had enough" "Paras have had enough" "What have we had? ENOUGH!" etc…

My CL made a point that even though I wasn’t rated under Danielson I was leading the chant. I then called out the names of the other staff members who, like me, are not rated under Danielson but still chanted. Danielson Teachers applauded these staff members and thanked them for showing solidarity. We ended by entering the building together in a moment of silence to mourn our profession. Mourning our profession is why we wore black.We are going to try to do this again next week.

I thought one of you would post about it on your blog. The teacher elected to be CL next year is holding the END Danielson sign. (I’m holding the ENOUGH sign).

Hope all is well with you both.

Roseanne

Danielson Rubric Update: Erik Mears Open Letter to Howard Schoor

Erik Mears from MORE has taken on issues related to Danielson. He appeared at a UFT Ex Bd meeting last month to raise a few of the issues he is concerned with. The UFT's Howard Schoor responded at a recent meeting and here Eric pursues the story.

Open Letter to UFT Secretary Howard Schoor (regarding Danielson Rubric)

Dear Mr. Howard Schoor,

You’ll recall that I addressed you and other UFT leaders at the High School Executive Board meeting in early March. I urged you, in light of four of the Danielson Rubric’s anti-labor sample comments, to demand that the DOE the discard Danielson and repair any damage that illegitimate portions of the Framework has done to teachers. You responded (via email) by noting that only one of the four comments corresponds to an element that teachers are currently evaluated on, and that that comment merely encourages administrators to violate the law in letter, but not in spirit. You added that if principals do follow the letter of the comment, teachers will have legal recourse, and the UFT will fight to defend them.

PETITION TO REPEAL NYS TEACHER EVALUATION LAW | James Eterno at ICE Caucus Blog

I hope you read the two articles in Another View in the UFT - on Danielson outrages.  James Eterno has a petition up. Here is his full post on the ICE Caucus blog.

PETITION TO REPEAL NYS TEACHER EVALUATION LAW

Thanks all who commented on the original draft. Roseanne added some but MoveOn thought it was too long so the rationale is here at ICE.

Please sign and then share the petition to repeal NYS Teacher Evaluation Law. Spread it to the world.

 Petition to Repeal NYS Teacher Evaluation Laws 3012-c and 3012-d

We must return teacher evaluation to local districts free from state mandates by repealing New York State Education Laws 3012-c and 3012-d.

• Evaluating teachers based on student results on tests and other student assessments that were never designed to rate educators is neither a scientifically or educationally sound way to be used for a Measure of Student Learning portion of a teacher's rating.

•  The Measure of Teacher Practice portion of teacher evaluations is subjective and highly unfair, particularly in NYC where the Danielson Framework has been used not to help teachers grow as professionals but as a weapon to frighten teachers into teaching to score points on arbitrary rubrics in multiple unnecessary classroom observations.

Why we are starting this petition?

The teacher evaluation system in NYS is broken beyond repair. NYS passed a flawed evaluation system into law in order to receive federal Race to the Top funds. However, the current version of the federal Every Student Succeeds Act no longer requires states to rate teachers in part based on student test results to receive federal funds.  Rating teachers on student exam scores is not recommended by the American Statistical Association as it is not a reliable way to measure teacher performance yet in New York we only have a moratorium on using standardized tests to rate certain teachers. Teachers are still rated on tests and other assessments that were never designed to rate teachers. The Measures of Student Learning portion of teacher ratings is highly unreliable. Many call it "junk science."

NYS ELA tests cannot measure student progress under any particular standard.From a statistical standpoint, a handful of questions per standard is not a statistically sound measure of a student’s mastery of that standard.  Additionally, test passages that are on, above or even slightly below grade level cannot measure the progress of a struggling reader who enters a class two to four years below grade level. These tests cannot measure the progress of newcomers to our country who are learning English as a new language.  It takes many years for newcomers to master the nuances of the English language.  In effect, students such as these described above can make more than a year’s worth of progress and yet still not show progress on the NYS ELA due to the text complexity of all test passages.

The Measure of Teacher Practice portion of teacher ratings in New York City is based on the Danielson Framework whose creator, Charlotte Danielson, said this about teacher evaluation in Education Week:

"There is ...little consensus on how the profession should define "good teaching." Many state systems require districts to evaluate teachers on the learning gains of their students. These policies have been implemented despite the objections from many in the measurement community regarding the limitations of available tests and the challenge of accurately attributing student learning to individual teachers.

"Even when personnel policies define good teaching as the teaching practices that promote student learning and are validated by independent research, few jurisdictions require their evaluators to actually demonstrate skill in making accurate judgments. But since evaluators must assign a score, teaching is distilled to numbers, ratings, and rankings, conveying a reductive nature to educators' professional worth and undermining their overall confidence in the system.

"I'm deeply troubled by the transformation of teaching from a complex profession requiring nuanced judgment to the performance of certain behaviors that can be ticked off on a checklist. In fact, I (and many others in the academic and policy communities) believe it's time for a major rethinking of how we structure teacher evaluation to ensure that teachers, as professionals, can benefit from numerous opportunities to continually refine their craft."

The Danielson Rubric describes an ideal classroom setting and was never intended to be used as an evaluative tool against teachers. Examples: A rubric that rates a teacher "developing" when he/she "attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior among students, with uneven results" (Danielson 2a) is not a fair rubric. A rubric that rates a teacher ineffective because "students' body language indicates feelings of hurt, discomfort, or insecurity" (Danielson 2a) having nothing to do with how that particular teacher treats her particular students is not a fair rubric for teacher evaluations. Teachers do not just teach emotionally well-adjusted children from idyllic families and communities. We teach all kinds of children who live under various conditions. These conditions have a major impact on the emotional well-being of children. 

Children experiencing emotional distress due to factors beyond their teachers' control quite often have trouble concentrating in class yet to be considered "highly effective" under Danielson, Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in the lesson." We teach children with selective mutism and other speech and language and learning disabilities yet Danielson doesn't take this into account. Students' emotions have an impact on their academics, and students' emotions are impacted by many factors beyond any teacher's control such as homelessness, marital stress in their home or divorce, loss of employment of a caregiver, physical or emotional abuse, mental illness, bullying outside of their classroom, personal illness or illness of a loved one and many other factors too numerous to list. Holding a teacher accountable for these factors that are beyond a teacher's control is not reasonable and yet that is what some of the components under Danielson demand.

Teachers in NY are frustrated and demoralized by a teacher evaluation system that has robbed us of our professionalism.

We demand an end to this absurdity. We demand that NYS change its education laws so teachers can return to the practice of seeing their students as human beings who are so much more than a test score or a robot that must adhere to absurd requirements under the Danielson Rubric in order for their teacher to be judged "effective" or "highly effective." NYS has created an adversarial relationship between students and their teachers and this absurdity must end now.

Teachers have no confidence in the evaluation system that reduces teacher worth into a meaningless series of numbers and letters. Teachers in NYC fear classroom observations are not being used to help them grow professionally, but instead teachers must teach to try to score points on Ms. Danielson's often misused framework.

In NYC, there is a climate of fear in the classroom which does not lead to improved teacher practice. Four observations per year for veteran teachers is excessive. One per year or every other year is sufficient for the vast majority of veteran teachers. Ms. Danielson stated in Education Week that after three years in the classroom, teachers become part of a "professional community" and should be treated as such.

Danielson says:

Personnel policies for the teachers not practicing below standard—approximately 94 percent of them—would have, at their core, a focus on professional development, replacing the emphasis on ratings with one on learning.

We agree. To get there we must first repeal Education Law 3012-c and 3012-d and return teacher evaluation to local districts, free from state mandates.

Are You a Target of Misuse of Danielson Observations? Advice From Former Chapter Leader

From MORE blog

After attending the Peter Zucker hearings and seeing up close how observations were being used to go after him (even though it was technically the last pre-Danielson year) I am learning a lot.

I was in touch with a teacher recently who feels she is becoming a target of a vicious, incompetent administration. The chapter leader is in the principal's pocket - a partner in crime - and the district rep doesn't look like much help -- if they are in the Unity club together you may have to go above the district rep -- and last resort is using blogs. This situation is all too common -- a good reason for those wanting to figure out ways to challenge a corrupt chapter leader to attend the MORE workshop this Saturday - Fighting Back In Your School. 

I told her to be ready for an influx of formal and informal observations designed to undermine her and create a paper trail.

These are not easy battles to fight and with the Cuomo assault, Silver arrest (New York Assembly Speaker, Faces Arrest on Corruption Charges) and ineffective UFT/NYSUT it is Katy bar the door time for teachers, especially given the number of vicious and even psycho principals out there. (Note that the Farina attempt to curb principal power as reported in today's NY Times - (Chancellor Set to Centralize Management of New York City Schools) has nothing to do with the teacher end -- don't expect support for teachers from the Superintendents Farina has installed.)

I reached out to an experienced former chapter leader Ed Notes reader for advice on how to fight back and here is the former CL report with an example of how one teacher in her school fought back aggressively-- in this case the chapter leader who replaced her when she stepped down is a good person and willing to stand up for the staff. ( I did something similar back in 1971 when my principal gave me a U on an observation -- I wrote an 8 page response and posted it over the time clock - and that was my pre-tenure year -- yes I was crazy -- but it worked - never bothered me again).

Here is her report:

If a teacher's lessons are being targeted and Danielson is being used as a weapon----it becomes a part time job fighting admin. She needs to know Danielson better than her admin, be specific in how she addresses it and ask questions---a lot of smart questions based on her report----

The AP never answered any of her questions----and the teacher made that such a big issue.....she was able to turn the tables on the AP. If your friend the teacher has any allies they need to write her uft district rep on her behalf and get them into the school for a meeting. Her chapter leader needs to know members will go over his head.

Here's a sample from a teacher at my school....she responded to her AP.

....This email is in response to the feedback I received from you on December 17 at 7:30am that resulted from your informal observation on October 30.

Here is some background information you could not have known unless you asked me. This reading lesson was a continuation from the previous day, Tuesday October 29. The story that I chose was fictional and was chosen as a read aloud for the month of October. While reading this story and asking questions, the students could not identify that the story was fiction or list events from the story that may not happen in real life. 72% of the class could not answer these questions and give me evidence as to why this book was fiction. Therefore, the purpose of this lesson was to address my students’ needs yet you labeled it as an “activity that required minimal thinking.” Common Core requires students to explain the difference between fiction and nonfiction books. Standard RL 1.5 states, “Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information…” When students enter my 2nd grade classroom unable to do this, it is something I must spend time on. Therefore, your comment regarding “minimal thinking” confuses me. It raises the following questions:

· If discerning the difference between fiction and nonfiction requires only minimal thinking and yet is a first grade standard that 72% of my students have not met, are you saying that I should not teach it because it only requires minimal thinking?

· We have been repeatedly told that we should design our lessons based on the needs of 70% of our students. Has this policy changed?

· Do I ignore the fact that the majority of my students cannot adequately perform an activity that meets the previous grades’ standards since you labeled the lesson as “an activity that required minimal thinking?” Whether it requires minimal thinking or not is really irrelevant since it is something that my students clearly struggled with and is part of the Common Core that I must teach.

· I look at the standards as a scaffold. Each subsequent year is supposed to build upon the previous year’s standards. They are stepping stones. This is what I learned from various workshops and materials given to us regarding the CCLLS. So I design my lessons around them after assessing where my students fit in with K-2 standards. Is this not the correct approach to take? Am I to skip laying the foundation that should have been in place by the end of first grade?

Prior to your observation on October 30th, the students participated in an interactive written response to the questions regarding discerning a fiction book from a nonfiction book after we discussed these questions as a whole class on Tuesday, October 29th. In response to your comment, “The instructional pacing was slow,” the lesson that you saw was a recap of the day before in order for the students to be able to try these same questions in their own independent reading book. My pacing was slow due to the difficulty the students were experiencing with this concept which students were expected to master last year in first grade but did not. 

Am I not supposed to pace the lesson in way that affords my students the opportunity to grasp the standard? Or am I expected to increase the pace despite the fact that my students are struggling to understand what I am teaching them?

For these reasons, I can not agree with your score of “developing” for component 3b. I find it unacceptable that the majority of my 2nd graders could not tell the difference between fiction and nonfiction as well as describe the genres’ characteristics and that you rated me negatively for attempting to ensure that they meet the Learning Standards established by NYS.

The score of “developing” for component 3c is quite baffling. Does the score you give depend on the responses from only 2 children? You asked one of the students, “What do you do when you’re done?” She stated that she recopies her answers so they are neater. This is something I never tell my students to do and personally I think you know that. The students are told to reread their work and make sure they answered all the parts of the questions. If they think it is correct then they switch with their partner and “TAG” each other’s journal. Student CB didn’t do her assignment correctly and she actually had to go back and fix it once I conferenced with her. Student SS’s response was that she puts her head down. Did you ask her if she’s feeling ok? Did you ask the question in more than one way? Did she understand what you were asking? Student SS has an IEP and receives OT, Speech, SETTS, and is an unfocused student that needs constant redirection and repetition. Student SS is often tired in class so I allow her to put her head down at times. Her tiredness is a side effect of the medication she takes to control her seizures. Why am I being negatively affected for modifying my expectations based on a student’s medical condition? In fact, this should rate me as “highly effective” under Danielson 1b. Are you directing me to end this accommodation and try to keep SS alert and focused at all times despite the effects of her medication?

I also received a score of “developing” for component 3d. You state that, “students appear unaware of assessment criteria.” The word appear does not represent fact. Were all of my students unaware of the assessment criteria or just some? Are you only speaking of the one student you spoke with? Your comment is too vague, yet it is negatively affecting me. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to provide a “self-assessment checklist,” which appears to be what you are speaking about, for every lesson I teach. Is that your expectation? Am I to create a self assessment for every lesson I teach? I sent the students back to their tables after having several students tell me and the class what they were supposed to do when they went back to their seats. The students also had a modeled reading response to follow. You asked one student (the same student from component 3c), “How do you know you’re right?” 

Her response was that she reads it out loud. I think her response is appropriate. When students read aloud the responses to themselves, they can hear if what they wrote sounds right and makes sense. This is often the case when they read their work to me. Again, it’s a negative reflection on me that one student doesn’t give you an answer to your liking. Seven year olds can not be expected to know if they are right all the time. Self assessment has its place but the idea that 2nd graders can always know when they are right without teacher input is not a developmentally appropriate expectation. Whether or not a child’s work is correct can only be recognized by speaking with them, looking over their work with them, which in reality takes more than 2 hours if I spend only 4 minutes with each child. Also, I have to look through or read their independent book in order to assess them accurately, which was taking place when I was meeting one on one with students. Your comment, “feedback to students was general,” again is vague. You give one response I gave, “good answering.” Did you notice that there were more students I gave feedback to? The fact is I gave actionable feedback to 15 of my students. 

How the UFT Misleads and Obfuscates on Danieleson "Pilot"

Our union was formed in order to protect teachers from administrative malpractice… not to facilitate it. Yet , with the “pilot” unchallenged by UFT leadership and now in its *second* year,   the pedagogy of teachers of severely and profoundly handicapped kids will again be analyzed and  rated according to Danielson’s  ”spam-in-a-can” criteria.
 ----
Danielson doesn’t work in D75. Mulgrew knows this.  Alas, the rest of UFT … even ( and I really don’t  quite *get* this part)   the Special Ed  section of  UFT…does not seem to understand what I’m talking about...
....after twenty-six years on the lookout for this sort of thing, I can recognize a truckload of DOE  *stupid* from a mile away. Especially when it’s headed right at me.
----
So when I saw this… this thing, “The Danielson Framework”, unveiled in September of 2011 and renamed ( Why?)by the NYC DOE ,”Talent Management Pilot”, I recognized a code-blue situation immediately and made a bee-line to my union leader, President of the United Federation of Teachers, Michael Mulgrew.
----
I managed to corner him  after the  UFT monthly Delegate Assembly  in October. I told Mr. Mulgrew that my District 75 “Network” ( group of NYC schools) was “piloting” ( testing) the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool in D75.  He exclaimed, and I quote: “They’re using *Danielson* in D75 !?”  He squinted, his brow furrowed. Then  he rolled his eyes. I slapped some related paperwork into  his hand.
 ----Paul Hogan, The District 75 Danielson Pilot: CRASH! Burn! Fizzle………..

Paul Hogan is a retired District 75 teacher and MORE member. He has become active with MORE because of the outrage at not only the DOE but of the tepid, misleading response of the Unity/New Action UFT leadership.

A comment from a mentor to teachers at ICE:

Danielson is being used as a tool for observation all over the place. D 75 is using it -they are said to be "piloting" it. Even though Danielson herself said it is inappropriate for special ed. She said she would be hiring someone to develop a rubric for special ed but it has not happened. Instead there will be an accompanying piece of things to look for-but the rubric is not changing. Principals will be trained in it and it is being rolled out on June 1st citywide and being tauted as the first time everyone in the city will be on the same page. What a claim!!!!

Paul Hogan posted a detailed analysis on his blog. Below are a more excerpts below but read it all at:

The District 75 Danielson Pilot: CRASH! Burn! Fizzle………..

25 Mar
 
Can Charlotte Danielson “cure” Down’s Syndrome?  Can she make it “go away” ( i.e. render it educationally irrelevant)?  What about cerebral palsy? Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Ms. Danielson  is the creator of the now-famous “Danielson Framework”. It is  a teacher observation/evaluation tool that is all the rage  in  those school districts  around the country that are  right now undergoing what is generously described as school “reform”.  So my admittedly loaded  question is this: Can she ( or *it*; i.e. the Framework)  enable a  16-year-old quadriplegic — with irreversible birth trauma-related organic brain damage, no spoken language capacity, and profound intellectual disability — to miraculously rise from his wheelchair and his wordlessness and lead his  classmates in a grade-level discussion of , say, Shakespeare’s break with  Renaissance literary convention in “Romeo and Juliet”?

All reasonable people agree: no. But the NYC Department of Education, particularly in the Bloomberg era,  treats  “reason” as one would  sensibly treat a contagious disease.  And, after twenty-six years on the lookout for this sort of thing, I can recognize a truckload of DOE  *stupid* from a mile away. Especially when it’s headed right at me.

Mulgrew used to teach in D75 and *instantly* saw the problem: Danielson’s work is  normed on general education teachers of general education students in general education classrooms. District 75, in contrast,  serves students with severe and profound intellectual and/or behavioral handicaps, often compounded by physical disabilities,  who are taught in specialized, *self-contained*  ( i.e. special ed only) classrooms by teachers who are trained and licensed to do  this highly specialized — and very different — type of teaching.

In short: NO gen ed students, NO gen ed classrooms; NO gen ed teachers in D75. This being the case, it seems inarguable that  mistakes were made ( a lot of them) when, last year:

1. the DOE  assigned 11 schools in District 75 to the so-called Talent Management Pilot ( DOE-speak for its version of Danielson);
2. the UFT agreed to go along with it;
3. no one bothered to consult the Special Ed professionals ( many with post-graduate degrees in Special Ed. and decades of experience working with the student population affected) in those 11 schools; the teachers whose professional lives were about to be turned upside down by the astoundingly *dumb* idea of test-driving  the Danielson Framework through District 75 .

Here’s the problem: Danielson doesn’t work in D75. Mulgrew knows this.  Alas, the rest of UFT … even ( and I really don’t  quite *get* this part)   the Special Ed  section of  UFT…does not seem to understand what I’m talking about. In November of 2012, more than a *year* after my ‘brief encounter” with President Mulgrew at the DA and, after a  lengthy  and complicated correspondence with the UFT VP for CurrIculum  that seems to have gone  absolutely *nowhere*,  I emailed said VP as follows:

“It is not a trivial issue. Evaluating teachers of severely  multiply-handicapped children with a rubric that is designed to evaluate teachers in general education settings with general education students is tantamount to punishing and penalizing teachers who go into this demanding , difficult and highly *specialized* type of teaching. Our union was formed in order to protect teachers from administrative malpractice… not to facilitate it. “

The simple fact is that the vast majority District 75 kids cannot, by definition, perform to the standards  required by the Danielson Framework.  (That’s WHY they’re in District 75!)  Yet , with the “pilot” unchallenged by UFT leadership and now in its *second* year,   the pedagogy of teachers of severely and profoundly handicapped kids will again be analyzed and  rated according to Danielson’s  ”spam-in-a-can” criteria.  The inescapable consequence: artificially low ratings for the aforementioned Special Ed teachers. It’s hard to explain to people  outside of the district  just how   ridiculous this  is; how *utterly* mismatched the tool is to the task;  how blatantly unfair to the specially-trained and  specially-licensed special educators who are — along with their students , of course — its  primary victims.  And, one increasingly suspects, its *targets*.

Ridiculous, you say?  It can’t be? Well, let’s look at some examples. In  Danielson’s  “Domain 3: Instruction,” the classroom teacher can earn a rating of “Highly Effective” ( the highest rating possible; it corresponds to a rating of 4 on a 4-point scale)  *only* if his/her students are observed by the evaluator ” formulat(ing) high-level questions.” Additionally, said students must “assume responsibility for the success of the discussion.”  In short, if one’s students aren’t observed doing this ( i.e. assuming “responsibility for the success of the discussion”) the teacher cannot be rated as “Highly Effective.”  These behaviors are, evidently, what Ms. Danielson expects of high school students in general education.

Now.  Perhaps we can excuse Ms. Danielson. ( And perhaps not . Her website bio says she has experience in teaching “all” levels, which is clearly not the case.) Statistically speaking, we are talking about kids that are outside the norm: 5% or less of NYC public school enrollment. It’s unlikely that Ms. Danielson understood this initially — I told her later —  but many of the youngsters in District 75 programs cannot speak. I don’t mean to say their language is “weak”. Or that they don’t speak *clearly*. I mean to say they literally “cannot speak”.  At all. 


Is something analogous happening here? It’s difficult to know. But  I  do think it’s incumbent on Ms. Danielson… given Gates’ scuzzy  history… to make plain the full  extent of her collaboration with him and be utterly clear on the question of exactly who  is paying exactly whom for exactly what.
Corporate influence aside, other disturbing questions are raised by the D75 Danielson Pilot.   The public trusts that there are responsible and knowledgable adults in charge at  NYC DOE  who  presumably SHOULD have put the kabbosh on a no-go notion like Danielson in D75 but did not, have not, and … apparently… will not. Does not the district have a Superintendent? Do not these 11 schools have a Network Leader? Do these education leaders not understand the nature  and  learning characteristics of the student population whose interests they purport to serve? Did they really read and  really understand the Danielson Frameworks before they decided to take the education of NYC’s least advantaged children out for  what amounts to a two-year joy ride? Do they really know what they’re doing?
Ms. Danielson has a vaguely  worded — and weirdly redundant ( Three paragraphs. Paragraph 3 repeats paragraph 1, nearly verbatim. BTW,should we rate that particular writing sample  1, 2, 3 or 4 ?) — official bio her on  website. She was kind enough to send me two meatier resumes on request. Likewise, Kirsten Busch Johnson, the DOE official in charge of the aforementioned Talent Management Pilot ( the Danielson Framework slightly ——and pointlessly, imo— revised by NYC DOE)  boasts a google-able online resume . Three years teaching experience right out of college. Before going to work for Microsoft, i.e. Gates. (Hey, she must be an expert.)

But what about the Superintendent ? And the Network Leader? You know, the upper-level DOE managers who are really supposed to know these D75 kids. Who are these people, really? I know their names and their faces and have met and spoken with both. Yet I can’t find an online  resume for either. I’m wondering if there’s a reason for that. How much do they really understand about this population? What is their training and education, exactly?  How many years– if any — have they spent  working in classrooms with these profoundly  impaired kids? Did they spend enough time  there to really absorb the nuances and complexities of getting these kids to learn?  Frankly, one doubts it. In any case, this taxpayer  wants to see the resumes.

Alas, we are kept in the dark.  And, while were at it,  let’s look at the building administrators: our principals  and their  assistant principals —  the bottom rung of the ed admin  ladder and consequently the paramecia, if you will, of  the now-immense corporate “reform” movement food chain.  These grim souls  do the dirty work.  Now functioning as professional nit-pickers and fault-finders,  they are in fact  ex-teachers (usually) with very limited ( almost always) hands-on experience themselves.  They nonetheless  go into  classrooms, ( in teams, if you can believe it) observe the instruction in progress and try to make the Danielson-based Talent Management Rubric sound relevant to a situation where no  objective, clear-thinking adult believes it has the slightest applicability.

One could almost feel sorry for them. It’s a fool’s errand if ever there was one.  But, by dutifully following   orders from the “big fish” in this particular  bureaucratic swamp, the small fry get to keep their  out-of-classroom jobs, along with the attendant perks.  So they  play along (or should I say “swim along”), aiding and abetting when and where they are needed. Classroom teachers, consequently,  take on a serious risk by teaching profoundly impaired  kids what they actually need to learn….as opposed to what’s in Ms. Danielson’s  Framework… and  doing so in ways that help those kids to actually *absorb* it.  Whatever her intention,  Ms.Danielson, by her own admission, has no clue as to what they need to learn. Nor how to deliver it. And her rubric reflects that. But what’s really alarming is this: neither do  the DOE “suits” who brought the Framework   into the D75 buildings.  And they’ve been involved with the D75 population for years. At this point , it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they just don’t care.  At least not about the education of handicapped kids.

So, what do they care about then? Again, I’ve no idea. I’m neither mind-reader nor psychiatrist.  Some people don’t care about anything. Let’s leave that  ”to Dr. Freud along with the rest of it!”  But instinct ( and experience)  tells me  that the Talent Management Program’s application  to D75  is  concerned less with education than it is with *defamation*. This being the case,  it becomes more of a labor/management issue ( or a legal matter) than  an educational one. As to possible motive: it’s a lot easier to fire people if you can manage to professionally  discredit them first… even on the basis of such absurd  evidence as that yielded by the use of the Danielson Framework as a teacher observation tool. And it’s easier still to create a hostile work environment falling just short of the legal standard of  “hostile work environment” by setting them up to fail.  The Framework is useful for this purpose as well.  Then you don’t have to fire them. You can just drive them away.

So… where were we?  OH! Right! Now our union leader is going to do….well…. what exactly?

How is Danielson Being Used at Your School? MORE Calls for Reports From the Field

Ah, that's it! Monkeys are using the framework. The monkeys in question are the Bloomberg-era administrators who have spent no more than three years in an actual classroom. A framework crafted by a non-educator to be used by non-educators in order to judge actual educators. This makes perfect sense in the crazyland that is the NYC DOE. This is part and parcel of the deskilling of education. Not only are teachers in danger of being deskilled by being subject to Danielson but principals now are being deskilled by mindlessly ticking off a checklist. It seems as if many administrators are embracing this deskilling. -- Assailed Teacher

And UFT and DOE agree on Danielson (see below).

More from Assailed Teacher:

And never forget who helped to bring Danielson into our schools. It was our union and their Unity leadership who allowed Danielson to be used in 33 "struggling schools". When administrators in other schools started using it, the union cried and complained. Why did they complain? When you open the window you shouldn't be annoyed when flies get in.

From the MORE Blog

Calling All Teachers!

Help us file our “Reports From the Field” on MORE’s blog next week!

How is Danielson being used at your school? On your colleagues? On you?

We are hearing alarming reports about how Danielson is being used against our colleagues all across the city. While we anticipated this occurring, we’re still very concerned with what we are hearing. We are interested in hearing from you about how you have experienced the Danielson Framework being used in your classroom or your school.

Send us you testimonials! Help us make your experiences as public as possible! Click here to send us your testimonial. It will only take a moment and the experience you share can help colleagues all across the city.

Here is one "testimonial" I just received.

Not only is Danielson being used against teachers, so is the faux reading and writing program from Teachers College. Elementary teachers are slaves to this HORRIBLE excuse for a reading and writing program that has left our students ILLITERATE. Then we are BLAMED when our students do not succeed.

I recently made a presentation. People were genuinely unaware of the horrors of what's been going on in our schools. I brought up how NYC public schools for the most part DO NOT have curricula for reading, writing and math. And completely unqualified admin have been hired who either didn't know or didn't care of the harm being inflicted

But the fact is that inept admins were hired in order to remove coherent curriculum from our schools, then USE Danielson and TC and even that awful Everyday Math program to target teachers. UFT has not exposed this. But THIS is at the heart of the matter in my opinion. UFT looking the other way while teachers are being stripped of their ability to teach effectively. A total set up for failure for both students and teachers.

Talk about this and I believe you will really reach all the teachers.

Teachers are tired of not being able to teach.

Most of us (above age 30) at elementary level are sick about this. These kids are not being educated!!!! No content is ever taught. Kids learn it on their own through independent reading or partner work.

Then you have a wretch like my principal claiming she "loves" the TC "philosophy". BULL SHIT - she loves that there are so many avenues she can use to target a teacher since it's so lacking.

The UFT and DOE has just come to a deal regarding the use of the Danielson framework for observations prior to an agreement over evaluations. There doesn't seem to be anything new here but the understanding between the two parties is a bit more formalized now. Of course, any deal on evaluations will supersede this. Before you read the email sent out by the UFT, note this comment from a MORE chapter leader which indicates what total bullshit the UFT tosses at people:

No 6 in the Stip [See jpg below]. says that no reference to Danielson is allowed in formal obs. YET, when an AP wrote up an post ob of a member of mine and gave her a U, the post ob included cut and paste sentences from the Danielson rubric. The UFT said they will NOT pursue my grievance for this member to Step 2. 

Why?

Why indeed? Good question to ask your (formerly) friendly District Reps when they visit.

Dear Colleagues,

 

Attached is a copy of an agreement between the UFT and the DOE concerning the use of the Danielson rubric for both pilot schools and non-pilot schools.

 

This stipulation was a result of an Improper Practices Charge brought to PERB against the DOE.

 

I will summarize:

 

      1. For all schools, pilot or not, Danielson ratings of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing or Ineffective (known as HEDI) cannot be used or linked to any official rating, tenure determination or disciplinary proceeding.

 

    2. No observation for pilot or non-pilot school can be placed in the official file using the HEDI rating scale.

 

    3. Classroom observations for the file cannot include any reference to Danielson's rubric or a HEDI Rating.

 

    4. For pilot schools, no observation using the Danielson rubric can be placed in a teachers official file.

 

    5. For non-pilot schools, observations reports cannot contain verbatim language of any Danielson rubric or the language of the Danielson's Framework for Teaching or any HEDI rating. (In other words, it shouldn't be used at all!)

The stipulation outlines a complaint process that is a little different than our regular grievance process.  [ISN'T THIS A CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT THAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE MEMBERS?] So, read it carefully and share this information with your members.

 

Please make sure that you bring this document to the attention of your principal, especially the ones that insist on seeing everything in writing.