On the surface, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Andrew Cuomo would appear to be in synch on the need to get rid of the city’s “last in, first out” system for teacher layoffs. Bloomberg has pushed relentlessly for the repeal of the law, and Cuomo, on the heels of a Senate vote to replace LIFO with a more merit-based layoff system, announced he would introduce his own bill to reform the policy.
But in a hastily called evening press conference, Bloomberg sounded none to pleased by the governor’s eleventh hour maneuver.
“I have not seen the details,” Bloomberg said, standing in the lobby of the Museum of Modern Art, on Cuomo’s bill. “But I think the bottom line is we need legislation that allows us to lay off teachers this year using merit, and that’s the legislation the governor should put in the budget, and anything else just doesn’t help us right now.”
He added, “It may be good down the road, but doesn’t help us now.”
Several sources close to the mayor were more blunt, though, describing the governor’s bill as “a diversion” designed to placate the powerful teachers union rather than a real attempt to better manage teacher layoffs.
“Saying that just by changing the evaluation law you’re some how allowing a better means than ‘last in, first out’ of laying off teachers is just false,” said one City Hall source. “And that’s what they’re trying to say.”
“It’s a diversion on behalf of the union,” said another, “in exchange for [UFT President Michael] Mulgrew standing down on the governor’s budget cuts.”
A spokesperson for the governor declined to comment.
...
Cuomo’s bill would accelerate efforts already in process to overhaul the existing evaluation system in legislation passed last year for the Race to the Top program. The new teacher evaluation system would include a new rating system--"highly effective," "effective," "developing," or "ineffective”-- which the governor says would play a role in a wide array of employment decisions, including layoffs.
But City Hall sources charge that the governor is really stalling for more time.
“The governor proposes something fundamentally different, which may be a perfectly positive advance and may approve our teacher evaluation system,” one source said, “once Mike Mulgrew signs off on it in 2017.”
From the details of the proposal, the new evaluations standards go into effect in 2011-2012 instead of 2012-2013. As NYC Educator points out, 40% of these teacher evaluations will be based upon value-added assessments of student test scores.
I don't see how that is a win for teachers or a stalling tactic by the governor.
Unless you're the Mayor Of Money and want your way by Thursday (which is what Bloomberg said he needs), I don't see how this proposal doesn't give districts and Little Mayors of Money all the power they need to fire teachers pretty much at will.
If the UFT did finagle this "compromise," as NYC Educator says he was told up in Albany yesterday, then this is just another example of the UFT offering dirt and calling it gold.
As NYC Educator wrote this morning:
The official UFT rationale, that value-added is only 20-40% of the evaluation, is nonsense. The argument that some states have 50% based on value-added, and that we therefore made a better deal, is also nonsense. That we accepted less crap than some other state does not mitigate our acceptance of crap. That we accepted additional crap in 02, and a ton of it in 05, means that there simply is not room to handle much more of it.
Here is the stance we should take on this new "reform"--we refuse to discuss it until and unless we get the 4/4 raises all other city employees got.
I could not agree more.
No comments:
Post a Comment