Perdido 03

Perdido 03

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Is The Tentative UFT Contract Changing How The System Deals With Teachers Rated "Ineffective" On Testing Components?

The tentative contract language is finally available to peruse - you can find it here.

I noticed this:

Measures of Student Learning Options

1. For the 2014 - 15 school year and thereafter the DOE shall create new measures (referred to as “Linked Measures”) for Local and State Measures of Student Learning such that there is an option for each teacher to be evaluated based upon assessment results of students he/she teaches. Some or all assessments are not linked to courses the teacher teaches.

2. For the 2013 - 14 school year, the following process for “procedural appeals” will only apply to “Group Measures” (i.e., measures where teachers are evaluated based on the performance of some or all students they do not teach). For the 2014 - 15 and 2015 - 16 school years, the following process for “procedural appeals” will apply to Linked Measures and Group Measures. For the 2016 - 17 school year and thereafter the following process for “procedural appeals” will apply only to Group Measures. In all cases, teachers with 50% or more of their Local or State Measures based on Linked Measures/Group Measures shall be eligible for the procedural appeals process.

3 . If a teacher receives “Ineffective” ratings in both the State and Local Measures subcomponents and either is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures, and in that year the teacher receives either a “Highly Effective” or “Effective” rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, the teacher shall have a right to a “procedural appeal” of such rating to a representative of the DOE’s Division of Teaching and Learning.

a. If the teacher receives a “Highly Effective” rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, there shall be a presumption that the overall APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective” rating becomes either an “Effective” rating (in the instance where both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents are based on Linked Measures or Group Measures) or a “Developing” rating (in the instance where only one of the State or Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures);

b. If the teacher receives an “Effective” subcomponent rating on the Measures of Teaching Practice, there shall be a presumption that the overall APPR rating shall be modified by the DOE such that the overall “Ineffective” rating becomes a “Developing” rating if both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents are based on Linked Measures or Group Measures . If only one of the State or Local Measures of Student Learning subcomponents be based on Linked Measures or Group Measures , the rating shall be appealed to the principal, who shall have the discretion to increase the teacher’s overall APPR rating. If the p rincipal does not respond to the appeal, the teacher’s overall APPR rating shall be modified to a “Developing” rating.

c. The above - described procedural appeal process is separate and distinct from, and in addition to the appeal processes set forth in the Commissioner’s Decision.

4 . In the event a teacher receives an “Highly Effective” rating in both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning, and neither is based on Linked Measures or Group Measures, and in that year the teacher is rated “Ineffective” on Measures of Teaching Practice subcomponent, and this results in the teacher receiving an “ Ineffective ” overall APPR rating, the UFT may choose to appeal the rating to a three (3) member Panel consistent with the rules for Panel Appeals as described in Education Law § 3012 - c (5 - a) and the Commissioner’s Decision. However, these appeals shall not be counted towards the 13% of “Ineffective” ratings that may be appealed pursuant to Education Law § 3012 - c (5 - a)(d) and the Commissioner’s Decision.

5 . The Parties agree to meet each fall to review and discuss other types of anomalies in scoring and determine appropriate actions.

Doesn't some of this seem to modify Cuomo's dictum that a teacher rated "Ineffective" on both the State and Local Measures of Student Learning MUST be rated "Ineffective" overall no matter how they do on the other 60% of the evaluation?

11 comments:

  1. Michael FiorilloMay 7, 2014 at 8:35 AM

    I saw this last night and, yes, it does appear to modify and temper the test score component of our evaluations.

    Nevertheless, on almost every detail, the closer you look at this contract, the worse it gets.

    Vote no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a bad deal, I agree. I was just surprised to see this in there because it sets up a potential conflict with SED, who want every teacher dinged on the state and local measures declared "ineffective".

      Delete
  2. I noticed that...May 7, 2014 at 9:03 AM

    No matter how much rose water the union pours on the MOSL it still looks and smells like manure! Both Cuomo and the UFT are throwing it at the teachers.

    If the members vote yes on the contract, they will be stepping in it and it will be very hard to scrape off.

    TO EVERYONE READING THIS BLOG, PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR TEACHING CAREER VOTE NO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, MOSL sucks. But until we get the state law changed, there is nothing that can be done about the test score links in the evals in the contract.

      Delete
  3. I was surprised to read the same thing last night. It does seem like the UFT/DOE are undercutting King in a good way. I was hoping for changes to MOSL and better changes to Danielson, but this is at least one good piece of the contract.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be interesting to see if King/Cuomo don't push back on it. Cuomo has been wounded by the Moreland mess and is busy claiming he's a big public finance guy after doing nothing to get public financing in the state, so I suspect he won't be free to bother us too much in the near future. But King...

      Delete
  4. This caught my attention as well but (most likely due to it being late at night) I was a bit confused who or what would be considered part of "Linked Measures"? Does this apply to all teachers or certain teachers who may or may not teach specific courses. I am a high school teacher. Any clarification would be wonderful

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it works like this: Linked Measures are when they're your students. Group measures are "where teachers are evaluated based on the performance of some or all students they do not teach."

      That's my reading of the distinction between the two.

      Delete
  5. TeachmyclassMrMayor(andyoutooMrMulgrew)May 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    If I'm reading this right, on top of everything else that gives principals total power to micromanage your every move, we now no longer have control of our lesson plans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dunno what's been happening in your school, but we've had our lesson plans micromanaged the entire year. Have heard the same from many teachers in other schools as well. The UFT was supposedly suing over this, but like many a UFT pushback, I have heard nothing about it in the end.

      Delete
  6. TeachmyclassMrMayor(andyoutooMrMulgrew)May 7, 2014 at 8:52 PM

    Oh, it's happening with us too, but at least we had the out if we needed, now it will get even worse. Between the "maps", units, lesson plans, and the constant writing and re-writing them, usually just for the sake of doing it. To put the same information on a different "template", assinine.

    ReplyDelete