DC Loses Another Terrific Teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Harry Jaffe, a Fenty sycophant and by extension, a Rhee supporter, gets a bit of a rude awakening when his daughter's teacher gets the ax:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-loses-another-terrific-teacher-1000832-98550609.html

Not too surprising to me.

Rhee's revolational approach to public school education, like almost any revolution, began with good intention and end as regime of terror.

Which is how the strategy falls apart. I suppose she thought she could fire "ineffective" teachers and replace them with superior educators. The problem is, even in this economy, many superior educators are leaving DCPS - not banging down the doors to apply. Which leaves TFA as the only pool from which to fish. And apparently the academics and policy wonks have combed through the evidence and their recommendation is that schools hire TFA only as a last resort - when the only other choice is substitute teachers.

This is not expanding the pool of applicants in a desirable direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, study the Impact Evaluation, a teacher has to suck big time to fail this evaluation.

Right, and that's the bottom line. Folks who complain about the effectiveness of IMPACT may start with some credibility, but quickly lose it when you find out just how poorly one needs to do before washing out.

It's like those who argue that the SAT is discriminatory. As composed, does it favor middle-class test takers? Yep. Is that relevant if you scored a 400? Nope.

I'd love to see you call it 'easy' if your boss or a total stranger swung in on a vine 6 times a year with a checklist and timer to evaluate your performance. Then factored it in with 50% test scores (jury still out on whether this is a valid measurement of individual teacher performance) and 5% all school scores...
I understand that the metric may appear easy to you. I am not in the system but IMPACT appears to be so over-elaborated--almost like one of those 19th century measurement obsessed assessment and classification systems that we absolutely laugh out of the water today.

Again, maybe it is simply too hard. Of course, the only ones who failed were 241 teachers out of a pool of 4000. That's less than 10%. Given that up until a few years ago, 95% of teachers were given "better than average" assessments, I'm shocked the number wasn't higher.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of the oldsters frees up more cash and dropping 10% is pretty much right in line with the dictates of Jack Welch of GE. Send them on to do something else. They're better for it, the schools are better for it, and the students are better for it. As an extra value added bonus most of the youngins' won't stick around to ever draw a pension.
Once the economy improves you can call them the breeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the oldsters frees up more cash and dropping 10% is pretty much right in line with the dictates of Jack Welch of GE. Send them on to do something else. They're better for it, the schools are better for it, and the students are better for it. As an extra value added bonus most of the youngins' won't stick around to ever draw a pension.
Once the economy improves you can call them the breeze.

Jack Welch basically created a business model that even his successor cannot replicate. His trick was actually an accounting fraud which allowed GE to report a much lower leverage ratio than actual. Basically he is a fake.

To say that Rhee is like Jack Welch is not a compliment.

[Anonymous]

So you figured that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, study the Impact Evaluation, a teacher has to suck big time to fail this evaluation.

Right, and that's the bottom line. Folks who complain about the effectiveness of IMPACT may start with some credibility, but quickly lose it when you find out just how poorly one needs to do before washing out.

It's like those who argue that the SAT is discriminatory. As composed, does it favor middle-class test takers? Yep. Is that relevant if you scored a 400? Nope.

I'd love to see you call it 'easy' if your boss or a total stranger swung in on a vine 6 times a year with a checklist and timer to evaluate your performance. Then factored it in with 50% test scores (jury still out on whether this is a valid measurement of individual teacher performance) and 5% all school scores...
I understand that the metric may appear easy to you. I am not in the system but IMPACT appears to be so over-elaborated--almost like one of those 19th century measurement obsessed assessment and classification systems that we absolutely laugh out of the water today.

Again, maybe it is simply too hard. Of course, the only ones who failed were 241 teachers out of a pool of 4000. That's less than 10%. Given that up until a few years ago, 95% of teachers were given "better than average" assessments, I'm shocked the number wasn't higher.

You're wrong. Out of the 241, 76 were let go due to certification issues. Presumably, the balance who were fired scored in the ineffective range. There's another group of teachers who scored minimally effective. They are now on double-secret probation, frozen in step, and can be let go if they receive this same or lower score next year. The next group were those teachers who scored "effective" which is saying they are "average". A small percentage received "highly effective" scores which would be considered better than average.

So where are you getting the idea that 95% scored "better than average"?

[Anonymous]

BTW, certification issues is a pretext.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Given that up until a few years ago, 95% of teachers were given "better than average" assessments

That "95% of teacher given "better than average" assessments statement is highly suspect. Where did you get that, from the Wash Post editorial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, certification issues is a pretext.

for what? Either you're certified or you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, certification issues is a pretext.

for what? Either you're certified or you're not.

Guess you haven't been following the thread about the certification mills in DC which charge you $2 plus to tell you that you need their courses in something you've already been certified for. Everything related to UDC is a dogpile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, certification issues is a pretext.

for what? Either you're certified or you're not.

Guess you haven't been following the thread about the certification mills in DC which charge you $2 plus to tell you that you need their courses in something you've already been certified for. Everything related to UDC is a dogpile.

Did it (at Trinity). Paid for it. Hated it. But it was the price to pay to work in DC. If I had only known!

[Anonymous]

You know if Riener had put as much effort into keeping his job as you people have put into writing about him losing his job he would still have his job. Go Rhee. There's a new sheriff in town and she isn't taking any prisoners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Given that up until a few years ago, 95% of teachers were given "better than average" assessments

That "95% of teacher given "better than average" assessments statement is highly suspect. Where did you get that, from the Wash Post editorial?

"In 2007, 8% of the kids were reading on the grade level; 95% certified as 'excellent' or better."

Rhee: "When I came into the system three years ago, we had a circumstance where 8 percent of eighth graders were operating at grade level proficiency in math," she said. "Eight percent. But if you would have looked at the performance evaluations of the adults, 95 percent were doing an excellent job." (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/_Sizable_Number__Of_DCPS_teachers_Will_Receive_Pink_Slips_In_The_Coming_Days-99034634.html)

Bit like Harry Truman, when a supporter said"Give 'em Hell, Harry!" "I just tell them the truth, and they think it's Hell."

For a bit more context, from the GAO report on DCPS: "DCPS maintains that the quality of teachers is the single greatest determinant to improving student achievement, and a growing body of research has shown that teacher quality is a significant factor in improving student academic performance.31 Yet it is often difficult to remove teachers for performance issues beyond their inprobationary, years in a given school system. For example, in the 2006-2007 school year, only 1 teacher was removed from DCPS for poor performance out of more than 4,000 teachers. Representatives from the Washington Teachers’ Union agreed that there were several poor performing teachers in DCPS, but stated that the 2-year probationary period is the appropriate time to identify and dismiss poor teachers at will."

(http://www.dcpswatch.com/dcps/090619.pdf)

Bottom line is, there are ineffective teachers in DCPS. Is this the only problem with DCPS? Of course not. But every teacher out there knows who the good teachers are, and who the useless ones are. For years, the WTU has been protecting them at the expense of the most vulnerable children in our society. That's finally starting to change, and it pisses off certain entrenched interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know if Riener had put as much effort into keeping his job as you people have put into writing about him losing his job he would still have his job. Go Rhee. There's a new sheriff in town and she isn't taking any prisoners.

Nope, nor is she taking the time to discern the friendlies from the foe. It's all just collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know if Riener had put as much effort into keeping his job as you people have put into writing about him losing his job he would still have his job. Go Rhee. There's a new sheriff in town and she isn't taking any prisoners.

Nope, nor is she taking the time to discern the friendlies from the foe. It's all just collateral damage.

Yep, because, given the entire massively complex school system, of which every component is being overhauled, the only thing that's just a-ok is the teacher corps. Not a single teacher is ineffective. Let's get back to 2006-2007 when exactly *one* teacher was fired for being ineffective. I think the big problem here is that the least competent in any field are also least able to guage their own competence.