All industries have an evaluation system. You have not experienced corporate America, I see. Only volunteers are evaluation-free. If you don't want to be evaluated, volunteer to teach. |
So it’s ok that CO conducts evaluations in bad faith, aimed at getting rid of good teachers? Because corporate America does performance reviews? Again, not persuasive. |
I know teachers are not popular among certain crowds but they were not saying teachers should not be evaluated. In corporate America I have never seen a percentage of the evaluation be ‘commitment to XYZ company’ and have it be mostly things outside of your paid time. The company expects you to do it for free and it’s part of your evaluation, however it is not stated that it will be on your free time only when you are hired. I imagine you also have clear metrics in which you are evaluated on. It is not subjective but a clear metric to those who work in the company. Also even if that’s not the case, why does that equate to teachers who want to be evaluated by their work and skill as people who should ‘volunteer’ instead? Again, the American University found IMPACT (the evaluation tool used) to be RACIST and biased. That’s ok with you? |
PP but where did I say teachers shouldn’t be evaluated? At your job are you evaluated for your commitment to the company? You lost points if you don’t attend the company picture or holiday party? Does that sound ridiculous to you? And what I was saying is I’ve had coworkers do hours and hours of work outside their job to support the school. Plan events outside school hours, help organize standardized tests, join committees, etc. And they get low scores for commitment because the principal wanted to get rid of them. |
Yes I worked at a company where not only did I need to go to the company holiday party, so did my spouse. All that said, CO should go. This is what they’re spending their time on? Good grief. |
The difference is that it’s company politics. When your evaluation comes does it say, ‘went to company holiday party with spouse?’ And each time you do it you must clearly document it and submit that you went to a minimum of 10 parties a year to meet the basic requirements of your job? |
In my job, I can be dismissed regardless of perfect evaluations. So it doesn’t matter what’s on the evaluations. Would you prefer that? I could dismiss you for not liking you, or for too many off-topic conversations. Like this one. The conversation is about the CO, not whether or not teacher evaluation rubrics should be tweaked. Nothing in this thread convinces me that CO is a good use of funds. |
That’s what we are trying to tell you. Teachers can be dismissed just for not being liked, regardless of their eval. This has everything to do with central office as DCPS purposely inflates useless teams and keeps teams that deal with abuse of any kind short staffed. |
The American university study found a disparity in scores and called it racist, and definitely avoided reviews from any serious statistician or economist who can tell you that the presence of a disparity is not evidence of racism. The difference could be SES and parental education. |
There’s a distinction between a lay off and a firing (constructive dismissal or whatever). Lay offs are, well, if you get laid off because the manager only gets to save so many it’s somewhat understandable. Getting fired because the manager doesn’t like your face is a different issue and frankly any firm that does that is not a model for anything, even in PWM. |
I used to work for a consulting firm where the expectation is that we would go to client parties but that was explicitly a job function. I see no reason for teachers to do it- for us it was to get to know younger executives and management like us and hopefully drive future business as those people got promoted. Not like teachers are doing business development. |
I can tell you didn’t read the study. |
Honestly it’s 46 qual interviews and a light survey, calling it a study is stretching things. That being said, you’ve deeply mischaracterized the findings. The authors find a racial disparity in the survey data, and I should give them some credit, they don’t claim it’s racism driving things. That’s you. The authors are guilty of the ed school sin of laundering shady qual data by attaching it to a bad survey and calling it “science.” |
I can tell you did not read it. They also used Administrative Data Analysis: The team also analyzed DCPS-provided data—IMPACT test outcomes and responses from the DCPS Insight Survey—to triangulate findings. The study found that IMPACT exacerbates inequities, particularly in Wards 7 and 8, which are predominantly Black and lower-income. Teachers in these wards reported that IMPACT felt punitive and failed to account for the realities of teaching in under-resourced schools. There is a higher retention of teachers in non-title 1 schools as well. Lowest retention rates in W8 then 7. The highest is W3, filled with mostly white teachers (key word teachers) I wonder why many of those schools don’t want to hire more POC? |
Yes. You are making the mistake the authors didn’t. You are making a causal claim that racism caused the disparity in scores, which the authors are extremely careful not to do, as it is inappropriate. This is a common enough mistake. They do not have evidence that racism causes a difference in scores. |