Impact scores are out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the district as a teacher and coach at Title 1 Schools. At a low performing school I was developing. Transferred to a Title 1 school doing the same thing and then was highly effective. This year I’m an Imstructional Coach AND Testing Coordinator who have two LEAP caseloads for walkthroughs, debriefs, etc and I MIGHT be effective. Twenty-five percent of my score is based on student achievement even though I’m not in front of the kids and half my caseload complains and refuses to do the work necessary to move student achievement. For example, I had a teacher flat out not write a lesson plan the entire year. The principal gave the previous coach highly edfectives each year and had 3/4 less tasks. IMPACT is all subjective to if the principal likes you for the most part. I also think there’s a cap on how many teachers in the low performing schools can get the bonus. I fully believe they are told how many to hand out. I’ve seen where a principal purposely “gave” a teacher a low score just so at the end it would average out to around 349ish just below the cutoff.

This burns me about coaches. You want a pass because the teachers you are leading don’t want to learn? Can we (teachers) get a pass for the kids who a chronically absent, too hungry to learn?, or busy flipping over desks? Nope. So neither do you.

I’m the poster that you responded to, therefore, there’s nothing that stated that I “wanted a pass because the teachers I am leading don’t want to learn.” What I did state is 25% of my score is based on student achievement and I’m not in front of the children. So let’s be clear, classroom teachers have anywhere from 10-15% of their score based on student growth and they, myself previously, had direct involvement in the children learning. Therefore, if I’m not in front of the children why is my percentage higher than classroom teachers. I’m not an administrator. There is a fine line between coaching and managing. You should’ve been more upset that a teacher had the audacity to show up to the building and not even pretend to write a lesson plan in order for all children to learn. I worked hard as a classroom teacher and I bring the same work ethic to my instructional coaching. Since being in the District my TAS always ranged between 3.5-4.0 and I had some DIFFICULT classes. Ive never had it easy and I’m not trying to “get a pass now”. However, IMPACT does not work and it is VERY subjective to how the administrator feels about you. I still believe that administrators are told how many Highly Effectives to give out.

[Anonymous]

Coaching IS managing. If you can’t get buy in- then you need to grow.

[Anonymous]

& you can’t say impact is subjective & wrong & then brag about your TAS scores. It’s all a scam.

[Anonymous]

Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

Out of curiosity, how many assessment measure are on your TAS? I've spoken to teachers who have just one assessment on TAS and others who have had up to 4 different assessments.
Also, do all teachers across grade levels or cluster have the same TAS??
Can one teacher be given an easier TAS than another?

It just seems like, from what I've learned from a few teachers in the district, that the way this TAS measure is "assigned" varies highly across the district and even within one school.

Seems like a confusing pile of hot mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

Out of curiosity, how many assessment measure are on your TAS? I've spoken to teachers who have just one assessment on TAS and others who have had up to 4 different assessments.
Also, do all teachers across grade levels or cluster have the same TAS??
Can one teacher be given an easier TAS than another?

It just seems like, from what I've learned from a few teachers in the district, that the way this TAS measure is "assigned" varies highly across the district and even within one school.

Seems like a confusing pile of hot mess.

Mine was based entirely on students iReady scores (I’m departmentalized math). ELA teachers have two or three tests that count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

Out of curiosity, how many assessment measure are on your TAS? I've spoken to teachers who have just one assessment on TAS and others who have had up to 4 different assessments.
Also, do all teachers across grade levels or cluster have the same TAS??
Can one teacher be given an easier TAS than another?

It just seems like, from what I've learned from a few teachers in the district, that the way this TAS measure is "assigned" varies highly across the district and even within one school.

Seems like a confusing pile of hot mess.

Mine was based entirely on students iReady scores (I’m departmentalized math). ELA teachers have two or three tests that count.

Sorry, forgot to add that the principal decides what the measure will be and what the score required for a 4-3-2-1 will be, with some guidance from central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

Wow. My TaS has to be 90% for a 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh. You can kick ass on TAS but still have subjective EP and CSC scores.

I got a 3 on TAS (78% of my kids made their required growth—a 4 would have required 80%). I’m the PP who could range from minimally effective to highly effective.

Out of curiosity, how many assessment measure are on your TAS? I've spoken to teachers who have just one assessment on TAS and others who have had up to 4 different assessments.
Also, do all teachers across grade levels or cluster have the same TAS??
Can one teacher be given an easier TAS than another?

It just seems like, from what I've learned from a few teachers in the district, that the way this TAS measure is "assigned" varies highly across the district and even within one school.

Seems like a confusing pile of hot mess.

Mine was based entirely on students iReady scores (I’m departmentalized math). ELA teachers have two or three tests that count.

Sorry, forgot to add that the principal decides what the measure will be and what the score required for a 4-3-2-1 will be, with some guidance from central office.

So basically this TAS thing isnt uniformly equitable across the district. Some can get an easy TAS while other must jump through hoops AND may have kids coming to them significantly below grade level from day 1. wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the district as a teacher and coach at Title 1 Schools. At a low performing school I was developing. Transferred to a Title 1 school doing the same thing and then was highly effective. This year I’m an Imstructional Coach AND Testing Coordinator who have two LEAP caseloads for walkthroughs, debriefs, etc and I MIGHT be effective. Twenty-five percent of my score is based on student achievement even though I’m not in front of the kids and half my caseload complains and refuses to do the work necessary to move student achievement. For example, I had a teacher flat out not write a lesson plan the entire year. The principal gave the previous coach highly edfectives each year and had 3/4 less tasks. IMPACT is all subjective to if the principal likes you for the most part. I also think there’s a cap on how many teachers in the low performing schools can get the bonus. I fully believe they are told how many to hand out. I’ve seen where a principal purposely “gave” a teacher a low score just so at the end it would average out to around 349ish just below the cutoff.

This burns me about coaches. You want a pass because the teachers you are leading don’t want to learn? Can we (teachers) get a pass for the kids who a chronically absent, too hungry to learn?, or busy flipping over desks? Nope. So neither do you.

I’m the poster that you responded to, therefore, there’s nothing that stated that I “wanted a pass because the teachers I am leading don’t want to learn.” What I did state is 25% of my score is based on student achievement and I’m not in front of the children. So let’s be clear, classroom teachers have anywhere from 10-15% of their score based on student growth and they, myself previously, had direct involvement in the children learning. Therefore, if I’m not in front of the children why is my percentage higher than classroom teachers. I’m not an administrator. There is a fine line between coaching and managing. You should’ve been more upset that a teacher had the audacity to show up to the building and not even pretend to write a lesson plan in order for all children to learn. I worked hard as a classroom teacher and I bring the same work ethic to my instructional coaching. Since being in the District my TAS always ranged between 3.5-4.0 and I had some DIFFICULT classes. Ive never had it easy and I’m not trying to “get a pass now”. However, IMPACT does not work and it is VERY subjective to how the administrator feels about you. I still believe that administrators are told how many Highly Effectives to give out.

It's on a curve, remember RHEE, she got the model from the car industry I believe, then after so many complaints how even teacher's of the year were suddenly scoring minimally effective in random years they started the whole LIFT thing. sorry, don't have sympathy for LEAP, that the is the crappy LEAP model you chose, just because a teacher doesn't write out a lesson plan doesn't mean they don't know what they are teaching and LEAP is crappy at some schools no wonder teacher's don't follow it. Honestly, you spend more time as an educator printing out and proving what you are teaching than actually teaching. Other school districts don't mandate that you print out plans daily, if you have more than one prep that's a ridiculous amount of printing.

[Anonymous]

I still don’t understand LIFT. If you’re effective for two years in a row, you move up a level, is that right? What if that level is in the middle of the 12-15 year scale placing you at a 14? Does it matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand LIFT. If you’re effective for two years in a row, you move up a level, is that right? What if that level is in the middle of the 12-15 year scale placing you at a 14? Does it matter?

It moves you closer to 16?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don’t understand LIFT. If you’re effective for two years in a row, you move up a level, is that right? What if that level is in the middle of the 12-15 year scale placing you at a 14? Does it matter?

If you’re effective 2 years in a row you move up a ranking. Like from Established to Advanced.
Each year you earn Effective you just move up ONE pay bump.
If you land in a longevity band you stay in that band until you jump out of it by earning effective again.
If you earn less than effective you don’t move at all.
If you earn highly effective you earn 2 jumps.
If you earn highly effective 2 consecutive years you earn 5 jumps.

Also when you earn highly effective you get the bonus $$. Amount depends on your school’s designation.


Google “DCPS Lift Guidebook”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been in the district as a teacher and coach at Title 1 Schools. At a low performing school I was developing. Transferred to a Title 1 school doing the same thing and then was highly effective. This year I’m an Imstructional Coach AND Testing Coordinator who have two LEAP caseloads for walkthroughs, debriefs, etc and I MIGHT be effective. Twenty-five percent of my score is based on student achievement even though I’m not in front of the kids and half my caseload complains and refuses to do the work necessary to move student achievement. For example, I had a teacher flat out not write a lesson plan the entire year. The principal gave the previous coach highly edfectives each year and had 3/4 less tasks. IMPACT is all subjective to if the principal likes you for the most part. I also think there’s a cap on how many teachers in the low performing schools can get the bonus. I fully believe they are told how many to hand out. I’ve seen where a principal purposely “gave” a teacher a low score just so at the end it would average out to around 349ish just below the cutoff.

This burns me about coaches. You want a pass because the teachers you are leading don’t want to learn? Can we (teachers) get a pass for the kids who a chronically absent, too hungry to learn?, or busy flipping over desks? Nope. So neither do you.

I’m the poster that you responded to, therefore, there’s nothing that stated that I “wanted a pass because the teachers I am leading don’t want to learn.” What I did state is 25% of my score is based on student achievement and I’m not in front of the children. So let’s be clear, classroom teachers have anywhere from 10-15% of their score based on student growth and they, myself previously, had direct involvement in the children learning. Therefore, if I’m not in front of the children why is my percentage higher than classroom teachers. I’m not an administrator. There is a fine line between coaching and managing. You should’ve been more upset that a teacher had the audacity to show up to the building and not even pretend to write a lesson plan in order for all children to learn. I worked hard as a classroom teacher and I bring the same work ethic to my instructional coaching. Since being in the District my TAS always ranged between 3.5-4.0 and I had some DIFFICULT classes. Ive never had it easy and I’m not trying to “get a pass now”. However, IMPACT does not work and it is VERY subjective to how the administrator feels about you. I still believe that administrators are told how many Highly Effectives to give out.

It's on a curve, remember RHEE, she got the model from the car industry I believe, then after so many complaints how even teacher's of the year were suddenly scoring minimally effective in random years they started the whole LIFT thing. sorry, don't have sympathy for LEAP, that the is the crappy LEAP model you chose, just because a teacher doesn't write out a lesson plan doesn't mean they don't know what they are teaching and LEAP is crappy at some schools no wonder teacher's don't follow it. Honestly, you spend more time as an educator printing out and proving what you are teaching than actually teaching. Other school districts don't mandate that you print out plans daily, if you have more than one prep that's a ridiculous amount of printing.

I’ve always felt like LEAP should only be for teachers either 2 years of less experience. It’s like an intensive PD for noobs. As a 6th year teacher I feel like I’m in undergrad courses all over again. I could do without.