IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:26 You are an ideologue that wants to believe that your position is sacred and should be protected forever because you work with children. I wish there was an issue of a small amount of dead wood in DCPS, but having been in the system with a marginally competent school I can tell you it is not the case. You can believe what you want, but I have a kid that is being failed by these teachers. We are moving out of it, so here is the deal, DCPS teachers can figure out how to change themselves or they will be left with only the kids no one takes care of because the rest of us will have fled.

My position is fine. I don't work for DCPS (happily). I work in an at-will teaching environment like DCPS, where the administration actually supports teachers and we can palpably feel that they want us to succeed in the class. Newsflash: at-will cuts both ways. Teachers can also quit, and I expect many good ones will after a few more years of IMPACT. I expect you are one of the people who feel that teachers have no right to search for work/life balance and workplace joy. Are you one of the ones who was outraged that the apparently excellent Hearst principal quit DCPS in disgust and dared to turn his hand to cupcake making? It cuts both ways my friends. However, seeing that policy is currently in line with your view, it seems foolish that you are moving your kid out of DCPS. It would seem the ball is in your court since you love IMPACT so much. I guess my question is, if IMPACT has been around for two years and works so splendidly, why are your kids' awful teachers still around? How has IMPACT, so splendidly calibrated to weed out the awful, missed them?

[Anonymous]

"We are moving out of it, so here is the deal, DCPS teachers can figure out how to change themselves or they will be left with only the kids no one takes care of because the rest of us will have fled."


Why are you all fleeing? Did IMPACT not rid bad teachers from DCPS? I think the ones who are left have "changed themselves."

Do you folks have the only kids DCPS cares about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we in year 4 or 5 of the Rhee/Rhee legacy? Funny how, post Year 2 (EraserGate) they keep dipping with all these enlightened policies and dead wood removal.

If all you have is a hatchet, everything looks like a piece of deadwood.

Brava to 6:26 for pouring it on. Maybe someday, DCPS can attract teachers like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What?? The kids deserve mentors, additional help, and additional evaluations not the crappy teachers! The goal is not to continue providing an employment opportunity for ineffective, poor performing teachers. The goal is to get rid of the ones who don't get it, bring in ones that do, and put resources toward the students.

This is edu-speak. I don't think regular parents and teachers talk like this It's like a mantra --employment opportunity for poor performing teachers, the ones who don't get it, put resources toward the students, crappy teachers.

It's like repeating sacred, comforting words that close off the mind to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was I called Miss Potty Mouth and verbally bankrupt because I used the term crappy?

What the fuck?

Charming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be a mentor assigned to a school or group of schools, who works with teachers all year in a supportive way. This should be fluid and flexible. The mentor visits should go towards feedback and recommendations for targeted training (instead of the District's One Size Fits All), not a 'grade' on which one's jobs depend. Principals should be able to direct this mentor to those who most need it, or even request it. Once or twice a year the principal should do an evaluation that determines employment eligibility (as in the past). If a person comes up low initially, they should work with the mentor for a few months. They should be able to request a third or fourth evaluation from the principal or independent evaluator. If they can get 'there', why not help them? Isn't the goal to develop and retain teachers? Why all the gotcha? Every teacher I know loves teaching because we still have more to learn. To turn that into a sin is inexcusable.

It's not a sin. I'd be pretty surprised if there were a single teacher in the field who doesn't understand that there are ineffective teachers, that those teachers may be either unmotivated or fundamentally incompetent, that those particular teachers are a hindrance to the education of schoolkids, and that everyone's better off if they go do something else.

If a person comes up low initially, they should work with the mentor for a few months. They should be able to request a third or fourth evaluation from the principal or independent evaluator. If they can get 'there', why not help them?

Hello. There was a perfectly good evaluation system in place before IMPACT. It was called PPEP. There was also a system for removing poor teachers. It was called the 90-day plan.

What if they can't get there? The previous practice was to let them stay in front of the class. Sorry, that's unacceptable.

Every teacher I know loves teaching because we still have more to learn.

Glad you put the "I know" qualifier in there; otherwise this would be obviously untrue. A very, very large majority of teachers love teaching. Some don't. Regardless of whether an individual teacher loves or doesn't love teaching is irrelevant. The appropriate question is, are they any good, and if not, can they improve. In other words, what's best for the kids.

N question -- if a teacher is incompetent he/she should not be teaching. The question is, can IMPACT correctly identify such teachers? Also, is IMPACT the best way of doing this? Is it even a good way, compared to some other systems (e.g. Montco?)

Does it offer help to teachers who can improve? Does it have a negative effect on teaching and teachers even for teachers identified as effective?

Take IMPACT off its throne and look at what truly helps teachers and students.

Sure, these are legitimate questions. But what we're really talking about is the difference between choosing between systems of varying levels of perfection, versus not bothering to evaluate at all. IMPACT is suboptimal? Now that the framework's in place, let's improve it. I'd be surprised if it was perfect from Year Zero.

[Anonymous]

IMPACT was terrible from year Zero and continues that way as DCPS admin defends it fiercely because they invented it, so it must be superior (like its inventors).


no, no. no - it's not a matter of IMPACT or no evaluation at all. It's using a good evaluation instrument -- and IMPACT ain't it (as Henderson would say).

[Anonymous]

Please stop repeating the myth that DCPS didn't have an evaluation system before IMPACT. The evaluation instrument used prior to IMPACT was called PPEP. Also, teachers were fired for cause under the 90-Day Plan. The claim that bad teachers were never fired is also a myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop repeating the myth that DCPS didn't have an evaluation system before IMPACT. The evaluation instrument used prior to IMPACT was called PPEP. Also, teachers were fired for cause under the 90-Day Plan. The claim that bad teachers were never fired is also a myth.

That's right -- but the myth is needed to justify creating IMPACT and keeping it, despite its failure. Otherwise they have to admit to being wrong - to spending millions on a bad system and to demeaning and firing teachers who don't deserve such treatment and worst of all, failing kids. So they spin a myth that spares them the bad feelings that come with facing reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop repeating the myth that DCPS didn't have an evaluation system before IMPACT. The evaluation instrument used prior to IMPACT was called PPEP. Also, teachers were fired for cause under the 90-Day Plan. The claim that bad teachers were never fired is also a myth.

PPEP focused on identifying worthy teacher, school and system-wide goals and the teacher demonstrating activity and growth in each area.
IMPACT is the result of non-educators like the Gates Foundation searching for the formula for 'the perfect teacher' and trying to recreate him/her in a lab. The onus is on the teacher to match that one 'teacher-bot' template. Didn't Mary Shelley write about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please stop repeating the myth that DCPS didn't have an evaluation system before IMPACT. The evaluation instrument used prior to IMPACT was called PPEP. Also, teachers were fired for cause under the 90-Day Plan. The claim that bad teachers were never fired is also a myth.

PPEP focused on identifying worthy teacher, school and system-wide goals and the teacher demonstrating activity and growth in each area.

You sound like you know what you're talking about. How did PPEP go about identifying ineffective and sub-par teachers, and then removing them from the system? What was PPEP's evaluation system? And did it effectively remove sub-par teachers from the system? Please educate me on the specifics.

[Anonymous]

PP again. I found this description of the PPEP program from the City Paper -- http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/special/2007/Bfeature0223.pdf . It sounds like a fairly ineffective system for addressing poor teachers.

[Anonymous]

PPEP could have been improved. Principals could have been expected and empowered to get rid of the bad teachers they knew were already there. DCPS could have looked at Montco's successful model to see how it could be adjusted to fit DC's needs.

Instead, DCPS spent a fortune devising its own ground-breaking, complicated, one-size fits-all punitive system that's been an utter disaster, and their only defense is to spin stories about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:26 You are an ideologue that wants to believe that your position is sacred and should be protected forever because you work with children. I wish there was an issue of a small amount of dead wood in DCPS, but having been in the system with a marginally competent school I can tell you it is not the case. You can believe what you want, but I have a kid that is being failed by these teachers. We are moving out of it, so here is the deal, DCPS teachers can figure out how to change themselves or they will be left with only the kids no one takes care of because the rest of us will have fled.

Look in the mirror and don't be surprised if you see an ideologue who wants to believe that your ideological position is sacred and should be respected and followed without question because you support so-called school reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead, DCPS spent a fortune devising its own ground-breaking, complicated, one-size fits-all punitive system that's been an utter disaster, and their only defense is to spin stories about it.

Why specifically do you say it's been an utter disaster? It's identified ineffective teachers and removed them from the system. Isn't that what it's supposed to do?

It seems like the main weakness of PPEP was that it created a never-ending administrative process that discouraged school administrators from removing ineffective teachers. And from what I gather, IMPACT has streamlined that process. So in that respect, it seems like a success. Of course with any system -- whether it's IMPACT or a revised PPEP -- people can argue endlessly about whether it had false positive (removing teacher who weren't so bad) or false negatives (failing to spot bad teachers). But that's all pretty subjective. And if the rating system needs to be adjusted to reduce false positives or false negatives, that's tinkering that will doubtlessly be done in later years.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. Maybe there are dozens of reasons IMPACT is ineffective. But I have not seen anyone on this thread describe what they are. Could you please list them out? (And I fully understand you hate IMPACT, but it would really help me if you'd try to list them objectively without lots of anti-IMPACT rhetoric. All the rhetorical attacks make it harder to follow your point.) Many thanks.