If impact is such a great evaluation tool..

[Anonymous]

Why isn't it used with the central office staff?
Why are they not using a tool they developed? Why not give them metrics (just like we do for teachers, janitors, office staff) and rate them every year?

[Anonymous]

Is there no performance management tool in place now?

I thought all city agencies and employees had them.

[Anonymous]

Their current system is identical to the one teachers had, before impact. Just a thumbs up or down. I’d be happy to be evaluated under the same conditions as my thought partners at CO

[Anonymous]

I just want administration impact scores divorced from suspension rates. It is unsustainable to lower rates every year.

[Anonymous]

Impact is worse than useless. The worst teachers at my kids school are there year after year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want administration impact scores divorced from suspension rates. It is unsustainable to lower rates every year.

This can be said about almost any metric, and failing to realize this puts staff in an impossible position and leads to bad decisions and cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their current system is identical to the one teachers had, before impact. Just a thumbs up or down. I’d be happy to be evaluated under the same conditions as my thought partners at CO

There were efforts to develop an IMPACT system for central office maybe 5 years ago, led by the central office effectiveness team and supported by a cross-office working group. But then there was a reorganization, the central office effectiveness team was cut, and the CO IMPACT work has never been revived. It was challenging to create something CO-wide because there are so many different types of positions. While there are general guidelines for writing position descriptions for different position levels (e.g., the types of responsibilities that make a position an analyst vs. a coordinator vs. a specialist, etc.), the reality is that across offices, these types of positions vary widely in their responsibilities. Especially given the frequent reorganizations (e.g., in 2015 to fold the Master Educators/Instructional Coach support and roll out LEAP, last year to recombine LEAP with Teaching and Learning, and this year merging a bunch of offices), the reality is that positions are shifting so fast there’s isn’t time to have an evaluation tool developed because it will just change again the next year.

[Anonymous]

Unless you work for a think tank, teacher's union or some other group with an ax to grind...WHO CARES???!!!! I wish I had as much free time as some of you people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you work for a think tank, teacher's union or some other group with an ax to grind...WHO CARES???!!!! I wish I had as much free time as some of you people.

Anyone with a kid in public schools should care. Dysfunction at CO affects all of us. I’m sorry you’re feeling stressed.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is the “dysfunction” that you are suffering from due to the central office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you work for a think tank, teacher's union or some other group with an ax to grind...WHO CARES???!!!! I wish I had as much free time as some of you people.

Yet you found time to post an unhelpful response.

[Anonymous]

Took 15 seconds to post that response. And another 10 for this one. Compare and contrast the naval gazing you and your ilk do. Go volunteer at a school...or do something productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you work for a think tank, teacher's union or some other group with an ax to grind...WHO CARES???!!!! I wish I had as much free time as some of you people.

Anyone with a kid in public schools should care. Dysfunction at CO affects all of us. I’m sorry you’re feeling stressed.

Not remotely stressed. Cause I concern myself with things that matter. I am an engaged parent who knows what happens in my kid's school and classroom. I just come here for amusement to watch the never-ending "charters evil", "central office bad", "testing bad", "testing wrong". You all seem to have all the answers. Tell me again why your expertise is relegated to anonymous posting on DCUM instead of leadership in academic circles or in schools?

[Anonymous]

I heard a lot of CO staff was let go very recently. The new chancellor is cleaning house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their current system is identical to the one teachers had, before impact. Just a thumbs up or down. I’d be happy to be evaluated under the same conditions as my thought partners at CO

There were efforts to develop an IMPACT system for central office maybe 5 years ago, led by the central office effectiveness team and supported by a cross-office working group. But then there was a reorganization, the central office effectiveness team was cut, and the CO IMPACT work has never been revived. It was challenging to create something CO-wide because there are so many different types of positions. While there are general guidelines for writing position descriptions for different position levels (e.g., the types of responsibilities that make a position an analyst vs. a coordinator vs. a specialist, etc.), the reality is that across offices, these types of positions vary widely in their responsibilities. Especially given the frequent reorganizations (e.g., in 2015 to fold the Master Educators/Instructional Coach support and roll out LEAP, last year to recombine LEAP with Teaching and Learning, and this year merging a bunch of offices), the reality is that positions are shifting so fast there’s isn’t time to have an evaluation tool developed because it will just change again the next year.

Bs! Hey, let the teachers develop it for the CO staff! That’d be great. We know what we need you all to do.
And I’m happy the chancellor cleared house. Now you all might actually have to work... or find another job talking about teaching.