Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

What school are you at? Seems like there’s no risk to share since you already can’t get HE

NP but I know something similar to this happens at Banneker- impact scores are manipulated to ensure very very few people get HE.

I hear that - I guess I just don’t really understand how a principal manipulate it without teachers figuring out how to gamify it the other way. I worked at a school for over 5 years with a principal that HATED me, like to the point where other’s on the staff wanted me to file grievances. I still got over 3.5 on every eval and 4.0 on every CSC (except for one year when they deleted something from my reflection and gave me a 3.8, but I did win that grievance).

I think impact is dumb, but it’s also just a game. It’s not going anywhere so we might as well find a way to beat it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

Why does a principal avoid HE? Does it affect their budget? Their sense of power?

It seems not having HE teachers would be an indictment of their own hiring and management.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

What school are you at? Seems like there’s no risk to share since you already can’t get HE

NP but I know something similar to this happens at Banneker- impact scores are manipulated to ensure very very few people get HE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

What school are you at? Seems like there’s no risk to share since you already can’t get HE

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Hi! Please share where you teach because I would love to work there. Posts like this show just how inequitable the system is. My principal does not give HE. This is a known fact at my school and people leave because of it. My colleague was barely effective at my school, moved to a neighboring school (same population and content area) and got HE with ease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

DCPS pays you to teach teachers how to manipulate their evaluation system? That is your job as a “coach”?

They want to gamify our evaluations I’m going to do my best to help them win the game. If my principal can evaluate me first thing Monday morning after thanksgiving (has happened) or one day after Sandy Hook (yup), you best believe I’m incentivized to stick it right back to them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

DCPS pays you to teach teachers how to manipulate their evaluation system? That is your job as a “coach”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

I think once you’re past year 2-3 as a teacher, it’s easy as hell to get HE on your evaluations and CSC. There’s enough components of the rubric that you can set up ahead of time that have nothing to do with classroom behavior. I now coach teachers and one of my focuses on teaching them how to “gamify” evaluations. Tas is a joke bc you have so many variations of how it’s administered. SSP and IVA are inexcusably bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

The problem is will these 'master educators' be unbiased? Because DCPS calls assistant principals that and we know they can be just a biased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to comment on IMPACT please note that Jason Kamras, one of the people in central office who helped create and defend impact, has not used the system in his current role as superintendent in Richmond and no longer endorses the method of evaluation as being effective. I think that says something about how useful IMPACT is.

It's because he is in a political role now

When impact was instituted, there was a lot of dead weight in the teacher ranks. Think the marion barry jobs program

Most private sectors employers have some kind of evaluation process

It's interesting reading these comments, unions are designed to protect the rank and file average folks where pay is based on seniority instead of talent. If you are a top performer there is 0 reason to support the union.

PP and I should clarify I’m not against evaluating teachers. I actually think the master educator program was a good idea because it helps with bias by administration. I just think evaluating all teachers across the district by the same rubric is unfair- and I say this as someone from a well resourced, ‘highly regarded’ school. It’s easier to get effective or highly effective at my school than many others just by virtue of the student population we teach.