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.

"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."


Please tell me why your knickers are in a twist. IMPACT has rid DC of all bad teachers, both the ineffective and the 2-year minimally effective teachers.

Right?

We are starting the new year with effective and highly effective teachers. And the new teachers will have been vetted by a very selective process.

Now we can sit back and watch scores rise...

"Yes, sometimes people make hiring mistakes. The answer to that is not lifetime, no-strings-attached employment."


Newsflash: Tenure protection in DCPS has not existed for 2 years now. Ineffective teachers are being let go. Why do you keep bringing up the same old argument of lifetime protection?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea in what other job it becomes the responsibility of the employer to provide a mentor if someone does not perform. Yes, the employer can, if they deem it beneficial for themselves, provide some guidance but they could also just terminate the employee. Why should you be able to request more evaluations? Why should the burden be placed on the employer to help them?

Teaching is a job that requires ongoing training. New mandates are constantly introduced (not to mention new research based practices that any teacher would want to learn more about). Do you think teachers just hook up their teacher-bot antennae and suck down the latest info? Do you think there is zero trial and error in classroom management, writer's workshop etc????
There are studies that show advantages to both entry and long-term teachers--yet both have much to learn, one from being new to the field and one from being long-standing but perhaps removed from the 'latest'/'most current'. All these teachers were good enough to hire, and suddenly are being hunted down? Why not put all the money and funds going towards these kamikaze IMPACT evaluators into the ongoing mentoring and training (PD) that YES - is recommended in the field of teaching.

I've identified the point where your argument goes off the rails for you. Yes, sometimes people make hiring mistakes. The answer to that is not lifetime, no-strings-attached employment.

You're off the rails--please tell me where I ever demanded lifetime, no strings attached employment. Are you serious? I am a teacher who does not work for DCPS, but I follow it closely. It is a punitive, Alice-in-Wonderland environment whose only champions are villagers with pitchforks like you ("Get that dead wood! Cut it out!!). In defending IMPACT, you show that you are more interested in removing a small amount of 'dead wood' at the expense of growing a loyal, dedicated, skilled, well-trained, nurtured, cohesive workforce over time. Which by the way, would benefit YOUR kids. You know what parents like you never realize? Supported teachers = supported children. I'm sorry that sticks in your craw. I know that you would prefer that browbeaten, punished, horrified teachers come to school every day ready to do their best, but strangely enough, teachers who feel good about setting foot in their workplace in the morning are also teachers who brighten up a child's day year after year after year. The horrified ones who can get out, often do. How wrong of them! There are more balanced ways to 'root out' bad teachers (and have your jollies sitting by the guillotine knitting as their heads fall in the basket), while supporting and pushing forward ALL the good ones. IMPACT is not that way, and as the best teachers at your school flee maybe you'll realize that.

I just hope that some of these comments are coming from non-teachers because they are so far off. You can't fire your way out of a problem. Who are you going to replace these teachers with - novice teachers? What will these novice teacher need to be successful - professional development! I'm sure DC has crappy teachers but you certainly don't need IMPACT to know whether they are crappy or not. You can probably identifying those people within 5 minutes. So you get rid them and you bring in new people. No one is arguing that - and for some to keep comparing teaching to the business world is silly. Teaching and learning is an art form and you need support and training and good, sound, on time, professional development in order to have a high quality teacher in every classroom. You will need these things whether you fire everyone and rehire everyone (every year) or not. Welcome to the world of education. If DC doesn't figure out a way to make sure that every teacher, in every classroom has sound opportunities for professional development we will be saying the same thing that we usually say 10 years from now "remember IMPACT, what good did that do for DC schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea in what other job it becomes the responsibility of the employer to provide a mentor if someone does not perform. Yes, the employer can, if they deem it beneficial for themselves, provide some guidance but they could also just terminate the employee. Why should you be able to request more evaluations? Why should the burden be placed on the employer to help them?

Teaching is a job that requires ongoing training. New mandates are constantly introduced (not to mention new research based practices that any teacher would want to learn more about). Do you think teachers just hook up their teacher-bot antennae and suck down the latest info? Do you think there is zero trial and error in classroom management, writer's workshop etc????
There are studies that show advantages to both entry and long-term teachers--yet both have much to learn, one from being new to the field and one from being long-standing but perhaps removed from the 'latest'/'most current'. All these teachers were good enough to hire, and suddenly are being hunted down? Why not put all the money and funds going towards these kamikaze IMPACT evaluators into the ongoing mentoring and training (PD) that YES - is recommended in the field of teaching.

I've identified the point where your argument goes off the rails for you. Yes, sometimes people make hiring mistakes. The answer to that is not lifetime, no-strings-attached employment.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea in what other job it becomes the responsibility of the employer to provide a mentor if someone does not perform. Yes, the employer can, if they deem it beneficial for themselves, provide some guidance but they could also just terminate the employee. Why should you be able to request more evaluations? Why should the burden be placed on the employer to help them?

Teaching is a job that requires ongoing training. New mandates are constantly introduced (not to mention new research based practices that any teacher would want to learn more about). Do you think teachers just hook up their teacher-bot antennae and suck down the latest info? Do you think there is zero trial and error in classroom management, writer's workshop etc????
There are studies that show advantages to both entry and long-term teachers--yet both have much to learn, one from being new to the field and one from being long-standing but perhaps removed from the 'latest'/'most current'. All these teachers were good enough to hire, and suddenly are being hunted down? Why not put all the money and funds going towards these kamikaze IMPACT evaluators into the ongoing mentoring and training (PD) that YES - is recommended in the field of teaching.

should be "No question" above

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?

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.

I have no idea in what other job it becomes the responsibility of the employer to provide a mentor if someone does not perform. Yes, the employer can, if they deem it beneficial for themselves, provide some guidance but they could also just terminate the employee. Why should you be able to request more evaluations? Why should the burden be placed on the employer to help them?

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

What the fuck?

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?

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.