Why isn't every special ed teacher up in arms about this? That was one thing I never understood every time I read that the powers that be want to base the granting of tenure in part on student acheivement. I have worked with special ed kids for years. Some of them can have their standardized test scores improved with incredible amounts of hard work on their parts and mine. (I'll never forget the practically non-verbal, mildly autistic 8th grader I worked with, who earned a perfect score on part of a standardized test. To this day I don't know how she did it.) On the other hand, I've worked with kids who simply did not have the ability - it wouldn't have mattered how I taught them, or how often, or in how many different ways- the kids, through no fault of their own, could not do it. That's nobody's fault (and makes me cry for the days when special ed scores were grouped seperately on the school report card).
We have a very young (21 when she started in the fall) brand spanking new special ed teacher this year. She is doing her best, but she is working with very very difficult, very low functioning kids this year. To think that she might be denied tenure based on their acheivement (or lack thereof) is a sin.
There was a time when city requirements were higher than those of the state. In fact, I had to take city tests and face the Board of Examiners to get two different city licenses, and that was no walk in the park.
One thing the DOE can do is get rid of that farce of a licensing test, the LAST. I have never taken such an easy standardized/professional licensing test in my life.
Funny you should say that. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg took that LAST test, passed, and declared any high school graduate ought to be able to do the same.
Right after that, he sent Chancellor Klein to Albany to procure the right to hire and retain thousands of teachers who'd failed it.
I had to take the NTE, which they tell me was more difficult. It was not that difficult, though. The ESL licensing exam for the Board of Examiners was pretty tough, but fortunately for me I had just completed my master's, and I had all that stuff pretty fresh in my mind.
I took both the NTE and license exam with the interview. However I have worked with others who also passed these tests, but I never felt were qualified. I think all teachers are able to identify the worst teachers in their school. There are so many other factors than test scores to determine quality. Some of these "bad" teachers knew to teach to the test years before NCLB.
But more important, I and others in my school could never understand why admins were afraid to take action against the bad teachers, yet have no problem going after teachers who were more vocal about union rights.. "How dare they grieve not getting any of the choices of the preference sheet!"
As a senior teacher and former staff developer, I can tell what goes on in a classroom after observing the teacher, students and classroom within the first 10 minutes. Some of those teachers I was able to "tweak", others were resistant. After 3 years, you can tell who will not succeed. And yes, I have seen principals extend the probation period or ask teachers to leave rather than get that U rating.
I have more problems with teachers, especially the new ones, not understanding why tenure is so important.
It is the difference between being able to voice a professional concern without dire consequences rather than being treated like a serf on a chessboard.
The problem is and will be retention. Hiring bright, motivated youngsters sounds like a great idea, and maybe it is, but without accomplished and respected veteran teachers to mentor (formally and informally) the youngsters, without class size reduction so those bright youngsters and august mentors aren't swamped, without decent facilities in which all teachers and students feel safe and functional...the problems of low achievement will persist.
Research shows that high-need students are perennially more likely to get not only bad teachers, but inexperienced teachers who are only bad because they're inexperienced. With a few years of seasoning and development, they might be great teachers. But the city will never find out if those teachers can't be kept. Klein, Bloomberg, et al. don't seem to know that--or, if they know, they don't care.
The point is that the city could have good teachers. Specific, realistic changes in working conditions could actually help to retain the best of the youngsters and might even convince some vets to stick around for a few more years. But I suspect that the KleinBerg administration is thinking about all the money "the revolving door" saves, not knowing or caring that the revolving door creates and reifies the persistent problem of low achivement among high-need populations.
Unfortunately Klein took away district staff developers and mentors in favor of ELA and Math Coaches. The staff developer and mentor helped the new, and not-so-new, teachers in many areas, including discipline and lesson planning, and helped them find their voices. The coaches, on the other hand, had to "sell" the DoE math and workshop methods. (and work 30 minutes a day longer w/o pay until the union fought it one year later).
I know a sub who became a full-time ELA Coach. This was a woman who never had her own classroom because she didn't want to deal with all the paperwork.
Klein also got rid of the city's 5 borough science centers where teachers would go for 1 or 2 days of science training and get free materials!!!
This is a man who would rather not have teacher training because it would lead to higher retention rates and higher salary budgets. But do we read about these things in our newspapers? NO!
The hypocrisy by the DOE is unbelievable!
If I was looking for tenure, I would want to go to the middle class schools such as in district 26 and avoid those district 29 schools for example.
I certainly would not take the slow learner classes. According to the DOE I would not get tenure because of the low test scores.
By the way some of the best teachers find themselves in the "rubber room" while some of the worst teachers stay in the classroom despite their poor teaching ability.
Wasn't Mayoral Control originally about getting better/more experienced teachers into "high need" schools? Somehow, the small school initiative took over and more experienced teachers became financially scapegoated "targets".
Commenting by HaloScan
