The part of the report that was most jarring to me was the suggestion that teachers in the ATR plan and, indeed, prefer to continue working as highly paid substitutes. I can't imagine, though, that teachers actually prefer that. Do you think this is the case?
What about the article's claim that teachers in the reserve pool are 6(?) times more likely to have been given U ratings?
Writing this without the context of how the UFT helped cause the problem, yes I know you did this before, is deceiving. They are trying to fix the ATR problem that the UFT helped create by agreeing to the giveback filled 2005 contract
Yo Miss,
I have yet to meet or hear from an ATR that doesn't want back into the classroom.
From Eduwonkette:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/
e...the_fine_p.html
So what percentage of these teachers have never received an Unsatisfactory rating? 81 percent. What percentage of these teachers have received an Unsatisfactory rating more than one time in their careers? Only 6 percent - about 14 teachers. I am not denying that these rates are higher than the NYC teacher population as a whole. They are. But the raw numbers provide much needed context, and we shouldn't have to dig deep in the report to find them.
Anon,
I am certainly aware of that, and I absolutely agree with you about the UFT's complicity. But I don't think it's necessarily deceptive to talk about this report without mentioning it. It's very likely I'll get back to it.
It's also very telling to note that the "new Teacher Project" created the New York City Teaching Fellows- the teachers who seem to be dominating schools like mine and who some were told during their "induction ceremony" that the "veteran teachers don't like you, and they shouldn't" Told this, by the way, in front of politicians, prominent educators and Randi Weingarten.
I've met some amazing Teaching Fellows, by the way. It's not about them. It's about the defiling and disqualification of veteran teachers that worries me.
Maybe i need glasses, but that guy with the shotgun really looks like Mayor Bloomberg.
Can we start questioning in all these discussions the truth of the entity called a "U-rating"?
By whose standards? A principal who wants to cut a position?
A principal who disagrees with union activist or even a contrarian?
A Tweedle?
A non-educator Klein? or one of his minion superintendents issuing a directive?
A for-profit corporation in the school with a educational product to push and giving advice to the principal?
A mayor who says cut costs whichever way you can?
Various governmental officials who want to bust the unions and turn public education into charter education?
U-ratings are by definition judgments by a single person, and one who might not have the teacher's skills in mind when they dish one out. There are so many agendas these days, and so few of them have to do with an educator's ability to function in a classroom.
Commenting by HaloScan
