So Much Reading, So Little Time

Every summer, I try to set myself a reading goal. A few years ago, I immersed myself in the novels of Dickens, and it was one of the best summer's worth of reading I've ever spent. This year, I decided to focus on satire, and as a result have spent many happy hours reading Heller, Vonnegut, Roth, and if I can get to it, Cervantes. As an English major/teacher, I have, of course, read all these authors before, but I try to set some time aside in the summer for in depth reading because only then do I have the leisure to savor the work--the artistry--that make these authors great.

Ostensibly, that is what the Common Core is designed to do--to get students to examine a text deeply, to savor the word choices, the imagery, the techniques authors use to evoke emotion from readers and to persuade them to a point of view. That is the reading portion of the Core. On the writing side, the hope is that students will emulate some of the techniques they have read to produce coherent, well designed arguments about the reading.

Accordingly, one would think that any assessment of students aligned to the Common Core would focus on these things, as well. It makes sense that a CC test would afford students time to reflect on what they have read and to construct cogent arguments based on thorough analysis.

So that, of course, is the exact opposite of how students are actually assessed.

Rather than giving kids the time they need to savor and digest text, as they are instructed to do all year, the NYS Common Core tests crams copious amounts of complex text deeply down their throats and asks them respond in a rapid fire fashion.

The 8th grade test is the one I administered, so I'll show what I mean using that. The test takes three days, but the most egregious part is day two. On that day, students were asked to read three passages and answer 21 multiple choice questions. Following that, they were asked to do a second booklet that contained two different passages and required them to write three complete paragraphs and a full length essay.

The total time allotted for this amount of work? 90 minutes. So much for deep reading.

I taught some very bright kids this year, and my biggest challenge was not to get them to think deeply, but to get them to write quickly. Smart kids like to be thorough and original in their writing, and when I gave them a practice test of similar length prior to the real thing, I immediately noticed that not one of them finished it. Not one. Using that as my "data" I set about teaching them how to write quickly. As a result, on Day 2 of the actual test, 31 of 32 students finished the exam. In some other classes, virtually no one finished. So did I do my students a favor? I have no idea. I'm sure they passed, but I'm not sure I taught them much in April other than how to game the test.

In the final analysis, higher level students had to jettison all their best writing skills in order to finish the test on time. Struggling readers simply had no chance.

The irony is that teachers are being evaluated on how well we teach kids to think, but when test time comes, students (and now by extension, teachers themselves) are being evaluated on how quickly they can answer ridiculously long assessments.

Speaking of my own summer reading once more, I must mention that in my study of satire, I discovered a gem. It's the EngageNY Guide to the 8th Grade CC ELA test, and it contains this nugget:
  
The 2013 Grade 8 Common Core English Language Arts Test is designed so that most students will complete Day 1 and 2 testing in about 70 minutes and Day 3 testing in about 50 minutes. While it is likely that most students will complete testing within these times, students will be permitted 90 minutes to complete the test each day. This design provides ample time for students who work at different paces.


Let's see Cervantes top that.

Summer Randomness

Summer's here, and in keeping with the general laziness of the 95 degree day, I decided I'd post some random thoughts rather than some long screed.

First off, I am going to miss the DOEnuts blog. Although it is continuing with a new blogger at the helm, I will sorely miss the wit and wisdom of the original.

NYC Educator wrote a piece I was thinking about the other day on not letting retirees vote. When I researched the idea, however, I discovered that the UFT actually still charges dues to retirees--albeit half the rate of teachers and based on their actual retirement allotment. While this amount is way less than most teachers pay (figure about 1200 a year to maybe 300), if retirees are paying in, they should have a voice. Contracts and UFT leadership are matters that do affect them. It's not the fault of retirees if only 17% of teachers can be bothered to vote. What if, on the last day of school, those who vote get their paychecks at noon, and the apathetic get theirs after the usually scheduled extended day? I bet we'd get a lot more votes then.

There's a lot of buzz about the Badass Teachers Association (BAT) on Facebook.  Their mission is: "...to engage in discourse that improves our profession." Really? Does the word "Badass" in the name really help us engage in discourse or improve our profession? It sounds more like we're looking to pick a bar fight. Picture the debate on MSNBC's Education Week: "Today, the president of Students First will debate one of the founders of the Badass Teachers Association". We lose before we start. Also, on an even more petty note, shouldn't the acronym for "Badass Teachers Association" be BTA, or if you count "ass" as a separate word, BATA? I guess those aren't as badass.

I've spent a LOT of hours this vacation playing the PS3 game The Last of Us, which is about a post-apocalyptic world overrun by infected humans (who are NOT zombies, although you wouldn't know by looking at them). This game is like a great movie, except you get to be in it. You play it mostly as Joel, whose teenage daughter was killed when the epidemic began and who is tasked, 20 years later, with escorting a 14 year old infected girl named Ellie across the country in the hopes of using her DNA to find a vaccine. It is easily the best game I have played in the last decade--maybe ever. It totally sucks you in by forcing you to make an increasingly troublesome set of moral decisions about survival as you try to protect Ellie and keep yourself alive. I mention it because in the post Common Core world, I'll probably never get to discuss this game with my students. But it had the exact kind of story they would care about. I would love to get the graphic novel versions of this tale and let them debate the moral decisions they would make.

Bill Thompson? Really? I mean, if you're losing by a fairly wide margin to a guy who sent pictures of his johnson to random women on Twitter, you're in trouble. Might be time for Thompson to break out the Viagra and cell phone cam to see what he can come up with. Christine Quinn is on her own.

George Zimmerman is going to walk. Or at worst, get hit with the lowest manslaughter charge Florida allows and be sentenced to time served. This is 'Murica.

I am shocked that more people are NOT shocked at being spied on by PRISM and President Obama.  But judging from my real life Facebook feed, there's no shortage of people willing to share their most intimate thoughts and deeds with the world at large. Maybe they're just happy that someone is reading their status updates at all.

Campbell Brown seems to think that an unproved allegation against a teacher should be grounds for dismissal. I have to wonder why she doesn't rant about Kevin Johnson, who paid a $230,000 settlement to a 16 year old girl who accused him of molesting her. It might be that he's married to ed reform rock star Michelle Rhee, while Campbell herself is married to another ed deformer, Dan Senor.

Since New Yorkers seem hell bent on punishing "perv" teachers but equally determined to elect perv politicians, I'm surprised that Kevin Johnson hasn't thrown his hat in the ring. He could give Weiner a run for his money, and if elected, he could make his wife chancellor. While the idea makes me shudder as a teacher, as a blogger the "Weiner vs. Johnson" puns would almost make it worth while.

Of Double Standards, Billionaires, and Pencil Boxes

An incredibly smart and sweet girl I've had the pleasure of teaching for two of her three years at my school just recently graduated as valedictorian. She is headed to Stuyvesant. Just yesterday, she handed me a card in which she thanked me profusely for helping her become a better writer and for being a good English teacher. These are the kinds of things teachers live for.

Along with the card came a present--a nice pencil box inscribed with a quote by Hemingway. It will look great on my desk, assuming I decide to keep it.

You see, there are rules in this city for employees. I'm not supposed to accept any gift over a certain amount, but the actual amount for teachers is vague. Under Klein, the amount was $5 per student. Here's what I found when I searched it:

A gift can only be accepted from an individual if the gift is of primarily sentimental value. This means that it should not be very expensive. Cheap scarves, homemade crafts, cards, baked goods, and the like are probably OK.

This gift was clearly primarily of sentimental value. But I don't know its dollar value, and it could well be over $5, although it certainly can't be much more than that. So which rule prevails--sentimentality or dollar value? Am I supposed to return it? Ask for a receipt verifying the price? Ask the girl if she was feeling sentimental when she handed it to me?

I wouldn't even bring this up if not for two articles that caught my eye today. The first involved two sanitation workers who were fined $2,000 each for accepting a $5 tip for hauling away a lot of trash.  This is in violation of the rules of the Conflict of Interest Board (COIB), which handed down the fines. If they got fined 2 grand for five dollar tip, what might happen to me if the COIB discovers I accepted a $10 pencil box? Fine me $4000? Have me keel hauled? What if it's worth more? Will they have my eyes pecked out by birds?

Of course, these rules only apply if you are a city worker. If you are the mayor, you are exempt. For example, if you're Bloomberg, and you have a pet project such as changing gun control laws, it is perfectly OK for you to take the tax money of NYC residents and lobby for changes to gun laws in Nevada. Yes, this is the same mayor who has an estimated worth of $27 billion but feels its much better to spend YOUR hard earned money on his pet projects than to use his own massive wealth. This is also the same mayor who has claimed time and again that there is no money for raises for teachers, apparently because the money is earmarked for political plunder.

The mayor's goon spokesperson claimed that this was all fair and aboveboard, because "seeking sane gun laws in other states . . . help(s) reduce the flow of illegal guns to New York", thus keeping everyone safe. As you are doubtless aware, many mobsters routinely go to Nevada for guns, because it is much closer than, let's say, the south.

On the other hand, if I accept this pencil box and its value exceeds $5 or the equivalent sentimental units, it will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Violence will rule the streets and anarchy will prevail. If teachers start accepting $10 Dunkin' Donuts gift cards, the next thing you know they'll be headed off to Nevada to purchase illegal guns. We have to have rules.

Unless you're the mayor. Or a billionaire. Or especially if you're both.

But it's nearly the end of school, and I refuse to insult this nice young lady by returning her gift. If you want my pencil box, Mr. Mayor, all I can do is borrow a quote from all those really dangerous Nevada to NY gun runners:

"You can have my pencil box when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

Chancellor Walcott Should Fire Himself

If you want to judge schools by data, as this administration so desperately wants to do, you can only conclude that Chancellor Walcott has failed our children and should be fired immediately. Since he's the boss, I want him to publicly fire himself. Yes, I know he can just resign, but self-immolation would be so much sweeter.

I'm here today to accuse Walcott of extremely poor performance based on his own measures. I'm talking specifically about quality reviews, which are designed to measure how individual schools are performing. If individual schools are performing more poorly overall, then the system itself is failing, and its leader has failed to add value.

My school just recently got its QR score, and it wasn't great. Me, I'd tell you that it IS a great school--with excellent teachers, a solid administration, and high test scores. But Walcott would tell you that data doesn't lie. And what's good for the goose is good for the chancellor.

You don't need to be a great statistician (because I'm certainly not) to prove that Walcott stinks. Just do what I did and download the QR scores for the entire city since 2005. Yes, I know it sounds boring, but I'm not going to ask you to read any actual data. All you need to do is scroll the spreadsheet and you'll see what I mean.

Start at the top, and scroll down the first two years, which are the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years. Notice anything? Almost all the schools are considered either Well Developed (WD) or Proficient (P). Then a strange thing happens as you scroll to 2007/08. The number of WD schools mushrooms to mythical proportions. I'd venture a guess (because I am too lazy to do the math) that at least 65% of schools were Well Developed that year. It was such a great year that they developed a whole new level--Outstanding (O)--which was only in effect that year. There was a big drop-off the next year--in fact, you can tell when the 08/09 school year begins because all those WDs suddenly disappear as you scroll.

So, if you believe that data, it is possible for about 2/3rds of schools to be well developed. Walcott has had two years at the helm to return us to those halcyon days, but he has failed miserably. If you keep scrolling to the end of that spreadsheet, you can see that in the two years of Walcott's tenure, we have fewer WDs than ever. In fact, you start seeing a LOT of D's for Developing and a smattering of U's.

So let's do to Walcott what he'd like to do to us with the new evaluation system he touts so highly. In this system, teachers get two years to show they are competent, and if are deemed ineffective based on the data, can be summarily fired.

In Walcott's two years, the data clearly show that our schools have gone downhill. FAR downhill. Where we once had 65% of schools considered well developed, we now have roughly 10% (again, this is based on my lazy visual inspection of the spreadsheet). The data conclusively prove that Walcott has been ineffective for two years and should be summarily fired.

Of course, we can give him the same consideration he gives us, and let him prove that he is competent despite the numbers. I'd love to hear how he'd explain these numbers away.

Congratulations on my Retirement!!!

Yes, it's true. I've been receiving tons of congratulations from my colleagues lately on my coming retirement. Which is normal, I suppose, except for one thing.

I'm not retiring. I'm not old enough and I don't
have enough years in.

So you may be wondering why people have been congratulating me. I'll give you a hint--it all started when I returned to school Monday.

Yep. I've been getting pats on the back all week because of the new evaluation system, because while I am not retiring, I will be eligible to retire well before the end of the 2015 school year, which is when the new system will start lopping the heads off any teachers rated ineffective two years in a row. So even if they hoist me into the tumbril and cart me off the the guillotine, I can narrowly escape and head off into the sunset at Boca Raton.

To be clear, I have no intention of retiring for quite a few years, because I love teaching and I still think my best work is yet to come. And besides, where would I get material for this blog?

My point is that it just goes to show you the extent to which people are afraid of this new evaluation system, and I think justifiably so. The fact that people are congratulating me on retirement years in advance shows me how much those people believe they will not make it, as I have.

They may well be right. A teacher with 10 years in will have to go at least another 17 without getting two consecutive ineffective ratings. If you're brand new, you'll have to survive a full 27 years of junk science VAM evaluations, and you'll have to survive a number of principals (I have survived six, so far) and admins who may not think you're the cat's pajamas (jeez, I am old).

Unless things change, you can expect that this evaluation plan will mean that before long, no one will reach retirement (and after all, isn't that what Bloomberg wants, anyway?). Once geezers like me are gone, we'll have to think of new things to celebrate, such as one consecutive year without an ineffective rating. Teacher who get vested should receive a gold watch.

A lot of the folks who congratulated me also told me that they are working on their resumes, or looking for other careers. That, of course, is the other thing Bloomberg wanted--a transient, temporary work force that will be young enough not to need many benefits and too inexperienced to climb up the pay scale.

Me, I'm just basking in the glow of all the congratulations. I may go out this weekend to buy a straw hat, some Bermuda shorts, and some sandals to go with my knee length black socks as I contemplate getting out of this system and heading to Florida. I hope to see you there one day. But I'm not banking on it. It'll probably be just me and Mulgrew.

Email From Mulgrew Regarding APPR Decision

My fellow UFTers,

I'm delighted to tell you of the total victory we emerged with today by wisely allowing John King, whose cup of coffee as a teacher gives him wide ranging knowledge of education, to decide the fate of the 75,000 teachers we threw under the bus represent.

There will, of course, be plenty of time for you to get to know the details of this plan as you stand on the unemployment line, but here are some highlights:

• You will be judged on all 22 elements of the Danielson Framework. The city tried to cheat us and evaluate us on only 21 of them, but we insisted. Win!
• You will be observed from 4-6 times per year, as opposed to the previous two. Obviously, we wanted more observations because teachers asked for them. In a recent poll of teacher preferences conducted by New York Teacher, 52% of teachers said "I want to be observed three times as often." None of the other choices, such as "I want my scrotum stapled to a moving roller coaster" garnered even half as much support.
• If you teach ELA or math, only 20% of your score will be based on value-added measurements (VAM, aka junk science). Or 25% if the Regents changes its mind. Oh, and if your kids don't do well, it will count for 100%. But it'll only be 20% as long as you don't have to teach any kids with learning disabilities, limited English, or behavior problems, which, as we know, is reflective of the majority of classes in NYC.
• If you teach science or social studies, we have even better news! We know that many of you have been bemoaning the fact that you don't get to teach to high stakes state tests like other core subjects, but those days are over! 20% (or 25%, or 100%) of your evaluation will come from a new set of tests designed just for the city! No siree, we didn't forget you in this system!
• As a bonus, you will also have the unheard of opportunity to be evaluated by your students. Yes, student surveys will now contribute to your overall score. If you thought being evaluated by an admin with only 3 years of teaching experience was fun, imagine how you'll love being graded by children who've only been in school for three years! Many of them still eat library paste!
• Mayor Bloomberg wanted an evaluation system that would never sunset, or run for a million bajillion years, whichever comes first. We, of course, wouldn't stand for that. In a stunning victory, we made sure that the law would sunset in FOUR years! True, the rest of the state will sunset in two, and we got four, but you have to admit that's not even close to a million bajillion! If that's not a victory, we don't know what is (no, really, we don't).
• The DOE wanted to ability to fire any teacher rated ineffective two years in a row. To be honest, they did get that, but hey, you'll get up to a full four hours to prove that you are competent before you are fired. What more could you ask for? To make it even sweeter,  13% of teachers will actually get a semblance of a real hearing instead of a kangaroo court. So if you're a chapter leader loyal to Unity, or willing to sleep with a chapter leader loyal to Unity, you may just end up being one of the lucky few.
• For those of you worried about getting tenure, we have something for you, as well. Now that teachers can be fired for two years of ineffective ratings, tenure no longer matters anyway! All teachers will enjoy exactly the same protections, or lack thereof.

We just wanted to get the word out to you ourselves, before the press and the DOE get their spin on it. Remember, if you have any questions about the new APPR, don't forget to contact your DOE representative. You can be sure that he or she will always be there to answer your questions, because they are not subject to this evaluation plan and therefore can't be fired.

Yours in appeasement,

Michael Mulgrew

Fighting the Wrong Battle on Teacher Evaluations

Let's start with the obvious: Agreeing to allow value-added scores (VAM) to be part of the teacher evaluation system was a mistake. VAM is wildly unreliable as an indicator of teacher quality; as I have frequently pointed out on this blog, I went from being one of the worst teachers in NYC one year to being one of the best the next year if you go my my TDA rating, which is based on VAM. There were no consequences to my initial low score, as the new evaluation system was not in place at that time.

Had it been in place, my low single digit TDA score would have placed a target on my back. Admins simply can't (or more accurately, won't) ignore it when teachers are poorly rated no matter how good the teacher is, because they know a second poor score will lead to a 3020a hearing for that teacher. Worse still, it's likely that the new evaluation system will make it mandatory for teachers with low VAM scores to be rated ineffective.

And that's all bad. But it's not really THAT bad.

You see, admins have always had the ability to give you a crappy evaluation if they wanted to. I've seen many fine teachers rated U for consecutive years and sent off to incompetence hearings. Usually it happened because the teacher was involved in union activity, or went against the administration in some way. I have seen teachers falsely accused of sexual or verbal abuse because admins wanted them removed from the classroom (I know of one case where the admins coached a child to lie about a teacher. The teacher was found not guilty, but nothing happened to the admins).

So teachers have often been targeted, and the new evaluation system won't change that. What's really wrong with the new system is that it will likely allow for a teacher to be removed after two consecutive ineffective ratings regardless of the validity of the charges.

According to the new system, if a teacher is rated ineffective two years in a row, whether due to VAM or politics or because the principal doesn't like the fact that you wear jeans on Fridays, the onus will fall on that teacher to prove he or she is not ineffective. And good luck with that, considering your principal will have two years of phony data or trumped up evaluations to show that you stink.

Imagine our criminal justice system working this way. Instead of the current due process system in which the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, let's instead assume a teacher-evaluation model system in which anyone arrested two times would be automatically found guilty unless he could establish his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of proof is the real issues in teacher evaluations, but it's one that the union isn't even bothering to fight for. We have already conceded. The right to a fair hearing with due process is the entire point behind tenure; without that, tenure is meaningless and all of us are one rogue admin away from losing our jobs.

Why isn't the union fighting to retain meaningful tenure and due process rights? A clue lies in one of the other proposed provisions in the new evaluation system--that 13% of cases chosen by the union will be heard by a more independent tribunal. The union will almost certainly choose to protect its own--i.e., chapter leaders loyal to Unity. The rest of us can whistle.

Why would the union choose to protect only 13% of its members and not the other 87%? Well, just follow the money. It costs the union money to defend teachers under attack. This system will give them the ability to throw most teachers to the wolves while protecting their own, and save money to boot. They will spotlight a few high profile cases in New York Teacher and claim they are fighting the system, but the truth is most accused teachers will lose their jobs with no meaningful representation. They will be replaced by other teachers who pay the same amount in union dues every year. The union loses nothing.

Don't expect the UFT to engage the city on this--the real battle we should be fighting. Instead, they will blame VAM or Danielson or Bloomberg for teachers getting fired in droves. They will not blame themselves for agreeing to an evaluation system that eviscerates the tenure system that currently protects teachers from vindictive principals. No one at UFT headquarters will be adversely affected by this and the dues will keep rolling in.