Morning Shots

(CER President Jeanne Allen shared her thoughts with reporters in an email earlier this week. We thought everyone has a right to know what’s happening.)

The teacher evaluation piece in the Chicago contract negotiation is so weak to start that it’s almost unfathomable that the union would waste political capital on this piece. Have you looked at what the evaluation language of the new law and the Mayor’s demands actually say? It is not, as some have reported, about finite test scores. The 25% now and 40% later of evaluations that are said to be determined based on test scores are not based on one formula, yet. It’s fuzzy, as it has been in most laws recently passed and most contracts. Evaluations can include test scores, but how and who decides is still up in the air. This is not unusual in any case today, but it is underreported.

Take DC, for example. Teachers are evaluated against an average composite of predicted scores for certain kids. The extent to which their kids, over time, meet or exceed the predicted scores for similar kids is PART of their overall evaluation. “Performance” in IMPACT also includes peer, principal and some district observations, as well as factors relating to the school as a whole. And that’s only part of it. The comparisons are done by the research organization, Mathematica – externally evaluated – not a principal reviewing individual test scores.

These factors – who evaluates, how, based on what, over what time, and what the 25% of evaluation actually means (!!) has yet to be determined.

The union is not striking against evaluations, but they are using it to incite their members without informing them it has yet to be determined. They are striking against the notion that ANY evaluation is on the

Read More …

It’s a reflection of the state of the debate today that people immediately jump on a common Twitter mistake with an accusation of slander. In a recent op-ed in which I detailed a lengthy Twitter exchange about the upcoming movie Won’t Back Down, I quoted one of the many tweets assaulting the movie and it’s subject – the parent trigger. I mistakenly attributed the tweet “Shame on you for supporting a movie that sensationalizes locking kids in dark closets as ubiquitous ‘punishment’” to @stephrrivera instead of the actual tweeter @ColumWhyte. Instead of considering that I, like a lot Twitter users, had identified the wrong @username as the original tweeter, I was immediately accused of deliberate deception. Below is the entire exchange. I’ll let the record speak for itself.

When trying to separate real reformers from “talkers,” it helps to see how they behave in various habitats. For example, how does this alleged reformer act when invited to participate in a forum where the education establishment may well be present? Does (s)he:

a. Change the word “choice” to “options”?
b. Use accountability fifteen different times but never define what it means?
c. Say there is no silver bullet and we simply have to “do it all.”
d. Advocate for “early childhood education” without mentioning that existing schools that don’t work can’t do a better job just by having the kids early and neglect to discuss how low-quality is an issue in most public pre-schools as well.
e. Banter on about the dropout rate, the state of joblessness, homelessness, foodlessness and more as excuses for poor performing schools?
f. Frequently use the words “non-profit solutions?”

For more about How to Spot a Real Reformer go to look here.