A CL on the MORE listserve went to the Manhattan training on Tuesday. Here is what he reported- also see powerpoint links, only available until Feb. 2. A lot of this is gibberish to me - acronym city. I think I saw The Matrix Trilogy. Is this a sequel?
Chapter Leader workshop at 52 Broadway for the changes to ADVANCE.
First off, we were running about 20 minutes behind so while we were waiting we had a COPE presentation stressing the importance of generating awareness around the November 7th vote for the Constitutional Convention-clearly this is weighing heavy and is a major concern. The information presented was the same information shared at the December Delegate Assembly meeting, so nothing new here. Don Wright commented that Governor Cuomo is our friend and why he is so convinced to Cuomo’s new found respect for public school teachers and a partnership is in the best interest for Cuomo. Well, more to follow I am sure on this topic.
On to the workshop.
Amy Arundel and Jackie Bennett presented and the workshop was well organized and informative with the last 30 minutes for question and answer. I have attached their powerpoint packet that was issued and here are the highlights in the order of the presentation:
* two major points in regards to this Evaluation Agreement
- simplification of the teacher evaluation process
- increased fairness
*the 1st big change, the most important that affects us in the immediate is the “MATRIX’— the calculating and totaling of scores is gone and the grid is in place. There is no math involved find where you fall in the grid and voila-your score. Page 3 of the PowerPoint packet.
The key point regarding the MATRIX is that it defers to the higher of the two teacher scores MOTP/MOSL or MOSL/MOTP— the benefit of the doubt will go to the teacher. Takes care of teachers who are rated HE in their MOTP but their MOSL score was dragging them down to Effective or Developing.
* the 2nd big change is the adoption of the Single Measure. No longer a State measure 20%, and Local measure 20%. Just one score that is not weighted, period. Reduces the stakes of testing, less complicated, school MOSL selects the Single Measure.
* MOSL Committee at the school level will select and recommend to the principal the Single Measure. At this point it was noted that teachers [high school and some 8th grade science & math] who teach a regents class that ends in a regents exam their Single Measure is the regents. *** MOSL Committee can only use the choices of measure that are available for this year, no new measures for this school year. Next year, introduction of new Single Measure assessment/options.
* this will be a phase-in over the next several years through 2021, for 2017-2018 the development of Project-Based Learning, Student Learning Inventories [portfolios], Performance-Based Assessments [already in use in the DOE] , Progress Monitoring Asssessments. Page 6 of the PowerPoint
* last, a Central MOSL Committee with a 50/50 split between UFT and DOE will provide oversight in review school developed assessments, etc. An entire protocol is in place up to mediation with an outside arbitrator if things cannot be resolved between the upper structures of management.
Overall, a lot of information is forthcoming in MOSL guide, emails, etc. Page 4 of the PowerPoint is worth the review as Amy stressed that there are very very few changes ahead for the MOTP. Any changes will assist and support teachers on a TIP and relate to outside 3rd party reviewers.
- The matrix is in state law. (not in negotiations or regs) It would take another law to override it.- Currently, under state law, teachers are only required to be observed twice. However, the UFT opted to have several observations for city teachers citing the statistical Bell Curve phenomena, where the more variables you have, the more likely it is that they will converge their distribution towards the normal. In other words, you have a better chance of improving your overall score if you have several observations as opposed to just two.- Facilitators encouraged Chapter Leaders to remind teachers that they are being rated by an average of the scores they receive on each Danielson Framework component. Therefore, it would most likely benefit teachers if they are indeed rated on ALL observable Danielson components. If teachers are not rated on the classroom management component, for example, and they know it was observable and executed well, then they should request a rating. This will help their overall score. If this oversight is not rectified, teachers should file an APPR complaint.- This year, observation options remain the same. Next year, however, highly effective teachers will be able to choose between new option versions of numbers 3 and 4. Please refer to the Teacher Guide on the Evaluation System that Mulgrew sent members for specific details. (Page 5)- There is a page 7 to the PowerPoint Presentation document that was handed out at yesterday’s meeting. I scanned the entire document which includes page 7 into a PDF file. It has been attached to this e-mail.