tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33431390.post5840431708821904272..comments2024-03-26T11:07:03.496-04:00Comments on Ed Notes Online: Julie Cavanagh Analyzes Teacher Evaluation Optionsed notes onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15018047869059226777noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33431390.post-35430754609957843072013-08-29T10:21:42.305-04:002013-08-29T10:21:42.305-04:00Julie did every UFT member a great service with he...Julie did every UFT member a great service with her hard work, providing realistic and informed choices.<br /><br />However, I'd like to suggest another route, namely, that teachers, Chapter Leaders and Consultative Committees refuse ALL participation in this process.<br /><br />The purpose of teacher "participation" in this is twofold: to perpetuate the fiction that teachers have a say in this institutionalized witchhunt, thus validating it, and to divide people in the schools.<br /><br />Regarding the first point, it's absurd, as the title of Julie's piece ably points out: choosing the means of your professional demise is no choice at all. Does anyone really consider these to be good faith choices? Then why help maintain the facade? Perhaps it's better to boycott all involvement, let the admins be "out of compliance" with worker bee buy-in, and allow them to go insane with the impossible demands of the new system.<br /><br />As for the second point, a boycott - admittedly not an easy thing to pull off - would have the potential to send a message about teacher resolve and opposition to this travesty. It would also represent a tangible rebuke to our Stockholm Syndrome UFT leadership.<br /><br />Participating in this vicious charade puts us in the position of being prison trustees, helping to administer our own containment and powerlessness.<br /><br />As for myself, I'm choosing whatever requires the most work for already overburdened administrators, and thereafter maintaining a Non-participation With Evil stance. While I know some people will say that's irresponsible, and that people will be hurt as a result, I'd respond by saying that the process is designed to destroy people, and that we'd do better to husband our solidarity within the schools by seeing this process for what it is, and refusing to dignify it with our cooperation.<br /><br />Sometimes the most radical act is to just say no, and refuse to be complicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33431390.post-45008155594230606352013-08-28T23:45:45.946-04:002013-08-28T23:45:45.946-04:00Our school committee met a while ago. It can best ...Our school committee met a while ago. It can best be described as confusing and demoralizing. Much of the conversation was focused on whether we should merely beat the system or try to make the exercise useful for the students. It reminded some teachers of gambling. Without being able to see some of the assessments, without knowing which students will "grow" the most we are being asked to "place a bet" and hope we chose correctly. If your school chooses the growth measurement, teachers are incentivized to ignore students with scores of 3's and 4's as they have the least potential to evidence growth. It was particularly difficult to choose assessments by which to measure gym, art and foreign language teachers as none of them are particularly appropriate. Participating in this travesty is the low point of my professional career as an educator.Students Lasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05870145119991202912noreply@blogger.com