Source: http://www.uft.org/news/doe-memo-new-tenure-guidelines
TENURE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION
1. 4-point Effectiveness Framework
For the first time, a 4-point effectiveness framework will be used to aid in making tenure decisions. The framework measures teacher practice along multiple dimensions - impact on student learning, instructional practice, and professional contributions - and requires multiple measures of each over more than two academic years in order to demonstrate effectiveness. Additionally, special consideration will be given to gains demonstrated with special populations, including Special Education students, English Language Learners, and students who are over-age and under-credited. A copy of the framework is attached to this document.
2. Expanded Data
The Tenure Notification System (TNS) will provide principals with centrally available data on their probationary teachers, including the following indicators:
§ previous U-rating
§ poor attendance
§ particularly strong or weak teacher data report indicators
§ ATR status
§ limited time teaching at their current school (less than 1 school year)
§ probation previously extended
To assist superintendents, additional data will be available to manage tenure decisions, including:
§ duration of principal tenure in building
§ school QR scores
§ school PR scores
3. Clear Steps for Tenure Decision-Making
In January, principals will be asked to enter an early (preliminary) recommendation using the 4-point framework for probationary teachers whose tenure decisions are due in May and June.
When principals enter final recommendations in TNS, they will (1) provide feedback using the 4-point framework and (2) using a new Tenure Recommendation Form, they will be required to provide a rationale for their tenure recommendation, explaining the evidence they’ve collected which led to the recommendation of granting or denying tenure, or offering an extension of probation. As in the past, principals will enter their final recommendations in the Tenure Notification System (TNS), and Superintendents will review principal recommendations and issue final decisions.
4. Improve Hiring Policies
In an effort to ensure that tenure recommendations are made based on a teachers’ ability to positively impact their students’ educational outcomes and their contributions to the school, the following incentives have been put in place:
§ In the past, principals may have resisted denying or extending tenure because of a fear of creating a vacancy that could not be filled with a newly hired teacher of their choice. This year, principals who deny tenure (or discontinue prior to denial) can backfill the position with a teacher new to the system, provided that (1) the school has the FY 2011 budget to afford a teacher in the position and (2) there is not a layoff condition making implementation impossible under legal and contractual rules.*
§ If schools are compelled to excess teachers for whom they have recently granted tenure, networks and then clusters are responsible for identifying an appropriate placement for that teacher.
NEXT STEPS:
Principals can access a current list of probationary teachers with upcoming tenure decisions via TNS and will be able to produce one-touch data reports for those teachers through TNS starting in January
As outlined above, principals will be asked to make preliminary recommendations of effectiveness using the attached 4-point framework (for teachers whose tenure decisions are due in May and June starting in January.)
Schools should work directly with their CFN to implement the policies described in this memo.
Training materials will be available beginning in mid-December.
*This applies only to vacancies in the same grade and subject as the one held by the denied employee.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Professional Certification Licensing
The DOE was scheduled to send out a letter this past November 2010 on how to report your state-mandated professional development hours. The New York State Education Department requires teachers to show that they have taken 175 hours of PD every five years after achieving their professional certification. The letter also explains how to get your hours approved by your principal and how to report to the DOE.
As before, the UFT recommends that all teacher with professional certificates keep their own logs and any documentation that shows the date, hours, and title of the PD you have taken.
(SOURCE: UFT Newspaper, Volume L11, Number 6, November 25, 2010)
As before, the UFT recommends that all teacher with professional certificates keep their own logs and any documentation that shows the date, hours, and title of the PD you have taken.
(SOURCE: UFT Newspaper, Volume L11, Number 6, November 25, 2010)
Friday, December 3, 2010
Justification for Reversal: Teacher Data Reports
Forwarded from Aminda Gentile, UFT Teacher Center:
The DOE sparked the legal battle in October by deciding to turn over value-added test data, including the names of all 12,000 Teachers in the reports, to the city’s daily newspapers and other organizations that requested the TDRs via a Freedom of Information Law request.The UFT sued to stop the data’s release, saying that it was unproven, flawed and rife with errors and noting that when the union agreed to the value-add program, the DOE had pledged to keep the Teachers’ names secret. In that written agreement of 2008, then-Deputy Chancellor Christopher Cerf had assured then-UFT President Randi Weingarten that the reports “will not and should not be disclosed.”But the city Law Department’s response to the UFT lawsuit argued that “[DOE’s] agreement to maintain confidentiality is of no consequence if it is obligated under FOIL to disclose required information.”
The response, authored by Mr. Levine, says that the FOIL request outweighs any commitments the DOE might have made to the UFT, and suggests that this is a widely accepted fact.
“Public employees generally lack an expectation of privacy in information concerning their performance of public functions,” Mr. Levine wrote. “Records relevant to the job performance of public employees (as the Teacher Data Reports are) must be disclosed under FOIL even when they identify particular employees.”'So What If Data's Wrong?'
The UFT argued that the data behind the TDRs is unproven and flawed, with many errors reported by its members, but the city said, “No case law supports the withholding of statistical data solely because it contains errors...in any event, the TDR process included a recertification process and individual claims of error are addressed by DOE.”
Teachers are indeed invited to report any errors to the DOE, but they are generally not cleared up until the following year’s report. Mr. Levine also dismissed the idea that Teachers who performed badly on the reports will be singled out by parents, who will attempt to keep their children out of those classrooms. Give Parents Important Tool“The TDRs...provide parents with considerable information to make their own judgments of both the effectiveness of their children’s Teachers and the utility of the reports themselves,” he wrote. “This is precisely the sort of disclosure that FOIL was intended to ensure.”Asked about victimization of Teachers in a phone interview, he said, “We’re saying we’re required to do it. FOIL requires it, and it’s up to people how they interpret and use the information, we’re just required to give it.”“There is a strong public interest in disclosing the requested information,” he wrote. “In being entrusted with the futures of the large majority of New York City’s children, Teachers are perhaps the most important public servants in the lives of New York’s youngest citizens and their families. TDRs provide parents with objective means to measure effectiveness.”
Because the reports are data-based and thus supposedly objective, as opposed to performance reviews, the TDRs are no different than any other “statistical tabulations” which are not exempt from FOIL requests, Mr. Levine argued.He also made sure to address the previous FOIL requests, made by the New York Times, the Daily News and the NAACP, which resulted in the DOE releasing data with schools and Teacher names redacted.He said neither paper sought the names, so they weren’t provided.“The New York Times [request] explicitly stated that Teacher names were not being requested; the two remaining requesters implicitly indicated as much by omitting any mention of Teacher names,” he said.The Daily News FOIL request, made by reporter Meredith Kolodner, simply asked for “access to and if necessary copies of Teacher Data Reports produced between 9/1/08 and 8/1/09.”The UFT will submit its reply to the city by Dec. 6, with oral arguments in court scheduled for Dec. 8.Mayor Taps Educator To Assist Black, Save Her Chancellor's JobBy DAVID SIMS
As this newspaper went to press Nov. 29, Mayor Bloomberg’s choice of Cathie Black as Schools Chancellor finally won the approval of State Education Commissioner David Steiner, but only after the Mayor capitulated to his demand to appoint a Chief Academic Officer, with education experience, as her second-in-command.Deputy Chancellor Shael Polakow-Suransky, a former Principal who is currently in charge of performance and accountability at the Department of Education, will serve as Ms. Black’s deputy. Mr. Steiner offered the compromise but was initially rebuffed by Mr. Bloomberg until a panel considering the waiver she needed to serve as Chancellor heeded Mr. Steiner’s recommendation and rejected her application.
The DOE sparked the legal battle in October by deciding to turn over value-added test data, including the names of all 12,000 Teachers in the reports, to the city’s daily newspapers and other organizations that requested the TDRs via a Freedom of Information Law request.The UFT sued to stop the data’s release, saying that it was unproven, flawed and rife with errors and noting that when the union agreed to the value-add program, the DOE had pledged to keep the Teachers’ names secret. In that written agreement of 2008, then-Deputy Chancellor Christopher Cerf had assured then-UFT President Randi Weingarten that the reports “will not and should not be disclosed.”But the city Law Department’s response to the UFT lawsuit argued that “[DOE’s] agreement to maintain confidentiality is of no consequence if it is obligated under FOIL to disclose required information.”
The response, authored by Mr. Levine, says that the FOIL request outweighs any commitments the DOE might have made to the UFT, and suggests that this is a widely accepted fact.
“Public employees generally lack an expectation of privacy in information concerning their performance of public functions,” Mr. Levine wrote. “Records relevant to the job performance of public employees (as the Teacher Data Reports are) must be disclosed under FOIL even when they identify particular employees.”'So What If Data's Wrong?'
The UFT argued that the data behind the TDRs is unproven and flawed, with many errors reported by its members, but the city said, “No case law supports the withholding of statistical data solely because it contains errors...in any event, the TDR process included a recertification process and individual claims of error are addressed by DOE.”
Teachers are indeed invited to report any errors to the DOE, but they are generally not cleared up until the following year’s report. Mr. Levine also dismissed the idea that Teachers who performed badly on the reports will be singled out by parents, who will attempt to keep their children out of those classrooms. Give Parents Important Tool“The TDRs...provide parents with considerable information to make their own judgments of both the effectiveness of their children’s Teachers and the utility of the reports themselves,” he wrote. “This is precisely the sort of disclosure that FOIL was intended to ensure.”Asked about victimization of Teachers in a phone interview, he said, “We’re saying we’re required to do it. FOIL requires it, and it’s up to people how they interpret and use the information, we’re just required to give it.”“There is a strong public interest in disclosing the requested information,” he wrote. “In being entrusted with the futures of the large majority of New York City’s children, Teachers are perhaps the most important public servants in the lives of New York’s youngest citizens and their families. TDRs provide parents with objective means to measure effectiveness.”
Because the reports are data-based and thus supposedly objective, as opposed to performance reviews, the TDRs are no different than any other “statistical tabulations” which are not exempt from FOIL requests, Mr. Levine argued.He also made sure to address the previous FOIL requests, made by the New York Times, the Daily News and the NAACP, which resulted in the DOE releasing data with schools and Teacher names redacted.He said neither paper sought the names, so they weren’t provided.“The New York Times [request] explicitly stated that Teacher names were not being requested; the two remaining requesters implicitly indicated as much by omitting any mention of Teacher names,” he said.The Daily News FOIL request, made by reporter Meredith Kolodner, simply asked for “access to and if necessary copies of Teacher Data Reports produced between 9/1/08 and 8/1/09.”The UFT will submit its reply to the city by Dec. 6, with oral arguments in court scheduled for Dec. 8.Mayor Taps Educator To Assist Black, Save Her Chancellor's JobBy DAVID SIMS
As this newspaper went to press Nov. 29, Mayor Bloomberg’s choice of Cathie Black as Schools Chancellor finally won the approval of State Education Commissioner David Steiner, but only after the Mayor capitulated to his demand to appoint a Chief Academic Officer, with education experience, as her second-in-command.Deputy Chancellor Shael Polakow-Suransky, a former Principal who is currently in charge of performance and accountability at the Department of Education, will serve as Ms. Black’s deputy. Mr. Steiner offered the compromise but was initially rebuffed by Mr. Bloomberg until a panel considering the waiver she needed to serve as Chancellor heeded Mr. Steiner’s recommendation and rejected her application.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)