Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Monday, December 31, 2012

What About Observers Having No Teaching Experience?

Get Observed Teaching By Someone With No Teaching Experience?


UnknownI was about to write a searing post about an organization I knew next to nothing about, but upon looking further, I've changed my opinion.  Here's the chain of events leading to a new conclusion. 
Basically, I saw a job post on Idealist.org by a non-profit organization called Turnaround for Children, looking for--
"former teachers, education researchers, and current graduate students in social sciences and education to visit schools in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Harlem, and Queens to conduct systematic observations of teachers' classrooms. Observers will receive training in a widely-used observation protocol (Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)), and will use this protocol to observe classrooms in various school settings." 
At first this sounded alright to me. My mind ran with the idea of former teachers conducting observations of teachers in various contexts--being that external person to balance out any bias that principals and other school-based observers may have. That could be a good thing.
Then I read on to the job requirements:
  • Bachelor's degree in education, social sciences or related fields of study required. Teacher certification or former classroom experience preferred.
  • Experience in performing classroom observations preferred(experience with CLASS protocol preferred); experience in quantitative or qualitative data collection preferred.
This is where I started getting red in the face.  So, the organization would ideally have experienced teachers conduct the observations (though one year could constitute experience, I suppose), but they would actually settle for people with no teaching experience observing--and evaluating?--practicing teachers?
I decided to read up on the organization. Here is their website, and here is an article, Addressing Poverty In Schools, by Joe Nocera about the history of the organization and its founder, Dr. Pamela Cantor. They seem to have a good mission, in which they come into struggling schools and work with the most at risk students--those students who have been traumatized and are just not getting what they need in the school's regular structures. From experience, I know that there is a good handful of students in every high needs school that need more than the regular classroom structures and relationships can give them to address the issues they face and prepare them to be students.  When these needs go unmet, such students can act out severely and really upset a whole school environment.  If this organization, founded by a psychiatrist, has found a way to fill this need, I'm in favor.
Here, also, is a blog post by teacher Larry Ferlazzo, called "Mixed Feelings About 'Turnaround For Children'." I wonder, like Larry Ferlazzo does, why the DOE doesn't build the capacity of its own teachers and counseling staff, through additional hires and hybrid roles, to do this work internally.
Back to the question of non-teacher observers. On the one hand... my guess is that these outside observers, trained to use CLASS, are measuring the effects of the intervention program itself.  I've often said that data collection cannot reasonably be added as a duty for teachers on top of everything else we do.  So hiring outside people could be a decent alternative.  
I also wonder, are these observations also used as part of teacher evaluations? Is this one of the "multiple measures" being implemented in addition to testing data?  My understanding is that in turnaround schools, principals have the right to dismiss teachers quickly. I'm a little hazy on whether principals must use due process once the initial "restructuring" takes place. If so, I'm worried that observations done by individuals with no teaching experience would be used to determine who is effective and who is not, and that would be neither fair nor accurate.
Would we ever see outsiders with no experience in the field evaluating other types of professionals' work? Can you imagine doctors or lawyers being observed by, say, me with a little training and a rubric?  I highly doubt it. I'm hoping that the data used from these observations is purely for the organization to assess its own work.  Then, it's still not ideal (as the organization has stated), but probably won't be doing any damage to practicing teachers either. 
In Nocera's article, I learned that Turnaround for Children has been meeting with officials in Congress and the White House about its work and, we can assume, the possibility of extending it to schools across the country.  This could be a very good thing if the organization is really building the capacity of schools to meet the psychological needs of traumatized students. An independent evaluation of the organization in 2008 suggested that the positive impact was strong, but that Turnaround needed to "put more emphasis on improving the academic environment in the classroom" (also from Nocera's article).  I imagine this is where data from the CLASS becomes important, and where the observations would need to be conducted by impartial outsiders. 
I think I've turned around my own assessment of Turnaround For Children and the work of Dr. Cantor.  I would just caution the organization, and others that are being called on to work with teachers to improve schools, to remember that teaching is highly skilled, professional work. If we don't treat teachers as professionals, we'll never have the schools we want and that students need. Every step toward real transformation must be taken with this in mind. Otherwise, it's easy to have the best intentions, but undermine the very people you need to carry out the change. We will never move forward that way.

A Reminder: NY PERB Section 209-a

NYPERB: New York Public Employment Relations Board

(Public Employees' Fair Employment Act)
Civil Service Law, Article 14


Improper Employer Practices; Improper Employee Organization Practices; Application 
1. Improper employer practices. It shall be an improper practice for public employer or its agents deliberately (a) to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section two hundred two of this article for the purpose of depriving them of such rights; (b) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any employee organization for the purpose of depriving them of such rights; (c) to discriminate against any employee for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in, or participation in the activities of, any employee organization; (d) to refuse to negotiate in good faith with the duly recognized or certified representatives of its public employees; (e) to refuse to continue all the terms of an expired agreement until a new agreement is negotiated, unless the employee organization which is a party to such agreement has, during such negotiations or prior to such resolution of such negotiations, engaged in conduct violative of subdivision one of section two hundred ten of this article; (f) to utilize any state funds appropriated for any purpose to train managers, supervisors, or other administrative personnel regarding methods to discourage union organization or to discourage an employee from participating in a union organizing drive; or (g) to fail to permit or refuse to afford a public employee the right, upon the employee's demand, to representation by a representative of the employee organization, or the designee of such organization, which has been certified or recognized under this article when at the time of questioning by the employer of such employee it reasonably appears that he or she may be the subject of a potential disciplinary action. If representation is requested, and the employee is a potential target of disciplinary action at the time of questioning, a reasonable period of time shall be afforded to the employee to obtain such representation. It shall be an affirmative defense to any improper practice charge under paragraph (g) of this subdivision that the employee has the right, pursuant to statute, interest arbitration award, collectively negotiated agreement, policy or practice, to present to a hearing officer or arbitrator evidence of the employer's failure to provide representation and to obtain exclusion of the resulting evidence upon demonstration of such failure. Nothing in this section shall grant an employee any right to representation by the representative of an employee organization in any criminal investigation. 

2. Improper employee organization practices. It shall be an improper practice for an employee organization or its agents deliberately (a) to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of the rights granted in section two hundred two, or to cause, or attempt to cause, a public employer to do so; (b) to refuse to negotiate collectively in good faith with a public employer, provided it is the duly recognized or certified representative of the employees of such employer; or (c) to breach its duty of fair representation to public employees under this article. 
3. The public employer shall be made a party to any charge filed under subdivision two of this section which alleges that the duly recognized or certified employee organization breached its duty of fair representation in the processing of or failure to process a claim that the public employer has breached its agreement with such employee organization. 
(b) Within ten days of the receipt by the board of such petition, if the board determines that a charging party has made a sufficient showing both that there is reasonable cause to believe an improper practice has occurred and it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result thereby rendering a resulting judgment on the merits ineffectual necessitating maintenance of, or return to the status quo to provide meaningful relief, the board shall petition the supreme court, in Albany county, upon notice to all parties for the necessary injunctive relief or in the alternative may issue an order permitting the charging party to seek injunctive relief by petition to the supreme court, in which case the board must be joined as a necessary party. The board or, where applicable, the charging party, shall not be required to give any undertakings or bond and shall not be liable for any damages or costs which may have been sustained by reason of any injunctive relief ordered. If the board fails to act within ten days as provided herein, the board, for purposes of review, shall be deemed to have made a final order determining not to seek injunctive relief. 
(d) Injunctive relief may be granted by the court, after hearing all parties, if it determines that there is reasonable cause to believe an improper practice has occurred and that it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result thereby rendering a resulting judgment on the merits ineffectual necessitating maintenance of, or return to, the status quo to provide meaningful relief. Such relief shall expire on decision by an administrative law judge finding no improper practice to have occurred, successful appeal or motion by respondent to vacate or modify pursuant to the provisions of the civil practice law and rules, or subsequent finding by the board that no improper practice had occurred. The administrative law judge shall conclude the hearing process and issue a decision on the merits within sixty days after the imposition of such injunctive relief unless mutually agreed by the respondent and charging party. 
(b) Within ten days of the receipt by the board of such petition, if the board of collective bargaining determines that a charging party has made a sufficient showing both that there is reasonable cause to believe an improper practice has occurred and it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result thereby rendering a resulting judgment on the merits ineffectual necessitating maintenance of, or return to, the status quo to provide meaningful relief, said board shall petition the supreme court in New York county, upon notice to all parties, for the necessary injunctive relief, or in the alternative said board may issue an order permitting the charging party to seek injunctive relief by petition to the supreme court, New York county, in which case said board must be joined as a necessary party. Such application shall be in conformance with the civil practice law and rules except that said board, or where applicable, the charging party shall not be required to give any undertaking or land [sic] and shall not be liable for any damages or costs which may have been sustained by reason of any injunctive relief order. If the board of collective bargaining fails to act within ten days as provided in this paragraph, the board of collective bargaining, for purposes of review, shall be deemed to have made a final order determining not to permit the charging party to seek injunctive relief. 
(d) Injunctive relief may be granted by the court, after hearing all parties, if it determines that there is reasonable cause to believe an improper practice has occurred and that it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result thereby rendering a resulting judgment on the merits ineffectual necessitating maintenance of, or return to, the status quo to provide meaningful relief. Any injunctive relief granted by the court shall expire upon decision of the board of collective bargaining finding no improper practice to have occurred or successful challenge of the said board's decision pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. The said board shall conclude the hearing process and issue a decision on the merits within sixty days after the imposition of such injunctive relief unless mutually agreed by the respondent and charging party. 

It's Legal To Fire A Woman For Being too Attractive

It's legal to fire a female employee because of her "irresistible attraction"

DECEMBER 27, 2012
The Employer Handbook
By Eric B. Meyer on December 27, 2012 7:00 AM |  | Comments
Cue music.
Last week, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court held (here) that it was ok for a male boss to fire a female employee -- a model employee -- out of concern that he would eventually succumb and do things with her that could jeopardize his marriage.
That has to be gender discrimination!
Right?
Well...
The boss replaced the fired female employee with another (presumably less tempting) female. This suggests to me -- as it did the court -- that having the hots for a particular female employee (versus females in general) motivated the firing decision. (Of course, had the actor displayed a pattern of canning female employees because he feared sleeping with them, it may be a different story).
Additionally, although not a focus of the opinion, the same person hired the female employee as fired her. In many courts, the "same-actor" defense can be used to show that if one person does the hiring and the firing -- especially over an abbreviated period, it's unlikely that he is biased against [protected class of hired/fired employee].
Here, the boss -- actually, the boss's wife (she found the text messages) -- wanted the employee gone because her "irresistible attraction" threatened the boss's marriage. Absent sexual harassment, the subsequent adverse employment action is not actionable. Unfair? Yes. But, anti-discrimination laws are not fairness laws. They are only implicated when the employer discriminates based on an employee's protected status; not when an employer treats a particular female employee different than it would other (less alluring) female employees. Absent sexual harassment, that single termination based on a set of feelings towards that particular employee (albeit motivated by the boss's penis), even if unjust, by definition, does not violate the law.

UFT Raises UNITY Salaries, Uses Members' Dues For The Holiday Parties

UFT Members: start a petition in state legislature to end mandatory dues payment to Union bigwigs!

Teachers union spends millions from membership dues on parties and conferences

  • Last Updated: 6:25 AM, December 31, 2012
  • Posted: 1:54 AM, December 31, 2012
  • LINK
At least their union dues are working overtime.
While city public-school teachers have gone without a new contract or regular pay raises for three straight years, their union, its staffers and political cronies have been living large off their union dues, a Post review found.
Included in the United Federation of Teachers’ $166.5 million in spending last year was a hefty $33.4 million in salary for union staffers — a slight increase from the year prior.
More than 90 staffers earned six-figure salaries between July 2011 and June 2012, the records show — including President Michael Mulgrew, who took home $275,000.
FRUITS OF LABOR: UFT President Michael Mulgrew pulled down $275,000 running the $166 million teachers union.
NY Post: Chad Rachman
FRUITS OF LABOR: UFT President Michael Mulgrew pulled down $275,000 running the $166 million teachers union.
The union, which bumped its income from membership dues by $3 million in 2012 — to $129 million — spent nearly $1 million just on training for union staffers at the Rye Town Hilton in Westchester.
The union also spent more than $1 million for one company, Lackmann Culinary Services, to cater food for its various meetings and events.
That feasting didn’t even include the pasta payout of nearly $18,000 to Ravioli FAIR Caterers in Brooklyn.
An additional $1 million was spent at splashy conferences and events at the New York Hilton, the Helmsley Hotel and The Waldorf Astoria, according to labor filings submitted to the federal government.
The union also bankrolled dozens of dining events across the city at places like Russo’s on the Bay — where a single night’s expense tab ran over $21,000 — and at Antun’s in Queens.
A separate bash at the end of the school year ran more than $7,000 at Moran’s bar and restaurant in Chelsea.
Even the bill for promotional tchotchkes — like tote bags and bandannas bearing the UFT logo — ran into the six-figure range.
“We are proud of the work we do advocating on behalf of the children and teachers of New York City,” Mulgrew responded when asked about the largesse. “It takes a lot of money to resist the attempts of Mayor Bloomberg and his allies to undermine our public schools.”
The UFT’s political allies — mostly opponents of charter schools and of school choice in general — were also particularly well-fed in 2012, records show.
The group that succeeded ACORN, New York Communities for Change, has become virtually a subsidiary of the UFT — receiving nearly $400,000 for at least the second straight year.
Among the services it performed was the organizing of parents to oppose charter-school siting within public school buildings.
The former head of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, even got $17,500 for the new group she’s heading — the Black Institute.
Also getting a piece of the UFT pie this past year was the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network — which got $50,800 in contributions.
The New York chapter of the NAACP, a union ally in the fierce battle over school closings and charter schools, received $42,200.
The union’s coffers grew this year largely because its membership expanded by nearly 20,000 people — to 182,000 members — with most of the newbies coming from the day-care sector.
Union dues also crept up to semimonthly payments of $49.39 — compared with $48.74 in 2011.