by Mark Anderson

In my last post here, I expressed my loss of confidence in the leadership of both Mayor Bloomberg and UFT President Mulgrew. The failure of both sides to broker an agreement on teacher evaluations has only exacerbated my disapproval. But it is not simply that they have failed to reach an agreement that irks me; it is that both sides seem most concerned with exigencies of administration, rather than factors that will influence change in the place that needs it the most — the classroom.

As a VIVA teacher, I worked with other teachers across NY State to craft a set of recommendations on teacher evaluation in 2010. We spent some time considering what components of teacher evaluation will have the most impact on teacher growth, and thus, student learning. And we came the conclusion that the main factor was that no matter the ultimate measures and weighting, effective and meaningful feedback will only occur in the context of a professional learning community. Teachers — not simply the principal — must be empowered, as peer reviewers and facilitators of professional conversations oriented around growth and learning.

Yet all we hear from the NYC DOE has to do with principal autonomy.

We also recommended that student surveys be included as a measure of teacher effectiveness. After reviewing Ron Ferguson’s research and work with The Tripod Project and The MET Project, we were convinced that well-developed student surveys provided meaningful feedback
that would help a teacher to reflect and consider how to revise their instruction. The final findings from The MET Project have further strengthened the cause for inclusion of student surveys.

Yet the UFT will not consider inclusion of student surveys in teacher evaluations.

Both sides seem to be have gotten lost in the details and specifics of clauses, arbitration, and sunset dates without a clear vision of teacher professionalism in their minds.

Mark Anderson is a 7th and 8th grade Special Education teacher in the Bronx.

By Mark Anderson

The American people have rightly lost confidence in their elected leaders; ideology appears to trump fundamental necessities of governance.

Here in NYC, I have similarly lost confidence in both Mayor Bloomberg and UFT President Michael Mulgrew to represent my interests, nor those of my students.

A lot of money is currently in jeopardy due to the standoff between the UFT and the Mayor over teacher evaluations. As with recent skirmishing in our nation’s capitol in the face of the “fiscal cliff,” it bears questioning as to how such matters of consequence could be allowed to come down to the wire due to grandstanding and partisanship.

The Mayor’s attitude on a recent radio broadcast was cavalier:

“If we can’t come to an agreement, it’s going to be very painful,” Bloomberg told host John Gambling on his weekly Friday radio show. “But the city’s certainly not going to sign on to any agreement that isn’t a real evaluation agreement, and one that can be monitored by the public.”

What is a “real evaluation agreement,” according to Bloomberg? Apparently only one that releases a teacher’s ratings to the public.

Mayor Bloomberg seems more concerned with ostracizing teachers than with creating a system of evaluation that will promote growth oriented professional learning environments and student achievement.

On the other side, we have UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who penned an incensed letter to the Mayor:

The Department of Education’s demonstrated inability to manage the school system correctly has led us to have serious concerns about getting anything constructive done with you.

Who can blame Mulgrew for having “serious concerns” about getting anything accomplished with a Mayor who compares his union to the NRA? But Mulgrew’s righteous beginning is subverted by what follows:

Two and half years ago the state decided to change this year’s standardized tests to the Common Core standards and since then you have done nothing to create a curriculum based on the Common Core. You have now left teachers in a horrendous situation where they are scrambling to try to get material appropriate for these new tests to teach their children.

I don’t know about other teachers, but I shudder to think of what kind of curriculum the NYC DOE would “create.” That’s the last thing I want to see happen, when the opportunity is here for curriculum to be developed from the ground up by classroom teachers.

How should teachers be viewed? Are we professionals, scholars, and experts of our content areas and capable of growth through reflection and collegial feedback? Or are we mere public employees, clamoring for our administration to tell us how and what we are to teach?

I’d prefer to be viewed as a professional educator that is part of a vibrant, dedicated community of professional learners and scholars. Unfortunately, that perspective is not something that seems to be shared by either of the elected officials that would purport to represent me.

They seem more interested in winning out against their political opponents. It’s the rest of us who will lose.

Mark Anderson is a 7th and 8th grade Special Education teacher in the Bronx.