I think we'll get a 'knee jerk' reaction from the building principals. Historically, they've not always done their jobs properly in evaluating teachers. Now they'll go after teachers with a driven sense of urgency to purge the ranks.
It won't get rid of under-performing veterans (you still have to lay off all 1-2 year teachers before moving to the 3-5, let alone older than that.) But I do think it is an improvement on last hired/first fired policy.
Formal evaluations will need to be performed annually for those teachers with more than 5 years experience. Otherwise, there will be no current (yearly) data on these folks. Frankly I think all teachers, not just those with fewer than 5 years, should have an annual formal evaluation.
Evaluate every teacher every year. Assign them a grade, just as they assign grades to their students. As the years go by, these grades would make a cumulative GPA. When it's time to consider layoffs, start with the teachers with the lowest GPA's. Here are some things to include on the evaluation. Write a rubric. 1. Students' individual progress, as defined by test scores at the beginning and end of the year 2. Extra duties performed 3. Professional development pursued in last 12 months 4. Results of a parent survey
I would agree with 1, 3 and 4. But not 2. Extra duties are great, and they are worth extra money, but should not be used to judge a teacher's effectiveness. 1, 3, and 4 are what matters. If a teacher is doing great at 1, 3, and 4, but doesn't do any extra activities, I don't think that should hurt him/her.
I worked in a different profession for many years where work also could not be measured by how many wingnuts an employee sold or who knew the most about fixing a machine.
One year, a boss gave me an excellent evaluation. The very next year, I had a new boss who gave me a below-average evaluation. My performance had not changed in one year, but what had? The new boss just didn't like me personally.
I'm not an IPS employee, but from what I read on this blog I don't get the impression that all of IPS principals would be completely fair and logical about how they would evaluate teachers annually.
It seems to me a lot of them would be evaluating teachers on the basis of personality compatibility, etc.
I also don't believe that evaluating teachers based on test scores makes any sense. That's comparing apples to oranges, one group of kids to another group of kids.
Unless and until a very foolproof method of evaluating teacher performance is devised, I see this current movement as primarily being about continued punitive measures against teachers en masse.
Again, this is my "two cents" as a taxpayer and not a teacher or an administrator.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems like we have scrutinized the new and old policies of letting go of ineffective teachers. When do we start letting go of ineffective principals, Central Office staff, and coaches?
Get out of the past; education needs systemic change: schedule, format, curriculum, etc. A college degree does not a teacher make! It takes experience to master the material. There are other variables like principals who are caught up in minutiae, politics, paper shuffling, discipline, lawsuits. Lets rediscover the meaning of EDUCARE: in the dictionary, that means "leading forth." In Socrates' "academy," it was about questioning; now it's about testing, with the one-size-fits-all mentality. We need thinking outside the box and Arne Duncan, Tony Bennett, and politicians are stuck in neutral---going nowhere!
Past, present, or future. We shouldn't be forced to keep crummy teachers and lay off better ones. I want accountability systems to be as fair as possible, but if someone needs to get an unfair deal, I would rather it be a teacher than a student. Right now, far more kids (and taxpayers) are being cheated than teachers. We need to fix that. Now. I think this policy falls terribly short. But at least it's a step in the right direction.
Love the idea; I've always thought that education should work a little more like the rest of the world. Regular evaluations are a part of every job; the current evaluation process does seem to protect teachers against personal vendettas, but I wonder, what to do if you get a rough group of kids in a given year? We all know each year is completely different. Its a little scary to think of a job peerformance based upon twenty some 9 year old kids. But then, is it any different from the salesman trying to make numbers and worrying about economic factors beyond his control? The biggest issue is that we teachers have a bit of an entitlement problem in thinking that we're somehow different from everyone else
I wish that the membership of IEA had voted on the "Agreement" and that we could of had some imput into the process. What is IPS going to do with me, I had no formal evaluations in my eight years of teaching, but I am a good teacher. Every principal that I worked for told me that I did a wonderful job with my students and my students loved coming to my class. Yes, I am a little "off the wall" in my approach, but I really focus on my students.
I work in a building where evaluations are taken very seriously. Veteran teachers step up their respective games when it is an evaluation year because we know that it matters. I think maybe it is time to take a look at the time admin spends downtown in meetings versus the time admin is acutally in the building doing their jobs.
"I wish that the membership of IEA had voted on the "Agreement" and that we could of had some imput into the process." ---------------
Valid point. If I was an IPS teacher (and I'm not), I would be more than a bit concerned that "my" union had gotten involved in this and co-operated with this apparently without letting the membership in on the process (including to vote on it).
Can't help but wonder just whose "union" this really is.
I'm a fairly novice teacher compared to some of you veterans, but I don't really see an issue with principals wanting to fire good teachers just because of personality conflicts. The only person in IPS I've ever thought was fired solely because of personality conflicts was a principal. Sure there are personality clashes, but the ones that have major problems getting along with the principal also have major problems getting along with the rest of us (teachers) as well as students and parents. Do you all have a lot of teachers who parents, students, and fellow teachers love but the principal wants out of the building? It seems kind of like a strawman argument to me but like I said, I don't have as much experience as some of you, so maybe this really is a problem in some schools.
Okay, I just reread my post above, and before someone has a coronary I want to clarify that when I say "I don't really see an issue..." I mean I haven't witnessed this being an issue. I do not mean I don't have a problem with the idea of perfectly good teachers being fired for personality conflicts. :)
It seems like IPS is overly focused on the bad teachers. In my opinion this is about 10% of our teachers. What is IPS doing to keep the good teachers and attract good teachers? There will always be bad teachers but why focus on them? We should be focusing on the positive. Why beat the good horse along with the bad horse?
We've had decades of who the principal likes, who's related to the superintendent, etc. During that time things have gone from bad to worse. And yet they continue to blame the teachers. I've never been in a school where there were not a couple of really weak teachers. Everyone knew who they were. The rest of the teaching staff wondered why the principal didn't do something. They wished the principal would do something. No one wants to receive students from a weak teacher. And no one wants to see a student fall behind when they have worked with them and then promote them to a class that is poorly run.
Research tells us that the applicants to education administration programs are the lowest scorers on the GRE. Why do these folks have so much credibility? When do the rank and file teachers get to speak without fear of retaliation? The IEA/ISTA/NEA does not speak for me.
IEA/NEA/ISTA does speak for me. Without them we would have no prep time, have to work after hours for nothing, be at the beck and call of administration, be required to attend any meetings at anytime, and have to take the first offered salary from administration. In addition, there would be no end to mandates required of teachers. Documentation and paperwork would increase even further and there would be no due process for teachers that are doing their best to work under the unbearable conditions set forth by this administration. Your salary was negotiated by IEA. Without them you would be making thousands less. Those of us who pay our IEA dues should be thanked for carrying all of you non-members. If all teachers were members we would have a much stronger voice in the decisions made during bargaining. Pay up or shut up.
Interestingly enough, I have worked for IPS for 15 years and been evaluated once. I had a principal whip out an eval on the last day of school because if she didn't I wouldn't have gotten my $900 check. Back in the day we qualified as a Tier 3 school and each certified person with a satisfactory eval. got $900. Merit pay has been tried, not sure why they toook it away.
Our contract does not guarantee prep time. Be thankful that it's a past practice that keeps on going. If you carefully read our contract we are guaranteed ONLY a 30 min duty free lunch each day.
I am not thankful for union teachers. If I thought like the union (teachers need protection, screw the kids) then I never would have become a teacher in the first place. Maybe it's because I worked in the private sector for so many years before becoming a teacher, but the self-entitled union mentality really strikes a nerve with me. And the people who say that without the union we would be worse off demonstrate complete lack of understanding of either history or economics, which is another pet peeve of mine. Without the union, the weak teachers would be worse off, not the better teachers. The union is the equivalent of welfare/income redistribution. The good teachers must sacrifice part of what they are worth (market-value) to pay for weak teachers who have seniority who wouldn't be worth anything in a market-based system. So yes, you are probably better off paying your dues. I, however, am not. I would be better off without the union. But let's be perfectly clear on one issue. If you require union protection, it is I who carry you, not the other way around.
You, my dear demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Obviously you have never dealt with a poor administrator who can't tell a good teacher from a bad one. I agree that teachers in the buildings know who the bad teachers are. The union protects good teachers who for whatever reason are unfairly singled out and harassed by administrators. This may have NOTHING to do with student achievement. Compliance at all cost is what many principals think constitutes a good teacher. Perhaps that is you.
The anti union venom spewed a couple of posts above is the usual drivel of someone who is too cheap to pay union dues. They use the "unions are bad" excuse rather than admit that they wish to be a freeloader and not pay their fair share. As an association representative, it is amazing how quickly these people run to the union rep when they are wronged. Then the union becomes their best friend. I have even had non union teachers demand that the union represent them as that is what the union is supposed to do. They become very indignant. On the other hand, the union protects the process not the teacher. If a teacher is not doing the job then if the administration has followed the process that they helped develop the poorly performing teacher will shape up or be gone.
I would have no problem paying the true cost of negotiating our contract. Several years ago, when we paid "fair share", which was only a few dollars less than the cost of being a full-fledged member, the union had to show what it cost to negotiate our contract. Over a 3 year period, the only cost that they could substantiate as actually related to the contract was $168.00. (I realize it would be more now - but not almost $600.) I gladly paid that. However, much of our dues goes to the NEA and political action committees (even though we are supposed to be able to sign that we do not want to support those) and supports political policies that I do not subscribe to. I would gladly support a local union. Years ago, Warren Classroom Teachers' Association negotiated an excellent contract locally for a much lower cost. I realize that good teachers may need defense, but it has been my experience that the ones who are not let go have been protected by the union. As to liability, IPS carries a liability policy on teachers and one can purchase liability protection through other groups such as Indiana Professional Educators. It just seems to be that there ought to be a way to work with administration at the local level (or state) which would be efficient and more equitable.
The rest of the world has to get along with their boss to keep their job. That isn't some crazy notion. Again, if you need the union to keep you from getting fired, that says more about you than me. I'll go on welfare before I belong to any union. Welfare has more integrity.
Getting along with the boss is quite different from doing exactly what one is told when what one is told is detrimental to teaching, learning and children, or is unreasonable. What is crazy is expecting people to blindly comply with everything the boss says without question. We need teachers (and students) that are critical thinkers. Blind obedience does not a critical thinker make.
To the above poster re: IEA dues for political action. I doubt if you realize it but it is a federal law violation to use the IEA dues money for political action. That is why there is a box on the membership form to mark if you wish to make a VOLUNTARY donation to the PAC group. Not one penny, not one minute of staff time, not even a paper clip can be used for political action. When the list of recommended candidates is presented to teachers, it cannot even be sent through the normal delivery channels unless the PAC group pays the cost of delivery. If you are aware of dues money being used for political action then you need to report it immediately to the appropriate legal authorities. Otherwise you are just continuing your union bashing and trying to justify your freeloading status. I know which category I believe that you belong.
Sounds to me like there are some younger teachers who are willing to throw the experienced teachers under the bus.
Statistics tell us that the average new teacher will be out of the profession within five years.
But you are more than willing to berate those teachers who have dealt with all of the stress and lack of respect to spend their entire careers in service to IPS.
When you get older, you will look back and reflect on how you sold out the older teachers when you were young. That is, if you have a any kind of conscience.
I think you mean you know "to which category I belong" I think I know that you are misled about my motives. The PAC thing is such a small part but would there ever be a PAC donation to support a conservative candidate? - the point is those funds are solicited primarily for the Democratic party. Paperclips aside, the philosophy leans toward a liberal agenda. Does the Union give an accounting of how they spend approximately $600. per member to negotiate the contract? Do they publish the salaries they pay? Nationally, the NEA is leftist - why would I want to belong to a group who believes differently than I do on many issues...why am I forced to join the NEA in order to be a member of my local union? I wouldn't worry about freeloading teachers, if I were you. I would worry about a national debt that you and I will bear for a budget that encourages a freeloading populace.
You guys should really stick to the topic given that is the RIF process and how it is changing. Just so you know, the "Union" got input from the teachers who it will effect the most the teachers years 1-5. So, if you would take a second and research some information you would realize that there was input from teachers.
And what exactly did the "union" ask these teachers? "Would you like to lose your job or would you like the good for nothing old geezers to lose theirs?"
This must be the evening of our dis-information. First of all, the new RIFing only pertains to teachers in the first 5 years of teaching. It does not in any way involve experienced teachers. I have been told that the IEA met with many of these new teachers for input. You can always get an accounting of how your dues is spent. The breakdown is provided every year. If you don't pay dues then you probably don't get provided with the breakdown of the budget. In Indiana, IEA and ISTA pacs frequently endorse GOP candidates. If the GOP candidates would be more supportive of public education then there would be more GOP endorsements. I imagine that given your practice of making accusations without any info that you have no idea who has been endorsed by the PAC groups. Your comments regarding a freeloading populace and the the national debt is ironic. It is ironic because you are a FREELOADER yourself.
Please tell me why this is seen as the "old geezer" getting attacked. If you are an effective teacher then you shouldn't worry so much about losing your job. Those who are concerned so much about their job and losing it must not be excellent. I have to say that if you have so much of a problem with everything that the "UNION" is doing then getting off this computer ranting and go to an AR meeting and voice your opinion. Nothing will change from people venting to a computer. Change only happens when enough people stand up and discuss it. So PLEASE stop just talking on here about it and speak up to someone who might actually be able to change something.
I don't think you could be called a "freeloader" if you are being forced to accept something for which you have not asked and do not have the option of rejecting.
The union does not negotiate my pay raise. They negotiate the pay raise of the lowest 50% of teachers. They negotiate an "average" worth of teachers. I'm above average. So such negotiations hurt rather than help me and all other teachers who are in the 50th percentile. The good teachers raise the bar, whether they are union or nonunion. The bad teachers benefit from unions. The good teachers do not.
I'm not the one who started the who's-carrying-who argument. I'm just telling you how the union works. It's like people on welfare explaining how great socialism is and how much better "everyone" is than without it. No, only the least productive are better off with socialism. The more productive are worse off. That's all I'm saying. I don't think I'm the end-all-be-all. But I'm good enough that I don't get the benefits that the union provides to the weaker teachers.
You have revealed in your posts that you have no idea what benefits the union offers. You are too hung up on how you can manage to get merit pay for being so wonderful. Protecting teacher rights and negotiating contracts are only two of the benefits of membership. Then that is something you will never know. You prefer to sit and bitch about the union and all of those other teachers who are bad and don't measure up to the superior job you are doing. If you display this attitude of superiority and entitlement to your students then I expect that you may not be ALL THAT despite what you have convinced yourself.
Do you accept your pay raises? Why don't you reject those when the union negotiates one for you?
That is a silly statement. I have to sign the contract in order to teach. Again, I am not asking the union to negotiate my contract and I do not believe that the district is going to write a separate contract for me even if I refused to sign the union contract and requested one I had negotiated myself even at a lower rate. So...I guess we will have to agree to disagree and get on with the work of school.
Perhaps we could rework the idea of tenure. It doesn't have to mean you have worked in a district for X number of years. Perhaps we can set criteria, not unlike being "highly qualified" in which you earn your tenure, rather than it being an outright expectation of years.
Seniority can be looked at as well. One of the problems with eliminating seniority, is the difficulty of getting a job in a new school district once you have passed the 6 year mark, and have a Master's. We need to look at a statewide system that doesn't eliminate seniority, but makes it an unnecessary protection. If, say, teachers were paid on a statewide scale, bought into state health insurance, and were as sort of an auxiliary state employee, then seniority would be less of an issue. Good v. Bad teachers... it isn't a black or white issue. Sometimes it is a matter of fit. Environment matters for staff as well as students.
I am a damn good teacher. I am also the grown progeny of a nurse who had no union powers, and was an awesome care provider (I started in nursing, and got to see this first hand). My mom had no say in her hours, working conditions, pay, job assignments, and the maternity wing and front lobby would be completely remodeled every 3 years rather than give employees, including nursing staff a raise. She eventually quit and became a travel nurse which paid 4x what she made on the floor; and was able to retire, something that would have never happened if she has remained as a traditional RN. I have worked other jobs, including being self employed, before becoming a teacher, and people that want to prattle on about the Holy Free Market system have spent too little time working their ass off for little compensation and next to no consideration. Remember your free market sermon next time the waitstaff (who is also part of the cleaning staff) making just over 2 bucks an hour, prays you leave her at least the 15% you owe. Like the union, it ought to be added automatically to your bill. Got a problem with that? Talk to the management.
Ok. There are bad teachers. There are teachers so bad, I have been to the administration about them. One in particular, used to knit and do bead work instead of teaching the Algebra 2 she was paid to teach. Knowing this, administration, over years, did NOTHING. Bad teachers CAN be eliminated. There is a process. Due process is one of most respected American practices. Part of the problem in our district comes down to 1.)administrators with the guts and conscience to do what is best for students AND staff 2.) a district that spends less energy WASTING the time of administrators by burying them under paperwork and reports. You ought to see what they want these principals to come up with, when we need them in the halls and classrooms. 3.) the politicians rise, rewarding not knowledge, expertise, consensus building and creative problem solving. Disney was a consultant to one of our magnet programs a few years back, and I will never forget what the consultant said, "your command structure wouldn't last 6 months in the business world". When the DOE is looking for where the buck stops, I think Harry S. would make it clear where to point the finger. Unfortunately, in education, it works the other way around.
To "you have revealed." Just to be clear I understand your argument. If you say that nonunion teachers are freeloaders and union teachers are "carrying" them, that is respecting the profession of teaching. But if I say that the union allows weak teachers to freeload off of good teachers, I'm disrespecting teachers? Is that right? And you believe teachers now make more than market value and without the union to prop us up, we wouldn't be worth any money? And that's pro-teacher? And I'm saying good teachers would be worth way more without the union. And that's anti-teacher? To be honest, it doesn't sound like you think very highly of teachers.
Tenure was eliminated in Indiana several years ago. There is no tenure for public school teachers in Indiana. Let's not hide behind that old canard of bad teachers hiding behind tenure.
As usual, you have totally mistated everything I wrote. You are either very dense or deliberately trying to obfuscate the entire union issue. I feel sorry for the students who are exposed to your inability to reason, think and present cogent arguments.
"The rest of the world has to get along with their boss to keep their job" -You are foolish,have you ever studied the history of unions in this country?
Yes, they began with the railroads to keep black people from from working railroad jobs for less money than the Irish and Slav workers were working them. They expanded with corrupt Mafia influences, and evolved into socialism. I have a relative who was murdered for crossing a picket line to feed his family. Why, was that not the history you were talking about?
You need to look at the entire spectrum of the history of unions and race relations. When the leadership finally realized the unfairness of their practices that contributed to segregation, the unions became one of the stalwarts along with many other groups in battling segregation and fighting for the rights of all races. Many churches, fraternal organizations, and universities came to that same realization. That is the rest of the story........
Somebody had two new words in their spelling unit this week..."obfuscate" and "cogent" - remember the first rule of writing "never use big words when an optional diminutive vocabulary will suffice without obfuscating your meaning"
As a former IPS teacher (victim of RIF and being surplussed), I feel for the good teachers who work for this district. I begged and pleaded witha friend NOT to take a job with IPS because, as every year, her job would be in danger or RIF, and she is in danger. IPS needs to get rid of the old ineffective teachers who are out there...I know that there are some great teachers with YEARS of experience, but there are those who are completly ineffective. The person who said, "Hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems like we have scrutinized the new and old policies of letting go of ineffective teachers. When do we start letting go of ineffective principals, Central Office staff, and coaches?" HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
It appears to me that some have fogetten why a union was needed in the first place. ( to inprove workng conditions) Special need teachers have to have the liability insurance, due to Eugene not believing in special education and those children & teachers are treated like second class citizens. What was it Eugene said? Oh, yea, if a kid can play video games he can't have attention problems. Since Eugene has taken over, this system has went from "a wing and a prayer" to "hell in a Handbag" If the teachers were respected and treated fairly more of them would be behind their principals. Remember " you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with". Arlington, which is Eugene's sacrificial lambhas had FIVE Principals in two years PLEASE.. How can a school improve when the pincipals are changed on a monthly basis. Of, course not without their raises. Then when they arrive they don't bother to communicate with their staff. It is a sad day in education. The students in Arlington need to have someone who is there for the long haul. Not someone who is here today and gone tomorrow. I am sure they will get Shipp out before the Ship goes down. Eugene likes her so she'll be protected. As for the rest of them, who knows. I know and respect several teachers there and it saddens me to see what Eugene has done to the school and the corporation.
I think that it will make a positive impact on the schools.
ReplyDeleteI think we'll get a 'knee jerk' reaction from the building principals. Historically, they've not always done their jobs properly in evaluating teachers. Now they'll go after teachers with a driven sense of urgency to purge the ranks.
ReplyDeleteI think it is an excellent idea! I see so many under performing vetereans (not ALL, but MANY) and they need to GO.
ReplyDeleteIt won't get rid of under-performing veterans (you still have to lay off all 1-2 year teachers before moving to the 3-5, let alone older than that.) But I do think it is an improvement on last hired/first fired policy.
ReplyDeleteFormal evaluations will need to be performed annually for those teachers with more than 5 years experience. Otherwise, there will be no current (yearly) data on these folks. Frankly I think all teachers, not just those with fewer than 5 years, should have an annual formal evaluation.
ReplyDeleteEvaluate every teacher every year. Assign them a grade, just as they assign grades to their students. As the years go by, these grades would make a cumulative GPA. When it's time to consider layoffs, start with the teachers with the lowest GPA's. Here are some things to include on the evaluation. Write a rubric.
ReplyDelete1. Students' individual progress, as defined by test scores at the beginning and end of the year
2. Extra duties performed
3. Professional development pursued in last 12 months
4. Results of a parent survey
I would agree with 1, 3 and 4. But not 2. Extra duties are great, and they are worth extra money, but should not be used to judge a teacher's effectiveness. 1, 3, and 4 are what matters. If a teacher is doing great at 1, 3, and 4, but doesn't do any extra activities, I don't think that should hurt him/her.
ReplyDeleteTeaching expertise is subjective.
ReplyDeleteI worked in a different profession for many years where work also could not be measured by how many wingnuts an employee sold or who knew the most about fixing a machine.
One year, a boss gave me an excellent evaluation. The very next year, I had a new boss who gave me a below-average evaluation. My performance had not changed in one year, but what had? The new boss just didn't like me personally.
I'm not an IPS employee, but from what I read on this blog I don't get the impression that all of IPS principals would be completely fair and logical about how they would evaluate teachers annually.
It seems to me a lot of them would be evaluating teachers on the basis of personality compatibility, etc.
I also don't believe that evaluating teachers based on test scores makes any sense. That's comparing apples to oranges, one group of kids to another group of kids.
Unless and until a very foolproof method of evaluating teacher performance is devised, I see this current movement as primarily being about continued punitive measures against teachers en masse.
Again, this is my "two cents" as a taxpayer and not a teacher or an administrator.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems like we have scrutinized the new and old policies of letting go of ineffective teachers.
ReplyDeleteWhen do we start letting go of ineffective principals, Central Office staff, and coaches?
Get out of the past; education needs systemic change: schedule, format, curriculum, etc. A college degree does not a teacher make! It takes experience to master the material. There are other variables like principals who are caught up in minutiae, politics, paper shuffling, discipline, lawsuits. Lets rediscover the meaning of EDUCARE: in the dictionary, that means "leading forth." In Socrates' "academy," it was about questioning; now it's about testing, with the one-size-fits-all mentality. We need thinking outside the box and Arne Duncan, Tony Bennett, and politicians are stuck in neutral---going nowhere!
ReplyDeletePast, present, or future. We shouldn't be forced to keep crummy teachers and lay off better ones. I want accountability systems to be as fair as possible, but if someone needs to get an unfair deal, I would rather it be a teacher than a student. Right now, far more kids (and taxpayers) are being cheated than teachers. We need to fix that. Now. I think this policy falls terribly short. But at least it's a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteLove the idea; I've always thought that education should work a little more like the rest of the world. Regular evaluations are a part of every job; the current evaluation process does seem to protect teachers against personal vendettas, but I wonder, what to do if you get a rough group of kids in a given year? We all know each year is completely different. Its a little scary to think of a job peerformance based upon twenty some 9 year old kids. But then, is it any different from the salesman trying to make numbers and worrying about economic factors beyond his control? The biggest issue is that we teachers have a bit of an entitlement problem in thinking that we're somehow different from everyone else
ReplyDeleteI wish that the membership of IEA had voted on the "Agreement" and that we could of had some imput into the process. What is IPS going to do with me, I had no formal evaluations in my eight years of teaching, but I am a good teacher. Every principal that I worked for told me that I did a wonderful job with my students and my students loved coming to my class. Yes, I am a little "off the wall" in my approach, but I really focus on my students.
ReplyDeleteIn my 7 years with IPS, I honestly can say that I've been evaluated 'formally' only one time.
ReplyDeleteI work in a building where evaluations are taken very seriously. Veteran teachers step up their respective games when it is an evaluation year because we know that it matters. I think maybe it is time to take a look at the time admin spends downtown in meetings versus the time admin is acutally in the building doing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteThere is a rumor that Doctor White is job shopping in Texas. Has anyone else heard this?
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard this rumor but I hope it is true! Can anyone tell me why are Joan Harrell and Dr. Johnson in Taiwan? Vacationing on IPS funds?
ReplyDelete"I wish that the membership of IEA had voted on the "Agreement" and that we could of had some imput into the process."
ReplyDelete---------------
Valid point. If I was an IPS teacher (and I'm not), I would be more than a bit concerned that "my" union had gotten involved in this and co-operated with this apparently without letting the membership in on the process (including to vote on it).
Can't help but wonder just whose "union" this really is.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is Dr. White's union.......just ask his good friend, Ann Wilkins.
ReplyDeleteI dropped my IEA membership two years ago. I felt like I was wasting good money on the group. Now, I'm convinced I did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm a fairly novice teacher compared to some of you veterans, but I don't really see an issue with principals wanting to fire good teachers just because of personality conflicts. The only person in IPS I've ever thought was fired solely because of personality conflicts was a principal. Sure there are personality clashes, but the ones that have major problems getting along with the principal also have major problems getting along with the rest of us (teachers) as well as students and parents. Do you all have a lot of teachers who parents, students, and fellow teachers love but the principal wants out of the building? It seems kind of like a strawman argument to me but like I said, I don't have as much experience as some of you, so maybe this really is a problem in some schools.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I just reread my post above, and before someone has a coronary I want to clarify that when I say "I don't really see an issue..." I mean I haven't witnessed this being an issue. I do not mean I don't have a problem with the idea of perfectly good teachers being fired for personality conflicts. :)
ReplyDeleteIt seems like IPS is overly focused on the bad teachers. In my opinion this is about 10% of our teachers. What is IPS doing to keep the good teachers and attract good teachers? There will always be bad teachers but why focus on them? We should be focusing on the positive. Why beat the good horse along with the bad horse?
ReplyDeletePerformance should drive retention. There should be no safe haven for those who cannot deliver. Welcome to the world IPS.
ReplyDeleteYes, performance. Not who the principal likes or dislikes.
ReplyDeleteWe've had decades of who the principal likes, who's related to the superintendent, etc. During that time things have gone from bad to worse. And yet they continue to blame the teachers. I've never been in a school where there were not a couple of really weak teachers. Everyone knew who they were. The rest of the teaching staff wondered why the principal didn't do something. They wished the principal would do something. No one wants to receive students from a weak teacher. And no one wants to see a student fall behind when they have worked with them and then promote them to a class that is poorly run.
ReplyDeleteResearch tells us that the applicants to education administration programs are the lowest scorers on the GRE. Why do these folks have so much credibility? When do the rank and file teachers get to speak without fear of retaliation? The IEA/ISTA/NEA does not speak for me.
IEA/NEA/ISTA does speak for me. Without them we would have no prep time, have to work after hours for nothing, be at the beck and call of administration, be required to attend any meetings at anytime, and have to take the first offered salary from administration. In addition, there would be no end to mandates required of teachers. Documentation and paperwork would increase even further and there would be no due process for teachers that are doing their best to work under the unbearable conditions set forth by this administration. Your salary was negotiated by IEA. Without them you would be making thousands less. Those of us who pay our IEA dues should be thanked for carrying all of you non-members. If all teachers were members we would have a much stronger voice in the decisions made during bargaining. Pay up or shut up.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, I have worked for IPS for 15 years and been evaluated once. I had a principal whip out an eval on the last day of school because if she didn't I wouldn't have gotten my $900 check. Back in the day we qualified as a Tier 3 school and each certified person with a satisfactory eval. got $900. Merit pay has been tried, not sure why they toook it away.
ReplyDeleteOur contract does not guarantee prep time. Be thankful that it's a past practice that keeps on going. If you carefully read our contract we are guaranteed ONLY a 30 min duty free lunch each day.
ReplyDeleteI am not thankful for union teachers. If I thought like the union (teachers need protection, screw the kids) then I never would have become a teacher in the first place. Maybe it's because I worked in the private sector for so many years before becoming a teacher, but the self-entitled union mentality really strikes a nerve with me. And the people who say that without the union we would be worse off demonstrate complete lack of understanding of either history or economics, which is another pet peeve of mine. Without the union, the weak teachers would be worse off, not the better teachers. The union is the equivalent of welfare/income redistribution. The good teachers must sacrifice part of what they are worth (market-value) to pay for weak teachers who have seniority who wouldn't be worth anything in a market-based system. So yes, you are probably better off paying your dues. I, however, am not. I would be better off without the union. But let's be perfectly clear on one issue. If you require union protection, it is I who carry you, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteYou, my dear demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Obviously you have never dealt with a poor administrator who can't tell a good teacher from a bad one. I agree that teachers in the buildings know who the bad teachers are. The union protects good teachers who for whatever reason are unfairly singled out and harassed by administrators. This may have NOTHING to do with student achievement. Compliance at all cost is what many principals think constitutes a good teacher. Perhaps that is you.
ReplyDeleteThe anti union venom spewed a couple of posts above is the usual drivel of someone who is too cheap to pay union dues. They use the "unions are bad" excuse rather than admit that they wish to be a freeloader and not pay their fair share. As an association representative, it is amazing how quickly these people run to the union rep when they are wronged. Then the union becomes their best friend. I have even had non union teachers demand that the union represent them as that is what the union is supposed to do. They become very indignant. On the other hand, the union protects the process not the teacher. If a teacher is not doing the job then if the administration has followed the process that they helped develop the poorly performing teacher will shape up or be gone.
ReplyDeleteI would have no problem paying the true cost of negotiating our contract. Several years ago, when we paid "fair share", which was only a few dollars less than the cost of being a full-fledged member, the union had to show what it cost to negotiate our contract. Over a 3 year period, the only cost that they could substantiate as actually related to the contract was $168.00. (I realize it would be more now - but not almost $600.) I gladly paid that. However, much of our dues goes to the NEA and political action committees (even though we are supposed to be able to sign that we do not want to support those) and supports political policies that I do not subscribe to. I would gladly support a local union. Years ago, Warren Classroom Teachers' Association negotiated an excellent contract locally for a much lower cost. I realize that good teachers may need defense, but it has been my experience that the ones who are not let go have been protected by the union. As to liability, IPS carries a liability policy on teachers and one can purchase liability protection through other groups such as Indiana Professional Educators. It just seems to be that there ought to be a way to work with administration at the local level (or state) which would be efficient and more equitable.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the world has to get along with their boss to keep their job. That isn't some crazy notion. Again, if you need the union to keep you from getting fired, that says more about you than me. I'll go on welfare before I belong to any union. Welfare has more integrity.
ReplyDeleteGetting along with the boss is quite different from doing exactly what one is told when what one is told is detrimental to teaching, learning and children, or is unreasonable. What is crazy is expecting people to blindly comply with everything the boss says without question. We need teachers (and students) that are critical thinkers. Blind obedience does not a critical thinker make.
ReplyDeleteTo the above poster re: IEA dues for political action. I doubt if you realize it but it is a federal law violation to use the IEA dues money for political action. That is why there is a box on the membership form to mark if you wish to make a VOLUNTARY donation to the PAC group. Not one penny, not one minute of staff time, not even a paper clip can be used for political action. When the list of recommended candidates is presented to teachers, it cannot even be sent through the normal delivery channels unless the PAC group pays the cost of delivery. If you are aware of dues money being used for political action then you need to report it immediately to the appropriate legal authorities. Otherwise you are just continuing your union bashing and trying to justify your freeloading status. I know which category I believe that you belong.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like there are some younger teachers who are willing to throw the experienced teachers under the bus.
ReplyDeleteStatistics tell us that the average new teacher will be out of the profession within five years.
But you are more than willing to berate those teachers who have dealt with all of the stress and lack of respect to spend their entire careers in service to IPS.
When you get older, you will look back and reflect on how you sold out the older teachers when you were young. That is, if you have a any kind of conscience.
I am not an IPS employee.
I think you mean you know "to which category I belong"
ReplyDeleteI think I know that you are misled about my motives. The PAC thing is such a small part but would there ever be a PAC donation to support a conservative candidate? - the point is those funds are solicited primarily for the Democratic party. Paperclips aside, the philosophy leans toward a liberal agenda. Does the Union give an accounting of how they spend approximately $600. per member to negotiate the contract? Do they publish the salaries they pay? Nationally, the NEA is leftist - why would I want to belong to a group who believes differently than I do on many issues...why am I forced to join the NEA in order to be a member of my local union? I wouldn't worry about freeloading teachers, if I were you. I would worry about a national debt that you and I will bear for a budget that encourages a freeloading populace.
You guys should really stick to the topic given that is the RIF process and how it is changing. Just so you know, the "Union" got input from the teachers who it will effect the most the teachers years 1-5. So, if you would take a second and research some information you would realize that there was input from teachers.
ReplyDeleteAnd what exactly did the "union" ask these teachers? "Would you like to lose your job or would you like the good for nothing old geezers to lose theirs?"
ReplyDeleteThis must be the evening of our dis-information. First of all, the new RIFing only pertains to teachers in the first 5 years of teaching. It does not in any way involve experienced teachers. I have been told that the IEA met with many of these new teachers for input. You can always get an accounting of how your dues is spent. The breakdown is provided every year. If you don't pay dues then you probably don't get provided with the breakdown of the budget. In Indiana, IEA and ISTA pacs frequently endorse GOP candidates. If the GOP candidates would be more supportive of public education then there would be more GOP endorsements. I imagine that given your practice of making accusations without any info that you have no idea who has been endorsed by the PAC groups. Your comments regarding a freeloading populace and the the national debt is ironic. It is ironic because you are a FREELOADER yourself.
ReplyDeleteI still should be able to vote on this
ReplyDeleteTell Ann Wilkins, she is the IEA president...if you need, call Eugene White's office...he controls her every move.......
ReplyDelete"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
ReplyDeleteand I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
"THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller
I see the Abdul posters have gotten bored.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me why this is seen as the "old geezer" getting attacked. If you are an effective teacher then you shouldn't worry so much about losing your job. Those who are concerned so much about their job and losing it must not be excellent. I have to say that if you have so much of a problem with everything that the "UNION" is doing then getting off this computer ranting and go to an AR meeting and voice your opinion. Nothing will change from people venting to a computer. Change only happens when enough people stand up and discuss it. So PLEASE stop just talking on here about it and speak up to someone who might actually be able to change something.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you could be called a "freeloader" if you are being forced to accept something for which you have not asked and do not have the option of rejecting.
ReplyDeleteDo you accept your pay raises? Why don't you reject those when the union negotiates one for you?
ReplyDeleteThe union does not negotiate my pay raise. They negotiate the pay raise of the lowest 50% of teachers. They negotiate an "average" worth of teachers. I'm above average. So such negotiations hurt rather than help me and all other teachers who are in the 50th percentile. The good teachers raise the bar, whether they are union or nonunion. The bad teachers benefit from unions. The good teachers do not.
ReplyDeleteAren't you special??
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one who started the who's-carrying-who argument. I'm just telling you how the union works. It's like people on welfare explaining how great socialism is and how much better "everyone" is than without it. No, only the least productive are better off with socialism. The more productive are worse off. That's all I'm saying. I don't think I'm the end-all-be-all. But I'm good enough that I don't get the benefits that the union provides to the weaker teachers.
ReplyDeleteYou have revealed in your posts that you have no idea what benefits the union offers. You are too hung up on how you can manage to get merit pay for being so wonderful. Protecting teacher rights and negotiating contracts are only two of the benefits of membership. Then that is something you will never know. You prefer to sit and bitch about the union and all of those other teachers who are bad and don't measure up to the superior job you are doing. If you display this attitude of superiority and entitlement to your students then I expect that you may not be ALL THAT despite what you have convinced yourself.
ReplyDeleteDo you accept your pay raises? Why don't you reject those when the union negotiates one for you?
ReplyDeleteThat is a silly statement. I have to sign the contract in order to teach. Again, I am not asking the union to negotiate my contract and I do not believe that the district is going to write a separate contract for me even if I refused to sign the union contract and requested one I had negotiated myself even at a lower rate. So...I guess we will have to agree to disagree and get on with the work of school.
Perhaps we could rework the idea of tenure. It doesn't have to mean you have worked in a district for X number of years. Perhaps we can set criteria, not unlike being "highly qualified" in which you earn your tenure, rather than it being an outright expectation of years.
ReplyDeleteSeniority can be looked at as well. One of the problems with eliminating seniority, is the difficulty of getting a job in a new school district once you have passed the 6 year mark, and have a Master's. We need to look at a statewide system that doesn't eliminate seniority, but makes it an unnecessary protection. If, say, teachers were paid on a statewide scale, bought into state health insurance, and were as sort of an auxiliary state employee, then seniority would be less of an issue. Good v. Bad teachers... it isn't a black or white issue. Sometimes it is a matter of fit. Environment matters for staff as well as students.
I am a damn good teacher. I am also the grown progeny of a nurse who had no union powers, and was an awesome care provider (I started in nursing, and got to see this first hand). My mom had no say in her hours, working conditions, pay, job assignments, and the maternity wing and front lobby would be completely remodeled every 3 years rather than give employees, including nursing staff a raise. She eventually quit and became a travel nurse which paid 4x what she made on the floor; and was able to retire, something that would have never happened if she has remained as a traditional RN. I have worked other jobs, including being self employed, before becoming a teacher, and people that want to prattle on about the Holy Free Market system have spent too little time working their ass off for little compensation and next to no consideration. Remember your free market sermon next time the waitstaff (who is also part of the cleaning staff) making just over 2 bucks an hour, prays you leave her at least the 15% you owe. Like the union, it ought to be added automatically to your bill. Got a problem with that? Talk to the management.
ReplyDeleteOk. There are bad teachers. There are teachers so bad, I have been to the administration about them. One in particular, used to knit and do bead work instead of teaching the Algebra 2 she was paid to teach. Knowing this, administration, over years, did NOTHING. Bad teachers CAN be eliminated. There is a process. Due process is one of most respected American practices. Part of the problem in our district comes down to 1.)administrators with the guts and conscience to do what is best for students AND staff 2.) a district that spends less energy WASTING the time of administrators by burying them under paperwork and reports. You ought to see what they want these principals to come up with, when we need them in the halls and classrooms. 3.) the politicians rise, rewarding not knowledge, expertise, consensus building and creative problem solving. Disney was a consultant to one of our magnet programs a few years back, and I will never forget what the consultant said, "your command structure wouldn't last 6 months in the business world". When the DOE is looking for where the buck stops, I think Harry S. would make it clear where to point the finger. Unfortunately, in education, it works the other way around.
ReplyDeleteTo "you have revealed." Just to be clear I understand your argument. If you say that nonunion teachers are freeloaders and union teachers are "carrying" them, that is respecting the profession of teaching. But if I say that the union allows weak teachers to freeload off of good teachers, I'm disrespecting teachers? Is that right? And you believe teachers now make more than market value and without the union to prop us up, we wouldn't be worth any money? And that's pro-teacher? And I'm saying good teachers would be worth way more without the union. And that's anti-teacher? To be honest, it doesn't sound like you think very highly of teachers.
ReplyDeleteTenure was eliminated in Indiana several years ago. There is no tenure for public school teachers in Indiana. Let's not hide behind that old canard of bad teachers hiding behind tenure.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you have totally mistated everything I wrote. You are either very dense or deliberately trying to obfuscate the entire union issue. I feel sorry for the students who are exposed to your inability to reason, think and present cogent arguments.
ReplyDelete"The rest of the world has to get along with their boss to keep their job"
ReplyDelete-You are foolish,have you ever studied the history of unions in this country?
Yes, they began with the railroads to keep black people from from working railroad jobs for less money than the Irish and Slav workers were working them. They expanded with corrupt Mafia influences, and evolved into socialism. I have a relative who was murdered for crossing a picket line to feed his family. Why, was that not the history you were talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou need to look at the entire spectrum of the history of unions and race relations. When the leadership finally realized the unfairness of their practices that contributed to segregation, the unions became one of the stalwarts along with many other groups in battling segregation and fighting for the rights of all races. Many churches, fraternal organizations, and universities came to that same realization. That is the rest of the story........
ReplyDeleteSomebody had two new words in their spelling unit this week..."obfuscate" and "cogent" - remember the first rule of writing "never use big words when an optional diminutive vocabulary will suffice without obfuscating your meaning"
ReplyDelete^^
ReplyDeleteirony AND sarcasm? you do know half the people reading this probably need a dictionary for that. i know the staff at my school does.
As a former IPS teacher (victim of RIF and being surplussed), I feel for the good teachers who work for this district. I begged and pleaded witha friend NOT to take a job with IPS because, as every year, her job would be in danger or RIF, and she is in danger. IPS needs to get rid of the old ineffective teachers who are out there...I know that there are some great teachers with YEARS of experience, but there are those who are completly ineffective. The person who said, "Hate to beat a dead horse, but it seems like we have scrutinized the new and old policies of letting go of ineffective teachers.
ReplyDeleteWhen do we start letting go of ineffective principals, Central Office staff, and coaches?" HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
It appears to me that some have fogetten why a union was needed in the first place. ( to inprove workng conditions) Special need teachers have to have the liability insurance, due to Eugene not believing in special education and those children & teachers are treated like second class citizens. What was it Eugene said? Oh, yea, if a kid can play video games he can't have attention problems. Since Eugene has taken over, this system has went from "a wing and a prayer" to "hell in a Handbag"
ReplyDeleteIf the teachers were respected and treated fairly
more of them would be behind their principals. Remember " you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with". Arlington, which is Eugene's sacrificial lambhas had FIVE Principals in two years PLEASE.. How can a school improve when the pincipals are changed on a monthly basis. Of, course not without their raises. Then when they arrive they don't bother to communicate with their staff. It is a sad day in education. The students in Arlington need to have someone who is there for the long haul. Not someone who is here today and gone tomorrow. I am sure they will get Shipp out before the Ship goes down. Eugene likes her so she'll be protected. As for the rest of them, who knows. I know and respect several teachers there and it saddens me to see what Eugene has done to the school and the corporation.