Randi Weingarten and Vicki Phillips of the Gates Foundation have jointly written an article bout teacher evaluation.
At a time when teachers and the teaching profession and teachers’ unions are under attack in states across the nation, how important is teacher evaluation?
What do you think?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think it won’t be long before Weingarten works directly for Gates.
Well, she is already on the advisory board of inBloom, Inc., Gates’ front for providing confidential student information to for-profit vendors, and had him as the keynote speaker at the 2010 AFT convention, where she preened as her sycophants insulted teachers who protested their union leadership inviting the man who is almost single-handedly destroying public education
Based on her actions as UFT/AFT head, I’d say she’s been in his employ for a while.
Any way you cut it – the bogus claims of being an educator, the sell-out contracts, the collaboration with privatizers, etc. – she is one of Them.
It’s downright strange what money does to people. I’d rather have ethics than money. Unfortunately, it appears that our AFT union leadership worships the almighty dollar to the detriment of the people who EMPLOY her.
Michael could not be more correct.
It is time we stop supporting Randi.
Michael Fiorillo is correct, again.
Bill, Melinda and Randy are no better than Eli Broad. Shameful.
The sooner Karen Lewis replaces the Randi the better.
She’s a total fraud. Why the rank-and-file of AFT haven’t run her out is a mystery to me.
It looks like she already does.
work for Bill.
I think the focus on teacher evaluation is based on the false premises that teachers are the problem in education, and that it’s another red herring aimed at shifting attention away from addressing the real issue, which is POVERTY.
This is an outright lie and I have to wonder why Randi would agree with it unless, as a non-educator, she just does not know what her constituents are taught and what they do, “teachers have long been taught to fit a lot of material in a short period of time, not to ask high-level questions or to engage students in rigorous discussions.”
Why is Bill pictured as if he is an Algebra teacher??? .
I’m disturbed that Randi hangs with Gates and crew. What qualifies them to judge teacher effectiveness? Oh a few billion dollars. As for teacher evaluation, that may be a moot point in a few years. We may not have teachers in the traditional sense, so who cares how they are evaluated? Since we’re just a test score anyway and ED/Arne Duncan has determined how we are to be measured can we just move on and perhaps save what remains of a democratic institution? The public schools!
while not quite as bad as Dennis van Roekel co-authoring an op-e with Wendy Kopp, this is still more than troublesome. First, regardless of the selective quotations from Bill Gates, the Gates Foundation only considers non-test indicators of teacher effectiveness valid insofar as they correlate with test-based indicators, including Value-Added manipulations of student test scores. That by itself should be a problem. The second immediate issue is that the statements proposes to ALIGN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS. That immediately grants to the Common Core State Standards and the tests being built to accompany and enforce them a validity and credibility they have not earned. As you yourself have pointed out, Diane, the CCSS are untested, not even piloted. Now we are completely changing everything possible to conform to something untested and more than problematic. When tied to the fact that effectively test scores are still going to drive everything, we are seriously dumbing down our education and crippling the ability of teachers to meet the real needs and interests of our very diverse student populations.
In the process, this will continue to the driving out of good teachers from public education.
“Teacher evaluations should be based upon professional teaching standards that spell out what teachers should know and be able to do.”
The above assertion sent up red flags for me and made me wonder if that is yet another piece that Gates may be aiming to co-opt –professional teaching standards developed by non-educators. My state already has professional teaching standards, which were developed by educators, and that’s one of our state tests for teacher certification.
Gates et al don’t like that each state differs in how they test teachers for certification and they’re focusing on “reforming” Teacher Education. Sounds like this could be a toe in the door towards standardization of TeacherEd.
Sounds like Common Core [National] Standards for Teachers will be the next likely initiative by Gates & Friends. I’m thoroughly disgusted. And wouldn’t teachers across the nation agree to these business-driven Teacher Standards if Gates would get Weingarten on the Board of that group? (Well, not THIS teacher). Gates surely thinks that bringing Weingarten into the fold would unite educators. (Well, not THIS teacher). We would see that he REALLY wants to embrace teachers. (Well, not THIS teacher).
Back off Mr. Gates. Take your misguided “philanthropy” somewhere else. Leave education to those that know it inside and out. Leave education to people who really care about every child in this nation.
It’s more about the press to define “good teaching” with data-which can’t really be done without trying to force a definition of desired outcomes within the confines of data. Quantifying outcomes and expectations allows the masters to separate, segregate, control, invest and profit.
What is lost is the subjective quality everyone (especially reformers, ironically) is always talking about in education (“great teachers”, “good schools”, “choice”…) You can’t truly achieve even these reformer-disingenuous ideals if data and standards paint the portrait of the goals. We are educating children, shaping society and people, not filing tax forms.
The Gates-sponsored co-authored piece does not get close to the reality of public school teaching and learning, unfortunately. Nowhere does it mention CLASS SIZE as one key feature of optimizing tchr practice and stud achievement. This is common in proclamations of the “reform” wave–ignoring the big-ticket items which rich parents expect fore their own children in the luxe pvt schls they send their own kids to. Small class size is item number one here, lots of mentoring and individual attention to the learning needs of kids at work on the ground in real time in real classrooms. That costs, that matters, parents and teachers want it, but no one on the billionaire side is willing to face it, because they have other prime interests, like lowering the wage package of public education by displacing vet tchrs with cheap TFA nebies–like creating deep, long-terms markets for computer products and services which all the high-stakes CC testing will ensure for years to come, thus further enriching the billionaires like Gates, Bloomberg, Murdoch, etc. Bill Gates knows so little about teaching and learning and has so much profit to make by digitizing the vast public school market, that he is a walking conflict-of-interest whose only claim to credibility is his enormous fortune. Tchrs dev is absolutely essential, of course, and can be handled best by staff dev workshops in each schl where lead tchrs organize lesson study for their colleagues. Effective teaching is already underway–HS and COLL Grad rates are at all-time highs, NAEP shows no downward slump–so the proclamation of “ineffective teaching” is a political ploy to demoralize tchrs and weaken their fighting spirit and their unions. The big story of the reform wave is wrong on everything but it is a story with big money behind it so it’s proclaimed again and again. Turn that story on its head and we’ll get close to reality.
I do not know how long Randi Weingarten taught, but I fear she does not have a deep understanding of teaching and learning, and I do not think she is “hearing” the concerns of the teachers that she represents. Bill Gates is not a friend to teachers. Joint statements with the Gates Foundation are a kick in the pants…..
If Gates had it’s way, she would have no AFT to lead.
Carol:
Either she’s tone deaf or she loves being a collaborator. Either way, she’s on the losing end. Even more disturbing is the fact that her mother was a teacher who at one time went on strike. You would think that she had more respect for the profession.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten
From 1991 until 1994 she taught on per diem basis 122 days over the period at Clara Barton High School in Crown Heights. In fall of 1994 she taught history full-time at the school. By 1995, after six months of full-time teaching, Weingarten was elected Assistant Secretary of the UFT. She continued teaching per diem, from 1995 to 1997.
But when did she study education (or history)? From the same Wikipedia page,
“She received a Bachelor of Science in labor relations from the ILR School at Cornell University in 1980 and a J.D. from the Cardozo School of Law in 1983”
Was she a certified teacher, or was teaching on a per diem basis a way of circumventing teacher certification requirements?
Randi taught for 6 whole months!! In a way that’s worse than the 2- year TFAers who now control policy in many cities and states.
Randi did a full about face when Bloomberg became mayor. That was just about the time Quinn also did an about fact. But we soon discovered that Bloomberg helped Quinn pay off a campaign finance malfeasance issue. I am not saying that money changed hands here, but soon afterwards Randi signed onto the ’05 contract that not only took away the SBO hiring policy (where teachers and parents served on that committee), but also took away excessing seniority rights and created the zombie squad know as ATRs (Dead Teachers Walking). She brought in Green Dot and allowed co-charters. When schools were on the closing list, she was nowhere getting herself arrested. Then she backed mayoral control not once but twice. She signed onto VAM and no longer fought for smaller class sizes. She did not endorse any Democrats during Bloomberg’s 2nd and illegal 3rd term. Nor did she fight against his bid to do away with term limits. She supported RTTT and VAM. Even Ron Paige was throwing roses her way during the Bush administration.
If actions speak louder than words, than this should be louder than a drone attack.
Please if you are a NYC teacher, vote for Julie and the MORE slate in the UFT election.
PS: If you read NYC Educator or Ednotes Online, you will read about how supporters of Mulgrew are attacking Julie for being a new parent and therefore not qualified to be head of a union. Seems to me many teachers are parents too and still can do their jobs!! But the bigger issue here is putting women’s rights back a few hundred years!!!
I was a teacher and member of the UFT during her tenure as UFT President. She was legal counsel to her predecessor, UFT President Sandra Feldman who anointed Weingarten president of the UFT at some point after Feldman became president of the AFT. Her resume indicates seven years of teaching but all the gossip among teachers, and union officials that were willing to talk, was that she taught ONE class for ONE semester in elementary school. It was Randi Weingarten who negotiated the 2005 contract with Bloomberg/Klein that gave up seniority transfer rights and allowed Bloomberg to start closing schools in earnest to force veteran teachers into the excess pool (ATR’s) hoping to drive them to quit. I should also point out that the 2005 contract also made each school responsible for its budget so Principals had an incentive to replace higher salaried teachers with new lower salaried teachers.
Ms. Weingarten is non-confrontational and non-oppostional for the most part. She is a collaboratot and deal cutter who shakes hands behind some very opaque doors.
She wrote to me recently stating that she has a very different world view than most of us teachers.
I am not sure what kind of global visions, she has, but she is a true obstructionist in most regards to real education reform, one that should be largely driven by educators.
Sorry, Ms. Weingarten, but you can never have it both ways. At least, not for the long haul, you can’t. The contradictions in your leadership will generate backlash. . .they already are, and you have a difficult time acknowledging it.
Give us Karen Lewis anytime.
She’s not an educator but a lawyer. I think she had only a few months of teaching experience at most.
I read the article knowing that I have been a proponent and opponent of Randi’s leadership various times throughout the years. I also read the article mentally blacking out Gates name (to assess if my view was being tainted by previous Gates reform tactics). The truth is the article was describing a list of theoretical tools to improve teaching. We also know that a tool in one person’s hands can be a weapon in the hands of someone else. What the article neglected to articulate is a system of checks and balances to ensure that whomever was in charge of the evaluation, follows agreed upon ethical guidelines which would house any teacher evaluation.
If you read this article very carefully, you will see it goes out of its way to hide the fact that are imposing VAM and Danielson on teachers. What’s even more troubling is the term “staff development” which is basically a way of saying you will handed more BS on how to teach to the test. Poverty is not even addressed nor are the other issues that truly effect a student’s progress. Notice it’s all on the teachers!!! And while there is no evidence that proves MET provides a successful measure, we do know many good and experienced teachers will lose their jobs based on these biased rubrics. Notice PAR is not even addressed. Why would the head of the largest teachers’ union want teachers to have a voice on issues of hirings and firings? Yet there was a time she pushed for teachers to be on hiring committees in NYC. And they were working until Klein told her to get rid of it. Boy it took her no time to take it off the table after years of lobbying teachers to go this route. MET in conjunction with Common Core will only increase teaching to the test.
Diane, I truly hope you know see this “collaboration” for what it is….a big step backwards!!! And I hope you are now seeing the true Randi Weingarten. There is nothing positive about this article the same way there was nothing positive about her bar exam for teachers. This is NOT leadership, and on some level you have to see that too.
Look at her record: She sides with Bloomberg, Klein, Duncan, Gates. And look what happened to DC teachers when she came to an agreement with Rhee!!! You know she supports charters and even brought Green Dot to NYC. You know she supports VAM and held her tongue when the LA Times published names. She wasn’t out there protesting with the LA teachers?
Teachers are suffering under her leadership. But more importantly, students are suffering as well. Common Core will not do anything to improve student achievement without addressing other factors. It’s bad enough schools are taking away recess in order to skill and drill. Creativity will be dead in the water under the one-size-fits all Danielson model. Winerip wrote an excellent piece on how principals in Tennessee were forced to give bad evaluations to wonderful lessons because they didn’t “fit the rubric”.
I really believe have to believe that you and your new organization will not stand with what was proposed in this article. 😦
Does the Network for Pub Ed stand for what Randy wrote in her article? It looks that way to me..What she wrote, what she does is opposite what the website says NPE is.Rather than write about it, it’s being ignored.I publicly promoted this network. Is it a front for InBloom or for Randy. My union leader said Randy donated to npe.Is that the reason for the silence. I’m disappointed and fed up with people putting money ahead of what’s right, putting money ahead of kids.What she says and does is wrong. Why the partnership with her?
Steven,
The Network for Public Education has not taken any money from NEA or AFT. Their views and ours are independent. Our principles are clear: We are opposed to mass school closings; we are opposed to evaluating teachers by test scores; we are opposed to the misuse of high-stakes testing to give out rewards and punishments; we are opposed to privatization.
We favor community schools with well-educated, certified teachers and principals; we favor reduced class sizes; we favor the principle that schools should have the resources they need for the students they enroll, including children with disabilities and English language learners; we favor a full curriculum for all children, including the arts, history, the sciences, math, foreign languages, civics, physical education, and other subjects; we believe in democratic control of public schools, not corporate control.
We take no responsibility for anything that others write or believe or advocate.
Diane
To even enter into a discussion with an edreformer about teacher evaluation – or ANYthing having to do with teachers – is a mistake. As has been said here and in many other places, teachers are not the problem with education… if there IS a problem…
… it is poverty and low funding.
I’ve always felt the biggest problem Randi Weingarten had was to give members the appearance of supporting them while in fact doing the bidding for the Bloomberg/Klein agenda. This article shows that she has little respect for teachers. This article supports the notion that the problem with education is the teachers. In the article it states that teachers who don’t improve should be fired. Who should improve? Improve from what? I taught for 25 years and every semester I did something a little differently because I thought there might have been a better way to present a particular lesson. During lunch with other teachers we routinely discussed lessons and what we might try differently next time around. The vast majority of teachers I knew always tried to improve their lessons over time. It’s just a natural part of being a teacher. As I’ve said many times before when Randi Weingarten was the UFT President, she is a major part of the problem.
Not that I buy their six suggestions, but if tolerable, they should be relegated to #5-10) after:
1) Teaching is a gift; it is an ART; (and then comes the science)
2) Teaching is a PROFESSION
3) Teaching is a CAREER
4) Teaching (and subsequent evaluation and development) aligns with PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS of practice (eg. National Board Standards and content area standards pedagogical practice – NCTM, NCTE, NCSS, etc.)
It’s about respect, not accountability or evaluation.
Perfectly stated.
Teacher evaluation is important, the current methods being used and the statistics valuation behind teacher evaluation in our nations is so far off base. Put veteran teachers and teacher/administrators in charge of setting the evaluations, lets get the legislators and lobbyists out of it.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Sent from my IPhone
First, never believe a thing that Gates is involved in. They do not know how to not lie. Second, I will never believe a thing that Randi says again since she is a graduate of the Broad Institute and second she has aligned herself with Gates. I wonder what is in her offshore account. Randi was at the presentation of Tavis Smiley’s new hour special two weeks ago and she did not know that Deasy had a phony PHD. When you do not know that it means you know nothing and did not even put his name into Google to see, even if just for fun. You should always check people out, no one seems to do this. I sure do. When I told Tavis that Deasy had a phony PHD his eyes got as bid as pie plates as he had Deasy in this special many times. Now the question is what is he going to do and say. Randi by working with Gates is backstabbing her own people as is usual except at Chicago with Karen Lewis. Maybe Lewis should be national head of the union so that students, parents, teachers and community will actually be represented for their best not worst interests..
Bravo, George!
Encore!
She is not a graduate of the Broad Institute. It’s worse. Since 2002 she has been on the staff of the Broad Superintendents Academy training the superintendent trainees how to foster labor/management collaboration to promote the privatization of public schools. Through the Teacher Union Reform Network she has overseen the training of AFT local staffers in fostering collaboration with management.
“Who is Eli Broad and why does he want to destroy public education?”
http://www.defendpubliceducation.net/
She is there to kill public education teachers’ unions from the inside. There is NO other explanation for her even being allowed anywhere NEAR a teachers’ union.
George, I just asked you that PhD. ? on another post, as I’d just seen Deasy on Tavis Smiley yesterday evening, & they put up his name under him, and it I.D.’ed him as being a PhD., so, apparently, neither Tavis nor his crew care.
Deasy started his Ph.D. studies in Providence and followed a “mentor” to Louisville where he received his degree without the requisite normal minimum time in residence in the program. When his mentor got into trouble and the issue came up, Deasy said that as far as he knew he himself had done nothing wrong. Susan Ohanian has explored this, among other issues, in this piece in 2011, in which she links to this reposting of a Nathan Hernandez Washington Post piece
FULL DISCLOSURE: I worked in Prince George’s County Public Schools at the time Deasy was hired and during his entire tenure. I had several interactions with him. He was actually a major improvement on his predecessor Iris T. Metts, but there were real issues with a number of the decisions he made.
It is also worth noting that in less than a decade he went from running Santa Monica, with only around 13,000 students to running LA Unified, the nation’s 2nd largest school district. His immediate successor in PG, William Hite, who like Deasy is a Broad product, left PG to take over Philadelphia. Hite was Broad 2005, Deasy was 2006/
What do I think of this article? I think it’s time for new representation or at least an explanation towards the sudden shift in alignment with the master architects of the ruins of public education. There is nothing that can be candidly stated about the upholding of Common Core standards by the AFT that won’t have a tone of alarm or sarcasm. The AFT publication American Educator has in its Spring 2013 edition an article entitled, “Springing to Life: How Greater Educational Equality Could Grow from the Common Core Mathematics Standards.” May I point out that the article contributors cite from the text Inequality for All, co-authored by William Schmidt, one of the article’s co-authors, and that embedded in the piece is one of the greatest ironies and blind reasoning post hoc ergo propter hoc that will drive common sense out of common core. The editors cite the following from the text written by Schmidt and McNight:
The opportunities of too many students are arbitrarily determined by factors outside
of their control, such as the state and local community where they live, the school
they attend, the teacher they have, the textbooks the school has purchased, and the
tests they must take. There are no villains in this story; everyone acts with the best
of intentions, if not always with the greatest of wisdom. All of these factors conspire
to create a very inconsistent and uneven system, one in which chance plays a major
role and, as other countries have demonstrated, chance has no place in the
education of children. (p. 6)
Teacher evaluation is driven by Common Core. Common Core is driven by educational reform and higher education standardized test performance. Educational reform is driven by non-profit billionaire philanthropic organizations and government infrastructures state by state. State by state reform is driven by the Race to the Top. Race to the Top is driven by America’s lag in STEM development. And finally, STEM development is driven by for-profit American and global businesses whose non-profit philanthropic billionaire organizations and for-profit global standardized testing infrastructure (Pearson) that direct common core. Chicago, Philadelphia, NYC, Wisconsin, Florida, D.C., and far too many more districts to mention are shuttering schools. In their own words, “All of these factors conspire to create a very inconsistent and uneven system.” However, this is where we differ in our opinions. It is not chance that is playing a major role in the dividing line between the children of our country. Common Core is effectively creating the largest chasm between the children with the means to jump through hoops and the children of poverty who will be unable to do so.
Each and every time scores are low, schools close. Who picks up the children that don’t make the grade? Do I hear crickets? Has the promise of public education broken the bank so profoundly that the United States is unable to do so alone – not that public education has been egalitarian by any means – rather with the assistance of philanthropic organizations whose namesakes have never sat behind the desk in a public school classroom? Granted, the quality of public education has been commensurate with local tax revenues, disastrous at worst, but at existent at best. Again, what happens now, with Common Core and the poorest of the poor and their poorer test scores?
So, in essence, it is none but hubris to consider that a problem as enormous as inequality in education will be resolved by its current master architects. It is an insidious orchestration. I applaud their stealth. But it is deeply disconcerting to find such comradery between union representation and the organizations that seek to eradicate education as we know it. What sleight of hand will be employed next? Because as far as I know, the race to any top is riddled with slippery slopes.
Burroughs, Nathan A.,& Schmidt, William H. (2013). Springing to Life: How Greater Educational Equality Could Grow from the Common Core Mathematics Standards. American Educator, 37(1), 1-9.
Randi sounds like the Gwyneth Paltrow of education. Out of touch with the people she purportedly represents.
She is the Barack Obama of teachers’ unions. She is to teachers’ unions what Barack Obama is to the Democratic Party.
In other words, she is a fraud, a mole, designed to kill an institution from the inside.
At least Gwyneth’s acting is far more believable and palatable.
Randi is more like the facades of a Hollywood set. Real looking on the outside with raw, exposed, unfinished and ojectionable structures and mechanisms on the inside.
It’s too bad.
She really had the potential, but she has irrevocably blown it to smithereens. Most of us teachers have little more than opprobrium for her, and that’s not going to change.
Maybe she’ll have a change of heart and join The Network for Public Education. Let her put her advocacy where her mouth is.
Randi, are you listening?
Here it is. The poverty dodge:
“While many factors outside school affect children’s achievement, research shows that teaching matters more than anything else schools can do. ”
what an ironic world we live in where rich people and legislators make decisions on curriculum and educators are supposed to solve poverty.
95% of our effort on 5% of the problem.
25+, we have known about this for 5 to 7 years now. And where have we all been in keeping ourselves informed and where have the unions been?
It’s still not too late, but the fight will be ever harder.
Robert, I do have to say that, until I retired in 2010, while I certainly WAS aware of most of the strange & awful things going on (had read Kozol & followed him for many years; I also most assuredly read Diane’s book, passing it on to others, as well), I didn’t really start reading blogs until my retirement. Teaching is all-consuming, and then one has to live the rest of one’s life. And, especially now, teachers are REALLY tired, and sick and tired. I really feel for my active friends and colleagues. That having been said, I DO believe that it’s never too late. We just need to keep fighting. We need to stop whining about Obama & Duncan, & we need to be focused (the problem w/the 99% Occupy Movement–too many issues)–I prefer to concentrate on stopping the testing industry. We need to start locally–whatever’s going on where you work/live that’s wrong–
join with others & do something to stop it! Because–I believe–yes,
WE can! Emphasis on we.
UGH, my problem with Randi is she tries to play both sides and you can’t right now. She supported those NYS APPR evals using testing results, joined Cuomo’s task force, supported Chicago,Philly, Garfield teachers. She’s all over the place. Who are you? Stand for something or you’ll fall for everything.
Thanks Diane for towing the party line.
Mom/Educator,
” . . . she tries to play both sides and you can’t right now.”
You can’t ever play both sides . . . now, then, or tomorrow.
One final visual comment on my assessment of Ms. Weingarten from, uh, a teacher’s point of view . . .
See:
http://thetruthoneducationreform.blogspot.com/2013/02/run-for-your-life.html?view=snapshot
Randi Weingarten couldn’t defend a teacher if you gave her a baseball bat and a can of pepper spray.
Ummmm….new here. Started reading this blog in past couple of weeks. Subscribed and all that. All I can say now is thank you to Diane and any of you supporting your students, kids, public education, her, etc…..Not sure who will ever read this. I’m an Elementary School Teacher with a Master’s and I hope to go further with my education. The more I read about what the powerful are working on the more sick I get. Keep posting, keep commenting, keep working. Don’t stop.
Brett, please do likewise, and join The Network for Public Education.
Also, Diane’s blog gets about 3 million page views a day, I believe. So, people are reading!
Brett – welcome to what will keep you sane. I am an elementary teacher with a masters and 30+ years experience. Reading these blogs & comments has kept me from dying inside. We realize that our work is the most important on the planet. The education DEformers do not get that at all.
How can Randi truly believe she has any credibility left? She may hang on to power, but the rank and file don’t need, want or respect her. Does that even matter?
The Gates-Weingarten letter is problematic since there is zero empirical evidence that we have a teacher problem or a standards problem. Instead of getting this message out, AFT supports massive common core testing and now the Duncan-speak of “multiple measures” which is code for test results.
By focusing on teacher preparation there is a nasty undercurrent that suggests “we” are the problem.
Randi also sits on the board of another Gates funded project “InBloom” that collects both student and teacher data…..So much for privacy issues.
https://inbloom.org/leadership
I believe Leonie Haimson has written extensively about this organization.
Disgusting…really how much clearer can this get? She represents no one, so how do teachers get rid of her?
Yes, how exactly can the approximate 3 million per day viewers of this blog mobilize to democratically depose Randi Weingarten and vote someone else in?
The process of how one gets her position wields a lot of political power, but we are still constituents. We belong to satellite unions under the unbrella of the AFT.
We want and demand someone who will represent great cognition and pedagogy that comes about only through social and economic justice, not deal cutting and frolicking with Bill Gates et al.
Unfortunately that statement will have to come directly from Diane. Until then, our comments will not matter.
It is so sad that Randi has aligned herself with Bill Gates. Gates spent millions to defeat Prop 37 in California. All consumers wanted was for GMO foods to be labeled as such. (Unfortunately, this bill was defeated, but 47% of the electorate voted for it.) This is just one such example which demonstrates that Gates does not really care about ordinary people. He has no expertise in education. He should not be making decisions about children. He is not to be trusted. He is first and foremost a businessman. The AFT should immediately sever its relationship with Bill Gates. Until then, the AFT has lost credibility and does not speak for me.
The AFT is perverse for having done so.
I know people with lots of classroom experience who have spent decades analyzing what children need to learn to be successful in the long term, what good teaching looks like and how to support teachers. I am disappointed that Randi continues to be the voice for teachers when she is a lawyer, not an educator. I found some information on a blog called Linking and Thinking on Education by Joanne Jacobs. She writes this: ” How long did Weingarten teach? EDUCATION REFORMERS WOULDNT LAST 10 MINUTES IN A CLASSROOM, SAID AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS PRESIDENT RANDI WEINGARTEN THIS WEEK. A lawyer turned union leader, Weingartens classroom time was limited, counters Education Action Group. Weingartens AFT bio claims she taught history at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn from 1991 to 1997. EAG obtained her personnel file via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. Weingarten was hired as a substitute teacher in 1991 and received a provisional license in 1993. In 1994, she received a certificate to serve as a substitute. A 1997 letter indicates Weingarten didnt submit documentation showing shed met requirements for licensure. No record indicates she ever served as a full-time teacher or was evaluated by a principal or other school official. When Weingarten ran for president of New Yorks United Federation of Teachers in 1998, her opponent, Michael Shulman, suggested that she was not a real teacher. She worked five months full-time that Ive been aware of, in 1992, at Clara Barton High School, Shulman was quoted as saying in the New York Times. Since then she taught maybe one class for 40 minutes a day. An education reformer with two years as a Teach for America teacher apparently has more classroom experience than the AFT leader.” When will the educators who have spent their professional lives learning about teaching be heard?
So Weingarten lied about her teaching experience ? This needs to be explored and she needs to answer. She was a substitute?
Nevermind the teaching. She has been a substitute union leader for too long.
Five months actual teaching experience and the rest substituting. How nice. Even Michelle Rhee is more qualified than she is.
Much as we all disapprove of Rhee, you at least know exactly what you’re getting and what to expect.
With Randi, beware of the multiple personalities, the charming narcissism, and the opportunist disguised as a progressive.
Well stated, Susan! What a succinct indictment of Randi Weingarten!
When did Randi have even 5 weeks of preparation to become a teacher???
It’s not uncommon for states to require just a bachelor’s degree in anything for a person to become a substitute, with no required Teacher Education courses. It looks like, in NY, if a sub works for more than 40 days in one year, then they must take Teacher Ed courses totaling at least 6 credits (per year, I think) –or document that they have already earned 21 credits in Teacher Ed. It sounds like Randi did not document having earned credits in Teacher Ed courses.
I suspect Randi didn’t take any Teacher Ed courses. This might help to explain why she doesn’t have a clue about Teacher Education, the fact that professional teaching standards have already been developed by educators, wants a bar exam etc.
You are quoting anti-union groups that, with the collusion of the NYCDOE under Joel Klein, have published lies about Randi’s teaching record. The truth requires a simple google search, which will bring anyone who cares to a letter signed by former students, colleagues and supervisors of Randi while she was at Clara Barton. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=203425606388571 I was one of those colleagues and a signatory of the letter. It is shameful that the dirty work of right wing, anti-union groups is repeated here as truth.
Randi Weingarten has been collaborating with The Broad Foundation since 2002.
“Who is Eli Broad and why is he trying to destroy public education?”
http://www.defendpubliceducation.net/
I saw red when I read this article.
Bravo. Well done. Clapping!
Me too: http://atthechalkface.com/2013/03/25/gates-and-aft-together-at-last/
Let’s say this blog was about me or you. Wouldn’t you be very upset and want to make changes or possibly this would be shocking?
If Randi is reading this, what could she possibly be thinking?
Wouldn’t she be embarrassed? Her gig is up.
No, it’s not. Not until she is deposed. Easier said than done, but the national consensus on her actions is an excellent, tank-solid start.
Randi controls UNITY and Unity controls the AFT. NYC teachers will have to take a page out of Chicago’s handbook and vote MORE instead of UNITY. But not until people like Diane and others call out Randi will it make headlines. Teachers and parents are just lowly pawns in Randi’s game. She is truly a disgusting human being to make teachers out on the front lines the only factor in student achievement. At least MORE looks to improve social factors as well.
Randi and her “reformer” buddies have gotten away with scape-goating teachers in the US by intimating that the achievement gap is an American problem. It is not. It is a global issue. It should be stated at every opportunity that the problem is poverty, in every country, and not teachers.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States
“The gap in achievement between lower income students and higher income students exists in all nations [1] and it has been studied extensively in the U.S. and other countries, including the U.K. [2]”
“U.S. research indicated that 13% – 17% of in-school factors influence student achievement.[3] U.K. research found that school quality accounts for only 14% of variation in individual performance in schools and that “most variation is explained by other factors.” [4] American education researcher David Berliner indicated that home/community influences are weighted more heavily, in part, due to the increased time that students spend at home and in their communities compared to the amount of time spent in school, and that the out-of-school factors influencing children in poverty differ significantly from those typically affecting middle income children. [5][6]”
1 Carnoy & Rothstein, “International Tests Show Achievement Gaps in All Countries”, Economic Policy Institute, January 15, 2013
2 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, “Education and Poverty”, “How Does Poverty Affect Children’s Education?”
3 Hanushek, E. (2010, December). “The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality. Working Paper 56”. Washington, DC: Calder, The Urban Institute
4 Hirsch, D., “Experiences of Poverty and Educational Disadvantage” Joseph Rowntree Foundation. York, North Yorkshire, UK., September 2007
5 Berliner, D., “Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success”, Education Public Interest Center, 2009
6 Berliner, D., “Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform”, Teachers College Record, 2006
See References on Wikipedia page for direct links to most of the above articles.
The article ‘Six Steps to Effective Teacher Development and Evaluation’ has been quoted here in the UK because it echoes the good practice that we see developing in many schools here. Previous information about how the US proposed to judge teachers’ performance purely on the test results of their pupils, with no attempt to remove factors other than teacher influence from the equation, have seemed to many here to be less than sensible.
However, later reports refer to attempting to place a value on the effectiveness of teaching through ‘triangulation’, i.e. through Pupil Voice, Value-Added indicators and Observation. This appears to be a fair basis on which to appraise teachers, as long as each component providing evidence is doing so fairly.
The first, Pupil Voice, means using fair methods to gather feedback from pupils themselves on how the teacher influenced their learning. Pupil responses, once standardised, can help to place comparative measures on the effectiveness of teaching as experienced by learners. It is equivalent to asking customers about their shopping experiences and just as valid. Pupils have been shown to give consistently fair feedback despite initial concerns of teachers.
Value-Added indicators measure the distance travelled by pupils in their learning. This requires a sound mathematical model based on national norms of performance, but is a much fairer way than raw test scores of showing the influence of teaching on pupil progress over time. This approach has only recently been introduced in the UK for judging the effectiveness of schools, and now enables the performance of schools that pre-select pupils on the basis of ability (Grammar Schools) to be compared with those that don’t. This approach works at individual pupil level to provide a single VA score, and at class level in order to quantify the influence of the work of individual teachers over time.
Observing lessons against published and accepted criteria which places teaching into one of four categories, forms the third component. Lesson observations need to be set up in the context of an effective teacher development programme in schools so that it isn’t just an accountability exercise. Schools need to develop consistent and clear approaches to observing lessons which provides a series of agreed evaluations over a period of time, coupled with appropriate teacher support where necessary.
Put together, these three approaches do appear to provide a fair basis on which to evaluate teaching, and one that is in harmony with current thinking here in the UK.
.
And what data do you have showing how British teachers are responding to all of this? Bloomberg owns a flat in a very tony part of London. It is clear his influence has spread to the U.K.
Does your parliament and the figurehead monarch take into consideration poverty levels of children.
Not that England can ever truly be seen as having a rampant history of class polarization . . . .
Robert, Click on his name. He blogs “In praise of great use of school performance data.” Some Brits are already drunk on our corporate “reform” Kool-Aid (especially those who stand to profit from it).
Those Brits . .. we became independent of them, and now they’ve grown dependent on us for education policy. The French are not like this . . .
Of course they will become fixated with our policy. It’s about profiteering off mostly the backs of poorer people. Not that the British have ever been involved in that with their world empire over the last 500 years . . .
I think we need to assess this situation in Britain by looking into whether this man is an outlier with other power brokers in the U.K., or if he really represents the pulse of the common citizenry there.
Now maybe we common citizens don’t count all that much, but we certainly acutely outnumber Mr. Bostock and those who think like him.
How could a national teacher leader support (1) the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers, when there is little, if any, research to support it as a viable means to determine teacher effectiveness or provide meaningful information for professional growth, and (2) the Common Core, when there was very limited teacher involvement in its creation, and limited piloting of the curriculum and tests? These actions by Weingarten are contributing to the de-professioalization of teachers and further harm to students; all serious grounds for her ouster. Teachers need a courageous, assertive leader who values research and the principles of human development; not one who plays political games.
Dan Drmacich, Chairman
Coalition for Justice in Education & Retired Principal
Rochester, NY
Diane,
According to an article in the NYTimes, Randi did give your organization a personal donation. Given that her personal philosophy doesn’t agree with The Network for Public Education, shouldn’t your PAC issue a statement saying your disagree with the article? If not the PAC, what about you. You have a history of writing responses to agendas you don’t agree with. I know there are some who feel that Randi’s PAC donation should be returned. And I can understand that argument. Randi’s mission and agenda is so opposite what you believe regardless of your friendship. While my personal opinion is that it will do more for your PAC to issue such a statement–not just because my personal feelings for Randi–but it will show just how strong your PAC really is. And I think it will cause every teacher union to either get on board or show their true hand. I know you have a friendship with Randi, but this is business not personal. And I think it will cause a flood of donations to your new PAC. It’s one thing to have a mission statement, it’s another to show how strongly you will defend it.
Sincerely,
Schoolgal
props!
Schoolgal,
Randi may have made a personal donation to the Network–I really don’t know, I am not the treasurer, not have I seen a list of members or contributors. But whatever her personal donation, neither the AFT nor the NEA influences the decisions of the Network. We are an independent organization. We don’t give loyalty tests to anyone who contributes to NPE. If Secretary Duncan, with whom I often disagree, were to join or make a donation, I would welcome him and use his money to support our goals. If he reads our newsletter, he will learn a lot.
Diane
Your point is well taken Diane about Randi’s personal donation, though her claiming an alliance does have a negative effect that is real. There is a long history of radical movements being co-opted by mainstream forces. We need to be alert to how that works. Recently we saw the Democratic Party take the wind out of the sails of the people’s uprising in Wisconsin. This article speak to how that is happening on a broader scale: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/
Questions of complicity are never easy, but given the hegemonic forces of neo-liberalism, must be addressed. This will help all of us to know ourselves and our choices with more clarity.
Schoolgal’s previous reply asks why wouldn’t you or the board of the network take issue with the joint letter? You do so with other such statements of policy and direction. This is opposite what the network preaches. I agree with Ms. Madelloni that a NYT article where Randy speaks of her personal donation to the network and her alliance. She speaks of it to our union leaders and my delegates.She straddles the fence, compromises our profession.We felt you and this PAC were championing what’s best. No one said anything about nea or aft.This is about the president of AFT on the board of InBloom and co authoring articles with Gates people while getting a free pass from a network that is working to fix public education for children.
I wonder if she plans on showing up at the Occupy USDOE event April 4-7.
Here in Tennessee, my daughter’s high school can’t hire a certified math teacher. They have 3 uncertified high school math teachers and, I think, 3 more who are fresh out of schools. The basic problem with the emphasis on testing and teacher evaluations is that teachers are so poorly paid, disrespected, and overburdened that no one wants the job! If you fire a “bad” teacher, there’s no one to replace her with.
You can do serious evaluations when you have a surfeit of qualified people clamoring for your job. When you don’t have any people willing to teach math, you need to be attracting qualified candidates, not harassing them. It is so illogical that you wonder whether the goal really is to improve education.
It isn’t the goal. The goal is to destroy the unions, kill the profession, lower the labor costs and funnel the money elsewhere. Your Commissioner, Huffman, is leading the movement. This is what TFA calls “leadership”.
Dear Diane,
Thank you for your response. But, if Duncan or Rhee were the co-writers of that piece, you would be all over it as you have been in the past with others who have written similar pieces. Yet, you seem to ignore this and instead have us make the comments. Sooner or later we will be awaiting your response via a blog post.
As for taking donations, I am very upset that a candidate for mayor of NYC took a contribution from StudentsFirst. And she will also take a contribution from the UFT. That is someone I cannot trust. Your name is on the head of this PAC, and you should know what is happening with the money. Your treasurer should be reporting to each director. Not doing so can lead to questionable accounting tactics.
If you were to accept a donation from Duncan or Gates or Bloomberg, I would be the first one to declare I can no longer trust such a PAC.
Again, you may decide to keep the Weingarten donation, but I will still be awaiting your response to the article as you have done so many times before with other authors. That article is disturbing a lot of people who are fighting for public ed. And many of us look to you as our leader.
Schoolgal.
Schoolgal,
Randi made a personal donation of $20.
The principles of the Network for Public Education are unambiguous.
I will fight for the principles outlined in that statement.
I will not compromise.
Period.
Diane
Then I look fwd to seeing your response to the evaluation plan they set forth.
$20. I suppose that’s her way of acknowledging just how much she truly cares for the future of pubic schools.
Randi sold out her teachers long ago. With her support the Common Core has become a reality. Her commitment to the Common Core demonstrates her lack of knowledge of developmental learning and her distance from teachers on the ground. Her ties to the Gates Foundation is all the more disturbing. As it is with many of those in power, she will not stand up with teachers for fear of not being at the table with the decision makers (the weatlthy). M.O.R.E. and GEM in NYC had her number from the beginning. This article by R.W. is the icing on the corporate cake.