Just 25 District teachers rated unsatisfactory
by Dale Mezzacappa on Jan 11 2011 Posted in Latest news
Despite steps to improve the District’s teacher evaluation system, only a tiny fraction of one percent of the School District’s nearly 11,000 teachers were rated unsatisfactory during the last two years, and fewer still were dismissed as a result, according to District data.
The data, requested by the Notebook, show that systemwide just 25 teachers were rated unsatisfactory in both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years. In 2007-08, the number was just 16. Two consecutive ratings are necessary for dismissal of a tenured teacher.
In 2008-09, five teachers were dismissed; in 2009-10, three teachers were dismissed based on an “unsatisfactory” rating.
An additional 13 teachers agreed to resign in lieu of further action in 2009-10. The District doesn’t have data for 2008-09 on voluntary resignations after unsatisfactory ratings.
School District officials say that the numbers do not reflect the efforts being taken in cooperation with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers to identify and either provide support for or dismiss poorly performing teachers.
“We’re certainly putting systems in place every day,” said Wanda Graham, the executive director of new teacher supports.
In 2009-10, the District started using a new teacher evaluation rubric that for the first time requires the reviewer, generally the principal or assistant principal, to rate whether a teacher “does not meet” to “exceeds” expectations in a number of areas. Before, the reviewer was only required to rank the teacher on a scale of 1 to 4.
The evaluation now also follows the teacher evaluation model laid out by Charlotte Danielson and judges teachers in four areas:
- planning and preparation,
- the classroom environment,
- instruction, and
- professional responsibilities.
“The big difference this year is that the document is more explicit in what the expectations are for teachers,” said Karen Kolsky, the deputy chief for professional development.
Both Kolsky and Graham stressed that the District is upgrading its hiring pool and giving additional support to new teachers.
But none of that explains why principals give so few unsatisfactory ratings. Many people, including Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, have complained that the state-mandated and time-consuming rating system does not identify poorly performing teachers or result in their dismissal.
It certainly does appear that principals are reluctant to rate teachers unsatisfactory for whatever reason.
Last year, the District and the PFT worked out an agreement to establish Peer Assistance and Review, in which principals can identify new and veteran teachers that need help. A rotating group of exemplary teachers will offer help and can ultimately recommend termination.
The program is beginning as a pilot in 45 schools and will become districtwide in three years.
New teachers will automatically get help through PAR, but veteran teachers will need to be identified by principals.
PFT president Jerry Jordan said that teacher turnover remains high, so teachers must be leaving because they know they aren’t doing their job well.
Graham said that yes, many teachers leave, but very few of those because the rating system identified them as ineffective.
Both the District and the PFT have high hopes for PAR, but its effects are not likely to be felt for several years.
Nationally, pressure is increasing now to weaken teacher tenure and tie teacher ratings to test scores. Even though problems are emerging with that model, the new Republican majority in Harrisburg is likely to step up such efforts in Pennsylvania, especially if districts like Philadelphia seem unable to more effectively use teacher evaluation systems.
Comments (14)
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 21:45.
Principals are reluctant to rate teachers unsatisfactory because many of them view it as too much work. If they issue an unsatisfactory, there are procedures that must be followed. That does not mean the procedures are wrong or faulty (tenure or due process rights), it just means administrators are reluctant to take on the work. It is easier for them to either eliminate a position, change a room or grade assignment, or continually write up a teacher in order to get them to apply for a transfer. So, this solves the principal's problem--the teacher is out of their school, BUT, it does not solve the problem of a poor teacher being passed on to another school. Principals need to do their job and get rid of people through the process if they truly believe they are hurting the school. The process takes time to eliminate firings for bogus reasons. The process is there if they choose to use it.
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 01:50.
It's foolish to blame principals. Even the poorest of teachers knows how to game the system, and can present the illusion of meeting a minimum standard in most of Danielson's areas. Isn't the greater issue the distrust that exists among students, teachers, parents, and administrators, and the damage that does to creating sound educational environments?
Submitted by Philly HS Teacher (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 07:30.
While principals may not want to go through the process, if they are concerned about incompetent, ill suited, etc. teachers, then it is their responsibility to follow the process and see if the teacher is willing to acquire the needed skills. I am tired of working with teachers who have been "passed through the system," end up at our school and pull everyone down. Principals limit how many are rated unsatisfactory because of the follow-up. But, would they allow that teacher to "teach" their child? Rating someone "satisfactory" who obviously lacks classroom management, organizational skills, content background, pedagogical skills, etc. also is a disservice to the teacher. I've heard too many ill equipped teachers think they are doing "fine" when, in reality, they need a lot of support. They won't get the support if they are rated "satisfactory."
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:12.
Principals know the truth about their teachers. It is their responsibility to do their job--no matter how difficult it may be. The only reason poor teachers can 'game' the system is because they are allowed to by principals who look the other way. Principals are the ones in charge, they must take the responsibility.
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:35.
No one is addressing the issue of the restrictions teachers are currently facing - and how those restrictions limit the areas we can do well in on those new observation forms. FOr example, even the desk arrangement is scripted in my classroom, yet the learning environment is an issue on the form. How can the desk arrangement be designed by others, yet not supportive of the learning activities? That is what is happening. I have a script I must follow that does not allow for differentiation, yet I am scored on that differentiation. How can I follow the script, as required and differentiate? Yet, that's part of the observational form.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:52.
Seems like the principals are "passing" the teachers just like they force the teachers to "pass" the students.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 22:17.
Anyone teaching in the Philadelphia School District knows one undeniable fact: There are a lot more bad parents and bad students out there than bad teachers. When is there going to be some student accountability? When is there going to be some parent accountability? Teachers are being asked to solve all society's problems. It's a lot easier politically to scapegoat teachers then the real culprits of the public school system: misbehaved students that disrupt classrooms and disdain learning, and uninvolved, absentee parents who either don't care about their child or simply aren't involved in their child's life. If politicans are really serious about improving the public school system they would change the laws and make it easier and faster to expel disruptive and violent students. That would be a great first step.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 22:50.
The law actually doesn't make it that hard to remove disruptive or violent students -- if a school is doing its job with documentation and such. It's the School District of Philadelphia that makes it difficult to remove disruptive students by implemented extremely complex tracking/paperwork systems and subtly penalizing administrators that actually enforce the policies. The law has no problem with fairly harsh consequences for violence in schools. As long as a school makes a decent attempt to figure out what happened and is consistent with due process, courts usually defer to school administrators to make disciplinary decisions. It's just that in the SDP, with 4000 layers of inefficient bureaucracy, it's difficult to avoid someone dropping the ball.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 07:29.
AMEN!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 10:55.
Where do you get this information from? I know of 20 teachers in one school that were given 204s in 2008-2009 for performance evals.
Submitted by kathleenan on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 16:34.
I thought we all knew (or at least secretly suspected) that principals fail the older teachers who are high up on the pay scale whilst keeping on the younger, lower paid, fresher teachers who they can work to death for longer....until they are dried up too. Then, everyone eventually gets tossed aside. The PFT are supposed to protect the teachers, but even they are weakening in the face of the new pressures. The new observation sheets are so easy for the observer to fail any teacher they choose to fail.
I wonder what we will see happening as we get closer to 2014? (everyone's supposed to be scoring proficient???)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 12:46.
What are 204s? I am about to be observed for the first time. I'm a nervous wreck. I started after the school year began and missed many PDs. As a result I'm fending for myself. Does the level of experience have any play in the observation? It seems it doesn't from what I've heard, but the evaluation form does require that experience level in grade or subject be identified.
If anybody has an advice for me, or even specific teacher and student behaviors related to each domain I would very much appreciate your experience.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 13:29.
You are usually observed twice in a year. If your first obersation is unsatisfactory you will usually be asked to make some changes (more extensive lesson plans, etc.) in order to improve for your second observation. You aren't thrown out based on just one observation.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/15/2012 - 19:13.
204's are disciplinary actions, I believe.
Everyone is nervous getting observed for the first time or the hundredth time if people are willing to be honest.
Put your Mastery Objective on the board. Make sure you go over the objective during the lesson. Alot of people get nervous and forget to put it up. Make certain to have up to date student work hanging in the room. Get rid of clutter. Praise your students through out the lesson. I know it is hard but try to pretend that you aren't being observed. Did you have a preconference with the principal to discuss what he/she wants to see? Did you submit the lesson to the principal and get feedback? Good luck.
Post new comment