Education

>>>Did you ever notice the way these things happen? The district unveils some idea...like calling some of us together several year's back to review the Framework, without suggesting any particular use of it, and get feedback. In the context of professional development, the feedback is reasonable.

A few years later it comes back with a new context: evaluation, and while we're scrambling to regain our balance, we are reminded that it was a "group effort;" something we decided with that reasonable feedback. We are encouraged to think that we, local teachers and admins, are at the helm of our ship.>>>>



1. In other words.. they try to sneak it thru. The implication being that we have already conceded its ( i.e. the instrument's) legitimacy. My school didn't do this w. Danielson ( they just told us we're doing it because it's a "pilot" and the ratings supposedly wouldn't count.) But they were setting us up that way a couple of years w. some other rubric... can't remember the name of it, it originated in Santa Cruz --- U of Cal. before our rulers decided to go w. Danielson. ( People were happy at first: no one... teacher or admin... could understand the absurdly pretentious and creepy, utterly incoherent "English" of the Santa Cruz rubrics.)

We were supposed to self-rate ourselves . We were supposed to identify our own weaknesses as part of the project. Then establish "professional goals" to deal w. the weaknesses. To me it reminded me of the Maoist hijinks during the Cultural Revolution: people ( i.e. dissidents) had to wear signs confessing to political "sins" and wear dunce caps. ( Later on some of 'em were.... ummmm... liquidated, if memory serves. BTW, how are younger teachers supposed to even understand that historical reference? Much less appreciate its applicability. I fear for their future, I really do.)

I commented... not publicly, but to colleagues privately, ... that it would be unwise to rate one's self as anything other than "highly effective", lest the powers-that-be use your self rating against you at a dismissal hearing some day. ("But you yourself said..... blah, blah blah.... back in 2012.)

2. I'm pretty sure Danielson has "walkthoughs" or "partials" in her first book. If not her first than in her second. She may have scooped it from someone else. I'm not familiar w. Marshall, and... now that I'm retired.... I don't WANT to be.)

3. >>>>>We've been told that having our goals posted will be on the checklist and will affect our evaluations. By goals, of course, they mean standards that the current lesson addresses. Of COURSE we all want to be constantly posting standards for everything we do throughout the day. >>>>>

This business of posting the standards.... and *aligning* the standards: new---- with old---- with CC---with iep goals--- and posting them and then writing them in your lesson plan is just chicken shit and appears nowhere, far as I know, in any of Danielson's work. The districts just add this stuff to be able to find fault w. the teacher. If the district already approved the curriculum, even *mandated* it in many cases, why would it be necessary for the teacher to prove she/he is working on legit standards. It's redundant. The district presumably already established that it fit the standards. THAT'S WHY THEY MANDATED THE CURRICULUM!!!

Ok. Forgot I retired there for a minute. For me personally, it's all hypothetical now. But it bugs me that the unions are not ALL OVER the districts for pulling this crap. Also, as a taxpayer... I want schools that *work*.