the awful Florida evaluation system. Apparently, a teacher of the year was rated unsatisfactory. One more rating like that and she'll be putting on a Mickey Mouse costume for 8 bucks an hour. And the NEA, as well as the Florida Education Association, are parties in a lawsuit with 7 teachers. Apparently, they're all great teachers, hooked by the VAM monster.
Value-added comes to NYC next year. If the intrepid UFT leadership can't come to an agreement on a junk science system with Mayor Bloomberg and his minions, reformy John King will get to impose one on us. Will it be awful? Or will it be even worse than awful? Well, with Common Core coming down the pike and the expectation of 30% lower grades, it could even be worse than that.
Now of course teachers receiving bad ratings for no good reason could sue in NY too. However, given that the union negotiated this piece of crap system, don't count on them joining in on the lawsuit. What are they going to say? That they signed off on a bad law and now they feel bad about it?
It's hard not to wonder whether we'd be better off if we'd just have let the state impose whatever crap it wanted to on us. What would have happened? Would it be 50% crap instead of 40? At least we wouldn't have a trail of union reps singing the praises of the system. When you're suing to get your unjust bad rating overturned, how will it look when multiple UFT sources are cited calling the junk science a fair system?
We can certainly argue that the union kept the percentage of crap down to 40, and that other states have 50% crap. Therefore, you will be subject to 10% less crap than some state that likes crap even more than we do. Of course, it's evident to just about anyone with a job that the amount of crap on which we should be judged is optimally zero.
Today's question--how can the union support teachers suing over a system said union had a hand in creating?