Thursday, April 21, 2011

New twists in CMS performance-pay bill

State Rep. Ruth Samuelson, who recently introduced a controversial bill that would give Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools authority to break free from the state system of evaluating and paying teachers, is emailing constituents an update today.

I'm no expert on legislative process, so I'm mostly going to give you all the raw material she sent me. But here's my understanding of what she's saying in a nutshell: She's gotten a lot of feeback on this bill, pro and con. She's going to try to get it passed by a House committee on Tuesday and approved by the House soon afterward. But she's then going to "park" it before it goes to the Senate, which gives legislators, CMS officials and other interested parties months to work out revisions to the plan.

"By taking this course, all parties have a vested interest in continuing to participate in improving the proposed (pay for performance) project," Samuelson writes. "If we let the bill 'die' then it isn't fair to the folks at CMS and others who believe in the program. If we move the bill too quickly, then the folks most impacted will not be vested in it and the program will fail."

What follows is Samuelson's new email, which includes the latest amended version of the bill, followed by an email she sent last week summarizing the concerns she's been hearing. I'm off tomorrow so will have little time or ability to field questions about this, but figured folks who are interested in CMS's push toward performance pay would want to know the latest.

Here's the email Samuelson sent out today:
I know this is Spring Break week for CMS but the legislature is in full swing in spite of the hay fever! So, based on some of the responses I received to my previous email, I thought I would start with a brief explanation of how the legislative process works and then update you on the current plan regarding H546. Please be patient with me if this is all familiar to you.

The NC General Assembly meets in a two year cycle. The first year is called "long session" and runs from January until July, usually. The second year is called "short session" and runs from May until July, usually. Members may introduce new bills only at the beginning of the long session. Each idea for a bill must meet a drafting deadline and then a filing deadline. If you miss a deadline, the bill must wait two years for a new session. (The filing deadline for H546 was March 30 which is why H546 was submitted on that day. There are a few exceptions to these rules but they are complicated and don't really apply to this bill.)
Once the bill is filed, it most go through one or two committees before it goes to the House floor for a vote.

If it passes the House committees and floor vote, it crosses over to the Senate where it goes through the same process again; committees and then voted on the Senate floor.

IF there are NO changes to the bill on the Senate side, then it goes to the governor for her approval or veto.

If there ARE changes to the bill, it comes back to the House for us to accept or reject those changes. If we accept, the bill goes to the governor.

If we reject the changes, then a new committee is appointed with members of the House and Senate to negotiate the differences. At that point they come to agreement or the bill dies.

You can see that this is a long process with numerous twists and turns. Please hear me though; At any point in this process the bill can be stopped by the sponsors or a majority vote of the members.

As if the process wasn't enough of a hindrance, there are deadlines all along the way that can also derail a bill for the two year session. The next one coming up is called "Crossover" and it is currently set for May 12. Any bill that has not crossed over to the Senate by May 12 is dead for two years. That means it must have passed through committee and the House floor by May 12. This deadline has committee chairs scheduling lots of bills between now and May 12.

H546 has received input from a number of opponents and advocates and has received numerous drafting changes to address those concerns. It is now tentatively scheduled for the first committee stop in this long process for this coming Tuesday, April 26. At that time, the new version will be "adopted" and then debated. Additional changes can be offered and if accepted, they become part of the bill. If the bill passes committee, then within a few days it will be sent to the House floor for a vote.

Here is my pledge to you and a request for understanding. Given the sensitive nature of this bill AND the time constraints, I believe the best course is to move H546 through committee and the House vote so that it meets the "crossover deadline" on May 12. Then I pledge to "park" the bill until there is more progress between CMS and the concerned parties on the details of the Pay for Performance program. "Parking" it means that the bill will not be heard in a committee or on the Senate floor until the bill sponsors agree that is it ready. The bill can be parked until late June, 2012 if it takes that long.

By taking this course, all parties have a vested interest in continuing to participate in improving the proposed PfP project. If we let the bill "die" then it isn't fair to the folks at CMS and others who believe in the program. If we move the bill too quickly, then the folks most impacted will not be vested in it and the program will fail. "Parking" the bill is the fairest way to give both sides a voice and it can only be "parked" if we meet the crossover deadline.

Thank you for understanding and PLEASE stay engaged.

P. S. The text of the proposed draft is copied below. Please understand that this is a work in progress and will likely receive correction, additions and deletions as things progress.


The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 

SECTION 1. The State Board of Education shall establish a pilot program authorizing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to develop and implement alternative salary plans for instructional personnel and school administrators designed to improve student performance and increase teacher effectiveness by financially rewarding instructional personnel and school administrators through a performance-based compensation system. Under this pilot program, the value of each of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools' instructional positions will be funded in accordance with the then-current State method for funding such positions, but the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall have discretion in determining how funds are allocated among such positions. Such funds may be used to develop and implement a compensation system for instructional personnel and school administrators that provides differentiated levels of pay based on student achievement gains, evaluations, and observations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in no event shall the amount of funds received by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools be less than the amount it would have received under the then-current State method for allocating such funds. 

SECTION 2. As part of its performance-based pay structure, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall adopt a performance salary schedule that accomplishes the following:

(1) Aligns annual salary adjustments for instructional personnel and school administrators with documented student growth in learning. 

(2) Evaluates instructional personnel and school administrators on the local level in order to measure the degree to which students have shown academic growth.

(3) Substantially incorporates input from instructional personnel and school administrators in devising evaluation systems upon which compensation is based. 

(4) Ensures that no amount paid in base salary for any instructional personnel or school administrator declines below the amount of base salary paid to such instructional personnel or school administrator from the date of implementation of any performance salary schedule. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this act shall be deemed or interpreted to require any increase in base salary from the date of  implementation of a performance salary schedule.

SECTION 3. The evaluation system shall do the following: 

(1) Support effective instruction and student achievement, and the results must be used to inform district and school level improvement plans. 

(2) Provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills, and the results must be used to inform the professional development of instructional personnel and school administrators.

(3) Include a mechanism to examine performance data from multiple sources to measure teacher effectiveness and drive instructional practices that can lead to improved levels of student achievement.
(4) Differentiate among levels of performance, which are tied to differentiated levels of pay based on student achievement gains.

(5) Allow instructional personnel and school administrators to be evaluated by multiple measures. 

SECTION 4. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall ensure that some percentage of the evaluation for instructional personnel is to be based on data and indicators of student learning growth assessed annually by State assessments or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the State assessments, by district-developed assessments. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools may use State-adopted measures of student growth or select comparable district-developed measures of student growth for grades and subjects by taking into account the student's prior performance, grade level, and subject while considering other factors, including, but not limited to, student attendance, student disciplinary records, student disabilities, and student English language proficiency.

SECTION 5. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall annually submit to the Department of Public Instruction an implementation and outcome evaluation of the performance-based compensation system, including the aggregate performance results of instructional personnel and school administrators. In addition, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall provide consistent periodic updates to its employees concerning the development and implementation of a performance-based pay structure plan. Notwithstanding anything to  the contrary herein, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall make the details of any proposed  performance-based pay structure plan public prior to the adoption of such plan.

SECTION 6. The State Board of Education shall grant waivers of laws, rules, policies, procedures, and practices to enable the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to implement and sustain its performance-based compensation system. In addition, the State Board of Education shall allow Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools flexibility in allocating all mandated State-funded compensation, including but not limited to salary increases, longevity compensation, and bonuses for all of its employees. 

SECTION 7. This act applies to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools only.

SECTION 8. This act is effective when it becomes law.

Still reading? Here's Samuelson's April 14 email to constituents:

Thank you for taking the time to share with me your concerns regarding the proposed bill allowing a Pay for Performance pilot project involving CMS. I have heard from both teachers and parents and have been encouraged that folks are thinking seriously about this serious do we best educate our children.

While I certainly don't have answers to all of the concerns expressed, I do want to give you some idea of what I am hearing;
· Testing already takes too much time and interferes with the learning process.

· The field tests were especially disruptive, removing instructional personnel from the classroom and interrupting schedules, causing stress on staff, students and parents.

· Tests alone are inadequate measures for evaluating students and teacher performance. Additional measures must be in place and they must be fair.

· Therefore, these tests and the PfP program are a waste of time and money, especially in a tight budget year.

· Teachers were promised a vote in the original pilot project. The new pilot project proposed by CMS would not include a vote and erodes teacher trust.

· Low morale is a growing problem and the PfP project only makes it worse. (Some emails referred to the system being "under siege".)

· There hasn't been adequate teacher involvement in the process.

· The plan creates a salary structure just for CMS that is different from the rest of the state.

· The CMS Board does not support the plan and Gorman rushed it to the legislators "secretly". (I must comment here that the CMS legislative agenda was voted on by the CMS board and then brought to the entire Mecklenburg legislative delegation. The direction for H546 was the second item on that list.)

There were additional concerns expressed but most of them fit within these categories. If I have failed to highlight your specific concern, it may simply be that the list was getting rather long and I am trying to focus on the most common concerns in this email. I do have a master list of them all.

Please be assured that Rep. Martha Alexander, Rep. Killian and I will be working hard to see that these issues are addressed before we move the bill forward. As legislators we are called to both enable the locally elected CMS board to accomplish its objectives AND to represent the will of our constituents. When those concerns are at odds, we proceed carefully and try to find the best path.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I will be back in touch as we receive answers and work through the process. Please feel free to continue to let me know what you are seeing and hearing regarding this issue or any others we may be discussing in Raleigh.

Representative Ruth Samuelson
District 104
Room 419 B, Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27601


Larry said...

This was an agreement from all in Raleigh as they wanted all the assets in CMS to get together and make all voices a part of this effort.

The Teachers groups want an effect way of being monitored for the hard work they do as does the system so it is a simple process of getting them together and making one that is fair and equitable and getting back with the people in Raleigh.

So now is the time for the folks in CMS and Charlotte to roll up their sleeves and start setting down with out any egos or notions other than we are going to make the best of the assets to make sure the kids get the best darn education possible.

That is the least the tax payers deserve and the least we expect from all you professionals.

And thanks to everyone for taking this high road.

Anonymous said...

You may call it the high road, but the super still uses the tunnel from the Broad/Gates Foundations to have his way.

Anonymous said...

I hope those concerned about the direction this administration is taking our schools will continue to press your legislators to kill this bill.

Anonymous said...

I am not in favor of any of this bill without clear guidelines. In it first form, Dr. Gorman tried to pull an end run on the teachers of CMS and in my opinion, Rep. Samuelson. He also was dishonest in his handling of this process...telling one group one thing and another group a whole other thing. He manipulated the system. Now he will say this is how politics works. To that I say you are the superintendent. You work for the CMS Board. They set the Legislative agenda, not you. You were attempting to ramrod PfP down the teachers of your district. That was a cheap more. I want to know when it this Board going to hold you accountable for your performance. I was unbecoming someone of your position. Had thins been the military, you would have honorable resigned.

Anonymous said...

Let's see - this is typical politicianspeak for I want to have it both ways. I had no idea how much I was being manipulated by the superintendant and was unprepared for the push back when my constituients discovered I was sponsoring this bill. But - my GOP buddies are big on accountability and I can't look like too much of a dupe -- so.... I want to pass this bill and then "park" it. How about let's bury this bill, get a true dialogue going ( good luck on that with the trust level between Gorman and CMS staff nonexistent) and rewrite a bill than makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Funny, at this very moment other legislators (Cotham is one) that will end all testing in NC not mandated by the feds. So we have 99 counties who will save millions by reducing the mind-boggling tests and we will have one that believes every course (even chorus, weightlifting, and library assistant) should have a test. You decide in this economy which makes more sense......P.S. Ms. Samuelson, did you watch the CMS board meeting? The public was 100% against, yet you act like it is a tossup.

Anonymous said...

If as Larry says, this is the high road, then it's the lowest high road on record.

Peter Gorman started with a questionable plan, at best, one which was presented to teachers in a deceitful manner, attempted to mask lies (a.k.a. in Gorman speak: "We could have done a better job of communicating")--one about teachers getting to vote the new Pay for Performance plan up or down because it was the law.

Teachers were told that the core of the plan was not "a done deal," merely a proposal, yet the same plan, unaltered, miraculously became non-negotiable within a couple of weeks (no exaggeration on the time frame).

Next, Samuelson, with perfect timing, conveniently announces her role in what this underhanded process, rubber stamped by the BOE, of course.

Instead of wasting time providing meaningless input into what Samuelson refers to as a "parked" bill, teachers and citizens of the community should spend every extra minute of their time and energy doing whatever they possibly can to get Gorman out, Samuelson out, and any BOE member who signed off on this out.

This is an unconscionable and dishonest betrayal; however, if this cloud has any bright lining whatsoever it may be that this process has revealed the type of characters the citizens and taxpayers of Mecklenburg County have at the head of their school system, as well as the type of politician Ms. Samuelson's constituents have elected.

What a wonderful model of integrity has been put on public display for the students of CMS schools, for their parents, and for the taxpaying public at large.

Anonymous said...


Every local government body in North Carolina has a vested interest in the conflict. Does the legislature have the authority to give quasi-union groups veto power over elected bodies?

If Samuelson effectively tables the bill then it sets up the veto vote. The CMS board will not accept the teachers having that power. This will bring in all the financial resources of every labor group in the nation.

It will be Fieldcrest Cannon v. the union all over again.....and nothing good came of that for the unions, company or employees.

This sounds like a Judge Manning area of concern. Just what Charlotte-Mecklenburg needs is another Leandro case.

What to do?

Bolyn McClung

Anonymous said...

This appears to be an effort to do an end run to get this piece of unpopular legislation in a position to ram it through. I urge all stakeholders in the community to write all House Education Committee members to kill H546. There is no trust left in Pete Gorman's ability to lead nor in his credibility. He has lost the support of his troops...teachers and prinicpals. His sword is ready for him to fall on it...Pete, you need to do the right thing and do so. If the Board of Education doesn't recognize that he has repeatedly misled not only them but the public and community, then they too should fall on their swords. The taxpayer of Mecklenburg County needs to step forward and realize that the strides forward in CMS have been led by teachers while their Superintendent has been running around the country seeking the accolades while at the same time, he has been throwing his teacher warriors under the bus. Pete only wants to be garnered with the credit and not acknowledge that he is only as good as the teachers who do the work of which he claims credit. Stop the testing...stop the spending on it....KILL this bill NOW! Then hold the BOE responsible and accountable for getting Pete in control and accountable for the "botched" behaviors that most people recognize for what they are...LIES!
KILL H546 NOW! Write!

Anonymous said...

Bolyn doesn't understand that this bill does not give teachers veto over the gives them a voice in the process. The vote only demands the process be fair and equitable. It was an agreement that CMS agreed to in 2007 with the legislature and teachers. What makes it so bad now. Pete "botched" it by failing to embrace his troops and instead trying to make a Stalinistic move to suppress what he discovered he had "botched". Acting above board and in transparency would have been so much more positive....guess Pete doesn't know how...and neither does Mr. McClung. McClung wants to waste the "CMSDollars that he professes to protect...on useless testing.

Anonymous said...

What a wimp! Big surprise, our legislators have no backbone. You are representing Charlotte, NOT Dr. Gorman.

Anonymous said...

No Bolyn did not misunderstand. The way PfP is set up, if teachers do not agree to it, it does not happen....he has to have a majority vote of teachers. The whole purpose of this Bill is to circumvent that

Anonymous said...

There's another part of this PfP that no one has dug deep enough to bring up... as a CMS teacher, I was told that my student's scores will be "added up" and then I will be compared to other teachers in my exact area to determine my paycheck. I, for one, love collaborating with my colleagues (and this is part of the state's new evaluation system for teachers) to discover what works best for my students.... why would do this if it may give them the "up" on me?

Anonymous said...

Riveting Ann, now tell us something we dont know. I think that the School House Rocks version (although federal) does the same thing your blog did. Ruth is a minion of the the moron.

Larry said...

Now that we have the Teacher Group and the Elected Officials in Raleigh working together all we need is the people at CMS getting on board.

So far I have had great success with the two above but CMS and Gorman seem to feel they do not need any assistance.

But CMS if you would like to see that doing what is best for the Children is the goal for the Elected Officials and the Teachers then contact me so I can get all of them together with you. You seem to be a little reluctant.

Remember the other night during the meeting when I asked you if I could use one of the many, many open seats you were keeping for your CMS people in the already packed and they were turning away people Chamber meeting? In fact you Gorman said your people needed them. But strange you had a room in the back with a TV and that seats eighty so these many, many empty seats could be used by the tax payers.

Oh and your people did not need to be up until after the crowds left.

But I am still willing to help you Dr. Gorman.

Anonymous said...

Gorman continues to state that teachers are involved in the process, yet teacher design teams are a joke. Where are the minutes from these meetings? How do we know what is really going on at the meetings?

Anonymous said...

And at the end of the day all you poor ignorant taxpayers think this bill will make a difference, you are so easily fooled with a slight of hand. The bill will ensure that CMS faces a teaching shortage, this is almost guaranteed by the fact that other school systems around CMS will adopt a wait and see approach. When teachers begin the mad scramble out, then they will more than happily take those talented teachers, leaving CMS with the wretched remains.

Anonymous said...

Wow, the legislator is asking us to trust her. Well, the perception is that you are simply doing what Pete tells you to do, and that perception has become reality in the eyes of the taxpayers and voters in Mecklenburg County.

You say that the bill can be pulled if the sponsors ask for it to be pulled. So: PULL IT. You do not have confidence that it will fly, so you ask for us to lay off. Sorry, won't do that. Can't do that because there is a lack of trust in your ability to deliver something that actually has more than Pete's goals in mind - goals that I am sorry to say are not in line with teachers, parents and all taxpayers/voters in your district. The debacle with test creation, the fact that the students (who are not stupid) will sabotage the tests so CMS will have no good data, the way Pete miscommunicated PfP to teachers (and yes, it was Pete who miscommunicated it...are you all naive enough to think anything Andy Baxter said wasn't sanctioned by the man?) Pete tried to confuse people until he could get his BFF to ramrod a bill through the Legislature. Such horrible missteps from such a (formerly) smooth operator.

But people are not stupid. Not teachers, not students, not parents and certainly not voters. H 546 is dying.

Write the House Education Committee to see it finished.

Anonymous said...

LARRY, stop talking. You're incessant babble about teachers having input is laughable at best and shows a complete blithering ignorance at worst.

Anonymous said...

9:19 - Larry is merely trying to do what is right by the citizens of our county. And you my friend have at best imbibed the same Kool Aid Ruth was served and at worst showed your own blithering ignorance. Leave this discussion to the adults.

Anonymous said...

What is this we, Kemosabe?

Anonymous said...

What are the folks who are against pay-for-performance in favor of? Do you seek to maintain the existing system of pay-for-seniority and tenure? Do you think that the existing pay-for-seniority system is fair to parents, students and prospective teachers thinking of entering the profession?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Not sure if I understand how this bill will be executed at the school level....Let's say a teacher gets a 'great' group of students one year and the students perform very well on the state tests, the teacher is rewarded--The next year the teacher gets 'mediocre' group of students and they have an average performance on the state tests. Will the teacher's salary be reduced--because the current group of students did not perform as well as the previous year's students? Please help me understand this mess!

Anonymous said...

CMS did a pilot pay for perfomance program in 2004 and 2005. They never released the results of the program--wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Please go watch the movie "Race to Nowhere". It is the only film that shows you a student perspective and we should start listening. You don't want to listen to teachers or unions or anyone else that works in education. Maybe we should start listening to students that live in education the majority of their lives.

Anonymous said...

If we listened solely to students then most certainly one would be engaged in a "Race to nowhere, right?"

Anonymous said...

The one thing that I'd love to find out is how do they intend on paying for this program? Under the current structure, teachers (those not released through staffing cuts) have not gotten a pay raise in 3 years now.

Follow me and let me know if I'm missing something...

Let's say PfP passes and starts next year (I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented THAT quickly, but let's just use it in this illustration). We already know that the budget got slashed, hundreds of teachers are being sacrificed, and no teachers are getting raises (again). If a PfP is implemented in such an environment, how can it be practically used if in aggregate there can be no increase in salary? In such a zero sum game, every high performing teacher that gets authorized for a raise must be offset by a low performing teacher who gets the same pay cut?

Under that system, how much of a raise can we really give teachers? If we give them 5%, then do we really want to cut someone else's salary by 5%? If we give 1/3 of the teachers high marks with raises, are they prepared to give 1/3 of the teacher low marks with pay cuts?

Assuming they do not increase the budget to allow a net increase in pay, this will destroy an already fragile morale, create cutthroat competition amongst teachers who work best in a cooperative environment, and make the county an even more unattractive place for prospective teachers to want to come to. And Meck County already has a dreadful reputation amongst teachers and those who can do it teach in adjoining counties instead.

Anonymous said...

The detour that HB546 hs now taken is a clear indication that the sponsors should just pull it. Current law passed through HB966 allows the superintendent flexibility to create a Pay for Performance Plan. His agenda through new legislation is to remove accoubtability and oversight which is exactly what shouldn't happen. Samuelson, Alexander and Killan please pull the bill and move on with more important issues,Pete isn't paralized as he would have you believe.

Anonymous said...

How is it that our superintendent has so many communications missteps? Remember the criminal records/ credit reports, telling state lawmakers that passing HB546 was contingent upon Gates Foundation money,and pay for performance. Isn't it interesting that when issues /concerns with his agenda are not favored, they become botched communications.The next time an employee is investigated that might be wise to follow the leader and cry, "oh, it was just a misunderstanding and I botched communications."

Anonymous said...

9:44, Prospective teachers in this system? Why would Pete be using TFA and Teach CLT? Why would anyone want to be harassed from every side, accused of every fault of humanity, no chance for meaningful advancement(administration,really?),and most importantly Larry, the high road was cratered and littered years ago by the current traveling educrat.

Drew Polly said...

Neither e-mail sights the poor construction of these tests and the fact that these items are not aligned to standards, developmentally appropriate, or able to tell anything about students' growth in specific subject areas. When the test writers are the people fired by DPI from writing EoG items, you know that there is a problem.

Anonymous said...

CMS could save 80+ teacher positions by eliminating most of the Department of Accountability that doesn't appear to be very accountable based on the field test summatives. Why do 44 people have to "contract" the test construction by a firm that obviously does NOT know the age appropriateness, Standard Course of Study, or anything related to the class or student being tested? The folks in charge were rejects from DPI's failed testing program! All hired with funds directed to place teachers in front of students and decrease class sizes. How can Pete continue to find millions to fund testing but can't find enough money to place instructors to handle the daily needs of the children we desperately need to serve. There are no funds to remove the disruptive elements from classrooms and teach them in an environment that is least disruptive to the majority...Why?
There is not enough to fund the supply needs of teachers to conduct instruction....why? Pete has his priorities so misplaced that he needs a GPS to find them. He doesn't have a clue about best practices in the classroom...maybe it's because he wasn't there long enough to discover it on his own or maybe his senses are so dulled by the Broad/Gates Kool-Aid that the elixir of grandeur has taken over. He certainly knows how to grab the limelight that was created by the success of teachers of CMS and make it to shine on his pretty face. Maybe he should take that fake smile and go to a place that prints its own money for him far, far away.

Anonymous said...

Don't attack Larry...he is a peace maker in this process who recognizes that teachers are the glue that keeps this school system running while Gorman seeks to destroy the system he touts as successful. It is a power grab for state $$$$$ to take away from teachers and use in a manner Pete determines...Let's see...$1 for teachers....$3 for Pete...
Doesn't work for most your bills that way.
Pete comes out good...teachers have to declare bankruptcy. Send Pete and this Bill packing!

Anonymous said...

Nothing really changes in this bill. Teachers could still lose their Master’s, National Board, local supplement and longevity pay. How is that not a reduction in pay?
Also, Samuelson states; “Then I pledge to "park" the bill until there is more progress between CMS and the concerned parties on the details of the Pay for Performance program.”
Just what does “progress between CMS and the concerned parties” mean?" Since we have so many “botched communications”, how will we know when there has been progress?
Kill HR 546 now.

Anonymous said...

Do the teachers on this message board prefer that their performance not be linked to their pay? Would that be the fairest system for everyone involved?

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that news regarding HR 546 is again released when school is not in session and teachers may be out of town.

Anonymous said...

Ann, your story in Friday's print was misleading in that you gave Gorman credit for proposing- teacher involvement in new legistation. The 2007 law already has that so it shouln't be presented as something Gorman initiated. You and your editors try oh so hard to spin Gorman's missteps positively. If Jim Pughley had made identical missteps with such negativity I wonder how the headline and story would have read? Remenber he was our superintendent would was not transparent with communications.

Anonymous said...

Leslie said...IS THE TEST VALID? (Does the test measure what CMS says it measures?) Can this test be used in Chicago schools and accurately measure teachers' teaching performances? Teachers need to to continue to teach their students their content, watch students excel in the classroom, and demonstrate knowledge learned on EOCs. Then if a poor performance-evaluation results when your students do remarkably well on standardized tests, THE TEST IS NOT VALID. That is why the program is called a PILOT PROGRAM. Check with other teachers as well to see if they consider this Evaluative Tool equitable at the year.