Teacher evaluations

I appreciate both Ms. Andrew’s and Mr. Fiora’s responses to concerns and questions that residents have. I respectfully disagree with Ms. Andrew’s statement that Garfield Alternative was not successful in educating those sent there or in improving the classroom environment at the high school. Since I know a handful of teachers who taught there for years, I rely on their assessment since they were in the “belly of the beast.” Many troubled students remained in school at Garfield because of the structured environment and the close relationships established with a caring faculty. Many learned something to some degree, and felt they had a safe place to come to every day. Everything is relative. These same kids would most likely have dropped out or been expelled at the high school.

As for their removal not “improving the classroom environment,” I will repeat what I have said before. It wasn’t their presence or absence that affected behavior in the classroom environment as much as a lack of consistent and appropriate disciplinary and academic standards throughout the district. When Garfield teachers returned to the high school after Garfield was shut down, they commented that the same behaviors that had brought students to Garfield were common in the main building.

It’s ironic (or maybe not so much) that Steve Price made it a point to shut down Garfield and then proceeded to put in place policies that made it almost impossible to expel or even suspend students. He trained the principals on how to keep the serious miscreants inside the corral, which was on the backs of teachers who wanted to teach and students who came to learn, all in the name of “cultural sensitivity and equity.” Do I need to spell out the results for the classroom environment?

By the way, let’s be clear that the district is NOT 100% low income urban kids, not by any stretch. Some of our kids come from middle and upper income families. We also have low income but stable families that support their children’s education. The fact that over 70% of the school district’s students are economically disadvantaged doesn’t automatically mean they can’t learn, don’t want to learn or that they come to make trouble.

And what role have administrators played in keeping our district in the basement? We had a superintendent (Price) who destroyed morale and appropriate expectations and standards during his tenure. At the high school, they had a principal who epitomized the definition of “bully,” further demoralizing and destroying any chance for achievement. These administrators ruled for years. And others like them were in place, and some still are. Now think about trying to create objective teacher evaluations under these conditions.

It took one board member, John Sauter, to step out courageously in 2009 and seek input from the district staff when he, as a relatively new member, lost all faith in Price. He clearly saw Price’s manipulative and intimidating tactics and called it for what it was. He got plenty of input. There followed the whooshing sound of the house of cards falling at the district office. Unfortunately, too many of Price’s lieutenants remained in the district to continue to poison efforts to forge ahead.

Slowly we are emerging from this dark period. We have a superintendent who is smart, articulate, and who is quick to show his appreciation for our efforts and to use two little words, “thank you,” often. His efforts to turn the ship around have been consistent and sincere.

At the high school, they have a new principal who is a veteran in the district but who has never been a part of the ugly machinations of the previous administration. Unlike the relentless negativity of the past eight years, Mrs. Cotter is positive and upbeat almost to a fault, and she has worked with the most difficult students in her role as administrator of the Success Academy, so she is neither naïve nor clueless. She has been on the battle lines right along, and sometimes at the punishing end of administrative behavior. These changes inspire hope for better things to come.

Since this thread started with comments about teacher evaluations, let me finish by quoting relevant comments made by Ms. Andrew’s in another thread about our students’ performance: “the absolute truth is that the single most predictive factor of how kids will perform on standardized tests is their socio-economic background. Generally (of course there are exceptions), if they live in a middle or upper class household, they will tend to score better than if they live in a poor household.”  

In the same thread her words echo what I have said in this forum in an earlier blog: “education is not passive. It is not the teachers’ job to pour knowledge into an empty vessel. Learning is interactive, and requires active participation from the students. Many (not all) students in our district do not put forth the required effort.” Simply, the student’s willingness to learn is the decisive factor.

However, students CAN rise above their environment and be responsible, willing learners when they are in a school culture of high expectations. That hasn’t happened yet in MCSD.

Finally, Ms. Andrew says that “The teachers union, the school board and the administration have been working together on a committee addressing discipline and safety and school climate/culture.  The committee explored many different approaches and agreed to adopt the Safe and Civil Schools/Positive Behavioral Supports approach, which each building will be implementing starting this fall.”

I am happy to hear this—this committee has been “addressing discipline and safety and school climate/culture” issues for over four years (!), and this is the first result to come out of it. All I can say is that if the district again ignores the need for high expectations and standards and, as Ms. Andrew asserts, “clear, firm rules and boundaries, with clear and firm consequences if they do not follow the rules” and falls back on a touchy feely approach, we’re dead in the water. Again.