UFT Accountability Reports

UFT President Randi Weingarten announced today an answer to the New York City Department of Education’s embarassingly poorly designed “Progress Reports.” The UFT’s proposal gives schools four separate ratings:

• Academic Achievement
• Safety, Order and Discipline
• Teamwork for Student Achievement
• Department of Education Accountability to the School

But these categories are broad. To understand the ‘feel’ of the report, click on the samples. (Elementary school, middle school, high school). And for more background/details, try the other links:

• Press release
• Highlights
• Weingarten speech
• November Delegate Assembly Resolution on creating an alternative to the miserable Progress Reports

The right questions are asked. The calculations look transparent. The comparison groups are clear. I am not sure that we are right to buy into the rating the schools business in the first place. But that’s UFT policy. Given that this is what we are doing, it looks like we’ve done it well.

Picking nits?

We should, all of us, read these things carefully, and post to here, or to EdWize, or e-mail your DR or someone with ideas. A good document could always use some picking to make it stronger.

I’ll pick a bit (maybe more later). (Below the fold —>)

First, Randi handed this out at a speech, and then e-mailed members. A request for comment from members or delegates would have been a better way to go. We are not fighting for contract ratification now. A period of discussion at the chapter level, involving wide layers of membership, would have been great. It would have sharpened the document. It would have built the union by engaging a majority of our members in positive union activity.

Now, nothing is too late. I will certainly distribute these forms in advance of our next chapter meeting, and generate discussion. People like to feel that they have a say. It is empowering.

Second (and now these get pickier), school environment is wrapped up in mostly statistical categories. Where is “school tone,” “school mood,” and “morale”? I think the second “pillar” seems weaker than the others.

UFT Accountability Reports beat DoE Progress Reports, hands down

Third, hm. A good thing, not a pick. I am glad that teacher turnover is listed. It’s long been a favorite point of mine, that we should look at individual school turnover rates. I wish it was worth more than 10%, but let’s stay away from the numbers and be glad it is there.

Fourth, a language thing: “Does this school foster teamwork for student achievement?” (beginning of the Third Pillar). I think I know what this means, but plainer English would be welcome here.

Fifth, condition of the building is only tangentially addressed. One of seven lines in “Resource Provision” (Part of Pillar Four) mentions “Building Space for Student Population” but the physical condition of the building seems to be absent.

Sixth, Pillar One has “Extra Credit” for”Community Service Learning.” Is that name proprietary? Are we talking about credit for lots of positive programs? Or just for one specific program?

Enough nits. Here’s the UFT alert I received in today’s e-mail: