Welcome to Educational North Korea.

NYC ps classroom. Context: they're trying to give this guy... Mr. Cohn.... a u-rating ( u= unsatisfactory) so they can then dismiss him.

My guess is Mr. Cohn is not a popular fellow w. TPTB in this particular school. Teaching skills aside.

Jesus.




>>>>The March 19, 2007 report was written by Assistant Principal Marlene Jones based on an observation performed that day of a lesson on symbolism in literature. According to the report, Mr. Cohn did conduct individual reading assessments while the students were reading independently. However, in the post-observation conference Ms. Jones criticized the
lesson as "low level" and because no context had been given to connect the lesson to past or future learning. Further, after reviewing student work she stated that the objective of the lesson (to identify a symbol in the book) had not been met. The U-rating referenced the same three deficiencies <**9> that had been referenced with respect to the prior evaluation.
The March 26, 2007 report was written by Assistant Principal William Lemos based on an observation of a March 23 lesson on editing. The report indicated that Lemos had observed several students drawing or sleeping, rather than editing, as Mr. Cohn walked around to provide individual assistance. In the post-observation conference, Lemos noted that a mini- lesson on editing should have been provided along with a model. In addition, the lesson should have had an assessment component with student sharing. Further, the objective had not been met as few of the students had actually engaged in the editing process. The U- rating referenced the same three deficiencies that had been referenced with respect to the earlier observations.


The next report, dated May 15, 2007, was written by Principal Jamison. She began by describing the April 23 poetry lesson she had observed. In the April 30 post-observation conference she criticized the lesson because Mr. Cohn had not demonstrated or instructed the students how to write a poem. The April 30 lesson plan was then reviewed and discussed, and Principal Jamison indicated that she would observe <**10> another class later that day. According to the report, the learning objective on the blackboard differed from the one in the lesson plan discussed by the Principal and Mr. Cohn before the observation. Nevertheless, the Principal praised some aspects of the lesson in the post- observation conference. However, overall the lesson was rated as unsatisfactory because the students had spent too much time copying the assignment on the board rather than on learning, and time management was poor. The Principal suggested in the post-observation conference that Mr. Cohn observe another teacher's class and meet with the Literary Coach. She noted as well that Mr. Cohn's performance had declined, rather than improved, since the beginning of the year. On the U-rating, the deficiencies noted for this evaluation


were <*5> "effective use of appropriate methods and techniques" (a problem noted earlier) as well as a new item, "Control of class."
The May 31, 2007 report was written by Assistant Principal Lemos based on a May 23 observation. In the post-observation conference Lemos criticized the lesson because Mr. Cohn had spent too much time reading aloud without including an evaluative piece, and time management <**11> was poor because some students had not had time to complete certain tasks. Reference was made to a previous meeting between Mr. Cohn and the Literary Coach, and the Principal found that Cohn had failed to incorporate any of the Coach's instructional tools into the lesson. A suggestion was made to attend a training on Differentiated Instruction. The U-rating referenced the same three deficiencies that had been referenced with respect to the first three reports.

After the DOE notified Mr. Cohn of the U-rating based on these reports as part of its Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR), Mr. Cohn filed an administrative appeal (Exh 12). Based on a hearing held in connection with the appeal on January 7, 2010 (Exh 14), the Chancellor's Committee recommended that the U-rating be sustained (Exh 13), finding that:
The testimony and the documentation submitted by the Administration were convincing. In her testimony, Principal Jamison indicated that she had numerous conversations with the Appellant regarding his teaching. The Principal's main concern was that the Appellant's performance was inconsistent as demonstrated by the informal observations conducted. The Appellant failed to maintain <**12> a constant level of satisfactory performance. The>>>>>


http://edlawfaqs.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cohn-sc.pdf

:shrug:

Imagine how Mr. Cohn must feel.

On edit: I spread it out for you. Click the link also.

Yeah, I just read through some of the linked document. Sounds like a real bunch of bullshit to me. I wouldn't survive trying to work under such petty and micromanaged conditions.

They... administrators.... come into the room with these massive rubrics on which they score whether or not teacher has done this or done that.

Point: no human being can incorporate every instructional technique known to the mind of man in any given instructional period.

In other words, the situation is a set-up for failure. The classroom observation at that point is a political tool and/or a popularity contest .

( You're not snooty; I should have separated the paragraphs from the get-go. 10 pts off. )

Seriously... sounds interesting. And a much better gig than I've got now. But I'm too "far gone in age and decrepitude." ( Google it!)

Stands to reason that since we've sent our manufacturing jobs there... our Teaching Fellows should inevitably follow.


And our school "reform" rhetoric:

>>>>Throughout their terms of service, Fellows are held to the highest standards of teacher performance and are expected to generate measurable progress with their students.>>>.