Naming Names

“This Nigga’s Crazy!”

My Life as an NYC Teacher

W.D. Haverstock

Chapter 38: How Public Are the Public Schools?

Teachers are civil servants.  We work for and are paid for by the public.  Ibid. administrators.  Since all children are required by law to attend school, society has an obligation to provide the schools and pay for them.  Much information, therefore, about teachers is available to the public.  I’ve used my real name in this blog, making it relatively easy for anyone with the desire to know to find out where I work, whom I work with, whom I work for and how much I make.  You can find out exactly how much teachers and administrators are earning, for example, at http://seethroughny.net/ .  You can even discover how much overtime we’re making at this website.

When I started this blog in Nov. of 2011, my plan was to write about education in general and to expose how the good kids in the system are being neglected by a system geared entirely for failing students.  90% of the time, energy and money in the NYC public school system is wasted because it is being used for the political purpose of raising the graduation rate in order for politicans like Bloomberg and Duncan to be able to claim that they’ve had a positive impact on public education.  Every time you hear some politician pointing out that the graduation rate has gone up over the past decade, don't let them overlook the fact that the percentage of graduates who are functionally illiterate and unprepared for college, albeit with diploma in hand, has reached abysmal lows.

Even the big boss man in Washington, Arne Duncan, could come up with nothing more when pressed by Scott Simon on NPR late last year.  Simon, not satisfied with the sound bites Duncan was handing him, pressed on about what Duncan might want his legacy to show.  In the end all Duncan could say was that he hoped that during his tenure graduation rates had gone up.  There is nothing easier than increasing graduation rates.  Just water down the requirements.  That has everything to do with false and deceptive “data” and nothing to do with education.

Things changed for me in March 2012.  That’s when something so egregious happened in my school that it makes the mean-spirited heartlessness described at the beginning of chapter 36 seem like a petty crime.  I took it upon myself to see that justice was done in this case and that meant making certain demands of the administration.  Since this case is still pending, I cannot speak of it directly other than to say that my principal threatened to fire me at a meeting in his office with his A.P. as a witness on May 1, 2012.  The next day, May 2, he threatened to sue me for slander if I discussed this incident.

I have no interest in slandering or libeling anyone.  I do have an obligation to protect the students in my care from gross violations of their rights and other injustices whether perpetrated by other students or adults.  This is what I have been attempting to do since last March, 2012.

When I has handed a document filled with fantasies, gross inaccuracies, distortions and misrepresentations so outrageous that if they’re not outright lies, we need a new word in the language to describe them, I decided to start naming names - a few at least.  Since this document was used to evaluate my performance, I felt obligated to present this document to the public.  This I did in chapter 35.  For the first time I named the principal and the assistant principal in question.  I was careful to edit out the names of the “real” students, if indeed that observation document can be said to have anything at all to do with the class it purports to evaluate.  I edited out all names other than that of the principal and assistant principal who did the observation / evaluation.  I left in the names of fictional students whom I am supposed to have addressed during that class.  The name of my principal is easily discovered.  Since there are 3 assistant principals at the school, however, it may not have been clear which one I was talking about if I had not named her.  One would have to somehow make the illogical assumption that a former math teacher is supervising English teachers.

Did I go too far in naming names?  The 2 chapters of this blog in question (35 and 36) are the documents that I wrote specifically to be inserted into my official DOE file.  The assistant principal’s observation report of Dec. 7, 2012 – linked to chap. 35 – too, is officially in my DOE file.  All three documents are in my DOE file and therefore part of the public record.  At least, as far as I’m concerned, they are part of the public record.

I’m a teacher, not a lawyer.  I don’t know the legalities of making DOE files public.  I don’t know the legalities of using names of real people in a personal blog meant for nothing more than to generate discussion about education, which is what blogs are.  By putting the link to my blog in the documents that I submitted for my DOE file, I have inserted the entire blog into my file.  At least, that was my intention.  I don’t know what the lawyers and politicians might have to say about that.  It would depend on their agendas.

I have no doubt that the agenda of my administration is to award me a “U” rating at the end of the year.  It will have nothing at all to do with my teaching, everything to do with the act they committed last year and which they are still hoping to cover up.  In order to claim that I was “unsatisfactory” at the end of the year, they have to create a paper trail.  Unfortunately for them, the paper trail they’ve created is as flimsy and fabricated as a scuffed three-dollar bill printed on Kleenex.  The Dec. 7, 2012 observation report – see link in chap. 35 – that they are attempting to use as evidence that my teaching on Oct. 16, 2012 was “unsatisfactory” would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high - my reputation and career as a teacher.
          My primary agenda is to expose some of the absurdities of the Bloomberg reform schools.  One of those is creating small schools with only 2 or 3 assistant principals so that math people are supervising subjects out of their expertise.  Another absurdity is the fact that many of these small schools have so little to offer the high-performing students that by senior year those kids have nothing to do.  About 2 weeks ago (Jan. 2013) a senior noticed that I was showing Charlie Chaplin’s “The Kid” to a class.  She entered the room, sat down and watched.

“Nothing to do?” I asked.

“No,” she said.  “Why isn’t there a film class?”

“Good question,” I said.

In fact, there are no electives at all in my school.  Since 1 or 2 electives are required, however, the senior classes in government and economics are designated “elective” even though all seniors have to take them.  I suppose this enables the school to skirt with semantics some legal technicality.

As for naming names, maybe this has also become an "agenda" for me.  I suppose if a lawyer tells me to take the names out, I’ll have no choice.  I don’t want to jeopardize my larger goal of rectifying that gross injustice perpetuated during last school year (2011-12), the one mentioned in the 4th paragraph of this chapter above.  Perhaps I’ve said too much at this point although I think it is clear to those who did the dirty deed that that has been my purpose all along.

How public are the public schools?  How public should they be?

English by Numbers

“This Nigga’s Crazy!”

My Life as an NYC Teacher

W.D. Haverstock

Chapter 36: Division by Zero

Response to Jan. 10, 2013 Meeting with Clarke / X – FOR DOE FILE #xxxxxx

Date:            Jan. 10, 2013; 6^th period

Place:           Clarke’s office, B47, Taft / JLHS

Present:        David Haverstock, ELA Teacher

                    Erica Clarke, A.P. of Instruction

                    Ms. X, A.P. of Special Ed.; A.P. of Security

                     Ms. Y, Clarke’s secretary (at desk by door)

Re:              “Pre-observation” meeting (as described in the letter sent from Clarke)

To:               A.P. Clarke

As requested, I attended the meeting with A.P. Clarke in her office as described above.  Unexpectedly, A.P. X was also present. [1]  The purported purpose of this meeting was a “pre-observation” meeting, as described in the letter handed to me by Ms. Clarke’s secretary, Ms. Y, during 4^th period on Jan. 8, 2013.  As per her custom with all teachers, Ms. Clarke had her secretary interrupt my class (room 115) in order to hand me the envelope containing this letter rather than simply putting it into my mailbox.  After all it wasn’t a subpoena.  At the very least, she might have handed it to me outside of class.

This behavior is reminiscent of Ms. Clarke’s treatment of a probationary teacher in June of 2005.  Ms. Clarke herself interrupted that teacher’s class with an end-of-year rating form that rated that teacher “unsatisfactory” and recommended “termination”.  Ms. Clarke demanded that the teacher sign the form there in front of her students, which caused that teacher to break down right there in the classroom and begin to sob.  When I entered that very classroom the following period, I found many students in tears over this incident. [2]  As I was consoling the weeping children, Ms. Clarke entered the room again and provided them with an encore, this time in my name.

This behavior, at best insensitive, at worst malicious and certainly unprofessional, resulted in a petition signed by most of the faculty demanding that disciplinary action be taken toward Ms. Clarke.  As a result of this petition, a meeting took place in the school on Friday, June 17, 2005.  At that meeting the teachers were assured by Mr. Hoxha, principal, that he had told Ms. Clarke that if she ever treated a teacher again the way Ms. Clarke had treated that probationary teacher, Ms. Clarke “would be fired.”  (Those are Principal Hoxha’s words though few in the room believed them.)  Ms. Clarke expressed no remorse for her actions at that meeting.  Unfortunately, Ms. Clarke has not been fired although similar behavior has been in evidence ever since without Mr. Hoxha’s keeping his promise. [3]

Back to the present: although this meeting of Jan. 10, 2013 was described as a “pre-observation” meeting, it was nothing of the kind.  We did not discuss any specific lesson to be taught other than for Ms. Clarke to demand that every lesson I teach be structured according to the “gradual release” model.  When I asked when she might come in to observe me, Ms. Clarke replied that she would not tell me that.  The purpose of this meeting, therefore, was something other than what Ms. Clarke claimed it was. [4]

Ms. Clarke demanded that every lesson I teach be a “gradual release” lesson.  This she had written in her post-observation report dated Dec. 7, 2012 (which see in this file along with my response).  As I informed her, the lesson she had observed had been structured according to the gradual release model, though she could not recognize that because the “I” part of the model had been done in September while the “you” part would not be done until the following January or February.  Ms. Clarke observed the “we” stage of the model but could not recognize it as such.  As is commonly understood by educators but not by Ms. Clarke, “[The gradual release model] will look different in each lesson depending on the lesson and your students.” [5]  This is but one example of Ms. Clarke’s misunderstanding of my lesson, both unwitting and deliberate.   It is “unwitting” because Ms. Clarke is a former math teacher with no expertise in the teaching of English and unaware that math, English and social studies for that matter require different teaching methods.  For these reasons Ms. Clarke should not be in a position to observe and evaluate English or social studies teachers.  It is “deliberate” because, as I said, the purpose of this meeting, whatever it was, had nothing to do with teaching a lesson of any sort.

Therefore, Ms. Clarke demanded that I stop using the gradual release model and instead use the gradual release model.  This is the tenor of many conversations with Ms. Clarke.  As I said in my blog, “One monkey with one typewriter could make more sense.”  See chapter 34. [6]

Is it impossible or simply nonsense, I ask rhetorically, to replace what you’re doing with what you’re doing? [7]  I’ll call it impossible for now.  It is equally impossible to write a formulaic “gradual release” lesson plan for each day of the week.  Many lessons take more than a single day.  It takes on average 2 – 3 days simply for low-level 9^th grade students to read one of the selections in the Pearson / Prentice Hall anthology.  Not only will the “gradual release” model look different from class to class, teacher to teacher, subject to subject, it is not always appropriate for a given lesson.  This is another thing well understood by educators but which eludes Ms. Clarke’s ability to apprehend.

It is equally impossible to write a formulaic “gradual release” lesson plan for every exercise suggested by Pearson, including vocabulary study, literary analysis of poetry, creative writing, reading with purpose, reading strategies, responding to an “essential question”, open discussion, etc.  At the post-observation meeting, which took place on Dec. 7, 2012 for the lesson observed almost 2 months earlier on Oct. 16, 2012, I was instructed by Ms. Clarke to use nothing but Pearson materials in my classes.  I was even instructed to say nothing other than what is outlined in the margins of the teacher’s edition.  This is as absurd as it is impossible.

The gradual release model is best suited for teaching a skill.  The teacher models the skill as students watch.  The teacher then models again with students imitating.  The teacher then watches as students attempt to replicate the skill.  In the end students are expected to demonstrate mastery of the skill on their own.  This is now called the “gradual release” model but math was taught in this exact way when I was in high school in the 1960s.  It’s nothing new.  The gradual release method is best suited for teaching math skills.  In fact, it is difficult to teach a math skill to a group of students without using the “gradual release” model.  Obviously, the expert first demonstrates the skill and then helps the students imitate it until they can do it by themselves.  I guess university education departments have to keep changing the names of things in order to justify themselves or pretend they’ve come up with something new.

There are certain ELA skills, of course, that lend themselves to this format in an English class, such as writing the introduction to an expository essay, which usually takes more than one day for 9^th grade students, or using the text to support answers to multiple choice questions, which occurs only over time and which I was modeling in the “we” stage when I was observed by Ms. Clarke on Oct. 16, 2012.  This format, however, is not appropriate for content courses, which English often is and which history and social studies are almost exclusively.  It is not only impossible, therefore, to write the “gradual release” lessons for English classes as instructed by Ms. Clarke in this Jan. 10, 2013 meeting, it is also inappropriate.

In essence, I have been told to teach English as if it were math.  I have been told this by a former math teacher who has not been in the classroom in more than a decade.  I am an English teacher supervised by a former math teacher who has little knowledge and less understanding of how English is taught.

Therefore, although I was instructed by A.P. Clarke (at the Jan. 10, 2013 meeting to which this is a response and with Ms. X as a witness) to submit 5 “gradual release” model lessons for the week of Jan. 14 – 18, 2013, I submit no such plans.  I cannot do the impossible.  It would also be irresponsible for me as an English teacher to subject my ELA students to lessons twisted into a form that might make sense if I were teaching 5 separate math skills, which is never done within a five-day period either.

If this is insubordination, Ms. Clarke, then I suggest that you charge me now with 5 counts, Monday through Friday, so that I can get a hearing on this subject beyond you and your principal, Mr. Hoxha.  Your incompetence at JLHS must be exposed.  I have no doubt that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of how to teach English will acknowledge the value of the lesson you observed and rated “unsatisfactory”.  For that reason I attached examples of student work to my response to your absurd document, the one where you have me addressing students who don’t even exist (see chapter 35 of my blog). [8]  Although you had this student work in your possession, Ms. Clarke, you failed to include it with your lengthy post-observation document.  The reason for this failure is obvious.  The quality of the work done by the “real” students during that lesson is unmistakable and exposes the fact that you rated that lesson “unsatisfactory” for reasons having nothing to do with the lesson itself.

I also have no doubt that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of how to teach English will view your demands as both impossible and nonsensical. [9]  Once upon a time there was a school system in which experts in their fields led their departments.  I fondly recall a time when a person with experience and expertise in the teaching of English was head of the English department and in a position to evaluate, assist and guide English teachers in doing their jobs.  In the era of the small Bloomberg reform school, however, such responsible educational practice has been flushed down the toilet.  We now have supervisors supervising subjects foreign to them.  This is as much a disservice to the teachers as it is to the students.  It is a phenomenal waste of talent, time and taxpayer’s money.

(signed)  ______________________                (date)  _______________

                  Walter David Haverstock

Cc:      Mr. Hoxha, Principal

            Ms. X, A.P. of Securty and Special Ed. / witness

            UFT Chapter Leader

            UFT Chapter Delegate

Notes made by me during / just after meeting:

Jan. 10, 2013

Clarke, X present in B47 6^th period

1.     Lesson plan

a.      Gradual release

b.     Weekly

2.     I tell them that Clarke observed the gradual release but didn’t know it

3.     I tell them that I showed her write up to the CUNY and she said it was as ridiculous as I said

4.     Said I can’t change to gradual release when it already is the gradual release

5.     Clarke asked to see today’s lesson – B50B 1/8/13 – cause & effect

a.      Clarke wants to see the gradual release in the lesson

b.     I show her lesson, explain the gradual release; Clarke is unable to see it because it is slightly different from teacher manual

c.      Clarke says teacher manual is a “guideline”

d.     I say that I used it as a guideline – it is there in my aim, etc.

e.      Gradual release meant for math

f.      Clarke demands a week of lessons all showing gradual release – not possible

6.     Give her my response for file

7.     Gift old text book to a kid with a Prentice Hall book receipt

a.      Hand out new version of Prentice Hall book receipt

b.     Return book receipts to Clarke

8.     Showed parent log; discussed [student name]

9.     Change grading policy in grade book – I complain about having to use the same grading police as math and other departments; X insists that it is the school policy

10.   I ask Clarke to tell me which class she will observe – Clarke says she won’t tell me

11.   Email grade book and lesson plan for week

12.   Gave in goals – when Clarke began to tell me that they were not as she had requested, I interrupted her and said that I wouldn’t change them because they were my goals, not hers/theirs: “I will not argue with you,” Clarke replied immediately, parroting someone’s instructions.

---

[1] Ms. Clarke claimed that Ms. X was present because Ms. X would be taking over Ms. Clarke’s duties during an upcoming medical leave of absence.  However, on Fri., Dec. 14, 2012 I met with Ms. Clarke in Mr. Z’s office with Mr. Z present.  At that time and in the presence of Ms. A, union delegate, Ms. Clarke claimed that Mr. Z would be taking over her duties during this medical leave of absence.

[2] Many of those students, incidentally, thought that this young woman was an excellent math teacher.

[3] One might wonder if this isn’t harassment but I am only writing here an objective, low-inference and non-judgmental description of events that I have personally observed.

[4] Ibid.

[5] http://www.readworks.org/tutorials/see-lesson-action

[6] My Life as an NYC Teacher

[7] Note that Word underlines this last “doing”.  Word considers it nonsense, which, of course it is.

[8] One might think that an administrator would do some basic fact checking before submitting such shoddy work for the record.  A competent administrator, of course, would do that.  A competent administrator would be aware that there is no “Daisy” or “Diane” in her school.

[9] Again, one might suggest that all of this is harassment but I will restrict my comments to objective observations made by me personally and leave the value judgments to those meant to make such judgments at a future date, at which time I will submit exhaustive “data”.

Observing the Observer

“This Nigga’s Crazy!”

My Life as an NYC Teacher

W.D. Haverstock

Chapter 35:  Unsatisfactory

Response to “U” Observation

Jonathan Levin H.S. for Media and Communications (09x414)

Pre-observation date:            Sept. 13, 2012

Observation Date:                 Oct. 16, 2012

Post-observation date:          Dec. 7, 2012

Principal:                           Nasib Hoxha

Assistant Principal:            Erica Clarke

Teacher:                             David Haverstock

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

I was observed by A.P. Clarke while teaching a 9^th grade English class in room B50A on Oct. 16, 2012.  I remember that she entered the room with her computer, sat in the back and spent most of the period typing furiously.  What I don’t remember is saying what she typed almost immediately in line 3 of her “transcript” (appended below with the names of “real” students removed):

T            All right, Daisy, look up.

Since there was no one named Daisy in this class – or in the school, for that matter – I surely would remember if I’d called on this imaginary student.  Perhaps Ms. Clarke simply typed the wrong name or misheard the name.  We all make mistakes.  However in line 9 she claims that I said:

T            Excuse me, Diane [FS4] please take your hat off? {sic}

Again, there was no “Diane” in that class and I know of none in the school although, according to line 10 of the transcript, Diane took off her hat.  Again, let’s give Ms. Clarke the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps she just misunderstood the name.   But then how do you explain line 54 of this transcript?

T            Everybody page 29.  John page 29.

No Daisy, no Diane, no John – three’s not always a charm. [1]  As I said, I remember that Ms. Clarke was in B50A that day.  I remember that she was typing away on her computer.  What she was typing, however, I never saw.  Maybe she was writing to her pen pal.  Maybe she was composing a sonnet.  Maybe she was tweeting something about Diane or Daisy.  Maybe she was trying to compose the complete works of Shakespeare on only one typewriter.  I don’t know what she was typing but maybe Ms. Clarke forgot what room she was in and was thinking of some other class, one where there might have been a John or a Diane.  Or maybe she attached the wrong transcript to my observation report.

[Click here if you can't believe this and figure that I must have ripped it from the pages of "The Onion": Observation Report - it's on page 2.]

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

If this were a court of law, I’d need go no further.  The witness would be excused, her hearsay testimony ruled inadmissible.  The jury would be instructed to ignore Ms. Clarke’s comments or more likely the judge would simply dismiss the case.  The defendant (me) would have his cuffs removed and walk out of the building a free man.  Unfortunately, the DOE doesn’t adhere to rules of order or even common sense.  Therefore Ms. Clarke was able to conclude, based on this faulty, specious document:

“The teaching I observed on Oct. 16, 2012 was unsatisfactory.”  (p. 6 below)

Ms. Clarke, the observation I observed on Oct. 16, 2012 was UNSATISFACTORY.

If identifying no less than 3 imaginary students isn’t enough to disqualify this “observation” as inaccurate, inadmissible and unfit to be used as any sort of evaluation tool, there are many other grounds for the impeachment of this “observation”.  I’ll begin with the time sequence.  The “pre-observation” took place more than a month before the “observation”.  The post-observation meeting took place almost 2 months after the “observation”.  Allowing such a length of time to elapse between the initial meeting and the observation defeats the purpose of the pre-observation meeting, which is meant to be a coordinated attempt to refine a teaching method or strategy.  Allowing such a length of time to elapse between the observation and the follow-up meeting renders serious discussion of the lesson impossible, particularly given the faulty nature of the alleged transcript.

This “pre-observation” was no such thing.  As admitted on page 1 of Ms. Clarke’s report below, that meeting concerned administrative and logistical details such as setting up a grade book, professional goals, accessing Prentice Hall on line, setting forth classroom rules and so forth.  Nothing was said about the lesson to be observed.

Clearly this process had nothing at all to do with teaching a lesson, which is the purpose of the entire observation process.  Teaching a lesson was never discussed and has never been discussed at any of these bogus “pre-observation” meetings in the 8 ½ years that I’ve been a teacher at Jonathan Levin H.S.

What, then, was the purpose of this “pre-observation” meeting?  I can only speculate.  Maybe it was just to remind us that she or she together with the principal (as has mostly been done in the past) would be popping in one of these days.  In fact, Ms. Clarke popped into room 115 where I was teaching on Sept. 24, 2012 and stayed from 10:50 a.m. until 11:15 a.m.   This was not an “observation”, I guess.  Later the same day she popped into room 117 where I was teaching with Desiree Anderson and stayed from 2:20 p.m. until 2:27 p.m.  As she left, she asked for my lesson plan for the earlier class in 115, which I emailed to her the next morning.  On Oct. 10, 2012 Ms. Clarke entered room B50B where I was teaching and stayed from 2:40 p.m. until 2:50 p.m.  Again she asked for my lesson plan, which I emailed the next day, but neither was this an “official” observation.  I wonder if she saw Diane or Daisy in any of these rooms.

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

Pages 8 and 9 of the “observation” report concern the newly in vogue “gradual release” model, formerly called “scaffolding” and other pedantic terms.  In the 2^nd recommendation on page 6 of the report she mentions this “gradual release” model and says, “I recommend you go to this link, again review this method of instruction and use it to plan, write and implement your lessons.”  (Last sentence)

As I tried to point out to Ms. Clarke during that Dec. 7 meeting, what she would have seen in the class if she had looked up from her typewrite or had discussed with me my method of using Prentice Hall Multiple Choice (MC) tests as a teaching tool to teach “text dependent writing” (another newly in vogue term), she might have realized that she was watching (if not observing) the gradual release model in action.  The 9^th grade students I’ve taught at JLHS have not been in the habit of proving the answers they choose on MC tests.  I teach them to use the text for quotations and textbook for explanations so that they can explain why a correct answer is correct and an incorrect answer is wrong.  I insist that they write these explanations and quotations directly on the test paper – see examples below. 

At that Dec. 7^th meeting Ms. Clarke said that students were to circle answers on tests and NOTHING MORE.  I am not to ask them to explain or prove their answers.  As I wrote previously, this amounts to using the test to gather data rather than to teach students how to study and write using references and sources.  For a more detailed discussion of this aspect of this unsatisfactory observation see chapter 34 of my memoir at http://wdhaverstock.blogspot.com/ called “Teaching to the Data”.

Though she didn’t know it, Ms. Clarke was observing the very gradual release model she is recommending that I use.  Maybe Diane or John could have explained that to her.

This was the gradual release model in action but in long-term action.  My goal is for students to take these tests individually by the end of the semester.  But since they are used to just circling answers on MC test, I first have to “show” them how I want these tests done.  Therefore I begin by “modeling” for the entire class.  Once they see what I am asking them to do, I put them into groups and they do the next 2 or 3 tests in that way.  I was at that point of the “gradual release” by the time this Dec. 7^th meeting rolled around.  Finally when I have observed them working well in groups, I ask them to take the tests individually.  By that time I want them all to be able to go into the text and use detail to support their answers for MC or any other kind of question.

Of course, one would have to observe the class taking one of these tests for the first time and then again for the 4^th time and then again for about the 8^th time in order to see this particular form of “gradual” release over the course of the semester.  More importantly, one would have to value the concept of using tests as teaching tools rather than as data management.

Therefore, as for the 2^nd paragraph of the recommendation in this report (p. 6), I submit that not only do I frequently utilize the “gradual release” model in planning both long-term and short-term activities, I also submit that Ms. Clarke actually observed it in that classroom on Oct.16 but did not recognize it.  Had there been a proper pre-observation meeting, I could have outlined my use of the gradual release model for the purpose of teaching text-dependent writing and which stage of that process she would be observing.

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

The last 2 lines of Ms. Clarke’s ridiculous transcript have me attending to attendance.  In line 198 I (or perhaps MS2) allegedly asked a student to add “attendance data” to the chart that is kept on the wall of every classroom.  JLHS teachers have been mandated to spend a few minutes of every class putting up the number of students present, the percent present and a goal for the next day’s attendance, which surpringly isn’t necessarily 100% because 100% would not be a “SMART” goal.  (Since the SMART “r” stands for realistic, it is acceptable to set a goal below the ideal.)  We are supposed to talk about this each day with the students who are present, i.e., preach to the choir about attendance.  If five minutes of each of 8 classes is devoted to this repetitious inanity, 40 minutes of the instructional day is wasted.  That’s nearly a full class period.

The last 2 lines of Ms. Clarke’s “transcript” in which she “observed” attendance related behaviors illustrate the fact that there is no such thing as objective, non-inferential observation.  All observation is subjective.  We’ve been told that these “objective”, “low-inference” transcripts are not to be used for the purposes of evaluation.  We’ve had professional development classes in which we are told to do this very thing – write down what we see and hear – but then not to make any evaluative inferences from it.  As I said in chapter 34, however (which see), “… the only one who can truly observe objectively and non-judgmentally is the monkey who composed Hamlet.”

However, since Ms. Clarke has gone against protocol and used this as part of her unsatisfactory “observation” of my “unsatisfactory” lesson, I would like to draw my own inference from her last 2 lines, which read (p. 5):

MS2 198 Walked over to a student and asked him to add the attendance data to the board

         199 [moved the screen and wrote the attendance data then covered it back up with the projector screen.] {sic}

Note: Ms. Clarke has “MS2” walking to a student and asking him to add attendance data to the board.  Again after so many months I don’t remember how this happened, but it is highly unlikely that a student performed this act.

This “objective description” greatly distorts what actually happened.  Although it is not clear who actually performs this act, the reader might logically draw the inference that the student “MS2” in the previous line is the perp.  The distortion creeps in through the words “covered it back up”.  I don’t remember this specifically months after the alleged event, but if it happened, the student did no such thing.  In room B50A where this “observation” took place, when pulled down, the screen conceals the attendance chart.  I and many other teachers routinely project our lessons onto this screen.  That is what it is there for.  The screen was down for the entire class.  If the student did write something on the attendance chart, he would have had to pull back the screen to do that.  Allowing the screen to fall back into place in no way covers up anything at all.  The “observer’s” bias is clearly evident in her choice of words.  She wanted to fabricate evidence that I was not following school policy on discussion of attendance during class, suggesting that the data was “covered … up”.  While it is true that I consider this attention to attendance a waste of precious classroom time, I certainly didn’t and don’t attempt to cover it up.  In fact, I publish this in order to expose this ludicrous policy.

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

I could point out many such distortions in this alleged transcription of my classroom.  But why waste time on such an inaccurate, incoherent document that is nothing more than hearsay anyway?  I would like to make one or two final points, however, about the first paragraph of the “recommendations” (p. 6).  I refer to the 2^nd and 3^rd lines of this paragraph:

“Your aim, ‘How do I use text to support MC answers?’ suggested you would address questions with multiple responses, however {sic} none of the questions you addressed had more than one correct answer.”

Ms. Clarke spent the first 10 minutes or so of that Dec. 7^th meeting trying to explain to me what she meant by this statement.  I never got it.  While holding the Prentice Hall test in her hand, she asked me if I were giving a test or a survey.  Surveys, she explained, can have multiple answers.  It was then that I realized that I ought to have been using the “gradual release” model during this meeting.  Evidently after spending 45 minutes observing students working on a standard multiple choice test, a test that had the heading “Selection Test” stamped clearly at the top, Ms. Clarke was unable to determine if the students were working on a test or a survey.  No student, however, asked if they were working on a survey.  They all knew that the test was a test.

Finally, as if to confirm my charge that I have been directed to use tests not for teaching but for data gathering, Ms. Clarke includes in this same paragraph the Pearson chart that purports to describe what each question is supposed to reveal about the test taker:

Questions 1,3, 4            Literary Analysis

Questions 2, 9, 11            Interpretation

Questions 5, 7, 8            Comprehension

Questions 6, 10            “Reading” [2]

Questions 12, 13            Vocabulary           

Questions 14, 15            Grammar           

I was directed never to ask students to use the text to support their answers to MC questions.  I was directed to use this chart to gather data on which questions were answered correctly or incorrectly by each student.  How well a student reads therefore is not as important as the statistics derived from tests.

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

In the current Bloomberg-esque, data driven corporate mentality in which education is an industry and students merely “product”, there is a move to evaluate teachers based on “data”, a euphemism for meaningless statistics.  Michael Mulgrew and the UFT in New York City are rightly contesting this mindless pretension that teaching is akin to manufacturing.  Education is social interaction at a very intimate level.  It cannot be depicted by graduation rates, test scores or any other data.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that I have been rated “unsatisfactory” by an administrator, I nevertheless believe that the only way to evaluate teachers is for administrators to make admittedly very subjective evaluations based primarily on the social interaction in the classroom, the relevance of the lesson presented and on the attempt to reach the students at a level on which they can receive it rather than on statistics.  An honest, competent administrator should be in a position to know his/her students, know what they need and evaluate the performance of a teacher based on the needs of that population.  The needs of any group of students vary drastically from neighborhood to neighborhood, school to school, even classroom to classroom.  Just as you cannot take the human aspect out of teaching, neither can you take it out of administrating.  Administrators who merely parrot the latest fashions in education will overlook or even ignore the reality before them.  This is what teachers are now up against.

A negative times a negative equals a positive.

An unsatisfactory observation that rates a lesson “unsatisfactory” = an excellent lesson.

I’m tempted to sign my name “Franz Kafka” but must resist that urge.

 

NOTE: This blog contains an excerpt of the entire book.

---

[1] I have attached the class roster to the copy of this response going to my official DOE file.  However, I withhold the names of what might have been “real” students for the purposes of this blog – though I feel free to name the imaginary ones.

[2] Stop laughing and look at the document below.  It really says “reading”!  Obviously every question is a reading question.

Chap. 34: Teaching to the Data

Chapter Thirty-Four: Teaching to the Data

Good teachers love to get kids to think for themselves, to think analytically and to support their thinking with evidence from the text.  Teachers often hate to be told to “teach to the test” because it makes teaching formulaic by removing precisely the thing that makes sitting in a classroom worthwhile – the freedom to allow your mind to roam the universe in search of new ideas or ways of looking at things.  Worse than teaching to the test, however, in the current data driven rage in education is teaching to the data.  I’m not kidding.  I know this is going to sound like some absurd satire lifted from the pages of the Onion, but this is a true story.  I’ve been told not to teach students but to teach for the purpose of gathering data.

I’m an English teacher who has been instructed by my “superiors” to teach strictly from the Prentice Hall / Pearson anthologies both physical and on line (where Pearson must be making a killing).  The teacher editions of these books provide guidelines for instruction but you can never take the teacher out of teaching.  The goal in education today is to make all classroom instruction generic enough so that an automaton can perform the job as well as a human being but there is no teaching without a teacher.  If we could just put enough monkeys with teacher editions into the classroom!

For the most part I have used these anthologies as directed but one thing I still do even though Pearson doesn’t order us to do it is to ask kids to support their answers to multiple choice (MC) questions with evidence from the text.  I don’t want them guessing.  I want them to understand why “a” is correct and why “b”, “c” and “d” are incorrect.  I want them to be able to prove that they’re right when they circle answer “a”.

Pearson, you see, offers up multiple choice “selection” tests for all of the selections in their anthologies.  Since I’ve been ordered by my administration to use these books and materials, that’s what I do.  Now I’ve been told to use these tests to gather data rather than as a teaching tool.

The teacher evaluation system is supposed to work like this.  A teacher meets with a supervisor to discuss a way of presenting a lesson.  The supervisor then observes the teacher present this lesson after which a follow-up meeting is held to review the success or failure of the presentation.  These three activities should take place within a two-week time frame.

My most recent pre-observation meeting took place on Sept. 13, 2012.  I was instructed to bring along to that meeting primarily attendance records and phone call logs.  Nothing was said about any lesson to be observed; however a “pop-in” surprise observation took place over a month later on Oct. 16, 2012.  As luck would have it, I was modeling (using the newly in vogue “gradual release” model) how to find evidence in the text for answers to Pearson MC questions.  The text was “The Washwoman” by I.B. Singer.  The test was Pearson Selection Test A.

My A.P. (assistant principal) of instruction – a former math teacher who has not taught in the classroom for over a decade – observed from the back while furiously typing on her computer as students sifted through the story looking for evidence to prove correct their answers.  In fact we’d been told to do this at a professional development (PD) session earlier in the year.  The term in vogue for it at the moment is “text dependent writing”.  Of course, it’s nothing new and nothing that teachers haven’t been doing since the dawn of education.

On Friday, Dec. 7, 2012 – almost 2 months after this observation – I was called into this A.P.’s office for the “post-observation” meeting.  I assumed that I would be applauded for preparing students for the sort of work that college is going to demand of them where merely circling a letter isn’t going to cut it.  In fact, we are expected to be thinking of our “college and career readiness” data, part of a NYC school report card.  Applause, however, was not on my A.P.’s mind this day.

The interview began something like this: [1]

A.P.:            Read to me your aim, please.

Me:              “How do I use text to support MC answers?”

A.P:            Were you giving a survey of some kind?

Me:            No, I was giving the test you have there in front of you.

A.P.:            But you said to support “MC answers”.

Me:            Right, and …?

A.P.:            That sounds as though you’re asking for answers to a survey where they can give multiple answers.

Me:            What?

A.P.:            On surveys, they give multiple answers.  You used the word “answer” in your aim.

Me:            Well, since it says “test” on the paper and since they knew they were getting a test, the students understood that it wasn’t a survey.

A.P.:            You should have said to support “MC questions”.

Me:            Huh?

A.P.:            They were answering questions, weren’t they?

Me:            You were there.

A.P.:            Then you were actually asking them to support MC questions.

Me:            No, they were supporting their answers with evidence ….

This conversation took up the first 10 minutes of the meeting.  One monkey with one typewriter could have made more sense.  I could tell from the tone that this meeting wasn’t going to go well for me – not to mention the absurdity of the criticism.

Next we looked at the 3 samples of the test done that day.  As directed, I’d photocopied the test from 3 students’ folders.  For each MC question, the kids had written a quotation from the story itself or an explanation from the textbook to show why the answer (not the question) was correct.  They had written quotations and explanations to support their answers right on the test paper itself.

The conversation picked up with these papers in front of us:

A.P.:            What sort of assessment was this?

Me:            I was modeling for them how I want them to take tests.

A.P.:            But what sort of assessment was it?

Me:            It was both a pre-assessment and a post-assessment since I’d given it out when we started reading the story.  I wanted them to know what they would be looking for by seeing the questions beforehand.  This is called “reading with purpose”.

A.P.:            They wrote the date Oct. 11 on it.

Me:            Right.

A.P.:            And on the 16^th ….

Me:            They had read the story by then and were going back to find evidence for their answers.  That’s what you observed.

A.P.:            But it doesn’t say in the teacher edition to ask the students to support their answers with text.

Me:            Really?

A.P.:            So why were you doing that?

Me:            Because I want them to be able to justify their responses.

It continued in this vein for a bit and then the A.P. turned to a document concerning the class observed.  She had emailed me an 11-page document, much of which consisted of her transcription of the observed class session.  I’ve attached this document at the end of this chapter and called it an appendix although it’s actually more like appendicitis. [2]  Of course, after 2 months, it was impossible for me to know how accurate this transcription was but I didn’t quibble over that point.  It’s worth as much as any other hearsay.

As you can see from glancing at the appendix, a great deal of transcribing took place in one way or another.  I might ask this question: how much could have been “observed” by someone doing so much typing?  But I’ll leave that for another chapter.

The current term for this sort of “observation” wherein the observer attempts to record everything said and done within sight and hearing, is “low-inference”.  A low-inference observation is said to do nothing but record factual information a la Joe Friday.  A low-inference observation is said to be objective and non-judgmental.  But as we know the only one who can truly observe objectively and non-judgmentally is the monkey who composed Hamlet.

            The meeting continued with reference to this document.

A.P.:            Would you look at line 70 in the document I emailed you.

Me:            Okay.

I scrolled down to line 70 of this document.

For some reason the A.P. was focusing on lines 70 – 85 or so where a student suggests text-to-text as a possible solution to something.  The term “text to text” refers to relating one story to another piece of literature.  This was a very good point, of course, since the week before they had read “A Giant’s House”.  Both stories in the first unit of the Pearson anthology are “narrative essays” and are meant to be compared.  The student was showing signs of actual learning.  What point the A.P. was making, however, by going over and over that part of the transcript eluded me.  The ludicrous conclusion she drew somehow from it a moment later did not.

A.P.:            This was an “unsatisfactory” lesson, Mr. Haverstock.

Me:            Let me get this right.  I’m not allowed to ask students to use evidence from the text to answer MC questions?

A.P.:            That’s right.  They should circle an answer and nothing more.

Me:            So I’m not allowed to teach “text dependent” writing?

A.P.:            No, you are to use this chart ….

Here she pulled out a Pearson chart showing the type for each test MC question: recall, inferential, analytical, “reading” – yes one of them was simply called a “reading” question – etc.

A.P.:            The students circle answers and you look at this chart and find out what type of question they have trouble with.

Me:            No text support.

A.P.:            No.

Me:            Even though asking for textual support doesn’t interfere with the data you want?

A.P.:            That’s right.

I’ve now been directed to “teach to the data”.  The purpose of the Pearson test is not to teach students how to work, study, think and use text to support their conclusions.  The purpose of the Pearson test is to gather data.

I won’t name names other than to say that I teach at the Jonathan Levin High School for Media and Communications – easily discovered anyway since I’m using my real name for this memoir / blog.  The school is located in the Taft building on 172^nd St. in the Bronx where Stanley Kubrick once cut class, preferring movies to lectures and homework.  Taft no longer exists.  There are now 7 small schools in the building, mostly the academies of this or that.  JLHS has not fared so well over the past 3 years, as far as the DOE is concerned.  You can see for yourself by typing in the name of the school at the NYC DOE website: http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/report/FindAProgressReport/default.htm 

Since these grades are based on “data”, of course, they are meaningless.  Since the AYP numbers for “adequate yearly progress” are set by the very people who want to close schools, the system is entirely corrupt from top to bottom.  Teachers in the system know that none of the critical numbers used by these corrupt bureaucrats, particularly graduation rates and Regents scores, say anything at all about how well the school is performing.  It’s easy to convince outsiders, however, that numbers don’t lie.  Maybe numbers don’t but the people manipulating them sure do.

Appendix [3]

For the complete transcript of this observation document go to:

Complete Transcript of Observation Report

            NOTE: This blog contains an excerpt of the first draft of this book.

---

[1] All dialogue is paraphrased.  Theoretically if I had enough monkeys, I could recreate the exact words used.

[2] I have no idea whose intellectual property this document would be.  She typed it up but most of it consists of what I and students might have said in the class.  I don’t know to whom it belongs, as I said, but calling it “intellectual” property ought to be against the law.  I’ve edited out student names in those cases that refer to real people.

[3] I’ve replaced names with the phrase “student name” for those who were real people.

[4] There was no “Daisy” in the room.

[5] There was no “Diane” in the room.

[6] There was no “John” in the room.

Chapter Thirty-One: The Charlotte Danielson Rubric for the Highly Effective Husband

“This Nigga’s Crazy!”

My Life as an NYC Teacher

 W.D. Haverstock

Chapter Thirty-One: The Charlotte Danielson Rubric for the Highly Effective Husband

        Where will the ongoing pretense that human interactions can be objectified lead?  I’ve been thinking about this while looking over the Danielson rubric for classroom management, a(n) hilarious attempt to pretend that you can categorize and rate teacher – student interactions.  The Princeton eggheads apparently (low-inference observation) believe that human behavior can be observed and described objectively and without making judgments or inferences.  They apparently believe that codifying it makes it meaningful and less ridiculous.  Is there a better argument against allowing people like this to design a new teacher evaluation / rating system than this piece of paper?  I should have called this “Exhibit A”.

        So here it is, the Danielson “rubric” for classroom management.  (I’m not kidding!  This is a real document – I have a copy - and it is being promulgated as if it were the answer to something!)

Danielson 2011 rubric – Adapted to New York State Levels of Performance

COMPETENCY 2d	INEFFECTIVE	DEVELOPING	EFFECTIVE	HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
Managing Student Behavior	There appears to be no established standards of conduct, and little or no teacher monitoring of student behavior.  Students challenge the standards of conduct.  Response to student behavior is repressive or disrespectful of student dignity.	Standards of conduct appear to have been established, but their implementation is inconsistent.  Teacher tries, with uneven results, to monitor student behavior and respond to student misbehavior.  There is inconsistent implementation of the standards of conduct.	Student behavior is generally appropriate.  The teacher monitors student behavior against established standards of conduct.  Teacher’s response to student misbehavior is consistent, proportionate and respectful to students and is effective. [1]	Student behavior is entirely appropriate.  Students take an active role in monitoring their own behavior.  Teacher’s monitoring of student behavior is subtle and preventive.  Teacher’s response to student misbehavior is sensitive to individual student needs and respects students.
Critical Attributes	·   Classroom environment is chaotic, with no apparent standards of conduct. ·   The teacher does not monitor student behavior. ·   Some students violate classroom rules without apparent teacher awareness. ·   When the teacher notices student misbehavior, s/he appears helpless to do anything about it.	·   Teacher attempts to maintain order in the classroom but with uneven success; standards of conduct, if they exist, are not evident. ·   Teacher attempts to keep track of student behavior, but with no apparent [2] system. ·   The teacher’s response to student misbehavior is inconsistent: sometimes very harsh, other times lenient.	·   Standards of conduct appear to have been established. ·   Student behavior is generally appropriate. ·   The teacher frequently monitors student behavior. ·   Teacher’s response to student misbehavior is effective. [3] ·   Teacher acknowledges good behavior.	In addition to the characteristics of “Effective”: ·   Student behavior is entirely appropriate; no evidence of student misbehavior. ·   The teacher monitors student behavior without speaking – just moving about. ·   Students respectfully intervene as appropriate with classmates to ensure compliance with standards of conduct.
Possible Examples	·   Students are talking among themselves with no attempt by the teacher to silence them. ·   An object flies through the air without apparent teacher notice. ·   Students are running around the room, resulting in a chaotic environment. ·   Their phones and other electronics distract students and teacher doesn’t do anything.	·   Classroom rules are posted, but neither teacher nor students refer to them. ·   The teacher repeated asks students to take their seats; they ignore him / her. ·   To one student: “Where’s your late pass?  Go to the office.”  To another: “You don’t have a late pass? Come in and take your seat: you’ve missed enough already.”	·   Upon a non-verbal signal from the teacher, students correct their behavior. ·   The teacher moves in every section of the classroom, keeping a close eye on student behavior. ·   The teacher gives a student a “hard look” and the student stops talking to his/her neighbor.	·   A student suggests a revision in one of the classroom rules. ·   The teacher notices that some students are talking among themselves, and without a word, moves nearer to them; the talking stops. ·   The teacher asks to speak to a student privately about misbehavior. ·   A student reminds his/her classmates of the class rules about chewing gum.

   [If Charlotte Danielson or the Danielson Group or the Milken Group or whoever is behind these crazy rubrics feels that I am infringing on their copyright by posting this rubric, just let me know and I’ll remove it.  I’d be embarrassed to have it shown to the public, too.]

        Before pointing out just one or two of the more glaringly Kafkaesque aspects of this teacher evaluation tool, I’m a little curious about just what that object flying "through the air" of the ineffective teacher's classroom is.  Wait - I recognize it.  It’s the teacher’s sanity.

        Notice that in the “highly effective” teacher’s classroom there is, quote, “no evidence of student misbehavior” and yet when it happens, either the teacher wordlessly takes care of it – relatively easy to do since it isn’t really happening, according to this rubric – or the students remind themselves that it isn’t really happening, since there is no evidence of it.

        Notice that the effective “hard look” technique is inferior to the more highly effective non-verbal technique, though the “hard look” is, of course, by definition non-verbal.  Any teacher who has to actually speak to his / her students, by this rubric, has a long way to go.

        But enough of pointing out the obvious.  If Charlotte Danielson actually exits – see chapter “The Danielson Performance Puppet” – and actually believes that this rubric can and should be used as a tool to evaluate teacher performance – a puppet can be made to say and act as if it believes anything, of course – then where will it end?  I mean, why stop with teacher - student interactions?  Isn’t the husband – wife intercourse just as significant, perhaps even more so?  Shouldn’t we be able to know when our intimate partner is performing in a “highly effective” manner?  Evidently, most of us can’t tell such things subjectively.

  

[Legal disclaimer: Although all of the stories about schools in this book are true, the scene described here is another purely imaginative, i.e., fictional account.  I’ve never met Charlotte Danielson and had never heard of her before she was foisted on us and became my de jure educational guru last September - 2011.]

SCENE: The Danielson Research Laboratory, i.e., her bedroom.

SUBJECT(S):  self; Mr. Danielson [4]

AIM: Copulation

OBJECTIVE: Satisfaction (as opposed to impregnation- see Domain -3c)

STANDARDS: FP 2.3: partner is aroused through physical intimacy prior to penetration

         PEN 1.2: penetration is measurable and pleasurable for both parties

         EJ 3.3: ejaculation elicits moans of satisfaction

Do Now:      Disrobe; put on nightgown; leap into bed; await husband’s entrance.

Charlotte is sitting in bed and smoking a cigarette to simulate actual conditions as closely as possible – you know, the way they pretend that the scenes in all the classroom videos are “realistic”.  Her husband lies at her side, snoring quietly and with the hint of a smile on his drowsy lips.

She is going over the low-inference, non-judgmental notes she made during the activity just consummated:

1.              Falls while hastily stepping out of trousers – 6:17:44

2.              Jumps on bed, tears off my nightgown / underclothes – 6:18:04

3.              Kisses my neck repeatedly – 6:18:23

4.              Breath smells like …. [crossed out – inferential]

5.              Attempts penetration – 6:18:38 – 6:23:53

6.              Penetrates – 6:23:54

7.              Begins rapid, repetitious in and out motion – 6:23:55

8.              In and out occurs – lost count at 78 repetitions: 6:25:12

9.              Low-pitched and high-pitched vocalizations, i.e., accountable talk, heard throughout activity

10.           Ejaculation occurs accompanied by vocalized “Owwwwww!  – 6:26:03

11.           Falls onto his side of the, I mean, left side of the bed – 6:26:05

12.           Begins snoring as usual – 6:26:49 – NOTE: scratch “as usual”

“Hmm,” she thinks to herself, “a few of these terms are slightly judgmental.”  NOTE TO SELF, she writes: change “hastily” to “with rapid hand and foot movements”.

Since these notes are meant strictly as a tool for discussion and reflection rather than for evaluation and she is uncertain about the level of satisfaction she is feeling, Charlotte pulls out the actual rubric in order to determine if the objectives were accomplished and the standards met.

Danielson 20—Rubric – Adapted to NYS Levels of Performance [5]

COMPETENCY -2d	INEFFECTIVE	DEVELOPING	EFFECTIVE	HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
Managing Human Intercourse	There appears to be no established standards of conduct, and little or no female monitoring of male behavior.  Male challenges the standards of conduct.  Response to male behavior is repressive or disrespectful of male dignity.	Standards of conduct appear to have been established, but their implementation is inconsistent.  Female tries, with uneven results, to monitor male behavior and respond to male misbehavior.  There is inconsistent implementation of the standards of conduct.	Male behavior is generally appropriate.  The female monitors male behavior against established standards of conduct.  Female’s response to male misbehavior is consistent, proportionate and respectful to male and is effective.	Male behavior is entirely appropriate.  Male takes an active role in monitoring his own behavior.  Female’s monitoring of male behavior is subtle and provocative.  Female’s response to male misbehavior is sensitive to individual male’s ego.
Critical Attributes	·   Bedroom environment is chaotic, with no apparent standards of conduct. ·   The female does not monitor male behavior. ·   Male violates bedroom rules without apparent female awareness. ·   When the female notices male misbehavior, she appears helpless to do anything about it.	·   Female attempts to maintain order in the bedroom but with uneven success; standards of conduct, if they exist, are not evident. ·   Female attempts to keep track of male behavior, but with no apparent system. ·   The female’s response to male misbehavior is inconsistent: sometimes very harsh, other times lenient.	·   Standards of conduct appear to have been established. ·   Male behavior is generally appropriate. ·   The female frequently monitors male behavior. ·   Female’s response to male misbehavior is effective. ·   Female acknowledges good behavior.	In addition to the characteristics of “Effective”: ·   Male behavior is entirely appropriate; no evidence of male misbehavior. ·   The female monitors male behavior without speaking – just twisting and squirming while cooing, “Oooo, ahhhh.” ·   Male respectfully intervenes as appropriate with female to ensure compliance with standards of conduct and position variations.
Possible Examples	·   Male objects to disrespectful criticism of his performance and “pulls out”. ·   Male gives up and watches football. ·   Male prematurely ejaculates and then goes to neighborhood bar to brag about hours-long sex session.	·   Female at one point purrs, “Oh, honey,” but a moment later screams, “You insensitive bastard!” ·   Female uses her feminine charms to urge male on but gets headache just before ejaculation, leaving male frustrated and horny.  He resorts to porn. ·   Female reads magazine during activity with little or no apparent monitoring of male performance.	·   Upon a non-verbal signal from the female, male corrects his behavior by changing position appropriately. ·   The female moves in every section of the sheets, keeping a close eye on male behavior to ensure lengthy (in both senses of the term) erection. ·   Female compliments male on performance, saying, “That was great, baby!”	·   Female hires film crew to record performance for internet posting. ·   Female tweets “ooo’s” and “ahhh’s” at 20-second intervals. ·   Female is interviewed on SPIKE t.v.; she gives non-verbal advice by physically and graphically modeling effective positions, using the “tableau” activity. ·   Female wins Milken award for “Most Positions Achieved Before Initial Ejaculation”.

        Dishearteningly, based on the objectives and standards, Charlotte is forced to rate this husband as “developing” in foreplay (“bad breath”), “ineffective” in penetration (“took too long”), but “highly effective” in ejaculation (“great scream”).

        Back to reality: The people who came up with this “classroom management rubric” and can send it out to schools with a straight face are the people in charge of training and evaluating teachers.  Charlotte Danielson is now the lead consultant for the national push for common core standards.  Given that, I’m curious about her credentials for holding this position.  In other words, I want to know if she ever taught.  You can’t be a teacher guru with no teaching experience and without the kind of experience that real teachers get day in and day out.  At least, logically, you can’t.

        So I’ve googled “Charlotte Danielson” and “Charlotte Danielson biography” and I’ve gotten the same line every time.  Here it is, taken from

 http://www.iobservation.com/danielson-collection/Biography/:

            “She has taught at all levels, from kindergarten through college ….”

        Wow!  All levels – sounds pretty impressive.  I don’t know how old she is – it’s hard to guess the age of a puppet – but given all of the other things she has done according to these biographies:

… has worked as an administrator, a curriculum director, and a staff developer. In her consulting work, Ms. Danielson has specialized in aspects of teacher quality and evaluation, curriculum planning, performance assessment, and professional development.

Ms. Danielson has worked as a teacher and administrator in school districts in several regions of the United States. In addition, she has served as a consultant to hundreds of districts, universities, intermediate agencies, and state departments of education in virtually every state and in many other countries …  (same web site)

        Given all of this, it’s hard to imagine that she has had time to actually teach at all levels from “kindergarten through college”.  Let’s see, if taken literally, that would be a minimum of 13 years (K – 12) plus at least another 4 years to cover “college level”.  That’s a minimum of 17 years of teaching if she only lasted one year at each level.  I guess she started in kindergarten and worked her way up.

        Clearly it’s a ruse.  Ms. Danielson hasn’t taught “at all levels” and may not have taught at all.  If she has, why don’t they say where, when, for how long and who her students were?  I don’t mean to sound cynical but I remember Joel Klein’s and Cathie Black’s lengthy educational resumes upon taking over the leadership of the NYC public school system.  Charlotte Danielson - she / it / they are aware that anyone claiming to be a teacher guru will be asked the question, “How, where and for how long did you teach?”  So she / it / they have supplied an all-encompassing answer meant to side-step any such question before it’s asked and anyway, she’s said to be from Princeton and she’s written some books.  Isn’t that good enough?

        I’m reminded of an Aussie coach I once had.  Although it’s more absurd than the Danielson sex rubric, this is a true story.  Anyone with an Australian accent was once considered a candidate for American teacher guru.  I guess since the Aussies were considered the best crocodile fighters, it just seemed natural for them to coach teachers.

        I and three others were designated for Ramp Up, a remedial English program for over-aged / under-credited students.  Our Aussie coach met us with the thick Ramp Up binder.  The Aussies were said to know everything about Ramp Up and were also said to be making big money doing nothing more than coaching teachers.

        The first thing we asked, naturally, was, “Tell us about your experiences teaching Ramp Up.”

        “Actually,” our coach admitted sheepishly, “I’ve never taught it.”

        “Well, then,” we continued, “tell us about the teachers you’ve observed teaching Ramp Up.”

        “In truth,” he said even more sheepishly, his accent growing stronger with each reply,  “I’ve never observed it in a classroom.”

       “Okay, then,” we said, “tell us what is in this big binder.”

       “I haven’t,” he replied, “had a chance to read it yet.”

       We looked at each other wondering what to say next.  One of us was well-known in the school for his hair-pin trigger and bursts of rage.  He could hold back no longer.

       “Then why in the world do we need someone from Australia to tell us how to teach?”  I wish I could convey the raging tone of voice in this question.

       “Actually,” our faux Aussie said, “I’m from Detroit.”

       He’d married an Australian woman and assimilated her accent.

       A few years ago it was the Aussies; now it’s Charlotte Danielson, who may, in fact, be a puppet – whether hand-held or dangling from strings I haven’t been able to discern yet.  Who’s next?  That guy I read about in the paper who was in the bar fight last week?  Or would he be overqualified since I’ve heard of him?

            NOTE: This blog contains an excerpt of the first draft of this book.

---

[1] Note: the definition of the “effective” teacher is that his/her response is “effective”.

[2] Note: the word “apparent” is apparently meant to indicate that a meaningful inference can be drawn without making an actual inference.

[3] Note: the definition of the “effective” teacher is that his/her response is “effective”.

[4] Another disclaimer: I know nothing about Charlotte Danielson – never heard her talk other than on a couple of videos that have been shoved down our throats at various “professional development” meetings where she tends to back up and correct herself frequently, don’t know if she’s married, has kids, smokes cigarettes – don’t fully believe she actually exists.  This scene is fiction meant to spoof a public figure or quasi-meta-public figure.

[5] Thankfully we won’t be held to Parisian levels of performance.