U-Rating Hearing: Advisor's Statement RE: Principal's Observation

ADVISOR: Please refer to document 3.0- The Observation of 12/19/2006, written by Principal P.


According to document, the preobseration conference was conducted on December 19, 2006 (Weekly meetings with ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL Z ). The observation also was on December 19. Based on this information, and what Ms. MORIAH has relayed to us, there was no formal preobservation conference for this particular lesson. It is true that Ms. MORIAH did meet with MR. Z. on a weekly basis, sharing with him her planning. However, on December 19, the date that she was observed, there was no conference in which they sat down to discuss the actual lesson that was being presented that day. A teacher in danger of getting a U-rating is to be afforded the opportunity to have a preobservation conference prior to the lesson itself. The supervisor critiques the plan, discusses it with the teacher, and offers suggestions if necessary so that they come out of the conference with the information necessary and with an understanding of what a successful lesson should entail.

It is true that Mr. Z did have weekly meetings with Ms. MORIAH, but she was not aware that she was going to be observed by PRINCIPAL P and she did not have the opportunity to sit down and discuss that particular lesson with PRINCIPAL P and to take into account any advice or suggestions that PRINCIPAL P OR MR. Z could have offered her to help her in the presentation of her lesson.

At the post observation conference lessons are reviewed and discussed. Suggestions are offered to help the performance of the teacher. Here we have a situtation in which the teacher was observed (by PRINCIPAL P) on Dec. 19. The post observation conference was held one month later, Jan 19. That is a time period of one month with a Christmas recess in between. At the post observation conference, the lesson is discussed and comments are made. There is no record here of when the lesson was reduced to writing and whether it falls within the three-month time frame. The only indication that we do have is that Ms. MORIAH did sign it on March 20. Between January 19 and March 20 we have no idea as to when it was written. It is true that Ms. MORIAH did speak to PRINCIPAL P. on January 19, but 4 weeks is a very long period of time for an observation to have any worth. Four weeks later, other lessons have been taught, and the recommendations designed to help Ms. Moriah improve were not said until Jan 19. This is not a system of GOTCHA. It is the professional responsibility of the supervisor to observe a teacher (and here we do have a teacher in danger of getting a U-rating), and it is incumbant on the administrator to meet with her in a timely fashion, and to reduce the information to writing so that Ms. MORIAH can use this observation as a learning tool, so that she can implement any recommendations for improvement and then at subsequent lessons, be assessed on the degree to which she made improvements.


Please refer to Page 3.2 of the observation report: Recommendation #2. "Students were asked multiple questions right after another. "

According to Ms. MORIAH, students were not asked multiple questions one right after another. There was a lively give and take of ideas.

Recommendation #3. "Most of the questions asked during the lesson were based on a single recall from text. This kind of questioning is at the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy."

Blooms taxonomy is a hierarchy of skills. You have to start with lower level thinking especially when the subject matter is new or difficult as we have in science. Lower order questions are also appropriate if the readability level of the text is close to the frustration level as it was in this case.


Recommendation #4 ""Student participation limited to a few. "

Student participation was not limited. Most students were in pairs. They were assigned to ask questions and to anwer them from the reading assignment. They shared answers with those sitting directly across from them.

Recommendation #10 "Homework was dictated and not meaningful"

Homework was assigned verbally, but it was a homework assignment that Ms. MORIAH often gives. It does not need to be modeled. She had previously demonstrated the technique of summarizing a lesson in paragraph form. Criteria had already been established. Students knew how to successfully meet her expectations.

NOTE FROM MORIAH: I wrote a sentence by sentence response to Principal P's observation report. You can read the complete observation and response on Untamed Teacher under "HIV UNscripted". See Friday, August 27, 2007.

U-Rating Hearing: Advisor's Statement--RE: Plans

File Letter written Nov. 17 2006 from Princial P. to MORIAH

ADVISOR: Although Ms. MORIAH did not physically have her plan book present at that moment when it was requested, The lesson did involve considerable planning and preparation. Ms. MORIAH teaches a hands-on inquiry lesson needing a lot of scientific equipment. She was teaching in a nonscience classroom, and all the students in her charge were successful in learning how to use their equipment—how to find mass, volume, density and how to write a lab report. The students were interested in what they were doing, and all of them participated in the lesson. According to the UFT contract, the planbook and it's format is at the discretion of the teacher. Ms. MORIAH did in fact plan for these lessons, and she had at her disposal information that provided her with the knowledge of exactly what she was going to be doing during that lesson as was evidenced by the lesson that she did teach the children.

NOTE FROM MORIAH: I posted the complete letter from the principal and my reply on this blog. See Unobservant Principal--Thursday, August 16, 2007.

U-Rating Hearing: UFT Advisor's Opening Statement--Letters of Commendation

Introduction:

My advisor opened by saying that I had been a teacher for 23 years and had taught science at IS. 666 for the past seven years. Prior to the 2006-2007 school year, I had always earned satisfactory ratings.

The advisor then entered into evidence two letters that I had received from Principal P:

1. December 17 2004. "Dear Ms. Moriah, As we close out the 2004 fall semester it is with great pleasure that I take the opportunity to thank you for your time, energy and efforts given to I.S. 666. We are very grateful. Now rest and have a safe and restful holiday.

2. December 8, 2005. "Dear Ms. Moriah, Thank you for your willingness to help make Meet the Teacher Night such a wonderful success. The night was possible only because you and other teachers generously gave up an evening to meet and greet the parents. Each parent I spoke to appreciated the presentation in which you clearly explained the curriculum and our expectations for the school year. They were thrilled with your presentation. Your continued support and willingness to help have enabled the school to progress. You are a definite asset to our school."

The advisor observed that one year I was being complemented and was earning satisfactory ratings and the next year I received a U-rating. People's abilities don't usually diminish that quickly.
:

U-Rating Hearing: UFT Cross Examines Administrators

Advisor: Is it so that the observation referred to in document 3.0 to 3.5 was written on March 20th, 2007?

Principal P: It wasn’t written on March 20th. I was out on sick leave after the post observation conference. It was faxed in on March 20th, but it was not written on March 20th. I met with her on Jan 19.

Advisor: Is it so that on this observation repord of December 19th that there is no date appearing on document 3.0 to 3.5 indicating when the observation report itself was written?

Principal P: It was written right after post observation on 1/19.

Advisor: My question is: Referring to the observation of Dec. 19 in which there was a preobservation conference on Dec 19 and a post observation conference on January 29th, is there on this observation report an indication as to when the observation was actually written?

Principal P: No

Advisor: Thank you

U-Rating Hearing--Statements by Administrators

Statement by Principal P (barely audible)

As Principal of I.S. 666 I gave Ms. Moriah an unsatisfactory rating because of her:

Lack of lesson planning
Ineffective delivery of lessons
Lack of engaging students
Lack of differentiation to individual needs
Lack of adapting to individual needs


Statement by Assistant Principle Z

During the observation process: preobservation, observation, and postobservation Ms. Moriah has on several occasions not been able to produce lesson plans. She stated to me that they are unnecessary for her. She has been teaching for many years. Therefore, she does not need a written lesson plan. I was asked to meet with her on a weekly basis to review her lesson plans. She did meet with me, and during those weekly meetings, she stated that she herself did not need a copy, Therefore acknowledging that lesson plans were for administrative purposes only and not for her use in class.

Assistant Principle X

It is my supervisory judgement that Ms. Moriah should receive an unsatisfactory rating for the following reasons:

1. Lesson planning. I went into her classroom and asked her for her lesson plan and she did not have one. And she told me she would give it to me the next period.

2. I observed an unsatisfactory lesson.

U-rating Hearing: Procedural Objections

As he promised, the UFT Advisor entered two objections.

1. He had not received the full packet of documents from Principal P. until just before the hearing. He and I did not have a copy of the documents until just before the hearing.

The objection was denied.

2. Principal P. should be at the meeting in person, not by speaker phone.

The objections was denied.

Next Entry: Administrator's Opening Statement

U-rating Appeal - Introduction

I had my U-rating Hearing at the beginning of this month. It might help others who will have hearings in the future to have an idea of what it was like.

My hearing was held at 65 Court Street in Brooklyn in a small office. The "judge" in the hearing is called a "Hearing Officer". The teacher who is appealing the U-rating is called "The Appellant" . The Union provides someone who is not a lawyer, but who is trained to represent teachers. This person is called "The UFT Advisor".

I met with my Advisor about two weeks before the hearing. The Advisor had a folder with one U-rated observation. He asked me if I had had any other letters or U-rated lessons. I did. He had not received them. I gave him all the copies that I had of negative letters and observations in my file and my replies to them . He also asked for any positive letters. There were two. I also showed him excellent work that my students had done as a result of those U-rated lessons.

The Advisor said that principals often left out negative letters and that they would later put them in at the last minute just before the hearing. He would object if they tried to do this, but he would be overruled.

The Advisor also said that the Principal was not required to attend in person, but could be present at the hearing through a conference call. He would also object to her not being there in person, but would probably be overruled on that also.

The Advisor also told me that the teacher rarely won at these hearings, but that I would have a second hearing at which I would be represented by a UFT attorney in front of an arbitrator and at those hearings, the teacher had a better chance of winning.

The day of the hearing I arrived about twenty minutes before the hearing. My advisor had a thick pile of numbered pages. He was making notes based on these pages that he had JUST RECEIVED. There was only one copy. I did not get one.

The Hearing Officer called us into his office a few minutes after 9:00 AM. He took a few minutes to contact the principal and get her on speaker phone. She had two Assistant Principals with her. ( X and Z). Throughout the hearing it was almost impossible to hear Principal P and Assistant Principal X. Assistant Principal Z was more clearly audible. They constantly referred to the numbered copies that I did not have. The Advisor and I passed them back and forth between us.

The Hearing Officer started the hearing by having each of us introduce ourselves by giving our names and our roles in the hearing.

Then he outlined the procedures. They were as follows:

1. Entire session will be recorded. Proper protocol will be adhered to at all time. Please be active listeners and use appropriate voice tone and level at all times. During the proceding you may request to go off record at any point.

3. Procedural Objections-- The proceeding will begin with procedural objections from the UFT Advisor. The Hearing Officer will respond to each objection by sustaining or denying it.

4. Statement of Administrators--The Principal makes statements or stands on the record.

5. Cross Examination of Administrator-- Members of the Administration are cross examined by uft advisor.

6. Opening Statement by Appellant or Advisor-- After cross examination either appellant or advisor is asked to make an opening statement.

7. Cross Examination of Appellant-- Administrators cross examine the appellant.

8. Administrator's closing statement.

9. Appellant's closing statement.

The Hearing lasted for about two hours. I will post a description of each part. It might take a while. It is difficult for me to write about it.

Next: Procedural Objections