ADVISOR: Please refer to the Observation of May 29, 2006 by ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL X
Recommendations: bullet #1 “During the lesson when you stated, ‘How can a brain cell live w/o oxygen?", you answered the question without giving students the opportunity to respond. This demonstrates that student needed prior knowledge and proper wait time.”
This was an Honors class. Students did not mind being asked questions that they could not immediately answser. It did not make the students feel frustrated or disrespected. It simply made them feel challenged to find the answer. Some of the students attended weekly biology classes at Long Island City High School, and they did have prior knowledge that Ms. Moriah thought they might be able to share with the class.
Looking at the 4th bullet: “Assignment seemed easy to some students” because they figured out how to use the textbook and the fact sheet.
Some groups finished before others. Ms. Moriah had not expected anyone to finish in 15 minutes. She expected them to take this time to familiarize themselves with the information and model. The real problem solving would take place the next day.
Ms Moriah is criticized for not going over the findings. The problem is that after 15 minutes one group had the answer and the other groups were still searching for the answer. She preferred to wait until the next period to address the findings of all the groups. To do so otherwise would have been to rush most of the students through the challenge and not allow the time to think it through.
NOTE FROM MORIAH: I responded in detail to this observation on Untamed Teacher in the post titled "Uninformed and Inflexible", dated August 29, 2007
Saturday, March 22, 2008
U-Rating Hearing: Advisor's Statement Re Observation 2/16/2007
ADVISOR: Please refer to the Observation of FEBRUARY 16 2007 by ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL Z.
In the middle of the preobservation conference, there was a bomb threat necessitating the evacuation of the building. Ms MORIAH had given Mr. Z the lesson plans of the week. To her knowledge the lessons including the objectives were approved by Mr. Z.
Mr. Z states that when he entered the room the students were sitting passively.
Ms. MORIAH was reviewing what she had done during the last lesson. During that lesson she had introduced the project template and they practiced using it. She modeled its use by demonstrating one of the experiments in the Idea Fair.
The statement that the students were sitting passively is vague and lacking in specificity. No mention was made of who those students were. How do we know they were passive? No criteria inidicating what determines passivity on the part of the students was established.
Mr. Z criticized the group work segment. All of the students were to fill in a project template using one of the experiments that they had done. This was a higher order thinking assignment. Students were engaged in analyzing past projects in order to find the variables. Pairs worked together in order to indentify the variables.
NOTE FROM MORIAH:
I wrote detailed response to this observation and posted it on Untamed Teacher under the title "Third UNsatisfactory Observation" on Saturday, August 18, 2007.
In the middle of the preobservation conference, there was a bomb threat necessitating the evacuation of the building. Ms MORIAH had given Mr. Z the lesson plans of the week. To her knowledge the lessons including the objectives were approved by Mr. Z.
Mr. Z states that when he entered the room the students were sitting passively.
Ms. MORIAH was reviewing what she had done during the last lesson. During that lesson she had introduced the project template and they practiced using it. She modeled its use by demonstrating one of the experiments in the Idea Fair.
The statement that the students were sitting passively is vague and lacking in specificity. No mention was made of who those students were. How do we know they were passive? No criteria inidicating what determines passivity on the part of the students was established.
Mr. Z criticized the group work segment. All of the students were to fill in a project template using one of the experiments that they had done. This was a higher order thinking assignment. Students were engaged in analyzing past projects in order to find the variables. Pairs worked together in order to indentify the variables.
NOTE FROM MORIAH:
I wrote detailed response to this observation and posted it on Untamed Teacher under the title "Third UNsatisfactory Observation" on Saturday, August 18, 2007.
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.
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.
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.
:
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.
:
Monday, March 3, 2008
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
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
Sunday, March 2, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)