Wednesday, May 5, 2010

More on the evaluation system

State Senator Paul Pinsky wrote this op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun. Of course, at the bottom of this op-ed is the little disclaimer that Paul Pinsky is actually an employee of MCEA. I can't even fathom that our great state has employees of interest groups working as lawmakers, but perhaps that's another matter. What I really don't understand is the the attitude of MCEA on this matter. When the legislation was worded that student achievement data had to be a "significant" factor in evaluations MCEA just celebrated that no change was ncessary. Now that Nancy Grasmick is suggesting that the MCPS evaluation system might need to be changed after all, the union is up at arms. The current evaluation system is NOT perfect. It's not! Why wouldn't the MCEA want to reevaluate their system if it possibly means it could improve? What they really want to change is nothing.


  1. It's engrained in MCEA messaging and publicity that PAR is working. They sold PAR over and over again at OAT1 and OAT2. Provided data to show how effective it is. If I remember correctly ~800 in 9 years. However, they included in the data teachers who retired or resigned who, perhaps, would have been terminated through PAR, but chose to leave rather than face the music. This seems subjective to include in data, why someone retired or resigned.

  2. The commonly cited data is 400 in 9 years... perhaps the 800 is including those who retired or resigned? Don't know.