We all know that the Emperor, Mayor4Life Michael Bloomberg has threatened to layoff 4,666 teachers and has even said if more money is freed up by the State it might not be used to advert teacher layoffs. While I do not believe for a second that the Emperor will follow through with the teacher layoff threat, especially when he fails to get the State Legislature to change seniority-based layoffs and get the union to negotiate the termination of the ATRs. I do think that the Emperor should look at the increase of 16,360 non-school employees under his Administration at the DOE for real cost savings.
According to the New York Post in its Editorial about the Bloomberg budget, it states that there has been an increase of 16,360 employees at the DOE during the last decade. I must assume that at best teacher numbers stayed stable or are slightly lower between the rise of Charter Schools, teacher attrition, and larger class sizes in the last few years. Therefore, what Bloomberg should be concentrating on are the 16,360 increase in non-school employment at the DOE now that Ex-Chancellor Joel Klein is gone. Now with the unqualified Chancellor Cathie Black in charge, she should do some real housecleaning and streamlining of the DOE. As UFT President Michael Mulgrew stated that the strength of Cathie Black is that she is a good manager. Therefore, Cathie Black really has to get her own house in order and reduce the bloated Central Bureaucracy and drastically reduce the number of her eight Deputy Chancellors before she looks elsewhere for cuts.
So far, the only thing the unqualified Chancellor, Cathie Black has proposed is that school principals give back 50% of their leftover funds for the next school year. Just unbelievable. Instead of attacking the bloat at Tweed and the reduction of high priced consultants she goes after frugal principals and the schools. By the way when the media asked the DOE where will the money go to? They failed to answer the question. To make matters worse the revised DOE 2012 budget has increased the technology budget by an astounding $342 million dollars or a 171% increase which may or not have direct application in the schools while reducing the budget in classroom construction from $912 to only $391 million, a 57% decrease in the school construction budget. It seems that the unqualified Chancellor is in over her head as it appears that it is Tweed 1 and the schools 0, just like it was under ex-Chancellor Joel Klein.
The union needs go over to the offensive and ask the City Council, the City Comptroller, John Liu, and the media why does the DOE need the increase of 16,360 non-school personnel in the last decade while the Mayor wants to layoff teachers and significantly raise class size? The union needs to demand transparency and accountability of the DOE process that will show that Bloomberg and Black are playing a political game that only serves to hurt the very children they clam to defend.
37 comments:
First of all, Chaz, I didn't know your history and the fact that you were accused of wrongdoing. So let me say congratulations for exonerating yourself!
Last week, BloomBlack pitted the teachers against the cops by saying that (paraphrase) "we could either let the cops keep their 'Christmas bonuses' or we could prevent teacher layoffs" (or did he say "hire" more teachers? I can't keep track of all his lies and hyperbole any more). This week, he's pitting the cops against the teachers by saying that "we can either have more cops or we can keep bad teachers."
So the classrooms are decimated. Who cares? So long as the fat budget at Tweed is fulfilled. So long as 8 Deputy Chancellors and a know-nothing, useless Chancellor are in place that draw the equivalent salaries of 30 teachers with masters +30 and about 8 years of experience. Meanwhile, class size will be about 75 children per class - maybe not so bad when they're short and small, but could be hellish when they get to be teenagers. Of course, by then, the Izone initiative will send most highschoolers back to their homes (or shelters, wherever they happen to be housed) so they can do credit recovery at home.
In the meantime, the union thugs in Wisconsin, according to Time Magazine, are "preventing" democracy from occurring in their state, and our Presidet cozies up to the oh-so-deserving, yet grossly undertaxed, corporate bullies like Gates and Broad, and oh, by the way, does anyone out there know how much money Rhee makes?
It's absolutely disgusting. Cops, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers - we are the infrastructure of our society. I hope all the anti-union, privateering, loudmouths out there understand that, without us, their house might burn down, public safety will disintegrate, there will be no sanitation maintenance, and the tax base that supports public schools and their surrounding communities will disappear.
Yes, of course, we all must tighten our belts. The Emperor, however, is exempt, as he has no clothes.
No one wants layoffs. But if they come and it looks like they are coming who will be the first to go? Look for Unity to compromise in order to keep some mirror like seniority process.
3020-a convicts will be first to go. Followed by ATR's and then the seniority system.
In listening to that grotesque pig, Christine Quinn interviewed yesterday, I DID gleen something enlightening in between "her" bizarre cackling at every other quip from the prominent Albany journalist interviewing her. What an appalling excuse of a public servant-a syncophantic bloodsucking parasite she is...but I obviously digress. The cops and firemen called Bloomberg a bloody liar, in incensed fashion on City Hall steps, and lo and behold, Princess Bloomberg retracted her demands. They are now talking about eliminating the 12,000 per annum only for the new cops and firemen coming into the profession. Hmmmm....from what I've heard, The Princess has always been afraid of the cops especially...I wonder why...? Where is the fire and brimstone from our "union" heads...seems to work sometimes...
Chaz, what do you think of the film "waiting for superman"?
Great film with a different perspective. I would suggest everyone watch it.
Chaz - I see someone is trying to get free movie advertising on your site. How about the movie "The King's Speech" or "Avatar"?
Obviously Veteran Teacher you have never seen it.
Obviously you have never seen "The Kin's Speech" or "Avatar"...maybe I should shill for free advertising for them? No. I have a life.
I have seen the movie and I think it is insulting to teachers. All the movie does is bash the union and praise charter schools.
As usual everything is the teachers fault.
Anon 3:27 am
The movie "Waiting for Superman" ia simply a propaganda film, just like Michael Moore's movie which uses ideology rather than the real facts. Read these posts.
http://chaz11.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-quiet-bloomberg-klein-are-when.html
and
http://chaz11.blogspot.com/2010/09/inconveninent-truth-that-education.html
Why would the union deny its members the ability to vote on the proposed contract in DC?
Would you rather get a $150,000 salary with no tenure or $75,000 with tensure? This removes education on the cheap. If good teachers are being paid 150k whether they have 5 years or 20 years, the principles will be encouraged to keep the best because price doesn't play a role. This agreement assumes that the district would hold the principal responsible for performance. As in goals are set for test scores and if those aren't reached the principal makes a significantly reduced wage. This would also entice the principal to keep the best teachers not play favourites.
I don't know about you but if I were a principal and I could keep my best friend (a poor teacher) on staff and earn 100k or I could hire a person I may not like (a great teacher) and earn 200k, you better bet I am hiring the better teacher.
What teacher would give up his or her job protection based on the whim of a Principal? That is what a teacher is giving up.
Further in NYC where the Principal is under extreme pressure to keep within an artificially low budget, hiring high salary teachers is a no-no and the pressure to let go of these teachers is too tempting if they have the power to do so.
Yes, it is "education on the cheap" and "children last".
Once again, it is not about this children it is about your job security.
What has the union done to make things better for the children? Nothing! We all know there are some horrible and lazy teachers out there but the union continues to protect them and pretend that all teachers are equal.
The union likes to pretend all teachers are as good as the next teacher. That is not true. Are all baseball players equal? No. Are all doctors as good as the next doctor? No. How about lawyers, accountants, sales people? No, no and no.
How can all teachers be good teachers? They can't. But you refuse to admit that. You would rather protect them and blame all issues on administration.
GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND!!!
Once again, it is not about this children it is about your job security.
What has the union done to make things better for the children? Nothing! We all know there are some horrible and lazy teachers out there but the union continues to protect them and pretend that all teachers are equal.
The union likes to pretend all teachers are as good as the next teacher. That is not true. Are all baseball players equal? No. Are all doctors as good as the next doctor? No. How about lawyers, accountants, sales people? No, no and no.
How can all teachers be good teachers? They can't. But you refuse to admit that. You would rather protect them and blame all issues on administration.
GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND!!!
Anon:
What is the union good for? Without the union there would be larger class sizes, replaceable teachers due to favoritism, cronyism, ageism, and salary. Children need small classes, experienced teachers, and supportive administrators to achieve academic success.
When you get rapid turnover of teachers the school will eventually fail. Just take a look at the statistics that only one out of five Charter schools make it. Do you know why? Teacher turnover and the parents soon realize it and pull their children out.
As for "bad teachers"? They can be fired after they go through their Administrative hearings. Which is called "due process".
By the way how come the States that have stable teaching staffs like New Jersey, Conn, and Mass have much higher student academic achievement then the "right to work" states like Texas, Florida, and Alabama where teachers are at will workers?
Chaz,
Statistics show that approximately 20% of people excel at what they do for a profession, an additional 40% are adequate at their profession, and 40% are not adequate at their profession and would be better off at something else. Not all teachers are meant to be teachers, no matter how hard you want to pretend that all teachers are amazing.
Statistics also show that 1 out of 91 lawyers lose their license to practice, 1 out of 57 doctors lose their license to practice and 1 out of every 2500 teachers lose their license to practice. Why is this. This is because the teachers union is the largest and most powerful union within the united states.
Chaz, please stop pretending that their is an effective way of removing ineffective teachers. I would have more respect for you and your arguments if you stopped pretending that all teachers are great teachers and they should remain a teachers.
Many of your points are extremely valid but they get lost in your inability to admit where the teachers are lacking and the teachers union is lacking.
Your stats are bogus anon. Many teachers leave the profession early on in their careers. Your 20%, 40%, 40% info? WTH? Admins have the power to remove teachers detrimental to a child's education. A teacher's tenure is due process against an unfair or biased removal. Fair protections are in place. Those like you weren't around when times were good and no one attacked teachers.
Times are tough, Wall Streeters want new ventures, so public education and teachers look out. We're coming for you, we're coming to make a profit, and we're doing it under the guise of helping "Children".
Anon 5:47
I do write about "bad teachers" and I agree that they shouldn't be teaching. However, the DOE simply settles with them or are protected by a Administrator (favoritism, and cronyism). You can find it under "bad teachers" to the right of my blog.
However, being a victim of a vindictive & insecure Administrator who wanted me terminated despite my demonstrated teaching ability. If it was not for my "due process" rights I wouldn't not of had a chance to prove the charges against me were bogus in front of an independent Arbitrator.
I'm starting to miss the bogus movie recommendations.
What is a good teacher. Someone who passes all students( even those who cannot due the work). Or someone who sticks to his principles and only passes those who can do the work. I have some colleaques who tell me straight out that they will pass everyone because " they do not want any trouble with administration". I have no doubt that if given a choice the princpal of any school would choose the first rather than the second. Guess that makes me a bad teacher.
Not all younger teachers are good either, YET walk into any charter, or small campus school and that's ALL that you see, or at least 90 %...young 20 somethings. ALL of them are superior? So, how can the older more experienced teachers feel secure in that they'll be judged fairly...they WON'T...this is about union busting...crystal clear...
I think it's time to ask for Mayor Bloomberg's resignation! http://www.change.org/petitions/demand-that-mayor-bloomberg-resign Spread the word on this petition and start the protests!
No one said all young teachers are good. You just refuse to admit that not all old teachers are good.
The mix should be 70 percent experienced and 30 percent young. You old teachers think it should be 100 percent old.
What a crock. Experienced teachers once started young. Through natural progression - retirement, young teachers leaving, truly poor teachers being moved out of the profession - there will be plenty of spots for new teachers. This has always been the case, historically. With the advent of TFA, and Leadership Academy principals avoiding experienced/more expensive teachers, the natural balance of new and experienced has been adulterated.
70%? 30%? 100%? My, we throw around baseless statistics and numbers, don't we?
Who do you think you are Goldman Sachs?
Teachers' salary only takes 27% of DoE's budget, though the pension for everyone from principals, teachers school aides and Chancellor Klein costs over 26%. Still where are the remaining 44% which is rounded up to 10 billion dollars???
Cut the middlemen first before laying off teachers.
Anon: 11:32
Assuming I take your 70-30% statistic as real. Please explain to me why the small/charter schools are almost 100% "newbie teachers"?
Of course the reason is that the the Principals selected for these schools are from the "Leadership Academy" and have little actual classroom experience (some are not even tenured teachers). They do not want to take on the salary of the senior teacher or have them question their decisions. It is not what is best for the students but for the Principal. This is the reason for why you can't change LIFO.
Exactly...I used the figure 90% new teachers in the mini or charter schools...but it's more like 99%. ALL of those newbies are "better" teachers than older more experienced...? They are "better" if you have union busting and salary as your first objective. THIS is why we're against changing LIFO...and if you were intellectually honest at all...you have to admit it's true. Without LIFO...only newbies will remain, as proven by the current hiring practices.
All the new teachers at the charter schools have nothing to do with the principals wanting to do education on the cheap. Have any of you old teachers applied??? I didn't think so. You all have tenure and aren't going to leave. These charter schools have no choice.
I have no respect for any of you. You refuse to admit there are any issues with the education system that can be partially attributed to teachers. We pay way to much for education and get way to little. All you teachers do is point the finger elsewhere. You have no accountability for anything.
I am not saying teachers are the only issue or that they are the only issue because they aren't. They are one of 100 issues that need to be addressed. My problem is you refuse to admit you are even part of the problem, however slight it may be.
Correction. That should read:
I am not saying teachers are the only issue or that they are the largest issue because they aren't.
You that "has no respect for older teachers" OBVIOUSLY has your special interests in mind...whatever that may be. The ageist and education on-the-cheap and thus, anti-experience hiring is going on at NON-charter, union, mini-schools. Let's not even put the charter scchools on the table. In said mini-schools, they are hiring 99% newbies. I don't know if you're aware of that, but it's TRUE. This represents the cut throat, scorched earth, win at all costs methods of oligarchs like Bloomberg,Gates, Walton Family, etc...lie cheat and steal "to win." You're not being honest in your statements here, and you're jumping on the ageist, union busting bandwagon...simply becuase you're probably a new teacher who will get a layoff. You are the selfish and dishonest one here. Hope you enjoy "pounding the pavement" for the next few years, punk.
Chaz you miss a very very important point in your analysis. The mayor and his administration are becoming very nervous about construction costs. The largest expenditure the past years has been to the SCA. There are reporters presently asking questions about that as we write. Notice todays daily news story about a high official who had responsibiity for purchases that includes city buildings(schools) who is under investigation for padding employees pockets. This is the tip of berg as when the SCA comes under scrutiny the scandal will make city time look like peanuts by comparison. Your point about the additional non teaching employees is right but watch what the other hand is doing..
Anon: 4:13
Very good point. I believe somebody needs to do an in depth study on the Central Administration's transparency and accountability.
Anon 11:25
You didn't answer the question. Why do the small schools have a nearly 100% newbie teacher composition? It is because they are cheaper and can be terminated without "due process".
You falsely claim that senior teachers don't apply. What a crock! The truth is the Leadership Academy Principal only wants inexpensive newbie teachers that they can hire or fire at will since they are not tenured.
How many of these schools did you apply to?
The high cost is not the sole reason, not even the primary reason that the senior teachers are disliked by many new principals, senior teachers are disliked and shunned because they have seen too much and heard too much of the dirty games the admins play, and the hypocrisy of the system.
Where are you going to find all these wonderful new teachers who are supposedly dedicated to the students but only want to stay for 2 to 3 years?
SCA's budget is huge, somewhere around 13 to 14 billion dollars. The admins at SCA have enormous power in giving out contracts worth of at least 30-4- millions and up. SCA, funded by the NY state, is not an unionized branch of DoE with the chancellor as one of three directors on its board. During my short stay at SCA, I was impressed by its nice work environment and its treatment to its workers.
non:
I am in a great school. Why should I leave?
No teachers, or very very few, who have survived urban school systems for 5, 10 or 20 years, are grossly incompetent just like there is no bad pizzeria in little Italy.
You have to be pretty good to get by the day, if that teacher had no control of the class, kids would have thrown his or her out. With over 50% teachers quitting in their first 5 years, there is no need for the superman movie, the media coverage and principals to kick bad teachers out. They quit by themselves.
It is not about bad teachers, it is all about the blood money teachers earned.
All these nonsense are agenda-driven, have very little to do with the facts on the ground.
@11:25. Clearly, you simply hate the UFT. It's evident in your arguments and, quite frankly, your open vitriol toward experienced teachers. "Old" teachers would not apply to a charter school - "old" teachers have earned the right to due process, maintain some semblance of upward mobility (insofar as "upward mobility" means keeping a foot at the lower edge of middle class-dom), and more than likely have the respect of their peers (not necessarily the administrators or the newbies). There is absolutely no reason for a veteran teacher to uproot everything and go work for a charter that has no job protections. Your comments are idiotic and hysterical rantings - you sound like some system screwed you, so rather than try to fight against that system, you take out your anger on the majority of veteran teachers who have well-earned their place. Sorry, bud, but you gotta get a life.
Post a Comment