Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Has The Rubber Room Agreement Worked? The Answer Is A Qualified Yes. But.......

There seems to be some disagreement on whether the "rubber room agreement" of April 2010 has actually achieved its purpose of expediting cases of  teachers who are accused of misconduct or incompetence within a 60 day period.once it is presented to an Arbitrator.  By and large the "rubber room agreement" has achieved that purpose.  However, the Arbitration part of the 3020-a process is just a piece of the teacher disciplinary process.  For example the DOE can take their time in investigating the accusation against the teacher by asking OSI or SCI to investigate the misconduct charge while having the teacher removed until the investigation process is concluded.  Just ask Francesco Portelos  For SCI investigations, it can take up to a year to complete. Moreover, if the teacher is charged criminally, the DOE can sit back and wait for the conclusion of the criminal case before charging the teacher with misconduct. I personally know of one case where a teacher has been sitting in a network office for three years after being charged criminally.  However, he was cleared by a Grand Jury and no criminal charges were filed. Still the DOE has not moved forward to either charge the teacher with misconduct under section 3020-a or send him back to school.  Furthermore, the DOE and UFT can't seem to keep their arbitrators who do not like the idea of waiting years to be paid by the State and the few arbitrators that oversee the cases have full schedules. Therefore, there is a long wait for cases to be assigned to the few arbitrators available for the 3020-a process.



 Has the "rubber room agreement" worked?  The answer is a qualified yes when it comes to the length of the Arbitration process but teachers can still sit for years before the 3020-a arbitration process actually begins.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A qualified yes is too generous.

The case that you cite of the cleared individual is enough of an indication that the procedure is still being liberally abused by the DOE.

The closure of the rubber rooms seems not to have been a victory by some counts. The people are now isolated and the people do not know if the people that they work with are in the network, DOE staff or people in the same de facto rubber room people.

Another question remains: are these people in the high hundreds as before? Are the numbers comparable, but they are just scattered anonymously to different offices?

Anonymous said...

The city is really giving the business to the rubber room people.

If you carefully read Walcott's emails of yesterday and today you see that he expects teachers assigned to field offices to show up for work. (Delays are permitted, but people must show up.)

Teachers in field offices is code for rubber room teachers.
The expectation to appear is a great insensitivity when one takes into account that driving is still difficult in many places, with weak trees still a threat and with subway service still out.
Many teachers are in flooded homes or are lacking electricity. Really, can the mayor expect everyone to have Internet or an email receiving phone to get the chancellor's messages anyway?

Chaz said...

Anon 11:16

The number, at last count, is 228 of reassigned educators (including administrators) and the issue is the length of the Arbitration process not the entire 3020-a process.

The DOE and UFT seem to have met the 60 day Arbitration process but the entire 3020-a process ranges from six months to three years.

Francesco Portelos said...

Chaz, no one is following the 2010 agreement. Today is 215 calendar days and no charges have been brought against me. None. 101 school days which is 41 days past the agreement of 60 days. Read the latest circus show on my blog. http://bit.ly/QH4evf Where is my union?