Saturday, January 30, 2016

High Schools With Untrustworthy Principals In Queens.



























One of the more stressful environments teachers find themselves in is when they do not trust their Principal, be it for incompetence, vindictiveness, or just being plain abusive.  When there is a lack of trust between the staff and the school administration, it only ends up hurting the students both academically and emotionally.  Therefore,  its important for teachers looking for positions which schools they would be wise not to apply to.  The "dirty dozen" list below comes from the latest school snapshot (2014-2015) that shows the schools that have the least trustworthy principals that should be on everybody's "do not apply" list.

School................................Trust Principal

Queens Gateway.....................23%
William Cullen Bryant..............40%
Cambria Heights Academy.......43%
Flushing.................................46%
Science, Research,  and Math...60%
Grover Cleveland....................60%
Richmond Hill..........................63%
Queens HS for Teaching...........63%
Queens Collegiate...................63%
American Studies....................67%
Maspeth.................................68%
Martin Van Buren....................70%



The citywide average is 82%

Just missing inclusion into the "dirty dozen" were Queens Preparatory Academy (71%), Forest Hills (72%), Newcomers (73%), and York College High School For The Sciences (73%).

 One thing that I have been told is that even though the survey is not subject to the Principal's scrutiny, many teachers don't want to take the chance that their Principal will find out.  Therefore, they don't truefully fill out the survey with negative comments in fear of being targeted.

Maybe Chancellor Carmen Farina should start with this list, when she finally decides to remove poor leaders who have not gained the trust of their staff and, in turn, hurts the school's learning environment.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I came from Richmond Hill High School, and share my story on this blog. The principal Neil Ganesh was extremely intent and focused on getting rid of myself and my colleague (which unfortunately he succeeded at doing.) Him an his incompetent idiot pea-brained puppet that he hired (Christine Peterson head of ISS at Richmond Hill. He purposely misused the Danielson framework to get us both out of the school.

As a warning to everyone out there simply avoid NEIL GANESH. He simply does not give a damn about his students, his staff, or the community.

Anonymous said...

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/01/29/deven-black-killed/79514940/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Anonymous said...

Terrible story. I can see ATR status hurting people who tie their entire being into teaching. The mental health system is a couple of steps below the educational system.

Anonymous said...

the educational system is the same as the mental health system,,every atr should watch..the classic movie from the 70s One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest,,,,, starring Jack Nicholson...you will be able to relate the movie to the modern day school system

Anonymous said...

Thanks for publishing these statistics. I've been wondering why the DOE even asks this question in the survey. First of all, because other questions on the survey make respondents identifiable, e. g., years of service, it seems the bias inflates the stats in favor of the Principal. Additionally, it is not clear that the DOE sees a lack of trust as a problem. I have *never* seen an admin get scrutinized ir fired because of this in NYC. I *have* seen Principals fired in wealthy, high functioning districts when they fail to garner the trust of their faculty. But, never in NYC.

Frankly, carefully constructed surveys are an old tool of union busting consultants (read: "Confessions of a Union Buster"). I do not think it likely that the DOE uses this survey for positive purposes. However, it's useful information for us as potential employees.

Anonymous said...

First of all, lie about your years of service. Have people switch the forms before entering codes to get onto the survey. You can even lie about what you teach. Many teachers do that, and others don’t because they want to be identified.

Anonymous said...

Principals try to get us to fill out the survey on computers during staff meetings. That way they can watch us. I have noticed that you can leave sections blank, and your responses will be tabulated only for those questions which you do answer. Of course, if you are one of the only people doing this, that in and of itself will identify you. Bottom line, these surveys are heavily biased in favor of!Principals. So, if you see a Principal's rating is low, you can bet his *actual* rating is in the toilet.

Anonymous said...

Dwarka at Bryant, and all he miserable AP minions, are just evil people (met them last year). The Union rep. seems like a standup guy, but he's out numbered. I have never seen a school where teachers are so afraid, miserable, and beaten into silence.....it's almost Kafkaesque. The front office staff are "challenged", at best. Students say/do whatever they blessed feel like, with no consequences.....it's always the teachers fault.

Do your best to stay away! This place is a career killer!

(end note: Chaz, I love the picture of a drunken sloppy Dwarka, drooling over a beer in an old post!).

Anonymous said...

I knew something was up about supposed 'confidentiality' several years ago when, after the survey results about principals were released, my former principal stormed out her office and angrily confronted a teacher in the hallway about receiving negative feedback from her.

The rest of us were shocked that an admin could so easily identify a teacher from an 'anonymous' survey, and after that, we all gave positive ratings, even if they were not deserved. The confronted teacher was picked on for the rest of the year and ultimately drummed out.

My horrible admin two years ago told us in a staff meeting that regardless of our feelings towards her (we all hated her for being a bully and she knew it) that we had to rate her positively because it affected the school ratings and we didn't want our school to close and lose our jobs, now did we?

Anonymous said...

My school in Manhattan is the same. We're afraid to name it to put it on the map. But, the "trust" numbers speak for themselves. Funny, I didn't even respond to the survey, nor, did the other more vocal opponents of our Principal. It seems the sheep actually spoke up. I was shocked.

Anonymous said...

Anon 539.. I agree.

As an atr, Dwarka at BRYANT HS has charged me with verbal abuse for no reason other than playing "gotcha." Stay away from that school at all cost. She has her cronies in full control to terrorize the staff and atrs. Career killer indeed!

Anonymous said...

Ritter at Arts and Letters is a horrible man who should be ashamed of himself. He's a liar and shouldn't be in the education profession. Oh that's right liars are welcomed in the doe as long as they try and remove hard working experienced teachers. What a profession I have chosen.

Anonymous said...

Anon 144 I worked with Christine Peterson as a Co Teacher. She did absolutely nothing and should not be a teacher let alone an AP

Anonymous said...

Christine Peterson should not even have her administrators license after what my co-teacher and I had to go through. She (in colloboration with principal Ganesh) conspired against another ISS teacher for filling special ed complaints.

She had no experience as an admin of special ed before becoming one. She was the "director of biztek " at Hillcrest which turned out to be a failed experiment, and is not a universally recognized administrative position. She had no understanding of special ed, the department, the students, or the school. She landed the job of AP for three reasons:

1) Nepotism. The wide of Ganesh was a teacher over there, and the former principal over there (Steve Dutch) is now the network leader and Paterson and Ganesh are currently under his tutilege.

2) An act of desperation. She was hired in the middle of the year and immediately started giving ineffective ratings to those in the department that she arbitrailly though to give rid of.

3) Her severe lack of intelligence and unquestioning loyalty turned out to be a huge plus for Ganesh as his definition of an ineffective teacher/administrator is an independent and free thinking one.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of a corrupt mental health system, also watch "The Changling."

Anonymous said...

The tactics of abusive Principals in NYC seem all too similar. It's time we share best practices for neutralizing these types. The UFT does nothing, nor does the DOE, unless the Post runs an article.

All too often, Principals make bizzarre edicts to create a culture of fear which keeps their staff swirling around what might happen next and whether they are in the good graces of their fickle and capricious supervisors. What minutiae rules the day? Who are they going after next? He asked me to spy for him, but, I said no. Will my colleague say yes, though? Are they telling him stories to entertain his paranoia and make themselves seem useful?

Yup, this is what it's like. Seriously, Tweed. Look under the hood. If the surveys tell you a Principal is not trusted, this is why. It means you have a manager who is poisoning a building.

F-this. It's time we come together.

Louis Thevenot said...

How about in the rest of the boroughs

Louis Thevenot said...

The administration and district staff swore that individuals can't be identified.

Anonymous said...

Can't be identified? Look at the survey, man. On the same page where you evaluate the Principal, you are also asked to state the number years you have been employed and what subject you teach. They may as well ask for your file number and a signature.

Nobody is dumb enough to think you won't be identified. For this reason, a Principals trust rating is really biased in their favor. So, if the rating is low, you can bet the real sentiment is in the toilet, since most people artificially rate admins highly to avoid retaliation, or simply don't respond at all if they can't stomach doing that. It is a rare case that a Principal gets rated low. And if so, he/she must be particularly disliked for some rather loathsome behavior.

Chaz said...

I agree that the trust ratings are inflated and that the actual trust numbers are probably half of what's reported.