A very disturbing trend is happening, some teachers rated "developing" are still being charged with incompetence under 3020-a and must defend themselves at a termination hearing. You heard me right, two consecutive "developing" ratings or one "developing" and one "ineffective" rating can land a teacher with 3020-a termination charges for incompetence. Our union has constantly told the members that only two consecutive "ineffective" ratings could lead to 3020-a termination charges. However, I guess our disconnected union leadership forgot to tell the DOE that and the DOE has proceeded with filing 3020-a incompetencecharges against teachers who had "developing" rating(s). While the burden of proof is still on the DOE, the present arbitrators have been giving the DOE more severe awards, including termination.
Since the current teacher evaluation system does not allow for an appeal of a "developing" rating, can't the teacher file a grievance as a "Special Complaint" (Article 20 in the contract)? The short answer is yes they can/ However, the problem is that the union must approve the grievance and my understanding is that the union has no intention of allowing such a grievance and taking the City to court is time consuming and expensive for the teacher. Moreover, its quite likely such a court case may be stopped until the teacher exhausted his or her union protections, meaning the grievance procedures, adding more time and money before a decision is rendered..
Presently, there are only a handful of these cases (see the ICEUFT blog) but as more teachers who get "developing" rates find themselves under 3020-a incompetence charges and be terminated, the DOE will be empowered to go after even more teachers, especially the veteran teachers so they can be replaced by Tier VI "newbies" who are cheaper and will never last long enough to get a pension or retiree health benefits.
This is just another example of our disconnected union leadership not telling us the truth about what the DOE intends to do to our veteran teachers.
12 comments:
Eric...
How about 2 consecutive, annual "U"s from roving ATR supervisors, in classes where the teacher met the kids that day? Inclusive of course, with BS "Plans of Improvement"
I think we need more real input on the facts surrounding this. I read the ICE blog. It said that two teachers "approached" the author about appealing a developing rating. Does this mean that that these teachers were actually brought up on 3020a chargers or is it simply that they wanted to challenge their developing rating?
Unity must go, they are useless.
The teachers were brought up on charges of incompetence and are now defending themselves all because they received two developing. You can't appeal a developing rating. The DOE is violating the contract by doing this.
Hi Chaz,
I was told that when I retire that I have to apply annually at whatever my last (rotation) school for my sick time pay. Also told it's cut into three payments. Also I found out there are many millions of unclaimed sick pay payments that haven't been claimed. Maybe you could do an article? Thanks.
I had an effective rating as of September which was revised to developing in January due to the audit of MOSLs that Mulgrew said was a good thing. That put me on a TIP. Thank God I have a good principal who wrote letters protesting my change of rating and took it easy on the TIP. He also is willing to ignore the prohibition on per session activities for TIP developing that is in effective in some schools
However, the UFT refused to appeal or grieve for me. I filed an appeal with the UFT and they refused that too because Mulgrew welcomed the audit. I now know 5 other teachers who went from Effective to Developing because of MOSL audits. If I get another developing this year and that leads to problems I will have to sue somebody. My CL is useless and the Queens office is ignoring us.
3 payments after 2, 14, and 26 months. They will also be taxed. 1/200th of your final salary. If you are making $100k, and have the full 200 days, its would be $500 a day times 100. $50K. Three payments of roughly $17k, taxed. So figure you take home will be 3 payments of $10k. And thats with a full bank. Pretty pathetic.
At my school everyone is scared because the admins liberally dole out 1s and 2s on the fly-by observations. Favoritism is even worse under Danielson's than the old system. It's terrible. Great teachers are getting psychologically body-slammed with sudden ambushes and gotchas.
Are you handing out graded homework to the kids when an admin walks in? Ineffective- no rigor!
Are you explaining directions or giving a mini-lesson? Ineffective - lack of student engagement!
Are students working on their projects, essays or visuals? Ineffective - lack of collaboration, lack of assessment!
Are your students completing a worksheet of some type, math problems or reading for comprehension? Ineffective - low inference questions!
The list goes on and on!
I am fully vested in one more year (health bennies). After that I will have some peace of mind.
The union should be sued (especially the Queens office) for telling teachers two developings is just like receiving two ineffectives. They also stated that two developings can't lead to 3020a charges. Bullshit! Problem they have is that I recorded them saying this. The union is much worse than the DOE because they are suppose to be representing us. They are complete frauds and should be locked up ASAP!
Anon 811 - If you get two U's as an ATR you should be suing the DOE and exposing the sham ATR process and how it is violation of the teachers' contract left and right. It is a slam dunk and the DOE doesn't want to be exposed because this is their dumping ground to hire newbies in permanent positions.
Chaz, like 11:01 said, this is a violation of the contract, right?
If ATRs get placed I can see the DOE zeroing its guns on ATRs with these nit picky flyby observations.
Another possibility is an appeal to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law §310. It's difficult for a petitioner to win these appeals, but a decision that is adverse to the petitioner can be challenged by the petitioner in the NYS Supreme Court, Albany County, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Likewise, a decision that is favorable to the petitioner can be similarly challenged by the respondent.
See the following:
www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals/general
www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals/instruction
www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals/forms
www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals/faqs
www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals/ed-law-regs
www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions
Post a Comment