Is This The Beginning Of The End For Seniority Protections? Is Teacher Tenure Next?

It appears that NYSUT and the UFT caved in to State pressure to gain RTTT funding by agreeing to a new teacher evaluation system. This system will allow teachers to be evaluated into four categories.

• Highly effective
• Effective
• Developing
• Ineffective

This new teacher evaluation system will make it easier for Administrators to remove senior teachers by labeling them "ineffective". While our unions claim that there will be additional protections to help and support struggling/targeted senior teachers, I'm not buying it. It is really a "gotcha program" to swiftly remove highly-paid senior teachers out of the schools and attack teacher tenure, In my opinion the unions prostituted themselves to get RTTT funds and put their members in danger. Our UFT press release praising the agreement notwithstanding.

Smart administrators will load up targeted teachers with the worst students, fail to supply them with proper support, unjustly compare the targeted teacher's class with higher achieving student classes, and write damaging observations to ensure the teacher gets two consecutive "ineffective" ratings and termination sixty days later. Furthermore, it will pit teacher against teacher and collaboration among teachers will cease to exist. Finally, look for an increase in cheating, not by the students, but by teachers. What were our foolish union leaders thinking? A possible short term funding gain at the expense of teacher due process? What will stop administrators from rating ATRs "ineffective"? Nothing according to this agreement.

I can only wonder what other goodies our union leaders have in store for us. How about donating part of our paychecks to Joel Klein to pay for his million dollar Deputy Chancellors he is hiring and the increased headcount at Tweed? Or is that where our raise will go to? How about exempting the teachers rated "highly effective" from seniority based layoffs? I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Mulgrew turns out to be "Randi lite" as many of my blogger friends have been claiming all along. I assume we will need to vote on this because it changes the contractual provisions. If so please vote Nooooooooooo!

What a piece of crap!

Will Bloomberg Finally Give In And Offer A Buyout To Senior Teachers? He Will Need To As Long As The Union Does Not Give Ground On Seniority.

Now that the Bloomberg doomsday budget is out and up to 6,400 teaching positions will be eliminated from the system (I believe it will be much less), the shrill calls from Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel to change the "last in, first out" seniority requirement are increasing. However, as long as the union stays firm, the Mayor will have to capitulate and to save the "newbie teachers" he needs to continue his "education on the cheap" policy. Therefore, what can Bloomberg do? The answer is really quite simple. He needs to offer "buyouts" to the senior teachers to save the jobs of the inexpensive and not vested "newbie teachers".

When will the City admit defeat and propose a "buyout"? Probably at the end of the school year once the State finances are better known. Depending on how much funding needs to be cut, look for the "buyout" to be a either a month for every year worked. for example a teacher who worked 24 years would get 2 years of pension credit. Or possibly a $25,000 lump sum payment. While the Bloomberg Administration is denying that any such "buyout" is in the offering. I don't believe for a second that Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel will allow the "newbie teachers" to be laid off. Just see how Tweed, while laying off 4,000 teachers is quietly trying to allocate up to five million dollars for the teaching fellows program. Unbelievable! Furthermore, take a look at Joel Klein's whining e-mail to the principals telling them how he wants to eliminate the seniority provision so they can get rid of any teacher they please. You can find it at Betsy Combier's blog here.

As long as the union stands their ground and let the politicians know the consequences to any attempt to reduce teacher "due process rights", the City will have no choice but offer "buyouts" to save their "education on the cheap" program.

Why Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel Want To Eliminate Teacher Seniority. They Are Trying To Destroy The Teachers' Union

Now that the "rubber room" problem has been resolved (maybe). Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel have now focused on eliminating seniority for teachers. The two of them whine that they would have to lay off "good teachers" while keeping "bad teachers" due to seniority procedures of "last in, first out", a staple of the Civil Service System. They have recruited two, soon to be defeated, politicians to sponsor the "KEEP Act" that would allow the Principal to decide who to keep and who to terminate. Furthermore, they have allies in some naive "newbie teachers" who have developed a website supporting the "KEEP Act". This "divide and conquer" policy is destined for failure as both leaders of the State Legislature have claimed it "dead on arrival". However, look for the propaganda rags of the New York Post and New York Daily News plead with the politicians to save the "good teachers".

The problem is how does a person determine who is a "good teacher"? Not Mayor Mike or Chancellor Joel? Neither one has any clue what a "good teacher" is. Furthermore, most teachers have little respect or confidence in their "Leadership Academy Principals" who would have the responsibility to determine a "good teacher". In their world a "good teacher" would be determined by their age, salary, loyalty to the Principal, and who they can bully. What about the students? Wouldn't they know who is a "good teacher"? Of course they would but many of these teachers the students like are hated by the insecure and vindictive Principal because of their interactions with the students and their questioning of Principal directives that are not in the best interest of the school.

It takes an average of 8 years (6-10 years) to reach their peak as a teacher. Once a teacher reaches their peak, unlike an athlete, they maintain that level for decades to come. Teachers are not athletics that see their skills deteriorate over the years. On the other hand 50% of the "newbie teachers" fail to last five years in the system and some of them who start off trying to conquer the world become hardened and skeptical in the next few years as they leave the system before even being vested! Therefore, how can a "newbie teacher" be a "good teacher" when compared to an experienced teacher? They can't but don't confuse Mayor Mike & Chancellor Klein with these facts.

How come Mayor Mike doesn't propose to eliminate seniority for police, fire, and sanitation? Wouldn't the athletic component actually apply in these jobs? Of course they do but the real reason is simple, he does not like teachers and would just love to break the powerful teachers' union. Give it up Bloomie, just offer "buyouts" and the bogus seniority issue disappears.

The Educators4Excellence Group Is Just A Stooge For Bloomberg & Klein's "Education On The Cheap" Policy

Two misguided teachers, Sydney Morris and Evan Stone of PS 86 have become the stooges for the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy by questioning the long-standing union provision of "last hired, first fired" as they have developed a website called Educators4Excellence that supports Bloomberg and Klein rather than the union. These almost "newbie" teachers' classroom instruction are nowhere near the excellence they have named their website. Most education studies show a teacher needs a minimum of 6 years to achieve mastery of the classroom. The two of them combined only have 5 years experience! Excellence in teaching? Not even close. They have a long way to go to reach that goal, assuming they last that long. However, this does not stop them from developing the website due to their own self interest for protecting their jobs.

These two quislings support the Bloomberg/Klein attack on seniority and have worked with the failed and hopefully soon to be replaced politicians Ruben Diaz and Jonathan Bing to pass the KEEP Act. This program simply allows principals to decide who to keep (young, clueless, and inexpensive, no pension vesting) and who to fire (union advocates, highly paid senior teachers, and teachers the Principal dislikes). While, I can understand their concern about keeping their jobs. However, to allow themselves to be exploited by Bloombeg and Klein for their "education on the cheap" policy just shows how naive these two are.

The good news is that the KEEP Act is not only "dead on arrival" it was "dead before arrival" and your ill-considered attempt to change the "first in, last out" rule has only galvanized the support of union members against it and has exposed the two of you as self-serving stooges of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration and their "education on the cheap" policy. Gotham Schools wrote a piece that shows how dead it is.

You can read more about these two traitors who would eliminate our protected rights at the South Bronx School website and is required reading.

These Stupid Politicians Are Dead Men Walking

Two misguided politicians, Assemblyman Jonathan Bing from the Upper East Side and State Senator Ruben Diaz from the Bronx were asked by lobbyists from the City to sponsor a bill that would eliminate New York Civil Services protections for determining teacher layoffs by seniority and replace it with a Principal directed procedure to determine the layoffs by different means.

The New York Times reported that the seniority based layoffs will be replaced by a school committee of administrators, teachers, and parents. However, we all know that the Principal will have the ultimate decision-making authority and it will be based upon the Principal's likes and dislikes as well as the teacher's salary. Not only is this proposal "wishful thinking" but is dead on arrival.

This misguided proposal, if accepted, would start a slippery slope of eroding the State's Civil Service protections that the unions have painstakingly built upon to ensure all public employees have fair and equatable treatment. Therefore, all the State, Municipal, and Local unions will rally against this blatant erosion of Civil Service rights. As for the two misguided politicians? They should be "dead men walking" as the unions should organize a campaign against their reelection and make sure they can never win again. Not even for dogcatcher! The unions must impress upon all the Assemblymen and State Senators that there are serious consequences for sponsoring bills against Public Service employees and that should be funding their opponents and taking out ads against these politicians.

To date, Michael Mulgrew's reaction to this outrageous and dangerous proposal was Randi-like (a very bad sign). Rather than strongly condemn the proposal he was bringing up the fact that in can cause high teacher turnover and destabilize the schools like in Washington D.C. Norm Scott in ednotes online said it best in saying:

It's economics, stupid, not about quality teachers
Sure, that is the reason to oppose the bill. To stop teacher turnover. Why not make the point that if they get rid of every single teacher who makes over $70,ooo they can keep lots more teachers? And why is the DOE still advertising new jobs? It's time for the UFT to start calling a spade a spade. Call this the BloomKlein version of a "buyout." Just fire all the senior teachers and save a whole lot of money. The "fire one and keep two" plan.

Norm's entire article can be found here.

I expect our union President to show these two politicians who is boss and punish them by helping them leave office as quickly as possible. Michael Mulgrew's tepid response so far is very discouraging and where is the strong rhetoric we heard before the election? I will be watching to see if Michael Mulgrew is a man of action or just a male version of Randi Weingarten.

This Is What I Really Think What Chancellor Joel Klein Means With His Letter To the Teachers.

This month Joel Klein blessed us with his junk mail oops, I mean e-mail on how he wants the best teachers. After I read Joel Klein's entire statement, I felt it necessary to change it to what I believe he really means to say. My changes to the Chancellor's e-mail are in bold face type.

Dear Teachers,



Over the last seven years, we have taken steps to bring cheaper teachers to New York City and get rid of them before they are vested while expanding our recruitment but not retention efforts, to raising teacher salaries by the inflation rate and requiring teachers to spend 10% more time in the classroom with three times the paperwork., to creating new lead teacher positions in our high-need schools, to offering housing bonuses for experienced math, science, and special education teachers, to targeting highly paid senior teachers who dare to work together in teams to improve student learning. We have done so because we know that nothing we can do for students matters more than giving the Principal the ability to hire inexpensive "newbie" teachers. Every day, they work saves money.and furthers our "education on the cheap" policy.



As part of these efforts, we have also focused on making teacher tenure more difficult. Tenure marks a new phase in a teacher's career and a new commitment by our schools to those who receive it. Unfortunately, over the years tenure has become an expectation more than an honor. While we have made progress, we still are not doing enough to set a high bar for all teachers, recognize excellent teachers, or withhold tenure from all of those who have not earned it. I have tried to do my best to make the classroom environment as hostile as possible, by getting rid of as many senior teachers as possible through the reassignment process or the ATR system but have been stymied by the legislature. And a loose tenure system isn't good for anyone-it hurts students, it disrespects successful teachers, and it leaves those who are not up to the difficult job to struggle.



This year, we are making changes to ensure the tenure process treats teachers like the cogs they are and helps our schools build compliant teams. In November, Mayor Bloomberg asked us to take the long overdue step of considering a teacher's impact on student learning in our tenure decisions. Factoring the results you work so hard (yes, I know I couldn't last in the classroom myself but this is about you not me) to achieve with your widgets eh, students into this decision makes common sense, and it is one of several changes to the tenure process that I would like to share with you today.



The changes we are making to the tenure system focus on three core principles:



1. Rigorous Review: Principals and superintendents will consider the performance of each teacher who is up for tenure more carefully than ever, weighing multiple factors including Teacher Data Reports, where available and appropriate as well as the likes or dislikes of the teacher by the Principal.

2. Transparency: In advance of the tenure decision, principals who do not like the teacher will be encouraged to have open, honest conversations with these teachers about their prospects of receiving tenure and any help in removing the teacher from his/her school.\

3. Accountability: We will hold every principal accountable (lol - I made a funny) for making fair, deliberate and timely tenure recommendations that accurately reflect each teacher's instructional performance.


Our goal is to align tenure decisions more effectively with the results you are achieving every day. But let me be clear: we are not proposing to base tenure decisions on student test scores alone-that would be insufficient. The Principal must like you and you need to never question administrative decisions. It is not about the children but the Principal.. We want to use all of the information available to us-from many different sources such as classroom observations and teacher work products-so that we can make fully informed decisions about each teacher's readiness for career success.



In future years, we will do even more to honor the achievement of earning tenure, especially for those teachers who have truly distinguished themselves. Our goal is to get rid of tenure and seniority entirely This will allow us to build an even younger and more compliant teaching force, celebrate our cheapest teachers, and respond appropriately to older teachers who are not meeting expectations by sending them to the "rubber room".. You can find additional information about the steps we are taking to strengthen our tenure system on the Teacher Page <http://schools.nyc.gov/Teachers/Spotlight/tenure_letter_2-11-10.htm> .



Thank you, as always, for your hard work and dedication to our students.



Sincerely,



Joel Klein

My Response To Mayor Bloomberg's Speech On "Rubber Room" Overcrowding, the ATR Crises, And Tenue. Part 3: Tenure

This is the last part of my responses on Mayor Bloomberg's Washington D.C. speech on the "rubber room', ATRs. and tenure. In my previous responses I discussed what Mayor Mike and Chancellor Klein wants to obtain from teachers in exchange for the "City pattern" despite no other union agreeing to "givebacks" for the same "City pattern" Their demands are to fire all "rubber room" teachers, give ATRs a one year time limit, and as for tenure? They want none. What Bloomberg and Klein want is what no self-respecting union can never allow.

Bloomberg and Klein want to use student test scores to determine tenure and the right for principals to layoff teachers as they please rather than seniority. Both proposals require State legislative action to occur and the State teachers union (NYSUT) will never allow this to happen. Moreover, I do anticipate our own union (UFT) will never agree to these outrageous demands anyway. In fact, even the ATR one year time limit is a backdoor attack on tenure and a further reason that our local and State unions will not give one inch on anything that affects tenure.

Any changes to tenure is non-negotiable even if some well meaning bloggers think it is okay to strengthen tenure provisions. I might even agree with a blogger that a strengthened tenure process for "newbie teachers", with reasonable benchmarks, might actually work better than allowing principals to make tenure decisions based upon their likes or dislikes. However, any change to the tenure process, no matter how well meaning and fair, put the tenure issue on a slippery slope for more and significant erosion of teacher tenure rights. Remember, Tweed not only wants to reduce retiree health benefits and pension costs but to encourage senior teachers to resign by making the classroom an unceasingly hostile work environment. Therefore, there should be no retreat on the tenure issue. The same goes for the seniority issue where many principals would jettison senior teachers in a moment if they could pick or choose who gets laid off. For the DOE and their principals it is not what is best for the students it is about their control and budget or I know it as "education on the cheap".

When it comes to the tenure issue, I agree with our union that this issue is non-negotiable and no change in the tenure process is possible since it will lead for demands for further and more serious attacks on teacher tenure in future contracts.

The ATR Agreement, The Open Market Transfer System, & The Appointed Teacher

There is some talk about the provisional nature of the ATR Agreement and it is a cause for concern. Just to clarify how it works. A Principal from school B needs to pick up an ATR with a Chemistry license. For the first year the ATR is a provisional and if either the Principal or ATR believes that the fit is not good, the ATR is released from school B and the Principal does not receive the $22,500 bonus for the ATR. I can see where those "Leadership Academy" Principals who hire only newbie teachers could abuse the process by releasing ATRs each school year and pick up others for the next school year, only costing the Principal the $45,000 for a newbie teacher for each ATR. However, I believe this will be an uncommon occurrence (I hope) and most Principals will want an experienced teacher running their classrooms.

On the other hand, look for the ATRs to dominate the "Open Market Transfer System". Since Principals can pick up an ATR for a newbie teacher salary, why would a Principal select a $85,000 per year appointed teacher when they can get an equally experienced ATR for $45,000 per year? It is interesting how quiet Leo Casey of Edwize has been on how many senior appointed teachers received jobs through the "Open Market Transfer System" last year and I don't expect him to give us those statistics because of the obvious results, few senior teachers were moved. With the ATR agreement look for little if any senior appointed teachers to be successful using the "Open Market Transfer System" since the ATRs are much cheaper.

While the ATR Agreement is a victory for the union and a defeat for the DOE it will also restrict any chance of appointed senior teachers from using the "Open Market Transfer System" to change schools.

The ATR Agreement Shows That The DOE Lost The Tenure War - For Now

The Memorandum of Agreement between the DOE and UFT appears to be a rare win as the DOE has apparently conceded defeat and will encourage Principals to hire ATRs for any vacancies starting immediately. This agreement puts to an end, at least temporarily, the Kleinberg attack on tenure. The financial crises has forced the DOE to cry uncle and put to an end the ATR crises. According to the New York Times, the ATRs would cost $155 million dollars for the next three years. Money that the DOE does not have. Therefore, Tweed has slowly realized that continuing the insane policy of encouraging Principals to hire newbie teachers while making experienced teachers ATRs were not good for the budget in a time of need. An example of how it will work is discussed below.

A vacancy opens in School A for a middle school Math teacher. The Principal will have a list of ATRs with a middle school Math license and interview them to see if they fit the school culture. The selected ATR, who makes $85,000 will only have $45,000 charged to the school, or the salary of a newbie teacher. To further encourage the principal to hire the ATR, the DOE will not only pick up the $40,000 difference in salary but give school A $22,500 dollar one-shot fee, or half a newbie teacher salary for picking up the ATR. Tweed will continue to pay the difference in the ATR salary for the first eight years, or until the the fictitious newbie teacher reaches step 8b. How could any Principal not take advantage of this windfall and getting an experienced teacher in the process?

Finally, this Agreement sunsets on November 16, 2010 and the November date ensures that Principals do not hide vacancies at the beginning of the school year.

Reading the Agreement I cannot find any negatives in it. However, I can't guarantee that there are not any hidden understanding between the two parties and based on past negotiations I will remain suspicious. For now it really appears to be a total win for the union and therefore a win for the children and parents who will once again have experienced quality teachers back into the classroom. .

Would You Want A Novice Surgeon Or An Experienced Surgeon To Operate On You? For The DOE The Answer Is Obvious, The Novice Of Course!

The DOE has started their public relations campaign to vilify the ATRs by saying that they were discarded because of their lack of ability. Not ageism, not salary, and certainly not their knowledge to question stupid administrative dictates. According to the DOE, the ATRs are characterized by their lack of classroom ability. On the other hand, the DOE sees no problem when principals hire loads of cheap and inexperienced newbie teachers. despite documented classroom management and curriculum learning issues with these teachers. Education experts all know it takes a minimum of 3 to 5 years for a teacher to acquire the management and educational skills to handle the classroom. However, in the unreal world of the DOE, this seems to be ignored. In fact, the DOE actually encourages the principals to hire newbie teachers and uses the "fair student funding" program to make it difficult for principals to do otherwise.

This brings me to a simple question. "Would you want a novice surgeon or an experienced surgeon to operate on you or your child"? I would think the answer is obvious, the experienced surgeon. However, the DOE with their "children last" program and "education on the cheap" policy ignores what's best for the student. An experienced teacher can evaluate the various learning styles of her students and can most effectively get the most out of a child's developing brain. By contrast, the DOE seems to want newbie teachers that must follow a steep learning curve to develop as a teacher and are encouraged to use a failed one-program-fits-all curriculum model. Is it any wonder that despite the emphasis on test preparation over a more complete education, the NYC students have shown no improvement on the federal tests?

Only Tweed and their media lackeys, cannot see that it is more important to have a high quality experienced teacher in the classroom than an inexperienced novice teacher. Until the DOE disregards their failed ideology and bring the best teachers back into the classrooms, look for flat test scores to continue.

The ATR Crises Worsens As The DOE Encourages Principals To Hire Newbie Teachers

Just when the ATR crises can't get any worse, the New York Post reports that there was a 13% increase in ATR's to 1395 this year. Based upon last year's figures, the ATR crises will cost DOE over 91 million dollars for the next two years! Unconscionable during a fiscal crises in New York City, how can Tweed justify this misguided policy? Tweed can't and they don't bother to explain it to the public. Instead, Tweed continues to waste funds. Rather than saving money by placing excessed teachers into vacancies, Tweed encourages principals to hire newbie teachers. Posted below is a message that Tweed sent to school principals.

This is from this week's Principal Weekly

New Teachers Available
All schools

Newly-hired, certified teachers are available for you to consider for instructional vacancies. To find out more about these candidates, most of whom are in shortage subject areas, you can contact the Office of Teacher Recruitment and Quality at (718) 935-4080 or contact your HR partner. You can also search and view resumes and essays of these and other qualified candidates using the New Teacher Finder.

Notice how Tweed did not mention the over abundance of well-qualified ATR's? The DOE's disrespect of older and experienced teachers just continues and it does not matter how much money its costing Tweed. Furthermore, the lack of experienced teachers in the classroom only hurts the students since even the best of the newbie teachers take anywhere from 3 to 5 years to achieve adequate classroom management and a real knowledge of how to teach the curriculum.

Kleinberg's misguided emphasis on hiring cheap, and inexperienced teachers as it tries to practice "education on the cheap" just ends up wasting even more precious money and the result is a continuation of their "children last" program.

Update!

The ATR crises is worse than I thought the Daily News reports that there are an additional 229 newbie teachers without a classroom. This brings the total number of teachers who are ATR's up to 1,424. However, this did not stop Tweed from hiring 5,400 newbie teachers this school year. What has our union done about this travesty of wasted talent and money? Nothing!

The Ideal DOE Teacher - Young, Inexperienced, & Clueless

During the Kleinberg years it has been increasingly obvious that despite their emphasis on test preparation at the expense of a full educational experience, the federal test scores have shown little change since they took over in 2002. The question is why haven't the test scores improved despite the almost single minded emphasis on test preparation? While the answer seems complex to some, for me it is simple. It is the quality of the teacher.

Under the Kleinberg administration the ideal teacher have the following characteristics.

1. Inexperienced and lower paid.

2. Less than 50 years of age.

3. Thankful about having a job.

4. Unaware of his or her rights under the union contract.

5. Never complain about working conditions or the classroom environment.

6. Just teaches the students and let somebody else handle their problems.

7. Follow blindly all dictates by administrators, even when they make no sense.

8. Clueless to what good teaching techniques are.

In my mind the above characteristics are of a mediocre teacher, the type of teacher that will never make a difference in the lives of his or her students. However, this is the type of teacher that the DOE wants teaching the children.

Gone are the days that teachers can challenge the student academically without that teacher endangering his or her career. Remember, a student accusation, however, ridiculous, will get a teacher removed and investigated. If a teacher even tries to get into the student's face about his or her classroom behavior, you can be sure that the student will retaliate and since the DOE always will side with the student, guess what happens to the teacher? Right, the "rubber room". Is it any wonder that the number of reassigned teacher goes up every year? Therefore, as the DOE pushes older teachers to retire, whether due to administrator harassment, deteriorating classroom conditions, or teacher disrespect, they will be replaced by younger & inexperienced teachers who, for the most part, are clueless on what quality teaching is. Is it any wonder that the test scores don't improve?