The Disappearing Of The Teachers Cafeteria Food Service In The Remaining Large Comprehensive High Schools Is A Real Shame.

Over the last decade it has been no secret that the Bloomberg Administration has made a point in trying to destroy and close down the large comprehensive high schools in the City and has unfortunately succeeded very well in achieving this goal.  Even the few comprehensive large high schools that have survived are still targets, remember the turnaround school fiasco?.  Now we find out that the DOE has apparently shortchanged the large comprehensive schools of much needed resources while still fully funded the Bloomberg small schools. That required the large comprehensive high schools to cut services, be it staff, after school programs, or services.

One of the services that has been eliminated was the teacher cafeteria food service.  In the Borough of Queens there are only two high schools that still have teacher cafeteria food service  Some schools like Bayside High School have not only closed their teacher cafeteria food service but eliminated the teacher cafeteria entirely. Now you might think that the elimination of the teacher cafeteria food service is no big deal and saves much needed school resources in an ever tightening school budget.  However, the elimination of the teacher cafeteria food service has had a demoralizing effect on school staff.  For teachers, it meant that they would need to bring in their lunch since they only have 45 minutes for lunch and going out of the school to get something to eat is out of the question.  Therefore, many teachers waited for their school day to end before getting something to eat and lacked the energy to effectively teach their late classes. Moreover, the teacher's cafeteria allowed the teachers from different departments to interact in a casual setting and exchange information and gossip about the school.  Finally, the teacher's cafeteria food was nutritious and reasonably priced, this allowed teachers not only to socialize with each other but to restore much needed energy into their bodies to be a more effective teacher for the afternoon.

While to many the loss of the teachers cafeteria food service may not be a big issue.  However,  for the staff at the large comprehensive high schools it is a symptom of the thousand small cuts that eventually destroys the school and the education with it and that is a real shame.

There Are No Excuses For The Continued Educational Failue By The Bloomberg And Walcott Administration As New York City SAT Scores Fall.

Hammer another nail in the coffin of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's claim that he is the education mayor as NYC student SAT scores fall while the State showed marginal gains.  According to the New York Post the SAT scores dropped from the 2011 scores.   While the drops were small, it proves that the Bloomberg/Walcott education policy has been a failure since New York City significantly lags behind the State when it comes to SAT scores.  These 2012 SAT score comparisons are listed below:

........................Reading..............Writing............Math.........Total
NYC...................434....................430................461..... ....1,325

STATE...............518.....................490................518..........1,510

Nationally 43% of the nation's students achieve SAT scores of 1,550 which is the benchmark to be "college and career readiness".  New York State students appear to be slightly above the national average.  However, the New York City student "college and career readiness" number is an abysmal 20.7% and the SAT scores seem to support that number.

Let's see all the educational failures that the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration occurred under their tenure.

• Flat or falling SAT scores.
• Falling "college and career readiness" values.
•  Suspect graduation rates that required State oversight
• Bogus "credit recovery programs" that required a more rigorous procedure and use.
•  An unacceptably high College dropout rates.
• An unusually high College remediation rate.

This ignores the selective starving of some schools of adequate resources and funding to feed the Bloomberg small schools which have a ridiculously low "college and career readiness' rate of 11% and are nowhere close to being successful..

It is very obvious to any independent educational observer that the Bloomberg Administration is a failure when it comes to improving education.  Worse, when Dennis Walcott became Chancellor he promised parents that he would include them in the process, unlike Joel Klein..  However, the result is quite the opposite and parent voices and concerns are actually being ignored by the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration.  The latest is allowing selected schools to give out injectable birth control to girls (plan "B") as young as 14 years old without parent approval or knowledge. I guess the DOE is just waiting to pay out large sums of money when the first 14 year old girl dies or is seriously injured by being injected without parental consent.

Overall, the Mayor and his pet poodle, the Chancellor will go out with an educational policy a failure and we can only hope that the next Mayor and Chancellor include teachers and parent6s in the process if there is to be educational improvements. Top down imposed policy has shown not to work and a more inclusive process with wraparound services is the key, especially in an urban area where 30% of the students come from poverty and an additional 50% come from low income households.

What Does The Future Of The Absent Teacher Reserve Look Like?

One of the most thorny issue between the Union and the City is the status of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).   These are teachers that have been excessed from their schools and have no classroom position.  The latest number of ATRs  is 1,822, which is similar to the last few year numbers. It was fortunate that the union won the turnaround battle, otherwise the ATR numbers would be close to 3,000.  The question is what is the future of the ATR?   Well I do not have a crystal bail and cannot project the future but it appears to me the the ATR is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Lets look at the issues surrounding the ATR problem.

Time Limit: Presently, there are no time limitations to be an ATR.  In the agreement worked out between the union and the City both sides agreed that the Principals can hire who they wanted rather then from the excess teachers list as long as the DOE paid the excessed teacher's salary until the excessed teacher received a classroom position.  Even before the ink had dried,  Chancellor Joel Klein was calling the ATRs "bad teachers" to the press and wanted a time limit of six months when the DOE can fire the teachers.  To the union's credit, the ATR time limit has never been a negotiable item and every time the City brings it up, the union immediately shoots it down.  I see no change in the union position and the lesson of Chicago burns brightly to remind the union of the consequences of allowing an ATR time limit.

ATR Buyout: It now appears that Chancellor Dennis Walcott's idea of a generous buyout for long-term ATRs was not so generous after all.  The maximum ATR buyout would be $25,000 for top salaried teachers and would average a meagerly $14,000 for the average ATR.  Not generous at all! It would seem an ATR buyout is not happening during the Bloomberg Administration but might reappear when the the next Mayor negotiates with the union as part of a contract.

Legislative Action: I do look for the Bloomberg Administration to make one final attempt by crafting a bill that will allow for an ATR time limit, emboldened by Chicago's limiting the ATR window to five months.  However, I expect the bill to be shot down as the Mayor is rapidly losing influence in his "lame duck year".    Of course if in the highly unlikely event that Sheldon Silver loses his position as head of the State Assembly that could change matters somewhat.

ATR Non-Representation: One of the biggest complaints by ATRs is that they have no representation and I do not see that changing in the near future.  The union's position is that the school's Chapter Leader represents the ATR.  However, since the ATRs go weekly to different schools, the Chapter Leader may not meet with the ATR or be even aware of who the ATR is.  Many schools abuse the ATRs by making them do cafeteria duty, six periods, four periods in a row, or other non-teacher duties and the Chapter Leader refuses to represent the ATR complaints dealing with the abuse.  This is especially true in the Bloomberg small schools where teachers are expected to preform duties that violate the contract and the Chapter Leader willingly goes along with it.

ATR Numbers: It is very obvious that both the City and union do not like or want the public to know how many ATRs there are.  After claiming that the ATR numbers are the lowest in years, suggesting that the ATR crises was resolving itself with the successful policies of weekly ATR assignments and requiring principals to hire ATRs for their vacancies or long-term leave replacements. It now turns out that the numbers are just as high, if not higher then in  previous years.  In fact the union's failure to enforce the provisions of the ATR Agreement and the DOE deliberately ignoring Principals misconduct for not abiding by the ATR Agreement is primarily responsible for the large ATR numbers.  While the union won a grievance, there still is no enforceability or penalties if the DOE fails to abide by the ATR contract provisions.  Therefore, I predict no significant change in the ATR numbers in the coming years. In fact, they may go up if Bloomberg is successful in closing more schools before he leaves office.

The ATR And The Next Mayor:  This is certainly the "wild card" since the next Mayor is still an unknown. However, it is safe to assume that the next Mayor and the union will settle on a contract and it will have an effect on the future of the ATR.  In the "best case scenario" the next Mayor will not want to waste $160 million dollars annually and will require the DOE to place the ATRs in vacancies rather than let principals hide them or hire outside teachers.  A more realistic scenario would be that the next Mayor and the union will enforce the ATR Agreement provisions and reducing the ATR pool significantly while savings money.  Of course this assumes that the next Mayor will replace many of the top bureaucrats at Tweed who are responsible for the current ATR fiasco.

Future Of The ATR: Unfortunately, the ATR is here to stay. However, I do see better days ahead as the ATR numbers will be reduced with the next Mayor and with enforcement provisions in place and better union support to ensure principals are not abusing the system.  At least I hope so.

The Difference Between The Chicago And New York City Teacher Unions When It Comes To Striking For Our Rights.

The most historic event in this decade has finally come to an end and that is the game-changing Chicago teachers strike against an egotistical pseudo-reform minded bully Mayor named Rahm Emanuel.   While the teachers appear not to achieved everything they wanted, they certainly put a stop to the Mayor's abusive and disrespectful actions against the teachers in the Chicago public school system.  While there are some similarities between the two cities, they both have egotistical and bully Mayors who despise teachers and are intent in closing public schools and replace them with Charter schools,  refuses to give the "City pattern" to the teachers, and an unwanted teacher evaluation system that is heavy on standardized tests with no appeal process.  However, there are many more differences.between the two cities and their teacher unions.

The Taylor Law:  First and foremost there is New York State's Taylor Law which prohibits public workers from striking and penalizes strikers by giving up two days pay for every day of the strike.  Moreover, the union would lose dues checkoff rights and the Transit union found that out the hard way when only 33% of their members were willing to voluntarily  pay their dues after the union lost their right to automatically deduct dues from its member paychecks.

The Triborough Amendment: Unlike most states, New York public workers are protected by the Tribourough Amendment which prohibits the employer from imposing contract conditions without  a collective bargaining agreement with the union.  For example, in Chicago, the Mayor imposed a longer school day, a teacher evaluation system heavy on standardized tests, worsening working conditions such as  layoffs, unpaid sick or personal days,  and unlimited class sizes. Many of these items have only been eliminated or modified because the Chicago teacher's union deciding to strike.

Layoff Procedures: In NYC teachers who no longer have a classroom position because of closing schools or are excessed from their school will be put in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool until the teacher gets a classroom position in another school.  Some teachers have been ATRs for years and despite complaints and failed legislation by the City, no change is expected, especially during the Bloomberg Administration.  By contrast, teachers in Chicago are given a short window to find a position or be fired.  According to the Mayor he wants it to be five months, the union has tentatively agreed that half of the excessed teachers will not be offered new positions and they call that a victory? I certainty don't.

Class Size Limits:  NYC has a class size limit of 34 students any class over 34 students is subject to an expidited grievance and for the most part are resolved by October.  On the other hand Chicago has guidelines but no class size limits and there is little a teacher can do when their class sizes approach 40 students.

Union Caucus: The Chicago teachers union is controlled by a once-dissident caucus that took power when the members voted out the previous "Unity-like caucus" for their appeasement polices when confronting the City. in the past.  By contrast the NYC teachers union has been and always controlled by the "Unity caucus" and  its appeasement policies that reduced teacher "due process rights" and worsening the classroom  environment have never been seriously threatened by the members, even after the horrible 2005 contract which Randi Weingarten gave the store away for measly raises (3.15% annually) that didn't even equal the New York City inflation rate of 4% at the time. Furthermore, the UFT lacks transparency and that frustrates members while the CTU is much more transparent and that are the  differences between the two unions and  that explains why the Chicago union is much more activist than the NYC union .

With all the labor protections and severe penalties our State has I cannot see our union or any of the dissent caucuses asking for a strike vote at this time.  Especially since the Mayor is powerless to change our contract, it is best to wait him out and negotiate a fair contract with the next Mayor in 2014.

Poverty Is The Most Important Problem In A Child's Academic Development.

In the wake of the Chicago teachers strike one of the issues being brought up is the effects of poverty on student learning.  Until the strike it seemed that the teachers union, especially Randi Wiengarten's AFT has seemed defensive when responding to the Education Reformers "no excuses" mantra that poverty is simply an excuse for poor teaching.  However,  the Chicago teachers strike has put the poverty issue into better focus and may act as a turning point for society to realize how important it is for children in poverty to have the necessary support services for these students to achieve academic success.  

What will it take for students who live in poverty to succeed academically?  The simple answer is to eliminate poverty, which is virtually impossible in a country suffering from recession. Therefore, our elected leaders must fund programs that have shown to work.  These programs should include pre-school programs, family intervention programs, and most of all, bringing fathers back into the family.

Head Start:  This program has shown to be very effective in helping children in poverty achieve academic success in the early elementary grades.  Many poor children have limited vocabulary due to a lack of academic stimulation at home and this  weakness gets magnified as these students fall further behind academically as they get older.  Programs such as Head Start should be part of our country's educational policy and all pre-school children should have an opportunity to get a start in their academic development, especially children growing up in poverty.

Academic Interventions: One of the problems with Head Start is that the academic improvements disappear by second or third grade and without additional academic interventions the child will start to fall behind and be in danger of being left back or worse, drop out during high school.   Therefore, programs such as one-to-one-tutoring, mentoring, and after school programs are a necessary component for any successful academic intervention.  Expanding the Boys & Girls club and PAL programs would be examples of how to keep the children off the streets and away from gangs that lead to academic problems.

Wraparound Services: While it is very important for children in poverty to have academic support, it is more important that these children have a stable family environment.  Too many children come to school hungry, without proper clothing, and with poor hygiene. This takes their toll on the child's self esteem and are, in turn,  ridiculed by their peers by their appearance.  The result is a reluctance, even a hatred, about going to school and a poor academic performance. In other words, it starts at home with the family.  These "broken families" are  usually mother led single family households, with little family supervision and discipline, which struggling financially.  Therefore, intensive interventions are needed with social workers, family councilors,, and organizations such as "Big Brother and Big Sister" to bring a role model to the child. Finally, it is important that the child receive adequate health and nutrition and that the caregiver is trained to meet the child's needs and keep him or her safe.

Fathers: Many people in power ignore the role fathers play.  At the very least fathers can supply extra income to a family and keep them out of poverty.  However, more importantly, fathers can bring discipline and a role model for the child.  Too many children lack discipline and without fathers in the house look for role models in the community which can be gang leaders, drug dealers, criminals, and other undesirable people.  Fathers bring stability and structure, as well as financial support to the family.  It is no coincidence that an astounding 39% of our prison population  come from mother led single parent households. Worse yet, 85% of our youth in prison come from fatherless households!  Here are some interesting facts when fathers are part of the household.

Father Factor in Education - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.

• Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.

• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

• I in 3 teenage girls get pregnant in fatherless homes compared to 1 in 20 with the biological father present.

 While it does not take marriage to be a good and involved father it does help to cement the family unit and brings a role model to the child.  The bottom line is that "stay-at-home" fathers are not only important but necessary if a child is to escape poverty and succeed academically.

Sure, it is important to have an excellent teacher in the classroom but it is imperative that we eliminate poverty and it's causes if those excellent teachers can get these children to succeed academically.

What the Union Must Demand In A New Contract.

UFT President, Michael Mulgrew has hinted to the civil service newspaper the Chief, in this week's edition, that the union is negotiating with the City on a new contract.  Yeah right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.  However, on the very slim chance that the union is really negotiating a new contract with the Emperor, oops I mean the Mayor, here is what I expect the union to push for:

Salary:  At a minimum, the union should accept no less than the "City pattern" the first two years which are two 4% raises minus the 0.55% we owe the City for getting back the two days before Labor Day.  The next two years should include raises at least equal to the rate of inflation in the City which averages 3% annually.  That means that teachers should receive a minimum raise of 13.45% raise for the four year contract that would end in October 2013.  The fact that the Mayor claims there will be no "retroactive raises" makes any contract negotiations with the City highly unlikely unless the union caves in to the Mayor.

Fair Student Funding:  A prime negotiating point should be the elimination of the unfair "fair student funding formula" that forces schools to hire the most inexpensive teacher rather than the "best teachers" due to budget constraints.  This legacy of the Joel Klein Chancellorship needs to be eliminated and allow the schools to really implement "children first" policies. It is time to bring back the long practiced and successful making teachers units. Under the unit method the salary of the teacher would no longer be a factor for principals and they can hire the "best teachers" not the cheapest for their students.

Absent Teacher Reserve: The elimination of the "fair student funding formula"  will greatly reduce the ATR crises and I would be shocked if there were more than 500 ATRs floating around.  Moreover, the union must insist that the DOE require principals to hire excessed teachers, certified in the subject area, in their District before they can hire outside teachers. The combination of the two options would eliminate the ATR problem entirely. At a minimum, the union must get the DOE to reintroduce the November 2009 ATR proposal that encouraged principals to hire ATRs at school salaries the are the same as a "newbie teacher" with Tweed paying the difference.  Under no circumstances should the union agree to an ATR time limit, remember what happened in Chicago?

No Givebacks:  Under no circumstances should the union "giveback" anything to the City.  No more time, no merit pay, no increase in health co-pays, and most of all, no weakening of teacher "due process rights".  The Mayor wants us to surrender and make teaching a temporary job with no pensions or retiree health benefits if he could have his way.

While I do not think there will be a new contract until Mayor Bloomberg is gone.  However,  if there is one, the union better not cave in to the Mayor as they did in 2005.  Better to wait for a new City Administration than surrender to the Mayor and his hostile anti-teacher cronies at Tweed.

Why Are Small Schools Bad For Students? Let Me Count The Ways.

During the Bloomberg Administration's tenure many of the large comprehensive high schools have closed and many more are in danger of closing.  To replace these now closed or closing schools are almost 500 small schools, many of them with themes such as preforming arts, sports, or journalism, just to name a few.  While the Bloomberg Administration has hailed them as a success because of an artificially  higher graduation rate, the truth is very different.  What are the problems with these small schools for many students?  let me count the ways.

Limited Curriculum:

All small schools have less than 500 students and there is usually a limited curriculum consisting of the core subjects, a selected Advance Placement course or two and electives that are connected to the school's theme.  In other words, a rigid and limited schedule. Many students regret going to these schools because of the lack of flexibility in course selection and are frustrated about the "one-size-fits-all" approach in scheduling.

Lack Of Extracurricular Activities:

One of the most recurring complainants by students in small schools are the limited number of extracurricular activities available in the school.  Some of the more fortunate schools that are located in a campus of a closed large comprehensive high school, pool their resources to have a PSAL sports team.  However, the majority of the small schools do not have that luxury and PSAL sports programs are usually limited to two or three sports teams compared to the twenty or more PSAL sports teams at the remaining large comprehensive high schools.  Furthermore, the small schools lack funds for clubs and only a few clubs are available to the students and the lack of variety of these clubs leave many students on the outside looking in..

The Staff:

During the time I was an ATR and moving to different schools weekly, I noticed that the small schools had only one teacher for each subject (two for English and Social Studies) and when I covered for these teachers some of the students complained that they do not like their teacher and would want to transfer to another class but can't because there is only one teacher teaching the course.  Moreover, the rigid scheduling of the small school makes a transfer virtually impossible.  Worse of all, many of the small schools are staffed by Leadership Academy Principals and untenured staff.  The inexperienced Administration and teaching staff puts these students at a competitive disadvantage as these students are guinea pigs as the staff must experience a steep learning curve.  This shows up in the abyssal college readiness scores of 11% for the small schools.  Too many students are caught in classes that they don't want and with teachers who are just learning how to teach themselves. Moreover, when study/teacher interaction is not good, the student has no option but to stay in the class since there is no alternative. The result from a student's perspective is that these small schools are more like a prison than a true learning institution where they can blossom and expand their academic and social horizons.

The Budget And Bureaucracy:

While the Bloomberg Administration made sure that these small schools receive their full funding, unlike the large, comprehensive high schools, the budget is still limited and a significant amount of school funds go to the Children First Network (CFN) Bureaucracy.  One Principal complained privately that over 15% of the school budget goes to unwanted and unnecessary programs that his CFN imposed on his school.  The bottom line is that too much money of an already tight budget goes for non-classroom programs and the result is that principals can't or won't hire experienced teachers to mentor the many inexperienced teachers who struggle with classroom instruction and management, because of their salary and this is especially true of the small schools.  Is it any wonder that the students quickly get disenchanted with their small school?


The bottom line is for the small schools to really succeed, the DOE must increase their budgets to provide more curriculum choices and extracurricular activities, eliminate the CFN's that siphon much needed funds for programs that do not work, and encourage not discourage the hiring of experienced teachers to improve the overall quality of classroom instruction at the schools.





.

Common Core Will Cause Academically Struggling Students To Fail Without Strong Parental Support.

During the past two days I have hearing about the new "Common Core Standards" and how it will allow students to reach the high standards that will make them productive citizens of our country.  However, it is one thing to" reach for the stars" and another to have the means to do so.  In many of our urban areas students struggle academically every day as poverty, family, and community problems interfere with student learning.   In  fact numerous studies have shown that family and poverty are major factors in impeding student academic achievement. Now the nation is implementing CCS in the curriculum on an unprepared student population that suffers from poverty and single or no parent households.

Simply stated CCS allow a student to go deeply into a particular topic and substitutes memorization with understanding and in theory, would improve student learning.  However, for CCS to work, it will take a village.  That means parent involvement, social and academic interventions, otherwise, known as wraparound services,as well as school support.Without the entire village, many students will be unable to have the tools necessary to achieve academic success.  Education reformers can lay the blame on the schools with their "no excuses" argument but the reality is that without parental support and addressing the child poverty issue, the schools can only make a small impact on the child's life.

The Achilles heel for successfully implementing CCS is the lack of parental involvement and without parental participation, the necessary tool for their child to reach for those higher standards is lacking.  Too many children have no academic stimulation at home. Their homes have no books, or even a quiet place to read and do homework.  Instead they are texting, playing video games, hanging out in the street, or watching cartoons, Is it any wonder that under the existing and easier curriculum these children struggle academically?  How do you expect them to succeed when CCS makes the curriculum more difficult without addressing the existing problems?

 While CCS has a lot of promise, it can be a death sentence for students in poverty and have no parental support.

Educators 4 Excellence Claims That Poverty Is Not As Important As An Excellent Teacher But Continues To Fail To Show Proof Despite Overwhelming Evidence To The Contrary.

During my vacation I turned to the CNN blog comments and saw one of those "Educators 4 Excellence" (E4E) mouthpieces write how it was more important for a student to have an "excellent teacher" rather than living in poverty despite the overwhelming studies that show the opposite conclusion.  I guess the E4E represents the "no excuses" crew who prefer to ignore poverty and family as the major contributing factors in a student's academic development.  What interested me was her failure to define what an "excellent teacher" is. but then that is always the problem with Education Reformers who never say what the specifics are.  More telling, Ms. McGurk has a Masters degree in educational leadership, is she still teaching in a classroom or is she like many of the E4E drones who fled the classroom at the earliest opportunity?  Just look at Ruben Brosbe, Evan Stone, and Sydney Morris, just to name a few, they couldn't leave the classroom fast enough.

Independent studies have shown that social-economic factors like poverty, community, and family account for 80% of a child's academic development.  An excellent article written by Daniel Akst in Newsday is a must read. However, the Education Reformers and their allies like E4E, with blinders on,  pretend that poverty is not important or not as important as an excellent teacher. Hence their slogan of "no excuses".  According to E4E an excellent teacher is whatever the Principal decides is one, along with test scores.  In other words a teacher who does continuous test prep and kisses their Principal's rear end is the E4E definition of an excellent teacher. Maybe E4E would be more credible if they were more accountable, many of the leaders of E4E no longer teach in the classroom and in many cases never received tenure (Ruben Brosbe, Sydney Morris, etc.).

To me E4E is a derisive influence on teachers and a tool of Education Reformers who's main purpose is to destroy the teachers union and eliminate long held tenure and seniority rights.  Worse, is that E4E is a willing accomplice in trying to destroy teacher "due process rights".  In other words a "fifth column". and teachers need to stay away from this evil organization.

What Will The New School Year Bring? Probably A Continuation Of The Problems That Ended Last Year's School Year.

The major question on everybody's mind is what will be the changes in the upcoming 2012-13 school year from the end of the 2011-12 school year?  Not much if you ask me.  Look for a continuation of the Bloomberg attacks on the classroom  True the Emperor lost the "Turnaround schools" battle and blew $58 million dollars in the process but he is still waging war on the public schools.  Moreover, the Emperor's war with the Teachers' union remains in full force as he refuses to agree to a fair teacher evaluation process and will not negotiate a contract that will have retroactive raises even if he "City pattern" requires it.

The only major change will be a weakening of the student discipline code that will make teachers even more powerless to control their classrooms.  The result will be that a few disruptive students will make learning difficult for the rest of the students. No longer can teachers suspend students who are insubordinate, disruptive, or curse at the teacher.  Instead it's parent conferences, assuming the parent bothers to show up or follow up in disciplining their child. My fellow blogger South Bronx School has an interesting article on the weakening of the student discipline code by the DOE.

It's possible, but not likely that the DOE will finally offer a buyout for long-term ATRs but I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening despite the persistent rumors.  It is also likely that class sizes will continue to increase.as the already tight school budgets are required to pay for more non-classroom programs and CFN personnel.

The bottom line, look for the 2012-13 school year to be very similar to the terrible 2011-12 school year as the Bloomberg Administration's war on the teachers' union and the classroom teacher continues as the Emperor tries to close more schools and advocate Charters and wastes a billion or more dollars on technology, consultants, and programs that have little or no positive impact in the classroom. . It is and remains "children last"....Always. under Bloomberg and his pet poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott for the 2012-13 school year..

Mayor Bloomberg Can Minimize Layoffs Of City Workers By Placing ATRs In All Existing Vacancies

The Mayor experienced a major setback when a judge ruled that the City's plan to sell taxi medallions for fare pickups in the outer boroughs and north of 96th street in Manhattan was unconstitutional since it did not get the City Council's approval. (Damn, if he really was the Emperor, no lousy judge could ever stop his decrees).  The halting of the "green cab" program has blasted a $625 million dollar hole in the budget and a possible $1.4 billion dollars for the next three years.  What is the Mayor's response?  He has proposed layoffs of City workers and more efficiencies in the government.  Of course don't look for reductions in high-priced consultants or technology projects, instead there will be less resources available and of course, a continuation of a salary freeze.  While I do not have the knowledge of how to close the entire budget gap, I do know how he can put a significant dent into it and that is placing ATRs into the many vacancies that are available,

Starting the 2012-13 school year, there will be approximately 2,000 ATRS, despite the DOE's claim of less.  That means that even if some of them get hired provisionally, you can still expect over 1,000 ATRs floating around for the year.  That means that $165 million dollars, not including fringe benefits,  will be wasted by the City in paying those ATRs when vacancies are being covered by long and short term substitute teachers. Therefore, if the Mayor is truly serious about saving money and close the budget gap, he should start by ordering the DOE to start placing ATRs in the vacancies.

I do wonder why our union has not brought this up publicly as a cost-saving method to close the City budget gap?  It would seem obvious to me that this proposal is a public relations win for the union and puts the Mayor on the defensive but then again our union's actions or inaction are sometimes part of the problem and not the solution.  In any case, if the Mayor is looking for "efficiency" the effective use of ATRs by placing them in the vacancies is as efficient as it gets.

Why Doesn't The Union File Expedited Grievances When Selected Teachers Are Reassigned Out Of Their Borough?

There seems to be a misconception that there are no more "rubber rooms" and teachers mo longer spend many months and even years out of the classroom.  While most of these teachers will find themselves in their local CFN offices.  However, for some selected and targeted teachers that the DOE have singled out, are send to the far reaches of New York City.  To me, this is simply vindictive and presumes guilt even before a decision is made.  In one case I know of the teacher wasn't even charged and still was sent to a different Borough! According to the UFT contract and Chancellor's Regulation C-770, a teacher who is removed from their school will be placed in the District Office and for the most part the DOE abides by that interpretation of the contract. In fact, here is what the DOE wrote about reassigned teachers.

“5. Assignments for Suspended Employees http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-82/C-770__9-5-00.pdf

It should be noted that, during the period of suspension, all individuals are expected to
perform duties appropriate to their regular assignments, insofar as possible. The duties
will depend, of course, upon the circumstances surrounding the suspension.
Suspended employees are to be assigned within their own districts or divisions. Requests
for a temporary change of assignment because of extraordinary circumstances must be
directed in writing to the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources, with
supporting statements for the request. The Executive Director shall confer with the Office  of Legal Services regarding this request. The employee is not to be reassigned from the district or division until written authorization has been granted.”

 
 However, for those selected and targeted teachers, the DOE has chosen to make their life as difficult as possible. Let's look at two examples of what the DOE has done to two different teachers.

Example 1:  A District 26 middle school teacher in Queens was sent to Staten Island while waiting months for his 3020-a decision,despite the DOE's own written policy.  The teacher asked the union to file an expedited grievance to get him reassigned to either his District Office or local CFN.  Instead, the UFT representative filed an ordinary grievance that could take a year or more to be heard.  The teacher has now left the DOE and his grievance has still not been heard.   You would think the union would continue to pursue the grievance to make sure that the DOE's vindictive action would no longer be allowed and other teachers would not be subject to abusive travel conditions.  As far as I know the union might have dropped the grievance since the teacher no longer is employed by the DOE.

Example 2:  A District 31 Staten Island middle school teacher, Francesco Portelos, was reassigned to Queens despite the DOE's written policy that Mr. Porteles should have been reassigned to Staten Island.  I assume he has had the union file a grievance but as far as I know, Mr. Porteles has been officially reassigned to Queens once again this school year with no 3020-a charges as of yet.   You can read all about Francesco Portelos on his blog.

The question is why hasn't the UFT followed through with the grievance?  I would think that the DOE's apparent violation of the contract and their own policy is worthy of a grievance that the union should follow through with.  Is it not the union's duty to represent all their members?  Does the union buy into the DOE's policy of the teacher being guilty if accused?  If not, why the inaction in allowing these selected and targeted teachers to be subject to outrageous and costly commutes?

The bottom line is the union has a responsibility to protect these teachers and not buy into the vindictive actions of the DOE.

The Treacherous Road To The Teacher Evaluation Process, The Contract Negotiations, And A Resolution To The ATR Crises.

As we all know that contract negotiations between the Blommberg Administration and the UFT is at a standstill.  Our last contract expired in October of 2009, three years ago.and it is very apparent that as long as the Mayor is in office there will not be any meaningful contract negotiations between the two parties.  Yes, the union has declared an impasse and a PERB mediator is trying to find "common ground" for the two parties to agree as a starting point in the complex and complicated path to a negotiated settlement.  However, in reality, it is in the best interest of both parties to simply wait to 2014 before a new contract is negotiated.

In the Bloomberg Administration's case no contract means it is not subject to the "City pattern" headache which would mean giving teachers and other UFT represented staff up to 8% raises for the first two years that PERB Arbitration would probably result in.  With no contract, the Mayor can leave office showing that he held the line against teachers by giving "no retroactive raises".Of course he has simply "kicked the can down the road" and leaves the tricky and politically treacherous contract negotiations to the next Mayor but that is the next Mayor's problem not his.

For the union, no contract means that the existing contract rules stray in effect, thanks to the Tribourough Amendment, and any demands for "givebacks" must wait for a new contract and the union rather not negotiate a contract under the existing hostile political and economic climate where demands for massive givebacks would be demanded and the mass media would be whipped into a frenzy to ensure these massive givebacks become a reality.

Consequently, it appears in the best interest of both parties to wait until the Bloomberg Administration leaves office and the City's economy improves before any serious contract negotiations actually occurs.

That brings me to the teacher evaluation process.  What many people fail to understand is that no teacher evaluation program can be implemented without a contract!  Yes, the teacher evaluation program requires a change in the contract which means that the union can and should require that any teacher evaluation program be part of the next contract and not change the existing contract. That would be a betrayal to its members if the union changed the existing contract to accommodate the City and approve the  teacher evaluation program. While it is true that the Bloomberg Administration broke off the teacher evaluation negotiations because of the appeals process (where a measly 13% of the teachers can challenge their "ineffective rating").   A more serious problem for the Mayor was that any agreed upon teacher evaluation program required a change in the teacher contract and would must certainly forced the Bloomberg Administration to negotiate a new contract with the union, something the Mayor does not want to do.  Unless the union was foolish or incompetent, the union should never negotiate a new contract without the retroactive raises and resist any "givebacks" if the City wanted to implement the teacher evaluation program and the Mayor knows it. 

Finally, there is the ATR crises, the Bloomberg Administration has made it clear that they want to fire the ATRs who are mostly highly-paid senior teachers.  The Bloomberg Administration over the last few years have  proposed an ATR time limit, an end LIFO bill, a useless weekly assignment,and now possibly a buyout.  The union, to their credit, has held firm on the ATR time limit issue since they saw what happened in Chicago when an ATR time limit was implemented and resulted in many senior teachers being fired as the schools refused to fill their vacancies with the ATRs.  While, I truly believe the union will continue to hold firm on the ATR issue, it will probably be  the primary demand of the next Administration and our union must be pro-active on this issue and demand that the new Administration require the DOE to go back to the old rules that require principals to hire excessed teachers in their district before they can hire a teacher outside the DOE,  nothing less is acceptable.

In summary, the complex and complicated nature of the next contract can be simplified as a combination of politics, egos, and most of all, the final agreed-upon teacher evaluation program.  Furthermore,  and hopefully a resolution of the ATR crises to the satisfaction of the affected members.

There Are Rumors That The DOE And The UFT Have Reached A Framework For An ATR Buyout. The Question, If True? What Are The Details?

I have heard rumors that the UFT and DOE have reached a tentative agreement for the price of the buyout for long-term ATRS, (more than one year).   The rumor is the amount of the proposed buyout is a less than generous 50% of  he ATR's 2012-13 salary and will be implemented during the beginning of the school year in September.  The question is that knowing the DOE have they demanded that the ATR Agreement  be adjusted to, lets say a time limit?  While I do not believe that the union would agree to an ATR time limit, it was our union that unwisely agreed to the creation of the ATRs in the first place so anything is possible.

The problem is that the DOE and UFT historically negotiate in secrecy and lack transparency while the union continuously fails to solicit input from the affected members.  For example the ATR Agreement did not include input from those affected, the ATRs.  Further, the union failed to include an ATR in the negotiating committee for the ATR Agreement that apparently has never met! Furthermore, despite the many complaints by ATRs about the weekly placements, neither side has responded to these complaints or have bothered to find a more reasonable and efficient use of these experienced teachers. Finally, despite admissions by principals that they hide vacancies and hire outside long-term substitutes, the union has failed to file an expedited grievance to stop this practice that violates the ATR Agreement while the DOE looks the other way when their principals don't follow the rules

.

For an ATR buyout to be effective, it would need to include the two-year pension credit that all Tier I members receive when they retire.  The inclusion of a tw0-year pension credit is worth between a 4-11% increase in the pension and combined with the 50% salary buyout would encourage many ATRs to leave the system.  On the other hand, the buyout rumored to be given to ATRs will see only a few ATRs willing to take the money and they are the ones that have delayed retirement in the first place after the Chancellor told the press in the Spring of the buyout offer to ATRs.

While the ATR buyout proposal is a start, it must be part of a more comprehensive solution that includes the following::

• Two-year pension credit with the buyout.
• No outside teacher can be hired in the District until the ATRs certified in the subject area are placed. 
• Incentives for Principals to hire ATRs, similar to 2008-09.
• Disciplining and penalizing principals who fail to hire ATRs for their vacancies.
• Expedited grievances when the DOE fails to enforce the ATR Agreement.
• A joint committee that includes ATRs to ensure all the contract provisions are being implemented, enforced,  and the affected members informed.

The bottom line line is that the union has allowed the Mayor and Chancellor to demonize the ATRs as "lazy and bad teachers", while ignoring the age and salary discrimination that is obvious to all intelligent observers.  This must end now and the union must be pro-active in their advocacy of their 2,000 strong ATRs.   Nothing less is acceptable.

For Veteran Teachers, The Open Market Transfer System For 2012 Has Been A Joke.

While the DOE and UFT keep the actual statistics secret, and for good reason, anecdotal evidence suggest that few veteran teachers received offers from schools under the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS)  As in the previous years, it seems that younger, and non-tenured teachers were the beneficiaries using the OMTS as they received numerous interviews and had their choice of positions.

Of all the teachers who applied under the OMTS, only one semi-veteran teacher I know actually received an interview and he just turned 30 with eight years teaching experience (he didn't get the position and thinks the Principal didn't like the fact he was tenured). By contrast all my veteran teaching colleagues have experienced complete frustration as they applied for various positions on the OMTS and did not even get courtesy responses and went to the bogus DOE job fairs that were a complete waste of time.

For some of you who think that the principals are not discriminating against veteran teachers, think again. Do you remember this article?  Furthermore, principals are now able to hire new teachers to replace veteran teachers who have either resigned or retired, it is highly unlikely that schools will hire veteran teachers because of budgetary and Administrative control reasons.

I suspect that there will be an increase in ATRs this year, maybe over 2000 since the loosening of new teacher hiring restrictions will free principals from offering ATRs a provisional position as they did last year.  The union negotiated ATR Agreement has and is a joke as the union failed to get the DOE to discipline principals who routinely violated the ATR Agreement.  See my previous post here.

In conclusion, unless the union puts the DOE's feet to the fire, it will be a long school year for the ATRs as they waste their time and career moving weekly from school to school in their district.

To Be An Effective Teacher You Need The Proper Resources, Administrative Support, And Most Of All, An Enforceable Student Discipline Policy.

I keep hearing the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg, and his poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott claim that they want "effective teachers" in the classroom.  However for a teacher to be "effective" the teacher must have the necessary tools to achieve that designation and that is the problem.  What the Bloomberg Administration fails to do to is to provide the tools to make a teacher "effective",  The City fails to provide resources and support to help the classroom teacher to become a quality teacher.  Even the usually Mayor friendly New Teacher Project identified the many failures of the Mayor's education policy in the New York City Public Schools.  According to the TNTP report the following problems were found and need to be addressed.

• Poor retention rates with 15% leaving yearly considered " effective or highly effective".
• Poor working conditions that result in a  low 50% retention rate within five years of teaching.
• Poor school cultures.
• Lack of Administrative support, especially principal leadership issues.
• Lack of resources.

Mind you, this report is by a pro-reform group and even they could not ignore the failures that the Bloomberg Administration has brought on to the New York City Public School students.  The report could, and should have added the following problems that hurt student academic achievement and they are,

• Increasing class size
• Lack of an enforceable student discipline code.
• poor teacher morale.
• lack of respect for teachers by the Bloomberg Administration.

Of all the problems listed above I find that the failure of the DOE and school Administration to enforce the student discipline code is the most serious obstacle for effective classroom teaching. When students realize that the Administration will not back up the teacher, the teacher is then handicapped and it is unreasonable to believe that a teacher in a low preforming school with high poverty rates and large percentages of Special Education and English Language Learners would be able to achieve high test scores without these children getting extensive wraparound services and a zero-tolerance discipline policy.

Teachers who work with the academically-challenged population must have not only Administrative support but his or her student's family must receive professional assistance and the student should have after-school programs and services to  help them academically as well as behaviorally.  Presently, the City does not offer adequate wraparound services to these children, instead it it easier for the Mayor and Chancellor to blame teachers for the student's failure to behave and succed academically rather then provide the necessary wraparound services for student academic achievement.

The best method to improve student academic achievement is to enforce student discipline and get these disruptive students the help they and their family needs so that the teacher can become the "effective teacher"  that the Mayor and Chancellor claim they want/  All other strategies fall behind the most important factor and that is a peaceful classroom where students can learn without disruptions from a behaviorally-challenged student.

Why Doesn't The DOE Punish Principals Who Hide Their Vacancies? Because They Do Not Care To.

The actions by Principal Ann Chester at Fort Hamilton High School has spotlighted that many principals  refuse to hire ATRs for their vacancies, not because the principals believe that the ATRs are lousy teachers but because the school would need to pick up their salaries.  Instead, the principals will hide the vacancies and pick up long-term substitute teachers who will cost the schools one third the salary of an ATR and do not have tenure.    Since the DOE has shown little interest in going after the principals who violate the ATR Agreement with the union, the practice is widespread and has resulted in far more ATRs than there should be.

Gotham Schools wrote a great article about how Principal Ann Chester circumvented the rules and underpaid many substitute teachers to save money.  Of course, that also meant that no ATRs needed to apply for the vacancies since the Principal falsely claimed that they were covered.  In the Gotham Schools article an anomoynous Principal said the following.

It is not uncommon for school leaders to skirt the hiring rules from time to time to ease in favored candidates, according to the principal of another large high school. But the principal said the skirting usually happens only in very limited circumstances, such as when the school wants to hold on to an excellent student teacher for a year until a position opens up. Informed that Chester might have hired at least 14 teachers in this manner, the principal expressed shock, saying, “Everybody does it, but nobody has done it to this degree.”

 Of course, Anne Chester is still Principal of Fort Hamilton High School as the SCI Investigation is just about finished and since the DOE has failed to take any real action against her, look for other principals to thumb their collective noses at the DOE and refuse to hire ATRs to cover their vacancies to save a few coins.  

"Children last"....Always.

The DOE Claims "Children First"...Always. However, The Truth Is Otherwise. Just Ask The Students At Jamaica High School.

The DOE has a slogan that claims "children first"...Always, except it is not true.  The DOE is much more interested in their own pseudo-reform policies that waste millions of dollars on useless technology, high-priced consultants, and Administrative bloat.  When it comes to real improvements in classroom resources that directly affected the children, the DOE pleads poverty and blames school Administrators and staff for the lack of proper materials that are necessary to educate the students.

 A case in point is Jamaica High School that was starved for resources and complaints were made to the State Department of Education (SED) about the effects of lack of resources on the students at the school.  To the shock of most everybody, the SED, presented with the overwhelming evidence by Chapter Leader James Eterno and State Senator Tony Avella, wrote a damming report summerizing how the DOE hurt the students of Jamaica High School by starving them of resources, truncating their course selections, and worst of all, had non-certified teachers teaching Special Education students! In summary, here is what the State found.

 · No honors or advance placement classes are offered to students
· The school no longer offers calculus, chemistry, or physics
· Only three electives are offered to students
· Off –track classes are no longer available
· Students are not offered SAT prep courses
· Students are not able to complete specialty programs such as Business, Computer Science,
Engineering and Finance Institutes or Art Institutes
· Two teachers are not certified in the subject area they are teaching

  The entire report can be found here.

 Interestingly, the major media mouthpieces of the media, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, and the New York Times bothered to report it.  Only NY1 ran with the report and can be found here.

The ICEUFT blog has been writing about the Jamaica High School situation and is a must read for the history of the DOE's attempts to destroy a once great school.

New York State Education Department Finally Agrees That The NYC DOE School Selection Policy Puts Low-Performing Students In Selected Large Comprehensive Schools.

Over the years educational critics have complained that the DOE's school selection policy that put high needs and low-performing students (Special Education, English Language Learners, Behavioral, and Attendance issues) into the few, selected large comprehensive schools while allowing the small Bloomberg created schools to exclude them. From the time of Chancellor Joel Klein to the present the DOE would boldly deny that their school selection program was biased.  Now the DOE has reluctantly admitted that their school selection program was discriminatory, after the State Department of Education Commissioner John King sent a letter to Chancellor Dennis Walcott complaining about the DOE's school selection policy..  The Chancellor committed to change the system by October  2012.

In all cases the DOE's school selection process forced selected large comprehensive schools to increase their number of high needs students.  Now that the State SED has told the DOE to change the school selection process, the DOE has informed the State that it will changed it for the 2013-14 school year. 
All I can say is "seeing is believing".

There Is No Excuse Mayor Bloomberg And Chancellor Walcott For Your Failure To Narrow The Racial Achievement Gap. Instead It Actually Widened!

With the release of the 2012 test scores for the elementary and middle schools the data shows that the student  racial achievement gap has widened since 2006.  As Mayor Bloomberg's ed deformer friends would say, there are no excuses for the widening of the racial achievement gap if his educational policies were working.  Therefore, the Mayor and Chancellor must take the blame and the "accountability" for their failure to narrow the racial student achievement gap between whites and minorities.  

In 2006 the ELA racial achievement gap between Blacks and Whites was 30.5% which has widened to 32.1% in the latest 2012 results.  The differences between Hispanics and Whites in 2006 was 30.7% and widened to 33.1% in 2012.  The racial achievement gap also widened between Blacks and Whites for Math.  In 2006 the racial achievement gap was 29.4% and in the 2012 results widened to 31.6%.  One bit of good news is that the achievement gap between Hispanics and Whites actually narrowed a little..  The entire report can be found on the DOE website.

Malsie McAdoo has taken apart the entire report and her conclusions, which I share, show that the Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott reforms have been a failure and even the miniscule rises in the school report are questionable.  Her analysis is in Edwize and can be found here.

To read and hear the Mayor's press releases, one would think that the schools were improving.  However, these statements are higher distorted truths and downright lies.  In other words the Mayor's claim of significant improvement of student academic achievement is a "bunch of crap" The bottom line is that the local news media must hold the Mayor and Chancellor "accountable" for the widening racial student achievement gap and question the failed policies of this Administration that has put their political motives first and the "NYC public school children last.