What Really Happens To The Reassigned Teacher?

There is some mystery on what actually happens to the reassigned teacher that finds him or herself sent to the Teacher Reassignment Center (TRC), otherwise known as the "rubber room". Based upon the available information at the Queens TRC for the school years 2007-2008 and this year, I can come up with some simple statistics that probably is representative of what actually happens to the reassigned teacher throughout New York City.

During the period investigated, I found that only 8% of the teachers reassigned to the "rubber rooms" were actually terminated. However, an additional 12% had resigned or retired and it is likely some of them would have been terminated if they went through their 3020-a hearing. The remaining 80% were evenly divided between taking a settlement by pleading guilty for a fine and going through their 3020-a hearing and getting a range of penalties from acquittal, to a 3 month suspension. There are some longer suspensions but none were issued during the period investigated. Of the people who actually went through the complete 3020-a hearing, the termination rate was 20% or one out of every five teachers. However, many of the teachers who were terminated were subject to felony charges due to theft of service, corporal punishment, or sexual misconduct. There were very few teachers who were sent to the Queens TRC and sent back to school without 3020-a charges. This group consists of less than 5% of the total teacher population.

Unfortunately, the actual statistics are a closely kept secret by the DOE, UFT, and NYSUT. Why aren't they published and broken down for public review is a question that needs to be answered. Occasionally the DOE allows some snippets of information that they spin to the newspapers. However, all three groups appear to believe that not providing statistics is in the best interests of each group. Of course, the lack of knowledge to the actual teacher reassignment process puts the teacher at an extreme disadvantage since the union does not provide real guidance to the teacher and the NYSUT lawyers are too willing to have the teachers take a settlement that makes them plead guilty to something they are not guilty of, pay a significant fine, and take a useless course or courses to add to their punishment.

Finally, please don't think that you will never end up in the "rubber room". If you are over 40, have at least 15 years in the system, and read the blogs you already have the top three risk factors to have a vindictive Principal reassign you. Please read the TAGNYC flyer being sent to all schools about the rubber room. It is interesting reading.

The Rubber Room: DOE's Dirty Little Secret (TAG NYC's flyer)
What is the ‘rubber room’?

Approximately 800 Department of Education teachers are warehoused in Temporary Reassignment Centers, known as rubber rooms. The DOE considers these individuals too dangerous to be around children, yet most will return to schools after languishing for months or years in off-campus sites.

Teachers receive full pay while waiting for the resolution of their cases. The financial costs are estimated as high as $65 million dollars; the human costs are seldom considered.

Reassignment Centers are called rubber rooms because doing nothing is maddening. Outwardly, teachers play cards, watch DVDs, knit, read books, and sleep. Inwardly, teachers lament the loss of successful careers and worry about uncertain futures. Feelings of fear, doubt and shame never subside.

Why are teachers removed?

Allegations of sexual misconduct, corporal punishment and other misconduct are so disturbing that the DOE banishes teachers to rubber rooms on just the word of a principal, teacher or student.

Certainly some teachers should not be in classrooms, but many charges against teachers are exaggerated or simply not true. For example, reporting unsafe conditions is insubordination; failing to immediately admit a late student to class is corporal punishment.

Principals frequently use false charges to retaliate against whistleblowers and to remove competent teachers who question the policies of the administration.

Reassigned teachers may also be charged with incompetence or be accused of crimes by outside agencies.

Incompetent teachers should be terminated, but many principals and assistant principals are not qualified to judge competence. Principals and assistant principals are required to have only three years of teaching experience. Possession of an administrative license does not guarantee knowledge of pedagogy.

The decision to remove a teacher is often based on personalities; a teacher who caters to the whims of the administration is rarely reassigned and never accused of incompetence.


Why do disciplinary proceedings take so long?

Education Law states that disciplinary proceedings against charged teachers must be completed within five months. The DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) modified the proceedings. These modifications do not provide teachers with increased protection; instead they infringe on the rights of teachers and lengthen the process. The DOE and the UFT agreed that teachers can be removed before charges are preferred. Teachers are supposed to be charged within 6 months of their removal, yet some teachers remain in the rubber room for years without charges.

The DOE and the UFT also denied teachers the right to choose arbitrators. A fixed number of arbitrators are assigned on a rotating basis, supposedly to accelerate the disciplinary proceedings. However, more arbitrators are needed, timeframes are ignored, and cases can last for years.

The accused teachers are not responsible for the delays and they can expedite cases only by admitting guilt and settling.

Teachers who are charged with crimes by an outside agency face similar obstacles. Prosecuting attorneys continually ask for postponements, claim they are ready to proceed, and then ask for additional postponements. The teachers are again powerless to hasten the process except by admitting guilt.


Is justice served?

Arbitrators are paid approximately $1,700 per day and must be approved by both the DOE and the UFT. Arbitrators have a huge incentive to please both sides.

The UFT is happy if teachers do not lose their jobs; the DOE is happy if the arbitrator renders any finding of guilt. Teachers are rarely terminated or exonerated. The decision of an arbitrator is very predictable: a finding against the teacher, a fine, and reassignment as an Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).

Teachers who become ATRs are substitute teachers permanently assigned to schools. They do not have programs and have little hope of returning to the classroom in a meaningful capacity. There are approximately 1,400 ATRs in the DOE. Most ATRs are tenured teachers with excellent records who lost jobs after schools were closed


Why does the process continue?

Principals who abuse the disciplinary process are not punished and they achieve their desired results: a troublesome teacher is removed and the remaining teachers are intimidated.
The DOE hopes that public opinion inflamed by the newspapers will result in the termination of ATRs. Mostly tenured teachers will be dismissed, and teachers without tenure are cheaper and easier to control.

The UFT is reluctant to protest the abuse of the disciplinary process. The UFT receives dues from over 2,000 ATRs and rubber room teachers, approximately $2.4 million annually. Positions for these teachers have been given to new hires and changing the system will cost the UFT money.

Teachers and students are hurt by the system, but neither group has a voice.
Parents and the public are kept in the dark and trust that policymakers will make the right decisions. So far they have not.

We teachers must all stand together and bring transparency to the system both at the DOE and the UFT. Separately, we are just fish in the barrel that the DOE can pick off at will.

Why Doesn't The Union Go After The PINI Principals Otherwise Known As The Principals From Hell?

Every time the New York Teacher newspaper comes out the union spotlights a Principal In Need Of Improvement (PINI). However, the union does little else about these PINI Principals. While I will never condone what Chapter Leader Francisco Gimbitos of MS328 in the Bronx did. I do understand his frustration at being targeted by an abusive administrator while the union did little or nothing to protect him or the teaching staff from the PINI Principal.

The "rubber rooms" are full of teachers who have been unfairly placed there by vindictive and abusive Principals on the union's PINI list. However, there are no consequences to the Principals when they remove a teacher. For these Principals it is not about the collateral damage done to the students when an effective teacher is removed, its about the control. Of the 640 teachers in the "rubber rooms" throughout the City, only 10% of these teachers probably belong there. Many of the most intelligent and outspoken teachers who dare stand up to the Principal find themselves removed from the school by Principals who retaliate for the teacher's whistileblowing or for disagreeing with the administrator's improper decisions. The PINI Principals are notorious for getting rid of staff and yet Tweed will look the other way when the union complains about the PINI Principals' practices.

The union needs to file PERB complaints against these "Principals from hell" and if necessary. take the complaints to the courts. Until there are serious consequences to these PINI Principals who abuse staff, they will continue to abuse their staff while the DOE does nothing.

"Children last" continues.

What Characteristics Make A Quality Teacher? According To The DOE It Is Not What You Think.

Time and again the DOE and their media puppets, the New York Daily News and New York Post, rant about how the New York City Public Schools need quality teachers to improve student academics. Of course the New York City Public Schools need more than quality teachers. For example, lower class sizes, a more stringent student discipline code, and giving the teacher a voice in the classroom are also needed. Since this article is about quality teachers, I will limit it to the quality teaching issue. I agree that quality teachers are needed in the schools. However, what you and I believe are the characteristics of a quality teacher is quite different than what Chancellor Joel Klein and his subordinates at Tweed thinks.

The common characteristics of a quality teacher are usually based on the teacher's ability and are as follows:

1. Experienced. A minimum of three to five years in the classroom to master the profession.
   
2. Good classroom management skills.
3. Knowledge of the curriculum.
4. Interacting with the students and helping them with their problems.
5. Able to think independently and make good choices on academic issues.
6. Willing to question decisions when it is against the best interests of the students.

However, Chancellor Joel Klein's definition of a quality teacher is far different. Let's look at what Tweed wants teaching the New York City Public School students.

1. Cheap, and inexperienced teachers who will leave the system before they are vested.
2. Poor classroom management skills but who cares? They will be leaving the system soon.
3. A steep learning curve in understanding of the curriculum . See #2 above for the rest.
4. Don't get involved with the students and always send them to the Guidance Councilor.
5. Never make a decision without getting an Administrator's approval.
6. Never question the Administrators even when they are wrong and hurts the students.

Joel Klein and his minions can speak about quality teaching all they want. However, what they say and the teachers they hire are not the same. Unless a quality teacher is defined as cheap, inexperienced, and never makes decisions. Then again this is the Kleinberg DOE where up is down, right is wrong, and good is bad. "Children Last" continues.

NYC Fails To Close The Education Gap Between Whites And Minorities. Chancellor Klein Blames The Teachers & Principals Not His Failed Education Policy

In a report by a management consulting group, McKinsey & Company, found that the academic gap between white and minoritygroups persists in New York City. The study by the business group stated the following:

In New York City, an analysis of 2007 federal test scores for fourth graders showed strikingly stratified achievement levels: While 6 percent of white students in city schools scored below a base achievement level on math, 31 percent of black students and 26 percent of Hispanic students did. In reading, 48 percent of black students and 49 percent of Hispanic students failed to reach that base level, but 19 percent of white students did.

The McKinsey report did not specify why the academic gap between whites and minorities persist. However, our non-educator Chancellor, Joel Klein, found the usual scapegoats. The New York Times reported on the Chancellor's comments about the report in yesterday's paper.

The New York City schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein who introduced the findings at the National Press Club in Washington, said the study vindicated the idea that the root cause of test-score disparities was not poverty or family circumstances, but subpar teachers and principals.

Really? family history and poverty are not an issue? What planet is he from? Oh, I forgot he is from DOE's bizarre world where up is down, right is wrong, and bad is good. If Joel Klein's statements are even remotely true then one only needs to look at the failed education policy he and Bloomberg have imposed on the NYC Public Schools. Remember, Harry Truman stated "the buck stops here" when it came to important policy decisions. Unfortunately, in the bizarre world of the DOE it is easier for the decision makers to blame the people in the trenches than the leadership at Tweed. In other words, the Tweed motto is "pass the buck".

"Children Last" continues.

What Happend To Student Enrichment? There is None Because Of Tweed's Mindless Emphasis On Test Prep, Test Prep, & More Test Prep

When I was a student in the NYC Public Schools I looked forward to my teachers veering off curriculum occasionally and giving enrichment activities. Be it science fiction (star trek) , recreated historical events, math puzzles, or games. This was during a time when the BOE was run by a Chancellor who was an educator and allowed "teachers to teach" as they saw fit to best enhance the students' academic ability.

Like most students I found test preparation boring and it was the quality teacher that understood that it was important to entertain the students with stories and challenges that kept the student interest. Almost all educators understood the importance of enrichment activities if they are to get the most out of their students' academic ability. Even the successful Charter Schools require student enrichment as a necessary supplement to the curriculum.

Unfortunately, things have changed over the last decade. The BOE is now called the DOE and the Chancellor is now a lawyer and non-educator. In fact, only two people in Chancellor Joel Klein's inner circle are educators. This change at the top has resulted in a "top down management" and no longer allows "teachers to teach ". It is now constant test prep with little or no enrichment. The result is stagnant test scores when compared to the federal baseline test (NAEP) and unmotivated students. Of course Tweed does not blame themselves for the problems in the classroom. Instead the DOE blames the teachers. According to the DOE it is more important to hire inexperience (cheap) "newbie teachers" who have little classroom control and does not fully understand the curriculum rather than the experienced (expensive) quality teacher who can not only handle the classroom and knows the curriculum, but will have the time to teach enrichment activities to make the classroom interesting for the students.

I keep reading the newspapers telling us that the reason the students are not doing better is because of the teacher's union regulations. The reality is quite different. The "one-size-fit-all" approach in the classroom combined with the disrespect of the teaching profession, especially the classroom teacher, by the non-educators at Tweed and the "Leadership Academy" Principal are the reasons that students are not showing the desired academic improvement despite the resources given to the city schools.

Test preparation all day, every day is not the solution but is the problem when it comes to the lack of academic progress. Tweed's "children last" continues.

The DOE's Unfair Comparison Between The Charter Schools And The Public Schools

Time and again the New York Daily News and New York Post praise how Charter Schools are giving the minority children in the poorest neighborhoods a "choice" However, it is a choice for who? The astute parents with well-behaved children? Or is it the dysfunctional single parent who has a student with behavioral or attendance issues? Of course it is the former group that is given the "choice". Further, few Charter Schools accept English language learners or special education students, claiming they do not have the resources to meet their educational needs. The result is that the student body is highly selective and do not represent the community. Furthermore, the neighborhood school suffers by not only losing their top students but lose precious public school funding to the Charter School. Routinely, the Charter School students are selected after interviews with both the student and parents. Take for instance the Carl C. Icahn Charter School. According to the New York Daily News this Charter School only accepted 3% of the applicants. It also caps it's class size at 18, not 25 or 32 like in the Public Schools ( To see the Carl C. Icahn school's requirements you can go to their website). Interestingly, you will find parent and student requirements that cannot be enforced in the Public Schools. EdNotes Online states it best by challenging these Charter Schools to take the same student population as the Public School and see if they can get better results.

The Charter Schools have an unfair advantage because they are allowed to "skim the top" of the best students in the area and can impose discipline, attendance, and parent participation requirements as a condition for acceptance in the Charter Schools. It is a wonder that the Charter Schools don't do better since they have the better student and more involved parent. However, the Charter Schools suffer from an inexperienced teaching staff, high teacher turnover, and staff burnout. This limits academic progress to a degree because of the ever changing staff situation.

To compare the Charter Schools with the neighborhood Public School is unfair and for the DOE to do so is disingenuous.

Randi & Joel Do It Again - The UFT Secretly Dropped Their Age Discrimination Lawsuit When They Signed The Unenforceable ATR Agreement

It appears once again Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein negotiated an agreement that resulted in the UFT members getting the short end of the stick. JD2718 reports in his blog that an apparently secret agreement between the UFT and DOE resulted in the UFT dropping their age discrimination lawsuit as a part of the unenforceable ATR agreement that has so far resulted in only 16 ATRs given classroom assignments. Time and again the Joel Klein's DOE negotiates in "bad faith" with the UFT and refuses to live up to the negotiated agreements. Be it the ATRs, the "rubber room" or paperwork reductions. The reason is simple. Our union refuses to ensure that any agreement have enforceable provisions. Both sides leave enough "wiggle room" in the language to allow DOE to ignore the intent of these agreements.

According to JD2718 the age discrimination lawsuit was discussed at last Monday's Executive Board meeting and he summarizes the following:

At last Monday’s Executive Board meeting a question and follow-up about the UFT’s age discrimination revealed:

• the suit was withdrawn, without prejudice, when the ATR side agreement was reached.
• to refile the suit, the UFT would need to collect fresh information.
• members individual suits were not withdrawn.

This is shocking. I was under the impression that the UFT dropped their original age discrimination lawsuit because of legal issues on the use of the data collected. In other words the NYSUT attorney didn't believe the age discrimination case would succeed based upon the information. Now it turns out that the UFT secretly bargained the age discrimination lawsuit away in the unenforceable ATR agreement. How come the UFT didn't report this as a part of the ATR Agreement in their press release? The reason is quite obvious to me. They were embarrassed and afraid to tell the teachers the truth that this is what the union gave up for the ATR agreement. Therefore, they kept the age discrimination lawsuit issue secret to the members. To my knowledge, no teacher who was part of the dropped age discrimination lawsuit was told the truth. They were all apparently told that the age discrimination case had no legal standing. Now that the truth is known, it now makes sense why the UFT is reluctant to file a new age discrimination lawsuit despite he influx of older teacher in the "rubber rooms" and the ATR ranks.

I can only say what my friend Woodlass said in her comments to the information provided in JD2718's article. SHAME, SHAME,. SHAME.

The New York Post's Lovefest With The Bloomberg Administration On Education Reform

Over the last two weeks you could not pick up the New York Post without an article or editorial trumpeting how the Bloomberg Administration has improved the academic scores and graduation rates of the New York City Public Schools. It didn't matter to the New York Post that many of the statistics were suspect and that the DOE lacked transparency. It didn't matter that mayoral control has ignored the parents, students, and teachers when they implement their destructive educational polices that leave all three groups powerless. Diane Ravitch, in her OpEd article in the New York Times describes what is really happening with Bloomberg's education system.

Diane Ravitch's article talks about how there is no independent analysis of the DOE generated data and a closer look at the statistics seem to tell a different story than the New York Post claims. For example take the high school graduation rates. How much of the so-called dramatic increase of graduates came because of the bogus and New York State discredited "credit recovery program" as well as the manipulation of the dropout statistics. Further questioning the graduation rate is the large percentage of NYC public school students who need remedial courses in college (83%). Back in September of 2008 I wrote an article about the lack of college preparation for the high school graduates. However, don't look for the New York Post to print the truth about the New York City Public Schools.

While Tweed continues to practice "Children Last" the New York Post just keeps on producing "puff pieces" of praise for Bloomberg's education policy. It just makes me sick.

The "Rubber Rooms" Are Filling Up With Older Teachers And Randi's Lawyer Claims There Is No Age Discrimination

Since my previous article on the age discrimination at the Queens Teacher' Reassignment Center (TRC). Things have been getting worse not better at the Queens TRC as more and more older teachers, most of them over the age of 50, have been sent to the "rubber room". Apparently, this is occurring citywide as all the "rubber rooms" are reporting an influx of older teachers at their sites. While Tweed gives the Principals the "green light" to remove older teachers Randi Weingarten's lawyer says there is no age discrimination issues. Adam Ross stated at a meeting in March that the union had looked into the age discrimination accusation and found no basis in the claim to file a lawsuit. Ron Isaac, to his credit, tried to bring up the age statistics that was given to him by the Queens TRC liaison, only to have the statistics dismissed by Adam Ross. Further, Leroy Barr, Randi's Chief of Staff, who was also at the March meeting and was aware of the ageism issue, said nothing.

How can our union allow the age discrimination to continue? Unfortunately, when the higher-ups pretend that there is no age discrimination and ignore the statistics that say otherwise, it is easy. With a union that fails to take seriously abuses by the DOE and allows Tweed to break any agreement that they see fit. One can only wonder when the UFT will draw a line in the sand and stand up for their members.

Why Are The Principals Not Hiring The ATRs For The Classroom? Its About The Control Stupid!

Once again our union was shocked that after negotiating an agreement with the DOE to give Principals a financial incentive to hire ATRs for classroom vacancies in November of 2008. Instead of hiring experienced ATRs for these classroom positions, the Principals hired "newbie teachers" for 95% of the openings. The Daily News reported that of the 311 vacancies only 16 ATRs were hired, compared to the 295 "newbie teachers" to fill the positions.

The union had negotiated in "good faith" with the DOE and thought it had a "win-win" proposal that would reward Principals who filled a classroom position with an experienced ATR and get a financial benefit to the school's budge. Granted, Tweed did not require the Principals to hire the ATRs and they could hire whomever they wanted. However, what Principal would not want to hire an experienced, veteran teacher while only paying a salary of a beginning teacher of $45,530? Further, if the fit was good for both the ATR and the Principal, Tweed would reimburse the school half the teachers salary ($22,765) for the first year. Even a skeptic like myself thought the union finally got one right. Wrong!

Little did I know that the Principals prized their control over the staff above the financial aspects of the school. In fact, the Principals attached so much importance to having total control that parent concerns and student academics were secondary to their goal of having complete control over the school. These Principals want a teacher to say "how high" when told to jump not "why"? How can a Principal justify hiring a "newbie teacher" with little knowledge in the curriculum and classroom management over an experienced teacher for the same price? Because the DOE said they can. This anti-educational practice can only be achieved if Tweed privately encouraged the Principals not to hire the ATRs, either through communications with the District Superintendents or the Lead Instructional Supervisors. Obviously, the Principals were given the green light to hire the "newbie teachers".

Unfortunately, the union has continuously failed to point out how this policy affects student learning to the newspapers and the newscasts. Why, has the union not brought up the Principal school control issue as a cause against student learning? You need to go ask them. The Tweed policy of encouraging the Principals to hire "newbie teachers" hurts the student's academics and is consistent with Tweed's "Children Last" program. Its too bad the union allows this to continue unchallenged.

Tweed Just Continues To Spend More Money On Non-Educational Items While The Schools Suffer

The City Controller, Bill Thompson found that the DOE has cost overruns of $700 million dollars for "goods & services" that, for the most part, are non-educational in nature. The New York Post article quoted Bill Thompson as saying "It's reprehensible that the Department of Education plays by its own rules and goes on some insane spending spree," Bill Thompson, is one of many officials at a City Council hearing who ripped what he called the department's lack of transparency.

Bill Thompson also attributed the "runaway" costs to the fact that one of every five department contracts that concluded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 overran its original estimate by at least 25 percent.

He said that so far this fiscal year that figure had inched upward to 27 percent, taking money away vital education services.

"DOE's failure to accurately determine its expenditures prevents it from negotiating the best prices for goods and services, and is contrary to sound business practices," he wrote in a letter to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Where is the accountability? It is obviously not at Tweed where cost overruns, non-bid contracts, and highly-paid consultants are the rule while the schools starve for adequate funds to provide services for their students.

"Children Last" continues.

The DOE Double Standard Continues As Tweed Allows An Accused Sexual Molester Assistant Principal To Be Around Students

In the bizarre world of Kleinberg's DOE once again the double standard between Administrators and teachers rears its ugly head. The New York Post reported that the DOE refuses to remove an Assistant Principal, Michael O'Herliiy, from Night and Day Comprehensive High School who was accused of sexually molesting two male students at Cardinal Hayes High School. After an investigation by the Catholic Church, Mr. O'Herliny was not only fired from the school but was defrocked as a Priest in 1993 an extremely rare action. The only reason the DA did not prosecute the case was the statute of limitations expired when the Catholic Church didn't give the list of Priests who were accused of sexually molesting children until 2002. Despite DOE being aware of the very serious accusations, they have decided not to reassign the Assistant Principal away from students.

This is the same DOE that will quickly reassign a teacher for using a word in a sentence that a student misunderstands or for touching an arm or shoulder. To the DOE that is sexual but when it comes to an Assistant Principal that was fired as a teacher and Priest because of sexual molestation charges, that is not. Bizarre is hardly the word. This is perverted when an accused sexual molester is allowed to be around students while quality teachers are in the "rubber rooms" for simply making a student uncomfortable.

I can only say that Tweed has taken the statement that "Administrators are assumed innocent while teachers are assumed guilty" to the extreme in this case and endangers the very students they are sworn to protect. "Children Last" continues.

The Lies That Bloomberg & Klein Claim About Academic Achievement

Now that we are coming down to the home stretch on the State's decision on mayoral control. The daily newspapers are advocating the continued dominance of mayoral control. The newspapers claim that under Bloomberg & Klein the schools have shown academic improvements, increased graduation rates, school choice, and a streamlined administration. However, the truth is something far different than what Kleinberg and the daily newspapers claim.

First, lets look at Kleinberg's claim of academic improvements. According to the federal NAEP tests there has been little, if any progress, in improving academic achievement. Dumbing down the State tests has resulted in all the State's school districts showing academic progress. Making the State tests easier is not real academic improvement and until the national numbers improve, the New York City public schools under Kleinberg has shown academic stagnation not improvement.

Second, the so-called improved graduation rates could be based upon the New York State discredited "credit recovery system" . Many high schools use this program to improve not only their graduation rates but school grade as well. For readers who don't understand the "credit recovery system" it allows students who failed to show up to their classes to participate in a three day workshop on the subject outside school hours. James Eterno writes about Jamaica High School's "credit recovery system" and the consequences to all the school's students who follow the rules. I previously wrote about the "credit recovery system" and you can see my article Here. Even the new head of the Regents, Merryl Tisch has expressed her disapproval oi the "credit recovery system" along with the testing scores Here. Despite the New York State's disapproval of the "credit recovery system, no action has been taken to stop it and the DOE uses this discredited program to artificially improve high school graduation rates.

Third, it is true that many students have more school choice. However, it comes with many strings and it is rigged for the smarter student with involved parents. For example the small/charter schools have a much lower percentage of "special education" and ELA children. In fact, the DOE exempted the newly created small schools from these students for the first two years and looked the other way when these small schools continued this policy of discouraging these students from applying to the school citing inadequate resources. Further, the small/charter schools also practices the exclusion of the level one student who may have disciplinary or attendance problems and the "not ready for promotion" students. More importantly, is the reduction in resources to the public schools as money and the better students are picked off by the charter schools, aided and abetted by both the DOE and the UFT. The daily newspapers and the DOE always compare the charter schools with the neighborhood public schools. However, this is an unfair comparison since the charter schools reaches out to the involved parent and hence, the better student. These charter schools should be compared to the specialized public schools that attract the same type of students. It is a wonder that any charter schools fail but they do and that usually is caused by high teacher turnover and administrative incompetence.

Fourth, the lack of educators at the top level of Tweed. Of the 18 members of Klein's inner circle, only 2 are educators. Furthermore, the disconnect between the policy makers at Tweed with the schools have resulted in the use of a "on-size-fits-all" workshop model and with classroom teacher dissatisfaction. Moreover, the poor allocation of precious resources into non-academic programs like AIRS, the accountability project, and the Teacher Performance Unit has resulted in less money for the schools and student services.

Finally, under Kleinberg the only voice that counts is the Principal's. There is no parental or teacher involvement in school policy and the Principal can do what he/she likes when it comes to budget, services, and hiring. No input is considered and all decisions are entirely up to the Principal. This has resulted in very few ATRs being hired for the classroom. This is about control and power by the Principal not what is good for the students of the school. The ongoing problems at IS #8 in Jamaica is an example on how the DOE closes their eyes on alleged abuses by a Principal.

There must be checks and balances in the school system and educators must be put back into control of the New York City Public Schools. No other outcome is acceptable.

A Message To Chancellor Klein

I have a friend and every time he goes to do his business in the toilet he announces that he is sending a "message to the Chancellor". In other words after being pissed and shitted on by the Chancellor and his Tweed flunkies, this teacher responds in kind when he has a bowel movement. While I might find my friend's action amusing I have my own "message to the Chancellor".

My "message to the Chancellor" is that your disrespect for parents, students, and teachers is hurting the morale of the New York City Public Schools and the lack of transparency at Tweed makes real reform nearly impossible. Furthermore, your failure to honor negotiated agreements with the UFT has resulted in overcrowded "rubber rooms" and an ever increasing ATR population. Moreover, your destruction of the neighborhood schools at the expense of small/charter schools has resulted in high teacher turnover and instability in the schools. Finally, your misguided priorities in allocating funds to Tweed's pet projects at the expense of the schools is starving the schools of precious funds and reducing student services.

I could add much more but it would take me too long to list all of them. Now I must end this article as nature calls. Come to think of it, my friend is right and I really need to send a "message to the Chancellor". Children Last continues.

A Peek Into The DOE's Secretive "Gotcha Squad" And How They Are Trying To Terminate Teachers

I have been viewing the blog "rubber room reporter" and found an in-depth account how the DOE's Teacher Performance Unit (TPU) operates. The TPU is a $1.2 million dollar group, made up of lawyers and retired Principals, and has developed a process, including a worksheet for Principals on how to terminate teachers for alleged incompetence. Randi Weingarten has nicknamed the TPU the "gotcha squad" and has complained about their purpose. However, the union has done nothing to combat this secretive group in their bid to terminate teachers. Little was known about how this secretive TPU group works until Betsy Combier filed a "Freedom Of Information Request" or otherwise known as FOIL and then published it on the blog.

What is very interesting about how the "gotcha squad" works is that they seem to require that the targeted teacher go through PIP+ where 75% of the teachers are found incompetent. More about PIP+ in a later article but it is safe to say that the union approved PIP+ is just another Tweed tool to terminate teachers. Furthermore, the Principals are required to fill out the "Principal Worksheet To Terminate The Teacher." Finally, the Principal gives the poor teacher her final "U" observation once PIP+ is completed and the teacher is now removed from the classroom and the eventual filing of 3020-a charges a couple of months later.

It is unfortunate that we have a real enemy in Tweed rather than a partner to improve education. Tweed will do anything they can to terminate senior teachers, whatever the cost. Remember this is not about the children and the collateral damage done to them when a teacher is removed from the classroom. It is about the DOE's "Children Last" policy.

Principals Are Still Not Hiring ATRs For The Classroom Despite The UFT/DOE Agreement

When the UFT, with much fanfare, negotiated an agreement with the DOE to give Principals a financial incentive to hire some of the 1,740 ATRs for classroom positions. I admit I was all for the agreement since the Principals can get an experienced teacher for a minimal cost. What Principal wouldn't want an experienced teacher in the classroom? It made sense that Principals would want an experienced teacher to improve their test scores. It is all about the children, right? Wrong? many Principals still rather hire a "newbie" teacher with no classroom experience than an experienced ATR with good management skills.

Today's New York Daily News reported that only 16 ATRs have been hired to fill a classroom vacancy since the November 2008 agreement while 295 "newbie" teachers have filled the rest.The reason it is not about the children but about the Principal. Many of the Principals, especially the Leadership Academy Principals, would rather have inexperienced teachers who when told to jump responds "how high" rather than an experienced teacher that might say "why"? Further, many of the younger Principals are intimidated by the experienced teachers and refuse to hire them. Finally, ageism is also a part of the equation as many Principals discriminate against the older teacher and don't want them in their schools.

The union's ATR agreement with the DOE should have resulted in over 300 ATR offered a position in the classroom. Instead the Principals continue to fail to do what's best for their students and hire inexperienced teachers who take years to develop effective classroom skills. Unfortunately, "Children Last" continues.

Joel Klein & Tweed Show Their True Intentions When They Are Asked To Protect NYC Public School Students

Joel Klein always claim the reason that teachers are removed from the classroom is that they are a potential threat to the children. However, when it comes to the Principals Tweed looks the other way. Now the New York Post reports how a NYC public school honor student showed up at a Brooklyn meeting with Chancellor Joel Klein, gave him a letter and pleaded for a safety transfer, as she was threatened with physical violence from a gang of students, only to be brushed off by the Chancellor and his minions. The girl wrote 25 e-mails to Joel Klein and did not receive a single response from Tweed. Eventually, she was jumped and beaten up and suffered serious neck injuries. Only then did she receive a safety transfer. If a teacher failed to take action and the girl was physically assaulted, the teacher would be removed from the classroom for failure to protect the safety of the child. However, Joel Klein's failure to protect the child goes unpunished since he is the Chancellor. In other words Joel Klein does not have to follow the Chancellor's regulations and violating his own regulations does not result in any consequences.

It seems that student safety is only a concern at Tweed when an accusation is made against a teacher. However, when it comes to physical threats against a student by others it is ignored by the DOE. "Children Last" continues unabated at Tweed.

Age Discrimination Is Going Strong At The Queens Teacher Reassignement Center- Where Is the Union's Age Discrimination Lawsuit?

Previously, I wrote about how the "rubber rooms" are filling up again as Principals have resumed pulling teachers out of the classrooms since the DOE has ignored the July 2, 2008 agreement with the UFT. However, more ominous is which teachers are being removed and sent to the Queens "rubber room". They are senior teachers that are over 40 years of age that are the primary inhabitants in the Queens "rubber room". In fact, a very recent survey of the age distribution of the Queens "rubber room" inhabitants found the skewed data analysis listed below. The increase in senior teachers at the Queens TRC seems to be attributed to Principals being given the go ahead to have senior teachers removed without DOE questioning the Principal's motives. What follows is the age distribution of the inhabitants reassigned in the Queens TRC and other offices throughout the borough. This data does not include teachers removed from the classroom but have not yet been sent to the "rubber room" while 3020-a charges are being prepared by the DOE legal Office.

• Total number of "rubber room inhabitants = 113
• Inhabitants between the ages of 20 to 29 = 2
• Inhabitants between the ages of 30 to 39 = 18
• Inhabitants between the ages of 40 to 49 = 28
• Inhabitants at or over the age of 50 = 65

The percentage of inhabitants in their 40s or older reassigned to the Queens TRC is an astounding 82% and 58% of those inhabitants at least 50 years of age! Any reasonable analysis of the data shows that the DOE is practicing age discrimination. However, the union seems to fail to see this. Like an Ostrich, the UFT appears to put their head in the sand so as not to address the ageism issue. Why is the union ignoring the ageism issue is puzzling. However, the union must take quick action and start a major age discrimination lawsuit against the DOE practice of reassigning senior teachers while younger, and inexperienced teachers are given a free pass.

The union's failure to protect their senior teachers is disgraceful and for the UFT to allow Tweed to practice ageism in the teacher removal process is aiding and abetting the DOE practice of age discrimination.

How Much Does It Cost The DOE To File 3020-a Charges Against Tenured Teachers? How About $250,000!

There are between 700 and 1,000 teachers that have been removed from the classrooms and most of them will be charged under State Education Law 3020-a. Because tenured teachers have due process rights the DOE cannot just fire a teacher but must convince an arbitrator that the teacher's alleged wrongdoings warrant termination. Unfortunately, for Tweed they must show real proof and compelling evidence before an arbitrator is convinced that termination is a proper penalty. However, more unlikely, is that the arbitrator finds the charged teacher totally innocent. Therefore, to appease the DOE, the arbitrator will usually find teacher fault that is sufficient to impose a fine or suspension on the teacher.

The real question is how much does the average 3020-a process cost? Based upon some numbers floated around by both the DOE and UFT it appears to average $250,000 for a teacher to complete a 3020-a hearing. This number can be lower or higher depending on how many specifications (charges) Tweed files against a teacher. For example some teacher incompetence cases can take an entire school year or more just to go through the specifications against the teacher. While I cannot confirm the $250,000 value, it does appear reasonable when you work through the numbers. For example lets assume the following is true.

• Teacher salary $75,000/yr and averages two years out of the classroom.
• Arbitrator's salary $1,700/Dy and averages 20 days per hearing.
• NYSUT attorney's salary of $80,000/'yr and averages 4 months
  
• DOE's lawyer salary $75,000/yr and averages 4 months
  
• Transportation (usually a limo service) & food for DOE witnesses. about $4,000

When added together it comes out to approximately $250,000 from start to finish. This value does not include the cost of replacement teachers for the teachers removed from the classroom and the cost of subpoenas and visits to the school by the DOE. Furthermore, printing and photocopying costs of evidence, including transcripts are ignored. Finally, this does not include the use of DOE paid investigators which costs thousands of dollars in manpower. If these other items are included, the figure could easily reach $300,000 or higher.

In the ongoing severe budget crises the DOE can save much money and bring fairness to the system by hiring an independent mediator to evaluate whether a teacher should be removed from the classroom rather than the existing DOE kangaroo court/investigative process that almost always takes the Principal's side and files 3020-a charges against the hapless teacher and, of course, wastes precious education funds just to file 3020-a charges that usually does not end up in the teacher's termination.

The "Rubber Rooms" Are Filling Up Again With SeniorTeachers Who Are At Least 50 Years Old Of Age Or Older

Randi Weingarten of the UFT with much fanfare had vowed to close down the "rubber rooms" by signing an agreement with Joel Klein to have the DOE legal Office offer settlements to teachers subject to 3020-a charges and to seriously question the Principal's motives when they remove teachers from the classroom. For a fleeting moment the July 2nd 2008 agreement appeared to have had an impact. It did seem that many teachers were offered settlements and Principals appeared reluctant to remove teachers. The "rubber rooms" were slowly emptying out. However, since the holidays there has been a dramatic reversal on all fronts. The first teachers who were subject to the PIP+ process and allegedly found incompetent were no longer offered deals under the newTeacher Performance Unit (TPU). Only resignation or retirement were allowed. Further, Principals, under increasing budget restrictions and knowing that teachers are off their payroll in 60 days, would have senior teachers who are eligible for retirement, removed from the school after the Principals realized that the DOE legal Office was not serious in questioning the motives of the Principals' removal process. Moreover, the continued biased investigative arms of the DOE, the Office Of Special Investigations (OSI) and the Special Commissioner Of Investigations (SCI) assume teacher guilt and aids the Principal in railroading the teacher out of the classroom.

Obviously, the union has been caught sleeping at the switch as the much promised reforms and fairer treatment for "reassigned teachers"has been disregarded by the DOE. Furthermore, the DOE and the Principals are discriminating against older teachers and are using "ageism" in accounting for the increase in 50+ year old teachers sent to the "rubber room". Therefore, as the "rubber rooms" are filling up with older teachers the union just looks the other way. Where is the discrimination lawsuit now that the DOE has shown their hand and are actively engaged in removing senior teachers? based upon previous actions, don't count on the UFT to do the right thing and bring an age discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the senior teachers. Why do we pay outrageous union dues if the union does not advocate for us and stop the DOE's abuse of power?
It is very discouraging how the union keeps dropping the ball and lets the DOE get away with abusing teachers.

I just ask that the union live up to it's requirements and protect the teacher from the abuse of the DOE. So far, I am disappointed on the union's lack of aggressive action to counter the DOE.

Blommberg & Klein's Decision To Cancel School At The Last Minute Was Disgraceful & Dangerous For Parents, Students, and Teachers

We all know that the Politicians use the New York City Public Schools as a "babysitting service". However, Bloomberg & Klein, knowingly allowed parents, students, and teachers to prepare for school when all other school districts cancelled their classes either last night or by 4am the following morning. It wasn't until 5:55 am when WCBS radio announced the closing. Later for other radio stations. If you were waiting for the TV to announce it, that didn't happen until almost 6:30am, too late for many affected school staff who already started their trip to school. Further, many parents and students were unaware that the schools were closed at the last minute. Fox interviewed a high school student going to school who had no idea that the schools were closed.

With up to 8 inches of snow already measured in the City, and below freezing temperatures making the roads icy and dangerous, (all the news reported were accidents all over the Metropolitian Area) to allow children to travel in such hazardous weather conditions is illogical and life-endangering. While Bloomberg & Klein eventually did the right thing by cancelling school, they did it for the wrong reason. I do not believe the decision was made based upon the Sanitation and Bus companies. Rather the decision was based upon that they were pressured to cancel school because few school staff were prepared to show up and risk their lives on the road just to supervise students in an auditorium and making them watch a movie. Therefore, the very late decision to close the schools.

The DOE must stop putting themselves first and the schools last. The decision to close schools during a major snowstorm is a "no-brainer" Compared to all other school systems , only Tweed doesn't take student safety in consideration and their failure to acknowledge student safety concerns is the major reason for Tweed's failure to close the schools in a timely fashion.

"Tweed's "children last" continues....

While The Schools Are Forced To Cut Their Budget by 5%, Tweed Just Continues To Increase Their Head Count.

The economic crises have forced the schools to reduce their budget by 5% for the Spring semester. No exceptions. However, the proposed 10% cut from the DOE outside the schools do not come from Tweed but primarily come from the District Offices or the Integrated Service Centers. In fact, the head count at Tweed has increased by almost 100 people since January of 2008 and 22% since October of 2004. Most of these increases come from the Office of Accountability, Budget, Legal Services, and The Chancellor's Office. How can Tweed justify increasing their head count while the rest of the DOE and schools must suffer cuts of between 5-10%? The answer is quite simple. It is because Tweed's bloated bureaucracy is not held accountable for their actions by the Bloomberg Administration. Interestingly, the only real reduction at Tweed is at the Deputy Chancellor's Office of Teaching and Learning where the staff has been reduced from 133 in 2004 to 23, the one office where education practices are actually understood.

The Daily News reported on how some of Tweed's programs saw an almost fivefold increase of bureaucrats while forcing the students to have fewer staff or services in the schools. That is unconscionable and just shows how much contempt Tweed has for the students in the school system, A graph by Gotham Schools also show the increase in the Tweed headcount while the Field Offices were forced to reduce staff.

While the school system suffers devastating cuts the Central Bureaucracy at Tweed just seems to keep increasing. "Children Last" continues.....

DOE Continues To Put Unqualified Non-Educators In Charge Of Education

District 75 is a very expensive district in the New York City Public Schools. The district provides services for the most needy of special education students and these services can result in a tripling of costs for these students. So what did Tweed do to District 75? It put one of their non-educators in charge of it. Garth Harries, a Tweed insider, who has been previously in charge of the disastrous small schools program and class size issues is now in charge of District 75 despite having no experience whatsoever in special education. In fact, the only experience Garth Harreis has in special education was his directive that the small schools did not have to take special education students in for the first two years of their existence. Hence, a policy of exclusion of the most needy students. Now Tweed has put him in charge of these very students he excluded from the small schools.

The placing of Garth Harries, with no special education credentials and now in charge of District 75 smells to high heaven and just raises suspicions that the DOE's marching orders are to reduce the cost of services to the most needy students. How this will be done I cannot say but since we are in a budget crises I'm sure Tweedy have some ideas about how to cut the District 75 budget. Already some District 75 teachers have been told by Administrators not to remind parents that their children are eligible for a mini bus. If the parent does not request one the student will be assigned a regular school bus at less cost. I suspect under Garth Harries many more cost cutting programs will be developed at the expense of the special education student.

"Children Last" continues......

Under Klein & Bloomberg Class Sizes Continue To Increase

It is one of the most important items when it comes to getting a quality education, that is class size. It is well documented that small class sizes result in improved academic achievement. However, in the seven years of the Bloomberg administration class sizes have not been reduced significantly despite money from the CFE lawsuit. This year class sizes have actually increased and New York City suffers from the largest class sizes in the State.Furthermore, under Klein & Bloomberg do not look for class size relief anytime soon. Despite parents, teachers, and education experts who have linked smaller class sizes to academic improvements the Bloomberg administration rather spend their money on suspect data collection programs and a one-size-fits-all classroom instruction project without teacher input. Further, under Klein & Bloomberg there is an increasing reliance on non-educators and in particular lawyers to implement the many dubious programs that has increased paperwork threefold and worsened the classroom environment. In the New York Times article the DOE put the blame on Principals for the increase in class sizes. If that is the case then why haven't Tweed removed those Principals that allowed for an increase in class sizes? The reason is quite simple the "Fair Student Funding" formula and DOE imposed budget restrictions on the schools limited the options many Principals have. Moreover, the Principal's own poor choices exasperated the situation such as spending precious funds on unnecessary Professional Development programs, hiring of "F" status administrators, and hosting costly functions that drain the school's budget. Where is the accountability to the parents, students, and teachers on what is best for the children? The real story is that the Principals are only accountable to Tweed and few Principals are reprimanded when they piss off the school population as long as they are in the good graces of the DOE. The UFT press release discusses the class size issue further.

Instead of reducing class size Klein & Bloomberg have found a way to waste $140 million a year in CFE funds and increase class size and with the proposed budget things can only get worse."Children Last" continues.

The DOE's Rigid Use Of The "Worshop Model" Has Resulted In Poor Student Preformance And Charges Of Teacher Incompetence

The not so great minds at Tweed have mandated that classroom instruction should rigidly follow the "Workshop Model" with little or no adjustments to account for the teacher style or student population. In many schools the Administrators actually micromanage the teachers to ensure complete compliance to the "Workshop Model". In the diverse NYC Public school system to use a "one-size-fits-all- approach" is dangerous for student learning. Remember, students are not widgets and teachers are not cogs. Different learning styles should be approached with a variety of teaching techniques. However, in today's DOE this opinion cannot be found, especially among the top bureaucrats.

What is wrong with the "Workshop Model"? Let me count the ways. The workshop model was developed with a moderate sized class sizes and with a homogeneous academic group of students. A very different reality then what we have in our schools where academically poor students are intermixed with ELA and academically proficient students..The UFT back in 2005 wrote about its problems in the secondary schools Here! Further, the "Workshop Model" has some very real weaknesses. First, it is not geared to individualized learning which makes its use for ELA and special education students a serious problem. Second, the "Workshop Model" allows for too much socialization within the student groups and classroom management issues. Finally, the "Workshop Model" inhibits creative learning and individualized instruction, the neediest students are left behind!

The DOE's blind rigidity to the "Workshop Model" is not what the author intended. In a statement at a teachers workshop Lucy Calkins [one of the leaders of the balanced literacy movement] dropped in to talk to us at a recent workshop. She said the workshop model was not to be used for all teaching and thought it was crazy to teach a social studies lesson in 10 minutes. She also restated that balanced literacy is based on teachers making their own decisions about what their students need. The suggested mini-lessons were only meant to help teachers until they learned the balanced literacy methods." The quote was found in the newspaper article Here . I guess the DOE forgot that part of it.

What is even more nefarious is how the Workshop Model" is being used to determine veteran teachers incompetent. There is a directed movement by the TPU to bring incompetence charges on these teachers based upon the "Workshop Model". It is almost laughable that a misused educational program is being used to determine teacher incompetence. However, it is true.

The union should immediately attack the rigid application of the "Workshop Model" and tear apart the DOE in trying to pin teacher incompetence by its use. No other respond is acceptable.