Another Case Of The DOE Double Standard When Disciplining Administrators.

In today's New York Post, reporter Susan Eldelman reported on male Principals and Assistant Principals who were caught having sexual relations with female subordinates.  Contrary to the DOE's often stated position that they will not tolerate sexual misconduct of any type, real or imagined, when it comes to their Administrators, different rules apparently apply. According to the article a Principal and two Assistant Principals were found by SCI to have engaged in a sexual relationship with a female subordinate, in fact one of the female subordinate was pregnant with her supervisor's child!

Once these Administrator hijinks were exposed and the three Administrators, presented with the overwhelming evidence after first denying  it, admitted to their trysts with female subordinates.  According to the 3020-a law any educator found guilty of sexual misconduct is automatically terminated.  However, the DOE in its usual application of the "double standard" between teachers and Administrators simply demoted the three.  No 3020-a hearings in which termination would be the only penalty by the Arbitrator, if presented with the cases. I guess it is only "zero tolerance" of alleged sexual misconduct when it comes to teachers. . 

Is this the first time the DOE let Principals off the hook for sexual misconduct?  Remember the stories of Principal John Chase Jr?  Or Robert Bost?  Unfortunately, the  "double standard" is a fact of life at the DOE whee zero tolerance only applies to teachers, even when there is no sexual misconduct but is ignored when it comes to their Administrators.

It Is Not Only in New Your City That Bogus Credit Recovery Programs Artificially Raised High School Graduation Rates.

On Wednesday I was watching the PBS "Education Nat6ion" in which Shelbyville High School in Indiana improved its graduation rate from 75% to 90% and proudly claimed a success.  How did the school, who was featured in Time magazine's dropout nation", do it?  Better course selection,  smaller class sizes, encouraging students to stay in school?  Well, it was none of them.  It turns out that students who didn't want to go to school was offered a "credit recovery program".

While some "credit recovery programs" have rigorous requirements and are limited to one or two courses yearly, many of the "credit recovery programs" lack such rigor and in many cases is bogus when it comes to student academic achievement.  At Shelbyville, they interviewed one student who, by his own admission got "F"'s throughout his high school career.  Now he goes to the local community college when he feels like it and takes all his courses online.  He just loves it, no seat time, no teachers, and he can take the online test as many times as he likes until he passes the course.  How long does it take him to finish a course that is supposed to represent a year of learning?  How about a few days!  It is no wonder he loves the online course alternative to school.  Another teen, a single mother who had a baby at 13 also was interviewed and bragged how she can go at her own time and finish a course in a week going part time.  When the interviewer asked the Director of the program he claimed it took two months to complete an online course.  Who do you think I believe?  Not the Director.

Yes, "credit recovery programs" may artificially improve the graduation rate of the school but what of the graduates who exclusively used "credit recovery" to obtain their phony diploma?  What the interviewer didn't ask was "credit recovery" the reason for the 15% increase in graduation rates? Probably.  Better yet, what happen to these "credit recovery" students once they received their bogus diplomas?  Did they go to college?  I highly doubt it, did they achieve a high paying job so they can raise a family? Doubtful, or did they continue to struggle and blame society to their own failures. You can guess what I think their future will be.

What Would Mayor Bloomberg Do If There Was No Triborough Amendment To Protect The Teachers?

Can you imagine if an Administration can impose their own idea of a contract once the previous contract expired and tell the union "take it or leave it", without the union's ability to strike?   That is what happened after 1968 when the State of New York passed the "Taylor Law" that prohibited strikes by union workers and imposed severe economic penalties to the workers by fining them two days of pay for every day they strike and eliminate the union's right to collect dues from its members.  Even today, the TWU is still requesting that one third of its members pay up their dues that were not paid after the 2006 Christmas strike that shut down the NYC transit system.   From 1968 to 1982 the unions were essentially powerless to stop the imposition of employer friendly requirements.  Only political pressure stopped many of the more onerous requirements that the Administration wanted to impose but didn't.

In 1982, the unions succeeded in getting the State to pass the "Triborough Amendment" which leveled the playing field for the unions.  Now the union workers kept the previous contract provisions in force until a new contract was negotiated.  With the "Triborough Amendment" the Administration cannot impose new working requirements without a new contract. while the union cannot strike to force a new contract.  Of late there are calls to eliminate the "Triborough Amendment" but interestingly, the very same people are not calling for the elimination of the "Taylor Law" which prohibits employee strikes.  If you want to eliminate one without the other, it smacks of hypocrisy if you ask me.

Just imagine if Mayor Bloomberg had no "Triborough Amendment" to stop him from imposing conditions on the teachers, what would it look like? I can be reasonably assured it would have the following requirements.

• Longer school day and year,
• No teacher due process rights - Arbitrary & capricious standards.
• No seniority rights.
• All ATRs would be fired.
• No cashing in sick days when a teacher retires.
• No class size limits.
• Merit pay.
• Elimination of  defined benefit pensions.
• Pay scale that has higher beginning salaries and lower salaries at the end.
• Elimination of retiree health benefits.
• Current teachers would pay private sector health benefit contributions.

Of  course we do  have the "Triborough Amendment" and this frustrates the Mayor and his pet poodle, the Chancellor to no end.  We must simply wait out these two as they end their tenure in January 2014 without negotiating a contract and are stuck with all the previous contract provisions that they hate.  Thank god for the "Triborough Amendment".

The Hypocricy Of The DOE As They Encourage The News Media To FOIL Teacher Data While Ignoring FOIL Requests For Internal E-Mails On Charter School Co-Location.

Over the last few months the DOE has eagerly released information to the newspapers on "Teacher Data Reports", closed cases on Teachers discipline proceedings the DOE especially wanted fired but failed due to lack of real evidence, and teachers who were accused of inappropriate behavior on their private Facebook accounts. However, when it comes to the DOE's "smoking gun" of e-mails that may implicate Tweed in possible inappropriate actions to approve Charter school co-locations, they have refused to release the information since the FOIL request was filed two years ago.  The Union has now went to court for the DOE's failure to follow the rules.

Interestingly, the DOE's Foil contact is an Attorney named Joseph Baranello who is the Central Records Access Officer and has been identified by Betsy Combier's Rubber Room Reporter blog as the person who is responsible in responding or not responding to FOIL requests.  What is interesting about Mr. Baranello is what he rants on his Facebook page.  According to the Rubber Room Reporter blog here is some of the outrageous quotes he has allegedly posted on his Facebook account.

"I miss the days when it was crowds of trannies and drag queens roaming the streets".


"I was on the L this afternoon when 100 or more Santas boarded at Bedford. It was the biggest collection of douchebags I have stumbled into in at least a decade".


"Then, at union square they deboarded. I went to 6th ave just go avoid them, and walked back to union sq. Oops! Bad move. There were hundreds of f-ing santas all over the area, congregating on University and headed south, towards what fratty sh-hole one can only imagine, and shudder at the thought".


"Get your sukkahs on, suckas".

The very inappropriate remarks on his Facebook by the DOE's FOIL officer, Mr. Baranello on gays, Christmas Santas, and Jews is highly offensive to me and I am sure to others.  His cursing is unprofessional and disgusting.  What were the consequences for his actions by the DOE for his Facebook postings?  To my knowledge, nothing, nothing at all.  Maybe the Daily News might want to look into this?

Another case of the DOE's double standard of accountability when it comes to teachers and their own employees.

My Question To The Union. Have You Met With The DOE To Address The Problems Experienced By The ATRs In Their Weekly Assignments?

It has been almost a year since the weekly ATR assignments have been implemented by agreement between the DOE and the union.  The ATR agreement was supposed to maximize the placement of ATRs in schools that needed teachers in their subject area.  However, in talking to many ATRs that pass through my school and during my time as an ATR, the reality is very different, I was sent to schools that didn't even have Earth Science as a subject.  In fact the incompetents at the DOE  started me out  at York High School of Science for the first five weeks.  The problem?  The school did not even have Earth Science!  Unbelievable but true.  Furthermore, I went through high schools that had non-Earth Science teachers teaching Earth Science.  One high school had sixteen classes of Earth Science being taught by teachers with no Earth Science License!  Other schools tried to ignore the ATR Agreement by advertising for a teacher on Craigslist. My experiences with the DOE's idiotic algorithm was replicated by 1,300 ATRs who went from school to school with little expectation of landing a position.

The question is how did the DOE and UFT deal with the many abuses and problems associated with the ATR agreement?  He is a list of just some of them.

• The District 76 High School travel issue?
• The enforcement of ATR placements in schools where openings are known?
• Allowing High School ATRs To stay in the community districts.
•  Not punishing principals who refuse to fill their vacancies.
• Putting Elementary school teachers in middle schools.

Now I have been told that the ATR committee has never met!  With all these pressing issues and unresolved problems, why not?   Then again "who is on the ATR committee"?  Why the secrecy and lack of transparency? Moreover, is it true that the ATR Agreement is not only for this year but is a permanent part of the contract?  Finally, with the potential of 3,000 ATRs for next school year, wouldn't the union want to have an ATR on the negotiating committee?  You would think so but don't count on it.

The Mayor's Poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, Deserves An "F" In His First Year In Office

Chancellor Dennis Walcott has completed one year as Chancellor for the New York City Public School system and I have graded him an "F". Why has his tenure been so unsuccessful? Let's breakdown his lack of accomplishments as Chancellor since April of 2011.

Independence From The Mayor's Agenda:

The Chancellor has shown not one ounce of independent thinking and follows the Mayor's commands without question. He has proven to be the Mayor's "lap dog" in deed and thought. His unquestioned support of the Mayor's highly unpopular education policies is disgraceful. The Mayor's legacy as the "Education Mayor" is just a sick joke with the ever widening racial/income achievement gap, low "college and career readiness rates", rising class sizes, reduced school staffs, and a bloated DOE Central Bureaucracy where high priced consultants and wasteful technology rule. Moreover, the Chancellor has supported the Mayor's actions to circumvent the union's "collective bargaining rights" and to support the layoff of 4,666 teachers last year! It is little wonder his job approval ratings are so low?

Lack of Accountability:

Time and again the Chancellor claimed that he will make principals accountable for any cheating or bogus "credit recovery programs". However, to date, the Chancellor has been "all talk and no action". Even the New York Post has questioned the graduation rates. Where was Chancellor Walcott and his investigators when the New York Post exposed the phony credits given to students at Washington Irving High School? How come we haven't seen any results of the claims that the Chancellor made about investigating the various principals that teachers emailed him by way of Michael Goodwin? I know the investigations are ongoing ZZZZZZZZZ. Wake me up when those investigations are complete sometime 1n 2014 as being unfounded . However, when it comes to teachers that were found innocent of serious wrongdoing by impartial Arbitrators he still wants the teachers fired because the Arbitrators, who had all the evidence, were wrong and the DOE, which is known for their faulty and biased investigative process was right. I guess the Chancellor believes that a lack of relevant evidence does not matter in declaring teacher guilt. The Chancellor would make a great judge if this were the "Salem Witch Trials".

Teacher Morale:

Under Chancellor Walcott, teacher morale is at a low, while he and his staff continues to demonize and scapegoat the classroom teacher. Dennis Walcott seems not to understand what rising class sizes, lack of resources, and failure to enforce student discipline does to classroom teaching and student academic achievement. He follows in Joel Klein's boots in blaming the student ills on the teachers and like his Mayor only wants the "best teachers". Of course the definition of "best" is temporary, young, controllable, and inexpensive. He has taken the lead in eliminating half the teaching staff of 26 "Turnaround Schools" or approximately 1,500 teachers. He made sure that many experienced teachers would not get jobs and be dumped into the ATR pool by lifting the City hiring freeze for the three month summer hiring period. The result was there was over 1,300 ATRs that had no classroom assignment at the beginning of the school year.

Taking Funds From Public Schools And Increasing Funds To Charter Schools:

In his second budget, the Chancellor has frozen the Public School budget, which is a reduction when inflation is taken into account, while increasing the budget for Charter Schools. Here again he has failed to public school students and parents. When asked by Fox News today why the small and Charter school do not take the same amount of "high need students" that the closing public schools do, he lied and said they do.

The bottom line, the Chancellor's grade is a well deserved "F".

The "Fairy Tale" - The DOE Investigative Process.

We all know that "fairy tales" are simple stories that are not based upon fact but on myths and legends. For example "Jack and the beanstalk" or "little red riding hood". It is not just parents and teachers reading "fairy tales" to the pre-schoolers or kindergartners, the DOE has their own offices that writes "fairy tales" as well.

In the DOE there are three investigative units that investigate educator misconduct. They are the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) who investigate discrimination issues, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) who investigate corporal punishment and verbal abuse accusations, and the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) who investigate criminal, sexual, and financial allegations of wrongdoing.

OEO & OSI are completely controlled by the DOE while SCI are semi-independent of the agency (the SCI salaries are paid out of DOE funds). While educator wrongdoing should be investigated, the investigation process should be fair and neutral. Too often the investigators of these three offices assume a presumption of guilt by the teacher (not administrators in the ever continuing double standard) as they start their investigation. This means that before the investigator even starts to interview witnesses the investigator already has a potential script and it is up to the witnesses to fill in the details and if it turns out that the square peg does not fit into the round hole, they will simply make the peg round.

The Principal is a very important part of the DOE investigation process since the investigators look to the Principal for guidance on how to handle the investigation of the teacher. If the Principal likes the teacher and wants to keep the teacher you can bet that the investigation, if substantiated, will not result in any 3020-a recommendations for termination. On the other hand, if the Principal does not like the teacher, the opposite is true and a 3020-a results. In a truly fair and unbiased investigation the attitude of the Principal should matter little but in reality it matters a great deal in how the investigative process reaches its conclusion.

In many cases the investigator will use third or fourth person hearsay to help substantiate the accusation and to "pile on" charges against the teacher. Many of them are eventually dismissed by the 3020-a Arbitrator due to lack of evidence. These "add on" charges that the investigator has helped make the DOE's case for termination are simply "fairy tales" , in other words they have no factual basis and weaken the case against the teacher. If I was an Arbitrator and I found many of the charges lack credibility, I would be very suspicious of the severity of the charges that had some evidence associated with it.

Why the news media would believe that the investigator's report is always truthful and has no agenda associated with it while ignoring the actual evidence found by an impartial Arbitrator is simply wrong and smacks of bad journalism. Then again juicy stories sell newspapers the truth doesn't.

The Bloomberg/Walcott Agenda Is To Destroy Tenured Teacher Due Process Rights.

Lost in the furor of Chancellor Dennis Walcott's release to the newspapers of sixteen teachers that he believed should have been fired for sexual misconduct but weren't (the reason was that there was no sexual misconduct but that seems to have escaped Dennis Walcott and the news media's attention). However, their real agenda is the elimination of tenured teacher "due process rights".

It is no secret that the Bloomberg Administration wants to replace the 3020-a system where independent Arbitrators weigh the evidence and come up with fair and reasoned decisions (in most cases). To this end, the Bloomberg Administration campaigned for an end to "LIFO" (last in, first out). However, they failed to get it past the State Assembly in 2011. Next Bloomberg and Walcott tried to eliminate the 3020-a requirements in the proposed teacher evaluation system for teachers rated "ineffective" two straight years. In this, they were mostly successful as they managed to doom 87% of the teachers to an Arbitration process that puts the burden of proof on the teacher to prove that they are not "ineffective". An almost impossible hurdle for the teacher to meet. However, this left the issue of teacher misconduct for the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration to tackle.

Back in the bad old Joel Klein days (not that it is any better now) he proposed an elimination of the 3020-a process and install an "arbitrary & capricious" standard, with the hearing officer being a city employee very much like the "U" rating process is now. We all know how the "U' rating appeal has turned out for the teachers. The DOE proposal has changed little, except that the City agreed to let the city-appointed OATH judges decide the fate of the teachers. Furthermore, the final decision on the teacher's fate would still be left in the hands of the Chancellor even in the rare instances the OATH judges ruled in the teacher's favor. You can guess how that ends, that's right with the teacher terminated!

Since the teacher evaluation system will not address the teacher misconduct issue or change the 3020-a procedures for teacher discipline, the Bloomberg Administration and the DOE decided to start an offensive against the independent Arbitrators that hear educator 3020-a misconduct cases. This included opening up closed cases of over a decade ago and falsely accusing teachers of sexual misconduct where no sexual misconduct was found, questioning Arbitrator decisions without fully understanding the facts of the case, and worst of all, using faulty & biased investigative reports as if the accusations in them are proven fact rather than what many end up to be, unfounded, or not credible.

Let's not lose sight of what the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration wants to do. They want to see tenured teacher "due process rights" eliminated and "hire & fire" at will. They apparently won that right for the unfortunate 87% of the teachers rated "ineffective" two consecutive years. With that win in their pocket, they have set their sights on the teacher misconduct issue. Thankfully the union has stayed strong on the use of independent Arbitrators and any changes must be approved by the State Legislature. Therefore, as much as Bloomberg and Walcott wants to change the process, it is not happening, unless the union does the unthinkable and actually is willing to eliminate tenured teacher "due process rights". I may be naive but I can't see that happening.

Thank You!

I would thank the many education bloggers who have rallied to my defense after the DOE tried to ruin my reputation by giving the newspapers a deliberately distorted file about me that omitted some very important information and the actual truth as to what was decided in my 3020-a hearing. The DOE file, complete with false accusations, misstatements and deliberate omissions made it seem that I committed sexual misconduct and got away with it. The truth is very different.

Thanks to all of you both the Daily News and New York Times experienced the "blowback" and have now realized that the DOE was less than forthright and had their own agenda in sending them selected information that was intended to trash my reputation and others. I can only hope the next time the news media gets information from the DOE, they should carefully "fact check" the information and not assume it is correct or complete.

What is next for me? I guess I will find out if the DOE retaliates and "reassigns me" or will they simply lick their wounds and realize that their strategy to destroy the sixteen teachers backfired? I guess I will know Monday when I report to my school. Stay turned.

Again, my thanks to all the education bloggers and the people who commented on my and other people's blogs in support of me and the truth.

The Independent Arbitrator And The 3020-a Process.

Mayor Bloomberg has blasted the independent Arbitrators who hear educator 3020-a cases as being too sympathetic to teachers. He even ranted about them in his radio show and made the following idiotic statement: "The Arbitrators would give serial ax murders a slap on the wrist". The Daily News took up the Bloomberg Administration's and DOE's anti-arbitrator rant and interviewed Arbitrator Paul Zonderman who handled himself very professionally. The question is who are these independent Arbitrators and how do they end up on the 3020-a panel?

The panel is made up of between 23 to 39 Arbitrators who are registered with the American Arbitration Association, that are jointly selected by the DOE and UFT/NYSUT to hear the New York City 3020-a cases. These Arbitrators are given renewable one year contracts and can only stay on the panel if both the DOE and the UFT are satisfied with their decisions. The State of New York pays the daily fees of the Arbitrator that can cost as much as $1,800 a day. Over the years the DOE has been much more aggressive in not renewing Arbitrator contracts than the UFT when the agency believed the Arbitrator's decisions were too sympathetic to the educator. I had previously reviewed the role of the independent Arbitrator Here. More information about Arbitrators can be found on Betsy Combier's rubber room reporter blog. The differences between the NYC 3020-a and the State 3020-a process which is not in our favor can be found here.

There is no matrix on what an independent Arbitrator will decide on the penalty to give to the teacher. In the 3020-a process this is called an "award". The award can range from termination to a disciplinary letter in the teacher's file. Since the independent Arbitrators are jointly selected in NYC, there is a common feeling that many of the Arbitrator awards "split the baby" by giving both sides something. To the UFT/NYSUT the teacher is not terminated and to the DOE a significant "award". However, in my almost five years of talking to people about their cases, it is much more complicated than that. The Arbitrator's "award" is based on many factors and some of them subjective in nature. Listed below are just some of the many things that an Arbitrator must evaluate before making an "award".

• Did the DOE meet the "just cause" standards?
• Were the witnesses credible?
• Did the evidence correlate with the charges?
• Did the defendant appear credible?
• Did the defendant show remorse and sorrow about the action?
• Were there extenuating circumstances?
• What was the defendant's disciplinary and educational record prior to the charges?
• Did the DOE meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard?
• What was the quality of legal representation (both sides)?

Furthermore. some of the Arbitrators tend to be either DOE or UFT friendly and that also goes into the decision. In other words as one long-term observer of the 3020-a process once said to me "that every 3020-a case is different" and that is true. Which brings me to the alleged "sexual misconduct" charges against an educator.
When it comes to "sexual misconduct" by an educator the 3020-a process is very clear. The Arbitrator must terminate the educator, no exceptions. In fact in the latest teacher contract (Article 21G-6 page 120) it states the following:

In §3020-a proceedings, a mandatory penalty of discharge shall apply to any tenured pedagogue a) found by a hearing officer to have engaged in sexual misconduct, or b) who has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of criminal charges for such conduct.

The §3020-a hearing should be completed within two months, but the suspension
without pay shall be extended one additional month if the hearing has not been
completed, unless the Board has received an adjournment or otherwise delayed the
proceeding. The suspension without pay shall also be extended until a criminal action is
resolved and any §3020-a proceeding is also completed.
If the §3020-a hearing results in a dismissal of the charges or if the criminal
proceeding ends in an acquittal or dismissal (and the Board has decided not to prefer
charges), the pedagogue shall be entitled to back pay with interest for the entire period of
the suspension without pay.

For purposes of this section, sexual misconduct shall include the following conduct
involving a student or a minor who is not a student: sexual touching, serious or repeated
verbal abuse (as defined in Chancellor’s Regulations) of a sexual nature, action that could
reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship, possession or use of illegal
child pornography, and/or actions that would constitute criminal conduct under Article
130 of the Penal Law against a student or minor who is not a student.
A letter of agreement dated October 2, 2005 regarding sexual misconduct is attached
as Appendix G.

That brings me to the Daily News article on the sixteen "pervy teachers" who Chancellor Dennis Walcott demanded he would fire for "sexual misconduct". The problem here is that for all sixteen teachers, the impartial Arbitrators did not find sexual misconduct! Therefore, the Arbitrator "awards" were based upon the totality of evidence which eliminated any "sexual misconduct" accusations and deemed to fall below the level of termination. Maybe the Daily News should question the impartiality of the Chancellor in why he would claim these teachers were guilty of "sexual misconduct" when the evidence showed otherwise? What is evident is that the Chancellor's education on teacher discipline issues are lacking. Maybe he needs to take a "credit recovery course" on what "sexual misconduct" is since he doesn't seem to know or care that accusing somebody of "sexual misconduct" is not the same as actually committing sexual misconduct. This is the United States of America where "due process" is a fundamental right and not the Stalinist Soviet Union. Right Chancellor?

The Principal & The SCI Investigation - My Story.

Time and again I have heard naive people ask me why would an SCI Investigator not want to do a fair and independent investigation? The answer is that once SCI takes a case, they have a presumption that the smoke of the accusation means that there must be a fire. In other words if an accusation is made, then it is up to the investigator to substantiate the accusation by any means possible. This article will try to go through my SCI investigative process and the reason the Arbitrator dismissed & discredited the SCI report in my 3020-a hearing.

The Principal:

The most important person in an SCI investigation is the Principal. In my three year experience as a liaison of the Queens Teacher Reassignment Center (TRC) I had heard many stories from teachers. The ones who had SCI investigations for alleged sexual issues where usually sent back to their school if their Principal supported the teacher. By contrast, principals who disliked their teachers would use the SCI investigation process to have 3020-a charges filed against the teacher for alleged sexual misconduct even when there was little or no evidence of such. Of course if a teacher really had a sexual relationship or sexually abused a student then no Principal could save that teacher and nor should they.

My Ex-Principal:

It was no secret in my school that the Principal and me did not see "eye to eye" on many issues. I was on the School Leadership Team (SLT) for the last four years and usually voted with the students and parents and against the Principal who was running the school into the ground. I always believed that my Principal's policy of "Principal first, children last" was destroying the school and his poor decision-making skills were hurting the students. In fact, at the end of the school year that I was reassigned. the DOE finally removed the Principal "for cause" but it was too late for me.

The Principal was the same Principal who gave me my 2002 reprimand which the Arbitrator threw out as "unfair and inaccurate" in 2004. The relationship between my Principal and I deteriorated further in the mid 2000's to the point that, with my Chapter Leader's urging, I filled a PERB complaint against my Principal and NYSUT agreed to supply me with a lawyer after carefully reviewing my Principal's actions against me. In front of the PERB mediator, the City lawyers threatened to have me reassigned during the PERB hearings which could take a year or more to conclude. With that threat, it was agreed that the Principal will not target me or practice disparate treatment if I was to drop the PERB charge. Since I didn't want to be reassigned, I reluctantly accepted the deal.

The Principal simply waited until the 2006-07 school year when a student complained to the Guidance Counselor and got the ball rolling by calling SCI. He told SCI some highly inaccurate information to ensure that they would take the case. First, he told SCI that I had inappropriately touched and threatened to kiss a student. He also told them that I was reprimanded previously of such actions which he knew was false. He personally selected students for the DOE to talk to rather than a random selection in the hopes that some of these students will talk trash about me and influence the SCI investigation. Finally, the DOE used a deliberately inaccurate statement I allegedly made and the Daily News used in their article came from the Principal and not the student. "If it won't get me in trouble, I would kiss you".

The SCI Investigator:

The SCI investigator was an ex-police detective and I did not cooperate with him as instructed by my union. When a UFT lawyer looked at the accusations against me she laughed and said are they serious? Who did you piss off? She told me not to worry, their case against me is unreal and frivolous. The SCI investigator actually turned out to be a fairly decent person and strongly hinted to me on his occasional visits to the TRC that the case against me was very weak and he had told the Principal that it might be best to dump a letter into my file then pursue the case due to lack of evidence. Obviously, the Principal thought otherwise since he was able to get rid of me and my salary off the school's payroll. Of course it did not stop the SCI investigator from substantiating the frivolous charges and lying in my "probable cause hearing" by using the DOE's/Principal's deliberately inaccurate statement instead of the actual statement recalled by the student in his report. He also said that the word "kiss" is sexual no matter how one uses it when he realized that he was caught in a lie by the "probable cause Arbitrator".

I ran into the SCI Investigator after my winning the "probable cause hearing" a couple of more times and he told me how shocked he was that they dumped a "probable cause hearing" on me. He also said to me that If he could do the investigation over, he would have come out with a different conclusion. While he didn't say it upfront, he blamed the Principal for the damage done to me. He even told a colleague in the TRC that the charges against me was "bullshit". In his 3020-a testimony the SCI investigator did his job calmly, and coolly, but did not hurt me, especially when we brought up "the statement" and he admitted I used the qualifier of "I'm so proud of you" in the statement.

The Student:

The student made as many as five conflicting statements, to different people who interviewed her, depending on who she talked to and these conflicting statements were presented as evidence that she was either lying or being manipulated. In her testimony at the 3020-a hearing she would change her testimony to suit what she thought they wanted to hear, including my NYSUT lawyer! It was very obvious to all she didn't want to be there and her testimony was not credible. I even felt sorry for her after her emotional and ever-changing answers to questions by both sides.

The bottom line is that while the Daily News can call me a "pervy teacher" the Arbitrator, when confronted with the evidence, or in the DOE's case, lack of evidence of any "sexual misconduct" could only give me a fine for making a comment that embarrassed the student in front of a class of thirty. Maybe the Daily News need to investigate the connection between principals and SCI that can and do taint the investigation process.

You can read my story Here and Here.

My Response To The Inaccurate Daily News Article In Today's Paper.

I have read and digested the highly inaccurate Daily News article about me and realized that my decision not to be interviewed by their reporters was a sound decision. Despite assurances that the article would represent my view of the DOE's abusive investigation process, it turned out to be nothing but more teacher bashing "yellow journalism" by the Daily News. Let''s break down the article piece by piece and show what was inaccurate.

Credibility Of The Student:

The Daily News knew from talking to a witness in my open 3020-a hearing that the credibility of the student was an issue. The student had made conflicting and contradictory statement at the hearing and even gave different statements to various people when asked about the incident leading up to the 3020-a hearing. However, the article did not seem to care about the student's credibility. Just what she claimed, depending on who she spoke to of course.

The Statement:
The Daily News took the student's original recollection that was used in the SCI report rather than the Arbitrator accepted statement of "I"m so proud of you passing the test I could just kiss you, of course I wouldn't do that because I would get in trouble". While the difference is not major, it still is different enough. I admit it is better than the deliberately changed DOE statement the Daily News attributed to me "If it's not going to get me in trouble I would kiss you" .

Touching The Student:According to the article which insisted in using the biased and exaggerated SCI report, the student accused me of touching her shoulders with my hands. However, the student admitted at the 3020-a hearing that I used one hand to pat her clothed shoulder to calm her down as a reassurance action. Yet the Daily News chose to use the now discredited statement by the student rather than the truth. Furthermore, I never grabbed the student's elbow and that charge was dismissed by the Arbitrator, still the Daily News chose to include it in the article. As for the ridiculous accusation that I was looking down her shirt? The Arbitrator dismissed that charge as well, yet again the Daily News chose to use it in the article.

The 2002 Reprimand:This is just another case of the Daily News failure to "fact check". The 2002 Reprimand was grieved by me and the DOE's favorite Arbitrator, Martin Schienman, threw out the reprimand as "unfair and inaccurate" and was removed from my file. That is why I didn't mention it in my previous post. The fact that the DOE chose to include it in sending my case to the Daily News speaks volumes about the DOE's failure to abide by the rules. The DOE are "sore losers" and this is just another case of them not abiding by the contract.

Failure To Include The "Probable Cause Hearing" Results:Was the failure to mention the "probable cause hearing" for alleged sexual misconduct which I won, simply negligence or was the omission done purposely? I guess if you want to keep the question about "sexual misconduct" alive, you would omit the "probable cause hearing" results which the Daily News article did.

The DOE's Insistence In Pursuing My Case Despite Their "Probable Cause Hearing" Loss.
Once the DOE lost the "Probable Cause Hearing", they should have admitted defeat and that they had no case and end this travesty of justice. Instead the DOE wasted an additional quarter of a million dollars or more by dumping me back in the "rubber room" for two and a half years and hoping that something else would magically appear to change their losing hand. Yet the Daily News failed to question the DOE's motive in pursuing the case against me.

No Mention Of The Biased SCI Investigation:
The article failed to mention how the SCI investigator was found to have lied about what I said and was caught on this by the "probable cause Administrator". Furthermore, the Daily News took much of the article out of the SCI report which had been discredited in the 3020-a hearing. In my experience, the SCI investigation process is unfair and when principals want the teacher out of the school, the SCI investigators will do what it can to accommodate the Principal's wishes.

Why Didn't The DOE Appeal The Arbitrator's Decision?
Of course the Daily News article failed to ask that question. The answer was that they were lucky that the Arbitrator gave me a $2,000 fine. If the Arbitrator was truly fair, I should never have been given a fine at all but she had a reputation of giving the DOE something even when the facts show they have no case. Their appeal would have no chance of winning and they knew it.

Connection With Serial Ax Murders:
Including in the article Mayor Bloomberg's idiotic statement that the Arbitrators would give "serial ax murders a slap on the wrist" as if I am a criminal sex offender, rather than a victim of a DOE persecution is really disgusting. My Arbitrator realized this when the DOE failed to provide real and relevant evidence that was needed to support their false accusations and ruled accordingly.

Please don't believe what you read in the newspapers, usually the truth is very much different and so it is in my case. Was the Daily News just lazy and didn't bother to read the 3020-a hearing record or just wanted to bash and embarrass me by using the faulty SCI report as their source of information? Only they know the reason for their poor journalism. By the way I don't rant but publish well reasoned and insightful analysis of education issues. What would you call Mayor Bloomberg's idiotic statement? Now that is ranting.

I am Eric Chasanoff and proud to be a teacher.