Tweed's Children Last Program Continues As DOE Is Winning The Recruitment Vs. The Retention Battle

During the administration of Bloomberg and Klein there has been a major effort to push highly-paid veteran teachers to retire or resign. In the last year there was a doubling of veteran teachers leaving the system and it appears more are to follow. Whether it is the elimination of the seniority transfer system, the "fair student funding" program, the increased time and duties in the classroom, or the 25/55 pension sweetener, it seems obvious that more veteran teachers are going to leave. While I am all for the 25/55 pension sweetener, this will further encourage many of the highly-paid "boomer" teachers to put in their papers and retire. In fact, if you try to get a pension consultation, you need to wait to October to get one. This certainly indicates that many teachers may be leaving the system at the end of the school year or after they finish summer school this year. Unfortunately, this plays right into the policy of DOE recruitment over retention.

Every right-thinking educator knows that a quality teacher is the most important requirement for student learning in a classroom. Quality teaching only comes with a decade or more experience and these teachers are the very ones that are retiring or resigning, leaving the newbie teacher who must go through a learning curve before they can be a quality teacher. However, almost 50% of the newbie teachers leave the New York City school system by their fifth year, or before they can achieve the necessary experience to make a difference in the classroom. Why would the DOE not encourage retention over recruitment? It's all about the money. The lower-paid newbie teacher doesn't qualify for a pension until five full years are completed. Further, if they leave the system in their 20's and 30's they will take their money out of the pension system. In addition, they don't qualify for lifetime health and welfare benefits unless they have completed ten years in the system and can't collect these benefits until they are 55 years old.

Is it any wonder that Kleinberg allows a new teacher job fair before excessed teachers are placed? Or that the DOE runs an intergalactic job fair rather than filling in classroom vacancies with ATR's? You would think that the DOE wants what's best for the students. Guess again, the DOE is not looking for quality teachers, just cheaper teachers with disposable benefits when they get fed up and leave the system. As for the students? It's still "children last" when it is all about the money.

DOE Attacks Teacher Tenure After Causing The ATR Mess

The DOE is at it again. First, they tried to use student test scores to determine tenure. Next, the non-educators at Tweed sent out instructions how principals could refuse tenure to their teachers. Now, they are going after teacher tenure by putting out feelers to set a time limit of 12 months for ATR's to get a classroom assignment or be fired.

The DOE used the head of the teaching fellows program called the new teacher project,which they fund, to complain to the newspapers how 81 million dollars are wasted on the ATR's. However, what the newspapers didn't bother to print was that the ATR problem was created by the Kleinberg administration when they stopped the age-old practice of placing excessed teachers in schools before hiring new teachers. In fact, the Kleinberg administration runs new teacher job fairs before the ATR job fairs to ensure that the ATR problem will continue. In addition, the DOE's "fair student funding" program encourages the principals to hire new teachers rather than highly paid veteran teachers because of budgetary reasons.

According to the newspapers the DOE wants to either reopen or add an addendum to the 2007 contract that will allow the DOE to fire ATR's who haven't found a classroom assignment within 12 months. Even Randi Weingarten will never go for this blatant attack on teacher tenure. I believe that a line in the sand has been drawn by the UFT and cannot be crossed and that line is teacher tenure.

nyc educator and an ICE article by James Eterno explains this issue in more detail and is a must read for people interested in the teacher tenure and the ATR issues. In summary, the UFT's response to the DOE's proposal about reopening the contract should be answered in three words "dead on arrival".

The Public Schools 1957 and 2007

I was e-mailed this very cute comparison between the public schools in 1957 and what they are like now. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2007

Scenario : Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies..
2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbour's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2 007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school .
1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario : Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy!

As funny as the comparisons are, it's unfortunately true and an example of our public schools today.

The Fox And The Scorpion

It is unreal how many times the UFT makes a deal with the DOE only to be "shocked" when the DOE reneges on the agreement. Of course these broken agreements destroys the trust between the two organizations and hurts the very students that we are mandated to improve academically. Is it any wonder that student scores have remained unchanged since beginning of the Kleinberg era?

The relationship between Randi Wiengarten's UFT and Joel Klein's DOE reminds me of the story of the fox and the scorpion. In the story the scorpion could not get across the river when he encountered a fox. Knowing the fox could swim across the river the scorpion asked the fox to carry him over to the other side. The fox, a cunning animal, said "that you are a scorpion and how do I know that if I carry you over the river you won't sting me"? The scorpion replied "why would I do that? If I sting you we both die". The fox thought about it and said hop on. As the fox was halfway to the other side, the scorpion stings the fox. As the fox feels the poison moving through his body he said "why did you sting me? We both are going to die now". The scorpion's response. "I stung you because that is what I am".

Look at all the agreements the UFT have with the DOE that were either altered, changed, or reneged on.

• The fair student funding program that according to the UFT won't penalize older and highly-paid teachers. Guess again. The DOE is already looking to eliminate that agreement. Furthermore, in anticipation of the fair student funding changes, principals are already trying to hire lower-paid newbie or young teachers.

• The seniority transfer program. The UFT's spin mister Leo Casey in Edwize told everybody that more teachers can transfer because the principals can no longer hide the open positions in the schools. What Leo Casey failed to tell us is that only the younger and lower-paid teachers were being hired under the open market transfer program. The older and highly-paid teachers were being added to the ATR ranks.

• The reduction of ATR's and "rubber room" teachers. The UFT has assured it's ATR's and "rubber room" teachers that she is working on a deal to reduce their ranks in the Fall of 2007. The result? There have been no apparent reduction in either group.
  

• Increased paperwork mandated by the DOE. Despite assurances by Joel and Randi, the paperwork for the classroom teachers have not been reduced, if anything it is still increasing and there appears to be no end in sight.

• The establishment of the DOE "firing squad" that the UFT knew about but didn't object to until it hit the newspapers.

• The 27/55 retirement program for newbie teachers resulting in a de facto Tier V pension plan. This new pension plan will save the city millions of dollars on the backs of these newbie teachers. Why not 25/55 for them? Wasn't this plan supposed to be revenue neutral?

• The 60-90 day suspension without pay for non-criminal conduct. Randi Weingarten in a delegate assembly meeting told the DA that only teachers subject to felony arrest would be subject to this provision. However, many teachers have been suspended without pay or health benefits without the police every being called.
  

• The "Holy Thursday" controversy. Despite an ongoing agreement that teachers are allowed to take off for religious observance, the DOE told principals that they don't have to allow teachers to take off. While the UFT did go to court and received a stay. The mere fact that the DOE has the gall to even try this is a show in bad faith and a continuation of their anti-teacher crusade.

It's time for the UFT to stop being the fox and stay away from the DOE scorpion. Cooperating with the scorpion just results in teachers getting stung time and again.

The Dismanteling And Eventual Elimination Of Jamaica High School By The DOE

In the news lately has been the placement of a Bill Gates 6-12 school in part of Jamaica High School for the 2008-2009 school year. Once the crown jewel of the nation's schools, Jamaica High School has steadily went downhill academically and was listed as one of the "most dangerous schools" in the State last year. The school's academic downfall was aided and abetted by the deliberate policies of the DOE which systematically dumped too many students who were ill-prepared for high school into Jamaica High School. These not ready for high school students who normally would have gone to other schools, found these schools no longer were taking in students. The small schools that replaced them did not pick them up because they did not have to. Therefore, they were sent to an already struggling high school , Jamaica. Furthermore, Jamaica High School seemed to be DOE's favorite school when students released after being incarcerated needed to finish their education. Hence the school's nickname "Rikers Prep". After complaints by parents, students, and teachers, the DOE turned around and starved the school of students which resulted in drastic budget cuts. Further, over 170 students left the school after Jamaica High School was unfairly placed under "The Most Dangerous Schools" list.

The apparent dismantling of Jamaica High School and it's eventual destruction appears to be an ill-conceived plan to eliminate all the large traditional high schools by Tweed. First overcrowd them until they complain, then starve them and eventually dismantle them. It's happening at Jamaica and will happen to the other schools I'm sure the truncated Jamaica High School will be limited to fewer and fewer students as the Gates school grows and expands. It won't be long before the remains of Jamaica High School will be converted into small learning communities (i.e. Springfield Gardens, Far Rockaway, etc.). This transition will result in many veteran teachers leaving (voluntarily and involuntarily) the school and leaving an inexperienced teaching staff behind. A true recipe for failure. Just look at Springfield Gardens and Far Rockaway high schools.

I wish only the best for the staff of Jamaica High School and their shinning light, James Eterno, but I am glad that I am not there to experience the destruction of a proud school with a history of tradition and accomplishment.

The Unholy Alliance Between The DOE & UFT Has Weakened Teacher DUE Process Rights Under The 3020-a Regulations

This is another article about the damage that the 2005 contract has on the classroom teacher and their consequences to the New York City Teaching Profession. This article deals with the unholy alliance between the DOE and UFT in weakening teacher due process rights under their agreed upon revision of the State 3020-a regulations. Under Article 21G of the contract the revised DOE/UFT 3020-a procedures are spelled out (except the hidden side agreements - an example of this is Appendix H of the "probable cause" section). The problem with this collective bargaining agreement between the DOE and UFT is it significantly weakens "due process" protections for tenured teachers. Why do I say this? Let's compare the State 3020-a law with the revised DOE/UFT 3020-a process.

First, selection of arbitrators: In the State 3020-a law a tenured teacher has the right to reject an arbitrator, if the teacher and lawyer believes the arbitrator shows a pattern of making decisions unfavorable to teachers. By comparison, the DOE/UFT 3020-a process does not allow a teacher and lawyer to reject the assigned arbitrator. In other words, the teacher is stuck even if the arbitrator has reached decisions that have been unfavorable to teachers. In addition, under the State 3020-a law for teachers accused of incompetence are allowed to select a three arbitrator panel. While the DOE/UFT 3020-a process does not. A tremendous disadvantage for the tenured teacher charged with incompetence. Furthermore, with the State 3020-a regulations an arbitrator can only hear one case every two years for any New York State school district. This was done so that the arbitrator was not pressured to compromise the decision due to financial reasons. Hearing one case every two years for any New York State school district makes the arbitrator immune to financial pressures that may affect the decision. However, in the DOE/UFT 3020-a process the arbitrators can hear more than ten cases every year. Since they get $1,800 per day and may work fifty days or more during the year they can make $90,000 if they work five days a month for ten months! Do you think these arbitrators are subject to pressure from both sides in their decision making? You bet they are! Wouldn't you? I'm not saying the arbitrators don't make the proper decisions but to keep their positions they must please both sides. Finally, under State 3020-a law there is little familiarity between the arbitrators, and lawyers. However, in the DOE/UFT 3020-a process the arbitrator is linked with a DOE and NYSUT lawyer who may work together for up to three years. This familiarity also may affect the arbitrator's decision-making. Remember if the arbitrator makes one or the other lawyers angry, their smooth working relationship is in jeopardy. Therefore, the arbitrator will tend to try to keep that relationship going at the expense of a truly fair decision.

Second, the "probable cause section". The State 3020-a law does not allow tenured teachers to be suspended without pay, unless convicted of a felony crime. However, the DOE/UFT 3020-a process does allow tenured teachers to be suspended for up to 90 days without pay and health benefits for non-criminal charges!

Third, the SCI investigation. there are no deals when a tenured teacher is subject to a Special Commissioner of Investigation ("SCI") review. If SCI substantiates even frivolous or minor alleged misconduct, then 3020-a charges are almost sure to follow. If 3020-a charges are filed the DOE & SCI have an unwritten side agreement that only the arbitrator can make the decision. No deals between the two lawyers can be negotiated. This unreasonable agreement just lengthens the 3020-a process and keeps teachers in "rubber rooms" for two years or more before their cases are finally heard. Under State 3020-a law there are no such agreements that I could find. While the UFT is not part of this agreement, they certainly have not objected to this. I wonder why?

That brings me to why I call the New York State 3020-a regulations law and the DOE/UFT regulations a process. There is some question if the DOE/UFT collective bargaining agreement on the 3020-a process violates the State constitution and federal "due process" rights. While I am not a lawyer and don't even pretend to understand why the DOE/UFT 3020-a process is possibly unconstitutional based upon either the New York State and Federal regulations, I do know that some people believe it does. Apparently in the teachers4action.com lawsuit this very issue came up and is under review. Hopefully, the State or Federal Courts eventually rules that the DOE/UFT 3020-a process is unconstitutional and that tenured teacher "due process" rights are restored.

The Credit Recovery Program And The High School Graduation Rate

Over the last few years the four year graduation rate has inched up from 43% to close to 50%. However, how valid is the 50% graduation rate? We all know how DOE has spun school statistics to the point that only the local media think they are valid. People in education understand that statistics coming out of the DOE needs to be very closely scrutinized before they can be accepted.

This brings up the "credit recovery program" and how it affects the high school graduation rate.
The "credit recovery program" allows seniors (mostly) to get credit for courses that they never bothered to show up to or did no work in so that they can graduate. The "credit recovery system" is an uneven program that ranges from a student just doing three essays, to online instruction, to intensive winter or spring break classes. The New York Times describes some of these "credit recovery programs" Here.

It appears nobody has a handle on how much the "credit recovery system" affects the high school graduation rate. Not the State of New York, not Joel Klein's DOE, and not Randi Weingarten's UFT. Is it 1% or 10%? Who knows? However, with principals feeling more and more pressure to improve their school's graduation rate, be it to keep their jobs or to increase their bonus, does lead one to wonder how abusive is this practice. How many students are getting a free ride to graduation without doing the proper course work? Furthermore, are we talking about one class or many classes? Are we speaking about a good student that needs some help or the lazy and misbehaving student that the school administrators want to push out? Again, no real answers. It appears each school can set up their own "credit recovery program" with little or no supervision about it's content. Granted, these seniors still must achieve a "55" on their Regents exams to obtain a local diploma (no the "55" is not a typo, that is the score it takes to get a local diploma). However, is it really right for these students who chose not to attend class or do no work to get this break? According to the DOE yes. If it helps the DOE's graduation rate, they are all for it. In Tweed the ends justify the means.

By the way Andrew Wolf had a very interesting editorial in the New York Sun about why student scores are flat. Here

My Philosophy On Why Child Advocates & Lawyers Are Destroying The New York City Public Schools

Educational bloggers and commenters are always trying to brand me with a political label. My friend, nyc educator thinks I am a right wing Republican while others (remember no slappz, & nyc parent?) have accused me of being a left wing Democrat. My philosophy is that of an independent thinker in action and deed. I can easily support Obama or McCain, who appeal to the independent voter like myself. My independent streak extends to our union. I am not a member of any of the caucuses, Unity, ICE, or TJC. However, I do have many ideas and will be happy to share them with you. My biggest complaint is how two special interests groups are destroying the New York City public schools.

The greatest problem with the New York City public school system are the influences of "child advocates and lawyers" . The "child advocates" have allowed the student to weld tremendous power and any disciplining of the student by the teacher can result in the teacher being brought up on charges. Further the "child advocates" mistakenly believe that all children can pass academic tests, if only the quality of teaching was better. The result is increasingly frustrated students who, instead of being put into a vocational setting, are dumped into an academic program that they have little chance to succeed in. The New York City public school system has responded to the "child advocates" by limiting the vocational schools and programs for these students. An example of this is Thomas Edison High School, once a vocational school that catered to students who were good with their hands, like an auto mechanic or technician. Presently, Thomas Edison is recruiting the mechanical and electrical engineer types rather than the vocational student. The auto mechanic student is relegated to either the few remaining and overcrowded vocational schools or an academic high school.

The "lawyers" who increasingly reside in the upper reaches of the central bureaucracy have responded to the "child advocates" by imposing regulations to make it difficult to discipline students while making it easy to discipline the teacher. A good example of this is the verbal abuse/corporal punishment part of the regulations. A student can curse or threaten a teacher and the worst that will happen to that student is a three day removal from the teacher's classroom. Even a physical assault will not suspend the student for more than a month or two. On the other hand if a teacher is alleged to have verbally belittled or embarrassed the student such as telling the student "your a liar" can get that teacher removed from the classroom for years and subject to termination. Why such a discrepancy between the student and teacher discipline codes? The lawyers are afraid that parents , encouraged by "child advocates" would sue. Therefore, it is easier to remove the teacher than discipline the student. What about the collateral damage done by the removal of the teacher to his/her students? That factor does not seem to be part of the equation. To the "lawyers" the removal of the teacher based upon a student allegation is more important than the academic well-being of the rest of the students. Is it any wonder that based upon national tests and State Regents that little academic progress has been attained since 2003?

I am not naive, I do know that there are many other factors that affect the New York City education system. However, in my opinion it is these two special interest groups "child advocates" and "lawyers" that makes teaching and learning so difficult for student and teacher alike.

How The DOE Can Save Money The Next School Year

We all know that the DOE must reduce it's budget next year by 324 million dollars. That is a significant cut in the education budget and will mean tightening the financial belt for the schools. Where will these budget cuts fall on? If past experience is an indication, it will be on the schools and not the central bureaucracy. This year's cuts of 180 million dollars resulted in only 15 million dollars being cut from Tweed (maybe less if some consultant services budgeted for were discontinued or delayed), not the 100 million dollars originally claimed by the DOE. All the rest came from the schools with some large high schools getting over a $400,000 dollar budget cut. Painful is not the word. These budget cuts caused a reduction in tutoring programs, club activities, and after school programs. Meanwhile Tweed gave the "Quality Review" international consultants a 9% increase in their contract. The priorities by Tweed is very obvious to me, screw the schools but keep the central bureaucracy and their highly paid consultants satisfied. DOE's "Children Last" program continues unabated. An article by Dan Brown in the Huffington Post about the damage budget cuts have done to the schools can be found Here

The question is what happens net year? Where will the cuts be? Being realistic, I see DOE continuing to cut school budgets but hold the line for the central bureaucracy. Tweed might snip a consultant or two off the DOE money train. Just Tweed window dressing but nothing too significant.

For the next school year I believe the DOE can save significant funds if they follow my advice.

First, place all ATR's in schools and stop hiring newbie teachers until all excessed teachers are placed in the classroom. With 1000+ ATR's the DOE is not only wasting talent and experience but is paying almost 80 million dollars for these ATR's to be day-to-day subs or do clerical work.

Second, as I have stated previously, more and more teachers have been removed from the classroom and warehoused in "rubber rooms" . There is probably at least 800 such teachers, not included teachers that are taken out of the classroom and sitting in schools while waiting for reassignment to the "rubber rooms". Of the reassigned teachers, probably 10% belong there. However, the rest are there for false, minor, or frivolous misconduct charges or accused of incompetence because the administrator doesn't like them. How much money is wasted by the DOE? My best guess is 58 million dollars (this figure assumes that the 90% of the "rubber room" teachers do not belong there). That means 137 million dollars are wasted between the ATR's and the "rubber room" teachers!

Third, eliminate the principal leadership academy and the 17 million dollars that the DOE has allocated to continue it or some other principal development program next year. In a year where money is tight, how can the DOE justify spending an additional 17 million dollars on such a wasteful program that results in principals with little classroom experience.

Fourth, discontinue, disband, or don't even start these wasteful "Data Inquiry Teams" that spend precious money to collect data that is of little use to the schools.

Fifth, Severely cut down on the highly-paid consultant services that draw money away from the schools and their students. A case in point is the 80 million dollar AIRS supercomputer system that has not worked properly yet.

Sixth, ensure that the central bureaucracy get their fare share of budget cuts. Based upon this year you can't trust Tweed to fairly allocated budget cuts. Transparency is a must to show that the budget cuts are evenly distributed between the bureaucracy and the schools.

Finally, stop the "Tweed "Gotcha Squad" that will waste one million dollars on how to stop tenure and document teacher incompetence.

I don't pretend to know how much my recommendations will save but it would put a significant dent in the reduced budget given to the DOE by Bloomberg. Of course I don't expect any of my recommendations to be considered by the DOE. Therefore, the DOE's "Children Last" policy will continue as the schools and students suffer while the bureaucrats at Tweed are little affected.

Randi's Actions Are Incrementally Worsening The Teacher Profession

Randi Weingarten, in a New York Times puff piece was proud to point out how she wanted incremental and sustainable changes in the New York City education system, I did an investigation of these incremental changes she brought us and here is what I found.

First, Randi gave us the 192 day year for us. Including those wonderful two days in August. Yes, she certainly incrementally increased our work year.

Second, Randi gave us the extra 150 minutes of classroom time during the week. Thanks Randi for incrementally increasing our work day.

Third, Randi has allowed the DOE to incrementally increase the paperwork that the classroom teacher must do. Another promise Randi has kept.

Fourth, Randi has allowed the DOE to increase the number of "ATR" and "rubber room" teachers. Here again Randi has kept her promise to incrementally change the New York City education system.

Fifth, Randi agreed to incrementally increase teacher administrative duties such as cafeteria, hallway, and potty patrol. Way to go Randi.

Sixth, Randi has agreed with the DOE to incrementally increase the number of teachers, subject to a 90-day unpaid suspension and no health benefits based upon hearsay.

Seventh, there appears to have been an incremental increase in Letters-To-File (LIF) since we cannot grieve them anymore.

Finally, Randi has seen more and more teachers leave the system as she buys into the DOE's recruitment over retention policy. Yes Randi has kept her word in incrementally increasing the resignations of New York City teachers.

Some bloggers call Randi Weingarten a liar. However, in this case Randi has lived up to her promise to incremental and sustainable changes in the New York City educational system. Unfortunately, these incremental changes have worsened the New York City teacher profession but why should she care? Randi and her inner staff are not in the classroom and not subject to any of the incremental and sustainable actions that have affected the classroom teacher.

I AccuseThe Union Of Eroding Teacher Rights & What They Need To Do To Reverse It

I accuse the UFT of not protecting teacher rights. The retreat by this union under Randi Weingarten and her friends has made teaching in the classroom unbearable. That's assuming you are not an ATR or in the "rubber room". I do not come to my accusation lightly. I fact, I am very reluctant to write this article but I have had enough how we teachers are disrespected not only by the DOE and their media minions but by our own union leaders who look the other way as more and more mandates are dumped on the classroom teacher. I accuse this union of betraying it's members and demand that the union present my twelve point plan to allow teachers to teach with respect and dignity.

First, The union agreement to allow a non-educator to be chancellor was a mistake and needs to be ended. The chancellor controls the DOE budget priorities and his emphasis has been the hiring of more and more non-educators at the top levels at Tweed at the expense of the educator.

Second, mayoral control. Who in their right mind would allow one person (the mayor) to determine policy for an education system that he has no understanding of. This too must end. The two most powerful people who control the schools are both non-educators who are clueless what goes on in a classroom. How could a union allow this?

Third, The October 2005 contract disaster that made teaching in the classroom unbearable. The union must recover all the givebacks in the next contract. Not one but all! This terrible contract givebacks for you teachers who forgot what you gave up are listed below.

• Increased workday - 150 more minutes a week in the classroom.
• Longer work year - 192 days this year alone.
• Elimination of grievances for Letters-In-File (LIF).
• Elimination of the Seniority Transfer System.
• Inclusion of administrative assignments - cafeteria, hallway, and bathroom duties.
• The expansion of the number of ATR's.
• The suspension of a teacher for up to 90 days without pay and health benefits based upon hearsay evidence.

Fourth, the union must stop allowing a steady increase of teachers reassigned to the "rubber rooms" based upon frivolous, or minor charges. The increase under Bloomberg and Klein went from 315 in March 2003 to 757 in October 2007. Rumors are that this number is still increasing as the "rubber rooms" are bursting at the seems.

Fifth, stop the recruitment over the retention of teachers approach. Our union seems more concerned with recruiting teachers than retaining teachers. Just look at the givebacks on the classroom teacher just so that our union could pay the newbie teacher a competitive salary. Is there any wonder that we have seen teacher resignations double to 4,600 last school year? How about those housing vouchers and loan forgiveness programs for newbie teachers?

Sixth, stop allowing the DOE to hire teachers from alternative certification programs (Teach for America & Teaching Fellows programs) as well as conducting an intergalactic job fair for foreign teachers while experienced teachers are relegated to be ATR's.

Seventh, The union's acceptance of the dismantling of the large traditional high school and the resulting overcrowding of the remaining large high schools is disgusting. To further spike the data the union looks the other way as small schools don't need to take special education and ELA students for the first two years. Further, these small schools can weed out the level one students with attendance and/or behavior problems. By the way where do you think these students end up? Right. the remaining large, increasingly overcrowded, traditional high schools.

Eight, The union's acceptance of weakened and non-enforcement of student discipline codes. The union should be demanding a strengthening of the student discipline code and bring charges against administrators who refuse to enforce these codes.

Ninth, Demand that the DOE culture of teacher disrespect end by requiring a fair and impartial investigation of any alleged teacher misconduct. presently, a principal can find any excuse to remove a teacher and the non-educators that are at Tweed assume the teacher is guilty until proven not guilty (you expected me to say innocent?. According to the DOE no teacher is innocent if accused).

Tenth, Go back to the State 3020-a process, where teachers have due process rights.

Eleventh, all excessed teachers must be placed before a school district would be allowed to hire a newbie teacher in that subject area.

Twelfth, make the Fair Student Formula (FSF) for the schools salary blind and does not give the lower salaried teacher an advantage as it does now.

Under Randi Weingarten and her staff the once-strong union has become reactive rather than pro-active. All I hear from our union leaders are talk, talk, talk, but little action. Under her leadership we have seen a deterioration of the classroom environment and teacher respect. It's time to stop the DOE micromanagement of the classroom and let teachers teach the way that is best for the students in that teacher's classroom

Why Did The UFT Agree To Suspend Teachers Without Pay & Health Benefits?

We all know how terrible the October 2005 contract was to the classroom teacher. However, from my point of view the worst part of the 2005 contract was the UFT agreement of the "probable cause" section for teachers subject to the 3020-a process. To refresh your memory the "probable cause" section of the 2005 contract allows the DOE to suspend teachers without pay or health benefits for up to three months simply on hearsay testimony. Hearsay testimony is as simple as one student accusing the teacher of misconduct and getting his/her friend to agree it happened without the friend being there. that is all it takes for a teacher to spend the next three months without pay or health benefits. Do you think this is fair? I don't.

Randi Weingarten told the delegate assembly that the only teachers subject to the "probable cause" provision of the contract are ones that are arrested and subject to felony charges. Her stooge Leo Casey has commented on Edwize that the union agreed to the "probable cause" section because the union does not protect perverts and pedophiles. I fully agree with Leo Casey that there is no room in any union for perverts and pedophiles. However, how about the teacher unjustly accused by vindictive students and his/her friends of misconduct that did not rise to even a police investigation? According to Randi Weingarten & Leo Casey those teachers will not be subject to the "probable cause" section and it's associated unpaid suspension and no health benefits. Were they telling the truth? Or was it that the DOE expanded the definition to include incidents that did not result in criminal action? As much as I want to blame the DOE on expanding the alleged misconduct subject to the "probable cause" section, there is a smoking gun that shows that the UFT was a willing participant in what misconduct is subject to "probable cause". Listed below is "Appendix H" that explains all.

Teacher Contract 6/1/2003-11/12/2007

APPENDIX H
PROCEDURES FOR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS

On October 2, 2005 the following understanding was reached regarding probable cause hearings:

"The UFT will conduct a meeting of lawyers who represent UFT members in 3020-a proceedings to inform them about the new procedures regarding offenses involving sexual misconduct with a student or minor not a student. During that meeting there will be a discussion of what would constitute probable cause including that we agree that in a probable cause hearing the hearing officer may accept hearsay as evidence of probable cause, and that a criminal complaint and corroborating affidavit of the SCI report is sufficient evidence to create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause".

The key statement from the above paragraph is " We agree that that in a probable cause hearing the hearing officer may accept hearsay as evidence of probable cause". What happened to Randi's statement to the delegate assembly that only teachers subject to criminal felony action would fall under the "probable cause" section? Did she lie to the delegate assembly or was she deceived by her flunkies? Regardless, she misinformed the delegate assembly to push through a very unpopular contract that has put the teachers in a very dangerous position in and outside the classroom.

Yes, there are many disagreeable givebacks in the 2005 contract but nothing affects a teacher as much as the UFT agreement with the DOE in the unreasonably low burden of proof to remove a teacher under the "probable cause" section of the contract.

Shame on both the UFT and DOE for allowing the use of hearsay testimony to affect the livelihood of innocent teachers.

P.S. By the way Leo how come in your October 23, 2005 (3:25 pm) comment on Edwize about sexual misconduct, you chose to overlook discussing Appendix H? I could only assume you knew that simple hearsay can get a teacher a 90 day unpaid suspension without health benefits. Shame on you most of all for deceiving the members by omitting that hearsay is evidence enough under the "probable cause" section.

Holy Cow! The DOE Continues Their Anti-Teacher Crusade

The day before "Holy Thursday" the DOE instructed principals that they can deny Religious Observance (RO) days to teachers who want to take "Holy Thursday" and "Easter Monday". The DOE instructed the principals that if the teachers insist on taking the "RO" days that they can either dock them pay for those days or issuing a Letter-To-The-File. Historically teachers never had trouble taking "RO" days and while principals can say no, they rarely ever refuse. However, this is the new DOE, populated by non-educators who seem to think that they know best.

Luckily, Randi (I am shocked again) and gang were alerted to the DOE directive to the principals and went to court and received a restraining order prohibiting the DOE from refusing "RO" days for teachers who requested them. The DOE was outraged. The restraining order took discretion out of the Principal's hand and was a violation of the contract. Too bad DOE, you got greedy. When you are given an inch and you try to take a mile, you can expect consequences for your actions. Of course the judge slapped you down and for good reason.

You would think this crises is over, right? Wrong, the DOE has appealed the restraining order as a violation of the DOE's right to determine if the "RO" would not affect the school. If the DOE wins the appeal then all teachers who took off for "Holy Thursday" and "Easter Monday" can be docked pay or receive a Letter-To-The-File if the principal claims that they would have denied the teacher permission to take the two "RO" days off.

I can just laugh how Tweed always states they want quality teachers but when it comes to "sticking it" to the teachers, they always find a way. Teacher disrespect is the slogan from these non-educators from Tweed.

Have the UFT & DOE Weakened Our Due Process Protections Under the State 3020-a Laws?

There is little question that more and more teachers are being removed from their classrooms (315 in 2003 to 757 in 2007) and many of them are charged under State education law 3020-a. These teachers are removed from the classroom and eventually reassigned to a Teacher Reassignment Center, commonly known as the "rubber room". Some of these teachers are removed from the classroom for serious felony charges like having sex with a student, hitting a student, selling drugs, or stealing school funds. However, these serious charges are probably 5% of the total number of teachers in the "rubber rooms". Approximately 50% of these teachers are there for incompetence and the rest for minor or frivolous misconduct issues (of course some teachers are there under false accusations), primarily due to an administrator who doesn't like that teacher.

Regardless of why, the teachers find themselves in the "rubber room", most of them can expect 3020-a charges to be filled against them. The New York State Education Law allows tenured teachers to have an impartial arbitration hearing to determine the remedy of the alleged charges against them. The remedy can range from an acquittal to termination. However, over the years the UFT and DOE have weakened these teacher due process protections that tenured teachers enjoy under New York State laws. How were they weakened? Let me count the ways.

First, The NYC version of the 3020-a process has selected 20 arbitrators who hear all the 3020-a cases for the New York City Teachers. To keep their jobs, their decisions can be influenced by the UFT and DOE who pay them. Therefore, these arbitrators will tend to "split the baby" when it comes to the remedy. The result is very few aquittals or terminations but fines or suspensions are likely. Under the State 3020-a outside New York City the arbitrator is only allowed to hear one case every two years. Therefore, they do not rely on the income and are more likely to come up with the proper decision.

Second, Under State 3020-a the teacher is allowed to reject an arbitrator. based upon the arbitrator's record. However, no such teacher choice is allowed under the UFT & DOE agreed process. The teacher is stuck with whatever arbitrator is randomly selected for the case.

Third, with teacher incompetence cases, the State 3020-a process allows for a three arbitrator panel. No such three arbitrator panel exists under the NYC 3020-a process.

Fourth, under State 3020-a, there must be a pre-hearing conference to ensure that a list of witnesses are exchanged and the charges are finalized. However, under the NYC version of 3020-a there are cases where there are no pre-hearings and the case is started without the teacher or attorney aware of the witnesses until the last minute.

Fifth, in the NYC 3020-a process the arbitrators are teamed up with a NYSUT lawyer and a DOE lawyer. This trio will be together for up to three years. That to me, is an uncomfortable familiarity at the expense of the teacher. The State 3020-a has nothing like this approach.

Finally, only in the NYC version of the 3020-a process can teachers be suspended without pay or health benefits, for non-felony issues. In fact, in some cases hearsay is only needed to suspend a teacher for up to three months. This "probable cause" section of the contract has resulted in many teachers being suspended based upon hearsay evidence.

Presently, there is a lawsuit filed by teachers4action.com that is trying to address some, if not most of these issues. However, this lawsuit is in it's early stages and whatever comes of it will be in the distant future. I can only hope that this lawsuit will result in the teachers regaining their due process rights under the State 3020-a regulations.

Have the UFT & DOE weakened our due process rights under 3020-a? You better believe they have!

The 8th Grade Social Promotion Problem

The Kleinberg administration has rammed through a vote that stops the social promotion of 8th graders. While I usually disagree with the DOE position. Here, I reluctantly agree that 8th graders should not be automatically promoted to the high schools. As a high school teacher I have seen too many of these not-ready-for-high school 8th graders fail academically and drop out. While I understand that as many as 18,000 8th graders may be "left back". The alternative is worse, social promotion.

Presently, only 1,200 8th graders are not promoted to the high schools. I am shocked that we have that many 8th graders "left back". Why? Because the middle school principals are always trying to push as many not-ready-for-high school 8th graders into the high school, knowing they are unable to academically succeed in the high school setting. Time and again I hear stories from middle school teachers how the principal will pressure them to change failing grades to passing, just to get the student out of the school. The most common statement by the principals is "do you want 17 year old boys with 12 year olds?" Therefore, many of the not-ready-for-high school 8th graders are promoted anyway. Let the high schools handle them.

The supporters of "social promotion" have only themselves to blame for this new policy. Many of these supporters don't see the big picture and insist that with extra help, the students can catch up to their peers. The problem with this outlook is that it is not realistic. Yes, if there was in place an intensive program in a self-contained, small class structure, some of these students may eventually succeed. However, in the real world of the DOE this transitional program does not exist in the high schools, except in special education programs. The transitional program necessary to assist the not-ready-for-high school 8th graders cost money, lots of money and we all know that the DOE will not be funding programs like this anytime soon.

Realistically, the Kleinberg either or proposal pits social promotion supporters against the grade retention groups and since there is no money allocated for the programs necessary to help the not-ready-for-high school 8th graders. I find myself reluctantly agreeing with the DOE in this case. Ugh!

DOE's Children Last Program Continues - Stops Elementary School's Pizza Day

The micromanagement by the DOE just continues. Now those wonderful non-educators have told PS 193 in Whitestone Queens that their twenty year tradition of "Pizza Day" is a violation of the DOE regulations on what type of food can be used in the school.

The PTA has been using Pizza Day as a fund-raising tool to supplement school supplies, teacher grants, and after school activities. Pizza Day generates $200 a month to fund these activities and this money is even more important as the schools suffer from budget cuts. Pizza Day is done once a month and the children give $5.00 to participate in it. The DOE first told the school in January that Pizza Day violated the nutrition standards of the DOE, then the DOE changed that reason by claiming that it violated the Chancellor's regulations on the sale of food inside the school. However, when the New York Post reporter interviewed a DOE official. That official claimed that the PTA is not allowed to have more than two fund-raising events in a school year. What nonsense! To understand what these parents went through, just see what the Vice-President of the PTA said about the DOE.

"They (DOE) were not nice about it," Tortora said. "They were obnoxious and nasty and condescending, over a pizza party. They told us we were getting away with it for way too long. It's a joke."

Even the local politician is outraged. Here is what City Councilman Tony Avella said in helping the parents fight the pizza ban.

"It's just plain stupid," he said. "This is just one more example of the bureaucratic red tape that comes out of the DOE. It's bizarre . . . It's amazing that they're focusing on an issue like this rather than cleaning up the waste and inefficiency and making sure the kids are getting a good education."

Let's see what the DOE did to hurt the children.

First, they took away a 20-year-old fund-raising event that gave the school $200 a month for school supplies, teacher grants, and after school activities.

Second, they took away an activity that the school's students looked forward to.

Finally, they showed the students that their wants and needs are not important when it interferes with the bureaucracy of the DOE.

Is it any wonder that I call it the DOE's children last program?.

Yet Another Nasty DOE Surprise & Randi Is Shocked

In the New York Daily News today was an article that talked about how the DOE will cut their budget by 5% for the 2008-09 school year. Apparently, two of the three options concern the Joel Klein supported "Fair Student Funding" (FSF) program.

For you readers that are not familiar to the FSF program. The FSF program assigns money to each student and allows the principal to control the school budget, based upon the FSF program. The good part of this program is that more money is attached to high-need students and schools. However, less money is assigned to high preforming students. Therefore, school budgets in the better schools will be reduced under FSF. The use of the FSF program puts budget pressure on the schools, especially the better schools, and has many deficiencies. However, the real cost under FSF will be the elimination of highly-paid, experienced teachers in many schools.

A deal that Randi Weingarten worked out with Joel Klein would allow schools to hire highly-paid veteran teachers without penalty to the school budget for the 2008-09 school year. However, for the 2009-10 school year and beyond the school budget would be penalized if too many highly-paid veteran teachers were on that school's payroll. Why worry? That's when Kleinberg will be a lame duck and a more teacher friendly DOE will soon emerge. Surprise, surprise, the DOE is seriously considering reneging on the deal with the UFT. What else is new? This blog has pointed out how almost on a monthly basis Randi is shocked by the agreements the DOE has worked out with the UFT, only to have Tweed ignore or renege on those agreements.

If the FSF program is implemented without the UFT negotiated agreements, look for an explosion of highly paid ATR's. Why would a principal hire a highly paid teacher when he could get two newbie teachers for the same price? Further, by not hiring these highly paid teachers the principal will have more money in the school budget to fund his/her pet projects. What about the children? Wouldn't a quality teacher in the classroom be the most important item for student learning? Most educators would think so. However, in this DOE it is all about the money.

Remember it is not children first, it's children last in the Kleinberg DOE.

Disciplinary Letter-In-File (LIF) , Is It Subject To A 3020-a Hearing?

A little noticed event happened a while ago when four Brooklyn teachers received disciplinary letters in their files (LIF) for not reporting on another teacher who may, or may not have improperly touched students. The four teachers sued in court since the UFT negotiated away the right to grieve LIF. The NYS Supreme Court judges agreed with the four teachers that since disciplinary LIF cannot be grieved, the teachers should have their LIF's expunged or brought before an arbitrator under the state 3020-a regulations. The judges rightly determined that the teachers due process rights were violated. The DOE has appealed the judges decision to the NYS Appellate Court and if they lose, the consequences can be earth shattering.

Why are the judges decision significant? Because if it stands, the DOE and UFT will need to pay arbitrators to hear all disciplinary LIF's if the teacher demands it. Can you imagine the cost and chaos that will occur if all teachers appeal their disciplinary LIF's? As is, there are not enough arbitrators to hear the existing 3020-a cases, which is why there are two year waits by teachers presently in the 3020-a process. Many of us were slow to realize the implications of the four teachers winning their disciplinary LIF lawsuit. However, it is now becoming clear the havoc it will do to the 2005 contract provision of ungrievable LIF. In other words it looks like the lack of a grievance for a disciplinary LIF, agreed by the UFT & DOE, has backfired. The ICE-UFT blog has reported on the lawsuit previously but seemed not to realize the implications if the DOE loses the appeal. The article can be found on the link below.

http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/cant-grieve-letter-to-your-file-sue.html

The destruction that the 2005 contract has had on the teachers is well documented by many education bloggers, including myself, and I will not rehash it here. However, the judges decision may be the first significant step in reversing these terrible and punitive provisions of the 2005 contract. One can only hope that the DOE appeal is shot down and with it, the ungreivable LIF.

The Ideal DOE Teacher - Young, Inexperienced, & Clueless

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

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

1. Inexperienced and lower paid.

2. Less than 50 years of age.

3. Thankful about having a job.

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

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

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

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

8. Clueless to what good teaching techniques are.

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

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

What Happened To Our Children's Social Skills?

I read an article in my local section of Newsday about how little today's children play with each other and it reminded me of my preteen, tween, and teen years. Presently, the boys seemed to be always playing video games while the girls are usually on their cellphone or on the Internet. With the heightened awareness of strangers trolling after our children has resulted in adult supervised play. Soccer, Dance, sleepovers, basketball are all adult supervised activities. Gone are the days that the children will come home, drop their books, and go play with the neighbourhood children. Now it is going on the Internet, watching TV, talking on the cellphone, or playing video games. There is very little social interaction, except by electronic means.

During my preteen and early teen years in the Bronx, I used to drop off my school books and meet my friends to play outside. At times, I would take my little sister along and she would always run into people she knew in the park. My friends and I would play a range of games such as box ball, stoop ball, skully, punch ball, and stick ball. We always found other children at the park to play with or against. We learned to negotiate when choosing sides, auguring plays and know when to stop teasing so the teased child wouldn't cry (or not cry so much). Were there fights and loud arguments? Of course there were, that is how we learned our social skills. With no adults around we had to work it out ourselves.

During nights with no school and in the warmer weather all the kids in the neighborhood would play hide & seek, Ring-a-leveo, or capture the flag. In this case I can proudly say we practiced "no child left behind" No thought was given to what might happen to us and nothing did, except for an occasional older teen giving us a hard time. Were we naive? Probably, however, this is how we played in the city. These social skills were necessary and evolved in even the shyest children, as they learned that they would be selected and be part of the group and feel important.

As a tween I was very much into stick ball and played it almost all the time on schooldays. The stick ball court (a wall with a box drawn on it) was about two blocks from my house and everybody in the neighborhood would hear my mother yell from the sixth floor kitchen window "Eric it's time for dinner". The stick ball game was over and the kids playing in the park knew it was 6:00pm, time to go home. Yes my mom had a very loud voice, you can hear it for three blocks or about 600 feet into the park, including the playground. Who needed cellphones when my mom was the the best communicating device in the neighborhood!

Now we watch our children get together in adult supervised organized play with the adult doing the picking and telling the children what to do. Where are the games that the children play in which they can develop their social skills? Is it any wonder that cooperative learning is a tough concept for the student to handle? You must have social skills if you want the students to work together. I find these social skills sorely lacking and worry about this generation as they approach adulthood.

By the way, most of my punch ball games were played in the school yard during recess and lunch. The school yard now has trailers in it and the students are stuck in the cafeteria or their classroom. See a problem?