The DOE's "Children Last" Shell Game Is Exposed By Albany..... It's About Time

The Kleinberg administration has over the years has worked the old shell game that allowed them to use money as they see fit while starving the classrooms of supplies, teaching talent, and keeping class sizes unreasonably high, the highest in the State. No-bid contracts and highly-paid consultants are quite common at Tweed and even the alleged 200 million dollar cuts will not significantly change this cosy relationship. As for these cuts being real, seeing is believing. However, the Kleinberg shell game has been exposed and Albany is now aware of the DOE ploy. For the first time the big three of Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver, and David Patterson have told the Kleinberg administration to forget about getting permission to change State aid rules. We know what you are doing and we are not amused. In fact here is what the Governer said:

"The lack of flexibility in State funding reflects the State's policy that Contract for Excellence funding should go disproportionately to schools with the greatest needs. If the City were not reducing its own promised spending for schools, it would have sufficient money to balance funds for other schools if it chose to do so."

In other words. You are cutting 300 million out of your budget and want the State to allow you to spend the extra 63 million dollars of State aid as you see fit? Forget about it!

To understand how well the Kleinberg administration has played the game of hide the money, the editorial and reporting staff of the New York Daily News and New York Post believe the DOE spin machine and that this hypocrisy is justified. Despite all three State leaders comments.

However, an article in the New York Sun by Andrew Wolf exposes the Kleinberg hypocrisy and writes about the Kleinberg administration's "smoke and mirrors" statements of educational progress as phony. Wolf writes about that there has been little or no progress in student test scores and a reduction in high school SAT results. Amdrew Wolf's article speaks the truth and in my opinion, the only tangable results from the Kleinberg administration has been a worsening of teacher morale, more ATRs, and an incrrease in "rubber room" teachers.

Let's see, the City is cutting 300 million from the DOE with 99 million coming directly from the schools. How can the DOE make up this artificial shortfall? Well 81 million can be saved by placing ATRs in schools before new teachers are hired. The remaining 18 million dollars can be saved by reducing the "rubber room" population by 90% (since only 10% of the present rubber room teachers will be terminated, retire, or resign). That means that of the 65 million dollars spent on the "rubber room" teachers, the DOE will have 58.4 million dollars to spend, well above the 18 million dollars needed to save any school budget cuts. Just think, instead of a 99 million dollar cut to the schools, the DOE will have a 40 million dollar surplus!

Realistically, don't look for Kleinberg to do the obvious, bring experienced teachers back in the classrooms while eliminating school budget cuts and reducing class size with the surplus. Instead, look for the DOE to keep the ATR and "rubber room" problem going and indirectly cut school programs that come from Tweed's 200 million dollar budget cuts.

In other words, Tweed's "Children Last Program" will continue until the next mayor takes office.

DOE's Zero Tolerance For Hugs But Not Drugs

In the warped universe of the DOE a teacher is more likely to get in trouble if the teacher (especially a male teacher) is charged with hugging a student. On the other hand, a teacher arrested with drugs is more likely to find their way back into the classroom.

Hugging is a time-honored method of greeting between civilized people. However, in the bizarre world of the DOE, the DOE has made teachers fearful of hugging a student. it doesn't matter if the hug is one of consoling, welcome, appreciation, or affection. In the perverted world of the DOE it's all about sex. In many schools teachers are told "don't even touch the students" for fear of being accussed of improper touching. The "rubber rooms" are full of these poor teachers who are not only subject to 3020-a charges but a three month unpaid suspension without health benefits, not to mention the loss of reputation. Is it any wonder that when a student runs up to hug a teacher the teacher is reluctant to respond in kind? What kind of message does that send to the students? The administrators want the teachers to be more personable and mentor the students but get too close and risk removal from the school and even termination charges. Is it any wonder that students complain about their teachers being distant and uncaring? For many teachers, being accussed of being distant and uncaring is not as risky to their careers as being actively involved in their students' education.

While there seems to be zero tolerance for teachers who have physical contact with the students the DOE seems not to have the same standard for teachers accussed of drug possesion. Teachers arrested by the police for drugs are automatically removed from the classroom and sent to the "rubber room". However, if the teacher plea bargains the criminal charge to a misdemeanor or violation, the teacher is almost always sent back to their school with no charges. Many of the teachers are young and some are not even tenured. Yet they seem to be sent back to their classroom as soon as their criminal case is "Adjudicated". Despite the "DARE" program it certainly seems that the DOE tolerates drug possesion. What message is the DOE sending to the students about drugs? Drugs are cool? Maybe the DOE does this because the teachers are younger and cost less. Therefore, lets give them another chance.

While no school system should allow child predators and sexual molesters to work in the schools. Defining innocent hugs or touching by teachers as sexual in nature is a perversion of otherwise normal human interaction and needs to stop. Lumping otherwise innocent physical contact with serious sexual acts weakens and blurs the DOE justification for removing teachers.

The DOE, as usual got it wrong. It is zero tolerance for drugs not hugs.

The TRS Passport Funds - What Should You Do?

Congratulations, you have survived the school year to see the 5% pay increase in your salary. Now what should you do with it? This is as a good time as any to restructure your 403b contributions (TDA) to account for the updated choices. As many of you know the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) has upgraded their TDA choices and switching options starting July 1, 2008. While I still think they didn't go far enough, it is a start.

The TRS has renamed the six options the "Passport Funds", you can select them as of now. Why that name? I couldn't even guess why. However, here are the options.

Diversified Equity Fund: - This fund invests mostly in US common stock and is loosely based upon the Wilshere 5000 index. This fund was previously known as Variable "A".

Stable Value Fund: - This fund invests in fixed income vehicles such as bonds, treasuries, and Guaranteed Investment Contracts (GIC's). This fund was previously known as Variable "B".

Fixed Fund: - This fund allows for a risk-free guaranteed income of 8.25% and the next adjustment will be July 1, 2009. The guaranteed return on the fund cannot go below 7.0%.

New Funds

International Equity Fund: - This fund invests in developed countries outside the United States, areas such as Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and Korea. Apparently, there is little exposure to the emerging markets such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia.

Socially Responsive Fund: - This fund will not invest in companies that have a significant business in alcohol, tobacco, gambling, nuclear power, and weapons. How about oil companies who cause global warming?

Inflation Protection Fund: - This fund may have been misnamed. At first glance it seems to suggest a fund made up primarily of TIPS (inflation adjusted Treasuries) with low risk. However, it appears that the fund will also have a variety of investment vehicles such as commodities, real estate, mutual funds, etc. This makes this fund riskier than it seems. That means this fund can give you returns at a greater risk than the document suggests. Only time will tell if this fund will meet it's stated objectives.

In addition to the increase investment choices, there is more flexibility in how quickly you can change your investment mix. previously, it took twelve months to get your money out of one investment choice to another. Under the new TRS program, you have a choice of getting your money out of an investment choice in as little as three months. The time periods are 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

The question is how much should you invest in the TDA and which investment choices? I cannot speak for anybody but me. However, I will try to give you some suggested portfolio mixes based on age and my rationale why.

Minimum TDA Contribution Rate:

The minimum amount of your salary you should put into your TDA is 10%. Remember, on the average. for every dollar you put into a TDA you save $0.35 in taxes. The more you put away, the more you accumulate, tax-deferred. Meaning your TDA grows much faster because the TDA is only taxed after you start receiving the money. For the newer teachers, every time you get a raise and or a step increase, add 1% to your TDA contribution. It is painless and increases your retirement savings. You can do your own calculations here.

20's and 30's: - 75% stock and 25% fixed

In most other retirement programs I would recommend 100% stocks. However, the 8.25% guaranteed income makes that unnecessary. This high return in a low inflation environment is equal to stock returns in an average year, without the risk! You will find nowhere else were you get a 8.25% return these days. I would take the stock portfolio section and divide it into the three funds. Diversified Equity (25%), International Equity (25%), and Inflation Protection Fund (25%). For the people who want to save the world then add the Socially Responsive Fund into the stock mix.

40's: - 60% stock and 40% fixed

Again, the fixed portion is higher because of the guaranteed 8.25% return. The stock mix should stay the same as for the 20's and 30's age group. That means 20% in each of the three stock funds.

50's: - Conservative 75%: Fixed , 25% Stocks Moderate 60% Fixed, 40% Stocks

Since the time horizon is much shorter for this age group, it is important that you have a safe return. Remember, at this time in your career you will be looking at a pension in your future (maybe at 55) so that you don't need to take on the additional risk in your investments. For the stock mix I would recommend that 15% be put into diversified stocks and 10% in international stocks. At this point I see no reason to put money into the Inflation Protection Fund.

60's and older: - Conservative: 100% Fixed Moderate 75% Fixed, 25% Stocks

I know that 100% fixed is highly conservative. However, here again getting a guaranteed 8.25% in a low inflation environment is a no-brainer where short term stock fluctuations can put quite a dent into a person's retirement funds. Until the fixed rate falls to a competitive number with bond funds (averaging 2-4% at present), it makes little sense not to take advantage of the fixed income fund. For the less conservative, keep following the stock mix that you did in your 50's.

Every teacher's needs are different. However, if you intend to retire as a teacher, it is important that you prepare for your retirement. These are only suggestions on how to allocate and the amount you should invest in your TDA. Good luck, and save hard.

By the way just some historical data to help you determine where to put your money.

Average return in the last ten years:
Fixed = 8.25%, Variable "A" =- 4.95%, and Variable "B" = 4.59%

The Principal, The Budget, The "Rubber Room", The ATRs, and the 2005 Contract

There seems to be some misunderstanding on what a Principal can do, or not do to a teacher. Let me explain it as simply as possible. A Principal can remove a teacher simply by using "false or frivolous accusations" or "phony observation reports" to have a teacher removed from the school. These "false or frivolous accusations" or "phony observation reports" are the most common procedures on how Principals send teachers they don't like to the "rubber room". Let's see how the DOE has caused the vast increase in ATRs and "rubber room" teachers.

School Budget: The "fair student funding program" puts pressure on the Principals to hire lower-paid teachers at the expense of the highly-paid veteran teacher. Many a Principal, especially the Leadership Academy Principals, would rather hire two $43.362 teachers than a $100,049 teacher. Who can blame them? With money tight and more school budget cuts on the way, it is mighty tempting to get two for the price of one and still have $13,325 to spend for other school activities.

Teacher Removal Process: It used to be that when a Principal received permission to remove a teacher, it was for some serious misconduct and that teacher stayed on the school's payroll for a full year. Now, because of the Chancellor's regulations and the anti-teacher crusades at Tweed, the Principal can remove teachers for the most minor of infractions, or for nothing at all. To make it even easier on the principal, the teacher's salary is taken off the school's payroll after only sixty days! That means, that a Principal can get rid of a senior teacher in April and know that the teacher's salary will be off the school's payroll in September. Is it any wonder the "rubber rooms" are bursting at the seems?

The ATRs: The explosion of ATRs in the last couple of years can be laid at the doorstep of the DOE and their policy of encouraging Principals to hire lower-paid and inexperience teachers at the expense of the veteran teacher. The DOE policy of closing schools and excessing these teachers added to the ATR crisis. In fact, the DOE has a new teacher job fair before an ATR job fair is scheduled. The ATR problem has resulted in the UFT to file an age discrimination lawsuit since many of the ATRs are 50 years old or older.

The 2005 Contract: We all know how terrible the 2005 contract was. However, lets go over it's contribution to the ATR crises. The 2005 contract allowed the DOE to eliminate the "Seniority Transfer System" and replace it with the "Open Market System". The UFT spin mister "Leo Casey" told us in Edwize that all jobs will now be advertised and not hidden by the Principals. What he didn't say is that the UFT knew very well that the elimination of the "Seniority Transfer System" would result in the ATR crises, as Principals would look for younger teachers at the expense of the older veterans.

Thee UFT should stop negotiating with the Kleinberg administration and prepare strategies with the next administration for eliminating the "rubber room" and ATR issues. In addition, the reinstatement of the "Seniority Transfer System" and adjusting the "fair student funding" formula should be a top prority. Finally, I would prepare a hard-hitting media blitz on how the Kleinberg administration has put children last based upon class size , teacher turnover, overcrowded schools, and flat test scores and call it the DOE'S "Children Last Program".

What The Chancellor's Regulations Really Say About Teacher Corporal Punishment and Verbal Abuse

The Chancellor's Regulations are what all school staff is subject to and violating these regulations can get a teacher in trouble. I have decided to investigate the Chancellor's Regulations on Corporal Punishment (A-420) and Verbal Abuse (A-421). Let's see if these regulations are vague enough that just about all teachers targeted by administrators can be subject to these regulations.

Corporal Punishment- A-420. According to the Chancellor's Regulations, Corporal Punishment is defined as "any act of physical force upon a student for the purpose for punishing that student". While the Chancellor's Regulations do allow for reasonable force against a student. The statement at the end of the regulation is what an administrator can use against a teacher. In bold capital letters it states.

"NO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHALL BE INFLICTED IN ANY OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NOR PUNISHMENT OF ANY KIND TENDING TO CAUSE EXCESSIVE FEAR OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISTRESS. VIOLATION OF THIS BYLAW SHALL CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL".

The key phrase is excessive fear or physical or mental distress. That means if a teacher defends herself from a student attack and restrains him which can cause the violent student to fear the teacher, that teacher can be targeted by the administrator under the Corporal Punishment regulations. Another example of this is a teacher breaks up a fight and one student claims the teacher hurt him when breaking up the fight. Guess what the administrator can do? Right charge the teacher under the Corporal Punishment regulations. Finally, a teacher doesn't have to even touch the student. He just needs to threaten the student with "you are headed for jail, the way you act" That can meet the mental distress requirement of the Corporal Punishment regulations. Seems unreal? Well if you don't believe it see for yourself. The Corporal Punishment regulations can be found here.

Verbal Abuse - A-421.

Verbal abuse is not corporal punishment but includes any language that tends to cause fear or physical or mental distress of a student. However, here again is the nasty catchall phrase.

"Nothing in this regulation, however, prevents a supervisor from counseling or disciplining an employee for inappropriate speech or conduct that is not otherwise in violation of this regulation".

What does the Verbal Abuse regulation mean? To me it can mean anything the administrator wants it to be. Resulting in a teacher getting a "U" rating and even removal to the "rubber room" while waiting for the 3020-a charges. You still don't believe it? Well the Verbal Abuse regulations can be found here.

My question is why did the UFT allow both these statements to exist? These statements gives administrators great power to discipline teachers that they don't like. What stops an administrator from abusing his or her power to punish a teacher? Nothing, nothing at all.

An example Of The DOE Double Standard When Investigating Teachers And Principals

In my previous post I questioned the double standard when teachers and principals are investigated. In the undemocratic world of the DOE the principal is presumed innocent while the teacher is assumed guilty. An example of the DOE double standard can be found in a Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) report on IS 109 principal Shango Blake. Remember, it is important to understand that just because SCI said the principal did what the report claims, it doesn't mean that he did them. Only an administrative (3020-a) hearing and/or a criminal trial can determine that. The point here is that the DOE assumed Shango Blake was innocent until the DOE received the full SCI report dated August 13, 2007. If he was a teacher, he would have been removed in June of 2006 at the latest.

The SCI report about Shango Blake stated that school funds were allegedly misappropriated and in some cases were unaccounted for and the SCI report charges him with financial mismanagement of over $30,000 in school funds . Further, the SCI report recommended that the Queens County District Attorney look into criminal charges, based upon its findings. In addition, Shango Blake was accused of corporal punishment and the SCI report states that the punching and choking of a student was sustained and that he also threatened to break the student's neck. This investigation started in January of 2006 on the financial mismanagement charges and June of 2006 on the corporal punishment charges. When was Shango Blake taken out of his school? Not until August of 2007. Over a full school year after the incidents happened!

I know a teacher who has been taken out of her school for trying to restrain a violent student who attacked her. Another teacher was taken out of his school for failing to break up a fight in his class. A third teacher for touching a student's shoulder to calm her down. I guess in the bizarre world of the DOE a principal who has charges of punching, chocking, and telling the student that I will break your neck is not as serious as one of the teachers' actions I discussed in this paragraph.

While I do not know if Shango Blakel is guilty of these charges, I do know that teachers accused of simple corporal punishment are always taken out of the classroom and sent to the "rubber rooms". In this case it didn't happen to the principal until fourteen months later, Double standard? You bet it is!

The DOE's Double Standard When Principals Are Investigated

It is incredible that the statements of up to thirteen, yes thirteen teachers who filed eleven corporal punishment allegations against their principal, including a district union leader who allegedly witnessed the principal committing corporal punishment, is considered unsubstantiated and the principal is allowed to continue to run the school. On the other hand, a student's accusation against a teacher is enough to remove the teacher from the classroom. Talk about a double standard! Why is the principal presumed innocent while the teacher is presumed guilty? In a New York Daily News article a principal is being investigated in District 11 in the Bronx for corporal punishment and despite all these teachers coming forward with allegations of corporal punishment, the principal is allowed to continue in her school. The DOE response to these allegations is that the charges did not merit the principal's removal.

The DOE's disrespect for teachers can be seen both on how they dismiss a teacher's accusation against a principal but jumps all over a teacher if the same accusation is made against that teacher. The DOE's unfair approach on handling accusations against teachers and administrators is not only undemocratic but un-American. In this country everybody should have equal rights. However, under the DOE the rights of the students and administrators are more important than the rights of the teacher. This perversion of justice must change and the union must file action against this unjust and discriminatory policy against teachers.

Visiting the school is not enough. Randi Weingarten should be filling court papers showing that the DOE's policy on how they treat accusations against administrators and teachers is discriminatory and needs to be eliminated. One policy for accusations against students, teachers, and administrators need to be implemented, not different rules for different groups.

In my opinion different rules for different groups smacks of discrimination and didn't this country worked long and hard to eliminate discrimination? Maybe the DOE hasn't gotten the message.

It's National Teacher Appreciation Day but Not At The DOE - As For The ATR's Job Security Be Afraid, Very Afraid.

Today is national teacher appreciation day but you wouldn't know it at the DOE. Tweed is too busy removing teachers from the classroom on frivolous, minor, or false accusations. While practicing age discrimination on the ATR's who cannot find a classroom position. Maybe the DOE can call today "teacher disrespect day" since their idea of a good teacher is young, inexperienced, clueless about their rights and cheap! Any teacher that questions DOE directives is a troublemaker and needs to be disciplined while automatically believing accusations against teachers, no matter how ridiculous. I guess I am used to DOE's disrespect for the classroom teacher. Because what bothers me the most is our union even entertaining the idea of reopening our contract to limit the pay status of the ATR's. Yes, I know that Randi Weingarten has stated to the ATR's that she will not agree to an ATR time limit. The problem is, based on her past performance in dealing with the DOE, can we totally trust her not to reopen the contract? On the Ice blog, James Eterno's analysis of the no layoff issue needs to be looked at before you make this decision.

I was particularly disturbed that in the April 29Th New York Sun article that the UFT did negotiate with the DOE on the ATR issue and apparently on the table was an ATR time limit. Thankfully, the negotiations were stalemated and hopefully no further discussions on the ATR time limit will occur. Why did the UFT even consider reopening the contract that would allow Kleinberg a second bite at the apple? That really bothers me and makes me suspicious of the motives of our union leaders. I said this previously and I will say it again. The UFT needs to draw a line in the sand and make sure the DOE cannot step across it without severe consequences. Give Tweed and inch and they take a mile. When will Randi and her acolytes realize that dealing with Kleinberg is like dealing with the devil and your members can only get burned by the results.

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