How To Really Streamline The Tenured Teacher Discipline Process While Protecting Teacher "Due Process" Rights.

Lately, the media and the pseudo education reformers have brought up New York State Education Law 3020-a as being too slow and costly with the average case lasting 502 days and hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, when it comes to how to make it faster and fair, these very same people are short on details or in Chancellor Joel Klein's case is unrealistic and violates State Education Law. Of course if you really want to know what Bloomberg & Klein would like to do to reassigned teachers? Just look at the pictures above. As for the State, their RTTT program in streamlining the disciplining of tenured educators is vague at best and disingenuous at worst. Therefore, the question is how would I streamline the State 3020-a process in New York City?

First, for teacher misconduct cases, there will be an independent investigator who would actually interview everybody involved in the alleged misconduct, including the teacher to determine if the teacher is a "threat to the children". If the investigator finds that the teacher committed "major misconduct" (as defined in the contract - Articles 21G5 & 6 pgs 115-117) or was criminally arrested then the teacher can be removed from the school and 3020-a charges can be filed. Otherwise, the teacher will stay in the school and the worst punishment would be a Letter To His/Her File (LIF). Incompetence cases would be handled differently and PIP+ would be changed to a more independent method where a 90% failure rate is unheard of. No longer would the teacher be subject to the corrupt investigations by the Principal, OEO, OSI, or SCI that usually results in the teacher being unfairly removed from the school. I guarantee that the overcrowded "rubber rooms" would disappear very quickly.

Second, the DOE lawyers must stop extending the hearings by charging teachers with actions that are both frivolous and outright bogus. It is bad enough that the DOE lawyers expand, twist, and embellish the incidents into something that they aren't but they then lengthen the hearings by adding additional charges hoping that some of them will stick. Many of the DOE lawyers will call in any witness that might have a bad word about the teacher even if they are not involved in the charges hoping it will influence the Arbitrator. Moreover, they will violate 3020-a law by bringing up hearsay or accusations against the teacher that are over three years old and never substantiated but claim it as fact. These tactics by the DOE lawyers is simply called "character assassination" and they will use this weapon when they realize their case is failing. The result is that a four day misconduct hearing can last four months!

Third, give the Arbitrator the right to penalize the DOE when during the 3020-a hearings a witness, be it the investigator, Principal, etc was caught lying in their testimony. Presently, there is no consequence for investigators and administrators who are caught lying. If a teacher is caught lying in his/her 3020-a hearing that teacher is terminated. Therefore, there should be serious consequences to testimony found to be untrue and action taken against witnesses that lie. If investigators or administrators knew that their lies can cost them money and even their jobs, fewer teachers would be subject to 3020-a charges and the investigations would be fairer.

Fourth, use the expedited hearing procedure that can be found in Article 21G3 of the Contract (pgs 114-115). According to Michael Mulgrew, this procedure has only been used twice since 2002. The reason the DOE does not use the expedited hearing process is that it does not allow for termination, the maximum penalty is a six month suspension, Despite the basis for a 3020-a hearing that is for the Arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy for the accused teacher, the DOE's remedy is always termination. Hence, that is why there have been only two

Finally, give the DOE lawyers the right to rescind 3020-a charges. Especially after a teacher is acquitted in criminal court. To my knowledge once 3020-a charges are filed, the DOE lawyer cannot rescind these charges even if he/she realizes that the charges should have never been issued in the first place. Jeff Kaufman on the ICEUFT blog wrote about this only last week and is a must reading for teachers who want to understand the "rubber room" problem.

I am sure there are many other good ideas on how to streamline the tenured teacher discipline process and please put them in my comment section. However, these are the ones I found needs to be reformed.

Why Doesn't The UFT Leadership Actively Take Up The Case Of the Reassigned Teachers & Go After The Evil Administrators That Put Them There?

I have been pleasantly surprised by the tone of our acting President, Michael Mulgrew as he seems to lock horns with our billionaire Mayor and his henchman, Chancellor Joel Klein. However, I have also complained that he has not replaced our failed union leadership that has lost touch with their members, especially the reassigned teachers. Based upon my conversations with two teachers who have contact with the UFT leadership, my complaints seem to be still valid.

I was told by a teacher in the Bronx that he had a conversation with one of the union leaders why the union does not go after the administrators that target teachers or have skeletons in their closet. This union leader who is in the highest rung of the UFT leadership, apparently told the teacher it is our union's policy not to go after a fellow union member from the CSA. The teacher was flabbergasted and said that this so-called union solidarity doesn't work both ways as many teachers are reassigned and receive 3020-a charges by the administrators. The union official responded to the teacher and said that is our policy.

This very same union official encountered a reassigned teacher in the Brooklyn "rubber room" who asked him why the union's tepid response to the DOE directed media campaign against reassigned teachers. Especially the Steve Brill's New Yorker magazine's hatchet job as well as the New York Post Sunday campaign.The union official told the reassigned teacher it is best to lay low and be quiet since it is hard to defend some of the teachers. The reassigned teacher, who has been in the Brooklyn "rubber room" for almost three years without 3020-a charges in violation of the union contract, then told the union official that the UFT must confront the media with their own stories of how the DOE files the most frivolous or bogus charges against teachers who are whistle blowers or who stand up for their or student rights. The union official said that he would look into the reassigned teacher's suggestions. The teacher is not expecting any action in the near future. This reassigned teacher wrote the following to me.

"UFT should not allow letting us twist in the wind of rotten press. There are many shocking stories to be told about reassigned teachers, veritable martyrs of Klein’s inquisition. But the UFT has washed its hands of the least of the brethren".

I may not totally agree with the reassigned teacher but it does appear to me that the union has not stepped up to the plate and have allowed the DOE to demonize the "rubber room" teachers in the media without any push back from the union. Yes, some of the teachers in the "rubber room" are guilty of what they are accused of but what about the other 90% who should never of been removed in the first place and are simply victims of vindictive administrators who care little of union loyalty while being protected by our union's misguided policy of protecting them. No wonder we have a hostile classroom work environment and overcrowded "rubber rooms". With a union leadership like ours, it is no wonder that the administrators feel they can do as they please.

Cold Heart - Chancellor Joel Klein's Valentine's Day Idea To Solve The "Rubber Room" Problem. Let's Just Stop Paying Reassigned Teachers.

On this Valentine's Day, the cold hearted Chancellor Joel Klein's gift to reassigned teachers would be to stop paying them and giving them health benefits once an Administrator accused the teacher of misconduct or incompetence. Luckily, New York State Education Law requires that tenured teachers be given "due process" and face an independent Arbitrator who requires real evidence not just accusations by a vindictive Principal or a corrupt investigative process. In the DOE mouthpiece, the New York Post, who just can't help themselves in going after teachers with half truths and false accusations here, Chancellor Joel Klein stated the following.

Remove employees from payroll while their cases proceed. "When teachers are formally charged with misconduct or incompetence and there is probable cause to believe they are guilty, they should be taken off payroll pending the outcome of the charges. Exonerated teachers would receive back pay plus interest".

What the cold hearted Chancellor failed to say was that all 3020-a charges meet DOE's idea of "probable cause". Therefore, all teachers subject to 3020-a charges would automatically be taken off the payroll. Interestingly, Chancellor Joel Klein did have some valid ideas to speed up the discipline system. However, he failed to acknowledge that it is Tweed that caused the sixfold increase in reassigned teachers and the average of a two year stay for these "rubber room" teachers in the first place. The complete Joel Klein statement can be found here. To be fair, the New York Post did also allow the UFT president, Michael Mulgrew's statement in which he clearly pointed out how the union negotiated an expedited hearing process in 2002 only to see the DOE use it only twice in eight years! The reason being that the expedited hearing process does not allow for termination with the maximum penalty of a six month suspension. This shows that Tweed only wants to terminate teachers and not remediation as the State Education Law (3020-a) recommends. Mr. Mulgrew further pointed out that the UFT bent over backwards under Randi Weingarten by agreeing to more Arbitrators and a more DOE friendly discipline process (the three month suspension without pay or health benefits based upon hearsay) but the DOE rather supply rhetoric not action when it comes to a real efficient discipline process.

What I was unhappy about Mike (call me Michael) Mulgrew's response was his failure to recommend a fair investigation process by mediators or independent investigators, not the corrupt OSI or SCI investigators and penalties to Administrators who file bogus or frivolous charges just to get the teacher out of the school. However, I do expect when Mr. Mulgrew fleshes out his proposals, these actions will be part of the union's official position.

I can't think of a better way to celebrate Valentine's Day by reading the heartless Joel Klein's proposal to take away a teacher's livelihood based upon mere accusations. Thank our lucky stars that the New York State Education Law and our union contract requires "due process" rights. At least for now.

The Idiot Mayor & Chancellor Opens Schools When The Outer Boroughs Had Unplowed Streets And Unshoveled Sidewalks

Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein opened schools despite many of the outer boroughs having streets that were unplowed and sidewalks that the children walk on being unshoveled. The result was the two clueless non-educators subjected the children to dangerous conditions by forcing many of them to walk in the streets or stay on the sidewalks with knee deep snow as they go to a school where they were put into an auditorium because the majority of teachers could not dig out their cars and took the day off.

Many parents had the common sense that the Mayor & Chancellor failed to exercise by keeping their children safely at home. Here again, not one of the newspapers or other media questioned the Mayor's moronic decision to endanger the lives of the children when many of the roads were still snow covered and treacherous. The real problem is that the idiot Mayor based his decision on two factors, money and the roads in Mdtown and Downtown Manhattan.

The money issue is obvious. Keeping the schools closed a second day would cost the City money from the State and the State money is necessary to pay the salaries of the non-educators running Tweed. The second factor was that the Mayor and Chancellor live and work in Manhattan and the streets around where they live and work are the first ones plowed and the sidewalks are cleared quickly. However, both the Mayor and Chancellor did not see what the outer boroughs looked liked. I was on Utopia Parkway at 7am in Queens and saw children going to Francis Lewis High School and Ryan Middle School walking on the snow covered and icy street as cars came perilously close to them. Other children chose to walk on the sidewalks but many homeowners had not shoveled since the snow did not end to midnight. These children were struggling to walk through knee deep snow. Their choice was dodging motor vehicles and getting hit by snow and ice in the spray or drudge through unshovled sidewalks. Did the Mayor or Chancellor care? Of course not.

Mayor Bloomberg and Joel Klein's decision was a threat to the children as they continue their "children last" program. By the way my blogger friend "pissed off" also questioned the Mayor's poor decision on closing the schools.

To My Union. Let'S Fight Fire With Fire And Expose Incompetent And Unqualified Administrators & Bureaucrats In The DOE To The Media.

Lately, the DOE has come under fire for its misplaced priorities and questionable policies that hurt the schools and the children they educate. As the pressure was increaed on Tweed, the DOE mouthpiece, the New York Post writes front page articles on long term "rubber room" teachers and twisted the charges against them, here and here. Now the DOE may deny they planted these stories to deflect pressure on their own poor track record. However, it has helped the DOE try to make their case that it is the fault of the teachers union and not Tweed for the waste of money. I posted previously that it was Joel Klein's fault that these teachers have spent up to a decade collecting their full salary, nobody else.

The question is how should the union respond to these attacks on teachers? Simple, attack those administrators and bureaucrats who are either incompetent, not qualified, or selected due to their political connections and write a press release to the media with the evidence to support it. An example of this was done here. The person who made the decision to hire the hypnotherapist, a former Bear Stearns managing director with no experience in education who Joel Klein personally hired for a salary in excess of $100,000 would be one candidate I can think of. Or maybe Mychael Willon, the DOE director of the Principal Candidate Pool who South Bronx School has written several articles about is another. His latest is here . I suspect there are many hires like this in Tweed because of their no-bid and secretive contracting and hiring procedures. Furthermore, many of the principals are not qualified to lead a school and the UFT knows who they are. These principals should not only be identified but the UFT must provide press releases on them. Including these PINI principals in the New York Teacher is not sufficient. Their failings must be exposed to the community and that can only be done through the mass media.

Presently, the UFT under Mike (call me Michael) Mulgrew has continued the policies of Randi Weingarten and has not aggressively defended the defamed teachers sent to the various overcrowded "rubber rooms" nor have they challenged the DOE on the qualification of the people they hire. The teacher union has had war declared on them by Bloomberg and Klein and it is time to strike back hard.

It Is About Time That The News Media Is Starting To Realize The Poor Quality Of The Principals Being Selected By Tweed And How It Hurts The Children.

In the good old days for an educator to become a Principal it took many years of working their way up the ladder. First, the educator spent a minimum of ten years in the classroom, earning the respect of his or her peers. Then the educator spent a minimum of five years as an Assistant Principal, which included teaching one or two classes. Finally, the educator was offered a Principal position and while some principals might have had problems with their staff the vast majority of principals were respected by the staff due to their experience as a educator who rose through the ranks. However, than came the non-educators who came to dominate the upper levels of the DOE, lead by Chancellor Joel Klein who turned the New York City public school system upside down and not for the better.

Under the non-educator, Chancellor Joel Klein, we saw the formation of the "Leadership Academy". This program was a shortcut for people who had little or no experience in education to become a Principal, The problem was that these "newbie" principals have no classroom experience and had not worked in a school environment. The result has been a deterioration in principal quality. I previously, wrote about this here. It is these inexperienced "Leadership Academy" principals who have been told to run their school as they please that have caused the ATR crises and overcrowded "rubber rooms". However, the greatest problem is that these principals lack "common sense" as reported by Joanna Molloy of the New York Daily News and that brings me to the two dopey principals at JHS 190 and PS 52 who caused the City extreme embarrassment and ridicule. Remarkably, the Principal of JHS 190 actually defended her actions. Unbelievable! Even the DOE's mouthpiece, the New York Post had an editorial on these stupid principals. What will eventually happen to these principals? Probably nothing but a letter to their file. Yes, principals do get letters to their file. As for being reassigned to the "rubber room"? That's not happening. A recent example of a Principal staying in his school despite overseeing and hiding misconduct was when Principal Michael Soet apparently approved and participated in a rowdy drinking and dirty dancing party in the presence of students at their prom that resulted in sexual misconduct charges against one teacher at the International High School of Lafayette This "Leadership Academy" Principal is still running the school while SCI goes through the motions of investigating the incident over eight months later.

Until we see real educators regain control of the DOE and the principal positions filled by educators who move up through the ranks, look for more dopey principal actions as they are more interested in their control of their power base than what is best for the children of their school. "Children last" continues.

How Joel Klein Is The Blame For Teachers Like Alan Rosenfeld Who Has Been In The "Rubber Room" For Almost A Decade.

I read with real amusement how the New York Post reported about a teacher, Alan Rosenfeld, who has been sitting in a DOE "rubber room" for almost a decade while collecting his full salary. What the New York Post seemed not to understand is that the real cause for Alan Rosenfeld receiving his full salary for doing nothing for nearly a decade is Chancellor Joel Klein himself.

A little history is need here. Alan Rosenfeld was charged under New York State Law 3020-a by the DOE and he went through a full 3020-a hearing and after the independent Arbitrator heard all the evidence against Mr. Rosenfeld, decided that he was only guilty of one minor charge and gave Mr. Rosenfeld a one week suspension without pay. This Arbitrator dismissed all the remaining charges as being unfounded hearsay and expected Mr. Rosenfeld to be returned to the classroom. However, along came Chancellor Joel Klein who decided that a person like Alan Rosenfeld should not be in the classroom and sentenced him to a permanent stay in the "rubber room". This is known as "Chancellor discretion".

Now I ask you. Who is responsible for Alan Rosenfeld receiving his full pay while spending a decade in the "rubber room"?

• Was it the New York State "due process" law?
• How about Alan Rosenfeld's somewhat abrasive personality?
• Could in be the teacher union contract?
• Or was it Chancellor Joel Klein's fault?

The answer? It is Chancellor Joel Klein's fault. If Chancellor Klein didn't want Alan Rosenfeld back into the classroom then he should have offered alternate work. Given Mr. Rosenfeld's experience in rel estate and law, he would have been an asset to the DOE's School Construction Authority and work with the ever-changing legal staff that come and go at Tweed. Mr. Rosenfeld's expertize would have been welcomed in two areas where the DOE has had problems with. I'm sure many of my readers Remember this? How about this? Or maybe this? For Chancellor Klein not to use Alan Rosenfeld's experience is not only a shame but an inefficient use of personnel.

The New York Post once again gets it wrong, the real villain is Chancellor Joel Klein, he and he alone is responsible for leaving a valuable employee who has much to offer in the "rubber room". Tweed's "Children Last" continues.

New York State Has Proposed To Reform The Teacher Discipline Procedure In Their Race To The Top Proposal. The Question Is How They Intend To Do It?

New York State has written a proposal to reform the teacher discipline system in their flawed and failed Race To The Top (RTTT) proposal. However, the New York State proposal is vague, short on information, and is really wishful thinking at best. The State RTTT proposes to streamline the 3020-a process and of course, appears to lack input from the very members subject to the 3020-a process. School-based teachers and administrators that would be affected were not consulted and it appears NYSUT had no meaningful input into the proposed changes as well. Only non educators, primarily lawyers for the State school districts seem to have developed the proposals.

It is well understood that the 3020-a process is slow moving and in some cases glacial with teachers spending over three years in the process. In fact a study in the New York State Public Personnel Law document published the following information from a Micheile Handzel who is General Consul of the Council of School Superintendents in New York State.

"Mr. Handzel’s presentation cites a recent New York State School Board Association survey covering 2004 through 2008 in which it received responses from 400 school districts. NYSSBA's report indicated that it took an average of 502 days to conclude a full §3020-a disciplinary hearing. The hearing itself took an average of 176 days and there was an average of 136 days between the last hearing day and the date of a decision".

It is quite obvious that 502 days to complete a 3020-a disciplinary process is quite long. However, what Mr. Handzel fails to mention is that New York State Law requires "due process" for tenured teachers and administrators. Therefore, these educators are entitled to a full and fair hearing. What are the major items that Mr. Handzel's legal analysis includes in the New York State's RTTT proposal? They are:

• expedite the 3020-a process.
  
• financial incentives to resolve 3020-a charges.
• reduce State financial requirements to arbitrators and transcribers.
• eliminate a full 3020-a hearing for teachers who are not properly certified.

I really have a problem with the State proposals since they did not explain how they intend to expedite the 3020-a process, or who pays for the arbitrators and transcribers? Furthermore, what financial incentives? Are we talking about the exhortation the DOE uses against teachers with large fines and useless courses or is he talking about real negotiations between the accused educator and the school district? Finally, how does the State define "properly certified"? This must be fleshed out to ensure that certified teachers who might have given a waiver is still considered "properly certified".

Here again, the very groups who are affected by the 3020-a process are not consulted and only non educator lawyers are allowed any input into New York State's flawed RTTT proposal. I am glad that New York State's RTTT proposal is dead on arrival and let's hope it stays that way.

Student "X" And The Closing Of The Large High Schools.

The Bloomberg/Klein strategy of closing down the large public high schools have accelerated lately as the PEP approved closing down a record 19 schools earlier this week, despite thousands of parents, students, and teachers who protested and spoke against their closings.Previously, I have commented on how the destructive policies of the DOE has led to the downfall of the once world renowned Jamaica High School. However, what about the "at risk" students that are the reason for the downfall in the first place? This story is about one such student know as student "X".

Student "X" was an English Language Learner (ELL) student who came from the Caribbean with only his mother and three other siblings. His mother worked hard but had little time to monitor her children's academic progress. Student "X", besides being an ELL student was struggling academically and occasionally lashed out and was labeled as having a behaviour problem. An aunt tried to enroll him in a charter school only to be told that his mother did not put him into the lottery. Next, the aunt tried a new small school in her neighborhood but once the Principal saw the child's record that he needed academic as well as behavioral intervention she told the Aunt that her school cannot provide the services that a large school can. The Aunt reluctantly enrolls the child in the large neighborhood school with large class sizes and finds that her nephew is just one of many "at risk" students at the school. The elementary school did its best to provide the services to student "X" but as he entered the middle school he was an "at risk"student and even as his Aunt managed to have student "X"s mother enter a lottery for a new charter school, the charter school interviewed the mother and student "X" and convinced the mother her son cannot get the proper academic services that her son required.

Student "X" struggled through his middle school years but thanks to the teachers and the increasingly dumbed down New York State tests, student "X" was tested as a low grade "2" and was promoted into the high school, despite not being able to do high school work. The Aunt realized that her nephew, student "X", really needed to be in a small school setting and was able by force of will to enroll him ion one of those small collegiate schools. However, once the school staff realized that student "X" did not meet their unofficial criteria of being college bound, they convinced the mother that it was better for her child to go to the large neighborhood school to get the behavioral and academic services student "X" required. The Aunt was upset but the clueless mother was fooled into accepting the transfer.

Student "X", once again found himself with many other students like him. Most of his peers had struggled throughout their school years and many of them could not pass even the introductory Regents such as Living Environment, Algebra, and Global History. Like student "X" most of his high school friends were ELL students and had problems academically and/or behaviorally. In fact, student "X"s high school seemed populated with "at risk" students and despite the efforts of the school staff, many of these students will not be able to graduate because of their accumulated deficiencies. Now student "X"s high school will be closing down but for him it is far too late. His attendance was poor and he was failing his classes, even the phony "credit recovery program" the Principal put into effect to try to artificially raise the school's graduation rate was not enough. Now student "X", while still officially enrolled in the closing high school, does not attend anymore and is trying to look for a job. However, he has trouble filling out job applications and he has trouble counting despite his level 2 testing status.

Student "X" is the reason that Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg cite on why our schools are failing. However, it is their deliberate policy of excluding students like student "X" from the small and charter schools that have resulted in too many students like student "X" to be enrolled in the remaining high schools that cause their destabilization and a low graduation rate that eventually puts them on the Chancellor's list for termination.

Bloomberg & Klein caused the problem and they are blaming the schools and closing them instead of fixing the problem they caused. Why don't the newspapers write about that?

Bloomberg Wants To Cut Our Raises Or Face 2,500 Layoffs Of Teachers. The Union's Reaction Should Be The Following "Not In This Contract"

News have leaked out that Mayor Bloomberg wants to shortchange teachers by giving them the same truncated raises that Chancellor Joel Klein gave his people. That is two 2% raises for the first $70,000 in salary and 0% for any salary above $70,000. This is despite the fact that the teachers are the last major union that falls under the "City pattern" of two 4% raises with no "givebacks" and an existing budget that has those raises in it.

News Channel 4 reported that Mayor Bloomberg's proposed budget includes the two 2% raises for teachers and administrators and if the teachers union does not agree, Mayor moneybags threatened to layoff up to 2,500 teachers.

My union's response should be the following' The UFT will only accept the "City pattern" that requires two 4% raises with no "givebacks" the same terms given to all other unions. Mayor Bloomberg's proposed budget is "dead on arrival" when it comes to the teachers and any variation from the "City pattern" will be consistent with agreements made with all other unions in the last round of negotiations".
By the way as for laying off 2,500 teachers? Go right ahead and layoff the inexpensive and untenured teachers that you and Chancellor Joel Klein wants to keep. Civil service law requires that layoffs are based upon citywide seniority and no whining by you and Chancellor Joel Klein can change that fact. If you really want to save money the union suggests the following procedures be followed.

First, no more secret exemptions for principals who refuse to hire highly qualified ATRs. All vacancies must be filled by ATRs before "newbie teachers" are allowed into the school system.

Second, scrap the 600 million dollar AIRS system that does not work.

Third, eliminate the high priced no-bid consultant services that are of little or no value to the school system. Do you remember this one? Even the New York City Public School Parent blog's tongue-in-check GBN news article on the hiring of the hypnotherapist is not far from the truth.

Finally, bring transparency back to the secretive world of Tweed and let John Liu's staff oversee the DOE finances to ensure the classroom is getting their fair share of funds.


Bloomberg and Klein wants to destroy our union. Therefore, it is time for the union to take the fight to them and make them feel the pain for messing with the 800 pound gorilla. Michael Mulgrew, this is the time for you to show me that you are a mensch and not a wuss.

Can A Teacher Really File 3020-a Charges Against An Abusive & Vindictive Principal? The Answer Is No.

While reading my good buddy's blog, South Bronx School, I ran into a claim from the crack (or is that cracked) SBSB staff that any individual can file 3020-a charges against a tenured teacher or administrator. Boy, was I excited. I would demand that the union file 3020-a charges against the PINI principals that they identify in the New York Teacher and watch as Tweed complains loudly that the principals would be afraid to go after staff and be unable to do their job. Gone would be the unfair removal of staff without the Principal being investigated to determine if he or she should be subject to 3020-a charges by the union However, after talking to people in the know, inside and outside the union I found out New York State Education Law 3020-a allows only the superintendent of a school district or their appointed representatives who can file 3020-a charges.

Unfortunately, in New York City the Chancellor has appointed the ATU (misconduct) and TPU incompetence) legal staffs as the proper units to file 3020-a charges against teachers. These groups are only too eager to file "just cause" charges by believing all the hearsay statements given to them by the Principal and the corrupt investigators. The truth? This is not about the truth it is to get the teacher.

We teachers really do need a level playing field and the only reasons we are not terminated by DOE's Office of Legal Services is that under New York State Law we have "due process rights" and the DOE's flimsy evidence and hearsay statements must be brought in front of an Arbitrator who hears from both sides. However, many Arbitrators accept stand alone hearsay and it puts the teacher and her lawyer on the defensive and assumes that the Administrator or child has more credibility than the accused teacher. This is unfair and must be changed by giving all parties equal credibility and to dismiss hearsay, unless supported by actual evidence. Therefore, the union must remove Arbitrators who depend on the use of unsupported hearsay as a basis for their decision. This will help level the playing field for all teachers subject to 3020-a charges.

The Parallels Between Weingarten & Klein With Chamberlain & Hitler In Negotiating Contracts & Agreements Have Caused This Mess In The First Place.

Back in 1938 Hitler's Germany was ready to back down on invading Czechoslovakia and annex the German speaking Sudetenland. However, along came Neville Chamberlain who appeased Hitler's demands and said that "I have assured peace in our time" and surrendered the Sudetenland to Germany. He then looked the other way when Germany gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia. The result was a destructive world war that saw over 70 million people die. Now the UFT must prepare for a "total war" with Joel Klein because of Randi Weingarten's appeasement policy with disastrous contracts in 2003 and 2005 that saw the rise of the ATR crises, loss of seniority rights, reduction in teacher due process rights, and overcrowded "rubber rooms". Furthermore, Joel Klein's policy of recruitment over retention was endorsed by Randi Weingarten and this allowed a worsening of teacher morale as Principals were encouraged to hire "newbie teachers" and get rid of experienced teachers by any means necessary.

Just like in 1939. Hitler decided to invade Poland thinking that the West would not interfere since they gave in to the occupation of the Saar Valley, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. However, the West finally said "enough" and World War II started. We now find ourselves in a similar position as a union since Bloomberg & Klein have for so long had their way with Randi Weingarten's appeasement policy allowing the DOE to ask for an inch and then take a mile. Just like the West in September of 1939 our union is at a crossroads. Do we continue our destructive appeasement policy that has resulted in raises that barely kept pace with inflation while slowly destroying the morale of teachers and creating a hostile work environment in the classroom? Or do we fight back?

It does seem that our New President is acting like Winston Churchill and engaged the Bloomberg & Klein evil empire in the "total war" heaped upon the union members by this administration. It is long overdue that our union is finally flexing their collective muscles and show Bloomberg & Klein that when you mess with the 800 pound gorilla expect to be bruised.

While, I am one of those bloggers that have liked what I have heard from Michael Mulgrew. However, I must agree with Ednotes online that under Mr. Mulgrew its been more style than substance so far. However, this contract negotiation is "a fight to the death" and the union cannot accept any "givebacks" since we are the last major union subject to the "City pattern" of two 4% raises for the two years with no "givebacks". It is time to show the Administration that we are no longer the punching bag under Randi Weingarten's tenure but a fighter that will accepted nothing more than total victory for its members.

Who's Fault Is It Why A School Like Jamaica High School Is Forced To Close? It Is The DOE's Fault!

As you all know there is a good chance that a landmark school, Jamaica High School, will be closing its doors once the "rubber stamp" PEP meeting approves the DOE action. It has been well documented how the DOE created the conditions that led to the destruction of Jamaica High School as well as other large traditional high school throughout the City. Let's recap.

First, closing other large traditional schools south of Jamaica High School (Springfield Gardens, August Martin, Franklin K. Lane, Far Rockaway, Andrew Jackson) forced Jamaica High School to take the many "at risk" students that would have gone to those schools.

Second, the establishment of small schools that had exclusionary policies that limited "at risk" students and encouraged these students to apply to Jamaica High School because they claimed that the school had the services for these students.

Third, the deliberate financial starvation of resources to the school as an increasing number of "at risk" students did not include the money for the school to effectively integrate these students into an academic environment.

Fourth, poor school leadership led to the school being unfairly placed on the State's most dangerous schools list, when it was a safe school with quiet halls and classrooms.

An example of how this works is how the small Queens Collegiate School that was placed into Jamaica High School had two students that didn't fit their student profile. One was a special education student and the other was a slow learner academically. Both students were eventually transferred to Jamaica High School as the College Board School convinced the parents of the two "at risk" students that Jamaica High School was the better setting for them. Is this the exception? No, it is probably happening everywhere throughout the City.

The DOE policy has caused the problem and they are solving it by closing the schools that their policy destabilized in the first place. I wish for the best but expect the worst for Jamaica High School.

Contract Negotiations Have Reached An Impasse. Why We Should Be Concerned That PERB Will Resolve It By Recommending Massive Givebacks.

I congratulate Michael Mulgrew and the negotiating committee who resisted the City's unreasonable demands for getting the "City Pattern" of two 4% raises (minus the 0.58% that we owe the City for the two days before Labor Day). However, the union has now declared an impasse and that is scary. I am concerned that after the usual mediation process, the contract will go to the "fact finding" phase. By allowing the three member PERB "fact finders" to determine the conditions of a new contract is very disturbing. In this difficult economic environment it will be too easy for the PERB "fact finders" to allow for "givebacks" and to further destroy teacher rights.

While it is true that the PERB recommendations are non-binding, it will be very difficult for either side to resist these recommendations. Therefore, the union is taking a big risk in agreeing to PERB intervention. I hope our union leadership knows what it is doing since I and many other knowledgeable teachers rather have no contract than a contract with significant givebacks.

Remember, after too many years of Randi Weingarten's policy of appeasement and horrible "givebacks" (remember the 2005 contract) for a wage increase that didn't even keep up with inflation and the fact that her lackeys are still in power makes me very nervous and it should you too. Yes, I am pessimistic since this is the same old failed leadership that has made teaching a much more difficult profession in the last decade. I can only hope I am wrong as time goes on.

Why Is It That Only Teachers Must Meet Contract Time Lines?

In my years working as a teacher for the DOE I have found that only teachers appear to be required to meet time lines and not the DOE. Granted, there are exceptions, for example the union won a rare victory when the DOE challenged and lost the use of the 90 day limit to give a letter to the file. This is known as the 90-Day decision However, these victories are few and far between as our union tends to look the other way in enforcing time lines in the "Contract". Let's look at specific examples of the contract that the DOE violates or ignores.

Article 18: Transfers And Staffing - B: Hardship Transfers

Many teachers are frustrated when applying for a hardship transfer when they meet the condition of traveling more than one hour and thirty minutes each way between their home and place of employment. The DOE drags their feet and in many cases does not approve the transfer and forces the teacher to continually reapply until the DOE finally allows the teacher to move to a closer location. However, many teachers give up after first applying and are forced to travel over one hour and thirty minutes each way because of the DOE ignoring or refusing the original request. Time lines? The DOE needs no time lines. They just drag their feet and delay the request until it disappears,

Article 21: Due Process & Review Procedures -G:3020-a Procedures - 2B Rotational Panel

A pre-hearing conference must be held within ten to fifteen after a selection of an Arbitrator. What a laugh, I know cases where the pre-hearing was held over a year after an Arbitrator was selected! As for ten to fifteen days? Not in this universe.

Article 21: Due Process & Review Procedures -G:3020-a Procedures - 2e Rotational Panel

The final hearing shall be concluded no later than 60 days after the pre-hearing conference and a written decision must be rendered within 30 days of the final hearing date. Suffice to say this never happens. Many teachers spent an average of two years in the "rubber rooms" and some Arbitrators may take up to 9 months to render a written decision once the closing statements have been submitted. If the "Contract" was really enforced then all the Arbitrators would fail to meet the final paragraph of Part 2f which states " "Failure to abide by these rules shall be "good and sufficient" grounds to remove the Arbitrator". Reality shows that these time lines are unrealistic and make a mockery of the 3020-a process. Here again the time lines are ignored and with good reason. However, it is still another example when it comes to others, time lines are not important.

Article 21: Due Process & Review Procedures -G:3020-a Procedures - 4. Investigations

If a reassigned teacher is not charged under section 3020-a within six months of being reassigned. The teacher must be returned to his or her school, unless SCI is the investigating agency. I know of at least 5 teachers who have been reassigned and after a year they have no charges. I am sure there are many more teachers citywide. So much for the six month contract limit. This is another case where the DOE ignores the "Contract". By contrast if a teacher fails to meet the ten day appeal process once he or she is given their 3020-a charges, the DOE will terminate them.

For the DOE it appears time lines are not for them to meet only the teachers they want to target,

Its About Time That Our Union Fights Back In Stopping Bloomberg & Klein From Allocating Education Funds For Reducing Class Size To Other Uses

As many of you know I have been very critical of our union and their culture of appeasement under the failed leadership of Randi Weingarten. Every time the union gave an inch, the DOE took a mile. Every negotiated agreement between the union and the DOE were ignored by the DOE when they pleased. Examples are the ATR agreement and the "rubber room" agreement where the DOE have consistently choose to ignore the provisions that affect them. The result is that we will have over 2,000 ATRs by year end and "rubber rooms" that are bursting at the seems. I have watched as the paperwork has tripled and the classroom environment has become more hostile, how the union allowed and even approved the DOE policies that encouraged recruitment of lower paid "newbie teachers" at the expense of higher paid, experienced teachers always seemed a problem to me. It appears that maybe our union has finally cried "enough" and is ready to combat the DOE bully as it should have done eight years ago.

Finally, the union has filed a lawsuit on how the DOE misused 760 million dollars of CFE funds by New York State to reduce class size to other programs, some may not be of any educational use. Despite the increased money and declining enrollment, we have actually seen an increase in class sizes throughout the New York City Public School System since 2007. See chart. Where did the money go? To which programs? Did it even go for education? I applaud my union in taking their first concrete step in confronting the DOE in their "children last" program. However, this should only be the beginning of a more dynamic and pro-active union that flexes their collective muscles and let's their opponents and the politicians in Albany know what it is like to upset the 800 pound gorilla.

I am also impressed that the union has not agreed to any "givebacks" in the contract negotiations with the City. I understand that the union negotiators refused to put on the table any of the Bloomberg/Klein proposals about the ATRs, reassigned teachers, or tenure issues. Good for them and let's keep it that way. Rather no contract than a bad contract.

Good job Michael Mulgrew, so far you appear to be a Mensch. I hope this continues for all our sakes.

Two Community Leaders Get A Grade Of "F" For Buying The DOE Propaganda That Jamaica High School Should Be Closed.

I read with a mixture of amusement and anger as two clueless community leaders thought it was a great idea that Jamaica High School will be closed and be replaced with three smaller schools. The New York Daily News allowed these two apologists for Joel Klein's destructive policy in closing large, traditional high schools to express their ignorance of the DOE's policy to destroy these neighborhood schools and put in small or charter schools that will try to exclude the neediest of the children in their community from these very schools.

To prove why Jamaica High School should be closed down they brought up the poor graduation rate of under 50% and the lack of students who want to go to the school (88). They also claimed that Jamaica High School fared poorly when compared to similar schools. What they fail to understand, or don't want to understand, the reasons behind the poor graduation rate, the lack of student selections, and the alleged comparison with similar schools. It is because of the destructive policy by the DOE that put Jamaica High School in danger of closing in the first place.

First, the poor graduation rate can be attributed to the failed policy of Chancellor Joel Klein who started an irreversible plague by closing down the high schools south of Jamaica High School (August Martin, Springfield Gardens, and Far Rockaway) and dumping many of the "at risk" students that the smaller schools refused to select into the school. It is common knowledge that many of the small schools claim that they do not have the services or resources to educate the ELL and Special Education students and push them to the large traditional schools like Jamaica High School. Furthermore, until recently the DOE allowed these small schools to "cherry pick" their students not only excluding the above mention groups but children that were level 1 with behavioural or attendance issues. It is little wonder that these schools showed an initial jump in the graduation rate. Presently, these schools are still trying their best to encourage level 3 & 4 students with good attendance and little discipline issues to go to their school while discouraging the "at risk" students to select the school due to lack of services for them. In today's edition, the New York Daily News article wrote that the UFT claimed how unfair this is with regard to charter schools. However, let's see what these graduation rates are a decade from now? I suspect they will be no better and maybe worse than the large traditional high schools they replaced since these small schools will be competing with other small schools and charter schools for students and must fill their schools with "warm bodies" or risk being closed down themselves.

Second, the poor leadership of a previous Principal and incompetence of some of his administrators that are no longer at the school resulted in the State wrongly putting the school on their "most dangerous list of schools" . Once placed on this list the school not only lost existing students but labeled it to parents as too dangerous for their children who were considering going there. It did not matter that the school was safe and had quiet hallways and a great learning environment and was taken off the State list a year later. The damage was done and to the outsider Jamaica had a scarlet letter on it. The DOE, rather than correcting a wrong, cut resources, and space at the school and hastened the school's spiral downward.

Finally, these two clueless community leaders said that Jamaica High School, when compared to similar schools, did poorly. Really? Where are these similar schools? Do they have the same population and income distribution as Jamaica High School? Did these schools suffer from a similar brain drain as smaller and charter schools in the area siphoned off these high achieving students. Moreover, and more importantly, were these so called similar schools get their fair share of "at risk" students as nearby large high schools were shut down? I would venture a guess that they do not have the answers to my questions.

It is unfortunate that people who are supposed to be intelligent believe the DOE's fuzzy math, phony report card grades, and a lack of real accountability as the basis of their faulty conclusion that a potentially great school like Jamaica High School should be closed. Had they dug deeper into the numbers I would bet that they would be singing a different tune. However, their failure to explore the closing of Jamaica High School more closely allows the DOE propaganda spin machine to continue and allow a once great school like Jamaica High School to close.

Is The Union Sniffing Around By Surveying Members For "Givebacks" ? I Hope This Is Not True?

I have been hearing some very disturbing reports that our union may be considering some "givebacks". Not directly but through a marketing research group asking about what we would willing to giveback for a contract. I have not received such a phone call nor have any of my teacher friends., However, according to education notes online that some teachers have. If true, this appears to be a typical sleazy, backhanded way that our union works. Talk a good game and keep the rhetoric strong, while secretly preparing to sacrifice teachers. Be it ATRs, "rubber room teachers" and seniority rules. Very disturbing indeed. If true, Michael Mulgrew is just another Randi Weingarten union hack who continues to follow the failed and destructive policies of appeasement to the Bloomberg and Klein Administration that have resulted in an increasingly hostile classroom environment, an ATR crises, and overcrowded "rubber rooms". In addition, the rubber room reporter posted the NY1 interview with Chancellor Klein that parroted what Bloomberg said previously about eliminating the ATRs and overcrowded "rubber rooms" on their terms. Do I need to remind the union that the "City pattern" requires no "givebacks"?

I will say this loud and clear to the union. We will not accept any "givebacks" in the next contract and if that means waiting out the two clowns, so be it. Have we not learned from the 2005 contract fiasco that led to all these problems in the first place? As for giving the ATRs a one year time limit? In Chicago where the ATRs have an eighteen month time limit, over 6,000 of them have been eliminated in a school system of 35,000 teachers! It is time for Michael Mulgrew to show he is a Mench and not a Wuss to his members.