Will Bloomberg Agree To An Early Retirement Incentive? I think Not.

My peers are all talking about the State passing the early retirement incentive and that many of them contacted the union leadership who have given them the false impression that the City will follow suit and allow the teachers to get the retirement credits they want. However, the bad news is that Mayor Bloomberg has stated time and again that he does not want to give a retirement incentive since these teachers are going to retire anyway. Therefore, the Mayor decided to impose a wage freeze and an additional 4% cut in the school budget instead. However, exempt from the budget cuts was the DOE adding $840,000 in bonuses and raises to the Central Bureaucracy. Unbelievable, and how hypocritical.

While it may make more sense to agree to the State's early retirement incentive, the Mayor and Chancellor do not want to reward senior teachers with up to three years pension credit when they are doing everything possible to get rid of them for "cause". With their failed attempt to get the "Keep Act" through the State Legislature, which would give the principals the right to determine who to layoff. The use of a wage freeze was preferable to them than the more reasonable early retirement incentive. "Why reward the senior teacher when we can screw all the teachers?"

It will be interesting to see what transpires but for now it appears that the City is not going to agree with an early retirement incentive. Despite what our union leadership is telling the teachers.

Teacher Bashing Is At A New High Thanks To The Politicians And The News Media

It seems like whatever the problem the nation's schools experience both the politicians and the news media seem to think it is the teacher's fault. The teachers are now the scapegoats in what is wrong with the education system. For example when President Obama unwisely agreed with the Central Falls School Board to fire all the high school teachers despite the heroic efforts many of them made with a challenging student population and starved for educational services.

No longer do the politicians and the media blame poor parenting skills, ridiculous rules concerning student discipline, incompetent administrators, poverty, or the students themselves. To them it is the teacher's fault. Notice how these so-called education forums and think tanks rarely have practicing teachers on them and classroom teacher input is almost non-existent. If a student is failing, everybody blames the teacher. It doesn't matter that the child may have learning difficulties, be a non-English speaker, or are academically behind due to attendance or health issues. Regardless, the fault is put on the teacher's lap.

Nationwide, teachers are under attack as politicians and their media allies demand wage freezes, paying increased health benefit premiums, tenure changes, and even rolling back pensions. In New Jersey, Governor Cristie has demanded wage freezes of teachers as a condition for getting State funds. No other group was targeted by the Governor but teachers. While in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has threatened to layoff 4,400 teachers if the State does not come through with additional funds. Further, the Mayor has failed to negotiate the "city pattern" with the teachers union and has demanded that the layoffs do not follow the State Civil Service requirements based upon seniority.

Disrespect for teachers ranges from the President, Barack Obama to the Chancellor, Joel Klein. However, the greatest disrespect for teachers are found in our local newspapers, the New York Daily News and the New York Post who operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein. Their editorials blaming the teachers or the unions reminds me of Pravda during the days of the Soviet Union. Even the New York Times print some articles that can be considered anti-teacher. Only Newsday seems to give a balanced prospective on education issues. This media disrespect has made teaching in the classroom an increasingly hostile environment and has resulted in a "blame the teacher society".

The only way to put an end to the continued assaults on teachers is to mount a well focused attack on politicians and the anti-teacher news media that support them. Giving in is not the answer. The union must dig in their heels and yell "not one step back" if we are to earn respect as a profession. No more sellouts, no more "givebacks" and more importantly let's get back our self respect and that is what our union should be doing.

Not All Arbitrators Are Equal - Ask Betsy Combier

One of the most closely kept secret by NYSUT attorneys that represent teachers and the DOE legal service's ATU and TPU groups are how Arbitrators rule on similar 3020-a cases. If the DOE believes that the Arbitrator is to teacher friendly, their annual contract is not renewed. Less common is if the Arbitrator is too harsh with his or her decisions against the teacher, the UFT/NYSUT will also not renewal the yearly contract with the Arbitrator. Therefore, many of the Arbitrator "awards" (penalties against the teacher) will have these competing factors in mind. In other words, there are very few terminations of teachers but even less acquittals. The "awards" can range from a simple "letter-to-the-file" to a one year suspension without pay. While all the Arbitrators are intelligent and honest men and women and try to do the what is right for all parties, the pressure on them to stay on the Arbitration panel encourages them to "split the baby" and make sure that both sides are happy. The DOE gets a suspension or fine and the UFT stops the termination of a teacher.

Within the gray area of "awards" you have some DOE friendly Arbitrators that tend to suspend many teachers that appear before them while the teacher friendly Arbitrators use fines and courses as an "award". While every 3020-a case is different and the Arbitrator usually is influenced by the teacher's own testimony and behavior, the Arbitrators do have a history of making decisions based upon their "body of work". However, try to get that information from the DOE or the union is impossible. Therefore, the next best source would be somebody who has had seven years experience dealing with the 3020-a hearing process and the Arbitrator decisions. That person is Betsy Combier, who writes under the blog "NYC Rubber Room Reporter". She is a paralegal who has participated in many 3020-a hearings and is familiar on the general decision making by the Arbitrators. Betsy Combier can be contacted at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you want more information about the Arbitrator assigned to your 3020-a case.

Another way to obtain information about your Arbitrator is to FOIL the New York State Education Department (NYSED) about the five most recent Arbitrator decisions in cases similar to your own. For example incompetence, misconduct, corporal punishment, etc. However, expect to pay anywhere between $25 to $75 dollars for the redacted information.

I suggest that you use both sources if you really want to get a good idea of how your Arbitrator "awards" cases based upon similar allegations. "Knowledge is power" and the more you know about the 3020-a process, the better chance you have in defending yourself against the allegations that the DOE has charged you with.

Even The General Publc Dislikes Chancellor Joel Klein

The latest Quinniapiac Poll has shown that Chancellor Joel Klein's approval ratings from the general public has plummeted to an all time low of 30%. Even the public realize that Joel Klein and his not-so-merry band of non-educators that surround him at Tweed are not good for the education of their public school children. If passing is 65% then our angry Chancellor should be given a well deserved grade of "F". Despite the ever continuing propaganda coming out of Tweed and their mouthpieces at the New York Daily News and New York Post, the general public just sees from their own children the inequities and favoritism that Tweed practices when it comes to charter schools vs. the public schools.

Even many of the school-based administrators (principals & assistant principals) have grumbled about how clueless Tweed is in running the school system. In one case they give the principals more authority to run their schools and then cut their budget as Tweed increases their own headcount of non-educators (8 Deputy Chancellors at $192,000 for a total of 1.5 million dollars just an example of the increase) at the expense of the classroom. As for the teachers, except for this group here, I suspect that Chancellor Joel Klein would be in the low single digits when it comes to approving his job performance. Why is the Chancellor almost universally disliked? I would like to say that our union did a magnificent job in demonizing the angry Chancellor. However, our union has been pretty much inept and only now is trying to ramp up opposition to Tweed through the media. No! The real reason is the misguided policies by the Chancellor, be it school closings, charter schools, budget priorities, and the increase in test preparation at the expense of a total education are a large part of the problem.

It is about time that people realize that Chancellor Joel Klein and his group of non-educators are the problem and not the solution for the New York City Public Schools as Tweed continues their "children last" and "education on the cheap" policies.

Has The DOE Fooled The "Hear-No-Evil" UFT Again On Implementing The "Rubber Room Agreement"? It Certainly Appears So.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the DOE is not meeting the conditions in the recently negotiated "rubber room agreement". For example, take mediation. Presently, there is no mediation going on as the DOE believes that they must agree to mediation requests before mediation is started to get rid of the backlog in existing 3020-a cases. Therefore, the only settlements being made are the DOE's take-it-or-leave-it settlement offer where the teacher must admit guilt. What has been the UFT response to the DOE's failure to uphold the agreement? Dead silence.

It appears that the UFT leadership has this "hear-no-evil" approach and refuses to take the DOE to task for their failure to live up to the "rubber room agreement". There is widespread skepticism on all sides of the 3020-a hearing process (Arbitrators, DOE lawyers, and the NYSUT attorneys) that the hearings will be fairer since the DOE refuses to settle with many teachers who are subject to SCI investigations and continue to offer outrageous settlements that are insulting to the teacher. What happened to leveling the playing field?

Many bloggers had objected to the "rubber room agreement" because the UFT leadership failed to include the reassigned teacher in crafting the agreement. While I supported the closing of the "rubber rooms" so as to stop warehousing teachers, I certainly questioned the other issues. I also believed the UFT leadership was in over their collective heads in understanding the 3020-a hearing process without input from the people most involved in it. Unfortunately, it appears that is the case here. The UFT has again allowed the DOE to ignore both the spirit and intent of the agreement and the losers are? You guessed it, the reassigned teachers.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly. The "Rubber Room" Agreement One Month Later. How The UFT Disappointed The Reassigned Teachers

It is time to see how the "rubber room agreement" is being implemented and I must say the movie "The good, the bad, and the ugly" properly fits the failure of the DOE and the UFT meeting their obligations. I would like to report that the "rubber room agreement" is going smoothly. However, it appears that except for the eventual elimination of the "rubber rooms" where teachers were being warehoused, many of the promises have not been kept. Let's look at how the "rubber room agreement" is working.

The Good:

It does appear that the DOE is living up to Mayor Bloomberg's commitment to close the "rubber rooms" despite unhappiness from Tweed and the Children First Network (CFN) administrators. Furthermore, the DOE has made an effort to settle as many cases as possible (on their terms - more about this later). Finally, with a new transcription service, no longer are there lengthily delays to close a hearing because of a lack of transcripts.

The Bad:

The DOE still are allowing principals to remove teachers at will. Since the agreement the Washington Heights "rubber room" has received 20 more reassigned teachers, while the Queess TRC has welcomed 10 reassigned teachers. It appears that principals are escalating the teacher removal process before the year ends. Furthermore, there is no mediation process (more about this later). What happened to immediately? If a teacher does not report their arrest immediately (within 48 hours) to OPI and the Principal. The teacher can be brought up on charges for failure to satisfy the definition of immediately in Chancellor's Regulation C-105. How come we teachers must comply with the word immediately while the DOE is not accountable. One month later there is still no mediation occurring.

The Ugly:

The DOE has decided that their idea of mediation is to extort teachers with large fines, admission of guilt, take courses that establish what they are guilty of, and eliminate the right to sue the DOE. I have previously posted this before. This extortion by the DOE is bad enough but now they have the teacher's own Arbitrators pushing the frightened teacher to settle and this further pressures the teacher in taking an unfair settlement which marks the teacher as admitting guilt. What happened to mediation? According to the dictionary.

Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or "appropriate dispute resolution", is a way of resolving disputes between two parties. A third party member is involved in order to structure the meetings, and to help the parties come to a final decision based on the facts given through the discussions. Mediation is not legally binding so it does not have to be followed, although if one party does not, they can sometimes be taken to court by the disadvantaged member, depending on the mediation agreement.

Mediation, in a broad sense, consists of a cognitive process of reconciling mutually interdependent, opposed terms as what one could loosely call "an interpretation" or "an understanding of." The German philosopher Hegel uses the term "dialectical unity" to designate such thought-processes. This article discusses the legal communications usage of the term.

Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial. Disputants may use mediation in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters. A third-party representative may contract and mediate between (say) unions and corporations. When a workers’ union goes on strike, a dispute takes place, and the corporation hires a third party to intervene in attempt to settle a contract or agreement between the union and the corporation.

Mediation is the only way assisted by one third, which promotes freedom of choice of protagonists in a conflict^[1].

Having the teacher's own Arbitrator pressure the teacher in taking the DOE settlement is not arbitration but can be considered an ugly form of coercion that exploits the frightened teacher who believes that if they don't take the settlement on DOE's terms, the Arbitrator may take offense and impose a more severe penalty. Therefore, the DOE has won by getting the teacher to admit guilt by taking a course and get a large fine. How is this mediation? It is not! How can the Arbitrator be fair if he or she pushes for a settlement and the teacher refuses? While I do have confidence that the Arbitrators are honorable and fair people and will rule on the evidence (or lack thereof) I can see how many a teacher would be fearful of not following the Arbitrator's lead. This is not only unfair but downright ugly. Mediation? Don't make me laugh, this is worse then ever for teachers who wish to expose the DOE's lies, misstatements, and embellishments in the 3020-a hearing

Mediation? Yeah right! What a joke! The DOE appears to have won again. Thanks for nothing Mike (call me Michael) Mulgrew. Clint Eastwood you are not.

Is This The Beginning Of The End For Seniority Protections? Is Teacher Tenure Next?

It appears that NYSUT and the UFT caved in to State pressure to gain RTTT funding by agreeing to a new teacher evaluation system. This system will allow teachers to be evaluated into four categories.

• Highly effective
• Effective
• Developing
• Ineffective

This new teacher evaluation system will make it easier for Administrators to remove senior teachers by labeling them "ineffective". While our unions claim that there will be additional protections to help and support struggling/targeted senior teachers, I'm not buying it. It is really a "gotcha program" to swiftly remove highly-paid senior teachers out of the schools and attack teacher tenure, In my opinion the unions prostituted themselves to get RTTT funds and put their members in danger. Our UFT press release praising the agreement notwithstanding.

Smart administrators will load up targeted teachers with the worst students, fail to supply them with proper support, unjustly compare the targeted teacher's class with higher achieving student classes, and write damaging observations to ensure the teacher gets two consecutive "ineffective" ratings and termination sixty days later. Furthermore, it will pit teacher against teacher and collaboration among teachers will cease to exist. Finally, look for an increase in cheating, not by the students, but by teachers. What were our foolish union leaders thinking? A possible short term funding gain at the expense of teacher due process? What will stop administrators from rating ATRs "ineffective"? Nothing according to this agreement.

I can only wonder what other goodies our union leaders have in store for us. How about donating part of our paychecks to Joel Klein to pay for his million dollar Deputy Chancellors he is hiring and the increased headcount at Tweed? Or is that where our raise will go to? How about exempting the teachers rated "highly effective" from seniority based layoffs? I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Mulgrew turns out to be "Randi lite" as many of my blogger friends have been claiming all along. I assume we will need to vote on this because it changes the contractual provisions. If so please vote Nooooooooooo!

What a piece of crap!

Will Bloomberg Finally Give In And Offer A Buyout To Senior Teachers? He Will Need To As Long As The Union Does Not Give Ground On Seniority.

Now that the Bloomberg doomsday budget is out and up to 6,400 teaching positions will be eliminated from the system (I believe it will be much less), the shrill calls from Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel to change the "last in, first out" seniority requirement are increasing. However, as long as the union stays firm, the Mayor will have to capitulate and to save the "newbie teachers" he needs to continue his "education on the cheap" policy. Therefore, what can Bloomberg do? The answer is really quite simple. He needs to offer "buyouts" to the senior teachers to save the jobs of the inexpensive and not vested "newbie teachers".

When will the City admit defeat and propose a "buyout"? Probably at the end of the school year once the State finances are better known. Depending on how much funding needs to be cut, look for the "buyout" to be a either a month for every year worked. for example a teacher who worked 24 years would get 2 years of pension credit. Or possibly a $25,000 lump sum payment. While the Bloomberg Administration is denying that any such "buyout" is in the offering. I don't believe for a second that Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel will allow the "newbie teachers" to be laid off. Just see how Tweed, while laying off 4,000 teachers is quietly trying to allocate up to five million dollars for the teaching fellows program. Unbelievable! Furthermore, take a look at Joel Klein's whining e-mail to the principals telling them how he wants to eliminate the seniority provision so they can get rid of any teacher they please. You can find it at Betsy Combier's blog here.

As long as the union stands their ground and let the politicians know the consequences to any attempt to reduce teacher "due process rights", the City will have no choice but offer "buyouts" to save their "education on the cheap" program.

Michael Mulgrew Got It Wrong When He Called Chancellor Joel Klein "Numbnuts". What Chancellor Joel Klein Really Is, Is Evil

Michael Mulgrew, the President of the UFT has allegedly called Chancellor Joel Klein "numbnuts" at a union meeting last month. "Numbnuts" is defined as "a person of severely limited intellectual prowess'. While I would like to believe our Chancellor is stupid, the reality is much different. Chancellor Joel Klein is not stupid but just evil when it comes to the experienced classroom teacher and the students they educate. Under his eight year destructive leadership we have seen clueless non-educators run the DOE and who are responsible for closing 91 schools to be replaced by Charter or small schools. Klein's disciples have caused the following problems. The creation of the ATR crises, the almost sevenfold increase and overcrowding of the "rubber rooms", the "fair student funding" fiasco, a threefold increase in unnecessary paperwork, "Leadership Academy Principals" with little or no classroom experience, The increase of headcount at Tweed at the expense of the rest of the education system, and worst of all flat scores on the NAEP's and the SATs.

Now the evil Chancellor wants to go after seniority, tenure, and have disposable teachers who leave the system before being vested for a pension or retiree health benefits. Furthermore, he would like to see more Charter schools at the expense of the neighborhood schools and does not want the Charter Schools to have to take students that are English Language Learners or have disabilities. The more "at risk" children going to the neighborhood school, the better the phony comparison between the neighborhood school and the Charter school that "cherry picks" their students. He also wants the Charters to be located in existing schools and take scares funding from the public school system. It is like having the "fox in the hen house" as Chancellor Klein and his non-educators devise ways to hurt the public school classroom.

"Numbnuts"! I wish this was true for Chancellor Joel Klein. Unfortunately, for the New York City teaching profession and the students they educate, Joel Klein and his awful policies are just plain evil.

Justice For Lal Singh!

The nightmare appears to be finally over for Lal Singh. His 3020-a charges were dismissed by Arbitrator Alan Berg who also stated that he should be put back into the classroom as quickly as possible.

The nightmare for Lal Singh started after a male special education student accused Mr. Singh of molesting him in a closet in his classroom after school and offering him $20 for a blow job three years earlier. OSI investigated the three year old accusation and substantiated the accusation even though there is no closet in Mr. Singh's classroom! With the OSI substantiation, the NYPD special victims unit arrested Mr. Singh and put him in jail until he could post bail. Furthermore, his name was plastered all over the local news media.

Mr. Singh was put on "probable cause" by the DOE and was given a three month unpaid suspension by the DOE (thanks Randi and Leo). Mr. Singh went to trial and, in part, after his Principal testified that Mr. Singh has no closet in his room and that because Mr. Singh had child care responsibilities, he left school right after the last bell. The evidence against Mr. Singh was so flimsy and unbelievable that the jury took all of 22 minutes to acquit Mr. Singh. That's right 22 minutes!

Did Mr Singh's acquittal by a jury in 22 minutes affect the DOE's prosecution of Mr. Singh? Not one bit. The DOE pursued 3020-a charges against Mr. Singh with the same flimsy case the DA had. Time and again Arbitrator Alan Berg questioned the DOE lawyer about presenting evidence and not unsubstantiated accusations and insults about Mr. Singh. What did the DOE lawyer allegedly call Mr. Singh during his 3020-a hearing? How about pedophile and child molester. He also was alleged to have told Mr. Singh that his parents would rollover in their graves having a child like Mr, Singh. He even allegedly said that it was best if Mr. Singh was "stillborn". In the 3020-a hearing the OSI investigator admitted that he didn't bother to see if Mr. Singh had a closet and he believed an excessed para who blamed Mr. Singh for her removal over the school's Principal about the closet.

The questionable ethics used by both the Queens DA and the DOE in using character assassination as a bases for charges and an unfair investigation by NYPD & OSI could have resulted in Mr. Singh losing his liberty as well as his job. However, Mr Singh's criminal & NYSUT lawyers and the jury of his peers as well as the Arbitrator saw right through the false allegations and Mr. Singh was cleared of all charges.

Now comes the problem, at the height of the media frenzy the DOE stated that Mr. Singh will never set foot in a classroom again. However, three years later he was found to be a victim of the Queens DA and the DOE who cared more about getting Mr. Singh than justice. Will Mr. Singh be sent back to the classroom? I think not since the DOE has already stated as much. Therefore, I must assume he will be added to Joel Klein's Chancellor's discretion list of teachers. That's too bad Mr. Singh is a wonderful teacher and a caring person who has worked with a very difficult population and his absence from the classroom only hurts the students who would benefit from his instruction. DOE's "children last" continues.

Why Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel Want To Eliminate Teacher Seniority. They Are Trying To Destroy The Teachers' Union

Now that the "rubber room" problem has been resolved (maybe). Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel have now focused on eliminating seniority for teachers. The two of them whine that they would have to lay off "good teachers" while keeping "bad teachers" due to seniority procedures of "last in, first out", a staple of the Civil Service System. They have recruited two, soon to be defeated, politicians to sponsor the "KEEP Act" that would allow the Principal to decide who to keep and who to terminate. Furthermore, they have allies in some naive "newbie teachers" who have developed a website supporting the "KEEP Act". This "divide and conquer" policy is destined for failure as both leaders of the State Legislature have claimed it "dead on arrival". However, look for the propaganda rags of the New York Post and New York Daily News plead with the politicians to save the "good teachers".

The problem is how does a person determine who is a "good teacher"? Not Mayor Mike or Chancellor Joel? Neither one has any clue what a "good teacher" is. Furthermore, most teachers have little respect or confidence in their "Leadership Academy Principals" who would have the responsibility to determine a "good teacher". In their world a "good teacher" would be determined by their age, salary, loyalty to the Principal, and who they can bully. What about the students? Wouldn't they know who is a "good teacher"? Of course they would but many of these teachers the students like are hated by the insecure and vindictive Principal because of their interactions with the students and their questioning of Principal directives that are not in the best interest of the school.

It takes an average of 8 years (6-10 years) to reach their peak as a teacher. Once a teacher reaches their peak, unlike an athlete, they maintain that level for decades to come. Teachers are not athletics that see their skills deteriorate over the years. On the other hand 50% of the "newbie teachers" fail to last five years in the system and some of them who start off trying to conquer the world become hardened and skeptical in the next few years as they leave the system before even being vested! Therefore, how can a "newbie teacher" be a "good teacher" when compared to an experienced teacher? They can't but don't confuse Mayor Mike & Chancellor Klein with these facts.

How come Mayor Mike doesn't propose to eliminate seniority for police, fire, and sanitation? Wouldn't the athletic component actually apply in these jobs? Of course they do but the real reason is simple, he does not like teachers and would just love to break the powerful teachers' union. Give it up Bloomie, just offer "buyouts" and the bogus seniority issue disappears.

The Educators4Excellence Group Is Just A Stooge For Bloomberg & Klein's "Education On The Cheap" Policy

Two misguided teachers, Sydney Morris and Evan Stone of PS 86 have become the stooges for the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy by questioning the long-standing union provision of "last hired, first fired" as they have developed a website called Educators4Excellence that supports Bloomberg and Klein rather than the union. These almost "newbie" teachers' classroom instruction are nowhere near the excellence they have named their website. Most education studies show a teacher needs a minimum of 6 years to achieve mastery of the classroom. The two of them combined only have 5 years experience! Excellence in teaching? Not even close. They have a long way to go to reach that goal, assuming they last that long. However, this does not stop them from developing the website due to their own self interest for protecting their jobs.

These two quislings support the Bloomberg/Klein attack on seniority and have worked with the failed and hopefully soon to be replaced politicians Ruben Diaz and Jonathan Bing to pass the KEEP Act. This program simply allows principals to decide who to keep (young, clueless, and inexpensive, no pension vesting) and who to fire (union advocates, highly paid senior teachers, and teachers the Principal dislikes). While, I can understand their concern about keeping their jobs. However, to allow themselves to be exploited by Bloombeg and Klein for their "education on the cheap" policy just shows how naive these two are.

The good news is that the KEEP Act is not only "dead on arrival" it was "dead before arrival" and your ill-considered attempt to change the "first in, last out" rule has only galvanized the support of union members against it and has exposed the two of you as self-serving stooges of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration and their "education on the cheap" policy. Gotham Schools wrote a piece that shows how dead it is.

You can read more about these two traitors who would eliminate our protected rights at the South Bronx School website and is required reading.

The DOE's Principals First & Children Last Policy

Over the tenure of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration the New York City Schools have seen an increase in Principal abuse of their staff as Tweed has given these principals more control of their school. Many of these principals are coming out of the "Leadership Academy" with little actual classroom experience, some not even tenured! Moreover, these principals have been told that they are the CEO of their school and run the school as a business. The problem is that the students are not widgets and the staff cogs. Every child is different and have individual learning needs, while among the staff, their are various teaching styles. The result is chaos at many of the schools and can result in the unfair removal of a teacher.

How many times have I heard about a teacher being removed from his or her class, usually instigated by the Principal, only to have no qualified substitute to handle the class. This results in an Administrator to come into the class of unruly students and say "if Ms. Jones was here, you wouldn't act this way". Of course if the Administrator had not targeted Ms. Jones in the first place, the class would not be a problem. This is called "collateral damage" and results in the DOE encouraged "children last" policy that has swept the New York City Public Schools.

You might ask why would a Principal deliberately hurt the students by removing a well qualified teacher? The answer is simple. Its about the Principal's power and control to impose their will over the staff. Any teacher criticism can and usually does target that teacher. Is it little wonder their are between 600 and 700 teachers in the "rubber rooms"? Many of the "Leadership Academy" principals are insecure and rule their schools through intimidation and fear. Therefore, they find any reason possible to push out senior teachers who are outspoken and defend the rights of the students and staff. The DOE allows these principals to gets rid of the teacher while enforcing the intimidation and fear aspect to others.

Another reason is the budget. Many schools are suffering from significant budget cuts of up to 5%. Therefore, many of the Principal's pet programs would need to be cut. However, if the Principal can drum up frivolous or bogus charges against a senior teacher, the school can save up to $100,000 after carrying the reassigned teacher's salary for only 60 days. Quite a temptation indeed.

Finally, just plain "age discrimination" as many of these insecure Principals want to hire "young, newbie teachers" who don't question idiotic decisions. That is why the "rubber rooms" have a majority of teachers 50 years or older.

Every time I hear Chancellor Joel Klein state that he has a "children first" policy I can only laugh and say when does it help the children when you remove a quality teacher because of a Principal's dislike of the teacher. To me that is Principal first and children last.

The Good News Is The "Rubber Rooms" Are Closing. The Bad News Is That Teacher Due Process In The 3020-a Process Remains Unchanged

The demise of the "rubber room" is a great victory for all reassigned teachers, regardless how people feel about the union leadership and their exclusive (secretive) negotiating techniques. However, to claim it was a "pure win" for the reassigned teachers as a very respected blogger claims is quite an exaggeration. Nothing in this "rubber room agreement" makes the 3020-a process any more fair than before. Let's look at why the reassigned teacher still must deal with the unfairness of the 3020-a process.

Unfair Investigations:

There are no changes to how investigations are done. When a Principal goes after a teacher the final result is the teacher is removed. I have previously wrote about these unfair investigations Here, Here, and Here. An independent investigator would make this a fairer investigation and would require the teacher to fully participate in it.

No Consequences For "False Accusations":

The agreement does nothing to ensure that either the DOE or UFT go after administrators or students that were found to have given "false accusations" against a teacher, despite language to do just that in the previous "rubber room agreement". To date, no Administrator has been disciplined for giving "false accusations" against a teacher.

The Expansion Of The Hated & Unfair "Probable Cause" Provisions:

The awful "probable cause" provision was expanded to include violent assault. Despite Leo Casey's advocacy for this provision, mere hearsay is enough to get a teacher offline for up to three months. Now we are adding another accusation to remove more innocent teachers.

Shortening The 3020-a Hearing Process:

You might think that this is a good thing. However, there is real concern that the hearings, with their stringent timelines could pressure Arbitrators from hearing character witnesses for the teacher because of the requirement of meeting the timelines (teacher witnesses go last). The hasty hearing process may turn out to be unfair to the teacher.

Arbitrator Selection:

The NYC 3020-a process is inferior to the State 3020-a process because teachers do not have the right to refuse an Arbitrator (the State allows this). Furthermore, for incompetence cases, one Arbitrator, rather than a three Arbitrator panel is used to hear teacher incompetence cases. More about this issue can be found Here.

Overall, it was a win for the reassigned teachers but a "pure win"? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Thanks South Bronx for the use of your picture.

The Union Did A Good Job Getting Rid Of The "Rubber Rooms"

In what is a major win for reassigned teachers and the teachers' union the sorry saga of the Temporary Reassignment Center (TRC), commonly referred to as the "rubber room" appears to be finally history as of September of 2010. No longer will "good teachers" who were whistileblowers. had issues with administrators, or were subject to "false or embellished accusations" from students, languish for years in crowded rooms with little or nothing to do but wait for their hearings. Now all reassigned teachers will rapidly go through their hearings within 60 days (with some exceptions dealing with criminal court requirements and students who graduated and can only return to testify during college breaks) of responding to the DOE's 3020-a charges. To ensure the timelines are met, the amount of Arbitrators will be increased from 23 to 39, not including additional Arbitrators to hear expedited cases where termination is not being sought by the DOE ( maximum penalty, a one month suspension without pay). Furthermore, to get rid of the existing considerable backlog in 3020-a cases, the DOE has agreed to work with a Mediator/Arbitrator to develop realistic settlement offers to teachers. After very carefully reviewing this groundbreaking "rubber room agreement" I have come to the conclusion that it is a victory for the reassigned teacher. I must congratulate President Michael Mulgrew, Chief of Staff Leroy Barr, and Lawyer Adam Ross for, their work in crafting this agreement for reassigned teachers. It appears this agreement includes the contractual enforceability that the June 2008 "rubber room agreement" lacked and was widely ignored by the DOE. While I do have some minor misgivings and questions dealing with specific issues in the agreement, I do think the elimination of the "rubber rooms" is long overdue.

If one thinks back, before Joel Klein the new reassignment procedures are similar to what was in place in the 1990's where between 80 to 90 reassigned teachers (not the 600 to 700 presently) were sent to District or Regional offices and the reassigned teachers were required to do Administrative work. During this time principals would be closely questioned by the Superintendent's office before a teacher was reassigned because the District or Regional office did not want too many reassigned teachers there. By bringing back this requirement we should see a reduction of reassigned teachers as principals, used to dumping teachers they do not like or want out of their schools, will be unable to do that since they must be sent to their "Children Fist Network" office that is assigned to the school and who must authorize the reassignment.

I must admit I am somewhat suspicious of the agreement because of the secretive nature of the negotiations, a lack of participation by the elected leaders for the reassigned teachers (liaisons), the past actions of the DOE in ignoring the previous "rubber room agreement", the expansion of that awful and abusive "probable cause" provision, and the DOE's failure to go after Administrators for "false accusations" However, on its surface the agreement seems to have solved the public relations problem of the "rubber room" for both sides. I am also heartened that Mayor Bloomberg's office pushed to end this financially wasteful practice that gave both sides a black eye and cost the City over 30 million dollars annually. Money that is badly needed to close the City budget gap.

Let's all hope that this agreement stands the test of time and will be seen as the turning point for our union to return to the strong and effective"800 pound gorilla" we once were under Albert Shanker

These Stupid Politicians Are Dead Men Walking

Two misguided politicians, Assemblyman Jonathan Bing from the Upper East Side and State Senator Ruben Diaz from the Bronx were asked by lobbyists from the City to sponsor a bill that would eliminate New York Civil Services protections for determining teacher layoffs by seniority and replace it with a Principal directed procedure to determine the layoffs by different means.

The New York Times reported that the seniority based layoffs will be replaced by a school committee of administrators, teachers, and parents. However, we all know that the Principal will have the ultimate decision-making authority and it will be based upon the Principal's likes and dislikes as well as the teacher's salary. Not only is this proposal "wishful thinking" but is dead on arrival.

This misguided proposal, if accepted, would start a slippery slope of eroding the State's Civil Service protections that the unions have painstakingly built upon to ensure all public employees have fair and equatable treatment. Therefore, all the State, Municipal, and Local unions will rally against this blatant erosion of Civil Service rights. As for the two misguided politicians? They should be "dead men walking" as the unions should organize a campaign against their reelection and make sure they can never win again. Not even for dogcatcher! The unions must impress upon all the Assemblymen and State Senators that there are serious consequences for sponsoring bills against Public Service employees and that should be funding their opponents and taking out ads against these politicians.

To date, Michael Mulgrew's reaction to this outrageous and dangerous proposal was Randi-like (a very bad sign). Rather than strongly condemn the proposal he was bringing up the fact that in can cause high teacher turnover and destabilize the schools like in Washington D.C. Norm Scott in ednotes online said it best in saying:

It's economics, stupid, not about quality teachers
Sure, that is the reason to oppose the bill. To stop teacher turnover. Why not make the point that if they get rid of every single teacher who makes over $70,ooo they can keep lots more teachers? And why is the DOE still advertising new jobs? It's time for the UFT to start calling a spade a spade. Call this the BloomKlein version of a "buyout." Just fire all the senior teachers and save a whole lot of money. The "fire one and keep two" plan.

Norm's entire article can be found here.

I expect our union President to show these two politicians who is boss and punish them by helping them leave office as quickly as possible. Michael Mulgrew's tepid response so far is very discouraging and where is the strong rhetoric we heard before the election? I will be watching to see if Michael Mulgrew is a man of action or just a male version of Randi Weingarten.

Why The DOE Is Responsible For The Disconnect Between The Rising High School Graduation Rates And The Lack Of Academic Skills By The Graduates

Before Bloombeg and Klein took over the New York City Public School System, the high school graduation rates were lower but the students who did graduate knew if they worked hard they could legitimately attend college or join a job market where their education was a factor in being hired. However, along comes Bloomberg and Klein who have cheapened the high school diploma to the point employers find that many high school graduates have difficulty completing an employment application and that over 80% of the graduates who try college find they must take remedial courses because they were not educationally proficient for college work.

Why the disconnect between the improved graduation rate and the lack of readiness for the graduates in the business or college world? I believe you can trace this disconnect to at least three factors that have resulted in a student graduating high school without the necessary educational tools or skills to succeed in either the business or college environment.

First, one of the most common method to graduate students is for the Principal to change failing grades for seniors with and sometimes without the knowledge of the teacher. With principals given broad authority by the DOE to run a school as he or she pleases and with high school grades (maybe even bonuses) depending on the graduation rate, principals are tempted to improve their statistics. I wrote a post about this here and is a must read. Furthermore, principals have been accused of changing Regents grades and go unpunished since the investigative agencies have a different standard when investigating administrators. You can read it here as well.

Second, a significant rise in the "credit recovery program" for high school students during the Bloomberg/Klein Administration that are encouraged by the DOE and some of these "credit recovery programs" are as simple as writing a report over the vacation. Read here.

Finally, the single mindedness of Regents prep at the expense of a well rounded education is rapidly gaining favor in the high schools. Many high schools now put in Regents prep courses rather than giving students an option to take courses that could broaden their academic horizons. Is it little wonder that many of our graduates are deficient in academics despite graduating?

What ever happened to our mission to graduate well rounded boys and girls who would be a credit, not only to their family but the community as a whole? Now it seems that the DOE's mission is to get them out by any means necessary without giving them the proper tools and skills to succeed in the real world. Tweed's "children last" policy continues.

With Michael Mulgrew's Election, I Hope The UFT Makes Transparancy & Protecting Their Members As A Top Priority

I congratulate Michael Mulgrew on his election as UFT President and now comes the hard part, making the union more responsive to the members. The era of union appeasement under the failed leadership of Randi Weingarten is now officially over and Michael Mulgrew can now put his stamp on how the union responds to both pressure from the outside and how it handles member needs. I have previously been impressed with Mr, Mulgrew's rhetoric and the pro-active lawsuits against the DOE. However, I voted for James Eterno because of Michael Mulgrew keeping the failed leadership that caused so much damage to the members during Randi Weingarten's tenure. Therefore, here is what I expect from my newly elected UFT President.

First, demanding the "City pattern" in the contract negotiations. That includes two 4% raises (minus 0.58% for gaining back the two days before Labor Day) with "no givebacks". Our negotiating committee worked too hard in resisting the outrageous DOE demands to destroy the NYC Public School Teacher to let three unaccountable Arbitrators under PERB to impose any "givebacks" as a condition to get the "City pattern". Any PERB recommendation should go through the same negotiating committee for approval and not the present leadership that was so instrumental in giving us the terrible 2005 contract. Any contract with significant givebacks should be rejected immediately!

Second, No more secret deals with the City and Tweed that are not brought to the members for review and comment. In Randi's tenure she negotiated many secret deals that did not involve member input. Many of these deals were not enforceable and the DOE ignored their obligations. Now we hear that Michael Mulgrew is secretly negotiating with the DOE on the "rubber rooms". Scary, since the reassigned teachers or their liaisons are not even consulted about their fate. Lack of transparency has always been a problem in this union. Is it little wonder when the union leadership fails to include the members that the decisions prove to disadvantageous to the members.

Third, more democracy in selecting District Reps, Special Reps, and High School Reps. The union policy of selecting, not electing people for these positions has resulted in a culture of loyalty to the leadership rather than the members they are supposed to represent. This has led to the perceived disconnect between the member needs and the leadership duties.

Finally, it is no secret that I expect Mr. Mulgrew to make changes in the leadership that owe their jobs to their allegiance to Randi Weingarten. Whomever ends up in the leadership positions should be people more responsive to member needs and not to their own political agenda. We need leadership that provides solutions not obstructing member rights.

I will be watching to see if Michael Mulgrew is his own man or just another "ass kisser" who puckered up his way to the top.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract- Part 5: "Circular Six" Requirments Reimposed

This is the final part of my five part series on the horrible "givebacks" our union clowns agreed to in the terrible 2005 contract that has helped make the classroom teaching an increasingly hostile environment. Last but for many teachers, not least, was the return of "circular six" requirements to replace a teacher preparation period.

We had ridden ourselves of "circular six" when we agreed to the infamous "double zeros" back in the 1990's. However, thanks to the existing "Unity" leadership we now have to use a preparation period for things like "potty patrol, cafeteria duties, or hallway help". These unprofessional activities should be preformed by non-professionals, not teachers. Further, it put teachers at risk if they try to break up fights in the hallway or cafeteria and may lead to disciplinary actions by vindictive administrators. Here again our failed union leadership are not subject to "circular six" requirements and there were unsympathetic to teacher complaints about reimposing the "circular six" requirements. How can any union agree to "givebacks" that they themselves are not subject to? The answer is that many in the union leadership had lost touch with what the classroom teacher was subject to and this was evident in the 2005 contract negotiations where classroom teachers were excluded from the negotiating process and dissidents were met with evasive answers and insults by the "Unity" propaganda machine.

Now, as we send the contract impasse to PERB (a very bad idea in this economic environment). I fear that the teacher directed negotiation committee, who did a wonderful job in representing us, will be replaced by the same inner circle lackeys who were so instrumental in giving us the terrible 2005 contract, with disastrous consequences for the classroom teacher. I can only hope that Michael Mulgrew or James Eterno remember that they represent the classroom teacher and not the other way around. In any case it is important that whomever is the UFT President that he makes sure that they ensure the members voices are part of any agreed upon contract and that means replacing the clowns that were and are part of the problem and not the solution.