The Racial/Income Student Academnic Achievement Gap Is Still Wide And The Numbers Are Very Disturbing Despite What The Mayor & Chancellor Claim.

Despite all the claims of the Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott Administrations that they are closing the racial/income student academic achievement gap the actual "college and career readiness"numbers for 2011 show a very different conclusion.  For example in Queens the 2011 numbers showed that blacks have a college readiness rate of 10.5% and if you look at the black male population it falls below 10%! Gender wise females had better college readiness scores than males by 5%.  Listed below is the various "college and career readiness rates" While I only used Queens High School data, the numbers and ratios are very similar for the other four boroughs. for all the Queens High Schools. All the data for NYC can be found on pg 126 of the NYS report here.

"College And Career Readiness Rates"

• Blacks.........10.5%
• Hispanics....14.9%
• Whites........32.5%
• Asians........38.5%

The numbers showed that for every black that is "college and career ready", there are three white and over four Asian students that are academically successful.

In addition,  the New York State student progress report also showed that the Bloomberg small schools are a failure academically with an academically terrible 11% "college and career readiness score" compared to a dismal citywide 20.7% rate.  That means that only a little over one out of every ten sstudents who graduate from the Bloomberg small schools are ready academically.  This is success?  I don't thing so.  Furthermore, according to an unscientific survey by Ed the Apple, between 25-33% of all NYC high school students graduate with "credit recovery" credits and between 5-10% with multiple "credit recovery" credits. 

Finally, The latest poll shows that Chancellor Dennis Walcott has seen a significant drop in his already poor approval ratings to a disappointing 37% from a high of 43% in March.  I am shocked it is still as high as it is but like the saying goes "you can fool so of the people all of the time" and there are 37% who appears to have been fooled by the Bloomberg/Walcott rhetoric of advances in education progress when the evidence shows otherwise.

Maybe the news media should be writing articles how the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration should be held "accountable" for the dismal student academic results but then again the news rags rather scapegoat the teachers instead.

Why Chancellor Walcott's Op-Ed Piece Is A Bunch Of Trash As He Pleads For The Power To Fire Teachers Accused Of Sexual Misconduct But Found Innocent By An Independent Arbitrator.

I read with some amusement the Op-Ed piece by the Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott in the New York Tmes and couldn't believe the spin he put into the article as he pleaded for the power to arbitrarily fire teachers accused of sexual misconduct but were found innocent by Arbitrators.  In his piece he wrote many things that were either misleading or untrue.

First, He claims that substantiated investigations are proof enough that he would terminate teachers, regardless what the actual evidence is.  People familiar with my story and my blog know that these investigations from OSI and SCI are not independent but are biased and unfair against an accused teacher.  In fact, the Principal has a great deal of influence on how the investigation goes.  If the Principal does not like the teacher, you can guess the investigators will substantiate bogus, false, and frivolous actions, and even hearsay statements as proof of sexual misconduct.  I guess the Chancellor does not want the inconvenient truth that evidence should be used as the basis for determining if teacher sexual misconduct actually happened.

Second, he knows full well that when it comes to sexual misconduct, the Arbitrator does not "split the baby" as he claims.  An Arbitrator who finds even minor sexual misconduct is required to terminate the teacher.  In fact here is what it states:

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


The Chancellor knows very well what the rules state.  What he ignores is that if these Arbitrators were not following the rules then why does the DOE keep them on the panel year after year?


Third, the Arbitrators rule on the preponderance of relevant evidence not unfounded hearsay, rumors, and gossip or worse, unsupported accusations aided and abetted by unscrupulous Administrators.  Of course, in Chancellor Walcott's  piece he assumes all substantiated investigations and accusations are true, except when it is about his principals, that the Arbitrator's decision can be overturned by him.


Finally, the Chancellor claims that he should have the authority to make the final decision.  However, based on my and other cases he apparently does not have the necessary knowledge or patience to read the transcripts of the 3020-a hearings but takes the lazy way out by reading the so-called substantiated investigative  conclusions as his basis for making his decision to terminate teachers.  Consequently, I must question his judgement to fairly evaluate the evidence since he ignores the Arbitrator's reasoned decision and will base his decision on the politics and not the evidence.


Please read Accountable Talk's post for another response to the Chancellor's op-ed piece.

The New York Post Publishes DOE Generated Suspect Data And Claims That The City Did Better Then They Really Did. The Real Numbers Are Very Different.

I was shocked to see that the New York Post incorrectly published the student graduation rate and got it all wrong.  While all other media outlets claimed that the City students scores were either the same or lower for 2011, the New York Post praised the Mayor's education policy by publishing misleading data generated by the DOE and which were not accepted by any reasonable educator;  I guess this is just another case of the New York Post who will invent or use numbers inappropriately to prove their point even when they are wrong.  The paper delivered to my school said the following.

"CITY GLAD, STATE SAD OVER HS GRADUATION RATES"

In the article they incorrectly used the wrong data to prove their case that the Bloomberg Administration's education policy was working.  To prove their point here is what they used as data.

• Graduation rates -  DOE  data NYC 65.5%, State data 60,9%.
• College readiness - DOE data NYC 24.7%  State data 20,7%
• Minority Changes - State data shows a drop in the graduation rate for blacks, while the other groups (Asians, Hispanics, and Whites) showed slight gains.

 The data can be found in the NYS student progress report found here. Or in my previous post.

Once again, the DOE publishes suspect data that makes it seem that the failed education policy of the Bloomberg Administration is working when the actual statistics from, the State shows a very different conclusion of  failure to close the academic achievement gap, a reduction in graduation and college readiness rates and a drop in black graduation rates.

More Proof That The Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott Administration's Education Policies Have Failed The Students.

New York State released last year's graduation statistics and it was not good news for the Bloomberg Administration as the bogus four year graduation rate actually dropped, despite the continued use of phony "credit recovery programs".  The actual graduation rate slipped a tenth of a point to 60.9% in 2012 from 2010.  By contrast the other major urban areas in New York State saw a 6% increase for 2011!  What is worse for the Bloomberg Administration is that the more accurate "career and college readiness rate" actually went down significantly, from a terrible 21.4% level in 2010 to an even more terrible 20.7% score for 2011. Worse yet there was a lower black graduation rate which dropped two tenths of a point to 60.4% while all other groups saw slight rises in their graduation rate this year. So much for narrowing the student academic achievement gap.

The 2011 numbers include the last group of seniors who can graduate with a local diploma which means that the four year graduation rate is expected to go down by 10% or more for this year's high school graduates.who must pass the Regents.  Moreover, with New York City also making "credit recovery programs" much more rigorous and limit the amount of courses allowed, that should allow an even further drop of the four year graduation rate for next year (2013) to below the 50% threshold.  Just in time as the Bloomberg Administration leaves office with a deteriorating school system and lower student academic achievement.

The DOE attempted to spin the disappointing data by claiming that more students achieved the more prestigious Regents diploma and that the newer schools had better graduation rates then the schools that they replaced. However, based upon the 2010 statistics the "college and career readiness scores" were lower than the large schools the are replacing.  The UFT's Jackie Bennett in her December 7th, 2011 article showed how poorly the new small schools (opened since 2003) prepared their students for college.  The analysis by Ms. Bennett was startling with all the small schools lagging behind the large school in their "college and career readiness scores".  Can you imagine if the small schools took their fair share of self contained special education and English Language Learners what their already low scores would be?

As for the better graduation rates at the small schools?  Of course it's better because of the massive amount of phony "credit recovery courses" that their students take and let's not forget these school's failure to take the most needy of students (self-contained special education and English Language Learners) and counsel behaviorally and/or academically challenged students out of their school by claiming a lack of resources for the student.

Overall the 2011 student data just shows that the flawed Bloomberg education policy is a failure.  Way to go Bloomie in your "children last" policy.

The Proposed DOE Weakening Of The Student Discipline Policy Will Further Encourage The Lack Of Student Responsibility.

Chancellor Dennis Walcott has proposed a significant weakening of the student discipline policy, especially in the classroom.  For example students can no longer be suspended for cursing at a teacher, using their cell phones or ipods in the classroom, or defy a lawful command by the teacher.  Moreover, the student can no longer be removed from the classroom for excessive lateness or their failure to work in class.  These new rules are in draft form and can be found here. What is really amazing is that our next potential Mayor, Christine Quinn, otherwise known as Michael Bloomberg lite, wants to weaken it even more.  Just unbelievable.  Maybe these people should spend some time in the classroom before they develop these flawed education policy directives.


The new draft regulations recommend counseling for many student infractions and limits teacher authority to remove a student from the classroom. Weakening the student discipline code is short-sighted and harmful for the student in the long term.  What the weakening of the student discipline code will do is to further reduce student responsibility and make them ill-prepared for the adult world.  I have seen first hand what happens to a school when the Administration allows the students to run the school. 

Can you imagine a student who went through high school showing up late to class, always text messaging in the classroom, and frequently being unprepared to work (no notebook or pen) and the only thing that happened to him or her was to take an occasional  online "credit recovery" course that took less than a week to finish.  The result is that the students  receives an undeserved diploma. In my present school this happens far to many times and is a way to artificially raise the graduation rate.

Now this academically unprepared student tries to join the work force and since he or she is used to showing up late, having poor work habits, and disrespects authority guess what happens?  Right the now ex-student cannot hold a job because companies will not tolerate lateness, poor work, or lack of respect.
These ex-students move from short-term low paying job to the next and may never become a productive member of society and the reason is that the schools never held these students responsible for their poor academic work.  I actually saw this at my usual breakfast spot. 

Rather than weaken the student discipline code, we should strengthen it and hold students responsible if they are to become responsible and productive adults. Did the Chancellor ever hear of "tough love"?  Oops, there I go again using a bad word (love) I hope the Chancellor does not sic SCI on me.

 .

Just Imagine If Mayor Michael Bloomberg Had The Same Power As Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker Had To Change Public Employee Rights.

I shudder to think if for some reason the Emperor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg had the authority to change public employee protections and rights as did Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has?  Under Scott Walker, Wisconsin's public employee unions lost many rights none more important than the  "collective bargaining  rights" for unions.  Under Governor Walker's Administration  the following erosion of employee benefits and rights have occurred.

• Loss of collective bargaining rights by unions except for salaries.
• Union dues and membership are no longer mandatory.
• Health benefit premiums have doubled.
• Pension contributions have increased to over 7%.
• Teachers are required to abide by new working conditions like a sixth classroom period instead of a preparation period for example.
• Elimination or restricting teacher tenure and adding more time.

The question is what would the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg do if he obtained such powers?   This is easy to predict based upon his past actions.

• Elimination of the Tribourough Amendment  that keeps an old contract in place.
• End collective bargaining rights.
• Replacing the defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan (401K).
• No seniority rights  or step increases.
• Raises based upon merit.
• Drastically increasing health care premiums and co-payments to employees.

As for teachers, his favorite scapegoats.  Here is what one can expect.

• Doubling of class sizes
• A temporary and replaceable teaching force.
• Terminate all ATRs and teachers who have discipline charges.
• A sixth teaching period and more time in the classroom.
• Eliminate the 7% fixed income fund in the TDA.
• Eliminate teacher due process rights.
• Unlimited Charter schools.

 It is a good thing we are not Wisconsin because if the Emperor, Mayor Bloomberg had his way, the experienced teacher who lasts long enough for a pension and retiree health benefits would be a  rare event indeed.

The Consequences For Students Who Were Late For The Laboratory Practical - And The Blame Must Go To The School Administration. Especially The Principal,

We gave the Earth Science laboratory practical in the last week and many of the students missed it because they showed up late to class and were not let in.  The laboratory practical is an important part of the Earth Science Regents and averages 15% of the final Regents grade. These students were told days in advance that if they are not in the lab room within five minutes after the late bell sounds that they would be refused entry to take the lab practical.  Astonishingly,  many of my and other teachers' students failed to heed our warnings about getting there on time and were shocked when we couldn't let them in.  Now these students must hope that we volunteer a period of our time to allow them to do a "make up".  In our school there is no money for per session "make ups". Therefore, I will give up my lunch period to let students take the laboratory practical  and I can tell you very confidently that I will still have students show up too late to take it.  Why would these students not show up on time?  The blame lies with the school Administration. that ignores this behavior.

The fault lies  particularly with the Principal of the school.  Under his poor and leaderless Administration and inconsistent student discipline policy the many students who failed to show up on time can be attributed to his allowing students to enter the classroom anytime they want and teachers are lectured for locking their classroom doors or refusing tardy students entry to the classroom.  The Principal tells the teachers to enforce the rule of "no cell phones or ipods" in class but refuses to take action against the very same students who use both in the school hallways and stairwells.  Of course, teachers are ignored as the students realize that the school Administration does not have the back of the teachers.  Moreover, the Principal seems to protect the behaviorally challenged students who walk the halls consistently and disrupt the school environment.

The consequences of the inconsistent strident discipline policy  is the many students who failed to show up on time for the Earth Science laboratory practical and will probably fail the Regents.  Of course guess who will blamed?  You guessed it the teacher!

According To The Chancellor The Truth Is What He Claims It Is, Not What The Evidence Shows As He Fails To Understand What Sexual Misconduct Is.

Over the last few days young female teachers have been accused of engaging in sexual misconduct with their male students.  Based upon the selected information presented so far it does certainly look like they committed sexual misconduct  Of course only time and evidence will tell if they really did. However, the Chancellor, when discussing alleged teacher sexual misconduct,  went further, and brought up the cases of the sixteen other teachers (all but one older and male) that he claimed had found to have committed sexual misconduct and should have been terminated.  According to the New York Daily News, he sent the UFT President Michael Mulgrew the following letter.

“From time to time . we hear reports of teachers who engage in inappropriate, and sometimes sexual, misconduct with students,” Walcott wrote in a letter to United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew.   "Unfortunately under current law, when these reports are true, it is left to an arbitrator to decide on the punishment.”.

Notice how the Chancellor assumed that the charges against the sixteen teachers where found to be true?  While I cannot talk about the other cases, I will talk about my own on what is true and why the Chancellor is not capable of understanding the truth.

• Truth, the most senior and respected Arbitrator on the panel threw out a phony letter to the file back in 2004 as "unfair and inaccurate". Yet the Chancellor did not bother to include it to the media. when he tried to vilify me.

• Truth, A second Arbitrator found no "probable cause" that I committed sexual misconduct in 2008.Yet the DOE wasted over $500,000  in pursuing charges they knew were frivolous and also failed to include that information to the media..

• Truth, the 3020-a Arbitrator found no "sexual misconduct" after weighing all the "preponderance of evidence" in 2011.

• Truth, my Arbitrator told everybody that she was leaving the panel after my case.  Therefore, she did not need to "split the baby" as the Chancellor and Mayor falsely claim

• Truth, the DOE failed to appeal when the Arbitrator's decision was rendered. If they were so sure that I committed sexual misconduct, why would you not appeal?

Here are some other truths that the Chancellor fails to, or is unable to understand.

• Truth, that any  teacher that commits sexual misconduct is automatically terminated by the Arbitrator based upon the UFT-DOE contract Article 21G-6 pg 120.  It states the following.

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

• Truth, the Chancellor claims that any SCI or OSI investigation that substantiates the charges, no matter how frivolous, is "proven". 

• Truth, according to the Chancellor a fair and impartial hearing where evidence is necessary is not as important as a biased or politically motivated investigation and the bogus charges that result from them.

• Truth, the independent Arbitrators are jointly appointed to one year terms by the DOE and UFT and can only be reappointed yearly when both sides agree that they are doing a good job.  Therefore, the Bloomberg/Walcott claim that the Arbitrators are influenced by the UFT in determining the penalty is a lie.

• Truth, the Chancellor practices a "double standard" when it comes to Administrators and teachers, see here and here.

• Truth, the Chancellor has blindly followed the Mayor's policy without question.

I must conclude that the Chancellor's idea of truth is vastly different than the common person.  In the Chancellor's world the truth is what he and the Mayor claims it is not what is real.

   

The Emperor And His Poodle, The Chancellor Wants To Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner When It Comes To Teachers Accused But Found Not Guilty Of Sexual Misconduct By Arbitrators.

Today the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg and his poodle the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, has proposed a law that will eliminate  "due process rights" for teachers accused of sexual misconduct.  According to the Emperor's bill any teacher accused of sexual misconduct will still get an independent Arbitration hearing under section 3020-a but the final decision will be left to the Chancellor.  Yes, the very same Chancellor who has prejudged twenty-four teachers guilty of sexual misconduct when faced with the evidence, the various independent arbitrators found none. 

This bill, which stands no chance of becoming law, is just another attempt by the Emperor and the Chancellor to weaken union protections and eliminate teacher rights to a fair and unbiased hearing in front of an independent Arbitrator.  While the Chancellor claims that he has zero tolerance for teachers accused of sexual misconduct, he feels otherwise when it comes to his Administrators. Here is what he said about now ex-Principal John Chase Jr. when he was accused by teachers and students of sexual harassment.
 

On the new allegation, he said, “Just because an accusation is made doesn’t mean a person is guilty.”

Interestingly, despite two separate allegations of sexual harassment, the DOE never had SCI investigate the charges, just OEO., why?  The answer is that John Chase Jr. was a Principal and there is a presumption of innocence, hence the above statement by the Chancellor.  On the other hand, the Chancellor has made it clear that any real evidence of no sexual misconduct is not as important as a biased OSI or SCI investigation that is heavily influenced by the school's Principal. 

While the proposed law will have no effect on teachers who have already gone through the 3020-a process but remain forever guilty by the DOE,  It will affect any new cases and despite evidence to the contrary, will lead to automatic termination, no matter what an independent Arbitrator finds.  This sounds more like a Nazi or Stalinist court than an American judicial process.  Then again we are talking about the Emperor who believes that the laws do not apply to him. As for the Emperor's poodle the Chancellor?  His track record in determining sexual misconduct is found to be sorely  lacking.  See DOEnuts blog for more details about how untrustworthy the Chancellor's decision-making ability is.

Well, It's Goodbye & Good Riddance To A Terrible School. It Now Looks Like I Will Be Back Into The ATR Pool For Next Year.

Last week I decided that the school that I am in as a provisional appointee is not a "good fit" and since the school is a likely "turnaround school" and will see an influx of clueless "newbie teachers"  along with some very outrageous teacher requirements next year (Saturday classes for one and imposed requirements for a teacher's prep and professional periods for another), all I see is even more stress and chaos then currently exists that has made my teaching at this school quite stressful and unrewarding.  Therefore, I expect that I will be rejoining the ATR ranks for the 2012-2013 school year.  I really do hope I land another teaching position either over the summer or in the beginning of the school year.  However, considering what I have going against me, it appears highly unlikely that I will be offered a position unless there is nobody else available like my last school and even them it took this school almost four months to offer me the position while the class had a substitute who had no certification in the field and as a result the students were academically behind. .

Why would a school not offer a "great teacher" a position?  Easy, when the "great teacher" is over 50, makes a high salary, and has a phony discipline flag on his file.  While, I cannot tell you the average age of ATRs are, the DOE told reporters that the average ATR salary is $82,420 annually.  Simple math tells you that the average ATR has 15+ years experience and the average age is probably in the 50s.  I meet all that criteria, unfortunately.

My decision to leave the "D" rated school ( it should be a "F" rated school as my friend the "Traveling ATR" quite actually described it) is really very easy.  First, the school student discipline policy is chaotic at best and non-existent .at its worst..  The Principal allows the students to run the school and many of them walk the halls cursing and disrespecting the teachers with no consequences for their actions.. Numerous times I heard students, even girls,  tell teachers to "suck my d-ck" with no consequences for what they said.  While the Deans try their best, the tone set by the Administration makes effective student discipline impossible. Moreover, the school allows the students to enter into the classroom whenever they feel like and teachers are reprimanded by the Administration if they lock their doors and refuse the students entry.  Second, the Administration looks the other way when students use their cell phones and ipods in school but will berate teachers for not taking action against the very same students who are observed using them in the classroom.  How can teachers enforce the rules when the Administration allows students to do as they please in the school?  Third, the teachers are required to bring their own copying paper if they are to distribute information to their students.  Even scantrons are hoarded and I had to "beg, borrow, and steal" them from other teachers who had accumulated a stash of them.  Fourth, the Administration blames the teacher when students are truant.  The Administration, time and again, would instruct teachers to repeatedly contact parents of truants as if it is our fault that the truants don't show up.  Even the guidance counselors would ask what have you done to get the truants to show up?   the real question is what have they and the Administration done to get the truants to show up and not blame the teachers.  Finally, I have a team teaching class with twelve of my thirty-two students who have an IEP, yet during my entire time at the school I never had a special education teacher, or any teacher for that matter, with me.  Yet the Administration blames me for not  providing these twelve students with the special education services that they needed.

I should also like to point out that I was never given a closet, locked or otherwise,a desk, or space to put my school and personal items in. The school never even gave me a rolling cart to move my stuff from the four different rooms and two different floors where my classes were held! The lack of simple professional curtsey by the school to my needs is disgusting.  Many days I had to truly "wing it" and had to employ my full complement of teaching skills to compensate for the lack of resources and to keep students engaged and interested.   This made teaching stressful and the classroom environment was terrible.  Do you still want to know why I am leaving?

I must admit, I love teaching and most of my students are good kids who actually thrived under my guidance and I will miss them but it is the minority of disruptive students that destroys the classroom environment that is the major problem. Yet the student behavior issue is ignored by the school Administration that is quick to blame the teacher but looks the other way when it comes to the behaviorally challenged  students in the classroom.  I can only hope that the next school that I teach in has a consistent and enforceable student discipline policy and respect their teaching staff.

"Great teachers" can only be great when the school Administration supports their teaching staff not work against them as what is happening in the school I am in now. It is "goodbye and good riddance" to a terrible school environment.

The DOE's Ultimate Goal Is To Get Rid Of Experienced Senior Teachers Not To Retain Quality Teachers In The NYC Public School System.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg and his pet poodle the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, want only "great teachers" in front of the classrooms teaching our children.  When the Bloomberg/Walcott agenda is quite different than their stated goals.  The Bloomberg/Walcott real agenda is to eliminate as many senior teachers as possible and replace them with untrained "newbie teachers"  in their "education on the cheap" policy.  Let's look at the actions of the DOE that belie the Bloomberg/Walcott stated goal to improve the teaching profession.

Recruitment over Retention:

If the DOE really wanted to retain "great teachers" they would reduce class sizes, provide adequate resources to the classrooms,  ensure Administrative support, and raise salaries to compete with the suburbs.  Instead, the DOE  has  increased class sizes, starved the classroom for resources, protects poor Administrators (19% of the principals come from the "Leadership Academy") with little or no classroom experience, and have eliminated pay raises for the last four years.  Worse, under the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration, teacher choice was eliminated and many of the teachers of the large comprehensive schools find themselves without a position for next year.

If the DOE really wanted "great teachers" they would do everything in their power to improve the classroom environment not worsen it.

Focus on "Bad Teachers":

The primary focus by the DOE is the removal of "bad teachers" from the school system rather than programs and polices to improve teacher quality.  First, Chancellor Dennis Walcott called ATRs "bad teachers" and offered them generous buyouts to get them to leave the school system.  Then he wants to terminate all elementary school teachers who receive two consecutive "U" ratings.  Finally, the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration wants to right to impose their own version of a teacher evaluation system without teacher and union input which would simply be a termination process for "ineffective teachers".

Nowhere does the DOE propose or prepare programs to improve teacher quality except for hiring more "newbie teachers" from Teach For America  or the Teaching Fellows programs. A dubious policy at best and a likely worsening of teacher quality overall.

The Imposition of Terrible Programs and Bloated Budgets At Tweed: 


The DOE insisted on expensive and wasteful programs like SESIS and spent almost 900 million dollars on wasteful technology.  Furthermore, they fund their bloated Bureaucracy while starving the schools and the children.  This is no way for an agency to operate when it is supposed to be "children first" instead it is Tweed first and "children last".

Next time you hear the Emperor or his pet poodle, the Chancellor claim they are improving the schools and want "quality teachers", the truth is by far very different.

The Mulgrew Affair, The Infamous 2005 Contract, And The ATR Crises. Is There Really A Connection? I Hope Not.

The front page of today's  New York Post has the headline "UFT Sex Scandal" .  It claims that when Michael Mulgrew was the Chapter Leader at William Grady High School in Brooklyn he was having an affair with a married guidance counselor Emma Camacho-Mendez and were apparently caught in the school being intimate with each other in the 2004-2005 school year.  The entire affair was covered up by the DOE, UFT, the Principal, and Custodian of the school.  These allegations are contained in a federal lawsuit by teacher Andrew Ostrowsky.  What is must disturbing is the lawsuit's allegation that the massive "givebacks" and long-term damage that resulted from the infamous 2005 contract was a result of the cover up of the affair.

First, let me point out that rumors, gossip, and hearsay are hardly evidence of wrongdoing and unless real evidence is presented, the benefit of the doubt should go to Michael Mulgrew and Emma Camacho-Mendez that their relationship was professional in nature.  I should know since it was the very same rumors, gossip, and hearsay that put me in the "rubber room" for over four years.   However, I must admit that there are some very disturbing concerns associated with the allegations made in the lawsuit since it might have affected all teachers because of the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract and that needs to be addressed by our UFT President.

The Infamous 2005 Contract:

Many of us questioned why Randi Wiengarten agreed to the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract for an average raise of 3.15%, which was less than the rate of inflation for the same period? Could there have been a connection between the alleged Mulgrew-Camacho scandal and the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract? We all know that the infamous 2005 contract was the basis for the worsening of the teaching profession ever since. You can all see what we gave back in my "Here comes the clowns" series
Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here. Did Randi Weingarten allow this terrible deal to bury the Mulgrew-Camacho scandal?  What a chilling thought if true.

ATR Crises: 

The elimination of seniority transfer rights and especially the excessing rules that required that a vacancy in the district be offered to an excessed teacher who has the certification in the field was a tragic mistake and an unforgivable "giveback" by Randi Weingarten.  The result was an ATR population that have ranged from a low of 831 to a high of 2,400.  With all the closing schools coming this year, the ATR population can explode to a new all time high of 3,000+! If the ATR crises has resulted from a cover up of the Mulgrew-Camacho scandal, then heads should roll at the union.

Emma Camacho-Mendez:

According to many sources Emma Camacho-Mendez was transferred and rewarded for her silence with first, a part-time union position under Mulgrew, no pun intended, and then given a full-time union position despite not having "union credentials". In other words she was not an active participant in union organizing or volunteering her time for union activities.  How did she jump over all those other union people who spent time and effort for the union?

Conclusion:

While it might be easy to connect the dots and show that a theory exists that the alleged Mulgrew-Camacho affair cold have resulted in the UFT being blackmailed by the City into the terrible 2005 contract,  it still must be proven and I have only heard rumors, gossip, and hearsay not real proof and I hope what is printed and in the federal lawsuit is untrue.  If  any of the allegations does turn out to be true then it is time for new leadership to emerge since the old leadership rather protect their own at the expense of their members and that is a shame.  Remember my first quote on this blog:

"A strong union represents the members in the trenches and not the interests of the people in power".

Chancellor Dennis Walcott Proposes to Give A Generous Buyout For ATRs. What Does Generous Mean? Not Much If You Ask Me.

It seems that Chancellor Dennis Walcott has finally given up trying to fire ATRs by imposing a time limit on being an ATR.  Since he now realizes that the union has no interest in negotiating a contract with the Bloomberg Administration and even then Michael Mulgrew has made it clear that he has no intention of giving up the ATRs by imposing a time limit in the next contract. So instead of the stick, the Chancellor is offering a carrot by giving buyouts to ATRs.

While the Chancellor is vague on the buyout offer, he did say it will be "generous" compared to other cities buyout offers.  Dallas gave a $10,000 buyout while Washington D.C. offered a $25,000 buyout for teachers in good standing.   The best guess is that the buyout offer will be $1,000 per year of service which makes it somewhat equivalent to but certainly not superior to the Washington D.C. buyout offer.

The proposal by the Chancellor is quite flawed since the only ATRs that will take the buyout offer are those ATRs ready to retire anyway.  One of my ATR friends had her final pension consultation and was putting in her retirement papers next month.  Now she intends to stay until September so that she can get a $26,000 buyout package.  Who can blame her?  Sure, some but not many other ATRs will take the buyout offer because they want to leave the profession anyway.  The vast majority of ATRs will thumb their collective noses at the "generous buyout".

The majority of long-term ATRs (greater than one year) are senior teachers who are highly compensated and therefore are usually shunned by principals.  Remember principals control their school budget and due to the  "fair student funding formula" are very reluctant to hire senior ATRs due to these budgetary reasons. Furthermore, between ex-Chancellor Joel Klein, the DOE, and the media, the ATRs are looked at as failed or burnt out teachers.  Even in today's New York Post editorial the article demonizes the ATRs so why shouldn't principals, especially the "Leadership Academy Principals", believe it?   Despite the demonizing of the ATRs, many of them  are hard working teachers, who, no fault of their own, came from closing schools, excessed due to the elimination of the school program, and a target of phony discipline issues by vindictive principals.

I personally cannot see any teacher under 62 (unless part of the 25/55 program) taking the "generous buyout".  Certainly, any ATR under 55 will thumb their collectives noses at it since they cannot collect a pension or retiree health benefits until they reach 55 years of age.  So just what is "generous"?  I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect the Chancellor will be very disappointed when he realizes that his "generous buyout" policy will result in few takers.  If the Chancellor really wants to eliminate the ATR problem simply reimpose the requirement that excessed teachers  in their district are placed in the vacancies.  Any other proposal is doomed to fail and a waste of 100 million dollars.

Further Proof Of Why Chancellor Dennis Walcott Is A Hypocrite When It Comes To Disciplining Teachers & Administrators.

It now turns out that ex-Principal John Chase Jr. of Bronxwood Academy was subject to a new Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) investigation when the parents of a 15 year old freshman girl called the police because the ex-principal tried to apparently solicit an improper relationship with her.  According to the New York Post article in today's paper, John Chase Jr, told the girl not to go to her guidance counselor but to him with her problems.  He was alleged to have seen her alone and called her "special" and he was "watching her".  The girl became scared and the police were contacted.

What did the Chancellor say about removing the pervy Principal?  You got it, the Chancellor claimed that John Chase Jr. was demoted to Assistant Principal because of his poor testing results on Regents.  Just unbelievable!  Better yet, according to the New York Post article, the Chancellor said the following:

On the new allegation, he said, “Just because an accusation is made doesn’t mean a person is guilty.”

Wait a second, is this the same Chancellor who said that he believes sixteen teachers should have been fired based upon accusations that failed to hold up as evidence in the independent Arbitration process?  What a hypocrite the Chancellor is.  Furthermore, why wasn't the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) called in after the police were contacted?  Instead it went to the more compliant OEO group, why I ask?

To the Chancellor, you are a first class hypocrite and anything you say can not be believed by any educated person.

The DOE Continues To Practice A Double Standard When It Comes To Disciplining Principals And Teachers. The Story Of Now Ex-Principal John Chase Jr.

According to blogger JD2718 the xerox loving Principal of Bronxwood Academy, John Chase Jr, is subject to a C-30 for the Principal position at his school.  What is interesting is the very long time frame between the time that Mr. Chase took the Principal position and the actual C-30 for it.  I wonder if it had something to do with the very bad publicity of the sexual harassment charges that the Office of Equal Opportunity substantiated in their investigation of him.  I guess the DOE was waiting for the bad publicity to fade away before they formally filed the C-30 for the Principal's position at the school.

The Principal, John Chase Jr, was found by OEO that he violated Chancellor's Regulation A-830, sexual harassment.  However, instead of being terminated for sexual misconduct, the Principal was never removed from his position, merely reprimanded with a letter to his file, and told to take a sensitivity training course which he may or may not have taken. By contrast if a teacher was accused of sexual harassment under A-830 he would not only have been removed from the school but would receive 3020-a charges by the DOE who will demand his or her termination.  Talk about a "double standard"?

I have first hand experience on the DOE "double standard" that the DOE uses when disciplining teachers and principals.  I was removed from my school and subject to Chancellor's Regulation A-830 and subject to a "probable cause hearing" which if I had lost, I would have been suspended without pay or health benefits for three months. When two different independent Arbitrators found me innocent of violating.Chancellor's Regulation A-830, it did not stop the DOE in trying to continue to vilify me in the press as if I was guilty of sexual misconduct when the truth was otherwise.. By contrast the Principal, John Chase Jr.  admitted to violating A-830, stayed in his position and received a reluctant "slap on the wrist" by Chancellor Dennis Walcott who decided that his actions against various female subordinates was not worthy of removal. I guess the Chancellor has a very warped sense of morality when it comes to his principals.

For the sake of all the female subordinates at the Bronxwood Academy, we all need to make our feelings known and make sure that this Principal, John Chase Jr. does not get the Principal's position.

Update:  According to blogger JD2718, it now appears that John Chase Jr. will not be Principal after all.  He apparently told his staff that he will no longer be leading the school by next week.  Hopefully it is true.

The Disconnect Between The UFT and The DOE On Teacher Hiring In The Turnaround Schools Is Just So Confusing To The Teachers In Those Schools.

I am in a "Turnaround school" and am completely befuddled on the hiring protocols for the new schools that are replacing the 24 closing schools, assuming the UFT and CSA don't get an injunction on Wednesday.

According to the UFT, hiring will be based upon total DOE seniority if the applicant is qualified for the position.  That means being properly certified, getting a satisfactory rating, and good attendance.  However, the DOE seems to have a different opinion.  According to the letter I received, the successful candidate will also need to demonstrate the following:

1. Detailed lesson plans that include student differentiation requirements.
2. The ability to integrate Common Core standards in the lesson.
3. Project based learning.and using a blended learning model.
4. Ensure consistency with the Danielson Framework Model.
5. Incorporate technology as a major part of classroom teaching.

Even if the teacher meets all these requirements, the Principal can still select who she or he wants, at least according to the DOE.

I guess the disconnect between the UFT and DOE is the result of of how section 18D of the contract (pages 108-109) is interpreted.by both sides  In the mean time, 3,000 teachers are in a state of confusion as they must decide whether to apply to their turnaround schools or go on the open market to look for a more stable teaching position.  Based upon my school, many of the teachers are seriously considering going to try their luck on the open market and not go through the humiliating experience to beg for their positions back.  As for me?  I have not made up my mind yet.

.

The Chancellor Data Report Shows That Dennis Walcott Gets A Zero.

In the uproar that followed the release of the bogus "teacher data reports" (TDR) it is only fair that the Chancellor also be given a numerical grade on his ability to run the Department of Education.  Unlike the complex and complected mathematical formula that only blogger JD2718 can understand, I simplified it to an easily understandable equation.

CDR = I + Tm + Sa + Cr + Pi +Sg

I     = Independent thought from the Mayor.
Tm = Teacher morale.
Sa  = Student academic achievement.
Cr  = Career & college readiness.
Pi  =  Parent Involvement.
Sg = Racial/Income student achievement gap.

The Chancellor has shown not one ounce of independent thought from the Mayor's.
Moreover, under the Chancellor's tenure, teacher morale has sunk to an all time low.
There has been no improvement in student academic achievement under Dennis Walcott.
The same is true when it comes to "career and college readiness" rates.
Under Dennis Walcott parent involvement in DOE policy decisions are still non-existent.
Finally, the racial/income student achievement gap has remained unacceptably wide.  Therefore, when I input the data into my formula here is what I get.

CDR = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 =  "ZERO".

Yes, the Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, gets a big fat "zero" in his Chancellor Data Report.

The Emperor Mayor Decrees No Retroactive Raises For His Subjects. Oops He Forgot Abiout The Taylor Law.

Yet again, the Emperor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has decreed that no New York City employees will receive retroactive pay raises.  The newspapers eagerly jumped on the bandwagon and supported the Emperor's decree,  However, the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to this decree.  You see there is something called the Taylor Law in New York State that requires the Emperor to negotiate a contract with his subjects, oops, I mean City employees.

While the Emperor can say whatever he wants,  The fact is that he or most likely his successor, will  need to negotiate with the unions and the unions will not agree to eliminate retroactive raises.  This is particularly true of the teachers who are waiting for a new contract since October of 2009.  The teachers are owed the "City pattern"  which includes two retroactive 4% raises, minus 0.58% for Randi Weingarten's final giveaway to the City in 2009. Since the City finances is in much better shape than the State's and the Emperor is fast becoming a "lame duck", no City union will agree to eliminate retroactive raises. 

The bottom line the Emperor can decree all he wants but no union will seriously negotiate with him until he gets dethroned in January 2014.

The DOE Attaches A Discipline Flag On Files Of Teachers Accused Of Misconduct. However, It's Not Based Upon The Evidence Found In The 3020-a Discipline Process.

The DOE has informed principals that any teacher who applies for a position in their school will have attached a disciplinary flag if they were accused of misconduct.  However, it also appears that the disciplinary flag will not be based upon the actual results of the disciplinary hearing but simply on the substantiated accusation as determined by the DOE.  That means, if a teacher is charged with "corporal punishment" but after a 3020-a hearing the Arbitrator found that no "corporal punishment" occurred, the DOE will still leave the disciplinary flag on the teacher's file.  For the DOE it is not about whether the teacher is innocent or guilty, it is simply about in the bizarro world of Tweed that any teacher accused of misconduct, must be guilty, no matter what the evidence shows.

Just imagine, a well-liked teacher tries to restrain a violent student who is a threat to himself and others.  However, the Principal, who does not like the teacher, falsely accuses the teacher of using excessive force on the child and calls the Office Of Special Investigations (OSI) to start the "witch hunt".  Once OSI is briefed by the Principal on his desire to get rid of the teacher, the investigation does the Gestapo proud as the investigator will substantiate that  the teacher used "excessive force" and hence committed "corporal punishment" and recommended that the teacher be terminated through the 3020-a process.

At the 3020-a hearing the Arbitrator hears evidence that the child has a history of violet outbursts, was a threat to other children at school by throwing books and pushing other children down stairs.  The Arbitrator also heard evidence that the teacher called for help from the Administration who failed to respond to the situation.  Finally, the teacher brought in the school nurse that said that the child had no bruises or other marks that were suspicious. 

The Arbitrator found that the teacher did not commit "corporal punishment" but still fined the teacher $1,000 for failing to use a more appropriate method to handle the student. We all know Arbitrators must give the DOE something in these hearings, just so they can stay on the panel at year's end.

The winner is the vindictive Principal who not only was able to remove the teacher from the school but dumped the teacher in the ATR pool and sharply reduces his chances of getting another classroom position
 now that the teacher will have a discipline flag on his file for "corporal punishment" even when no "corporal punishment" was found. What will the union do about this abuse?

Why The State Education Commissioner King Should Be Fired As He Stubborningly And Stupidly Wants Teacher Evaluations Tied To Truants.

It seems the tide is slowly turning against the State's proposal to tie teacher evaluations to all students assigned to the teacher.  At first the "Education Reformers who had the ear of the Governor, supported a "no excuses approach" by including truants in a teacher evaluation system.  However, some of the more thoughtful reformers now realize that adjustments must be made, not the zealots representing children first (Rhee, Klein, etc) and their fifth column flunkies, E4E of course.  However, the tide appears to be turning on them as well.  Even the usually sympathetic newspapers realize the sheer idiocy of using truants as part of a teacher's evaluation is surfacing in Buffalo where the union is fighting with the State on just such an issue. 

At the NYSUT meeting in Buffalo, the entire Buffalo delegation walked out when Commissioner King addressed the audience.  Beside the Buffalo delegation, other smaller delegation's also walked out as well.  The Commissioner wasn't just greeted with a walkout but others in the audience lustily booed Mr. King, unheard of previously at the meeting.  The relationship between Commissioner King and NYSUT has deteriorated to the point that NYSUT regards the Commissioner as the enemy.  First, it was the last minute change he tried to ram through in increasing the testing component to 40% which NYSUT was able to stop by filing a lawsuit.  Now it is Commissioner King's stubborn single mindlessness in requiring truants as part of a teach evaluational process. A completely unfair and biased proposal that will penalize teachers in high poverty schools with struggling students.

In a rare interview on a talk show Commissioner King compared his time as an educatior at a Boston Charter school where as a teacher he was responsible for 16 students only!  He claimed that he reached out to every one of his students and their parents to keep them in school and that teachers with up to 150 students should be able to do the same.   I guess he wants us to be a social worker, chauffeur, and parent as well., He really must be on drugs!


In my opinion there is no dealing with Commissioner King and NYSUT should be pressuring politicians for his firing or resignation and that is the bottom line.