Educators 4 Excellence Claims That Poverty Is Not As Important As An Excellent Teacher But Continues To Fail To Show Proof Despite Overwhelming Evidence To The Contrary.

During my vacation I turned to the CNN blog comments and saw one of those "Educators 4 Excellence" (E4E) mouthpieces write how it was more important for a student to have an "excellent teacher" rather than living in poverty despite the overwhelming studies that show the opposite conclusion.  I guess the E4E represents the "no excuses" crew who prefer to ignore poverty and family as the major contributing factors in a student's academic development.  What interested me was her failure to define what an "excellent teacher" is. but then that is always the problem with Education Reformers who never say what the specifics are.  More telling, Ms. McGurk has a Masters degree in educational leadership, is she still teaching in a classroom or is she like many of the E4E drones who fled the classroom at the earliest opportunity?  Just look at Ruben Brosbe, Evan Stone, and Sydney Morris, just to name a few, they couldn't leave the classroom fast enough.

Independent studies have shown that social-economic factors like poverty, community, and family account for 80% of a child's academic development.  An excellent article written by Daniel Akst in Newsday is a must read. However, the Education Reformers and their allies like E4E, with blinders on,  pretend that poverty is not important or not as important as an excellent teacher. Hence their slogan of "no excuses".  According to E4E an excellent teacher is whatever the Principal decides is one, along with test scores.  In other words a teacher who does continuous test prep and kisses their Principal's rear end is the E4E definition of an excellent teacher. Maybe E4E would be more credible if they were more accountable, many of the leaders of E4E no longer teach in the classroom and in many cases never received tenure (Ruben Brosbe, Sydney Morris, etc.).

To me E4E is a derisive influence on teachers and a tool of Education Reformers who's main purpose is to destroy the teachers union and eliminate long held tenure and seniority rights.  Worse, is that E4E is a willing accomplice in trying to destroy teacher "due process rights".  In other words a "fifth column". and teachers need to stay away from this evil organization.

What Will The New School Year Bring? Probably A Continuation Of The Problems That Ended Last Year's School Year.

The major question on everybody's mind is what will be the changes in the upcoming 2012-13 school year from the end of the 2011-12 school year?  Not much if you ask me.  Look for a continuation of the Bloomberg attacks on the classroom  True the Emperor lost the "Turnaround schools" battle and blew $58 million dollars in the process but he is still waging war on the public schools.  Moreover, the Emperor's war with the Teachers' union remains in full force as he refuses to agree to a fair teacher evaluation process and will not negotiate a contract that will have retroactive raises even if he "City pattern" requires it.

The only major change will be a weakening of the student discipline code that will make teachers even more powerless to control their classrooms.  The result will be that a few disruptive students will make learning difficult for the rest of the students. No longer can teachers suspend students who are insubordinate, disruptive, or curse at the teacher.  Instead it's parent conferences, assuming the parent bothers to show up or follow up in disciplining their child. My fellow blogger South Bronx School has an interesting article on the weakening of the student discipline code by the DOE.

It's possible, but not likely that the DOE will finally offer a buyout for long-term ATRs but I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening despite the persistent rumors.  It is also likely that class sizes will continue to increase.as the already tight school budgets are required to pay for more non-classroom programs and CFN personnel.

The bottom line, look for the 2012-13 school year to be very similar to the terrible 2011-12 school year as the Bloomberg Administration's war on the teachers' union and the classroom teacher continues as the Emperor tries to close more schools and advocate Charters and wastes a billion or more dollars on technology, consultants, and programs that have little or no positive impact in the classroom. . It is and remains "children last"....Always. under Bloomberg and his pet poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott for the 2012-13 school year..

Mayor Bloomberg Can Minimize Layoffs Of City Workers By Placing ATRs In All Existing Vacancies

The Mayor experienced a major setback when a judge ruled that the City's plan to sell taxi medallions for fare pickups in the outer boroughs and north of 96th street in Manhattan was unconstitutional since it did not get the City Council's approval. (Damn, if he really was the Emperor, no lousy judge could ever stop his decrees).  The halting of the "green cab" program has blasted a $625 million dollar hole in the budget and a possible $1.4 billion dollars for the next three years.  What is the Mayor's response?  He has proposed layoffs of City workers and more efficiencies in the government.  Of course don't look for reductions in high-priced consultants or technology projects, instead there will be less resources available and of course, a continuation of a salary freeze.  While I do not have the knowledge of how to close the entire budget gap, I do know how he can put a significant dent into it and that is placing ATRs into the many vacancies that are available,

Starting the 2012-13 school year, there will be approximately 2,000 ATRS, despite the DOE's claim of less.  That means that even if some of them get hired provisionally, you can still expect over 1,000 ATRs floating around for the year.  That means that $165 million dollars, not including fringe benefits,  will be wasted by the City in paying those ATRs when vacancies are being covered by long and short term substitute teachers. Therefore, if the Mayor is truly serious about saving money and close the budget gap, he should start by ordering the DOE to start placing ATRs in the vacancies.

I do wonder why our union has not brought this up publicly as a cost-saving method to close the City budget gap?  It would seem obvious to me that this proposal is a public relations win for the union and puts the Mayor on the defensive but then again our union's actions or inaction are sometimes part of the problem and not the solution.  In any case, if the Mayor is looking for "efficiency" the effective use of ATRs by placing them in the vacancies is as efficient as it gets.

Why Doesn't The Union File Expedited Grievances When Selected Teachers Are Reassigned Out Of Their Borough?

There seems to be a misconception that there are no more "rubber rooms" and teachers mo longer spend many months and even years out of the classroom.  While most of these teachers will find themselves in their local CFN offices.  However, for some selected and targeted teachers that the DOE have singled out, are send to the far reaches of New York City.  To me, this is simply vindictive and presumes guilt even before a decision is made.  In one case I know of the teacher wasn't even charged and still was sent to a different Borough! According to the UFT contract and Chancellor's Regulation C-770, a teacher who is removed from their school will be placed in the District Office and for the most part the DOE abides by that interpretation of the contract. In fact, here is what the DOE wrote about reassigned teachers.

“5. Assignments for Suspended Employees http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-82/C-770__9-5-00.pdf

It should be noted that, during the period of suspension, all individuals are expected to
perform duties appropriate to their regular assignments, insofar as possible. The duties
will depend, of course, upon the circumstances surrounding the suspension.
Suspended employees are to be assigned within their own districts or divisions. Requests
for a temporary change of assignment because of extraordinary circumstances must be
directed in writing to the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources, with
supporting statements for the request. The Executive Director shall confer with the Office  of Legal Services regarding this request. The employee is not to be reassigned from the district or division until written authorization has been granted.”

 
 However, for those selected and targeted teachers, the DOE has chosen to make their life as difficult as possible. Let's look at two examples of what the DOE has done to two different teachers.

Example 1:  A District 26 middle school teacher in Queens was sent to Staten Island while waiting months for his 3020-a decision,despite the DOE's own written policy.  The teacher asked the union to file an expedited grievance to get him reassigned to either his District Office or local CFN.  Instead, the UFT representative filed an ordinary grievance that could take a year or more to be heard.  The teacher has now left the DOE and his grievance has still not been heard.   You would think the union would continue to pursue the grievance to make sure that the DOE's vindictive action would no longer be allowed and other teachers would not be subject to abusive travel conditions.  As far as I know the union might have dropped the grievance since the teacher no longer is employed by the DOE.

Example 2:  A District 31 Staten Island middle school teacher, Francesco Portelos, was reassigned to Queens despite the DOE's written policy that Mr. Porteles should have been reassigned to Staten Island.  I assume he has had the union file a grievance but as far as I know, Mr. Porteles has been officially reassigned to Queens once again this school year with no 3020-a charges as of yet.   You can read all about Francesco Portelos on his blog.

The question is why hasn't the UFT followed through with the grievance?  I would think that the DOE's apparent violation of the contract and their own policy is worthy of a grievance that the union should follow through with.  Is it not the union's duty to represent all their members?  Does the union buy into the DOE's policy of the teacher being guilty if accused?  If not, why the inaction in allowing these selected and targeted teachers to be subject to outrageous and costly commutes?

The bottom line is the union has a responsibility to protect these teachers and not buy into the vindictive actions of the DOE.

The Treacherous Road To The Teacher Evaluation Process, The Contract Negotiations, And A Resolution To The ATR Crises.

As we all know that contract negotiations between the Blommberg Administration and the UFT is at a standstill.  Our last contract expired in October of 2009, three years ago.and it is very apparent that as long as the Mayor is in office there will not be any meaningful contract negotiations between the two parties.  Yes, the union has declared an impasse and a PERB mediator is trying to find "common ground" for the two parties to agree as a starting point in the complex and complicated path to a negotiated settlement.  However, in reality, it is in the best interest of both parties to simply wait to 2014 before a new contract is negotiated.

In the Bloomberg Administration's case no contract means it is not subject to the "City pattern" headache which would mean giving teachers and other UFT represented staff up to 8% raises for the first two years that PERB Arbitration would probably result in.  With no contract, the Mayor can leave office showing that he held the line against teachers by giving "no retroactive raises".Of course he has simply "kicked the can down the road" and leaves the tricky and politically treacherous contract negotiations to the next Mayor but that is the next Mayor's problem not his.

For the union, no contract means that the existing contract rules stray in effect, thanks to the Tribourough Amendment, and any demands for "givebacks" must wait for a new contract and the union rather not negotiate a contract under the existing hostile political and economic climate where demands for massive givebacks would be demanded and the mass media would be whipped into a frenzy to ensure these massive givebacks become a reality.

Consequently, it appears in the best interest of both parties to wait until the Bloomberg Administration leaves office and the City's economy improves before any serious contract negotiations actually occurs.

That brings me to the teacher evaluation process.  What many people fail to understand is that no teacher evaluation program can be implemented without a contract!  Yes, the teacher evaluation program requires a change in the contract which means that the union can and should require that any teacher evaluation program be part of the next contract and not change the existing contract. That would be a betrayal to its members if the union changed the existing contract to accommodate the City and approve the  teacher evaluation program. While it is true that the Bloomberg Administration broke off the teacher evaluation negotiations because of the appeals process (where a measly 13% of the teachers can challenge their "ineffective rating").   A more serious problem for the Mayor was that any agreed upon teacher evaluation program required a change in the teacher contract and would must certainly forced the Bloomberg Administration to negotiate a new contract with the union, something the Mayor does not want to do.  Unless the union was foolish or incompetent, the union should never negotiate a new contract without the retroactive raises and resist any "givebacks" if the City wanted to implement the teacher evaluation program and the Mayor knows it. 

Finally, there is the ATR crises, the Bloomberg Administration has made it clear that they want to fire the ATRs who are mostly highly-paid senior teachers.  The Bloomberg Administration over the last few years have  proposed an ATR time limit, an end LIFO bill, a useless weekly assignment,and now possibly a buyout.  The union, to their credit, has held firm on the ATR time limit issue since they saw what happened in Chicago when an ATR time limit was implemented and resulted in many senior teachers being fired as the schools refused to fill their vacancies with the ATRs.  While, I truly believe the union will continue to hold firm on the ATR issue, it will probably be  the primary demand of the next Administration and our union must be pro-active on this issue and demand that the new Administration require the DOE to go back to the old rules that require principals to hire excessed teachers in their district before they can hire a teacher outside the DOE,  nothing less is acceptable.

In summary, the complex and complicated nature of the next contract can be simplified as a combination of politics, egos, and most of all, the final agreed-upon teacher evaluation program.  Furthermore,  and hopefully a resolution of the ATR crises to the satisfaction of the affected members.

There Are Rumors That The DOE And The UFT Have Reached A Framework For An ATR Buyout. The Question, If True? What Are The Details?

I have heard rumors that the UFT and DOE have reached a tentative agreement for the price of the buyout for long-term ATRS, (more than one year).   The rumor is the amount of the proposed buyout is a less than generous 50% of  he ATR's 2012-13 salary and will be implemented during the beginning of the school year in September.  The question is that knowing the DOE have they demanded that the ATR Agreement  be adjusted to, lets say a time limit?  While I do not believe that the union would agree to an ATR time limit, it was our union that unwisely agreed to the creation of the ATRs in the first place so anything is possible.

The problem is that the DOE and UFT historically negotiate in secrecy and lack transparency while the union continuously fails to solicit input from the affected members.  For example the ATR Agreement did not include input from those affected, the ATRs.  Further, the union failed to include an ATR in the negotiating committee for the ATR Agreement that apparently has never met! Furthermore, despite the many complaints by ATRs about the weekly placements, neither side has responded to these complaints or have bothered to find a more reasonable and efficient use of these experienced teachers. Finally, despite admissions by principals that they hide vacancies and hire outside long-term substitutes, the union has failed to file an expedited grievance to stop this practice that violates the ATR Agreement while the DOE looks the other way when their principals don't follow the rules

.

For an ATR buyout to be effective, it would need to include the two-year pension credit that all Tier I members receive when they retire.  The inclusion of a tw0-year pension credit is worth between a 4-11% increase in the pension and combined with the 50% salary buyout would encourage many ATRs to leave the system.  On the other hand, the buyout rumored to be given to ATRs will see only a few ATRs willing to take the money and they are the ones that have delayed retirement in the first place after the Chancellor told the press in the Spring of the buyout offer to ATRs.

While the ATR buyout proposal is a start, it must be part of a more comprehensive solution that includes the following::

• Two-year pension credit with the buyout.
• No outside teacher can be hired in the District until the ATRs certified in the subject area are placed. 
• Incentives for Principals to hire ATRs, similar to 2008-09.
• Disciplining and penalizing principals who fail to hire ATRs for their vacancies.
• Expedited grievances when the DOE fails to enforce the ATR Agreement.
• A joint committee that includes ATRs to ensure all the contract provisions are being implemented, enforced,  and the affected members informed.

The bottom line line is that the union has allowed the Mayor and Chancellor to demonize the ATRs as "lazy and bad teachers", while ignoring the age and salary discrimination that is obvious to all intelligent observers.  This must end now and the union must be pro-active in their advocacy of their 2,000 strong ATRs.   Nothing less is acceptable.

For Veteran Teachers, The Open Market Transfer System For 2012 Has Been A Joke.

While the DOE and UFT keep the actual statistics secret, and for good reason, anecdotal evidence suggest that few veteran teachers received offers from schools under the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS)  As in the previous years, it seems that younger, and non-tenured teachers were the beneficiaries using the OMTS as they received numerous interviews and had their choice of positions.

Of all the teachers who applied under the OMTS, only one semi-veteran teacher I know actually received an interview and he just turned 30 with eight years teaching experience (he didn't get the position and thinks the Principal didn't like the fact he was tenured). By contrast all my veteran teaching colleagues have experienced complete frustration as they applied for various positions on the OMTS and did not even get courtesy responses and went to the bogus DOE job fairs that were a complete waste of time.

For some of you who think that the principals are not discriminating against veteran teachers, think again. Do you remember this article?  Furthermore, principals are now able to hire new teachers to replace veteran teachers who have either resigned or retired, it is highly unlikely that schools will hire veteran teachers because of budgetary and Administrative control reasons.

I suspect that there will be an increase in ATRs this year, maybe over 2000 since the loosening of new teacher hiring restrictions will free principals from offering ATRs a provisional position as they did last year.  The union negotiated ATR Agreement has and is a joke as the union failed to get the DOE to discipline principals who routinely violated the ATR Agreement.  See my previous post here.

In conclusion, unless the union puts the DOE's feet to the fire, it will be a long school year for the ATRs as they waste their time and career moving weekly from school to school in their district.

To Be An Effective Teacher You Need The Proper Resources, Administrative Support, And Most Of All, An Enforceable Student Discipline Policy.

I keep hearing the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg, and his poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott claim that they want "effective teachers" in the classroom.  However for a teacher to be "effective" the teacher must have the necessary tools to achieve that designation and that is the problem.  What the Bloomberg Administration fails to do to is to provide the tools to make a teacher "effective",  The City fails to provide resources and support to help the classroom teacher to become a quality teacher.  Even the usually Mayor friendly New Teacher Project identified the many failures of the Mayor's education policy in the New York City Public Schools.  According to the TNTP report the following problems were found and need to be addressed.

• Poor retention rates with 15% leaving yearly considered " effective or highly effective".
• Poor working conditions that result in a  low 50% retention rate within five years of teaching.
• Poor school cultures.
• Lack of Administrative support, especially principal leadership issues.
• Lack of resources.

Mind you, this report is by a pro-reform group and even they could not ignore the failures that the Bloomberg Administration has brought on to the New York City Public School students.  The report could, and should have added the following problems that hurt student academic achievement and they are,

• Increasing class size
• Lack of an enforceable student discipline code.
• poor teacher morale.
• lack of respect for teachers by the Bloomberg Administration.

Of all the problems listed above I find that the failure of the DOE and school Administration to enforce the student discipline code is the most serious obstacle for effective classroom teaching. When students realize that the Administration will not back up the teacher, the teacher is then handicapped and it is unreasonable to believe that a teacher in a low preforming school with high poverty rates and large percentages of Special Education and English Language Learners would be able to achieve high test scores without these children getting extensive wraparound services and a zero-tolerance discipline policy.

Teachers who work with the academically-challenged population must have not only Administrative support but his or her student's family must receive professional assistance and the student should have after-school programs and services to  help them academically as well as behaviorally.  Presently, the City does not offer adequate wraparound services to these children, instead it it easier for the Mayor and Chancellor to blame teachers for the student's failure to behave and succed academically rather then provide the necessary wraparound services for student academic achievement.

The best method to improve student academic achievement is to enforce student discipline and get these disruptive students the help they and their family needs so that the teacher can become the "effective teacher"  that the Mayor and Chancellor claim they want/  All other strategies fall behind the most important factor and that is a peaceful classroom where students can learn without disruptions from a behaviorally-challenged student.

Why Doesn't The DOE Punish Principals Who Hide Their Vacancies? Because They Do Not Care To.

The actions by Principal Ann Chester at Fort Hamilton High School has spotlighted that many principals  refuse to hire ATRs for their vacancies, not because the principals believe that the ATRs are lousy teachers but because the school would need to pick up their salaries.  Instead, the principals will hide the vacancies and pick up long-term substitute teachers who will cost the schools one third the salary of an ATR and do not have tenure.    Since the DOE has shown little interest in going after the principals who violate the ATR Agreement with the union, the practice is widespread and has resulted in far more ATRs than there should be.

Gotham Schools wrote a great article about how Principal Ann Chester circumvented the rules and underpaid many substitute teachers to save money.  Of course, that also meant that no ATRs needed to apply for the vacancies since the Principal falsely claimed that they were covered.  In the Gotham Schools article an anomoynous Principal said the following.

It is not uncommon for school leaders to skirt the hiring rules from time to time to ease in favored candidates, according to the principal of another large high school. But the principal said the skirting usually happens only in very limited circumstances, such as when the school wants to hold on to an excellent student teacher for a year until a position opens up. Informed that Chester might have hired at least 14 teachers in this manner, the principal expressed shock, saying, “Everybody does it, but nobody has done it to this degree.”

 Of course, Anne Chester is still Principal of Fort Hamilton High School as the SCI Investigation is just about finished and since the DOE has failed to take any real action against her, look for other principals to thumb their collective noses at the DOE and refuse to hire ATRs to cover their vacancies to save a few coins.  

"Children last"....Always.

The DOE Claims "Children First"...Always. However, The Truth Is Otherwise. Just Ask The Students At Jamaica High School.

The DOE has a slogan that claims "children first"...Always, except it is not true.  The DOE is much more interested in their own pseudo-reform policies that waste millions of dollars on useless technology, high-priced consultants, and Administrative bloat.  When it comes to real improvements in classroom resources that directly affected the children, the DOE pleads poverty and blames school Administrators and staff for the lack of proper materials that are necessary to educate the students.

 A case in point is Jamaica High School that was starved for resources and complaints were made to the State Department of Education (SED) about the effects of lack of resources on the students at the school.  To the shock of most everybody, the SED, presented with the overwhelming evidence by Chapter Leader James Eterno and State Senator Tony Avella, wrote a damming report summerizing how the DOE hurt the students of Jamaica High School by starving them of resources, truncating their course selections, and worst of all, had non-certified teachers teaching Special Education students! In summary, here is what the State found.

 · No honors or advance placement classes are offered to students
· The school no longer offers calculus, chemistry, or physics
· Only three electives are offered to students
· Off –track classes are no longer available
· Students are not offered SAT prep courses
· Students are not able to complete specialty programs such as Business, Computer Science,
Engineering and Finance Institutes or Art Institutes
· Two teachers are not certified in the subject area they are teaching

  The entire report can be found here.

 Interestingly, the major media mouthpieces of the media, the New York Daily News, the New York Post, and the New York Times bothered to report it.  Only NY1 ran with the report and can be found here.

The ICEUFT blog has been writing about the Jamaica High School situation and is a must read for the history of the DOE's attempts to destroy a once great school.

New York State Education Department Finally Agrees That The NYC DOE School Selection Policy Puts Low-Performing Students In Selected Large Comprehensive Schools.

Over the years educational critics have complained that the DOE's school selection policy that put high needs and low-performing students (Special Education, English Language Learners, Behavioral, and Attendance issues) into the few, selected large comprehensive schools while allowing the small Bloomberg created schools to exclude them. From the time of Chancellor Joel Klein to the present the DOE would boldly deny that their school selection program was biased.  Now the DOE has reluctantly admitted that their school selection program was discriminatory, after the State Department of Education Commissioner John King sent a letter to Chancellor Dennis Walcott complaining about the DOE's school selection policy..  The Chancellor committed to change the system by October  2012.

In all cases the DOE's school selection process forced selected large comprehensive schools to increase their number of high needs students.  Now that the State SED has told the DOE to change the school selection process, the DOE has informed the State that it will changed it for the 2013-14 school year. 
All I can say is "seeing is believing".

There Is No Excuse Mayor Bloomberg And Chancellor Walcott For Your Failure To Narrow The Racial Achievement Gap. Instead It Actually Widened!

With the release of the 2012 test scores for the elementary and middle schools the data shows that the student  racial achievement gap has widened since 2006.  As Mayor Bloomberg's ed deformer friends would say, there are no excuses for the widening of the racial achievement gap if his educational policies were working.  Therefore, the Mayor and Chancellor must take the blame and the "accountability" for their failure to narrow the racial student achievement gap between whites and minorities.  

In 2006 the ELA racial achievement gap between Blacks and Whites was 30.5% which has widened to 32.1% in the latest 2012 results.  The differences between Hispanics and Whites in 2006 was 30.7% and widened to 33.1% in 2012.  The racial achievement gap also widened between Blacks and Whites for Math.  In 2006 the racial achievement gap was 29.4% and in the 2012 results widened to 31.6%.  One bit of good news is that the achievement gap between Hispanics and Whites actually narrowed a little..  The entire report can be found on the DOE website.

Malsie McAdoo has taken apart the entire report and her conclusions, which I share, show that the Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott reforms have been a failure and even the miniscule rises in the school report are questionable.  Her analysis is in Edwize and can be found here.

To read and hear the Mayor's press releases, one would think that the schools were improving.  However, these statements are higher distorted truths and downright lies.  In other words the Mayor's claim of significant improvement of student academic achievement is a "bunch of crap" The bottom line is that the local news media must hold the Mayor and Chancellor "accountable" for the widening racial student achievement gap and question the failed policies of this Administration that has put their political motives first and the "NYC public school children last.

The Bogus 18D Interview Process And Why Did The UFT Even Participate In This Travesty?

As you all know for 24 "turnaround schools", teachers were forced to reapply for their jobs and in almost all cases the results were very predictable.  The most senior, lead teachers were retained and many of the untenured etchers were as well.  Moreover, the younger and less expensive you were, the better the chances that you would be rehired by the new school. What was laughable was the union's participation in this travesty and how they claimed, very unconvincingly, that all the teachers had an equal chance to be rehired.  According to the union, the teachers who had the most effective interviews would be rehired and not on anything else.  Yeah right, and I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you really believe it is true..

To prove my case, I bring you a young, female, and untenured foreign language teacher who told her colleagues, while crying,  that she froze in her18D interview.  According to the teachers in her Department she couldn't answer even the simplest question and her fifteen minute interview took over 35 minutes to complete as the 18D committee had to ask her time and again the same questions and gently push her to say something.  After gently trying to prod her for answers, the 18D committee finally gave up and thanked her for coming in.   On the other hand, I decided to interview for a position and was well-prepared for the interview.  I answered all their questions clearly and concisely and even did an impressive simple science demonstration.  In other words  I "aced the interview"  and left the room after my allotted fifteen minutes.

Who did you think received a job offer?   The frozen in fear female foreign language teacher where there are many ATRs and outside language teachers available or me in a hard to fill "Earth Science" position with little competition?  You guessed it, the former.  Of course what I forgot to tell you is that she is in her 20s and I am in my 60s and I make $40,000 more than her.  Get the message?

To be fair, I never intended to come back to the school and the only reason I interviewed was to experience the 18D committee process first hand and to prepare a portfolio since it seems that all schools want teachers to present a portfolio..  Had they unexpectedly hired me, I would have declined the invitation as the school is overcrowded with  real discipline problems that made me uncomfortable and frustrated as a teacher.  In fact one of my CTT classes was short a teacher and nobody seemed to care.  Seriously, I rather be an ATR than land a position in the school where there are few deans, students are allowed to show up as they pleased and all the "accountability " is placed on the teacher and not anybody else.

The Principal of the school was just arrested for possession of "crystal Meth" by the police near the school and his  future is uncertain. However, unlike teachers, I do not see the Principal being terminated by the DOE under Section 3020-a but be quietly given an office job in a network like all the other problem principals until the fuss dies down and he reappears as a new Principal in another  unfortunate school.  The double standard that applies to disciplining principals is alive and well.

I Nominate Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Walcott For The Knucklehead Award As They Lose $58 Million Dollars In Their Ill-Conceived Turnaround Policy.

I have nominated Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Walcott for the "knucklehead award" for their risky and ill-conceived  "turnaround policy" that was thrown out by the Arbitrator.  The "turnaround policy" was a result of the Mayor having a temper tantrum when he failed to get his way on the  appeal process and stopped negotiating with the teachers' union.  In fact the Chancellor unwisely ordered the DOE negotiators to cease negotiating with the teacher union on the teacher evaluation system that resulted in the impasse we have presently..

It was at this point that the Mayor and Chancellor decided to follow through with the "turnaround policy", despite deep reservations from many education observers had about the strategy. including the State.  These education experts questioned the City's version and the many adjustments to the federal requirements that are required for a school to qualify for "turnaround". However, the Mayor and Chancellor refused to listen to these education officials and selected 33 schools for the City version of "turnaround".  Interestingly some of the worst schools were spared "turnaround" because of political reasons an example was Boys and; Girls high school which is one of the worst schools in the NYC system and was given an "F" on the DOE's report card.

The union took the City to court and to Arbitration and in Arbitrator ruled that the City's "turnaround policy" was simply a method to get around collective bargaining rights and get rid of unwanted staff.  In fact the Arbitrator used the Mayor's own words against him as the basis for his decision.  Now the City had to tell the new principals that they must rehire the teachers they wanted to get rid of.  If morale was bad before what will it be for the 2012-13 school year where teachers will be looking over their shoulders waiting for the Principal to "U" rate them.  I foresee chaos at these schools and all because of the ill-conceived and vindictive policy by a Mayor who did not get his way.

For the Mayor and Chancellor it is "children last"....always. as they lost $58 million dollars and put the 24 schools into utter chaos and that is why they are worthy nominees of the ":knucklehead award".

The Christine Rubino Facebook Decision And Why The Arbitrator's Award Is Excessive.

As many of my followers know, Christine Rubino's case has made the newspapers.  She was charged by the DOE for her Facebook comments that, were to say the least, ill considered and wrong.  However, this was Christine's private Facebook page and only her friends should have been able to see it.  Unfortunately, for Christine she had a falling out with one of her teacher friends who ratted her out to the Principal.   Despite the DOE having no policy on social media at the time and no students were hurt by what she said on Facebook, Christine was charged under section 3020-a anyway. In fact, she continued teaching until her 3020-a charges more than five months later!

She was assigned an Arbitrator, Randi Lowett, who people in the 3020-a hearing process believed was reasonably even-handed in her "awards".  However, according to Betsy Combier in Christine's open and public 3020-a hearing, this one was different.  The DOE seemed especially interested in terminating Christine for her Facebook comments and in many of the sessions the head of the "Administrative Trials Unit (ATU), Teresa Europe, showed up.  According to Betsy Combier who has been in many 3020-a hearings, this was a rare event to see the head of the ATU show up on more than one occasion.   The question must be asked did Teresa Europe showing up at Christine's 3020-a hearing influenced Arbitrator Randi Lovett's decision?  Furthermore, since Christine had fired her NYSUT lawyer, did this make it easier for the Arbitrator to terminate Christine?  I do not know the answers but I have my own suspicions.  The Arbitrator's original decision can be found here.

Based upon the Arbitrator's decision to terminate Christine Rubino for her Facebook comments it would seem that the "award" was excessive and Christine rightly appealed the case under section 75-11. The Supreme Court Judge, Barbara Jaffae, ruled that the "award"  was shocking to the conscious" and sent it back to Arbitrator Randi Lovett, for a less severe "award".  In the meantime the DOE has appealed the Judge's decision to the Appellate Court and since they were required to follow the Judge's decision for a lesser "award", the DOE arbitrarily asked that the Arbitrator rule that a two-year suspension would be appropriate.  This type of severe penalty has not been "awarded" since the turn of the century to any one's knowledge.  Either the educator gets a one year suspension or is terminated.  The last two year suspension issued by a NYS Arbitrator is in the 1990's and that was based upon more serious charges.

Shockingly, but not surprisingly, the Arbitrator Randi Lowett agreed with the DOE and issued a two year suspension without pay or health benefits in what reads as a very angry decision.  Christine is appealing again against the excessive "award" issued by the Arbitrator and  hopefully, the Judge will once again send it back to a different Arbitrator, this time, for a decision that does not "shock the conscious".

I really know how Cristine feels about her persecution by the DOE.  I spent 1567 days in the "rubber room" on false and frivolous charges and even this year the Mayor's poodle, the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott proclaimed me guilty even after the real evidence showed otherwise. Read the following blogs for more information on the DOE's crusade against Christine Rubino, a teacher with a fifteen year unblemished record.  Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.

According To A Former Stooge Of Bloomberg And Klein All Educational Decisions Are Now Based Upon Political Considerations Than What Is Best For The Children.

Last week the former Deputy Chancellor, Eric Naldestern wrote an article that stated that all the educational decisions needed to be vetted on what was best for the Mayor's political ambitions and not what was goods for the children.  In his working paper he concluded the following:

 The city Department of Education is politically motivated, riddled with waste, and making policy choices that won’t lead to improved student achievement.

Worse is what he said about the Mayor's education policy.as practiced by his ex-buddies at Tweed.  Mr Nadelstern said the following:

 (they see] their primary role as creating opportunities for Bloomberg to step onto a national political stage after he [leaves] city government. Education reforms [are] now...evaluated on the basis of whether they contribute capital to the mayor’s political aspirations.

Of course, Mr Nalderstern was no educational crusader himself and as far as I was concerned he quit the DOE because the Mayor did not see fit to make him the next Chancellor and selected the incompetent Cathie Black instead.  In fact, many of Eric's flunkies also left the DOE in this period of Cathie Black.Under Eric Nalderstern's tenure at the DOE and as Joel Klein's Deputy Chancellor,   he implemented many disastrous policies.  His whining about the DOE is just like the hypocrite he is. Remember, wasn't it Mr. Nadelstern who said that two thirds of NYC teachers need improvement? While in charge, everything was just fine even when the same political issues were present at the DOE during this time. Here are just some of what he was responsible for.

1. The creation of 62 useless Networks, that became a dumping ground for principals and other unwanted administrators who were removed from their schools, while keeping the 32 Superintendent lead Districts.  A complete waste of money. and duplication.
2. The formation of the ATR crises as he allowed principals to hire who they pleased while the DOE had to pay 160 million dollars yearly for teachers with no classroom positions.
3. The explosion of reassigned teachers (rubber room) as Mr. Naldelstern allowed principals to remove teachers for the most frivolous and bogus reasons.  The total reached a peak of 800+ and cost the DOE 100 million dollars annually.
4. The dismantling of the large comprehensive highs schools by starving them of resources and dumping a high percentage of Special Education and ELL students into the schools.
5. The development of the small themed schools that included a business manager, a program developer, and a resource coordinator, all non-educators.  While not enrolling Special Education, and ELL students to artificially raise student achievement at those schools.
6. Finally, it was under his supervision that the DOE wasted millions of dollars on consultants and the money never seemed to make it to the classroom and the children.

In a nutshell, Eric Nalderstern policies at the DOE was "the problem and not the solution" when it came to improving student outcomes. I say good riddance and stop crying since you were a major Architect for the ongoing present-day disaster at the DOE.

The Mayor Loses Yet Again As A Judge Refused To Issue An Injunction Stopping The Rehiring Of Teachers In The Turnaround Schools.

The Mayor loses yet again as a Supreme Court Judge refused the City's request to issue an injunction to stop the rehiring of teachers in the 24 "turnaround schools" that the new principals "pink slipped" .  According to Gotham Schools, the judge, Joan Lobis of the New York Supreme Court ruled against the City and her refusal to issue an injunction was based upon the City failing to meet the two requirements that allows for the issuance of such an injunction. 

According to the judge, the City failed to meet the requirements for issuing an injunction.

To win an injunction, plaintiffs have to prove two things: that they would suffer “irreparable harm” while their case is pending and that they have a strong likelihood of ultimately winning their case. Lobis said today that she didn’t find the department convincing on either point.

The Mayor's third term has been an educational disaster.  First his educational miracle on student academic achievement turned out to be "smoke and mirrors".  Second, his claim that the graduation rate has improved was based upon massive and bogus "credit recovery programs" and a "college and; career readiness rate" of 20% and only 11% in the small school he created.  Third, he lost on the "last in, first out" where his LIFO bill died in the State Assembly and ignored by the Governor. Now it is his sham turnaround schools policy as the courts have ruled against him.

The educational legacy of Mayor Bloomberg will be as a loser!

The Mayor And The DOE Put Their Collective Foot In Their Mouth According To The Arbitrator In His Ruling Against THe Sham Turnaround Policy.

The Mayor demanded what the rationale was for the Arbitrator to rule against the City i9n its sham "turnaround policy" of the 24 schools. Well, late on Friday the Arbitrator published his decision and he ruled against the City and the DOE based upon their own words. Talking about putting your "foot in your mouth". Gotham Schools reported the Arbitrator's decision and the actual document and it can be found here. The Arbitrator's reasoning was that the DOE's circular reasoning to close and reopen the schools was based not what was best for the students but what was best for the Bloomberg Administration's goal in getting rid of unwanted teachers (usually senior and expensive) from the schools.

The Arbitrator stated that the City can still pursue the "turnaround option" if they so choose, except they cannot use it as a method to remove teachers since the biases for the City to use the "turnaround option" was to remove teachers not to close the schools. Furthermore, despite the conditional approval the City received from the NYSED Commissioner, John King, the Arbitrator stated that in any definition "newmeans a school that does not exist" not just a name change. Finally, the Arbitrator used the Mayor's and DOE's own words against them as they both made statements that the "turnaround method" was based upon the removal of teachers and not what was best for the students. In fact here are some of the statements made by Mayor Bloomberg and the DOE that the Arbitrator used against them.

Mayor Bloomberg: ”Under this process, the best teachers stay; the least effective go.”

Deputy Chancellor Marc Sternberg also suggested that the school closings were inauthentic, the arbitrator concludes, when he wrote in a memorandum to principals shortly after Bloomberg’s speech explaining that their schools would be closed “as a technical matter”.

The Arbitrator also brought in the Mayor's dislike of the "last in, first out" (LIFO) laws and how he tried to get rid of it the previous year, He also criticized the Chancellor for wasting time and energy on removing teachers rather than obtaining funds for the students. Based upon what was said by the Mayor, the Chancellor, and the DOE he ruled that the closing of the 24 schools was a method to eliminate teachers and not to help the students or actually change the schools.

The Emperor and his royal Administrators lose yet again when they demand it's their way or the highway.only to get run over by a truck called the legal system.

The Emperor Whines That His Decision To Close 24 Schools Was Not Subject To Arbitration After All Now That The City Lost. Boo Hoo!

Well it can now be said that the Mayor's transparent strategy to remove as many senior teachers as he could in one swift action has backfired dramatically and his sham "turnaround schools" ploy has cost the City not only significant money (58 million dollars) but what little credibility the Bloomberg Administration had in the first place. Now that the IINDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR has ruled against the City on the "turnaround schools" and put the 24 schools in utter choas , the Mayor came out and whined how the Arbitrator's logic was faulty and he hurt the children. In fact here was his quote after the City lost the arbitration.

“I can just tell you, there are 24 schools, [and] almost all students there are minorities, single-digit-proficiency levels,” Bloomberg said. “These kids, if they’re there for one more year, will never recover in their entire lives.”

The  Mayor whining about how it hurts the children is a result of the Mayor's temper tantrum when he didn't get what he wanted in the teacher evaluation struggle and made a poorly considered and rash decision to punish the union by imposing the "turnaround model" on 33 schools. The Mayor took a gamble and lost and instead of starting over by using an approved method to change the 24 schools he know claims that the his decision was not subject to arbitration after all and that the City should not have to abide by it.  In fact all the teachers who were rejected in the 18D process are listed in the Open Market System as being in excess.  Despite the UFT win, the DOE acts as if the Arbitrator's decision never happened.

The City has appealed the Arbitrator's decision and have little chance of the courts to reverse the Arbitrator's decision since it was the courts that sent it back to the Arbitrator for a decision and the City agreed only to claim, after the decision, that it should not have been subject to arbitration in the first place.

For the Mayor, when you play a high risk game by rolling the dice you can lose and now you cry about it?

The Emperor Loses A Big One And Gets Royally Screwed As The Independent Arbitrator Strikes Back.

The arrogant Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, lost a big one on Friday when the INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR  ruled against the City on the Mayor's and Chancellor's sham "turnaround" proposal. The Arbitrator ruled that the City could not impose the "turnaround model" without following the Federal and State requirements and since the City had stated that  they will do their own version of the "turnaround model" the Arbitrator ruled it violated the contract with both the UFT and CSA  This is a total victory for the UFT and I congratulate them on their dedication and winning the battle.  While I have decided to move on from my terrible "turnaround school" many of my colleagues will be given back their positions.  However, how will  these teachers feel about working for a Principal that was instrumental in not selecting them for his or her new school?   That is for another post on another day, let's get back to the Emperor and his devastating loss.

Why did the Mayor and Chancellor decide on the City version of the "turnaround model" in the first place?  The simple answer was that the Emperor was angry at the UFT for fighting him tooth and nail on the teacher evaluation system and when the UFT pressured the Governor to intercede on their behalf to impose a compromise on the appeal process that made the Mayor and Chancellor very unhappy.  The compromise was to have 13% of the teachers rated "ineffective" have a three member panel evaluate whether the teacher was truly "ineffective" or was given the rating unfairly by a vindictive Principal.  As for the other 87%?  See you in your next career.   Even if we all believe that the City won a significant weakening of teacher "due process rights"   , the Mayor wanted complete victory and decided on his highly risky policy to get rid of as many teachers as he could to get revenge on the union who dared stop him from achieving total victory.

The "turnaround policy" the Mayor and Chancellor tried to impose was the quickest way to get 2,000 teachers out of the classroom and replace them with other teachers, 40% of them "newbies" to the classroom.  This model would have allowed the City to obtain the $58 million dollars from the Federal government while using the influx into the ATR pool as a weapon for the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration to whine to the news media of the hundreds of million dollars that the City is wasting on these "failed teachers".   Why didn't the Bloomberg Administration simply close the schools if these schools were so bad?  The answer is that it would have taken 3 to 4 years to close the schools, and there was no $58 million dollars to obtain.  Moreover, where would you send the freshman class of low academic achievers?  There are few large schools left to dump these academically struggling students that the Bloomberg small schools refuse to take?   In fact, my school is expected to receive an additional 331 students above  last year's freshmen class, almost all of them struggling academically and requiring a minimum of CTT class instruction.  Finally, by using the "turnaround model" the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration could maximize the removal of over 2,000 teachers from the classroom, many of them senior teachers and hope they retire or resign due to the humiliation and replace them with cheap and untenured teachers who will never last to recieve a pension or retiree health benefits.

Instead of victory the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration has screwed themselves royally.  Not only was their sham "turnaround model" thrown out by the INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR but they lost $58 million dollars that would have received had they stayed with the "restart" and "transformation" models. Further, the Danielson Framework that was being used in those schools and had resulted in many teachers being given an "ineffective rating" was stopped after January 1st and could not be used for the finally ratings of the 2011-2012 school year.Therefore, the few marginal teachers in those schools will be keeping their jobs until the end of the 2013-14 school year and when Bloomberg is no longer Mayor. Talk about screwing oneself?  Instead of eliminating teachers he must keep those teachers while losing much needed funds for the school system. Now that is what I call incompetence.

The result is the Mayor and Chancellor overreached and lost.  Now the question is will they lick their collective wounds and try next year something else or will they come up with another strategy that will eliminate senior teachers and hurt the students.  It is not called "children last" for nothing.

Before I forget, the union should be complemented on their win and I always thought they had a winnable case and I told my colleagues that, based on the facts, the union should win their arbitration case, As for the INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR? it is about time that they strike back against the Emperor and his pet poodle the Chancellor who has insulted and belittled the Arbitrators for their own political ends.