How Could The Union Throw The ATRs Under The Bus For An Inferior Contract?

Reading the education blogs, my emails and speaking to many teachers as I rotate through the schools weekly, the overwhelming sentiment is that the UFT negotiated contract is short on money, too much of it is deferred for too many years in the future, and that they feel sorry that the ATRs are being sacrificed.  However, most will probably vote for the contract since they believe that there's too much risk in not voting for it. Almost universally, the teachers are very uncomfortable with this new three-tiered system that the union agreed to that has "special rules" for the ATRs since it shows that our union is willing to "sellout" a group of its members and that with the expansion of charter schools, they can find themselves in the ATR pool sometime in the future.

The union claims they didn't "throw the ATRs under the bus" and in their flyer they state the following about ATRs:

• "The union stood by its commitment to educators in the ATR pool.  We prevented the DOE from summarily firing ATRs, and we also won a voluntary severance package for ATRs.

• "In a new two-year pilot, ATRs will get improved access to professional and relevant job placements.  Under the new contract, the DOE is obligated after October 15 to send an ATR to any school in the district/borough with a vacanvy in the teacher's license area.  The Principal retains the discretion to keep a teacher or return him or her to the ATR pool".

What the union omitted in their flyer is that the union agreed to "special rules" dealing with ATRs that no other teachers are subject to.  What are these "special rules"?

• When an ATR is found to have committed "unprofessional conduct"  (a vague term subject to abuse) by two principals in two successive years, they will be given an expedited 3020-a one-day hearing to determine if they should be terminated.  

• When an ATR fails to show up twice to a "mandatory interview" in the two year period, they will have voluntarily resigned and taken off payroll.

• When an ATR fails to appear on the second day of a "forced placement", they will have voluntarily resigned and taken off payroll.

• The ATR severance package is inadequate as it gives a resigning (not retiring) ATR only 20% of his or her salary with a maximum of $20,000.  Its also deceptive since these ATRs will lose their "retroactive raises" and pay as well that will exceed the severance payment that is being offered.

• There's no "mutual consent", an ATR must take a "provisional or leave  placement" if a Principal offers it.

• Allows the DOE to continue the useless and demoralizing rotation system that has proven to be a disaster and a colossal waste of money.  Obviously, its being used as a "punitive practice" by the DOE with the UFT's approval.

Untouchables:
 For ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings, no matter how long ago it was, the DOE has imposed "special provisions" for them.   Any ATR that received a fine of $2,000 or more, a suspension of 30 days or longer, or took a stipulation will stay in rotation and the DOE reserves the right not to offer them a mandatory interview or "provisional placement".  In other words, the DOE has decided that these teachers are guilty of their 3020-a charges despite the  findings of an independent Arbitrator that showed that the termination charges were false or frivolous and are now known as the "untouchables" in the the DOE developed and UFT approved, "caste system".  How can the union agree to this is mind-boggling and very unfair system is very troubling.  Combine that with those teachers who were subject to a substantiated corrupt OSI or SCI investigation and "red flagged", the union is allowing the vindictive DOE to unjustly punish these teachers yet again for charges that were found to be untrue in a fair hearing in front of an independent Arbitrator.

When a police precinct or fire station closes or the police officer and fireman is disciplined, they are sent to another precinct or fire station, only the UFT allows their excessed members to suffer the indignities that the DOE has imposed on them.  Please vote NO for this unfair contract that hurts its most vulnerable members.

The Bloomberg Era "Gotcha System" Against Teachers Is Evident In The DOE/UFT Contract.

Its interesting how UFT President Michael Mulgrew, and Chancellor Carmen Farina really like each other and an outsider would think that the twelve year Bloomberg Era of teacher bashing is a thing of the past.  However, the truth is that nothing has changed at the DOE.  The anti-teacher attitude is evident when one looks at the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) section of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which "special provisions" are now part of the contract with regard to the ATRs.  Moreover, for ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings, the DOE preservers their right to refuse to offer them an interview for a "provisional vacancy" or  long-term leave replacement. This is a DOE imposed "caste system" that no self-respecting union would ever allow except ours did.

The Chancellor's failure to "clean house" at the DOE has allowed most of the Bloomberg Era DOE negotiators and policy makers to stay in place.  The result is an anti-teacher bias that continues to permeate throughout the DOE and is quite evident when looking at the MOA.   For example there's no reduction of class sizes, no change in the termination process of the teacher evaluation system, a failure to eliminate the "fair student funding" that encourages principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" and there is no protection against incompetent or vindictive principals.  Furthermore, there's little quantitative actions in the MOA that makes the classroom environment any less hostile than in the Bloomberg years.

As bad as it may seem for the appointed teachers, the new UFT/DOE contract diminishes the "due process rights" for the ATRs.  First, it allows unscrupulous or vindictive principals to cite the vaguely defined "unprofessional conduct" as a basis for pushing the ATR into an expedited one-day 3020-a hearing.  Second, the ATRs can be "forced placed" as principals can decide to hire an ATR for a "provisional appointment" or long-term leave replacement, despite the ATR not wanting to fill the position.  In other words, there's no "mutual consent" as there is for appointed teachers.  Third, if an ATR misses two mandatory interviews in a year,the ATR will have voluntarily resigned and taken off the DOE payroll.  Finally if an ATR fails to show up to a job placement after two days, they will have assumed to have  voluntarily resigned in that case as well.  No such provision is in place for appointed teachers.  It needs to be said that once the two year ATR agreement lapses, will the DOE continue to exempt the ATRs from the "fair student funding" or forces schools to pick up their salaries?  Who knows?

For ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings, the DOE reserves the right not to offer them mandatory interviews or "provisional vacancies" if they were fined $2,000 or more, suspended for 30 days or longer, or took a stipulation.  The DOE has decided that these teachers are guilty of what the DOE charged them with despite the decision of the independent arbitrator after hearing the DOE evidence or lack of such evidence that supported the charges.  Moreover, there is no time limit that the DOE can go back to place these teachers in this category.  That's right they can go back a decade or more for teachers who went through their 3020-a process.  This group has even more diminished rights and will stay in the ATR rotation.

The result is a three tiered teaching system that hurts "unionism" and that no union should ever should accept.  Only the DOE, with its Bloomberg Era anti-teacher bias would propose such a caste system and how the UFT could agree to this is a disgrace. Shame on our union to allow for this travesty and betraying the ATRs to different rules than for other teachers.  Please read Jeff Kaufman's terrific article  on the ICEUFT blog dealing with the ATR issue.  In addition,  another "must read" article on the ICEUFT blog is  James Eterno's insightful analysis of the ATR situation.

The Union Agrees To A Teacher Caste System.

Last night the UFT released the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and has officially descended into the cesspool of collaboration with the DOE by throwing the ATRs "under the bus".  The MOA has severely weakened the ATR  "due process rights" by allowing for an expedited 3020-a hearing based on Principal accusations and misunderstandings that appointed teachers would not be disciplined for. In other words the ATRs are now "second class citizens".

For ATRs who survived their 3020-a hearings, they are being put in a separate class and are known as the "untouchables", the lowest caste.  These ATRs are considered guilty of charges by the DOE even when an independent arbitrator dismissed these termination charges in the 3020-a hearing.  The "untouchables" will not be given mandatory interviews or "provisional appointments" by the DOE and will stay in rotation.  In other words the DOE and UFT are saying "find your own job if you can"!  The "untouchables" consist of all survivors of the 3020-a process  who were fined $2,000 or more, received a 30 month or longer suspension, or agreed to a stipulation. A change of tone at the DOE?  What change of tone?

Apparently, despite assurances that the "fair student funding" would change.  The MOA says no such thing.  Therefore, when ATRs take "provisional vacancies", 95% of them will be excessed at year's end since the schools would have to pay the full ATR salary in the second year.   In other words, there is no change from this and last year. The union may object to my use of the "caste system" but what else do you call it when there are different rules for three different groups of teachers?  For the ATRs excessed from closing schools or programs are now "second class citizens" while ATRs who won their 3020-a discipline hearings are "untouchables" Here are the special rules that apply only to the ATRs and nobody else.

• An expedited one day 3020-a hearing based on two principals in two consecutive years claiming the vaguely worded term "unprofessional conduct".
• Termination when failing to show up for two mandatory interviews.
• Automatic resignation when failing to appear to a "forced placement" after two days.
• No "mutual consent", the ATR has no choice in accepting a position.

For the lowest caste, the "untouchables". ATRs that survived their 3020-a termination hearings or signed a stipulation, will stay in rotation and the DOE will provide no assistance in helping them land a position.  Even when a shortage area occurs and there is no teacher to fill it.  I'm unsure if the DOE will reach out to the "untouchables" to fill the position even in that case.

When a police precinct or fire station is closed or a police officer and fireman are disciplined, they are sent to another precinct or fire station to prove they are still a valuable asset.  No union would sellout the most vulnerable members like the UFT did.  It's obvious the the vindictive Bloomberg Era policies are still in force at the DOE and our union has bought into it with the MOA when it comes to the ATRs.  How can the UFT allow the DOE to impose this vindictive and unfair "caste system" and claim victory?


Vote No for a contract that's short on money and imposes an unfair "caste system" for its teaching members.

The Tentative Salary Schedule For The New Contract.

Here is the tentative salary schedule for selected grades wiith the new contract.

Scale......Present......Fall.......May......May........May ........May
................................14........15.........16.....,.....17..........18

1a..........$45,530...46441...47,834...49,508...51,736.....54,323
8b+5L....$75,796...77,312..79,631....82,418...86,127.....90434
8b+10L..$78,885...80,463...82,877...85,777...89,639....94,119
8b+13L..$80,987...82,085...85,085...88,063...92,057....96,627
8b+15L..$85,426...87,135...89,749...92,890...97,090...101,924
8b+18L..$86,590...88,322...90,921...94,155...98,392...103,312
8b+20L..$95,202...97,106..100,303.104.022.108,703..114,139
8b+22L.$100,048.102,049.105,110.108,789.113,685..119,369

The compounded raise is 19.5% by May of 2018.

Except for new teachers (1a) the pay scale assumes a Masters degree and the 30+ credits to reach maximum on the table for each grade listed.

This does not include lump sum retroactive payments which starts in October of 2015 and ends in October 2020 and is close to $40,000 for top salaried members and $22,000 for members making $60,000.

L = Longevity raise.

The UFT schedule, just released is Here.

A Contract That Michael Bloomberg Would Be Proud Of.

The UFT and the union-friendly progressive Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio agreed to a nine year contract on Thursday and while the "devil is in the details" as there is no Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), it appears that our union leadership did a poor job in negotiating a fair and just contract for its members.  The new contract is short on money which will not even cover the inflation rate of the last three years in New York City, defers many of the raises and "retroactive pay" to future years, weakens "due process rights" of ATRs, allows for "merit pay" and allows some schools to be run like "charter schools".

The Money:
The UFT managed to get from the City the two 4% raises we were entitled to from the previous "City pattern" and with full retroactivity.  However, it comes at a cost.  The two 4% raises were chopped into four 2% increases starting in May of 2015 and ending in May of 2018.   The "retroactive pay" will also be separated into four parts with the first 12.5% of the lump sum payout being handed out in October 2015 and the last one being given to us in October 2020.  For some reason there is no lump sum payout in October of 2016.  The table can be found Here.  The remainder of the contract works out to be a 10% raise for  seven years or a 1.43% annual raise for the life of the contract, less that the New York City inflation rate of 2.2% in the last three years. Finally, all members will be getting a $1,000 bonus after approving the contract that covers the one and a half years where there were "zero raises" (2011 and 2012) .  The total contract value, assuming one lasts to 2020, will be 18% for nine years and after compounding 19.5%, with "full "retroactive pay".

Interestingly, teachers who resigned (not retired) or were terminated between 2009-11 will not get any of the money, while those who resign or get terminated after 2011 will only get the raises entitled to them up to the date of resignation/termination and that goes for the lump sum "retroactive pay" as well.  To encourage veteran teachers to retire, the contract allows for paying the retiring member all of the "retroactive raise" and lump sum payments at the time of retirement as long as the member retires by June 30th of 2015. Members who retire after that date will get the the "retroactive raises" and lump sum payouts at the time active members do.

ATR "Due Process Rights":
The contract addresses the ATR problem by allowing the DOE to pick off the weakest members of the ATR pool. The new contract allows the DOE to initiate an "expedited 3020-a hearing" that includes a one day trial in front of an arbitrator, after two separate principals find that the teacher committed unprofessional behavior.  This could be "time and attendance" misconduct, or insubordination.  This also includes failure to show up for job interviews and a refusal to take a job offer.  The problem here is how will "unprofessional behavior" be defined?  Lot's of potential abuse without it explicitly spelled out. Definitely a weakling of "due process rights".

 The contract also states that all ATRs will fill all school vacancies after October 15th.  In other words the ATRs get "sloppy seconds" and usually in schools where teachers quit because of the school environment.  The DOE has promised that schools will pick up the ATR salaries over the "average teacher salary" of the school to encourage Principal hiring of the ATRs.  Finally, there is to be a severance package for ATRs to leave, possibly up to a year of salary.

Merit Pay:
The union agreed to two forms of "merit pay"they are a new “career ladder” compensation system, where high-performing teachers can earn yearly bonuses of $7,500 or $20,000 for allowing colleagues to observe their work or sharing best practices. Teachers who work at certain schools in low-income areas will be paid a $5,000 bonus. Low-rated teachers won’t receive the bonus, the city said.

Expanding Sexual Misconduct:
The new contract will allow the DOE to terminate teachers under the "sexual misconduct" provision for sexually charged texting and for inappropriate touching.  I guess Campbell Brown's crusade was partially successful.  The problem lies with how they define "inappropriate touching"?  I see real abuse here, especially with the corrupt SCI and OSI investigation process.

Rearranging Time:
There will be no extra time and for single session schools the existing 37.5 minute extra time will be used for professional development and parent calls/meeting.  Multi-session schools have an option
but since many of the schools went to a 4-1 Science schedule, they really cannot reduce class time without violating New York State Education Law due to minimum classroom time requirements  There will be four parent teacher conferences instead of two.  However, the time period extends from 2.5 to 3 hours for parent teacher conference days and evenings.

Teacher Evaluation:
The components under Danielson will go from 22 to 8 and no artifacts.  The DOE will work with the UFT to make more changes, going forward.  The  unfair termination procedures and number of observations remain unchanged.

Paperwork:
A joint committee, with a mediator,  will be formed to determine if current paperwork  is necessary.  Disagreements will go to an arbitrator if an impasse is declared.

200 Schools With No Contract:
There will be 200 schools selected where the UFT/DOE contract and provisions will not apply.  In other words, a charter school with extended days, extra duties, and tenure restrictions.. 


Let's see if this contract met the Michael Bloomberg smell test.

• Raises less than the inflation rate?  Yes.
• Retroactive pay and raises deferred up to six years?  Yes.
• Eliminating teachers who resign or are terminated from those raises? Yes
• Weakening ATR "due process rights"? Yes 
• Merit pay? Yes.
• Expanding acts subject to sexual misconduct and termination? Yes.
• Reduce components in Danielson?  Yes
• Termination requirements under the Teacher Evaluation System stays the same? Yes.
• Did the newspapers praise it?  Yes.

While the ex-Mayor may have wanted more "givebacks".  I believe he would happily settle for a stinky contract like this.

How Do The Raises Work In The New Contract?

The nine year contract between the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the City was finalized yesterday and includes a 18% raise by the end of the contract in 2018 (10% for 7 years).  However, until James Eterno of the ICEUFT blog actually broke down the annual raises and "retroactive raises" none of us really understood how it works.  To further simplify James Eterno's great work here is how and when we will get the raises.

Date................Raise.........2009-10 Raise.....Retroactive Pay

Fall   2014........ 2%*............None.........................None
May  2015.........1%...............2%..........................None
Oct   2015........None............None.........................12.5%
May 2016........1.5%..............2%..........................None
Oct  2016.........None............None..........................None
May 2017........2.5%..............2%..........................None
Oct  2017.........None............None.........................12.5%
May 2018.........3%...............2%...........................None
Oct  2018.............................................................25.0%
Oct  2019.............................................................25.0%
Oct  2010.............................................................25.0%

* The 2013 and 2014 raises will include retroactive pay for those two years as well.

The total compounded raise as of May of 2018 will be 19.5%.  Moreover, the "retroactive pay" will be given in a lump sum by the percentages in the table above.  Further a bonus check of $1,000 will be given to the members after the new contract is signed.

The bonus check is not part of our salary scale and is probably not pensionable while the "retroactive raises" may or may not be pensionable.  To encourage retirements of veteran teachers an incentive is provided.   If a member retires by June 30th 2015, the full "retroactive pay" will be paid out at the time of retirement and the pension will reflect the two 4% raises for 2009-10.  Moreover, there will be a severance package, not a buyout, for ATRs who wish to leave the profession (probably a year).  Finally ex-UFT members who resigned or were terminated between 2009-11 will not receive any of the raises or "retroactive pay" and those that resign in the future or resigned and/or terminated in the last two years will only get the raises up to their resignation/termination date and no "retroactive pay" owed to them for payouts issued after their resignation/termination date, even if they worked in the 2009-10 school years.  For future retirees (after June 30, 2015 now changed to June 30th 2014), they will get the 2009-10 raises and "retroactive pay" at the time active members will receive it.

The UFT provided a chart of the timeline for the raises and can be found Here.

Our Union Stabbed The ATRs In The Back.

Well our wonderful union apparently did it again! An inferior contract with raises of 10% for 7 years or approximately a 1.4% annual increase.  Worse our retroactive pay for the two 4% raises from the last "City pattern" will be back loaded and stretched out five years from 2015 to 2020 and if one resigns before the  end of the contract, they will not get the full "retroactive raises".  Further,  we get two "zeros" (2011-12), not good if you ask me.  Moreover, the union seems to have agreed to a form of "merit pay" by giving bonuses to highly effective teachers and teachers who work in hard to fill schools.  However, the worst is how the union abandoned the ATRs to the mercies of principals.

According to the new contract there will be an expedited termination process for ATRs who fail to show up for two job interviews, have time and attendance issues, or are removed by two separate principals who find their pedagogy inadequate.  While the union claims the the ATR will still have "due process rights", its greatly weakened and a one day hearing by an arbitrator will decide the ATRs fate, all within 50 days! As for the terrible and demoralizing weekly rotation system?  Who knows if it will continue?

Interestingly, the DOE budgeting process appears to remain unchanged which encourages principals to continue to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.  In fact, principals are not required to hire ATRs for their vacancies until October 15th, by then all vacancies are usually filled.   Moreover, the new contract claims that the ATR pool will be drained but under this contract age and salary discrimination will still rage leaving many "highly qualified teachers" languishing in the ATR pool.  Of course, the ATR pool will be drained by the proposed buyout and the new expedited termination process for the weakest performers. 

The UFT/DOE contract  reminds me of the DOE/UFT PIP+ program that resulted in over 90% of the teachers being terminated as our union leadership told the hapless members to take the PIP+ program, knowing that over 90% of them faced termination in their 3020-a hearing.  I am uipset that our union sold out the ATRs and stabbing them in the back by making it easier to fire them.

If I'm wrong about the issues than I will apologize but if I'm right, than shame on the UFT leadership who sacrificed its most vulnerable members for a few insufficient shekels.

The complete press conference can be found Here.

Is Our Union Agreeing To An Inferior Contract?

In yesterday's New York Daily News the paper published an article that claimed that the City and UFT are closing in on a seven year contract that apparently will include the two 4% raises and the "retroactivity" that goes along with it.  According to the article the contract runs from 2009 to 2015 or seven years and includes raises totaling 15% (4%,4%,0%,1%,2%,2%,2%).  However, excluding the two 4% increases from the last "City pattern", the final five years will total 7% and quite probably establish a new "City pattern" for all the Municipal unions.

If the Daily News article is to be believed then the new "City pattern" will be 7% for five years and is totally inadequate when compared to other recently negotiated settlements in the Metropolitan area. For example the TWU/MTA agreement gives the members 8.25% for five years and also includes significant benefit enhancements that amount to another 2% annually.  While the SEIU 32BJ (doormen and handymen) settled for a 11.3% increase for four years!.  Finally a federal mediation board recommended a 17.3% raise for six years for Long Island Railroad workers.  All of these contracts are significantly better than the proposed coontract between the City and the UFT.  Below is the breakdown of the raises for the various contracts.

Union..............Raise...........Years.............Annual Raise

LIRR.............17.0%................6......................2.83%
32BJ............11.3%................4.......................2.83%
TWU..............8.25%...............5.......................1.65%
UFT...............7.00%...............5.......................1.40%

Note, the TWU contract includes significant benefit enhancements such as a universal pass for all MTA transportation facilities, improved death benefits, optical and eyeglass coverage and paid maternity leave that is estimated as about 2% annually.

I could understand a 7% increase for five years if there was zero inflation and if the City was in dire economic straights but that's not the case.  First, inflation in the New York City Metropolitan area has averaged 2.2% for the last three years (2011-13).  According to the proposed contract, we would get raises of 0%, 1%, and 2% in those three years for  an average raise of 1%.  Moreover, the City has been seeing major surpluses as the economic environment has continued to improve.  In fact, Economist James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute found that the City can afford to give "full retroactive raises" and modest raises for the new "City pattern".  This is because the City's has experienced a large jump in tourism, stock market gains (30% last year), increased tax receipts, higher real estate prices, and lower unemployment.  Mr Parrott's analysis correlates with Mel Levy's breakdown of the City's budget and shows the City's has surpluses that allow for adequate raises for Municipal employees as well as full "retroactive raises".

Hopefully, the union realizes that the City is hiding much larger surpluses than they claim and that the City's ever improving economic condition allows for raises that at least equals the inflation rate as well as full "retroactive pay".  How will the retroactive pay be handled?  The "devil will be in the details" but I suspect it will be stretched out to the end of the new contract,  Finally, I hope the union is not trading Time for money  That is totally unacceptable.


Update:  The new York Times has reported that the City and the UFT has agreed to a 9 year contract and will be announced on Thursday,  Here.  The Wall Street Journal reports that the ATR rotation will be eliminated as well Here.

Chancellor Carmen Farina's First Four Months Have Been Disappointing.

The first four months of Carmen Farina's tenure as Chancellor of the New York City Schools has been very disappointing.  While she has made a few changes at the top (too few), she has failed to "clean house".  The result is that there has been no "change of tone" of the "gotcha mentality" at the DOE.  While Chancellor Farina has talked about changing the way things are done at the DOE, there is no discernible change for the classroom teachers when it comes to the mandates from Tweed that overwhelm teachers with loads of unnecessary paperwork and subject to vindictive administrators. It certainly didn't help her creditability and accountability either when the new Chancellor had a "Cathie Black moment" when she failed to close schools during a blizzard.

True, the Chancellor has changed the requirements to become a Principal and that's good but she has failed to eliminate the perverse "fair student funding" that forces schools to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers".  Furthermore, she had a chance to stop the useless weekly rotation of excessed teachers and leave them in place for the rest of the school year.  Instead, she allowed this travesty to continue while falsely claiming that she instructed principals to interview ATRs for their vacancies (no Principal remembers her actually saying that).  Of course, with the present DOE budgeting process in place, saying and doing are two entirely different things since salary is a major issue here.  Moreover, she has failed to change the tone at the DOE and the "gotcha mentality" that was the hallmark of the Bloomberg Administration and is pervasive throughout the department that we teachers feel it every day.  Finally, her failure to eliminate the money sucking and useless "Children First Networks" is a failure in her resolve to change things for the better.

I also must point out that her failure to "clean house" at the DOE is why teachers and school based personnel still feel as if the "icy winds" of the Bloomberg years has continued and UFT President's statement that he already sees a "change of tone" at the DOE is simply a mirage when it comes to what's actually going on in the classroom. To the classroom teachers, the DOE is still the enemy and until their policies and unwanted mandates end that perception will continue.

To Chancellor Carmen Farina, you talk about supporting teachers but when it comes to real action, there is little or no real change to the hostile environment coming out of the DOE.  My grade for the new Chancellor for her first four months is a "D" for disappointing.

How The DOE Budgeting Process Forces Principals To Cut Corners At The Expense Of Their Students.

Under the Bloomberg Administration there were many changes to the decades old Board of Education. Most of them bad. First it became the Department of Education, then the Superintendent staff was replaced by the useless and money sucking "Children First Networks" (CFN) effectively excluding parents since many of the CFN's were located in different Boroughs than their child's school. The administrative quality of school leadership saw a sharp decline as the Bloomberg administration tried to use a "corporate model" that saw non-educators take charge of the DOE at Tweed.  The DOE experienced large increases in hiring accountability managers, lawyers and no-bid high priced consultant contracts.  All this took away money that could have went to the schools and the students.   Additionally, under Michael Bloomberg's tenure approximately 163 schools closed, including most of the large comprehensive high schools and the DOE, through the "Leadership Academy" was giving principal positions to people with little or no classroom experience for the newly created small schools. However, the worst was the new DOE budgeting process that dumped the salaries of staff on the schools and combined with the "fair student funding" forced principals to seriously consider salary when hiring teachers.  The result was a younger, cheaper, and inexperienced staff which is what Mayor Bloomberg was hoping for but didn't result in better academic outcomes for the students but then it never was about he students.

 In the last term of Michael Bloomberg's tenure class sizes rose, schools closed, and veteran teachers found themselves out of  their classrooms with little hope of landing a new one because of age and salary.  Combine that with the "Leadership Academy Principals" who are encouraged by their CFN's to hire "newbie teachers", and the demonetization of veteran teachers the ATR pool exploded and is 2,000+ strong. Has this helped student academic achievement?  The answer is no.  In fact the income/racial academic achievement gap actually widened over the Bloomberg years.

Why hasn't student academic achievement improved?  Let me count the ways. Under the DOE budgeting process here are just some of the ways principals have cut corners and saved money but hurt student academic achievement in the process.

First, the principals are hiring the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students due to DOE budget restrictions.

Second, class sizes are getting larger as principals are "packing students in" to save on teacher salaries.

Third, Science courses have been and are being reduced from five instructional days, with lab to four instructional days weekly.

Fourth, Advanced Placement courses are being reduced from double periods to single periods.  How many students will get college credit with that handicap?

Fifth, inclusion or co-teaching classes not having a second teacher in the room. In many schools the weekly rotating ATR becomes the second teacher in these classes.

Sixth, teachers teaching outside their subject area. Very common in Science, especially Earth Science.

Seventh, employing "F" status people to fill teaching positions.

Finally, the widespread use of teaching a "sixth period" tires out teachers since the DOE pays for the "sixth period" Principals push teachers to take the extra period.

What is the solution for Principals to do "the right thing" for their students?  Simple, eliminate the "fair student funding" and make teacher salaries as units and coming from DOE Central.  This will eliminate many of the "shortcuts" that Principals must do to save on their budget and help improve student academic achievement.  Its "children first"...right?

Finally, At Least One Journalist Got It Right About Why Principals Won't Hire ATRs - Its About The Money!

I was pleasantly surprised when I read Charkbeat and saw the article Geoff Decker wrote about the contract negotiations that also included the ATR issue.  While he didn't specifically identify the "fair student funding" as the culprit, the article did show that principals took money into account in their hiring decisions and that the DOE budgeting was the cause.  This is the first article I have read where the money equation was factored into a school's hiring decision.   The Chalkbeat article also referenced my blog where I explained why principals hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" and you can find it here. 

The Chalkbeat article was fair and presented both sides of the ATR issue and to me that is real journalism, not he ideological attacks the ATRs have faced from the City newspapers who still blindly follow the Bloomberg line of a corporate model that has shown to have failed when it comes to public education.  Moreover, these very same newspapers always seem to ignore how a "newbie teacher", with a steep learning curve ahead, is good for student academic achievement.  I guess, for them its "don't let the facts get in the way of a fairy tale" that the Bloomberg administration's  "education on the cheap" policy is good for student outcomes.

Interestingly, according to the article, the City has not asked for an ATR time limit in their negotiations but are trying to work out an arrangement with the union to get the ATRs back into the classroom.  This will make the corporate education reform groups and their media allies very unhappy but putting the ATRs back into the classroom will be what's best for the students. To counter the building seniority issue, the ATR will be picked up "provisionally" for the first year and if the ATR and the Principal both agree, the ATR is appointed for the second year and gains his or her building seniority.

Back to the money issue.  Maybe our union needs to be be more proactive and explain how the DOE budgeting system works against students having the "quality teachers" they deserve not the "inexperienced teachers" that principals are hiring which is not in the best interests of student academic achievement.

The City Is Hiding A Surplus Of Over $6 Billion According To Financial Guru Mel Levy.

Under the Bloomberg years the City vastly understated revenues and overstated debt and always projected a deficit. Of course as the budget came due, not only did the deficit disappear but a modest budget surplus was found to fund the Mayor expensive programs.  Well Michael Bloomberg is gone and the Bill de Blasio Administration finds itself with large surpluses of $4.2 billion dollars for the next two years.  However, between $6 to $8 billion dollars are owed to the unions that  would more than wipe out the projected surplus.  But wait the financial guru Mel Levy, the former chairman of the Civil Service Technical Guild who found the City was vastly underestimating their surplus in his article in the "Chief".

According to Mr. Levy, the City is hiding a really big surplus.  He states the City's claim of paying $6 billion dollars for health benefits for its employees is more like $3.5 billion annually.  A savings of $2.5 billion a year.  Next, the City incorrectly charges sick, holidays, and vacation days as overhead but in reality is already accounted for in the Municipal worker salary.  The phony debt is worth $3.14 billion dollars annually.  The pension funds must kick back to the City any investment over 8% of a return.  Therefore, the pension fund averages slightly over 8% and "kicks back" to the City over $2 billion to add to the surplus.  Finally, under the low inflation environment, the City has called in their high interest bonds and reissued them at a much lower rate, saving the City $1,5 billion annually.  This does not include having more work done "in house" which would save billions more.

If Mr. Levy is correct, the City is hiding over $6 billion dollars over and above the $2.4 billion dollar surplus this year.  Therefore, the real City surplus is over $8 billion and is more than enough money to cover full"retroactive raises" as well as providing a cushion for the years going forward.  In fact, if you add up the cost savings and do not include the billions saved by doing more work "in house' and If we exclude the $2 billion dollar savings from the pension windfall from the calculations, it still comes out to a surplus of $6.64 billion which added to the existing $2.4 billion dollar surplus makes a total surplus of $8.88 billion.

In the past Mel Levy showed that the Transit Authority's $232 million dollar deficit was really a $97 million dollar surplus and has shown to be able to find the extra funds in the "nook and crannies" of a budget and is known as a financial guru and his work needs to be respected. Can the City afford "full retroactive raises"?  The answer is yes!

Clueless Campbell Brown Lacks Common Sense.

In the New York Post today the clueless Campbell Brown wrote an article called A 'common sense' NYC teachers contract.  In the article she recommended what changes should be made in the next teachers contract being negotiated with the De Blasio administration.  Of course, she's still on the kick that teachers accused of sexual misconduct should be terminated by the Chancellor even when the independent arbitrator, who are selected by both sides, when presented with the actual evidence or lack thereof found no sexual misconduct.

Interestingly, Campbell Brown now suddenly demands that parents and students have input into the process.  Funny, when Michael Bloomberg was Mayor and excluded parent and student input, Ms. Brown never bothered to include that in her demands.  I wonder why the change of heart? Furthermore, Ms. Brown wants ATRs to have a time limit while failing to identify the real problem the "fair student funding" that forces principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students. Moreover, Ms. Brown wants "merit pay" and eliminate seniority and education as a factor to determine salary level.  Finally, Ms. Brown wants teachers to be available 24 hours a day for parent correspondence, as if we teachers don't have families and obligations of our own.Her ideology seems to interfer with the facts but that's nothing new when it comes to the clueless Campbell Brown.

The bottom line is that Campbell Brown's 'common sense' contract lacks "common sense" since she ignores the root cause of the issues and her ideological bent is showing by first ignoring Mayor Michael Bloomberg's exclusion of parent input only to demand it now that Bill de Blasio is Mayor.  To me Campbell Brown is clueless, a hypocrite, and most importantly, an ideologue that ignores the facts just to get her warped point of view some attention.

Note:  As I predicted, Leslie Brody of the Wall Street Journal conveniently ignored my letter to her and failed to mention the role the DOE budgeting practice that resulted in the formation and maintenance of the ATR pool.  In no place in her article did she mention the "fair student funding" that required principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.  To me her failure to mention this shows that she is a corporate education reformer since these groups must  ignore this issue to demonize veteran teachers.   While her article didn't call the ATRs "unwanted or bad teachers".  Her failure to address the DOE budgeting issue was a "fatal flaw" and shows that she either doesn't understand the process or refused to write about it since it wasn't convenient to what she was telling the public.  In either case, Leslie Brody did a poor job explaining the problem.

Michael Mulgrew was quoted in the article that three quaters of the ATRs are offered positions.  However, he was being disingenuous since approximately 5% of them are actually appointed to a permanent position the rest are covering long-term leave replacements or "provisional hires" who will be dumped back into the ATR pool at year's end.

Our Retirement System Is As Good As It Gets.

One of the major perks that we educators have is the retirement system that goes a long way to provide us with lifetime security.  If I look at the three stools of retirement, our retirement system provides us with two of the three.  A pension, and savings, with social security being the third leg of the stool. Is it any wonder that the newspapers are always claiming that our pensions are too generous by calling it the "pension bomb".  However, many of my fellow educators don't take full advantage of what's offered to us and that's a shame.  We are known as New York City's "smartest" but when it comes to "financial smarts" we are lacking.  Hopefully, I will try to enlighten my fellow educators on how to take advantage of what the retirement system gives us.

Defined Benefit Pension:
We are blessed with a pension plan that can give us a 40% pension after twenty years of service and 60% after thirty years, using the highest three consecutive years of employment.  If one is fortunate enough to qualify for the 25/55 program, even better.  For tiers 1 to 4 it's very important to finish the twentieth year, since your pension jumps up from 31% after nineteen years to 40% after twenty years for the majority of teachers in the system.  Since tier 5 and tier 6 educators have few years in the system, the pension is far away and they have requirements that require twenty-five years for maximizing the pension.  Moreover, for tiers 1 to 4 educators, there is no employee contribution to their pension after completing ten years, the City must fund the entire cost.  For tiers 5 and 6, employee contributions continue throughout their employment (if you are in the tier 4 25/55 program, employee contributions of 1.84% for that program continue to retirement).  You can retire as early as 55 but unless your in the 25/55 program, or have 30 years of service, there will be a significant age reduction factor that will reduce your actual pension. See below. For tiers 2-4 vesting occurs after 5 years while for tier 5-6 you need 10 years.

Annuity Savings Accumulation Fund:
One of the real perks is the ASAF annuity that is added to the pension.  Once a teacher reaches their final step increase (8b), every year thereafter the teacher receives $400 yearly which has a 5% interest added to the balance.  Teachers who have approximately 25 years in the system can expect the ASAF fund to have about $15,000 in it and is annualized to add an extra thousand or so to the yearly pension.  For administrators it is $550 annually.

Teacher Deferred Annuity:
This is a 403b plan known as the TDA. Contributing to the TDA can make or break an educator's retirement plans.  Since this is a tax deferral instrument, the more an educator contributes to their TDA, the less they are taxed since the amount taken out of the paycheck is not subject to federal, state, and local taxes until the money is taken out of the TDA.  For teachers 50 years old and older, the "Fixed Income Fund" guarantees 7% return annually and in this low inflation environment (between 1-3%) its the best deal in town and most of the TDA should be in the "Fixed Income Fund".  For younger teachers, the "Fixed Income Fund" should be a part of your TDA and use it instead of the bond fund which has low yields and far lower returns.  Unfortunately, many educators fail to take full advantage of the TDA and put too little into it.  The more an educator puts in the TDA, the better retirement he or she will have.  For school administrators it's 8.25% until the next contract.  The maximum contribution is $17,500 and if over 50 years of age $23,000 for 2014. Cinally, only 70% of the educators re thing advantage of this benefit, it should be 100%!

Retiree Health Benefits:
For tier 4 and 5 employees, ten full years of service entitle the educator for lifetime retiree benefits and this is a godsend since health costs usually increase with age.  Therefore, its extremely important to achieve a minimum of ten full years of service to achieve lifetime retiree benefits as soon as age 55.   For tier 6 employees its 15 years of service. For tiers 1 to 3 its only five years.

Loans:
A teacher can take up to 75% of their MACP funds from their pension or 75% of the TDA balance as a loan.  I strongly suggest that you take the loan from your MACF in your pension since, if you pay the loan back before you retire, your pension is unaffected.  On the other hand, taking a loan out of the TDA will reduce your balance and lose interest and appreciation during the time you take out the loan.  If you still have an outstanding loan, your pension will be pertinently reduced by $75 for every thousand dollars owed (amounts vary) and can result in almost $3,000 less in the yearly pension.

Pension Max:
Teachers close to retirement are tempted to take the single payer option, even if they are married.  This is called "pension max" and instead of having their pension reduced to 85-92% by covering the spouse, the educator takes out a life insurance policy on the spouse with the savings by taking the maximum pension.  I personally would not use this risky approach and I strongly urge all future retirees to compare their own circumstances and read up on the pros and cons of "pension max".

Tiers:
Realistically there are very few Tier 1 and 2 members left in teaching and I didn't include them in much of  my post.  However, the very few that are left have 40 or more years in the system and they are usually no longer in the classroom.  These educators can contact TRS for more information specific for their tier. Tier 3 members can and usually automatically convert to tier 4  since tier 3 employees have a social security offset that can reduce their retirement benefit by 50% of your social security benefit that came from public service.  Moreover, tier 3 educators who retire before age 62 have a steeper reduction rate that results in a more reduced pension.  Finally, tier 3 members are limited to 60% of their final three years for pension purposes while for tier 4 is unlimited. Therefore, almost all tier 3 educators convert to tier 4 status. Tier 5 and 6 employees must pay into the pension system during their employment and have slightly inferior calculation methods that may result in a reduced pension. Two years ago I wrote an article comparing the tier 6 pension to the tiers 4-5 pensions here. Further information can be found comparing the six tiers from the New York State Teacher Retirement System website.

Termination Pay.
An educator can convert their accumulated sick days into either termination pay until it runs out or get three lump sum checks every six months.  By taking termination pay the educator keeps their salary, contributes to the TDA, and accumulates pension credit until the sick days are used up.  In both cases the "2 for 1 rule" applies.  Meaning for every day of payment or termination pay, two days are taken from the CAR.  The termination pay is only good for one semester, if an educator still has days in the CAR, its converted to a lump sum payment and paid six months later.

Life Insurance:
Educators get three times their final three year salary if they die in service.  If they die within one year after retirement they get 50% and within two years 25%.  After that its 10%.

Buyback Time:
If you worked for any State or local government outside the DOE in New York State, you can and should buyback the time.  It's to your advantage to do so.  TRS will work out a buyback plan to ease your payments.  Remember for most of us, every year in the system will increase our pension by 2%.  Call TRS and send them a request to buyback the time.

Cost Of Living Adjustment:
The COLA to the pension is given to the first $18,000 of a retiree's pension and starts five years after retirement or 62 if the educator retires at 55, you must wait ten years for the COLA to kick in.  .The yearly COLA is 50% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)  and has a 1% minimum but cannot exceed 3% in any one year regardless, even if the CPI is greater than 6%.

For more information call the UFT and ask for their "Pension Handbook".  I believe it costs $9 and tell them what tier you are in. For more detailed information and if you're within five years of retirement, then call the UFT Borough office for a pension consultation.  You are entitled to have one every year until you retire.  However, you can only have one "final retirement consultation" so use it the year you intend to retire.

Note: The age correction factor for the pension is 55, 0.73,  56, 0.76,  57,0.79,  58,0.82, 59,0.85, 60,88, 61,0.94, 62,1.00. 

The Bloomberg Education Legacy Is One Of Failure.

With the advent of a new administration who has struggled to change the educational landscape, its time to look back at ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg's education legacy and see what has actually transpired over his twelve years in charge.

Student Academic Achievement:
In the twelve years of the Bloomberg Administration student academic achievement has remained basically flat, based upon the federal baseline test, the NAEP.  All the touted reforms by the Bloomberg Administration is all "smoke and mirrors".  At the high school level, the SAT sores also showed little upward movement in the twelve years of his tenure.

Racial/Income Academic Achievement Gap:
More disappointing is the actual widening of the racial/income academic achievement gap in the twelve years of overseeing the DOE.  That means that all his bragging about education reform resulted in no real academic improvement for the most needy of students.

Lack Of Parent Involvement:
Parent concerns were totally ignored and excluded from any decision making or policy issues concerning their children.  In fact, the establishing of the useless "Children First Networks" required many parents to travel to different Boroughs to find out what was happening in their school.   The Bloomberg Administration  was deaf to parent voice and only used parents when they wanted to deceive the media in supporting some of the Bloomberg policies.

Largest Class Sizes Ever:
Compared to the end of the Giuliani Administration, the class sizes are larger and are the largest in the State, despite the City winning a CFE  lawsuit to reduce class size.  The State money to reduce class size was diverted from the classroom to Tweed who used it for other purposes.

Teacher Morale Lowest Ever:
The Bloomberg Administration's attack on teachers is unprecedented in history of the City and if he had his way, the entire teaching profession would be composed of temporary workers who will teach for five years or less and have class sizes double the contracted limit.  The classroom environment has become increasingly hostile and incentives were put in front of principals to rid themselves of outspoken teachers by filing false, frivolous, or embellished charges, knowing that Tweed will remove them from the school payroll in sixty days.  At the peak there were over 800 teachers "reassigned".  Before the Bloomberg era it averaged about 125 "reassigned teachers". 

Education On The Cheap:
The Bloomberg Administration policies forced schools to survive on ever shrinking budgets since 2007 and required schools to pay for unnecessary services such as the useless "Children First Networks", and all those "bright ideas" that turned out to be failures demanded by Tweed.  During the Bloomberg years the Central Bureaucracy has bloated beyond belief. Worse was the "fair student funding" which required principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers".  Is it any wonder that student academic achievement has not improved?

The ATR Pool:

The Bloomberg Administration convinced the UFT to eliminate the excessing requirements and combining that with the "fair student funding" and tight school budgets, along with closing schools, the ATR pool expoloted to 2,400 members and has stayed relatively consitant over the years.   Approximately 60% eventually land in a classroom for varying lengths of time as leave replacements or "provisional appointee's" but are back in the ATR pool at year's end.

The Gang Of 18 Non-Educators Running The DOE:
Surrounding the three non-educator Chancellors were the "gang of 18" non-educators (one or two at most had some classroom teaching experience) that implemented Michael Bloomberg's education reform rhetoric.  They exponentially increased the unnecessary paperwork that teachers and principals were swamped with by their "accountability measures".  Furthermore, the "gang of 18" hired hundreds of accountability managers and lawyers which were used to generate more data mining and paperwork at the school level with the lawyers used to persecute teachers charged with alleged incompetence and misconduct.  This group was responsible in diverting much needed funding from the schools to their pet projects and hiring high priced consultants.

Little Change In Student "Career And College Readiness" Scores: 
At the end of the Bloomberg Administration only 22..7% of the students were ready for college or careers and I suspect most of them came from the top 33% of schools in the City.  His claims of improving education rings hollow when one looks behind the rhetoric. He also claims that quality teachers and not social-economic conditions are most important in student outcomes.  Of course, poverty does matter.

The Graduation Rates Are Bogus:
The news media claims the Bloomberg education legacy was a success because of the
graduation rates.  However, the graduation rates are bogus since it comes with large amounts of  phoney "credit recovery courses", principal pressure on teachers to improve the school letter grades, and a grading policy that allows a student to fail one semester but pass he other and get a passing grade for both. If it was truly a success, the abysmal "college and career readiness" scores would be much higher.

Closing Schools Do Not Result In Academic Improvement In The Long Run:
The Bloomberg Administration closed 163 schools, many of them large comprehensive high schools and made small themed schools out of them.  At first, it appeared successful since these new small schools were fully funded and more importantly,  they excluded"high needs students".  Therefore, the schools didn't take the students that struggled academically and the first few graduation classes showed superior results.  However, once these schools were firmly established, the extra funding was withdrawn and the small schools found themselves having to take "high needs students" and the Regents grades of these schools have fallen back to or even below what the closed comprehensive high school had.  Furthermore closing schools means excessing teachers and the small schools pick up very few of them, the "Bloomberg" small schools have "Leadership Academy Principals" and an untenured staff.adding to the ATR pool.

The Bloomberg years has irrefutably harmed the New York City Public Schools and his corporate reform approach has not showed any significant student academic achievement.  His education improvements are all "smoke and mirrors" and his legacy is one of failure.

The Reason Why ATRs Should Be Put Back Into The Classroom. It Helps Student Academic Achievement.

The Wall Street Journal's education reporter, Leslie Brody wants to talk to ATRs about their situation and what should be done to the ATR pool.  She contacted Norm Scott and told him that the she wants to "untangle the weeds of the ATR pool and see it's very complicated".  Ms. Brody claims she will write a fair and accurate article.  Personally, since she works for the Wall Street Journal, and like all the City newspapers who continually call us "bad or unwanted teachers", I highly doubt it and even if she tried to be fair, I'm sure her editor will make sure the ATRs are cast in a negative light.  However, while I will not speak to her, my blog represents my view of the ATR pool and what should happen next year. Here is my letter to Leslie Brody.

Dear Ms. Brody:

The ATR pool consists of over 2,000 (not 1,000 the DOE or 960 the UFT claims) ATRs.  Included in this group are teachers, guidance counselors social workers, assistant principals, and school secretaries.  The DOE and UFT, to avoid embarrassment, do not include ATRs who are temporarily in schools as "leave replacements" and "provisional appointees" and who will be back into the ATR pool at year's end.  The ATR pool is composed of mostly senior educators with the average age in their 50's and fifteen or more years of experience.  These educators came from closing schools or schools that needed to reduce staff, and educators targeted by principals that survived their termination hearings.

The ATR pool was formed when the DOE and UFT agreed in the infamous 2005 contract that no excessed teacher need to be placed in a school in their district and that Principals can hire outside of the school system regardless of how many excessed teachers in the subject area were in the district.  To ensure that highly experienced teachers would not be appointed, the DOE imposed the "fair student funding formula" on the schools and forced principals to include teacher salaries in their budget.  The result was that principals had an incentive to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their school since it would save money in their increasingly tight budget.  To make matters worse the UFT unwisely proposed the weekly rotation where ATRs are sent weekly to different schools and the DOE eagerly agreed to it for the 2011-12 school year going forward.  The weekly rotation has proven to be a disaster, its dehumanizing, non-professional, and wastes talent and money which costs the DOE $160 million annually for "glorified babysitters".  How depressing it is to be a "stranger in a strange land" in a different school every week.  I personally put in over 20 requests for vacant positions through the Open Market Transfer System in the last three years and received not one interview!

Many in the ATR pool are "quality teachers" and are long-term teaching professionals, we are the teachers that Mayor Bill de Blasio should want to retain since we are not likely to leave for greener pastures as less experienced teachers do.  Furthermore, by placing the ATRs back in the classroom where we belong, the City achieves their goal of reducing class sizes without additional cost since we're being paid anyway.  Finally, we bring with us deep curriculum knowledge,  classroom management skills, and most importantly a passion for teaching and connecting with the children to see them achieve their academic goals.

Unfortunately, that will not happen until Chancellor Carmen Farina ends the destructive "fair student funding", freeze outside hiring, and once again make educator salaries as a unit and come from DOE Central as it was done for decades.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to give principals an incentive to hire us as they did once before. ATRs should be back in the classroom if the City really wants to put "children first" and see real academic improvements for the public school students.

Ms Brody, while I only speak for myself, I suspect I speak for the majority of ATRs who just want a chance to be back in a classroom with our own students and help them reach their academic potential.

Note:  There is a deliberate misconception that the DOE picks up part of the ATR salary if a school selects an ATR to fill a leave replacement or vacancy.  The DOE only picks up the difference in salary between the ATR and the salary of the teacher the ATR is replacing for the first year only!   If the school decides to pick up the ATR for the second year the ATR's salary must be included in the average teacher salary of the school and comes out of the school's budget.  Therefore, very few, if any, ATRs are picked up the second year since it will cost the school money.

Why Teacher Due Process Rights Are Important.

 
There's little question that there has been a coordinated attack on teacher "due process rights"  State after State and school districts throughout the nation have various proposals and sometimes new laws that either diminish or eliminate teacher tenure and their "due process rights.

The latest is the State of Kansas which has eliminated teacher tenure and is awaiting the Republican Governor's signature to become law in the next school year.  This follows a deterioration of teacher "due process rights" in many places throughout the nation.  This attack on teacher tenure follows similar laws passed in North Carolina, Arizona, Virgina, and Connecticut. These changes follows the State's adoption to the "Race to the top" federal funding that requires that a teacher's evaluation be attached to high stakes testing using the "Common Core" standards.

In every State in the nation corporate education reformers have attacked teacher "due process rights" for example a major plank in StudentsFirst is the elimination of teacher tenure.  While the corporate reform mole, Educators 4 Excellence, published a white paper asking that layoffs be based upon evaluations and the enemy of all teachers Democrats for Education Reform wants to eliminate teacher "due process rights" entirely. Other corporate reform funded groups have proposals that eliminate teacher tenure, scale back  "due process rights" and include merit pay proposals.  Even in labor friendly New York State, the corporate education reformers and their media allies continue to attack teacher tenure and "due process rights".  Lately in demanding a time limit for ATRs  and making the teacher evaluation system a termination program.  For the former, ATR NYC has an article dealing with how the nation handles excessed teachers. In the latter case the hypocrite Governor insists that the badly flawed high stakes testing be up to 40% of a teacher's evaluation despite his acknowledgment that the tests should not be used as student scores. Finally the clueless Campbell Brown wants the Chancellor to terminate any teacher accused of sexual misconduct regardless if it's true or not.

The reality is that teachers need tenure protection and "due process rights".  Teachers interact with between 32 and 150 students on a daily basis.  These children have incomplete personalities and are very implosive and take offense to the most innocent action.   A student can have a bad day and take offense what a teacher says or does and if the administrator doesn't like the teacher, charges of incompetence or misconduct will be the result.  Without teacher "due process rights" any accusation would result in the teacher's termination.  With teacher "due process rights" the school district needs to prove the accusations were true and that means gathering real and relevant evidence, not relying on gossip, hearsay, or innuendo as is the case when OSI and SCI commence their investigations and "substantiates the charges based upon talking to the Principal who wants to teacher gone from his school, evidence or not.

If it wasn't for our "due process rights", I could most certainly would have been terminated in 2007 when SCI "substantiated" the hearsay, gossip, and innuendo that is common in high schools.  It made little difference that there was no real or relevant evidence of the charges since the Principal wanted me gone from the school and SCI  obliged him.  Would the Chancellor give me a fair hearing?  Just look at the UFT's record on "U" rating appeals (0.2% was successful) to know my fate.  Instead because of my "due process rights" I had a hearing in front of an State arbitrator who ruled in my favor and gave me a "slap on the wrist".  That's why teacher "due process rights" are important.  It can and will mean your job if we don't have it.

Why Aren't Administrators Being Brought Up On Corporal Punishment Charges For Their "Sit & Stare" Policy?

Thousands of parents rightly refused to have their children sit for the poorly-devised and high-stakes NYS testing using a "Common Core" curriculum that was not readily available to the schools.  While most school administrators allowed the students who "opt out" of the tests to either go to the school library, watch a movie, or sit and read a book, some vindictive administrators practiced corporal punishment.  These vindictive administrators forced the children to "sit and stare" in their seats while the rest of the class was taking the State ELA test.

What is "sit and stare"?  it is a punitive weapon used by school administrators to punish parents by having their children "sit and stare" by giving them nothing to do during the State test.    While there is no physical abuse, there certainly appears to be mental abuse by forcing the child to "sit and stare" for almost two hours and to me that's abuse and hence "corporal punishment".  The definition of "corporal punishment" is here.

If I was a parent of a child who "opt out" of the State ELA test and was forced to "sit and stare", I would contact the State and claim that "corporal punishment" was done as a retaliatory measure by the administrator against my child who was "opting out" of the test. Child abuse, whether its physical or mental is abuse and that's "corporal punishment" to me.

Changes The Union Must Push The DOE To Do For The Next Contract.

Presently, the union and the City are negotiating a new contract and there is optimism that a final contract will be hammered out by June.  What should the contract include beside the money owed to the educators?  Here are some of my suggestions that our union should be insisting on that it include in the negotiations and the final, agreed upon, contract.

A fair and less punitive "teacher evaluation system" with a significant reduction in paperwork and having a "peer review" as part of the system.  Every school I travel weekly to, the teachers are under stress with too much paperwork, a fear of snapshot observations, and administrators who are using the Danielson Framework and Common Core as a weapon against teachers they target.

Elimination of the perverse "fair student funding" process which encourages school principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.  Eliminating and not changing the "fair student funding" as Chancellor Carmen Farina wants to do, is the only acceptable approach.

All salaries should come out of DOE Central and not the schools.  Since all of us are DOE employees, our salaries should come from the DOE.  In turn, the DOE allocates teaching units to each school and the school can hire a "quality teacher" without worrying about the teacher's salary. Another advantage would be that principals would be less inclined to abuse the "sixth period" for teachers since there would be little incentive to give teachers a "sixth period" since all funding for teacher salaries come from the DOE and not just the sixth period classes.

The end of the ATR pool by bringing back the excessing requirements.  No outside hires are allowed if the District has teachers in the subject area in excess. All hires from the ATR pool are "provisional hires" and at the end of the school year the Principal and teacher will decide if the school is a good fit and if so, the teacher is appointed and given building seniority. If not the teacher is excessed and will apply for vacancies in their District for the next school year.

For teachers who were subject to discipline that had a substantiated OSI or SCI  report but whose charges were found  to be embellished, frivolous, or untrue by an independent State arbitrator in the 3020-a process, should have the discipline flag removed from their files.  These termination charges could not even reach the level of the "preponderance of evidence" standard used in these matters and its unfair to label the educator as guilty of these accusatory charges when the evidence showed they were not. The 'scarlet letter" was eliminated in the 1700's and the DOE should not be using it now.  The MORE caucus has this in its contract demands and our union should as well.

Finally, eliminate "circular six" and if Chancellor Carmen Farina wants more "professional development" use the "circular six"  time for it.