Will Joel Klein Give In And Remove The Hiring Freeze So That Principals Can Hire "Newbie Teachers"?

It has been two weeks since the citywide ATR job fair has been held and I do not know of any ATRs in Queens who were offered positions for the vacancies that number over a thousand citywide. Some of these ATRs are great teachers and should have been snapped up. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the principals are just going through the motions by interviewing ATRs for their vacancies and claiming that the ATRs are not appropriate for the teaching positions. It is quite obvious to me the principals are hoping that before the October 30th deadline when the money for the vacancy is removed from the school, budget one of three things will happen.

Exemption Waiver: Many of the principals showed up to the ATR job fair to only reject the ATRs and use those rejections to apply for an exemption and obtain a waiver to hire a "newbie teacher". Over 125 such waivers have already been approved by Tweed and more are being considered daily. This was first reported by Anna Phillips of Gotham News and the ATR job fair is the first step for a Principal to obtain an exemption.

Newbie Special Education Teachers: The hiring of "newbie" special education teachers and using them for mainstream classroom teachers. It appears some principals have hired "newbie" special education teachers, where there is no hiring freeze, and are using them as long-term subs or even as mainstream classroom teachers. How widespread this is is now being investigated by the UFT. I will be very interested in the union's findings.

Hiring Freeze: Many principals are still holding out hope that Joel Klein will end the hiring freeze in October and there is some reason to believe that this is not just wishful thinking. However, given the economy and budget restraints, there is probably less than a 50% chance of the hiring freeze being lifted. There is a better chance for the freeze to be lifted for math and foreign language teachers in specific locations before October 30th..

Time will tell how successful the principals will be in getting Tweed to allow them to hire who they want. Remember it is not about the children, it is about the Principa's power. Children last continues going strong.

My Union Hero And Villain

As many of my readers know, I have complained about our union leaders since they seem to have lost touch with the members in the trenches they represent. For example, I have never had a union leader ask me my opinion of issues of importance to the teacher (except those stupid surveys that nobody in the union takes seriously). However, in the sea of uncaring and clueless in he classroom union leaders there are some shining stars. One of these shinning stars is Amy Arundel who has time and again went out of her way to help teacher due process rights. Amy is a special representative headquartered at 52 Broadway and tackles some of the more complex issues that cross her desk. Presently, she is looking into principals that skirted the DOE hiring freeze by hiring special education teachers for mainstream classes or long-term subs. All Chapter Leaders need to contact Amy if your Principal is guilty of hiring special education teachers for regular education classes. While I have had no personal experience with Amy Arundel, I Had heard from numerous teachers how helpful she has been in dealing with their issues. She is not beyond making calls to the DOE to work out potential problems and does not hesitate to file a grievance if the DOE refuses to work out the problem.

On the opposite side of my spectrum is Leo Casey, the "Unity" spin mister and apologist for the terrible 2005 contract that has doomed many a teacher and has made the classroom a more hostile environment. Apparently, Leo has not been in a classroom since the great flood and it wouldn't surprise me that it was Leo Casey who told the Unicorns that the rain coming from the sky was just a shower and continue playing rather then board Noah's Ark. This is the same Leo Casey who told us how wonderful it was that seniority transfer and bumping is no more and now is strangely quiet as the ATR population exploded into the thousands as a result of it. Most of them senior teachers. Yes, and it is the same Leo Casey who thought the probable cause section of the contract was a great idea since it will eliminate the pedophiles and perverts from the system. However, it also allowed the DOE to charge any teacher with it merely based upon Hearsay, and when the teacher is found not guilty of sexual misconduct, the Arbitrators never gives the teacher back the money they lost while being suspended for up to three months without pay and benefits. Further, Leo seems more interested in Durfur and Mexico than the overcrowded high schools that he is supposed to represent. To understand Leo Casey you just need to go back to his infamous Edwize article of October 20, 2005 where he defends the indefensible 2005 contract and insults teachers in the process.

When it comes to the UFT, my hero is Amy Arundel. My villain Leo Casey, who else?

The Union Finally Wins A Small Victory On Corporal Punishment - How About A Big Victory On An Independent And Fair Investigation Process?

The NY Teacher reported that an Arbitrator sided with the union on language used for corporal punishment investigations. The union filed the grievance after the DOE changed language in the Chancellor's Regulations that made it easier for the DOE to charge members with Corporal Punishment and also allow the accusers not to be identified. Further, the arbitrator also ruled that the word "perceived" be deleted from the revised regulations since this word can be abused to claim a member interfered in an investigation simply by the Principal saying so,

While I am happy the union has finally won a small victory on the Corporal Punishment Regulations A-420, a much larger victory is needed. That is the elimination of the catch all phrase

"NO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHALL BE INFLICTED IN ANY OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NOR PUNISHMENT OF ANY KIND TENDING TO CAUSE EXCESSIVE FEAR OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISTRESS. VIOLATION OF THIS BYLAW SHALL CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL".


This vague phrase allows the DOE to charge a teacher with Corporal Punishment who has any sort of physical contact with a student, regardless if she was defending herself. Moreover, almost every member knows that when an administrator targets a teacher, the OSI investigator will substantiate the charges and file Corporal Punishment charges against the member. Without a fair and independent investigation the member is as good as charged. It does not matter that the physical contact was initiated by the student, or the teacher was assaulted, defending oneself can and will lead to Corporal Punishment charges based upon the Chancellor's Regulations if the teacher is targeted by an administrator.

The UFT must push for fairer and more evenhanded language and investigations when it comes to Corporal Punishment.

The Dirty Little Secret That The Media Refuses To Report. How Principal Quality Has Deteriorated Under Bloomberg & Klein

In the pre Bloomberg/Klein tenure almost all Principals rose through the teaching ranks and didn't forget their roots in the classroom. Sure, there were exceptions to this rule (my ex-Principal was one, more about him in another post) and some principals did forget their classroom roots. However, the vast majority of principals worked their way up the ranks. First, as a classroom teacher with over ten years of experience. Then as an Assistant Principal for five years with both administrative and classroom duties. Finally, after mastering both the classroom and the administrative functions, the person is now ready to become a Principal. Many of these Principals had long ago learned to collaborate with other people in the school to get things done. These lessons were never forgotten by the old Principals and any problems in the school were usually resolved in the school. Only those teachers accused of gross incompetence or criminal actions were removed from the school to face 3020-a charges. During these times the total amount of teachers removed from the school were usually less than a hundred throughout the City since removing a teacher from the school was a last resort because of the collateral damage done to the teacher's students and for maintaining staff morale in running a successful and smoothly-running school.

Under the Bloomberg/Klein tenure things have changed drastically. As the old Principals retired, or were forced out. New "Leadership Academy principals" took their place. Many of these "Leadership Academy principals" had limited classroom experience, some never even set foot into a classroom as a teacher! Further, these principals didn't know how to collaborate with heir staffs on what was best for the schools. Some of these "Leadership Academy principals" are in their 20's & early 30's and are not mature or experienced enough to handle the Principal's position but were given the position anyway. However, worst of all is that these "Leadership Academy principals" are taught that "it is your school and do whatever it takes to run it the way you see fit". The result has been a disaster to the parents, students, and teachers alike. No collaboration only domination when it comes to the school staff.

Joel Klein and his non-educators have given the principals complete control over the schools and that means that principals are allowed to remove teachers they do not want. These principals know that the DOE, despite the July 2, 2008 Rubber Room Agreement signed with the UFT, will not interfere with the Principal's decision to remove a teacher from the school. Furthermore, Tweed made it even easier by allowing the Principal to remove the teacher's salary from the school budget sixty days after the Principal removed the teacher. Finally, Tweed's use of the "fair student funding" formula encouraged principals to remove senior and highly paid teachers from the school's budget on trumped-up charges of misconduct or incompetence so that they can hire a "newbie teacher" to replace the reassigned teacher and still have enough money to use for other school functions. The result was an explosion of "rubber room" teachers (750) and the rise of the ATR population of 1,600 teachers.

The real problem in the City Public School System is that the quality of Principals are eroding as more and more inexperienced "Leadership Academy principals" take over schools and lack the necessary social skills to work with their staffs. The result is low school morale, staff mistrust, and quality teachers fleeing the schools. While the phony education reformers talk about quality teachers there is silence when it comes to the deterioration of the principals that run the schools.

For the "Leadership Academy principals" it is not about the children, its about their control over the schools. "Children Last" continues.

How Some "Principals From Hell" Still Screw The Reassigned Teacher

I have a very good friend who was reassigned by her Leadership Academy Principal for alleged incompetence (the charge is false. Her crime is she is over 40 and not the same religion & culture as the "newbie teachers" that she hires). This "Principal From Hell" also known as a Principal-In-Need-Of-Improvement (PINI) by the UFT has limited classroom experience (less than three years) and poor management skills. In addition, over 50% of the teachers she inherited when she was made Principal less than six years ago have left the school for greener pastures.

This Principal had wanted the teacher to resign but the teacher refused and was reassigned to the "rubber room". When the teacher's 3020-a hearing was starting, the Principal had to testify and was grilled by the NYSUT lawyer for the teacher and now no longer in control, the Principal's testimony was evasive, and uncertain. Further, the Principal now had the tables turned on her as she was defensive, uncomfortable, and couldn't remember many of the charges she logged against the teacher. By the time the Principal was allowed to leave the 3020-a hearing (after three days of testimony) she was a mess.

This should have been the end of the Principal's interaction with the teacher, except for one thing. The Principal still had to sign off on the teacher's annual rating sheet which includes the attendance. It doesn't matter that the teacher has not been in the school for years. This vindictive Principal decided to violate protocol and not pay the teacher for attending her 3020-a hearings or meeting with her NYSUT lawyer even when the teacher is no longer on the Principal's budget! Hopefully, the union makes sure that not only will the teacher be paid for those days she was docked but that the union goes after the Principal with the same vengeance that the Principal did to the teacher. If the union allows the Principal to get away with this, what stops other Principals from doing the same? Nothing of course.

Our union makes $100 million dollars on member dues and it is time that some of the money be used to go after Principals that abuse teachers. No more talk, just take some real action.

Has A New Contract Been Negotiated With The Bloomberg Administration?

There are persistent rumors that at Wednesday's Delegate Assembly meeting a tentative contract will be presented to the delegates. This was first written about by Ed Notes Online last week who reported that the Chapter Leader meeting was suddenly replaced by the DA assembly meeting to discus the contract negotiations and in articles in Gotham Schools and the New York Times. In addition, I have always suspected that a contract was nearly complete as far back as June and I have previously posted an article about it . The broad parameters of a contract were already agreed upon between Randi Weingarten and Mike Bloomberg and it was up to the Mulgrew gang to dot the "i" and cross the "t" to finalize the contract.

It is too bad that there haven't been any leaks about what, if any, "givebacks" the union has agreed to. I assume that if there were any real "givebacks" the non-Unity factions on the 300 person negotiating committee would have leaked it out like the dissidents did in the Washington D.C. teacher negotiations. However, the damage has already been done to us in the previous contracts and that if the union does not obtain " takebacks", the situation for the teacher will only get worse. As of Friday, the New York Post said there were 1,600 ATRs still in the system, despite 1,300 vacancies not filled! This intolerable situation can be blamed on the previously negotiated contracts that eliminated seniority transfer and the placing of excessed teachers before hiring "newbie teachers". I hope the union has learned their lesson and requires that all ATRs be placed before "newbie teachers" can be hired.

As for the monetary part of the contract assume that we will be getting two 4% raises for the two years of the contract, minus the 0.58% that Randi negotiated with the Mayor to get back the two days before Labor Day. However, it is possible that the contract may be more than two years if there are additional items included in the agreement. An example of this would be enhanced health and welfare benefits, a reduction in workloads, etc. Presently, these items don't appear part of the new contract but things can change.

Finally, no matter what the new contract will say it is time for the union to become pro-active and file PERB complaints when the DOE abuses teacher due process. Under Randi that did not happen. Let's see an aggressive change in the union position on teacher rights. Time and again the UFT negotiates with the DOE and when the DOE reneges on the agreement the UFT has failed to take action. This must stop and time limits must be adhered to by all parties not just one.

Despite A Shortage Of Science & Special Education Teachers The ATRs In These Areas Are Still Not Being Hired. Look At Ageism As The Reason

In August the DOE, citing a shortage of Science and Special Education teachers, rescinded the ban on hiring "newbie teachers" for these subject areas. However, many Principals and DOE service centers still continued to hire inexperienced teachers despite having ATR teachers available to them in those subject areas and Tweed just turns a blind eye to this terrible practice. In a New York Times article Many of the Principals interviewed for the article admitted that they are circumventing the hiring freeze by various means. Below is what the principals said.

Several principals — who did not want their names published for fear of angering the administration or the teachers’ union — said they were circumventing the restrictions by offering new teachers jobs as long-term substitutes or hiring them as specialized teachers but placing them in regular classrooms. Some said they planned to eliminate open positions from their budgets rather than take on teachers they considered undesirable, and others said they were holding out in the hope that Mr. Klein would lift the restrictions.

I also wrote about the Principal's intent not to hire ATRs as long as possible Here. Now I have been informed of a specific case dealing with how a DOE organization refused to give a highly qualified special education teacher her job back, despite glowing letters by the two principals she worked with.


The story starts with the veteran special education teacher with 20+ years in service being loaned to the DOE organization because of their need for an experienced special education teacher to work with two schools who were in desperate need of resource room services for their special education students. Since the teacher was an ATR, Tweed was responsible for her salary not the DOE organization she worked for. This year the teacher was told to report back to the DOE organization and she hoped that with the glowing written recommendations she received from the two principal and the other administrators of the two schools, would allow her to continue doing the job she was given the previous year. However, to her shock and dismay, the supervisors of the DOE organization refused to consider her for the position she had previously and instead hired a "newbie teacher" who had no experience with the children, Why would the DOE's organization supervisors hire a "newbie teacher" over a highly-qualified teacher when they would cost the same to their budget (ATR agreement)? The answer is simple its about the age. See the highly-qualified teacher is over 50 and when the supervisors say jump, she is likely to say "why". While the 25 year old "newbie teacher" responds by saying "how high"? To add salt to the wound, the supervisors asked the now jobless ATR to train the "newbie teacher" on what she needs to know and do at the two schools. If that wasn't bad enough the DOE organization is busy interviewing other "newbie teachers" for more special education jobs and this teacher was not even given a courtesy interview for these jobs. Just disgusting.

Age discrimination is rampant throughout the ATR population and hiring practices are dictated by insecure administrators that are best for them rather than what's best for the children with special needs. DOE's "children last" continues.

For Teachers Who Have Been Targeted By Their Principals - Here Are TheThings Teachers Should Not Do.

As the 2009-10 school year starts on Tuesday, many teachers are already being targeted by the Principal for either incompetence and/or misconduct. The end result is an eventual 3020-a termination process. There are many reasons that Principals want to terminate teachers ranging from ageism, salary, personality, unionism, and retaliation. Granted, 10% of the teachers charged under 3020-a probably deserve the charges. However, the other 90% do not. Unfortunately, teachers are easy targets when it comes to filing charges since teachers' skills are based on their caring & nurturing of the students. However, when it comes to legal issues, teachers are basically clueless on how to fight the charges against them. Therefore, the targeted teachers rely on either overworked NYSUT lawyers who far to often pressure the innocent teacher to plead guilty and pay a hefty fine or suspension or pay large legal fees to have a private lawyer represent them in the 3020-a disciplinary hearing. Consequently, many a targeted teacher ends up taking a deal and returning to school as an ATR without a classroom or building seniority.

What are the things that teacher should not do? Here is my list,

First, if the Principal or any other administrator offers you the "Peer-Intervention- Program" plus, known as PIP+, don't accept it under any circumstances. The latest statistics show that anywhere between 75% and 90% of the teachers fail PIP+. Its little wonder since the DOE pays the PIP+ vendor. Furthermore, the PIP+ educator is required to testify against you in the eventual 3020-a hearing making it easier to terminate you. Better to refuse PIP+ than have an expert teacher testify against you.

Second, never have a meeting with the Principal without the Chapter Leader present. There have been numerous instances where the Principal has called in a targeted teacher and offered the teacher a chance to resign and have the previous annual"U" ratings changed to "S" until the end of the present school year. Since the meeting is not disciplinary in nature, the Chapter Leader is not asked to be present. In some cases the Principal demands an answer immediately and a few teachers are pressured to resign. Under no circumstances should a teacher be threatened into resigning.

Third, if the Special Commissioner Of Investigations (SCI) wants to talk to you, don't you even consider it. Make sure you contact the union and they will arrange for you to be represented by a lawyer who will tell you not to talk to them. These investigators are biased and unfair and they are only out to "get the teacher" not find out the truth. The SCI investigators are notorious for substantiating the most frivolous events as serious misconduct.

Fourth, if it is the Office Of Special Investigations is doing the investigation then the union's position is to talk to them. However, the OSI investigations are also "biased and unfair" and I strongly recommend that the targeted teacher not speak to the investigator since the typical union advocate is worthless and are of little help in your case. To them it is just an extra union paycheck and they are more concerned in keeping good relations with the OSI investigator rather than advocating for the teacher.

Fifth, never respond immediately to a Letter-In-File (LIF) given you. Pen your response after calming down and assume it will be used against you in a disciplinary hearing. A month would be a good time to pen your response to a LIF after you have had time to look at it calmly and talk to people you trust and respect. Never give a full explanation in your response since you will be stuck with that explanation at the 3020-a hearing. Just write your denials of the charges and save the details for your 3020-a disciplinary hearing.

Finally, write up all events, either in a diary or notebook, including all conversations with administrators. They will be very important in your 3020-a hearing since after two years people can't remember many of the specific charges leveled against you but you will be able to have it written down for review and comment.

I am sure there are commenters that have additional ones to add to my list. Let's see them.

What Chancellor Joel Klein Wants In The Next Contract - To Terminate The ATRs After Nine Months!

Chancellor Joel Klein, from the beginning, has developed a single minded approach to solve the ATR problem which he created in the infamous 2005 contract. That is to terminate the ATR! As well all know the terrible 2005 contract allowed principals to hire "newbie teachers" rather than excessed teachers in the subject field and Tweed further encouraged this hiring by implementing a flawed version of the "fair student funding" formula that actually penalize principals who hire experienced senior teachers. Hence, the ATR crises. Now Joel Klein was quoted in the biased anti-teacher New Yorker Rubber Room article as saying the following:

The teachers’-union contract comes up for renewal in October, and Klein told me that he plans to push for a time limit of nine months or a year for reserve teachers to find new positions, after which they would be removed from the payroll. “If you can’t find a job by then, it’s a pretty good indicator that you’re not looking or you’re not qualified,” he said.

If that doesn't tell you about Joel Klein's evil intention of what he wants to do with the ATRs, then I guess you don't understand English. Furthermore, the article also writes about Joel Klein's philosophy for hiring "newbie teachers" .

Until this year, the city was hiring as many as five thousand new teachers annually to fill vacancies, while the teachers on the reserve list stayed there. This meant that, in keeping with Klein’s goals, new blood was coming into the schools—recruits from Teach for America or from fellowship programs, as well as those who enter the profession the conventional way.

Since there are at least 2,000 ATRs in the system (as of August 22nd) the ATRs represent a powerful force and they must contact our new non-elected President, Michael Mulgrew and let him know that giving a time limit to ATRs is a tenure issue and is not negotiable in this and any other contract. Hear that Mike?

Note: If you click on to the picture on the top right (the guillotine), this is what Klein wants to do to the ATR.

Another Clueless Non-Educator Who Thinks He Knows What's Best For The Classroom

In an editorial in the U.S. News & World Report, Editor-in-Chief Mortimer B. Zuckerman has embraced the pseudo education reform movement by blaming the problem of student academic achievement on teachers. He stated in the editorial that "better teachers are the key for student academic improvement". Mr. Zuckerman, like all educational reformers, ignores, smaller class sizes, teacher innovation, and stringent student discipline codes as major factors in improving the classroom academics. Instead Mr. Zuckerman states that technology is the key to increase teaching effectiveness. He calls it technology teaching.

While I do agree that some technology is good to aid the teacher, it is not the answer in making a good teacher. To show how ignorants Mr. Zuckerman is about the urban classroom, he assumes that the classes should have large flastscreen monitors with whiteboards on either side. Further, the technology will be set up to interact with a school server that can access all the lesson planes for every subject. This would also include video presentations, dramatizations, and an Internet interface. Nice idea except for one important fact. Who pays for it? And where is the large amount of money coming from? As for technology making a teacher a better teacher? IMaybe it can make a teacher marginally better. On the other hand, many teachers will use technology as a crutch and weaken their teaching abilities.

The characteristics for a "quality teacher" is quite simple. First, the teacher must have small class sizes, Second, the teacher must know the curriculum like the back of their hand. Third, let the teacher be the master of his or her classroom, not the administrators. Finally, the teacher must demonstrate skills in classroom management and punish misbehaving students with reasonable penalties. For a teacher to be a quality teacher, the above skills must be mastered and that takes a minimum of 3 to 5 years and in many cases longer. Is it any wonder that in New York City 50% of the new teachers quit within the first five years?

Time and again teachers are excluded in education forums and policy decisions. Both the AFT and NEA must ensure that classroom teachers are represented in all National issues that affect the classroom. Education policy should be left to educators who understand the classroom not politicians, journalists, or lawyers who are clueless when it comes to the academic needs of the students.

The UFT's "300" Negotiating Committee Must Stand Their Ground, Not Allow Any "Givebacks", And Resolve The Ever Growing ATR Crises

I admit I am a complex person. On one hand I am highly suspicious of the motives of Bloomberg and Klein's intent on the City's Public Schools and at the same time I am naive when it comes to our union leaders who proclaim time and again "victory", when negotiating with either the Bloomberg Administration and Tweed on education issues. My knee jerk reaction was to give Randi Weingarten and her lackeys the benefit of the doubt that the union negotiations were successful and was a win for the members. Of course, the reality was much different.. Time and again, while the UFT negotiated in good faith, Tweed would simply ignore the signed agreements since they lacked enforceability. Examples of this are the ATR agreement and the "rubber room" agreement. More ominous are the secret side agreements the UFT signed off om. An example of this is Appendix H of the "probable cause" agreement that allows the DOE to suspend teachers without pay or health benefits for up to 90 days simply on a hearsay statement! Now in the latest agreement signed with the City, our union negotiators have given up some of our retirement rights and there is a disturbing rumor that an unpublished side agreement was part of the negotiations that will force retirees to remove their money from the fixed income fund, despite denials by TRS and union leaders. Even the Financial Planner, Joel Frank, reported this in the Chief in the July 24, 2009 edition.

Now we are in the process of finishing the next contract (the parameters were decided on during the last days of Randi Weingarten) and the committee of "300" theoretically can make sure that the new contract will not have any "givebacks" and "secret side agreements that screws the members. I believe, with a mensch like James Eterno on the committee, I expect that the union will "stand their ground" and resolve the ever worsening ATR crises (2,340 ATRs as of August) and require that excessed ATRs be placed by subject area before "newbie teachers" can be hired.

To the 300. Please don't let our union leaders dupe you in approving an inferior contract that allows "givebacks", no matter how minor they appear to be. Further, the contract must be ironclad enforceable. History has shown that you can't trust Mayor Mike and Chancellor Klein so please don't expect them to live up to any agreement that lacks enforceability.

If The Students Are Improving, Then Why Are They Still Ill Prepared Academically As They Enter High School?

The Bloomberg/Klein propaganda machine on how the New York City Public School System has improved under their leadership has even convinced many of their critics that there has been some academic improvement. The critics just don't like the methods used to achieve the alleged academic improvement such as "social promotion". The Bloomberg Administration points out that there are less level 1 students and fewer students are required to go to summer school to advance to the next grade. While I do not support "social promotion" I, like many educators, do question the tactics used to artificially improve a level one student to be promoted to the next grade. In other words, the academic progress claimed by the Bloomberg Administration is all "smoke and mirrors".

The basis for improving a level 1 student to at least a level 2 is not based on academic achievement but relies on increasingly "dumbed down" State tests and matrices, numbing test preparation at the expense of a well-rounded educational program, and a liberal interpretation of grading the tests that raise the scores of the students taking them. Previously, I wrote a post on how some level 1 students actually graded out as level 3 students in the middle school State Math test.

While I am in contact with many elementary and middle school teachers who have told me how the State tests are a "joke", I am most familiar with the high school setting. At the high schools, many of the ninth grade teachers complain how unprepared both academically, and behaviorally the ninth freshmen classes are. The teachers attribute this to poor academic skills and lack of discipline as they enter the more mature High School environment. These teachers don't blame the middle school teachers but question the administrative dictates of both the Principals and the District Superintendents that looked the other way on student misbehavior but go all out on alleged employee misconduct, no matter how frivolous it is. Is it any wonder that teachers are reluctant to discipline unruly students when it could lead to corporal punishment and verbal abuse charges against the teacher? Furthermore, because of the idiotic school grade program by Tweed, School administrators are under intense pressure to raise student scores and not report violence which destroys teacher morale and control of their classroom.

How bad has the State tests been "dumbed down"? Even the normally pro-Bloomberg/Klein Daily News questioned the State tests Here, Here, and Here. Further, the New York Post had decided to actually publish Diane Ravitch's opinion piece that showed how failing students were passed along by the DOE because of the State test scoring method. Moreover, the new Board of Regents Chancellor,Merryl Tisch, has stated that the State tests are too easy and must be toughened. Let's see if the baseline federal NAEP and SAT scores show improvement. If they do, then the Bloomberg/Klein flawed education approach may be finally working, if poorly, but if the approach doesn't work, then let's expose the phony education reforms of Bloomberg and the immediate firing of Joel Klein and his non-educators at Tweed along with their "children last" program.

The Legacy Of Randi Weingarten- Our Union Rolled Over And Played Dead To The DOE And Now We Have An ATR Crises And Overcrowded "Rubber Rooms"

Before Randi Weingarten became President of the UFT, there were few, if any ATRs and the "rubber rooms" were populated by between 80 and 100 teachers annually. However, as Randi Weingarten leaves the UFT we have both an ATR crises with 2,340 ATRs and overcrowded "rubber rooms" that have over 700 teachers in them. Both of these problems can be traced back to the infamous 2005 contract that allowed the DOE to hire "newbie teachers" rather than fill the position with an excessed teacher. The result was that when Principals had a vacancy they no longer had to fill it with an excessed teacher and could hire whomever the Principal wanted. This resulted in not only the creation of the ATR ranks but senior teachers found themselves reassigned out of the classroom as Principals saw an opportunity to remove them based on frivolous charges, knowing that they can then hire a "newbie teacher" for less money.

Furthermore, Randi Weingarten allowed Tweed to bring in the "fair student funding" program that penalized schools who hired senior teachers which further added to the ATR ranks. Finally, the union failed to object when the DOE allowed schools to take a teacher off their budget after only 60 days when they sent the teacher to the "rubber room". This has become a salary dump for many Principals who want to cut their budget.

Time and again Randi Weingarten signed unenforceable agreements with Joel Klein (ATR agreement, "rubber room" agreement ) and was "shocked" when Tweed reneged and ignored the agreements. Moreover, under Randi's watch teachers have lost control of their classrooms, experienced a loss of "due process" in the disciplinary hearings, and most importantly, has allowed the DOE to impose whatever "flavor of the day" program they were sold by consultants which resulted in more charges of incompetence as Principals blame the teachers when "high needs students" could not do the work even when the program was not suited for them.

While I hold little hope that Mike Mulgrew will lead the union into a pro-active organization, I do wish that our appointed President goes on the offensive and holds the DOE's feet to the fire by getting some takebacks in the next contract. I can dream, can't I?

When A Hiring Freeze Is Not Really A Hiring Freeze - Tweed Allows Principals To Hire More "Newbie Teachers" As The ATR Ranks Continue To Increase

During the month of July, Tweed, despite Chancellor Joel Klein's e-mail message to the Principals, has loosened the hiring restrictions from a total hiring freeze (except for the new small schools) to allowing schools to hire Science and Special Education teachers. Eventually, I look for Joel Klein to also allow the hiring of Math teachers as the Open Market System ends next week. It was only in the late Spring when the Chancellor told the Principals that they must hire from the excessed teacher list, "no exceptions", However, I was told by some Principals that they were privately informed from top administrators that they should "sit tight" if they were unhappy with the hiring freeze since it was likely that Tweed would either rescind or loosen the hiring freeze by mid-August. I even wrote about this in a previous post. Would Chancellor Joel Klein lie about enforcing the hiring freeze for the 2009-10 school year? Apparently he did. Why else were principals told by their supervisors not to panic and wait out the hiring freeze?. It might have been wishful thinking on the part of the administrators. However, I believe that somebody knew something and it usually comes from the top, in this case Chancellor Joel Klein.

A little History is needed here. Joel Klein notified Principals of the hiring freeze on May 6th and this was reported by both Gotham News and the New York Times. However, given the lack of respect that Bloomberg and Klein have for excessed teachers and the vile propaganda from Tweed and their media puppets that convinced many a Principal not to consider an ATR for the vacancies. The result was the schools were not actively recruiting the ATRs. I also posted an article on how many of the Principals feel about the ATRs.

Now, after the budget cuts and the lack of hiring existing ATRs, there are now 2,340 excessed teachers without a classroom. This does not include the approximately 800 "rubber room" teachers where 90% will eventually find themselves as ATRs during this or the next school year. According to the DOE there are 2,400 teacher vacancies. However, many of these vacancies are in schools that have one or more of the following problems. High teacher turnover, lack of enforcement of student discipline codes, bad neighborhoods, no parking, or have "principals from hell" (the UFT call them PINI principals). Therefore, the ATRs are unwilling to place their health and safety with these schools. Look for the ATR ranks to go down but I suspect that by the beginning of the 2009-10 school year the ATR ranks to be close to 1500 as Principals are reluctant to hire them and the ATRs will opt not to go to schools that can jeopardize their teaching career.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly - The TDA Pension Agreement Between The UFT and The City

In the never ending quest by the UFT to poorly represent their members, the UFT/City of New York pension agreement continues in screwing its members. There has been some very confusing information about the June 22, 2009 pension agreement between the UFT and the City on what the annual interest rate will be for the fixed income TDA. Is it 8.25% or 7%? As many of you know the UFT allowed Mayor moneybags to impose a Tier V pension for "newbie teachers" and a reduction of the Tax Deferred Annuity (TDA) ixed income fund from 8.25% to 7%, effective when Governor Patterson signs it. However, the TRS in their newsletter stated that the TDA fixed income fund will remain at 8.25% until June 30, 2010. Confused? I was and while a Newsday article did clarify some of the confusing issues, it did not answer all of the questions. In the article it stated that Mayor moneybags requested that the 8.25% for the fixed income TDA fund be extended until the City's actuarial calculations can be completed for the change in interest rate. Therefore, the following applies to our TDA fixed income fund.

The Good: The TDA fixed income fund will stay at 8.25% until the legislature passes and the Governor signs the interest rate change bill, sometime in the fall or winter but may stay at 8.25% until June 30, 2010.

The Bad: Unfortunately, the extension of the 8.25% is at the mercy of Mayor moneybags and he will use the agreement with the UFT in lowering the interest rate of 8.25% to 7% during the 2010 mayoral contest. Therefore, expect the 7% interest rate to be put into effect sometime in 2010 but no later than July 1, 2010.

The Ugly: Here again, when Randi Weingarten negotiates with Mayor moneybags there always seem to be an unpublished side agreement. According to Richard Steier of the Chief, the agreement allows the City to require retirees to remove their TDA money from the fixed income fund once they retire. Presently, retirees don't have to start removing their TDA funds until 70 years of age. Why wasn't this side agreement published? Here is the excerpt from Richard Steier's article.

Discontinues Leaving Money In

Another loss to UFT members as a result of the TDA change, assuming it is enacted, would be the right to leave their money in the funds until they turn 70, with 8.25-percent interest continuing to accrue for up to 15 years if they retired at 55. That, along with the discontinuation of pension contributions after 10 years and pension vesting after five years, were gains that were made during the Giuliani administration.

The Mayor estimated that the changes would save the city $2 billion over 20 years, but most of the savings from the contribution and vesting changes would not materialize until well into that period. That also means, however, that the annual savings will mushroom beyond that time, with one official saying they could reach $200 million a year.

Ms. Weingarten said she had done what she could to protect members' benefits while also dealing with the economic realities confronting the retirement systems and the Department of Education.

"Our pension systems have lost a lot of money," she said. "We tried to do something that worked for education and the education system and the pension systems we operate in."

Why wasn't this clause included in the agreement? Another infamous side agreement that secretly screws the retirees. I guess it is their turn to "feel the pain" of Randi's secret side agreements. I can only hope the Michael Mulgrew does a better job negotiating a contract then Randi Weingarten but I highly doubt it, based on his past performance of being a union flunky uner Randi's tenure.

Why Is Chancellor Joel Klein Immune From A SCI Investigation When It Comes To No-Bid Contracts That Appear Not To Pass The Smell Test?

One of the most objectionable aspect of Chancellor Joel Klein's tenure has been the awarding of "no-bid contracts" to consultants that waste millions of dollars in precious education funds. Time and again the Chancellor's critics have brought up the lack of accountability by Tweed in spending priorities. In particular, the awarding of large contracts to high-priced consultants and the increase of the total Tweed headcount during a time when the schools are experiencing a 8.5% budget cut and the Regional Offices that directly work with the schools are experiencing massive reductions, including layoffs.

Now comes a Daily News article by Juan Gonzalez that exposes an apparent agreement between Tweed and a little-known Florida computer company that will give this company a 95 million dollar contract. Interestingly, this company does not even have an office! The address they claim they work out of is simply a mail box drop and the Brooklyn address they claim they use is a residential building with no offices in it! In his article Juan Gonzalez writes the following.

"This, of course, is nothing new under Klein and Mayor Bloomberg. Both state Controller Tom DiNapoli and city Controller William Thompson have issued scathing reports in recent months about DOE's mushrooming use of no-bid contracts and the runaway costs that often result.

DiNapoli's report, released in May, found that the DOE awarded 291 no-bid contracts between July 2005 and June 2008 for more than $340 million and in most cases "failed to properly document" the reason why".

The question is why won't the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) start a serious investigation of the practices of Tweed in general and Joel Klein in particular when it comes to allocating millions of dollars to companies that don't even have an office? SCI never seems to have a problem in starting an investigation of a school staff member that might have been accused of misappropriating a few dollars or was accused of potentially criminal conduct. However, when it comes to Tweed and Joel Klein SCI turns a blind eye and allows potential ethics violations and no-bid contract abuses to continue. Joel Klein and his Tweed cronies should be subject to the same requirements as school staff members. However, at present that does not seem to be the case.

In another Daily News article Joel Klein's popularity with the general public remains near an all-time low with an approval rating of 37% ( the lowest was 33% last year). If NYC parents of school children and school staff were the only ones polled, I suspect the numbers would be be much worse. Hopefully, Bloomberg's lead starts to deteriorate and he will terminate Joel Klein and his non-educator staff at Tweed. Only time will tell.

How To Appeal A 3020-a Arbitrator Decision And The "Just Cause" Provision Used To Determine The Arbitrator's "Award".

In the State Education Law 3020-a the Arbitrator is given wide discretion in deciding the award (penalty) for the tenured teacher. However, occasionally the Arbitrator violates those rules and can be overturned in New York State Court under the Article 75 provisions (CPLR 7511). An example of this is the Teddy Smith arbitration decision when a second arbitrator only used the transcripts of the first arbitration decision to decide the award. Failure of the second arbitrator to hear the case was a violation of the rules and the award was reversed by the Supreme Court Judge. Remember, the 75-11 appeal must be submitted within ten days of the decision. Failure to meet the ten day time limit means that no appeal is allowed.


The four reasons that an Arbitrator's award can be reversed can be found in the New York Public Personnel Law. These four reasons are somewhat broad and vague. However, unless the Arbitrator's decision is egregious, it is highly unlikely that the Court will overturn the Arbitrator's award. listed below are the grounds that an Arbitrator's award can be appealed.:

The sole grounds set out in Article 75 for overturning such a determination:

1. Proof of corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring an award;

2. The partiality of the arbitrator;

3. The arbitrator exceeded his or her authority; or

4. The arbitrator failed to follow the procedures set out in Article 75.

More interestingly, is the basis for an Arbitrator to terminate a tenured teacher. While, only 10% of the 3020-a cases in New York City lead to termination (20% of cases actually heard by an Arbitrator).The basis for an Arbitrator to terminate a tenured teacher must meet the "Just Cause" provision in the employee dismissal law, Section 5 and starting from page 5-13. The seven provisions must all apply if an Arbitrator is to terminate the tenured teacher.

JUST CAUSE STANDARD BY ARBITRATORS

In determining whether an employer’s discipline of an employee was for cause. The Arbitrator usually considers two elements. The Arbitrator first makes a factual determination whether the employee committed the act alleged and then makes a determination as to whether the act committed warranted the discipline imposed. In cases of dismissal, the burden is always on the employer to prove wrongdoing, and is always so when the agreement requires “just cause” for dismissal.

According to the “just cause” standard if any of the seven questions are determined by the Arbitrator not to be true (negative), then “just cause” does not exist and the Arbitrator can use his judgment on the proper penalty, short of termination.

· Did the company give the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable disciplinary consequences of the employee’s conduct?

· Was the company’s rules reasonably related to a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the company’s business and b) the performance that the company might expect of the employee?

· Did the company, before administering discipline to the employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule of order by management?

· Was the company’s investigation done fairly and objectively?

· At the investigation, did the company’s decision maker obtain substantial and compelling evidence of proof that the employee was guilty as charged?

· Has the company applied its rules, orders, and penalties evenhandedly to all employees without discrimination?

· Was the degree of discipline administered by the company in a particular case substantially related to a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense and (b the employment record of the employee in his service to the company.

The inconsistent enforcement of company rules is improper, and the discipline is set aside upon proof of discriminatory enforcement. Further, the Arbitrator can set aside management decisions on the grounds that the employee was denied due process rights in the investigatory procedure.

While most Arbitrators follow the ""just cause" practice, some may have their own very similar standards that are used to determine their "awards".

It is very important that all teachers going into their 3020-a hearings understand what their rights are. The more you know the better you will be able to defend yourself.