ATRs Should Not Accept Positions In These Queens High Schools.

Lately the New York Post has been turning away from bashing teachers and have been  identifying some really bad principals, here and  here.  However, as a Queens high school ATR, I thought it's time to list the schools where the staff have reported a hostile work environment on the latest school learning environment survey.  Therefore, In other words a "do not apply" list.  This post will identify these schools based upon their poor numbers.  The lower the number, the higher the negatives.  All schools with an overall score of  69% and lower is associated with a hostile learning environment at the school with the Principal the major culprit,  are listed below.


School.......................................Overall Score..........Negatives

Math, Science, Research Magnet.......37%.......................61%
Young Women's Leadership School......38%.......................63%
Fredrick Douglas Academy VI.............39%.......................66%
Pan American International l..............43%.......................51%
Queens Preparatory Academy............48%.......................48%
William Cullen Bryant .......................49%.......................47%
Newcomers High School....................51%.......................43%
Business, Computer Applications ........54%.......................41%
Queens Gateway Health Sciences.......54%......................37%
Civic Leadership Academy..................61%......................35%
Law Government And Services............62%......................27%
Queens Collegiate.............................64%......................25%
Bayside High School..........................65%......................24%
High School Of Const Trades..............69%......................22%
Flushing High School.........................69%......................21%
Frank Sinatra High School..................69%......................21%

While the overall score of below 70% shows that the school's learning environment needs great improvement, the negative scores are more instructive of the hostility of the working conditions at the school and that reflects almost entirely on the administration, especially the Principal.  Interestingly, the lowest overall score was at the Campus Magnet school with Jose Cruz as Principal.  He was previously cited by the Daily News for giving the most "U" ratings than any other high school Principal in the city..

Being an ATR this year may be a blessing in disguise since the ATRs are not subject to the badly flawed teacher evaluation system or the "junk science" associated with it.  Further, the difficult Dainelson framework cannot be used for the ATRs unless they take a provisional vacancy or long-term absence. For those ATRs thinking of taking either a provisional or long-term position, please do not apply to the school listed above....unless you want to get terminated!

Thanks to JD2718 for supplying me with the list of Queens high schools.


.

The Real Reason That There Is A Lack Of Arbitrators In The 3020-a Hearing Process.

Friday on his radio show Mayor Bloomberg blamed the UFT for the glacial pace of the 3020-a hearings.  A seemingly frustrated Michael Bloomberg went on to say that the teachers union refused to approve arbitrators and that the agreed upon 39 arbitrators are now down to 19!  The result is that, according to the Mayor, there are 400 educators awaiting an arbitrator to hear their case.  If only he had the authority to fire them all.  The City has now filed a lawsuit that the teachers union is violating the April 2010 "rubber room" agreement.

President Michael Mulgrew responded by saying that the DOE's failure to use the mediation process to settle many of the cases is a major cause for the delays. In addition, he pointed out the oversized legal unit at the Office of Legal Services is the primary reason why the DOE fails to use the mediation process since they need the work to justify their positions.  He also stated further that the DOE has recommended many unsatisfactory candidates as arbitrators and the UFT after carefully vetting the DOE endorsed candidates, has refused to accept them on the panel.  Finally the UFT has claimed that the agreed to timelines once a hearing starts are being adhered to,

 Both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and UFT President Michael Mulgrew failed to identify the major culprit for the long delays and lack of arbitrators, New York State.  The State has failed to pay the arbitrators for up to three years with one arbitrator being owed $200,000!  Is it any wonder that many senior arbitrators have quit the panel?  Furthermore, the State's Tenured Teacher Hearing Unit expects a shortfall of a  $2.03 million dollars  for the 2013-14 school year.  Therefore, many of the present arbitrators will be waiting years to be compensated for their work.  Moreover, the State has reduced the daily fee for arbitrators from as much as $2,100 to $1,400 per day, still a godly sum but significantly less than before 2010 and has resulted in many of the best people not wanting the highly stressful arbitration position.  The lower payment and long delays getting paid has resulted in many long-standing arbitrators to quit the panel.  Apparently, many of the recommended replacements are not qualified and therefore only 19 arbitrators are currently on the panel or 11 less than what the DOE and UFT wanted as a minimum (30).


While both the DOE and UFT have no control on the State's failure to pay the arbitrators, the DOE can use the mediation process to bypass the lengthy 3020-a hearing process.  However, under Mayor Bloomberg the DOE only wants to terminate these 400 educators not settle no matter the time and cost.  this is the DOE who rather waste over $40 million dollars in keeping the 400 cases in offices doing little or no work  rather than the classroom than use  mediation to resolve the cases.  Yes, the very same DOE that is wasting $160 million dollars annually on 2,000+ ATRs rather than putting them in the classroom to eliminate overcrowding, uncovered classes, and reduce the largest class sizes in over a decade.  What else is new.

"Children last"....Always.

Principals Abuse The Credit Recovery Program To Achieve Artificially Higher Graduation Rates The Data Shows.

The Department of Education released figures on how much "credit recovery" increased the citywide graduation rate.  According to the DOE the graduation rate increased by 1.7% due to "credit recovery" (Gotham Schools found it to be 2.6% for schools who had a credit recovery program}.  However, a closer look at the numbers showed that dozens of high schools had over a 5% increase in their graduation rates due to "credit recovery". 

One of the most egregious examples of the abuse of the "credit recovery" system was at the Mott Hall V in the Bronx that reported that an astounding 46% of the credits earned by the ninth graders in 2011 came from "credit recovery" and in the latest data from 2012  an astounding 26% of the school's high school students obtained credits from "credit recovery" programs, third highest in the City. The Principal blamed the budget for not having enough teachers to give the students the classes and students abusing the system to earn easy credits.  Maybe had he tried to hire experienced ATRs rather than the "newbies" he so dearly loves to employ and whom ended up leaving the school during the school year, it might have been different but that's a story for another time.

Since the 2012-13 school year "credit recovery" has been restricted and under the new regulations the principals can no longer abuse the program, or so they say (seeing is believing).  Is it little wonder that the college remediation rate is so high for our students and what value is there for a New York City diploma for those schools where "credit recovery" artificially boosted a school's graduation rate and  where credits only required a student to sit on a computer for a week and answer some multiple choice questions?

Will these principals be punished for abusing the credit recovery program?  Don't bet on it.  It's "children last"....Always.

Hypocrite Chancellor Dennis Walcott Hires A Man Who Was Found Guilty Of Harassment And Retaliation To Be Principal Of Troubled Flushing High School

The hypocrite Chancellor has done it yet again.  He proclaims that there is "zero tolerance" of teachers accused, but not found guilty of sexual misconduct but gives his managers and administrators a pass when they are accused.  Now we find that the Chancellor has hired a man, James Brown that was sued for sexual harassment, bullying.  racist comments and retaliation against a female dean at a Baldwin middle school who won the lawsuit against him.  Notice, this was not just an accusation but a lawsuit where the preponderance of evidence presented showed that Mr. Brown was found guilty of such behavior.  The story can be found here.

Mr. Brown was removed from the Baldwin school in 2009 and was sent to the District office, away from the children, until he resigned in 2012.  Mr. Brown was also accused of saying sexually inappropriate comments. While at Baldwin, Brown was accused of remarking on the tightness of a female student’s pants, said a federal lawsuit against him.  He also said to the female dean to make a school report “tight as a virgin’s, well, you know what is tight on a virgin,” she reported. Yet our so-called "zero tolerance" clueless Chancellor hired him to be a Principal of an already troubled Flushing High School, unbelievable!

Chancellor Walcott has, once again, has been exposed as a hypocrite and practicing a "double standard" when it comes to teachers and administrators.  Remember these stories  here and here?
It seems our clueless Chancellor does not "practice what he preaches" when it comes to selecting and disciplining the DOE administrators.  Thank goodness we only have 99 more days of his inept and terrible leadership of the New York City schools.  Tick, tick, tick.

Mayor Bloomberg's Legacy Is His Contribution To The Widest Wealth Inequality In New York City Than In Any Other City In The Nation.

One of the more obvious and at the same time, disturbing results of Michael Bloomberg's tenure as Mayor of New York City is the "wealth gap" that he leaves the next Mayor to try to solve.  Under Mayor Bloomberg's policy of "what's good for the rich is good for the city" the disparity between the rich and poor in the City is the widest in the nation. The statistics showed that the top 20% of city residents had an average income of $222,871 while the lowest 20% was $8,993 or 25 times less than the top 20% and almost 50 times lower than the top 5% ($436,931).  While Mayor Bloomberg can't be totally blamed for this "wealth gap", his policies certainly contributed to it.

As for poverty, the latest numbers show the highest poverty rates since the Mayor took office at 21,2% meaning that 1.7 million people live below the poverty level.   Moreover, 31% of children 17 years old or younger lived in poverty which is very disturbing..  In addition,  the unemployment rate rose to an unacceptable 8.6% last month.

I have written previously how Mayor Bloomberg's education legacy has been a failure.  Now you can add the outrageously wide "wealth gap" to the failures of the Bloomberg Administration. The arrogance of the Mayor's policy of "what's good for the rich, is good for the masses" resulted in his disconnecting with the people of New York City.  A prime example was his selection of the inept Cathie Black as Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools simply because she was part of his wealthy social circle of friends.  Under Mayor Bloomberg's tenure there is definitely a "tale of two cities"  His arrogance can be seen in his refusal to negotiate a contract with the municipal unions, many of them working class and making modest salaries, with some unions working without a contract for over 4 years!  Yet he seems to spend billions on high-priced consultants, some of them crooked (Citytime, 911 etc.).

Is it any wonder that the anti-Bloomberg candidate, Bill de Blasio received over 40% of the vote in the Democratic primary while Christine Quinn, his choice received only 15%?  Most New Yorkers are sick of Mayor Bloomberg and his policies that shows disrespect for the masses and tries to impose his own preferences to remake the city in his own image.  Michael Bloomberg's legacy is a mixed bag with his destructive education policy, the ever widening "wealth gap", and his disrespect of his municipal workers overshadows his stewardship in bringing New York City through many crises in good shape.

Diane Ravitch's Book Exposes The Education Reform Agenda As A Hoax.

Diane Ravitch's new book, "The Reigin of Error" exposes the education reformer agenda as being flawed and not in the best interests of the students.  She goes on to tell how the education reformers are simply trying to privatize the schools and to reduce the teaching profession to an "at will employee".

Ms. Ravitch points out how the education reform movement ignore the many issues associated with poor student academic achievement and blame the poor performance on school educators, especially the teachers.  She writes in her book how the education reform movement ignores the most important predictor in a child's academic achievement and that is poverty. Almost all studies show that a child's social-economic environment is the major factor (80%) affecting  the student's academic achievement, yet the education reformer will claim that "poverty is no excuse", as if it's the school's fault.  Ms Ravitch exposes the education reform "no excuses" as a fraud.  She shows how children in poverty lack many of the basics that allow for academic achievement.  Dysfunctional family life, unsafe community, and negative peer group pressure are ignored by the education reformers as if they don't matter.  Moreover, Ms. Ravitch shows how the lack of resources, large class sizes, and high teacher turnover are a major factor in a student's academic achievement yet the education reform movement never mention these issues.  Instead the claim a "quality teacher" is the only thing necessary for a child's academic achievement.

Her book points out that in struggling schools in deep poverty have frequent turnover of teachers and many of them leave the classroom before they even get tenure.  As she points out,  these schools need experienced teachers and a stable school environment.  Instead the education reformers see no problem with high teacher turnover and the "Teach For America" two year wonders and still expect the students to excel academically.What a fantasy.

Finally, she shows how most charter schools do no better than the public schools and how these schools are segregated and take resources from the public school system. She also states how these charter schools discourage the most needy of students from applying and staying in the school.  She points out how "high needs students" like special education, English language learners, and behaviorally challenged students are discouraged from attending the charter schools and will not provide services for them.  Instead they are counseled out of the school  by the lack of services, a more stringent discipline policy, and the threat to not promote the student to the next grade.

Reading "The Reigin Of Error" exposes the education reform movement as a hoax and is a "reformer policy first, children last" policy.

To Be A Quality Teacher, One Must Have A Passion For Teaching.

I am sick and tied of reading articles by so-called "education reformers" and charter school supporters who claim that "newbie teachers" are "quality teachers".  To be a "quality teacher", one must have these characteristics.  They are experienced, a deep knowledge of the curriculum, good classroom management skills, a connection to their students, and most of all a passion for teaching.

While a "newbie teacher" may have enthusiasm and a commitment to help students, the steep learning curve in their first three years in the classroom makes it virtually impossible to achieve what most educators know what makes a "quality teacher".  In those first three years most teachers are just fully understanding the curriculum, developing good classroom management skills, and deciding if the classroom was the right profession for the teacher, almost 50% decide it isn't.

Which brings me to what stands out as the hallmark of all "quality teachers" and that is a passion for teaching.  The best teachers connect with their students and this student/teacher connection develops when the student soon realizes that the teacher has deep curriculum knowledge, keeps a peaceful classroom, and is caring and nurturing.  However, the best of these "quality teachers" have one other thing in common and that is a passion for teaching.  When the students see that the teacher really enjoys teaching them, they inspire the students and buy into the subject the teacher is teaching.  Time and again, first, as a student and now as a colleague, the best teachers in the school all were passionate about teaching their students.  They didn't think of it as simply a job but a calling.  By contrast, it is a crap shoot when a "newbie teacher" is assigned to a classroom and since half of them will leave before they get tenure, I certainly wouldn't want my child being a guinea pig in a class where the teacher is subject to a steep learning curve and unsure if their future is in the classroom.

The education reformers and their media friends can spout their lies that "newbie teachers" are "quality teachers" but educators know the truth.  Just ask a parent would they expose their children to an untested "newbie" or an experienced veteran?  The answer is obvious.

The Real Losers In The Mayoral Primary Are Michael Bloomberg And Christine Quinn.

The Daily News published an editorial today that stated that the losers in the Bill de Blasio victory was Anthony Wiener and UFT President Michael Mulgrew.   While Anthony Weiner's collapse to less than 5% was significant, he was a long shot to be Mayor without union support.  While its true that the UFT backed the wrong horse in Bill Thompson, it hardly makes the UFT a loser since many teachers voted for Bill de Blasio and the UFT will eventually support his Mayoral bid.

By contrast, the real losers were Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Christine Quinn who only received 15% of the Democratic party primary vote.  Worse for the Mayor were that the voters in the primary wanted to see a change in the Mayor's policies, especially in education.  Every news media showed that the voters in the Democratic party primary for Mayor were sick of Michael Bloomberg's imperious reign and his micromanagement of the City.  The widespread dissatisfaction of the Mayor resulted in Christine Quinn coming in a distant third and many voters blamed her for Bloomberg;s third term and rightly so.

Who were the real losers in the Democratic party mayoral primary?  It was Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Christine Quinn of course. I say goodbye and good riddance to the two of them.

Why Doesn't The Union Tell The ATRs That They Are Not Subject To The Teacher Evaluation System?

I was reading the union propaganda rag, the New York Teacher, and noticed that the paper published an article that said who were and who were not subject to the flawed teacher evaluation system.  Absent from the list who were exempt were ATRs.  Was this omission deliberate?   I think it was, why else would our union ignore over 2,000 teachers?  I guess they don't want people to know the truth.

Let me clarify the issue.  ATRs who are not in the classroom the entire school year will not be evaluated under the new system since no pre-test or post-test baselines can be established for them.  Therefore, if a teacher takes a long term leave position say after November 1st or leaves before the end of the school year, they can only be evaluated under the old system "S" and "U".  A much better system for teachers.

If the ATR is unlucky and takes a long-term leave position in a school that does not meet the following criteria, I wish you all the luck in the world because you're going to need it.  The criteria is listed below.

1. Administrative quality.
2. Student body
3. School tone/discipline policy

Good luck and best wishes for a successful year,

Chancellor Dennis Walcott's Teacher Approval Ratings Are In Cathie Black Territory And That's Bad, Real Bad.

Well if there is any question how teachers feel about Chancellor Dennis Walcott, the 2013 Learning Environment survey certainly clinched it.  Gotham Schools published the findings on how teachers felt about Dennis Walcott's tenure   In the survey a question was asked "Are you satisfied with the job the Chancellor is doing"? What was reported is as follows:

Satisfied..............................................Dissatisfied
 27%                                                         57%

What's surprising is that 27% of the teachers are satisfied with the Chancellor, what planet are these teachers from?  Certainly not the planet Earth. How does Chancellor Walcott's rating stack up with the scores of the last two Chancellors?  Let's compare them.

...............................Satisfied............................Dissatisfied

Joel Klein....................30%....................................48%

Cathie Black................27%....................................54%

Dennis Walcott............27%....................................57%

That's right when compared to the incompetent and unqualified Cathie Black, Dennis Walcott's 
percentages are actually worse!  There are more teachers who were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
(57%) with Dennis Walcott than when Cathie Black was Chancellor (54%).

While its obvious that the three Chancellors under Mayor Bloomberg have been unpopular, Dennis Walcott was supposed to bring with him a kinder, and gentler supervision.  Instead Dennis Walcott has alienated teachers with his advocacy for punitive measures, especially against teachers in the classroom.  Let's look at the issues that have made the Chancellor so unpopular with the teachers.

• His lack of independent thought from the Mayor's anti-teacher crusade.
• The Chancellor's advocacy on the "LIFO" repeal.
• Ever increasing class sizes and tight budgets.
• A total failure to connect with the teachers in the trenches.
• A lack of accountability at the top and an ever widening achievement gap.
• The closing of schools and more money going to charter schools.
• His demand to overturn arbitration decisions on charged sexual misconduct cases.
• The continuation of failed policies and meaningless graduation statistics.
• The "fair student funding" formula that stops principals from hiring the best teachers.
• The continuation of the ATR crises. 
• The "double standard" when it comes to disciplining teachers and Tweed managers.

As a teacher if I had 57% of my students dissatisfied with me, I would be a failed teacher and should be terminated.  However, the Chancellor is not held accountable for his poor scores. but the good news come January 1st, 2014, Dennis Walcott will be gone and just a bad memory.  Hopefully,. the next Chancellor will be an educator and discontinue the failed policies under the Bloomberg Administration.

Back Into The ATR Pool For Me.

Well, I am back into the ATR pool, complete with weekly assignments, administrative abuse, and student disrespect.  Normally, I would be upset that I am not teaching but this year is very different than any other year.  You see ATRs are not subject to the badly flawed teacher evaluation system!  The Danielson rubric and the use of Common Core without a road-map or resources. That's right, ATRs will be rated under the old "satisfactory/unsatisfactory" system since the DOE cannot account for the "student growth" component that is incorporated in the "junk science" equation developed by the State.  Moreover, I look forward to travel throughout the Queens high schools and evaluate the three components that makes a school good or bad for teachers and you will find it on the resurrected "Traveling ATR blog". .

The three criteria I will use to evaluate and grade the schools I will pass through are as follows:

1. Administrative quality.
2. Student body
3. School tone/discipline policy

The quality of the administration is of primary importance for a school's success or failure.  Last year I had the pleasure of being in a school the entire year where the administration worked collaboratively with staff and had an experienced teaching staff.  In this environment the students thrived academically and there was little fear of vindictive reprisals against effective teachers, even if they are outspoken since it's  "what's best for the students" .  By contrast beware of the Bloomberg small schools with "Leadership Academy Principals".  The staff is usually inexperienced and are required to work extra assignments without compensation.  These schools are  dangerous to the long term survival of a teacher.

The student body is extremely important as the "peer effect" affects the overall student learning. A diverse and engaged student body will lead to a successful school like the one I was in last school year.  On the other hand, if the student body is disengaged and unruly, the "broken window theory" will come into effect and the school will fail. The "peer effect" will make or break a school's potential for success.

Finally, school tone is very important and is usually a deal breaker for a school. The "peer effect" if it's a positive influence on the learning environment, the school will be successful. On the other hand, many schools are trying the restorative approach to student misconduct which allows the student to continue to disrupt the classroom time and again which interferes with student learning.  While restorative approaches have their good points for the misbehaving student, it ignores the needs of the vast majority of students who follow the rules and want to learn but see that there is little consequence for student misbehavior.  The school-wide restorative approach adds to the "broken window theory" and makes a successful school an impossibility for a school's academic success.  A zero tolerance policy against student misconduct will eventually lead to a successful learning environment and go along way to make a successful school.

In summary, if you are an ATR and a school calls you for a long term replacement, check out the school on insideschools and schoolbook to get an understanding of what the school environment is.  Without the necessary information about a school, I suggest you think really long and hard about taking a long-term leave replacement.  I certainly will, especially with the badly flawed teacher evaluation system and the punitive Danialson rubric that will damage the teaching profession for years to come.

Why Teaching Experience Counts. My Story.

I was appalled by the New York Times inaccurate "puff piece" on charter schools and why teacher experience is unimportant.  In fact some misguided Administrator claims that teacher experience is a drawback.  How unreal. You can read the NYT article here.  Moreover, look at the rebuttal article from a retired teacher and the overwhelming response here. I can tell you that when I look back to my first couple of years teaching, I made plenty of mistakes, didn't fully understand the curriculum and my classroom management skills were atrocious. Yes, my enthusiasm was  boundless and I was willing to work with my students on a moment's notice.  However, overall, I was no better than a developing teacher who had much to learn.    I looked to the more experienced Science teachers to help me overcome my many teaching deficiencies, especially when it came to classroom management. 

The two teachers that mentored me had a combined experience of 46 years in the classroom and when I went to observe them, I saw a peaceful classroom with many students engaged and asking rapid fire questions with the two teachers carefully explaining how things worked.  Both teachers didn't teach to the test, what they did was to show how everyday items were employed and applied it to Science.  Furthermore, they also taught in an interdisciplinary matter incorporating history, math, and other Sciences to give the students a total education that lasted through their adult years.

Here I was, a newbie teacher, requiring a steep learning curve and  "teaching to the test". My poor students weren't given the opportunity to ask in depth questions nor could I have answered them in my first year of teaching.  Is it any wonder that my student's Regents scores were lower than the other two teachers?  I felt bad that I let my students down.  However, by my third year I had the experience to seamlessly incorporate the very lessons that my two mentor teachers were using and my students Regents scores improved, finally by my fifth year reaching the scores of the students my two mentors obtained.   As I gained more experience, I saw a gradual increase in my students Regents scores.

I now am in my 20th year and I can tell you that each year I learn more and more and refine my teaching style to make it comfortable and exciting for my students.  In my early years I felt sorry for my students that they had an inexperienced me as a teacher but now I am impressed that my students only have good things to say about me that it was a pleasure having me as their teacher and that makes me proud. 

Ask the students if experience counts!

Campbell Brown Fails To Understand How The Teacher Discipline Process Works And That's A Shame!

Failed journalist and pseudo-reform advocate, Campbell Brown can't seem to understand that when teachers are accused of misconduct that they have "due process rights".  These "due process rights" include a 3020-a hearing in front of a State Arbitrator that is approved by both the DOE  and UFT.  That's right!  The DOE must approve the Arbitrator before that Arbitrator is allowed to hear cases against New York City teachers, something Ms. Brown fails to mention.  Every year Arbitrators must be approved by both the DOE and UFT and if one or the other is unhappy with the Arbitrator's decisions, their annual contract is not renewed.

Had Campbell Brown did some simple investigations of the 95 teachers she said should have been fired, she would have found that many of the best and most experienced Arbitrators, after carefully, weighing the evidence, or lack thereof, found that these teachers were not guilty of what the DOE charged them with.  In fact, many of these Arbitrators are still hearing teacher misconduct cases as the DOE has renewed their contracts year after year.

What do Arbitrators look for in the 3020-a hearings?  Here is a list I wrote previously.

• Did the DOE meet the "just cause" standards?
• Were the witnesses credible?
• Did the evidence correlate with the charges?
• Did the defendant appear credible?
• Did the defendant show remorse and sorrow about the action?
• Were there extenuating circumstances?
• What was the defendant's disciplinary and educational record prior to the charges?
• Did the DOE meet the "preponderance of evidence" standard?
• What was the quality of legal representation (both sides)?

The  bottom line is that the arbitrators want to see "relevant preponderance of evidence" before they

will uphold the DOE charges of misconduct and that is a much lower standard than the "reasonable doubt" used in the courts.  Therefore, for arbitrators, it's about real evidence and supportable hearsay for them to find in favor of the DOE charges.  However, in many cases the DOE investigator's job is not to find evidence to support teacher misconduct but simply provide the rumors, unsupported hearsay, and gossip to substantiate the allegations that result in the DOE charges.  Maybe if the DOE investigative process would be fair and unbiased, the 95 school employees would never have been charged in the first place since the DOE did not have the evidence or supported hearsay to make their case.

The DOE's Corrupt Investigative Process.

What does Mayor Bloomberg his poodle, the clueless Chancellor Dennis Walcott, and the failed journalist, Campbell Brown have in common?  They all believe that real evidence of teacher misconduct is unnecessary as long as the DOE investigators substantiate the accusation,  no matter how weak the case is. That's right, if the DOE investigators can substantiate even the smallest incident and the Principal wants that teacher out of the school, look for 3020-a charges to follow.

Time and again in my blog I have identified how the various DOE investigative units, Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI), Office of Special Investigations (OSI), and Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), will twist, pervert, and embellish the most innocent of actions as misconduct. Rather than rehash the points you can read these posts here, here, and here.  They will tell you how the flawed and biased DOE investigative process works.

There are two constants for all DOE investigations that lead to 3020-a charges.  The first is having a Principal target you.  In almost all cases that lead to 3020-a charges it starts with the Principal.  These principals will make"mountains out of  molehills", or even when there are no hills to get the teacher subject to an OSI or SCI investigation.  These principals understand that the DOE investigators  do their best to substantiate the most trivial of actions to rid the Principal of the teacher they don't like or want and even lie just to get the teachers removed.  Yes, investigators are caught in lies. However, it's of little consequence since their job is to show guilt and not the truth.
  The second, is the investigator's presumption that the teacher is guilty of something and it's their job to find that guilt even if it means substantiating the unsubstaintiated hearsay or gossip associated with the accusation.  Real evidence is unnecessary and is only a problem at the 3020-a hearing, not for removing the teacher from the school and the investigators know that.

Sure, some teachers commit real misconduct and should be terminated.  However, its important that teacher "due process rights" allow for a fair and independent hearing on the 3020-a charges and that should include the DOE investigative process which presently, is a "stacked deck" against teachers and is used by pusedo-reformers who want to destroy the teaching profession.

Finally, never, never, never speak to these investigators.  Let your lawyer or union advocate speak with them.  They will take your most innocent statement and change it to make you look guilty of the allegations. 

Michael Mulgrew's Knockout Of Campbell Brown

I am usually critical of my union for allowing Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his cronies at Tweed to poison and disrespect the teaching profession, especially, the classroom teacher.  However, there are times when the union does step up and do the right thing.  One of these events was when UFT President Michael Mulgrew responded to failed newscaster turned pusedo-reform advocate Campbell Brown's complaint that the union protects sexual predators in the schools.  The exchange between the two can be found here.

Ms. Brown asked Mr. Mulgrew if he would take a pledge and renegotiate the teachers' contract to allow the Chancellor to fire teachers accused of sexual misconduct, citing 128 DOE employees that she claimed did commit sexual misconduct and only 33 were  fired.  Mr Mulgrew responded in one of his best moments of his tenure by telling Ms. Brown that he does not pledge to her and that her definition of sexual misconduct cannot be  based on a mere accusation.

Mr. Mulgrew then went on to lecture Ms. Brown about how her allegations are misleading and how the system actually  works.  Mr. Mulgrew explained to Ms. Brown that the union agrees with the DOE that a simple allegation is sufficient for a teacher to be removed from having contact with children if a Principal so wishes it and if an Arbitrator finds that the teacher committed any sexual misconduct they must be fired.  There is no discretion by the Arbitrator on this.  He also told Ms. Brown that the reason the 95 DOE employees were not fired is because the charges of sexual misconduct were not proven to be true.

Finally, Mr. Mulgrew ended his response to Ms. Brown by telling her to get her picture taken by the Daily News and stopped any further discussion on the matter as he proved his point that the union does not protect sexual predators.  For people unfamiliar with the teacher contract here is what it says on page 120 of the latest edition of the teacher contract.

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


I must say that the exchange between Michael Mulgrew and Campbell Brown was a one-sided boxing match and the winner by knockout was Michael Mulgrew.  Good job Mike!

The DOE's Scarlet Letter

Only in the bizzaro world of the New York City Department Of Education (DOE) does a teacher who was found innocent of charges still is guilty of those charges.  Yes, it's true!  The DOE has flagged all teachers who were charged under 3020-a even when those charges were found to be untrue!  In other words, the DOE will put a discipline flag on a teachers file if the accusation results in 3020-a charges regardless if the accusations were proven to be true or not.

If you're a reader of my blog, you know that I have written extensively about the City's 3020-a process and how biased and flawed it is.  However, what is little known is the discipline flag that the DOE places on a teacher's personnel file making it virtually impossible for those teachers to get an interview for vacancies.  In other words the DOE has placed a "Scarlet Letter" on their files when principals and only principals can see when they access the teacher's file.

Previously, I wrote an article about the discipline flag the DOE was going to do but I didn't realize that they actually went ahead and did it anyway.  How could the DOE impose a discipline flag on a teacher's file if it's found that the teacher did not commit the misconduct that the DOE accused the teacher of doing?  The reason is that they don't care what the evidence shows, as long as the DOE investigators substantiate the accusation.  That brings me to the DOE investigative process. If you believe that the DOE investigators conduct a fair investigation then please read my posts on corrupt investigations or the Fairy tale. For anybody subject to these DOE investigations they all know its all about how the Principal feels about the teacher that dictates the tone of the investigation.  If the Principal does not like the teacher it is almost guaranteed that the investigators will substantiate the accusation no matter how flimsy the evidence is.

The UFT has filed a PERB complaint about the unfairness of attaching a discipline flag on teacher files when an independent Arbitrator found that the DOE charges for the stated misconduct was not upheld.  However, it appears the union is not pushing their complaint with any urgency while in the meantime all those teachers who were found innocent of the DOE charges of serious misconduct have the dismissed charges on their teacher file as if the charges were found to be true.  In other words, in the bizzaro world of the DOE, once charged you are automatically guilty no matter what the evidence shows at a 3020-a hearing.  Now that is real serious misconduct.

My Interview With A Disgruntled Education 4 Excellence Member.

During the summer I was contacted by a teacher who wanted me to hear his story about joining and eventually leaving Educators 4 Excellence (E4E).  I suspect his story is similar to many other disgruntled teachers who have joined E4E only to realize that this organization is a tool for education reform organizations and not what's best for the schools and the students.  To protect him I will call him "David".

David was graduating from a Midwest college when he was recruited by "Teach For America" (TFA) to teach in a low income urban school.  He always wanted to go to New York City and got his wish.  After receiving his five week training he was assigned to a school in the South Bronx in District 7 where he was greeted by the Principal.  The Principal explained to David and the seven other TFA teachers that his school is the "proving ground" to see if you have the ability to survive the demands of teaching in New York City.  On the first day, I was introduced to the "Chapter Leader" who told the staff that over 40% of the teachers we had last year are gone from the school.  At the time I didn't understand why there was such a turnover of staff.  However, I soon found out why.  Many of the teachers left because of the challenging student population, lax discipline, and Administrative demands that required teachers to take up extra duties on an unpaid basis. Many teachers stayed to 6pm just to complete the paperwork and prepare for the next day, all for $46,000.

Within the first week, I received a flyer in my mailbox that invited me to join an organization that represents the views of the teachers who are new to the school system.  At the time I thought this was simply part of the union and I eagerly joined this organization (E4E) since they claimed to want more pay, better working conditions, and a say in education policy.  It was easy to convince me after E4E plied me with booze and food while pitching their program at a get-together at a local bar..

During the first semester, I was contacted weekly by E4E to volunteer my time to convince other teachers to join the organization and to come to meetings about supporting the Bloomberg Administration's policy on eliminating seniority rights, and the evolving teacher evaluation system.  At first, I believed everything E4E was advocating and it helped that my school had many E4E members and the Principal actually supported the organization by giving them access to the school. It was only near the end of my first year did I slowly realize that E4E was a small group, even a cult, that had only a handful of schools represented and these schools were staffed by TFA teachers and experienced high turnover rates, just like my school.

With the summer off and time on my hands, I started to read the education blogs and blogger posts about E4E and was shocked and disappointed how the bloggers felt about E4E.  They called them tools for Bill Gates, and Eli Broad, a fifth column, and how many of the E4E leaders were not even classroom teachers!  I decided to start asking questions to my E4E coordinator once I started my second year and quickly realized that they were uncomfortable with me questioning them.  At the first meeting in my school where E4E welcomed the next batch of TFA teachers the Principal had recruited (we had a 30% turnover rate, less left because of the recession).  At the meeting I asked why E4E is not working with the union on common issues of interest?  You would have thought I asked them to commit suicide. Their response was hostile that E4E represents the views of the 21st century teacher and not the old and stringent contract requirements that the union represented.  I stayed as a E4E member but did very little work on behalf of the organization.  The more I knew about E4E, the less I wanted to be part of the group.

By the end of my second year, I became so disillusioned with E4E's increasing demands and rhetoric for its members, that I quit the organization.  However, I found out "that once you're in, you can't get out". They wanted us to go to other schools and network with new teachers to invite them for food and drinks to encourage them to join.  I was unwilling to waste my time doing that and I noticed that many of the E4E leaders were no longer classroom teachers and had no classroom assignments.  When I asked one who I was particularly close to in my school how did he get out of the classroom and into a job as a "coach" in his third year of teaching.  He smiled and said that the E4E leadership encouraged the Principal to make him a "coach" to reward him for his loyalty and recruitment success to the organization.  Yes, it seems my Principal not only hired TFA teachers but was one of the select schools that encouraged teachers to join E4E and rewarded them for doing so.

In my third year, I went on the Open Market Transfer System and received many job offers, since I

was inexpensive and not tenured.  I took a position in Manhattan and decided to no longer be an active participant in E4E.    This did not stop E4E from contacting me repeatedly to help them recruit and keep including me as a member.  I finally, cut all ties with them when they refused to run a slate in last year's UFT elections and I soon realized that they were a fringe group that is not supported by teachers but is propped up by outside education reform groups that want to deprofessionalize teaching and make it a temporary stopover on one's path to a real professional job that can support a family.

I will be starting my fourth year in teaching and hopefully receive tenure as I now realize what a dope I was in thinking E4E cares about the teachers in the trenches (classroom).  Rather they are a tool for outside interests that want to destroy the power of the teacher unions and make the teaching profession a low wage, temporary job.  Finally, I have realized that the goal for many of the mid-level E4E members is not what is best for the students but the quickest path to achieve an education policy position and leaving the classroom as fast as possible.

Why I Believe It Will Be A Bill de Blasio/Bill Thompson Runoff.

After watching the Democratic mayoral debate, I am more and more convinced that it will end up to be a Bill de Blasio/John Thompson runoff.  The poor showing by Christine Quinn and her high negatives show that the majority of Democratic voters will not vote for her.  In fact, she probably lost the "Bloomberg Democrats" with her support of the elimination of some of the Mayor's enforcement initiatives.

By contrast, I thought that Anthony Weiner was on the top of his game and had a good grasp of the issues.  John Liu also came out well and I suspect that the downward slide in the polls by Weiner has ended and I predict both Weiner amd Liu will see an upward bump in the next set of polls.

Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson held their own on stage and except for a brief stumble by Thompson on giving municipal workers "retroactive raises", they did a good job presenting their case.

Unfortunately, that left Christine Quinn who spend most of the debate trying to ignore the "third term issue" and the relentless attacks on how she "aided and abetted" the Mayor in overturning the will of the people by eliminating "term limits" ,her failure to pass legislation,  and  her continued insistance in  talking past her allotted time while gnoring the moderator's attempt to go to another candidate or question. Below are the grades I assigned the candidates.
travesty, 

Anthony Weiner................................A
John Liu..........................................A-
Bill de Blasio.....................................B
Bill Thompson...................................B-
Christine Quinn.................................D+

How did the rest of you see it?

Mayor Bloomberg's Legacy Is That The Achievement Gap Is Wider Now Than When He Came Into Office.

Well, the results are in and the academic achievement gap between Asians and Whites on one hand and Blacks and Hispanics on the other  is now wider than in 2002 when Mayor Bloomberg took office.  Yes, that's right, not only has the Bloomberg Administration falied to close the academic achievement gap for the New York City students, but it has widened!

Based upon the 2013 State tests the academic achievement gap  between the Asian and White students and Black and Hispanic students has widened dramatically.  While all groups dropped,  It was schools that are in high poverty areas with an almost 100% minority population that dropped the most.  For example District 7 saw a drop of 64% in English and 75% in Math.  Citywide, black and Latino students showed a drop of 56% in English and over  a 60% drop in Math compared to an average of a 37% drop in English and a 50% drop in Math for all students.  That means that the drops for Asian and White students were much lower.

Overall the New York City 2013 proficiency levels are as follows.

English.............................Math

48%.................................61%............................Asian
47%.................................50%............................White
16%.................................15%.............................Black
16%.................................19%.............................Hispanic

That is an achievement gap that shows that Blacks and Hispanics are three times less likely to be proficent than Asians and Whites.

 In 2002, the proficiency levels were as follows:

 English............................Math

71%................................76%............................White
39%................................41%.............................Black
38%................................45%.............................Hispanic

Minorities werer less than twice as likely not to be proficient as Whites.

For the Mayor who has demonized teachers, ignored parents, disrespecting communities, and only cares about the 1%, his legacy in education is a failure with a wider student academic achievement gap when he leaves office then when he started,  The education Mayor, yeah right.



.

.

To The Education Reformers. It Really Is About Community, Family, And Poverty.

The revised New York State tests came out and as predicted, every school district saw drops in the passing rates.  In the well-to-do school districts scores dropped by an average of 25% while the poor school districts saw drops of well  over 50%.  In looking at the data it's very obvious that community, family, and economic status are the major factor in the achievement gap between minority and non-minority school districts.  In this post I will compare two Long Island school districts only 7 miles apart that showed why the student academic achievement gap persists and its not the teachers!

The Jericho school district is considered one of the top school districts in the nation while seven miles to the southeast is Wyandanch school district, one of the worst in New York State.  What are the differences between the two school districts?  Easy its about the community, family, and economic status.  Let's compare the two school districts.

Demographics:

Jericho..........White..........Asian..........Black..........Hispanic
                    61.3%........34.3%.........2.1%...........1.5%.

Wyandanch......0.6%..........2,2%........66.6%.........32.6%

Obviously, the demographics are opposite of each other as Jericho has only 3.6% of minority students. Moreover, 40% of the white student population are Jewish.  On the other hand, Wyandanch has only 2.8% of its student body is made up of White and Asian students. 

Economic Status: Slightly more than 64% of school age children are economically disadvantaged compared to only 8% of the students in Jericho.  While the official poverty rate of Wyandanch is 12% compared to 4% in Jericho, the poverty rate is concentrated in families that have school age children, that's why there is such a large percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the Wyandanch schools.

Single Family Households: Related to the economic status is the preponderance of single family households.  In Wyandanch he percentage is an astounding 43% of all families compared to Jericho where only 8% of the population have a single parent household. Is it little wonder that the annual household income in Jericho is over twice the amount in Wyandanch?

That brings me to the 2013 test scores how did the two school districts compare in passing the tests?

Jericho....................English...............Math............Drop from 2012
                              70.6%..............72.6%.................20%

Wyandanch               6.2% .............. 5.6%..................80%

While the education reformers can keep speaking the lies that "poverty is no excuse" the facts speak for themselves that the community demographics, the family unit, and the social-economic status are the main reason for the racial/income academic achievement gap and not the teachers they love to demonize are the blame for the abysmal test scores in poor minority school districts.