In some of my posts I get comments from anonymous people on why if teachers are innocent, then why do they get fines, and even suspensions in their 3020-a hearings? That is a very good question and this post will answer that question. The answer is in fact, very simple. The NYC version of the 3020-a process is geared not to acquit educators. Let's look why that is the case.
New York State 3020-a Process:
First, what is the 3020-a State Law? The 3020-a State Law requires that any school district who wants to fire an educator for alleged incompetence or misconduct must present their case in front of an impartial arbitrator, paid for by the State, and will hear from both sides who can present evidence and witnesses to prove or defend their case. This is called "due process" and stops school districts from filing frivolous or bogus charges since it can cost $250,000 or more to go through an entire 3020-a hearing process. In the State version of the 3020-a hearings, the Arbitrator and the school district lawyer are not familiar with each other and the 3020-a Arbitrator is more likely to acquit or terminate the educator, based on the evidence, or lack thereof. However, the NYC 3020-a process is different.
New York City 3020-a Process:
A decade ago the UFT and the DOE decided to "streamline" the 3020-a process by assigning Arbitrators to a panel to hear the New York City educator cases (Article 21G2 pg 116 of the latest teacher contract). The Arbitrators selected served for a maximum of a one year term and can only be renewed if both sides agree that the Arbitrator did a good job. Therefore, Arbitrators were under pressure form both sides to come up with decisions that would not alienate one side or the other that might jeopardize their position on the Board. Therefore, Arbitrators were very reluctant to either terminate or acquit educators but would hand down "awards" of fines and suspensions. The Arbitrators knew that if they did not terminate the teacher, the union was happy that the educator kept his or her job, while the DOE was happy that the Arbitrators found the educator guilty by handing out fines and suspensions. While this is not the same as the State 3020-a proceedings it should have resulted in relatively fair decisions. However, the New York City 3020-a arraignment is actually detrimental to the educator, when compared to the State 3020-a process since the DOE is more aggressive in going after Arbitrators and the hearings are held in their building. Let's look at the other changes the UFT and DOE have agreed on that hurt educator "due process" rights when compared to the State 3020-a process.
The Elimination Of The Three Arbitrator Panel For Incompetence Cases:
The State 3020-a process requires a three Arbitrator panel to determine educator incompetence. However, the UFT and DOE agreed to eliminate the three Arbitrator panel and only one Arbitrator is assigned to each incompetence case. The elimination of the three-Arbitrator panel reduces educator "due process" by allowing one Arbitrator to make the decision that can affect the educator's future employment. As you have guessed there has been more charges of teacher incompetence since this change a decade ago.
Gone Is The Educator's Right To Select An Arbitrator From A List:
The State 3020-a process allows the accused educator to select an Arbitrator from a list sent by the State. In the NYC 3020-a process, the Arbitrator is assigned to the educator and cannot be changed.
Familiarity By All Parties With Each Other:
The NYC 3020-a process allows the Arbitrator to be paired up with the DOE and NYSUT lawyers. This grouping can stay together for up to four years and the only outsider is the accused educator. Therefore, the Arbitrator may be influenced by the lawyers that he or she has been with for years while the poor educator is just an outsider and a number. This is not good for the educator as his or her input may be somewhat discounted by the Arbitrator. This may be especially true when the educator takes a private lawyer who is not only a stranger to the Arbitrator but threatens the group relationship and can subconsciously affected the Arbitrator's decision.
The Probable Cause Provision:
Only the NYC 3020-a process has the infamous "probable cause" provision that was just recently expanded by the UFT and DOE to include a felony assault allegation. This has resulted in many an educator taken off payroll for up to three months and without health benefits simply based upon hearsay.
Elimination Of The Right To Grieve A Letter To The File:
The UFT also agreed to eliminate the teacher's right to grieve Letters-To-The-File (LIF) allowing Principals to pile up LIF against teachers for use in the 3020-a hearing.
In addition, the DOE is much more aggressive in removing Arbitrators who they believe are too educator friendly then the UFT. The result is that the remaining Arbitrators will make sure the "awards" are sufficiency harsh to pacify the DOE, least they be targeted for removal by the DOE.
Finally, the UFT has encouraged the teachers to take the voluntary PIP+ program that has a 90% failure rate and an almost 100% termination rate by the Arbitrators. who have uniformly agreed to allow the PIP+ educator to testify as an "expert witness".
The union may object to this post but the truth is the truth. Our union has weakened educator "due process" rights and have put any teacher that is targeted by an Administrator in danger of termination.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteChaz
ReplyDeleteEverything you are saying makes sense and meshes with what I have seen and gone through. There are some who refuse to recognize that the way the system is set up in NYC almost every teacher sent before the 3020-a panel will exit with their job intact and with a fine and/or reprimand. And there is (or was up until about six months ago) a very very low threshold for charges and dispatch to the 3020-a process.
Nothing of what you have written is illogical and everything you have written has been borne out by the facts. I defy anyone to show otherwise
Your facts are correct and the process has been used by the Board (language still applied to the DOE at such hearings) to shake down members for big buck settlements. The UFT is wrong for allowing this practice and should be challenged.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, who has the time and money to mount the challenge? The UFT has caved in to Bloomberg and are unable to fight this mayor therefore, teachers are led to the slaughter. Weingarten knew all this that is why she orchestrated the addition of day care workers into the ranks. Between retirees and day care workers the UFT leadership has an insurmountable tally as teachers make up less than one-third of the membership. A very,very bleak outlook for teachers.
This post sums really well the 3020a process in NYC, however, that is only the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteThe tip is the 10% or less of the total reassigned teachers who eventually go through the entire process of 3020a, the iceberg is the remaining 90% or more teachers who are coerced and intimidated by DOE and NYSUT !!! to settle with fines and other penalties because they see and hearing the predetermined outcomes of the pending 3020a.
Yes, DOE spends $250,000 on each 3020a case, but the real cost is about 1/10 of the amount. Every one who went through trial, 10 other teachers are forced to settle or quit. It is cheap to get rid of a senior teacher for the cost of $25000, and UFT is an implicit facilitator in the whole infamous process.
anon 8:07:
ReplyDeleteI am glad we totally agree. Outsiders are unaware how the NYC 3020-a system works and falsely assume teachers are guilty and point to coerced settlements and Arbitrator decisions to show it.
Anon 8:45
I must correct you that it was Joel Klein that abused the 3020-a process by giving principals the power to remove teachers and to take them off the school payroll in 60 days. The "rubber room" agreement was done over Joel Klein's objections and is one of the reasons he and Bloomberg parted company.
Of curse Michael Bloomberg is still public enemy #1 when it comes to the teaching profession.
Anon 9:16
You are correct, if the percentages are off. During the backlog elimination time period (September-December 2010) you are probably correct. However, up until the summer it was about 40% of the teachers were offered settlements. Of course, it was much higher if the settlements that required resignation at the end of a school year are included. I don't consider these settlements real and acceptable, unless the teacher had PIP+.
And what about the next time teachers are brought up on 3020-a charges. You think the arbitrator will still give a fine. Give it a little bit more time and you will see more terminations than fines and it is even starting to happen now!
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is the increasing percentage of the teachers who eventually end up in hearings probably due to the fact that less and less teachers take the retirement as a way out which is always DoE's ultimate objective and DoE has to step up the pressure.
ReplyDeleteThere may have been occasional differences in strategies, but the objective remains same among Bloomberg, or Klein, to push out senior more expensive teachers.
If you take a settlement, you are pleading guilty and if by chance, you are brought up on 3020-a charges in the future you will be terminated. I have seen that happen to four teachers who were forced to resign when their Arbitrator told them that you plead guilty before and if I find you guilty now I am forced to terminate you.
ReplyDeleteI do agree there is little difference between Bloomberg and Klein. They both are anti-senior teacher and will do whatever is possible to force them to retire or resign.
Betsy Combier for President.
ReplyDeleteChaz:
ReplyDeleteJust wondering why it takes some arbitrators many months to render a decision, and some other much less time to do the same thing? would like to hear your insight?
Anon 9:09
ReplyDeleteEvery Arbitrator is different. Some Arbitrators give a decision within a month or two. Many average three months, while a few may wait 8-9 months to render a decision, regardless of the case.
It beats me why the discrepancy. I guess it is just them. I do know that some of the delay by Arbitrators is the failure by the State in paying them. Hence they make a decision a low priority.
Chaz:
ReplyDeleteHow do you know this? You had your 3020-a and can speak to your experiences, but how can you talk about the system being geared towards everyone getting a penalty?
Why did you use a NYSUT lawyer-since your so critical of the system? With regard to that issue you can provide helpful information to others.
What we need in these tough times can be stated in one word: UNITY
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:12
ReplyDeleteMy 1539 days dealing with the system and talking to various NYSUT lawyers, that's how. Furthermore, my using a NYSUT lawyer is a personal choice and does not affect what the NYC 3020-a process is.
If you knew how the NYC 3020-a process worked, you would not be asking me the obvious.
Anon 12:14
If only "Unity" extended that concept to help their members and not themselves.
UFT has long made a conscious decision to trade the space for the time by giving up on some members and by doing so to better protect the interests of few bosses.
ReplyDeleteChaz
ReplyDeleteNothing you have written here has anything to do with your retention of a NYSUT lawyer. One is allowed to suggest NYSUT's legal department hire investigators without getting an outside lawyer just as one is allowed to critique UFT without leaving the union. Apparently, one of your critics does not understand logic. And BTW I had identical concerns with NYSUT's legal staffing and still retained my NYSUT lawyer. And BTW I waited about 5 months for a decision and my arbitrator was a slow and careful fellow.
Anon: 1:52
ReplyDeleteCan't agree with you more. Unless you have gone through the perverted NYC 3020-a process it is hard to understand what actually goes on that makes it almost impossible to acquit a teacher.
The "Unity" people would just like to keep us quiet and clueless and dispense their disinformation on to its unsuspecting members.
I recently had to deal with the 3020A process and could not agree more with you. I have since day 1 of my principal harassing me filed every thing I could with the union. They even agreed to take my harassment case to arbitration however after 3 years of being harassed my principal filed 3020A charges against me. Of course, I had to settle and pay fines and take courses or risk losing my job. Yes, the PIP+ program is used for the principal to help support their case against you but it is a double edge sword if you refuse to accept being in the program they can hold that against you. My PIP+ person said that I implemented everything that she told me to but somehow something wasn't there. Well, if I am doing everything that you are telling me then aren't you failing to say that something isn't there? Her conclusion was a rather personal opinion and her suggestions and advice although I implemented them were geared towards being a master teacher (many years of experience) without a family and being able to spend day and night planning which her comment was I don't care if you have to stay up all night to plan these are the things that you have to do. My NYSUT lawyer said that the PIP+ is impossible for her to fight against. So I settled but fortunate for me the next person that my former principal targeted was forced to resign. I am one of three teachers that this principal has filed these charges against and all 3 of us are jewish. This was brought to the unions attention and no action is/was taken and according to my settlement I am unable to pursue anything further. Again, double edge sword. So now I sit as an ATR with a scarlet letter, never able to get a permanent job. But I still have a salary with benefits and was more fortunate then my former coworker. The system is flawed and those people that are dealing with it are muted. The only thing that you hear are ill guided individuals that do not know all of the facts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteUnity Hack:
ReplyDeleteI had to delete your comments because you refuse to follow the rules on personal attacks. Furthermore, unless you were in Anon 4:00 place, you have no right to criticize him/her for taking a deal.
I guess you didn't read this post closely enough.
If every reassigned teacher, who truly believes his or her own innocence, acts upon the principles and fights the charges instead of entering into an unprincipled settlement for escape and avoidance, the DOE would have no option but to abandon its current frivolous 3020a charges on many if not most reassigned teachers.
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:49
ReplyDeleteI agree with you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt is about time that some of the 3020-a proceedures are exposed by Chaz.
ReplyDeleteWhen I thought I was going to be subject to 3020-a charges by my lousy and stupid Leadership Academy Principal I asked the District Representative how it works. Her response was "don't worry the union will provide you with a lawyer and that is all you need to know". Great.
Chaz, Keep up the good work in helping the teachers know their rights .
The truth of the matter is that everyone except the hapless teacher who is involved in the 3020a proceeding has something to gain or something to keep. Arbitrators make good money, both DoE and nysut attorneys get paid, principals get rid of the undesirable teachers, uft washes their hands.
ReplyDeleteA very, very informative post!
ReplyDeleteKudos to Chaz!
Two minor corrections in the caption:
"Makes" should be "Make."
"Aquitted" should be "Acquitted."
A better caption might be:
ReplyDelete"Why The UFT And DOE Make It Almost Impossible For Teachers To Be Acquitted By A Single Arbitrator At The Conclusion Of The Teachers' Education Law §3020-a Hearings"
I am presently going through everything you discussed in your posts. I am not anonymous, my name is Ina (my name is Adam voice) and I am innocent!
ReplyDelete