The Emperor And His Poodle, The Chancellor Wants To Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner When It Comes To Teachers Accused But Found Not Guilty Of Sexual Misconduct By Arbitrators.

Today the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg and his poodle the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, has proposed a law that will eliminate  "due process rights" for teachers accused of sexual misconduct.  According to the Emperor's bill any teacher accused of sexual misconduct will still get an independent Arbitration hearing under section 3020-a but the final decision will be left to the Chancellor.  Yes, the very same Chancellor who has prejudged twenty-four teachers guilty of sexual misconduct when faced with the evidence, the various independent arbitrators found none. 

This bill, which stands no chance of becoming law, is just another attempt by the Emperor and the Chancellor to weaken union protections and eliminate teacher rights to a fair and unbiased hearing in front of an independent Arbitrator.  While the Chancellor claims that he has zero tolerance for teachers accused of sexual misconduct, he feels otherwise when it comes to his Administrators. Here is what he said about now ex-Principal John Chase Jr. when he was accused by teachers and students of sexual harassment.
 

On the new allegation, he said, “Just because an accusation is made doesn’t mean a person is guilty.”

Interestingly, despite two separate allegations of sexual harassment, the DOE never had SCI investigate the charges, just OEO., why?  The answer is that John Chase Jr. was a Principal and there is a presumption of innocence, hence the above statement by the Chancellor.  On the other hand, the Chancellor has made it clear that any real evidence of no sexual misconduct is not as important as a biased OSI or SCI investigation that is heavily influenced by the school's Principal. 

While the proposed law will have no effect on teachers who have already gone through the 3020-a process but remain forever guilty by the DOE,  It will affect any new cases and despite evidence to the contrary, will lead to automatic termination, no matter what an independent Arbitrator finds.  This sounds more like a Nazi or Stalinist court than an American judicial process.  Then again we are talking about the Emperor who believes that the laws do not apply to him. As for the Emperor's poodle the Chancellor?  His track record in determining sexual misconduct is found to be sorely  lacking.  See DOEnuts blog for more details about how untrustworthy the Chancellor's decision-making ability is.

Well, It's Goodbye & Good Riddance To A Terrible School. It Now Looks Like I Will Be Back Into The ATR Pool For Next Year.

Last week I decided that the school that I am in as a provisional appointee is not a "good fit" and since the school is a likely "turnaround school" and will see an influx of clueless "newbie teachers"  along with some very outrageous teacher requirements next year (Saturday classes for one and imposed requirements for a teacher's prep and professional periods for another), all I see is even more stress and chaos then currently exists that has made my teaching at this school quite stressful and unrewarding.  Therefore, I expect that I will be rejoining the ATR ranks for the 2012-2013 school year.  I really do hope I land another teaching position either over the summer or in the beginning of the school year.  However, considering what I have going against me, it appears highly unlikely that I will be offered a position unless there is nobody else available like my last school and even them it took this school almost four months to offer me the position while the class had a substitute who had no certification in the field and as a result the students were academically behind. .

Why would a school not offer a "great teacher" a position?  Easy, when the "great teacher" is over 50, makes a high salary, and has a phony discipline flag on his file.  While, I cannot tell you the average age of ATRs are, the DOE told reporters that the average ATR salary is $82,420 annually.  Simple math tells you that the average ATR has 15+ years experience and the average age is probably in the 50s.  I meet all that criteria, unfortunately.

My decision to leave the "D" rated school ( it should be a "F" rated school as my friend the "Traveling ATR" quite actually described it) is really very easy.  First, the school student discipline policy is chaotic at best and non-existent .at its worst..  The Principal allows the students to run the school and many of them walk the halls cursing and disrespecting the teachers with no consequences for their actions.. Numerous times I heard students, even girls,  tell teachers to "suck my d-ck" with no consequences for what they said.  While the Deans try their best, the tone set by the Administration makes effective student discipline impossible. Moreover, the school allows the students to enter into the classroom whenever they feel like and teachers are reprimanded by the Administration if they lock their doors and refuse the students entry.  Second, the Administration looks the other way when students use their cell phones and ipods in school but will berate teachers for not taking action against the very same students who are observed using them in the classroom.  How can teachers enforce the rules when the Administration allows students to do as they please in the school?  Third, the teachers are required to bring their own copying paper if they are to distribute information to their students.  Even scantrons are hoarded and I had to "beg, borrow, and steal" them from other teachers who had accumulated a stash of them.  Fourth, the Administration blames the teacher when students are truant.  The Administration, time and again, would instruct teachers to repeatedly contact parents of truants as if it is our fault that the truants don't show up.  Even the guidance counselors would ask what have you done to get the truants to show up?   the real question is what have they and the Administration done to get the truants to show up and not blame the teachers.  Finally, I have a team teaching class with twelve of my thirty-two students who have an IEP, yet during my entire time at the school I never had a special education teacher, or any teacher for that matter, with me.  Yet the Administration blames me for not  providing these twelve students with the special education services that they needed.

I should also like to point out that I was never given a closet, locked or otherwise,a desk, or space to put my school and personal items in. The school never even gave me a rolling cart to move my stuff from the four different rooms and two different floors where my classes were held! The lack of simple professional curtsey by the school to my needs is disgusting.  Many days I had to truly "wing it" and had to employ my full complement of teaching skills to compensate for the lack of resources and to keep students engaged and interested.   This made teaching stressful and the classroom environment was terrible.  Do you still want to know why I am leaving?

I must admit, I love teaching and most of my students are good kids who actually thrived under my guidance and I will miss them but it is the minority of disruptive students that destroys the classroom environment that is the major problem. Yet the student behavior issue is ignored by the school Administration that is quick to blame the teacher but looks the other way when it comes to the behaviorally challenged  students in the classroom.  I can only hope that the next school that I teach in has a consistent and enforceable student discipline policy and respect their teaching staff.

"Great teachers" can only be great when the school Administration supports their teaching staff not work against them as what is happening in the school I am in now. It is "goodbye and good riddance" to a terrible school environment.

The DOE's Ultimate Goal Is To Get Rid Of Experienced Senior Teachers Not To Retain Quality Teachers In The NYC Public School System.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Emperor, Michael Bloomberg and his pet poodle the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, want only "great teachers" in front of the classrooms teaching our children.  When the Bloomberg/Walcott agenda is quite different than their stated goals.  The Bloomberg/Walcott real agenda is to eliminate as many senior teachers as possible and replace them with untrained "newbie teachers"  in their "education on the cheap" policy.  Let's look at the actions of the DOE that belie the Bloomberg/Walcott stated goal to improve the teaching profession.

Recruitment over Retention:

If the DOE really wanted to retain "great teachers" they would reduce class sizes, provide adequate resources to the classrooms,  ensure Administrative support, and raise salaries to compete with the suburbs.  Instead, the DOE  has  increased class sizes, starved the classroom for resources, protects poor Administrators (19% of the principals come from the "Leadership Academy") with little or no classroom experience, and have eliminated pay raises for the last four years.  Worse, under the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration, teacher choice was eliminated and many of the teachers of the large comprehensive schools find themselves without a position for next year.

If the DOE really wanted "great teachers" they would do everything in their power to improve the classroom environment not worsen it.

Focus on "Bad Teachers":

The primary focus by the DOE is the removal of "bad teachers" from the school system rather than programs and polices to improve teacher quality.  First, Chancellor Dennis Walcott called ATRs "bad teachers" and offered them generous buyouts to get them to leave the school system.  Then he wants to terminate all elementary school teachers who receive two consecutive "U" ratings.  Finally, the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration wants to right to impose their own version of a teacher evaluation system without teacher and union input which would simply be a termination process for "ineffective teachers".

Nowhere does the DOE propose or prepare programs to improve teacher quality except for hiring more "newbie teachers" from Teach For America  or the Teaching Fellows programs. A dubious policy at best and a likely worsening of teacher quality overall.

The Imposition of Terrible Programs and Bloated Budgets At Tweed: 


The DOE insisted on expensive and wasteful programs like SESIS and spent almost 900 million dollars on wasteful technology.  Furthermore, they fund their bloated Bureaucracy while starving the schools and the children.  This is no way for an agency to operate when it is supposed to be "children first" instead it is Tweed first and "children last".

Next time you hear the Emperor or his pet poodle, the Chancellor claim they are improving the schools and want "quality teachers", the truth is by far very different.

The Mulgrew Affair, The Infamous 2005 Contract, And The ATR Crises. Is There Really A Connection? I Hope Not.

The front page of today's  New York Post has the headline "UFT Sex Scandal" .  It claims that when Michael Mulgrew was the Chapter Leader at William Grady High School in Brooklyn he was having an affair with a married guidance counselor Emma Camacho-Mendez and were apparently caught in the school being intimate with each other in the 2004-2005 school year.  The entire affair was covered up by the DOE, UFT, the Principal, and Custodian of the school.  These allegations are contained in a federal lawsuit by teacher Andrew Ostrowsky.  What is must disturbing is the lawsuit's allegation that the massive "givebacks" and long-term damage that resulted from the infamous 2005 contract was a result of the cover up of the affair.

First, let me point out that rumors, gossip, and hearsay are hardly evidence of wrongdoing and unless real evidence is presented, the benefit of the doubt should go to Michael Mulgrew and Emma Camacho-Mendez that their relationship was professional in nature.  I should know since it was the very same rumors, gossip, and hearsay that put me in the "rubber room" for over four years.   However, I must admit that there are some very disturbing concerns associated with the allegations made in the lawsuit since it might have affected all teachers because of the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract and that needs to be addressed by our UFT President.

The Infamous 2005 Contract:

Many of us questioned why Randi Wiengarten agreed to the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract for an average raise of 3.15%, which was less than the rate of inflation for the same period? Could there have been a connection between the alleged Mulgrew-Camacho scandal and the massive "givebacks" in the 2005 contract? We all know that the infamous 2005 contract was the basis for the worsening of the teaching profession ever since. You can all see what we gave back in my "Here comes the clowns" series
Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here. Did Randi Weingarten allow this terrible deal to bury the Mulgrew-Camacho scandal?  What a chilling thought if true.

ATR Crises: 

The elimination of seniority transfer rights and especially the excessing rules that required that a vacancy in the district be offered to an excessed teacher who has the certification in the field was a tragic mistake and an unforgivable "giveback" by Randi Weingarten.  The result was an ATR population that have ranged from a low of 831 to a high of 2,400.  With all the closing schools coming this year, the ATR population can explode to a new all time high of 3,000+! If the ATR crises has resulted from a cover up of the Mulgrew-Camacho scandal, then heads should roll at the union.

Emma Camacho-Mendez:

According to many sources Emma Camacho-Mendez was transferred and rewarded for her silence with first, a part-time union position under Mulgrew, no pun intended, and then given a full-time union position despite not having "union credentials". In other words she was not an active participant in union organizing or volunteering her time for union activities.  How did she jump over all those other union people who spent time and effort for the union?

Conclusion:

While it might be easy to connect the dots and show that a theory exists that the alleged Mulgrew-Camacho affair cold have resulted in the UFT being blackmailed by the City into the terrible 2005 contract,  it still must be proven and I have only heard rumors, gossip, and hearsay not real proof and I hope what is printed and in the federal lawsuit is untrue.  If  any of the allegations does turn out to be true then it is time for new leadership to emerge since the old leadership rather protect their own at the expense of their members and that is a shame.  Remember my first quote on this blog:

"A strong union represents the members in the trenches and not the interests of the people in power".

Chancellor Dennis Walcott Proposes to Give A Generous Buyout For ATRs. What Does Generous Mean? Not Much If You Ask Me.

It seems that Chancellor Dennis Walcott has finally given up trying to fire ATRs by imposing a time limit on being an ATR.  Since he now realizes that the union has no interest in negotiating a contract with the Bloomberg Administration and even then Michael Mulgrew has made it clear that he has no intention of giving up the ATRs by imposing a time limit in the next contract. So instead of the stick, the Chancellor is offering a carrot by giving buyouts to ATRs.

While the Chancellor is vague on the buyout offer, he did say it will be "generous" compared to other cities buyout offers.  Dallas gave a $10,000 buyout while Washington D.C. offered a $25,000 buyout for teachers in good standing.   The best guess is that the buyout offer will be $1,000 per year of service which makes it somewhat equivalent to but certainly not superior to the Washington D.C. buyout offer.

The proposal by the Chancellor is quite flawed since the only ATRs that will take the buyout offer are those ATRs ready to retire anyway.  One of my ATR friends had her final pension consultation and was putting in her retirement papers next month.  Now she intends to stay until September so that she can get a $26,000 buyout package.  Who can blame her?  Sure, some but not many other ATRs will take the buyout offer because they want to leave the profession anyway.  The vast majority of ATRs will thumb their collective noses at the "generous buyout".

The majority of long-term ATRs (greater than one year) are senior teachers who are highly compensated and therefore are usually shunned by principals.  Remember principals control their school budget and due to the  "fair student funding formula" are very reluctant to hire senior ATRs due to these budgetary reasons. Furthermore, between ex-Chancellor Joel Klein, the DOE, and the media, the ATRs are looked at as failed or burnt out teachers.  Even in today's New York Post editorial the article demonizes the ATRs so why shouldn't principals, especially the "Leadership Academy Principals", believe it?   Despite the demonizing of the ATRs, many of them  are hard working teachers, who, no fault of their own, came from closing schools, excessed due to the elimination of the school program, and a target of phony discipline issues by vindictive principals.

I personally cannot see any teacher under 62 (unless part of the 25/55 program) taking the "generous buyout".  Certainly, any ATR under 55 will thumb their collectives noses at it since they cannot collect a pension or retiree health benefits until they reach 55 years of age.  So just what is "generous"?  I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect the Chancellor will be very disappointed when he realizes that his "generous buyout" policy will result in few takers.  If the Chancellor really wants to eliminate the ATR problem simply reimpose the requirement that excessed teachers  in their district are placed in the vacancies.  Any other proposal is doomed to fail and a waste of 100 million dollars.

Further Proof Of Why Chancellor Dennis Walcott Is A Hypocrite When It Comes To Disciplining Teachers & Administrators.

It now turns out that ex-Principal John Chase Jr. of Bronxwood Academy was subject to a new Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) investigation when the parents of a 15 year old freshman girl called the police because the ex-principal tried to apparently solicit an improper relationship with her.  According to the New York Post article in today's paper, John Chase Jr, told the girl not to go to her guidance counselor but to him with her problems.  He was alleged to have seen her alone and called her "special" and he was "watching her".  The girl became scared and the police were contacted.

What did the Chancellor say about removing the pervy Principal?  You got it, the Chancellor claimed that John Chase Jr. was demoted to Assistant Principal because of his poor testing results on Regents.  Just unbelievable!  Better yet, according to the New York Post article, the Chancellor said the following:

On the new allegation, he said, “Just because an accusation is made doesn’t mean a person is guilty.”

Wait a second, is this the same Chancellor who said that he believes sixteen teachers should have been fired based upon accusations that failed to hold up as evidence in the independent Arbitration process?  What a hypocrite the Chancellor is.  Furthermore, why wasn't the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) called in after the police were contacted?  Instead it went to the more compliant OEO group, why I ask?

To the Chancellor, you are a first class hypocrite and anything you say can not be believed by any educated person.

The DOE Continues To Practice A Double Standard When It Comes To Disciplining Principals And Teachers. The Story Of Now Ex-Principal John Chase Jr.

According to blogger JD2718 the xerox loving Principal of Bronxwood Academy, John Chase Jr, is subject to a C-30 for the Principal position at his school.  What is interesting is the very long time frame between the time that Mr. Chase took the Principal position and the actual C-30 for it.  I wonder if it had something to do with the very bad publicity of the sexual harassment charges that the Office of Equal Opportunity substantiated in their investigation of him.  I guess the DOE was waiting for the bad publicity to fade away before they formally filed the C-30 for the Principal's position at the school.

The Principal, John Chase Jr, was found by OEO that he violated Chancellor's Regulation A-830, sexual harassment.  However, instead of being terminated for sexual misconduct, the Principal was never removed from his position, merely reprimanded with a letter to his file, and told to take a sensitivity training course which he may or may not have taken. By contrast if a teacher was accused of sexual harassment under A-830 he would not only have been removed from the school but would receive 3020-a charges by the DOE who will demand his or her termination.  Talk about a "double standard"?

I have first hand experience on the DOE "double standard" that the DOE uses when disciplining teachers and principals.  I was removed from my school and subject to Chancellor's Regulation A-830 and subject to a "probable cause hearing" which if I had lost, I would have been suspended without pay or health benefits for three months. When two different independent Arbitrators found me innocent of violating.Chancellor's Regulation A-830, it did not stop the DOE in trying to continue to vilify me in the press as if I was guilty of sexual misconduct when the truth was otherwise.. By contrast the Principal, John Chase Jr.  admitted to violating A-830, stayed in his position and received a reluctant "slap on the wrist" by Chancellor Dennis Walcott who decided that his actions against various female subordinates was not worthy of removal. I guess the Chancellor has a very warped sense of morality when it comes to his principals.

For the sake of all the female subordinates at the Bronxwood Academy, we all need to make our feelings known and make sure that this Principal, John Chase Jr. does not get the Principal's position.

Update:  According to blogger JD2718, it now appears that John Chase Jr. will not be Principal after all.  He apparently told his staff that he will no longer be leading the school by next week.  Hopefully it is true.

The Disconnect Between The UFT and The DOE On Teacher Hiring In The Turnaround Schools Is Just So Confusing To The Teachers In Those Schools.

I am in a "Turnaround school" and am completely befuddled on the hiring protocols for the new schools that are replacing the 24 closing schools, assuming the UFT and CSA don't get an injunction on Wednesday.

According to the UFT, hiring will be based upon total DOE seniority if the applicant is qualified for the position.  That means being properly certified, getting a satisfactory rating, and good attendance.  However, the DOE seems to have a different opinion.  According to the letter I received, the successful candidate will also need to demonstrate the following:

1. Detailed lesson plans that include student differentiation requirements.
2. The ability to integrate Common Core standards in the lesson.
3. Project based learning.and using a blended learning model.
4. Ensure consistency with the Danielson Framework Model.
5. Incorporate technology as a major part of classroom teaching.

Even if the teacher meets all these requirements, the Principal can still select who she or he wants, at least according to the DOE.

I guess the disconnect between the UFT and DOE is the result of of how section 18D of the contract (pages 108-109) is interpreted.by both sides  In the mean time, 3,000 teachers are in a state of confusion as they must decide whether to apply to their turnaround schools or go on the open market to look for a more stable teaching position.  Based upon my school, many of the teachers are seriously considering going to try their luck on the open market and not go through the humiliating experience to beg for their positions back.  As for me?  I have not made up my mind yet.

.

The Chancellor Data Report Shows That Dennis Walcott Gets A Zero.

In the uproar that followed the release of the bogus "teacher data reports" (TDR) it is only fair that the Chancellor also be given a numerical grade on his ability to run the Department of Education.  Unlike the complex and complected mathematical formula that only blogger JD2718 can understand, I simplified it to an easily understandable equation.

CDR = I + Tm + Sa + Cr + Pi +Sg

I     = Independent thought from the Mayor.
Tm = Teacher morale.
Sa  = Student academic achievement.
Cr  = Career & college readiness.
Pi  =  Parent Involvement.
Sg = Racial/Income student achievement gap.

The Chancellor has shown not one ounce of independent thought from the Mayor's.
Moreover, under the Chancellor's tenure, teacher morale has sunk to an all time low.
There has been no improvement in student academic achievement under Dennis Walcott.
The same is true when it comes to "career and college readiness" rates.
Under Dennis Walcott parent involvement in DOE policy decisions are still non-existent.
Finally, the racial/income student achievement gap has remained unacceptably wide.  Therefore, when I input the data into my formula here is what I get.

CDR = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 =  "ZERO".

Yes, the Mayor's poodle, Chancellor Dennis Walcott, gets a big fat "zero" in his Chancellor Data Report.

The Emperor Mayor Decrees No Retroactive Raises For His Subjects. Oops He Forgot Abiout The Taylor Law.

Yet again, the Emperor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has decreed that no New York City employees will receive retroactive pay raises.  The newspapers eagerly jumped on the bandwagon and supported the Emperor's decree,  However, the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to this decree.  You see there is something called the Taylor Law in New York State that requires the Emperor to negotiate a contract with his subjects, oops, I mean City employees.

While the Emperor can say whatever he wants,  The fact is that he or most likely his successor, will  need to negotiate with the unions and the unions will not agree to eliminate retroactive raises.  This is particularly true of the teachers who are waiting for a new contract since October of 2009.  The teachers are owed the "City pattern"  which includes two retroactive 4% raises, minus 0.58% for Randi Weingarten's final giveaway to the City in 2009. Since the City finances is in much better shape than the State's and the Emperor is fast becoming a "lame duck", no City union will agree to eliminate retroactive raises. 

The bottom line the Emperor can decree all he wants but no union will seriously negotiate with him until he gets dethroned in January 2014.

The DOE Attaches A Discipline Flag On Files Of Teachers Accused Of Misconduct. However, It's Not Based Upon The Evidence Found In The 3020-a Discipline Process.

The DOE has informed principals that any teacher who applies for a position in their school will have attached a disciplinary flag if they were accused of misconduct.  However, it also appears that the disciplinary flag will not be based upon the actual results of the disciplinary hearing but simply on the substantiated accusation as determined by the DOE.  That means, if a teacher is charged with "corporal punishment" but after a 3020-a hearing the Arbitrator found that no "corporal punishment" occurred, the DOE will still leave the disciplinary flag on the teacher's file.  For the DOE it is not about whether the teacher is innocent or guilty, it is simply about in the bizarro world of Tweed that any teacher accused of misconduct, must be guilty, no matter what the evidence shows.

Just imagine, a well-liked teacher tries to restrain a violent student who is a threat to himself and others.  However, the Principal, who does not like the teacher, falsely accuses the teacher of using excessive force on the child and calls the Office Of Special Investigations (OSI) to start the "witch hunt".  Once OSI is briefed by the Principal on his desire to get rid of the teacher, the investigation does the Gestapo proud as the investigator will substantiate that  the teacher used "excessive force" and hence committed "corporal punishment" and recommended that the teacher be terminated through the 3020-a process.

At the 3020-a hearing the Arbitrator hears evidence that the child has a history of violet outbursts, was a threat to other children at school by throwing books and pushing other children down stairs.  The Arbitrator also heard evidence that the teacher called for help from the Administration who failed to respond to the situation.  Finally, the teacher brought in the school nurse that said that the child had no bruises or other marks that were suspicious. 

The Arbitrator found that the teacher did not commit "corporal punishment" but still fined the teacher $1,000 for failing to use a more appropriate method to handle the student. We all know Arbitrators must give the DOE something in these hearings, just so they can stay on the panel at year's end.

The winner is the vindictive Principal who not only was able to remove the teacher from the school but dumped the teacher in the ATR pool and sharply reduces his chances of getting another classroom position
 now that the teacher will have a discipline flag on his file for "corporal punishment" even when no "corporal punishment" was found. What will the union do about this abuse?

Why The State Education Commissioner King Should Be Fired As He Stubborningly And Stupidly Wants Teacher Evaluations Tied To Truants.

It seems the tide is slowly turning against the State's proposal to tie teacher evaluations to all students assigned to the teacher.  At first the "Education Reformers who had the ear of the Governor, supported a "no excuses approach" by including truants in a teacher evaluation system.  However, some of the more thoughtful reformers now realize that adjustments must be made, not the zealots representing children first (Rhee, Klein, etc) and their fifth column flunkies, E4E of course.  However, the tide appears to be turning on them as well.  Even the usually sympathetic newspapers realize the sheer idiocy of using truants as part of a teacher's evaluation is surfacing in Buffalo where the union is fighting with the State on just such an issue. 

At the NYSUT meeting in Buffalo, the entire Buffalo delegation walked out when Commissioner King addressed the audience.  Beside the Buffalo delegation, other smaller delegation's also walked out as well.  The Commissioner wasn't just greeted with a walkout but others in the audience lustily booed Mr. King, unheard of previously at the meeting.  The relationship between Commissioner King and NYSUT has deteriorated to the point that NYSUT regards the Commissioner as the enemy.  First, it was the last minute change he tried to ram through in increasing the testing component to 40% which NYSUT was able to stop by filing a lawsuit.  Now it is Commissioner King's stubborn single mindlessness in requiring truants as part of a teach evaluational process. A completely unfair and biased proposal that will penalize teachers in high poverty schools with struggling students.

In a rare interview on a talk show Commissioner King compared his time as an educatior at a Boston Charter school where as a teacher he was responsible for 16 students only!  He claimed that he reached out to every one of his students and their parents to keep them in school and that teachers with up to 150 students should be able to do the same.   I guess he wants us to be a social worker, chauffeur, and parent as well., He really must be on drugs!


In my opinion there is no dealing with Commissioner King and NYSUT should be pressuring politicians for his firing or resignation and that is the bottom line.