Wednesday, May 23, 2012

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.


Anonymous said...

Please as an ATR I have been in so many "small" and transfer schools this year that I can write a book on the collapse of the education system. Most of these schools only seem to employ teachers under the age of 30. Unfortunately, most of these newbies can not control a class are seem overwhelmed..I see a mass exodus of these kids when the business job market picks up. I am sickened!

Anonymous said...


Any word on how/when the DOE will rate ATRs? As usual, the hacks at the UFT are giving the 'we're trying to figure this out' routine

If anyone has heard anything, please post.


TeachmyclassMrMayor said...

Chaz, Not only have they wasted all of that money on all kinds of programs (you forgot the great ARIS program), now as people apply to the "turnaround" schools, we get emails "signed" by TALENT ACQUISITION ASSOCIATES. I am just curious, anyone know how much they are getting paid?

Anonymous said...

Their rhetoric is strictly for public consumption. The real agenda is the corporate model that mandates reduction of labor and cost effectiveness, which means get rid of higher priced teachers. Their real belief is that the teacher matters little and they claim the opposite for the media but their actions clearly indicate a preference for younger, cheaper, idealistic teachers who the majority will burn out or leave within a few years in the schools. enough said!

Invictus said...

Isn't the rule of 2 end of the year U ratings=firing the same for all educators, regardless of primary or secondary schools? If what you have mentioned about primary school teachers getting 2 Us and then they are out. That would be napalm at the Union/Unity leadership justifying any give backs. Being that the majority of the Unity supporters belong to primary school and middle school teachers, that means that they would be stupid enough to support a collaborationist UFT leadership that does not think much about how their decision really impacts the trenches.

NY_I said...

Great job in citing the glaring hypocrisy in treatment of the accused.
NY City Eye