Is The DOE Discriminating Against Jewish Teachers?

Chancellor Carranza and his DOE administrators are being accused of being anti-White and while I believe he and his top administrators are misguided, I don't believe they are anti-White.  Read my previous post Here.  However, there seems to be a disturbing trend that many school administrators are trying to force senior teachers to retire and many of them are Jewish.

Because of tight school budgets and school based Fair Student Funding, principals are targeting senior teachers who are eligible to retire by filing or threaten to file 3020-a termination charges.  The senior teachers are the "baby boomers" and generation X, the last cohort that had a significant amount of Jewish teachers.

While I don't believe the principals are anti-Semitic, I do believe the Bloomberg era policies that the DOE still employs encourage the principals to target their senior teachers and replace them with far cheaper and untenured "newbies".  The principals can then use the salary differential between the departing senior teacher and the entering newbie teacher for their own use in the school budget.

Included is a letter from one teacher who wrote her experience about being forced to retire after being put through a 3020-a hearing in an Israeli newspaper.  Here.. 

Is the DOE discriminating against Jewish teachers?  The answer is no but they are targeting senior teachers and many of them are Jewish.

The DOE Motto, Out With The Old And In With The New.

The DOE has made it virtually impossible for veteran teachers to transfer from one school to another by their continued use of the "fair student funding" fiasco.  Now that the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS) is history this year and principals, who are not savvy or crooked enough to play the game, must hire an ATR for their vacancies or long-term leave replacements.   Let's see how the new ATR hiring process works out?  I hold little hope that principals will hire them permanently, even at bargain basement prices, due to the seniority and institutional memory issues. Instead the principals will be spending this school year trying to find ways to get rid of their veteran teachers and replace them next school year with inexpensive "newbies:".

Look for principals to continue to give many "ineffective" observations to their senior teachers and those who ended up with a "developing rating" will be observed frequently to ensure their Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) will be stringently followed. Already I am hearing too many highly experienced teachers complaining that they are being picked on and set up for failure. People at the 3020-a hearings are telling me there has been an uptick of senior teachers (20 or more years of experience) who are under termination charges.  Whether that is true or not, its a perception that seems to be going around the New York City education community. Interestingly, I have seen and heard about too many of my colleagues who have either been terminated, charged, or in their 3020-a termination hearings in the last two years and this leads credence to what I have been told.

I would just love for the DOE and UFT provide the OMTS statistics of who transferred from one school to another by age, experience, and tenure status.   However, we all know what it would show and even if somebody would FOIL the information, I believe the DOE would stall, delay, and claim its unavailable or protected since they want to avoid the embarrassment of being accused of discrimination in their "out with the old and in with the new" policy in their "children last" program.

Why Won't The Union Or DOE Publish A Breakdown Of The Open Market Transfer System Statistics?

Previously Gene J. Mann spouted the Unity line how successful the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS) was.  He rattled off how 4,000 educators transferred annually,  compared to 300 before the OMTS was instituted.  Of course, Mr. Mann, a Unity retiree in good standing, failed to mention that for veteran teachers the OMTS was a sick joke,  Moreover, he also failed to mention how it ensured that untenured teachers would leave struggling schools in droves through the OMTS, resulting in high teacher turnover, and an unstable educational environment for these schools.  Just look at the renewal schools where "newbie" teachers are hired only to leave as quickly as possible, ensuring their continued failure.  Finally, Mr. Mann failed to provide the statistical breakdown of those teachers who obtained positions through the OMTS, based on years of experience, salary, age, and tenure.  All this I have written about previously. However, what I failed to include was why there were so many teachers (mostly untenured) who used the OMTS than before there was one?

The answer to that question is quite simple.  Before the OMTS, all excessed teachers in the District had to be first placed in vacancies before the vacancies could be filled by other teachers. That significantly reduced the amount of vacancies available for other teachers to transfer to.  Moreover, about 50% of the vacancies were hidden and if too many teachers left a school, the Principal could refuse to release the teacher.  The combination of these three factors, excessed teachers filling a vacancy, hidden positions, and Principal refusal to release the teacher kept actual teacher transfers to a minimum. However, except for archaic or discontinued titles (typing teacher, home economics teacher, shop teacher, etc.) there were few excessed teachers in the school system.

Thanks to the terrible 2005 contract that all changed.  The OMTS was developed and with disincentives like the school-based "fair student funding", it resulted in the explosion of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).  Add that to the closing of 163 schools under the Bloomberg administration and we now have between 1,000 to 2,000 ATRs (excessed teachers) in the school system, many of them "quality teachers" who because of their age, salary, and experience cannot find a permanent position.

Before hailing the success of the OMTS Mr Mann should obtain and publish a statistical breakdown that both the union and the DOE has available but refuses to release.  The reason for not releasing the information is that both are guilty of discrimination on a massive scale. If they object to my conclusion than produce the statistical breakdown and let us see the truth.

Age Discrimination Is Evident In The ATR Pool.

I can only laugh when I read how the DOE is telling the media that they are encouraging principals to hire veteran ATRs when the truth is so very different.  The only thing the DOE is trying to do is to terminate the ATRs by allowing field supervisors (assassins) to recommend to the Superintendent to terminate the ATRs through the 3020-a process.  The DOE, with the UFT leadership's complicit assistance, has pushed to reduce the ATR pool by harassing ATRs to resign or retire rather than push principals to hire the ATRs in their district.  In particular, veteran ATRs with ten or more teaching experience are being targeted for termination while only untenured ATRs are being picked up.

Every ATR that has been sent to my school this year have been over 50 years of age, have 15 or more years of experience, and came from a closing school.  Many of these ATRs are excellent teachers but because of their age and salary, they can only obtain a temporary provisional assignment at best.  This is a blatant case of discrimination and yet our union leadership has closed their collective eyes to this practice.

If the union leadership actually cared about the ATRs they would demand from the DOE the right for ATRs to choose from the various vacancies in the district before principals are allowed to hire anybody else.   To protect lower seniority teachers, the DOE can allow a school an extra teaching unit in that subject area for any ATR selected by the school.  Instead our disconnected union leadership agreed with the DOE and made the ATR a second class citizen.

I truly believe that the DOE is practicing age discrimination and the union leadership has silently allowed it to happen.  Shame on both of them.

The Daily News Continues To Practice Yellow Journalism.

The Daily News in today's edition has again disparaged the ATRs and wants them terminated after a six month time limit.  The editorial calls the ATRs the "walking dead" and "unwanted".  Furthermore, the editorial claimed that the ATRs are of "poor quality" and the students would be "unlucky" to have them teaching in their class. 

Of course the Daily News editorial board's ideological slant is evident in the article since they once again fail to identify the real reason there are over 2,000 ATRs in the system.  Let's look at what the editorial failed to mention.

Fair student funding:
There is no mention of the biggest factor for principals not hiring ATRs, the "fair student funding" formula that restricts principals from hiring the "best teachers".  Instead they are encouraged to hire the "cheapest teachers" and subject the students to inexperienced and untested teachers, many who will be gone from the classroom before they ever become a "quality teacher" as many ATRs are.  In other words, its all about the money and not what's best for the students.

Ageism:
Nowhere in the editorial do they mention that the age of the teacher is a factor in hiring ATRs.  The data that I obtained previously showed that the average age of the ATRs are in their 50s and few long-term ATRs are under 40 years of age.  Did the Daily News bother to look into why the ATR pool has a disproportionate amount of older teachers in it?  Of course not.

School budget reductions:
Since 2008 the average school budget has been reduced by 14%, forcing principals to increase class sizes, reduce staff, and have fewer resources.  Therefore, when combined with the "fair student funding" directive, principals will stretch their budget by giving their staff a sixth period and hire the lowest salaried teachers, usually "newbies", even if that is not what's best for the students.

Contract:
The editorial wants a six month time limit for ATRs to obtain a position, as if the other issues listed previously does not exist, and asks that this be part of the next contract.  However, they know full well that the Bloomberg Administration had offered the union the two 4% raises, including "retroactive raises" if the union agreed to an ATR time limit.  The union refused since it will create a "slippery slope" that would eventually undermine Civil Service Law and that would prompt the other Municipal unions to file a lawsuit to stop it.  There is a "snowball's chance in hell" for the union to negotiate n ATR time limit and the Daily News should know that.

Weekly ATR rotation system:
The editorial board falsely claimed that before the weekly rotation system, the ATRs "hang out and get paid". The reality is that many principals gave ATRs full classroom schedules and were able to reduce class sizes for all the teachers since the schools were getting "free help".  This was a "win-win" for the schools since the principals recieved free help while the ATRs felt needed and part of the school culture. The ATRs were desired by principals rather than being "unwanted" as the Daily News falsely claims since it helped the resource starved schools improve their instruction by getting an experienced teacher who can help mentor the "newbies" the principal was being forced to hire. By contrast  the weekly ATR rotation system is a waste of talent, money, and is demoralizing to all staff.

Leadership Academy Principals:
There is no mention of the inept, incompetent, and poor quality of the "Leadership Academy Principals" many of them with limited classroom experience and quite a few who never achieved tenure!  Yet the Daily News gives them a free pass and puts the blame on the teachers for a school's failure and the hiring practices.. You can found many of these principals here.

A real newspaper would investigate both sides of an issue and bring up all the facts, regardless how inconvenient it is.  On the other hand a propaganda rag will leave out the facts and twist, pervert, and change information to suit their ideological aims.  Which one is the New York Daily News? 

A Story About A Father And Daughter When It Comes To Getting A Job Interview In The NYC Public Schools.

This story is real and is a symptom of what's going on when it comes to hiring teachers in the New York City Public School System.  I did change the names and the father's and his daughter's position to protect their identities.

The father (Sam) is a 58 year old teacher with 20 years in the school system, who was excessed from his closing school two years ago and has been rotating weekly this year.   His subject is in a DOE "shortage area".  However, after applying to 12 openings in the Open Market System and getting no responses, Sam decided to go to the only "job fair" at the Armory in Manhattan in hopes of landing a position.  Unfortunately, the "job fair" was a farce.  There were only a smattering of schools, mostly from the South Bronx and transfer schools that even bothered to show up.  Many spaces where schools were supposed to be were empty.  Worse, the schools seemed only to be interested in the younger teachers while giving the older teachers like himself less than a minute or two to sell themselves.  Finally, Sam only saw two schools, both transfer schools, that had vacancies in his subject area.  The father went home disappointed and resigned to the weekly rotation he faced.

The daughter (Cindy) 25, fresh out of college with a teaching degree in a non-shortage area, had worked in Long Island as a substitute teacher for two Long Island School Districts in her first year of teaching. In May, realizing she wasn't getting a permanent position next year, Cindy applied to the DOE's "new teacher finder".  However, during late June Cindy landed a position as an Assistant Human Resources Administrator for a medium sized company and decided to put her teaching career on hold.  Throughout the summer Cindy was besieged with job interview requests from principals in the four Boroughs. Even during the fall and just before the Christmas vacation Cindy told me that she received an average of 10 inquiries monthly. Meanwhile her father is rotating weekly to different schools. 

For experienced teachers it was hard enough to land a position when there was a hiring freeze but with the hiring freeze lifted, stories like the "father and daughter" is the reason that the ATR pool is over 2,000 strong and until the de Blasio/Farina Administration stops this destructive "education on the cheap" policy, nothing will change.

Is There Age Discrimination In The ATR Pool? You Bet There Is!

In the last ATR meeting with the union in October at the UFT Queens Borough Office, approximately 100 ATRs showed up to listen to what the union had to say Here.  Looking at the crowd showed that almost all the ATRs were over 40 years of age.  Of course, I didn't ask the other ATRs their ages but "seeing is believing". In my informal observation I saw less than 5 young-looking ATRs in the audiance.

Fortunately one of the teachers set up an e-mail poll to find out what the age distribution of the ATR pool was.  To no surprise to me and to many other independent educators, it showed that almost all the ATRs were over 40 years of age.  The results are listed below.

Under 40 years of age.................................2%

40 - 49 years of age..................................12%

50 - 59 years of age..................................48%

Over 60 years of age.................................38%

Astoundingly, 86% of the ATRs who responded to the e-mail survey are 50 years of age or older!

Unfortunately, the union will tell you its not age discrimination but salary, seniority, and those frequent earthquakes in Japan, for that matter or any natural disaster under the sun, but not ageism as their basis that there is no age discrimination occurring at the DOE when it comes to the ATR pool.

I shouldn't have to remind our union that our students need "quality teachers" in the New York City public school classrooms.  Instead they remain silent as the DOE encourages principals to hire the "cheapest and not the best teachers" and fails to challenge the DOE on their "education on the cheap" policy.  This is the Achilles heel of Tweed's claim that its "children first, always" and the union should be running commercial;s to expose it.

To me, "children first" means schools have the freedom to hire those "quality teachers" that are in the ATR pool without worrying about the cost and that means bringing back teacher hiring by units and that part of the budget should be handled by the Central Office and not.the schools who don't have the best interests of the students they are supposed to be looking out for.  Instead, these principals hire untested "newbies" and use their students as "guinea pigs" when it comes to instruction.  Just look Here. for examples how principals hire now."

How Disrespected ATRs Are To Principals? Just Read This!

It's common knowledge that many principals, especially those clueless "Leadership Academy Principals" refuse to hire ATRs for their vacancies.  Usually its about the money and the average ATR makes $85,000 while the "newbie teacher"  makes less than $46,000 or a difference of $39,000 dollars!  Sure some Principals will not hire a ATR because of building seniority and a "red flag" if the ATR was once "rubberized and investigated".  However, its manly about the money.

An ATR, Keith Fabes was kind enough to send me two separate requests by Brooklyn elementary school principals who want to interview "newbie teachers" for vacancies in their schools while asking for out of district ATRs to temporarily cover the classes until the principals can select the appropriate "newbie" for the vacancies.  Listed below are the two vacancies.

From: Allen Patricia
Sent: 10/31/2013 10:38 AM
Cc: Flores Robert (32K106)
Subject: Common Branches Licensed ATR needed at 32K106

Dear Common Branches licensed Teacher, 

Please be advised of a possible vacancy at 32K106. The Principal is looking for an ATR who is willing to work outside of his/her seniority district to assist while he is in the process of conducting interviews. We would appreciate any volunteers willing to work as an ATR at that location while the principal proceeds with the interviewing process. 

Please respond to this e-mail if you are interested. Below is the location/contact information for the school. 

32K106 - EDWARD EVERETT HALE (CFN 94N412)
1328 PUTNAM AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NY 11221
(718) 574-0261
FLORES, ROBERT, Principal  rflores@schools.nyc.gov

 Sincerely,

 Mrs. Patricia Allen

 Patricia Allen MBA/HRM , HR Director

CFN 412: Making it Happen!

Daisy Concepcion, Network Leader

Christopher Groll, Cluster Leader

From: Allen Patricia
Sent: 10/31/2013 10:38 AM
Cc: Scarlato Mary (14K031)
Subject: Common Branches ATR needed at 14K031

Dear Common Branches licensed Teacher, 

Please be advised of a possible vacancy at 14K031. The Principal is looking for an ATR who is willing to work outside of his/her seniority district to assist in covering the class while she is in the process of conducting interviews. Furthermore, since D14 has very few ATR in the common branches license area, we would appreciate any volunteers willing to work as an ATR at that location.

 Please respond to this e-mail if you are interested. Below is the location/contact information for the school.

 14K031 - PS 031 SAMUEL F DUPONT (CFN 94N412)
75 MESEROLE AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NY 11222
(718) 383-8998
SCARLATO, MARY, Principal

 Sincerely,

 Mrs. Patricia Allen

 Patricia Allen MBA/HRM , HR Director

CFN 412: Making it Happen!

Daisy Concepcion, Network Leader

Christopher Groll, Cluster Leader

That's right!  ATRs need not apply, they want only inexpensive "newbies"!   To these two principals its not what's best for the students but what's best for them and their CFN in their "
education on the cheap" policy..  How disgusting,

Why The Open Market Transfer System Is A Joke.

Today is the final day for teachers to look for vacancies under the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS) and just like the last few years, the OMTS is simply a joke when it comes to veteran teachers.  Only young and inexperienced (especially untenured) teachers are hired through the OMTS.  With few exceptions teachers with ten or more years experience have little or no chance to even get an interview for these vacancies.  Many of my colleagues applied to various positions only to get no response from the schools except for the required notification that the school received the application.

I spoke to a friend who is an Assistant Principal and he told me that the principals are encouraged by the DOE to hire "newbies" whenever possible to reduce their staff  budget costs and to find any reason possible not to interview ATRs.  Moreover, the DOE and the UFT has done little to enforce the ATR Agreement and that has added to the problems for veteran ATRs.  It matters little how effective a teacher is, its all about how much will the teacher cost the school and that is reflected in the OTMS hiring practices.

Even in hard to staff shortage areas like Special Education,ESL and Earth Science, the DOE allows the schools to bypass the available ATRs and hire "newbies", some not even certified!  Yes that's true, the Assistant Principal I spoke to told me that he was instructed by his Principal to do just that.   Why does our union leadership stay silent when the DOE continues to abuse the process?  I wish I knew but its obvious that the union leadership considers the ATR issue a low priority and they have other issues on the table to deal with.

The DOE's motto is "children first.....Always" but in reality its not about whats best for the students but pure and simple discrimination against veteran teachers who were excessed.  In effect its really "children last" as principals, with the encouragement of the DOE, rather hire inexperienced "newbies" than "quality teachers".

Are Principals Really Telling The Truth About Why Hiring A Senior Teacher Will Significantly Affect Their Budget? Probably Not.

Time and again I have heard the same complaint from principals. " I would like to hire a senior teacher but I don't have the budget to do so". The question is were they telling the truth? For the last two years I truly believed them since the "fair student funding formula" imposed on schools by the Joel Klein Administration required that school budget reflect individual teacher salaries in calculating school budgets back in 2008. However, what was little known was that there was a "hold harmless" provision that delayed the use of individual teacher salaries in school budgets. Instead, the school budgets are based upon the baseline 2008-2009 school year "average teacher salary". This baseline, with adjustments for teacher raises, is still in effect and this means that in most cases hiring a senior teacher would only make a small difference in many school budgets. Let's look at some examples.

School "A" - Large Comprehensive High School:

The "average teacher salary" is $75,000 and there are 150 teachers in the school. A $50,000 a year teacher leaves and a $100,000 a year teacher is hired. How does it affect the school's teacher budget? Under the fully implemented "fair student funding formula" the school budget would need to come up with $50,000 dollars to hire the senior teacher. However, since it is based upon the "average teacher salary" the increase is calculated as follows:

$75,000(.9933) + $100,000(.0067) = $75,167 or a $167 increase for teachers in the school's budget!

School "B" - Mid Sized Middle School:

The "average teacher salary" is $70,000 and there are 80 teachers in the school. A $50,000 a year teacher leaves and a $100,000 a year teacher is hired. How does it affect the school's teacher budget? Under the fully implemented "fair student funding formula" the school budget would need to come up with $50,000 dollars to hire the senior teacher. However, since it is based upon the "average teacher salary" the increase is calculated as follows:

$70,000(.9875) + $100,000(.0125) = $70,375 or a $375 increase for teachers in the school's budget!

School "C" - Small School:

The "average teacher salary" is $50,000 and there are 25 teachers in the school. A $50,000 a year teacher leaves and a $100,000 a year teacher is hired. How does it affect the school's teacher budget? Under the fully implemented "fair student funding formula" the school budget would need to come up with $50,000 dollars to hire the senior teacher. However, since it is based upon the "average teacher salary" the increase is calculated as follows:

$50,000(.960 ) + $100,000(040) = $52,000 or a $2,000 increase for teachers in the school's budget!

As you can see, even in the small schools the hiring of a top salaried senior teacher is not a budget breaker. Therefore, the question becomes do principals really know how their school budgets really work? Or they do know how the budget really works and use the fully implemented "fair student funding formula" as an excuse not to have knowledgeable senior teachers in their schools by falsely claiming that they can't afford to hire them? The answer is probably both, depending on the school and whether the principals understand how their budget really works.

Remember, the DOE under Joel Klein had encouraged principals not to hire ATRs and called them "bad or lazy teachers". While Joel Klein is long gone, his propaganda resonated with the principals who think the hiring an ATR is like being dealt a "bad hand". This is especially true with the "Leadership Academy Principals" who have told from the time they went into the Leadership Academy that they should hire the "newbie teacher" who they can mold rather that somebody else's reject who is set in their ways.

Next time you hear from a Principal why he can't hire a senior teacher because of the school's budget, you now know it is because the Principal is ignorant of the budget process or putting his or her own requirements above what is best for the school's children. In either case it "children last" when it comes to the students they claim they are doing the best for.

The DOE Is Encouraging Principals To Hire TF and TFA Teachers While Experienced Teachers Are Not Even Granted Interviews. "Children First". Really?

It is becoming increasingly clear that Tweed's efforts to vilify ATRs as lazy, incompetent, and bad teachers along with severe budget cuts at schools (17.4% since 2008) have had the desired effect. Few experienced ATRs are being offered positions as principals do what is best for themselves and not what is best for the students in the school. The DOE "job fairs" are mostly a joke and only the worst schools that experience high teacher turnover, and transfer schools regularly show up and hope to pick off the youngest and possibly untenured teachers to fill their needs.

Privately, principals will tell you that they would just love to have experienced teachers in the classroom but their budget and the "fair student funding formula" makes it next to impossible for them to hire them. Even "Leadership Academy principals" have found that some experienced teachers are necessary if only to show the "newbie teachers" what teaching is about and act as a mentor. However, unless the DOE offers financial incentives to hire ATRs, principals will not hire them for their vacancies. In fact, since Tweed relaxed the hiring restrictions almost all schools are simply going through the motions of looking at ATRs only to hire Teach For America (TFA} or Teaching Fellows (TF) teachers by falsely claiming the ATR teachers don't meet the needs of the school.

NYC Comptroller John Liu published some data that shows how the DOE wastes money by not properly placing ATRs in vacant positions. Here. Is it any wonder that ATRs believe they are discriminated when applying for vacancies in the NYC schools? For the schools it is a financial disincentive to hire senior teachers because of the salary.

Presently, their are 1,940 ATRs in the system and the DOE, in its uncaring and incompetent ATR placement process has elementary school ATRs in high schools, high school ATRs teaching 2nd grade and shop teachers ATRs in schools with no shop courses. Should we trust these people with our future? I don't think so.

What is needed is a new ATR Agreement between the union and the DOE that encourages principals to hire ATRs in vacancies. This agreement should include the following.

• Financial incentives for principals to hire ATRs like those offered in the 2008 ATR Agreement.

• Ensure a school cannot hire a "new teacher" if there is a teacher in excess in the license area in the District.

• Union oversight on any DOE granted exemptions to principals who claim that excessed teachers cannot properly fill the vacancy.

• Eliminate the "fair student funding formula" that penalizes principals who want to hire experienced teachers.

Without incentives for schools to hire experienced teachers, very little progress can be made on the ATR issue and class sizes will just keep on increasing.

For the DOE, "children first" is properly placing ATRs in the right schools and encourage principals to fill their vacancies with the best, not the cheapest teacher qualified for the position.

Are Principals Practicing Age Discrimination When Hiring ATRs For Their Vacancies? According To Me They Are

I have previously written on how principals are either hiding their vacancies or are selectively interviewing the youngest and cheapest of the ATRs when they cannot hide their vacancies. Of course if you ask the union or the DOE, they will claim that no such age discrimination is occurring. However, very few, if any older ATRs are getting any interviews. Now I read an article in Educationnext that showed that in Chicago, the younger principals do not like to hire older teachers and since many of the new generation of principals are younger and come from the infamous "Leadership Academy", they rather not have older teachers on their staff. In the article by Brian A. Jacob, a professor of education policy and economics at the University of Michigan, wrote the following:

Finally, I find evidence that younger principals are more likely to dismiss older teachers than they are to dismiss younger teachers. There are no obvious explanations for this pattern, although one might speculate that younger principals may value different characteristics in a teacher than older principals. Regardless, this pattern does seem to warrant further exploration.

While I am sure both the union and the DOE have statistics that can support my claim, I don't expect them to publish them as not to embarrass each other. The DOE for allowing principals to practice age discrimination and the union for turning a blind eye to the practice. However, there is anecdotal evidence to support my claim. I have spoken to many ATRs and a few Chapter Leaders who have told me that the principals were looking for younger and cheaper teachers to fill their vacancies. Part of the reason is their tight budgets but it is increasingly obvious to even the casual observer that the more senior ATRs are not even given interviews. Other principals are hiding their vacancies in the vain hope that the hiring freeze is rescinded at the end of August or that they can gain an exception as some principals were able to do in the last two years when Joel Klein was the Chancellor. Of course, many principals will simply let the "Children First Network" assign an ATR to them and let them fill the vacancy without taking on their salaries. Whatever the reason, the senior ATRs are not being selected to interview for the fewvacancies listed.

The only way that the DOE can save the $43 million dollars that they promised Bloomberg is to make sure every vacancy is listed and that the ATRs fill them. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon.

The DOE's Principals First & Children Last Policy

Over the tenure of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration the New York City Schools have seen an increase in Principal abuse of their staff as Tweed has given these principals more control of their school. Many of these principals are coming out of the "Leadership Academy" with little actual classroom experience, some not even tenured! Moreover, these principals have been told that they are the CEO of their school and run the school as a business. The problem is that the students are not widgets and the staff cogs. Every child is different and have individual learning needs, while among the staff, their are various teaching styles. The result is chaos at many of the schools and can result in the unfair removal of a teacher.

How many times have I heard about a teacher being removed from his or her class, usually instigated by the Principal, only to have no qualified substitute to handle the class. This results in an Administrator to come into the class of unruly students and say "if Ms. Jones was here, you wouldn't act this way". Of course if the Administrator had not targeted Ms. Jones in the first place, the class would not be a problem. This is called "collateral damage" and results in the DOE encouraged "children last" policy that has swept the New York City Public Schools.

You might ask why would a Principal deliberately hurt the students by removing a well qualified teacher? The answer is simple. Its about the Principal's power and control to impose their will over the staff. Any teacher criticism can and usually does target that teacher. Is it little wonder their are between 600 and 700 teachers in the "rubber rooms"? Many of the "Leadership Academy" principals are insecure and rule their schools through intimidation and fear. Therefore, they find any reason possible to push out senior teachers who are outspoken and defend the rights of the students and staff. The DOE allows these principals to gets rid of the teacher while enforcing the intimidation and fear aspect to others.

Another reason is the budget. Many schools are suffering from significant budget cuts of up to 5%. Therefore, many of the Principal's pet programs would need to be cut. However, if the Principal can drum up frivolous or bogus charges against a senior teacher, the school can save up to $100,000 after carrying the reassigned teacher's salary for only 60 days. Quite a temptation indeed.

Finally, just plain "age discrimination" as many of these insecure Principals want to hire "young, newbie teachers" who don't question idiotic decisions. That is why the "rubber rooms" have a majority of teachers 50 years or older.

Every time I hear Chancellor Joel Klein state that he has a "children first" policy I can only laugh and say when does it help the children when you remove a quality teacher because of a Principal's dislike of the teacher. To me that is Principal first and children last.