The Fuzzy Math The Wall Street Journal Used For Their 3020-a Statistics

The Wall Street Journal received from the NYCDOE the 3020-a statistics for the last two years April 2012 to January 2014 on educators who were charged under section 3020-a for tenured educators.  If you browsed through the chart supplied by the newspaper it would seem that only 40 out of 826 cases ended in termination or 5% and that's what the newspaper wants you to believe since it supports the attack on teacher tenure..  However, if you read the article more thoroughly, you realize that 330 of the 826 cases have not been resolved and the termination rate therefore jumps from 5% to 8%, not a large jump but its not 5%.  Wait there's more.  Of the 826 disciplinary cases, it turns out that apparently 235 educators agreed or were forced to resign or retire rather than go through the 3020-a hearing process.  Add the 235 to the 40 terminated educators and the total educators removed from the system is 275.  Since only 496 cases have been resolved (826 - 330). the total percentage of educators that left the system after being charged under the 3020-a law is 55%!  That's right 55% not the 5% the Wall Street Journal would like you to believe is the case.

While the data shows no educator acquittal rates, historically, its been consistently around 4% in the last decade. Therefore, of the 826 disciplinary cases, one could expect approximately 20 educators to be exonerated.

The Wall Street Journal article is just another example of how the media uses "fuzzy math" to distort and pervert the statistics to suit their ideological aims and to support the attack on teacher "due process rights". Michael Bloomberg may be gone but his ideology still inhabits the corridors of Tweed and the New York City media.  The ICEUFT blog also has a similar take on how the Wall Street Journal manipulated the statistics.

Update:  The UFT decided to publish their own data for only teachers and found that for the last two school years (2012-13 and 2013-14) out of 637 disciplinary cases, 216 left the system by either termination (40) , resignation, or retirement (184).  That is a rate of 34%.  However, since 153 cases have not been resolved, the actual rate for teachers removed from the system is 45%  For the DOE its not about how many terminations there are its about getting rid of teachers and whether its 55% or 45%, the fact is almost half the teachers charged under 3020-a are kicked out of the system by the DOE.  This sample did not include administrators or teachers who employed a private attorney to represent them in their 3020-a hearings.

Interestingly, in the Schoolbook article, the amount of teachers that failed to obtain tenure between 2010-13 was 1549 for the sampled period.  Hard to believe that the education reform groups have any leg to stand on in their lawsuit.

After The DOE's Terrible Tenure Results, Can The Union Really Trust The DOE With Coming Up With A Proper Rubric To Determine Teacher Effectiveness?

Here we go again, the DOE came out with a rubric to determine teacher effectiveness that resulted in 42% of the teachers were denied tenure, up from 11% the year before. Under the rubric, the untenured teachers needed to be rated either "effective" or "highly effective" to receive tenure. This appears to be the same rubric that in a pilot program, resulted in 18% of tenured teachers being rated as "ineffective". Even the Mayor's mouthpiece and fifth columnists in Educators 4 Excellence quested the 42% refusal rate for tenure and accused the DOE that the teacher evaluation process lacked transparency in determining the tenure refusal. Of course they still support the Mayor and Chancellor's actions in changing the tenure system. How naive of them to think they would be exempt from Tweed's fuzzy math and lack of transparency, the hallmark of the DOE under Bloomberg.

While i agree that the DOE's refusal to grant tenure to almost half of the untenured teachers is terrible and wrong, the greater concern is the use of the DOE rubric on all teachers that has resulted in an unbelievable 18% failure rate! Already those unlucky teachers who will be working in the 33 schools will be subject to it or a close similarity. and I cringe at the results, especially for the senior teachers in those schools. Michael Mulgrew needs to first see how it works in the 33 schools in the next two years before any variation of the DOE rubric is used for the rest of the school system. Rushing into this teacher evaluation system without some real and piratical results to ensure there are no discriminatory issues that can affect the evaluation of teachers without real data is like being shot out of a cannon without a safety net.

Without real protections and objective criteria, the DOE rubric, as presently constructed, is a teacher termination program plain and simple. Let's not rush into any of these programs without the actual data to back them up. Remember, we are without a contract and do we really want to negotiate with the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration? The answer is a loud Nooooooooo!

P.S. Here is a youtube video of Joel Klein talking to Joel klein about conflict of interest. Or was it just coincidence? Thanks to my commenter for the link.

The DOE Uses Abbott & Costello Math When It Comes To Headcount At The Central Bureaucracy As They Hide The 300 Million Surplus For Next Year.

Over the years the DOE has practiced "fuzzy math" when it came to where the money goes when allocating funds. Now we find that Tweed is still practicing "fuzzy math" when it comes to next year's budget. In testimony in the New York City council the DOE had previously claimed that they cut the Central Bureaucracy down to 1600 in past budget cuts only to admit in the very same testimony they didn't do it and the Central Bureaucracy's headcount was either 2, 000 (DOE) or 2,024 (UFT) this year. Incredibly, when proposing to eliminate 6,166 teachers, the DOE projects an increase of 97 positions next year (the UFT claims the increase is 218 positions) in the Central Bureaucracy. Inside those numbers there is a projected 22.1% increase in non-educators while reducing educators by an astounding 64.1%. By contrast the DOE has eliminated over 5,000 teaching positions due to attrition and saw class sizes rise dramatically as the Central Bureaucracy failed to cut their own headcount after promising to do so

I believe UFT President, Michael Mulgrew, said it best in his testimony in front of the City Council. He was quoted as saying the following:

“I am sick of the fact that we cannot get any credible information from the DOE; I do not trust them at all….There is a tremendous political game being played; it’s so disgusting. Their facts are devoid of any facts….They are basically lying in open testimony.”

There were other funding issues that the DOE numbers don't seem to reflect reality. Moreover, the New Chancellor incorrectly stated that the Charter Schools were subject to the "fair student funding" requirements as Public Schools. If the Charter Schools were, they would receive drastically reduced funding since they take a minimal amount of "high needs students". He also stated that the elimination of the over 6,000 teaching positions will result in a class size increase of only 1 to 1.5 students when it looks like the increase will be between 3-6 students, with the greatest class size increases in the K to 2 classes. Finally, when the DOE budget showed a 300 million dollar surplus for FY 2012 and was cited why there should be no layoffs, the surplus item just disappeared from the DOE budget with no explanation what happened to the money. See the entire discussion on the New York City Public School Parents Blog. It is an eye opening experience.

I can only describe the DOE budget presentation as Abbott and Costello math where more becomes less as they try to hide their surplus and claim imaginary cuts in the already bloated Central Bureaucracy.

Tweed's Misplaced Priorities As They Terminate 530 School Aides And Hire More Lawyers And Other Non-Educators At Headquarters

Tweed's "children last" program continues as the DOE authorized the firing of 530 school aides while quietly adding to the central bureaucracy by hiring more lawyers and other non-educators. Many of the lawyers are being hired for the sole purpose to prosecute teachers and waste $250,000+ in the mostly vain attempt to terminate teachers through the 3020-a process. Since only 10% of the teachers are actually terminated, the DOE wastes over two million dollars for every ten teachers they file 3020-a charges on in their misguided attempt to go after senior teachers and fails at the task when it comes to termination.

The school aides are the lifeblood of the school system and are poorly paid, averaging $20,000 yearly. Many of the aides suffer with the low salary because of the generous health and welfare benefits that are associated with the position. The school aides, in many cases help run the school and do the most unattractive duties. In my school the school aids do the following:

• Lunchroom supervision
• bathroom monitor
• student escort
• hallway duties
• contacting parents when children don't show up to school
  
• discipline room
• checking student IDs
• Clerical work for the Administration
• Distributing books and other school supplies
  

I'm sure there are other duties that I have missed and without the school aides many essential services are delayed or not done which affects the school and the children. The lack of adequate school aides affects the proper operation of the school and weakens the learning environment of the students. Interestingly, The DOE blames the principals and their school budget not on Tweed's money burning no-bid consultant contracts and the fourfold increase in the Accountability Office at headquarters. To the non-educators at Tweed, it doesn't matter that the lawyers and public relations officials hired by them are of no value whatsoever to student academics and waste precious funds that could be used in the schools. "Children first"? Don't make me laugh it is "children last" when it comes to Joel Klein's DOE.

While The Schools Are Forced To Cut Their Budget by 5%, Tweed Just Continues To Increase Their Head Count.

The economic crises have forced the schools to reduce their budget by 5% for the Spring semester. No exceptions. However, the proposed 10% cut from the DOE outside the schools do not come from Tweed but primarily come from the District Offices or the Integrated Service Centers. In fact, the head count at Tweed has increased by almost 100 people since January of 2008 and 22% since October of 2004. Most of these increases come from the Office of Accountability, Budget, Legal Services, and The Chancellor's Office. How can Tweed justify increasing their head count while the rest of the DOE and schools must suffer cuts of between 5-10%? The answer is quite simple. It is because Tweed's bloated bureaucracy is not held accountable for their actions by the Bloomberg Administration. Interestingly, the only real reduction at Tweed is at the Deputy Chancellor's Office of Teaching and Learning where the staff has been reduced from 133 in 2004 to 23, the one office where education practices are actually understood.

The Daily News reported on how some of Tweed's programs saw an almost fivefold increase of bureaucrats while forcing the students to have fewer staff or services in the schools. That is unconscionable and just shows how much contempt Tweed has for the students in the school system, A graph by Gotham Schools also show the increase in the Tweed headcount while the Field Offices were forced to reduce staff.

While the school system suffers devastating cuts the Central Bureaucracy at Tweed just seems to keep increasing. "Children Last" continues.....

More Fuzzy Math BY Those Wonderful Education Reformers

I couldn't help but laugh when I opened up to the New York Daily News opinion page and read how that pseudo- education reformer Michael Antonucci used "Fuzzy Math" to show that the New York City public schools have an oversupply of teachers. Really? According to Mr. Antonucci for every teacher there are 14 students. Overcrowded classrooms? What overcrowding? How did he come up with this erroneous conclusion? What Mr. Antonucci did is he took the total number of students and divided that number by the total number of teachers. What a ridiculous way to determine a student to teacher ratio. Obviously Mr. Antonucci has not been a public school teacher and doesn't understand all the duties a teacher is expected to do in a school. Mr. Antonucci, the Director of the Education Intelligence Agency, is apparently clueless of the various duties assigned to a teacher. If he had really done his homework he would have realized that his "Fuzzy Math" would have resulted in a failing grade and the well deserved "dunce cap". Let's see why Mr. Antonucci is wrong.

First: Special education teachers are mandated by State and Federal law to have between 6-12 students, depending on their disabilities. In fact, in some cases it is one teacher for no more than three students, as mandated by law. Mr. Antonuuci forgot to mention that.

Second: Some teachers are itinerant teachers that go from school to school or home to home to provide services on a one-on-one basis, also mandated by law.

Third: A few teachers are coaches that work with other teachers on Math, English, Literacy, etc.
These teachers are extremely important and don't usually work with students.

Fourth: In the middle and high school many teachers have dean duties that reduce or even eliminate their classroom duties. Discipline is necessary for school safety and teachers fill the critical dean position.

Fifth: Every school uses teachers for scheduling, grade advisors, and mentors, which reduce the classroom teaching time by these teachers.

Finally, the DOE must take some blame on the "Fuzzy Math" used by Mr. Antonucci. Because of Tweed's misguided policy to allow schools to hire new teachers rather than place excessed teachers, there are close to a thousand ATRs with no students assigned to them. Include another eight hundred teachers in the "rubber room" and is it any wonder that Mr. Antronucci's "Fuzzy Math" came up with a misleading 14:1 student to teacher ratio?

Mr. Antonucci, please don't apply as a math teacher because your "Fuzzy Math" makes you unqualified to teach and I hereby bestow you the "Dunce Cap".

The Chancellor's Fuzzy Math

The education mayor and his sidekick, the Chancellor have done it again. They have taken a 4.5 billion dollar city budget surplus and are cutting 300 million from an already tight school budget. This budget cut is in spite of the State giving the schools additional funding. In other words, the hypocrite Mayor and Chancellor whine for more money from the State while cutting the local school budget despite a sizable surplus. If you would like, The Chancellor's budget is here.

To the casual observer, you would think that the DOE would wisely limit overhead and maximize the school budgets. However, it appears the opposite is true. Since October of 2004 the head count at Tweed increased from 1,582 to 2,350. a 67% increase at the Central Bureaucracy. Eduwonkette, has more information on the ever- increasing Central Bureaucracy at Tweed. Tweed's appetite grows larger and larger at the expense of the schools and the students. "Children Last"? you better believe it!

The most astounding information that came out of the City Council's review of the education budget was the "Fuzzy Math" that Joel Klein was using to justify the budget. When the Chancellor was giving his budget presentation, Council Member Oliver Koppel said at one point, "To tell you the truth, I don't believe you…You should hire a new accountant.” Furthermore, the chair of the Education Committee, Robert Jackson stated that "the school cuts are not 99 million dollars but was more than 180 million dollars". Just like Albany, the City Council has questioned the "Fuzzy Math" of Tweed. Here are just some of the discrepancies and lack of clarity they have found.

• The actual cuts from the Central Bureaucracy is 21 million dollars, not 200 million dollars.

• 24.1 million dollars are allocated for diagnostic assessment (testing programs).

• Joel Klein's staff budget is $968,000 for his eight staffers (averaging $121,000), not the $1,117 in the budget..

• Tweed's "Accountability Office" actually has 97 staffers, not the 18 staffers in the budget

• An additional 154 million dollars in the budget for "indispensable initiatives" . While most of the programs are unspecified, an educated guess would include the Principals' Leadership Academy, Small School start ups, and the teacher "gotcha squad", just to name a few.

• The City Council report states that 190 million dollars will be cut from the school budget...not 99 million dollars as the budget stated.

Finally, where does the money come from to help "Charter Schools"? It was unclear where the DOE funding was. However, in the last two years it averaged more than 100 million dollars.

In conclusion, using Tweed's "Fuzzy Math" has resulted in a misleading budget that doesn't reflect the real budget cuts. Is it an wonder that our students have not seen gains in Math education under the Kleinberg administration. Look who their role models are. The "Fuzzy Math" crowd at Tweed!

Some of the information used in this post was taken from and can be found at the New York City Public School Parents Blog.