It May Be A Different Administration But When It Comes To Teacher Discipline, It's The Same Old DOE!

The end of the Bloomberg administration was greeted with universal joy by the teachers and other staff members of the New York City Public Schools.  Even principals, except for the Leadership Academy graduates, were happy to get rid of the Bloomberg policies that hurt their schools.  However, educator joy has been replaced by a realization that for the schools little has changed.  The class sizes have remained unreasonably high, school budgets were frozen at the  recession levels of 2012, paperwork has not been reduced and even increased for Special Education teachers, and  much of the Bloomberg policymakers are still in charge.  When it comes to teacher discipline, the amount of 3020-a hearing have remained essentially unchanged from the last years of the Bloomberg administration.

The DOE's Office of Legal Services will go to great lengths to terminate a teacher by embellishing, perverting, lying, and falsifying innocent actions into serious misconduct. This is typical of this office during the Bloomberg years and unless the teacher was willing to fight the 3020-a charges, many were not and took a settlement to retire, resign, or plead guilty to keep their job and be thrown into the ATR pool, they would be reassigned for a year or more waiting to defend themselves and require the DOE to prove their case. Unfortunately, only 4% are found innocent since the State Arbitrators are appointed to one year terms and either the DOE or UFT can refuse to reappoint the Arbitrator.  Therefore, the Arbitrator will usually give a fine to teachers even when the DOE did not prove their case.  On the other hand, about 8% of the educators are terminated but when you add the resignations and forced retirements, the number jumps to 55%!  Our out of touch leader, Michael Mulgrew, promised a new tone at the DOE, instead we see that Chancellor Carmen Farina, is part of the problem and not the solution as she retained the Bloomberg 300 in their policy making positions. Is it any wonder that the classroom teacher sees little change in the "gotcha mentality" coming from the DOE?

Now the New York Post reports on a 60 year old teacher who was forced to resign under the threat of termination by the DOE.  The teacher, a 29 year teacher who was legally blind and walks with a cane was charged under 3020-a with DOE trumped up charges of drinking alcohol and sexual harassment.  What did this teacher do?  A parent thought she smelled alcohol on the teacher's breath when it turned out that he had a bad breath issue and used Listerine, which is alcohol based (25%).  Yet, the DOE didn't buy it.  The Office of Legal Services believed the parent and reassigned the teacher to the "rubber room" yes, they still exist.  The DOE eventually charged the teacher under section 3020-a with drinking alcohol on school grounds and added sexual harassment charges to boot.  What was the sexual harassment? . The teacher was joking with a group of moms and asked them who wants a blind date with me?  Even if he wasn't joking, what's wrong with one adult asking another for a date? The teacher retired hoping that his good name will remain undamaged.  However, if he tries to get a job with the DOE or DOE provider, he will find he cannot be hired since the DOE will have put a "do not hire" flag on his file.

This is just another of the many questionable cases the DOE's Office of Legal Services brings to intimidate teachers and force them to retire or resign rather then going through long and demoralizing 3020-a hearing where your moral character is made out to be a cross between "Jack the Ripper" and "Typhoid Mary" besides being a danger to the children.  It may be a new administration but for teachers in the trenches facing discipline, it's still the same old DOE.

Why Does The DOE Violate Chancellor's Regulation C-770 When It Comes To Reassigning Teachers?

For some reason high-profiled teachers that the DOE has reassigned for alleged misconduct and awaiting their 3020-a hearings are being sent to different Boroughs from the schools that they are removed from.  This is in violation of the DOE's own regulations called Chancellor Regulation C-770.  Furthermore, this violates the spirit of the DOE/UFT contract that requires reassigned teachers be placed in their Districts or Borough Offices.

Chancellor Regulation C-770 states that any reassigned (suspended) teacher must be placed in his or her district unless there is extraordinary circumstances that requires a different placement.  The exact language is as follows:

CHANCELLOR’S REGULATION C-770
5. Assignments for Suspended Employees Suspended employees are to be assigned within their own districts or divisions. Requests for a temporary change of assignment because of extraordinary circumstances must be directed in writing to the Executive Director of the Division of Human Resources, with supporting statements for the request. The Executive Director shall confer with the Office of Legal Services regarding this request. The employee is not to be reassigned from the district or division until written authorization has been granted.

The key here is the word "extraordinary".  The meaning of "extraordinary" is defined as"very unusual, and very different from normal". You would think that the DOE would have to prove that forcing a reassigned teacher to travel to another Borough meets that definition.  Instead if you are a high profiled blogger like Francesco Portelos, or South Bronx School, they retaliate against them by making them travel to a different Borough to sit and shuffle papers, if that.

This form of DOE retaliation must stop and the NYSUT attorneys must bring this up to arbitrators as being vindictive and a disparate treatment to their client. If the DOE cannot follow their own regulations then they should be punished for their abuse of power.  Nothing less would suffice.

The DOE, UFT, And The Rubber Room.

The assailed teacher wrote a very heart-felt article on his evolution as a clueless "newbie teacher" who worshiped his Principal to a knowledgeable Chapter Leader who. with eyes wide open, sees the injustice and hypocrisy that permeates the New York City schools. Part of his evolution is how he perceived teachers who were banished to the "rubber room".  At first, he assumed, like many teachers, that those teachers reassigned were perverts, beaters, or committed financial larceny.  However, as he saw colleagues reassigned to the "rubber room" for bogus or frivolous incidents he soon realized that the Administration was removing teachers not for serious misconduct but because they didn't like the teacher, be it for complaining, age, salary, or for their own prejudice. This post will explain, from a largely first-hand perspective the evolution of the "rubber room" and why the amount of reassigned teachers exploded starting in 2005 and only ended in 2010 with the Rubber Room Agreement.

Historically teachers were reassigned out of the classroom and away from children when accused of "major misconduct", usually corporal, financial, or sexual in nature.  These teachers waited for their 3020-a hearings at district or regional offices doing clerical work.  The average number of reassigned teachers was between 80-100 on a yearly basis.  The numbers started to inch up under the Rudolf Giuliani Administration into the low hundreds as the first non-educator, Harold Levy, became Chancellor.  However, it was not until Michael Bloomberg came into office and appointed non-educator and failed classroom teacher, Joel Klein, as Chancellor did the number of reassigned teachers significantly increase. 

During Chancellor Joel Klein's reign of terror and disrespect the number of reassigned teachers skyrocketed to an astonishing 802 by 2008.  It was really more since the thirteen "rubber rooms' (downsized to seven by 2010) were bursting at the seems and many teachers who principals wanted removed from their school were told by the DOE that there was no more room and to leave them in the teachers work room or any other room with no contact with children.  Rumors were there were half as many teachers reassigned out of the classroom (400) but not sent to the "rubber room". That meant that the real number of reassigned teachers at the peak may have been as high as 1,200. Various DOE officials who I talked to during these days confirmed that the principals were clamoring to remove teachers from their schools but since the reassignment centers were overcrowded, the principals appeals were refused with some exceptions.

You might want to know why the sudden increase in reassigned teachers during the Bloomberg/Klein years?  Yes, it was partly due to the anti-teacher attitude of the Chancellor and it was the the granting of more discretionary power to principals.  However,the major reason was the Chancellor's decision to remove teachers from the school's payroll after only 60 days once they are reassigned.  Previously, if a Principal removed a teacher, that teacher's salary stayed on the school's payroll through the entire school year.  Therefore, Principals had to think twice about removing a teacher if they still had to pay the teacher's salary and pay a substitute for the teacher's classes.  Consequently, only teachers accused of serious misconduct were removed. The result of Chancellor Joel Klein's decision to remove reassigned teachers from the school's payroll was the primary reason for the high number of both "reassigned" and "rubber room" teachers.

Presently, the "reassignment centers are now closed and reassigned teachers are sent to their school's "Children First Network" (CFN) offices to do little or no work (see Franseco Portelos)   However, since the teacher's salary must stay on the school's payroll until the end of the school year unless the teacher is removed for major misconduct, the number of reassigned teachers have dropped to 222, including administrators.

The UFT was very complicit in the "rubber room' fiasco as they rarely objected to the removal of a teacher or provide investigators of their own on obvious bogus or frivolous cases.  The UFT had special representatives who represented reassigned teachers and were, for the most part, useless.  Their advice to reassigned teachers is to say nothing to anybody and that the teacher sitting next to you could be a "snitch" and testify against you at your 3020-a hearing (in my almost five years of being rubberized, I never saw this happen). In other words the UFT told reassigned teachers to be "quiet and clueless to their fate"  Once the teacher was pressured to resign or terminated (20% of the time), the UFT's action was "don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave".  I saw this first hand many of the time and that always bothered me that the UFT seemed to be on the side of the DOE in many of the cases at the Queens reassignment center. As the liaison at the Queens reassigned center I found myself explaining the rights to the reassigned teacher and what they can expect, especially, when it came to OSI and SCI investigations.  Too many teachers came in traumatized and in need of support, it was up to the liaison to provide comfort and clarity to their situation.  These put us in conflict with the union leadership as we felt it was our responsibility to let the reassigned teacher know what will happen to them, step by step in the reassignment process.  Knowledge is power and the union would badmouth the liaisons by telling reassigned teachers not to listen to us since we were a threat to the union because of our knowledge and respect by the "rubber room" teachers.  Of course almost all the teachers did look to the liaisons for information and in many cases we helped them make informed decisions about their fate in the 3020-a process.

My experience with the NYSUT lawyers who represented us in our 3020-a hearings was a positive one (sorry Betsy).  Overall the NYSUT lawyers were competent and tried their best to represent us.  Sure, there are cases when the teacher didn't think his or her NYSUT attorney was on their side but I believe that had more to do with the "Chemistry" between the NYSUT lawyer and the teacher and not the competence of their representing us.  Further, a minority of teachers had a private attorney represent them and had mixed results . Moreover, I was unimpressed with the DOE lawyers, they seemed unprepared and believed hearsay against the teacher was a proven fact only to fall apart in front of the independent Arbitrator.  In other words the DOE lawyer believed their own propaganda and in many cases the "Specifications" were either dismissed or reduced by the Arbitrator when real evidence was found wanting.  The DOE lawyers case is to throw as many accusations against the wall and hope that some stick.  They call this a "preponderance of evidence".  However, to the Arbitrator it is the preponderance of relevant evidence and not unsupported hearsay that is a major part of their "award".

  Unfortunately, for the teachers Arbitrator decisions do not follow a simple rubric but requires many different variables, some subjective, before they make an "award".  For example three teachers were found to have been drinking alcohol in a Queens High School classroom before open school night.  The three teachers received widely different "awards" from three different arbitrators.  One received a six-month suspension without pay, the second received a $25,000 fine, while the third teacher who actual bought the alcohol and brought it into the school and tried to get his student teacher to join in (she refused) received a $5,000 fine. In other words not all Arbitrators weigh the evidence the same way.  Some of my closest "rubber room" friends received terrible "awards" including terminations while others received a mere "slap on the wrist".  The best statement I can say about the 3020-a process and the "awards" that come out of it is "that every case is different" and I found that to be very true.

In summary, while there are no "rubber rooms" for reassigned teachers and fewer teachers are being reassigned since the Principal must show that the teacher committed major misconduct otherwise, the school still pays their salary for the school year, the union must be more pro-active and not reactive to teacher reassignments.  Furthermore, the union should start their own investigation when there is a reasonable suspicion that the Principal removed the teacher for personal or vindictive reasons and not let the teacher languish in a CFN for over a year

The DOE Is Really Acting The Part Of The Grinch As They Are Moving Reassigned Teachers Out of Their Borough.

Yes, it is true, the day of the "rubber room" is gone. No longer are there 800+ teachers reassigned to various TRCs throughout the City. However, for some teachers accused of serious misconduct or criminal issues The DOE Grinch is back as these two dozen or so reassigned teachers that were removed from the schools are being reassigned out of their Borough and in one outrageous case a Queens teacher was sent to Staten Island! Yes, Staten Island until his 3020-a hearing is completed.

It appears that the DOE does not care to follow the contract when it comes to these reassigned teachers, knowing full well that by the time the union files a successful grievance, the teacher will either be sent back to the school or terminated. Previously, only those teachers under Chancellor's discretion were sent out of the Borough. Now it seems that the DOE is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the reassigned teachers who are sent out of their schools.

For those reassigned teachers during this Christmas the DOE is certainly acting the part of the Grinch by punishing them with long commutes and disrespect to their personal situations..

The 3020-a Process Revisited Since The "Rubber Room Agreement".

Since the April 15th 2010 "rubber room agreement" little has been written about reassigned teachers. In fact only two articles have referred to the reassigned teachers. Here and Here. The reason that little has been written about the plight of the reassigned teacher is that the rules have changed. True there are no more "rubber rooms" but there is a temporary teacher reassignment center at 49-51 Chambers Street for teachers accused of potentially serious or criminal charges. What have the changes been?

First, principals can no longer dump teachers out of their school and get them off their payroll in sixty days as before. Previously principals could remove a teacher based upon an unfounded accusation or frivolous actions. This is especially true of principals targeting higher paid senior teachers and the "rubber room" reflected this. Now the teacher stays at the school and may even continue teaching during the 3020-a process. This is a disincentive for principals to remove teachers since not only they no longer get budget relief but would have to hire a replacement to cover the classroom. The result is that fewer teachers are being charged under 3020-a. However, any "serious misconduct" as defined by the contract will result in the teacher being removed from the school.

Second, the 3020-a process is definitely moving faster. Most cases are done within 180 days, start to finish and the Arbitrators are seriously trying to meet the more stringent time limits.

Third, with no "rubber rooms", the free exchange of information has slowed to a trickle as both the DOE and UFT/NYSUT maintain absolute secrecy of the goings on in the 3020-a process. Therefore, the charged teacher is totally at the mercy of the NYSUT lawyer and is not informed enough to ask hard questions or take this advice.

Finally, with less frivolous cases concerning misconduct going to 3020-a hearings, anecdotal evidence suggests that Arbitrators are more inclined to terminate teachers. Remember, unlike the State, the DOE and UFT select a panel of Arbitrators who depend on pleasing the two parties if they want their position on the board renewed yearly. Since the DOE is more aggressive in exercising that right, you can guess that the Arbitrator decisions will lean heavily toward the DOE position. As for teacher incompetence? Nothing has really changed there with teachers who were foolish enough to take PIP+ have a 90% chance of being terminated.

It would appear, based upon the information above, there are less settlements and an increased termination rate from 25% back in June 2010 to close to 50% now if you take into account resignations and retirement. I would like to give you real numbers but the two groups keep everything top secret.

"Breaking News" - The "Rubber Room" Is Alive And Well At Tweed!

I have been informed that Tweed has started a new "rubber room" on the twelfth floor in the Chambers Street building where all 3020-a teacher termination hearings are held. My source told me that he saw chairs squeezed together and lined up against two walls with teachers sitting on them, apparently doing nothing, day after day. My source actually spoke to some of them and they told him that they were informed that they were reassigned out of the schools and to report to this location.

At first, I thought my source was playing a joke on me but my union source admitted that the DOE is indeed reassigning selected teachers to a temporary reassignment location while they figure out whether to pursue 3020-a charges against these individuals. According to my union source, the DOE always maintained the right to reassign teachers on a temporary basis while they investigate potentially serious allegations. So much for the "rubber room agreement" that was supposed to abolish the "rubber rooms" once and for all.

While it might be true that this new "rubber room" may only be temporary, as my union source claimed, it still is very disturbing that some teachers must travel long distances from the outer Boroughs to Downtown Manhattan simply because of an unproven accusation made against that educator. The least they should do is have them report to their "Children First Network" Offices where they can be given meaningful work while waiting for their cases to be finished.

Is this just another example of the DOE reneging on an agreement with our union? It certainly looks like it to me.