The Loss Of Collective Barganing Hurts Teacher Retention. And Student Academic Achievement.

Its been six years since Wisconsin eliminated collective bargaining rights for civil servants, known as Act 10.  This included teachers, and it has resulted in significant changes to teacher recruitment and retention throughout the state.  Here are some of the findings.

Benefits Drop:
Teachers saw a sharp drop in benefits, averaging 21%.  This includes Health Care and Pensions.  The reduction in benefits has also affected school districts to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession.

Teacher Salaries Less:
Since the passage of Act 10, the average medium teacher salary has been reduced by 2.6%  In rural areas the low teacher salaries has experienced an outflow of new teachers with 25% leaving the district within five years.

Teachers Leaving The Profession:
Before the passage of Act 10, the average rate of teachers leaving the profession was 6.4%.  Since Act 10's passage the average leave rate is 8.8%.  The result is a less experienced teaching staff for many school districts.

Teachers Jumping To Other School Districts:
Before the passage of Act 10, teachers transferring between once school district to another was only 1.3%.  Since Act 10's passage the transfer rate has shot up to 3.4%, a 262% increase!  The result is that poorer and rural school districts quickly lose their best teachers to richer and suburban school districts who can offer more money and better benefits.

Union Representation Decreasing:
In 2011, before the passage of Act 10, the union participation rate was 16.1% in 2016 it has decreased to only 9%   Wisconsin has become a "right to work state" and unions are struggling to stay relevant.

Student Academic Achievement Hurt: 
A study has shown that the loss of teacher collective bargaining rights have affected student academic achievement.  Chalkbeat published the report and can be found Here.  The reduction was more significant in low achieving schools in poor urban and rural areas who are having trouble retaining teachers.


In the years since Act 10 passed, Brey said her union has adapted by becoming more active on the local level, and offering more training and other services to make membership more appealing for teachers.

Our Disconnected Union Leadership:
You would think with the almost certain elimination of dues checkoff for unions, starting the next school year, our union would be trying to reach out to the members by being proactive.  Like eliminating Fair Student Funding, The ending of the ATR pool by placing all excessed teachers in vacancies in their district before other teachers can be hired.  Push to remove vindictive principals, and remove Charlotte Danielson as a rubric for teacher evaluation. Instead, our disconnected union leadership ignores the opposition at the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly and vote, based on the leadership's wishes and not what's best for the members.

I would not be surprised that the union will see a vast reduction in dues collected , maybe over a 50% reduction and all ATRs will no longer pay the dues since they and we feel unrepresented.

A Tale Of Two Schools And Their Cellphone Use.

When Mayor Bill de Blasio consolidated his control of the New York City Public Schools he eliminated the cellphone ban and gave principals the option to impose their own rules of cellphone use.  The result was that some students obeyed the rules and others did not.  This post is a tale of two schools.  School A is a high achieving specialized school while school 2 is a high poverty low achieving school.  How has the cellphone policy worked at both schools?

First, the reason Bill de Blasio lifted the cellphone ban was that his son, who went to Brooklyn Tech convinced him that students only would use their phones when absolutely necessary. Of course we teachers know the truth, that cellphones are a distraction and harms academic achievement.  Most Principals tried to set up reasonable cellphone use, limiting them to school cafeterias.   However, this policy quickly changed to prohibiting cellphone use in classrooms and relied on the teachers to enforce the rules as the administration failed or refused to do their job when it came to cellphones.  The result is that in most high schools cellphone usage is a failure, be it in the hallways or the classrooms.

In school A, a specialized high school, students follow the cellphone rules and only use them in the school cafeteria, seldom does one see a student walking in the hallways with a cellphone and rarely does a teacher need to tell students to put their cellphones away in class. Obviously, these high achieving students care about their grades and realize that using a cellphone in class could result in reduced grades and lower academic achievement.

By contrast, school  B, the high poverty and low achieving student body, Renewal Schools are one example, have their cellphones out almost all the time.  Be it in the classroom or the hallways.  Any rules the administration imposed on student cellphone use are ignored once the school let''s the student with the cellphone into the building, and students realize that their is little or no consequences to violating the cellphone rules.  Moreover, with far too many administrations relying on teachers to enforce the rule, the teacher must spend countless minutes of instructional time disciplining students for using their cellphone.  Eventually, the teacher tire of this battle and simply goes on with the lesson while the students continue to look at at their cellphone and are distracted by what they see.  The result is the student fails to take proper notes and learn the subject/

The bottom line the New York City Public Schools should reimpose the banning of cellphones in the schools.  Read my previous posts Here,  Here and Here.

The Difference Between An Ineffective And Unsatisfactory Rating

I have been following the nyc educator blog with great interest and in a couple of his posts he mention that he asked the UFT leadership various questions about how many members received an "Ineffective" and "Unsatisfactory"  rating.   The reason nyc educator brought up the issue is that the UFT leadership, in trying to sell how wonderful the teacher evaluation system (APPR) is, compared to the old "S" and "U" system.  It's like trying to sell a broken down mule as a race horse.

According to the UFT there were 3,000 annual unsatisfactory observations.under the old "S" and "U" system, compared to only 217 ineffective ratings last year.  The problem is that its like comparing apples and oranges.   Under the old "S" and "U" system a teacher can get an "unsatisfactory" rating for many different reasons by simply getting a letter to their file for that year, despite being rated an effective teacher,  For example a teacher has an altercation with a student and despite the student being the aggressor,  the Principal dumps a letter in the file for corporal punishment on the teacher who was just trying to defend himself.   The result is an unsatisfactory rating for that year.  Another example is that the Principal told a teacher to do lunch duty, even when no teacher was assigned lunch duty as their circular six assignment.  The teacher said no and was charged with insubordination and a letter to the file which gave the Principal the right to give the teacher an unsatisfactory rating.  Many ATRs received an unsatisfactory rating simply by getting a letter to the file for trivial  offenses like making a silly joke, or showing up late to a classroom in a new school.

By contrast an "ineffective" rating is based solely on the pedagogy and not on alleged misconduct.  An ineffective rating is determined by the teacher's classroom ability and how well his or her students growth factor is, based upon the "junk science" of high stakes testing.

Of the 3,000 unsatisfactory ratings (it turns out to be 2,000).  How many were based on incompetence and how many for alleged misconduct?   Moreover, an unsatisfactory rating still keeps the burden of proof on the DOE in any 3020-a cases.  On the other hand, ineffective ratings are entirely based on alleged teacher incompetence and the burden of proof is now on the hapless teacher to prove he or she is not incompetent.  A high bar to jump over.

In conclusion. comparing unsatisfactory ratings with ineffective ratings is more like comparing a misdemeanor with a felony.  They are both negative but one is so much worse than the other.

Just Another Ethically Challenged Principal.

In today's New York Post, Susan Edelman has an article about another ethically challenged Principal, Onethea Swinton,  who is the intern acting Principal of Port Richmond High School in Staten Island.  According to the article, Ms. Swinton is using a Pennsylvania address to register her car, despite actually living in Staten Island.  If that was the only issue with Ms. Swinton I would not be writing this post.  However, Ms. Swinton has quite a bit of controversy surrounding her. In her previous stint at Brooklyn's Secondary School For Journalism, based upon limited data she was rated poorly at a 1.33 with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best.

First, apparently the Pennsylvania address Ms. Swinton uses is for a Tanya John who is an education vender that Ms. Swinton hires to provide student services, for the two schools she has been made Principal of. According to the Post article, Ms. Swinton saves up to $4,000 a year on automobile insurance by using the Pennsylvania address that is listed to Tanya and Kirk John and not her own Staten Island address where her Lexus was spotted by the newspaper.

Second, check the blog "Don't Tread On Educators" and you will find negative comments galore about Ms. Swinton  You can read them here.

Third, as Intern acting Principal she has riled up parents, students and teachers when she eliminated a prized honors program and sowed confusion with the student body due to the schedule and course  changes.

Interestingly, at a Town Hall meeting on October 5th, Chancellor, Carmen Farina, defended Ms. Swinton, what else is new?  According to the Chancellor,  all principals deserve an adjustment period and the parents should give Ms. Swinton more time before complaining.

Finally, according to the teachers at Port Richmond High School, Ms. Swinton tried to impose a new grading policy that would allow most students to graduate unprepared for the adult world and college and it was rescinded only when the staff objected and threatened to expose it to the public.

Just what a struggling school needs an ethically challenged Principal.  Where do they get these people from?

Rules Of Thumb For Retirement Decisions.

Over the years I have heard various rules of thumb for teachers who want to reach their safe and secure retirement goals.  These rules of thumb include the combination of age and years, asset allocation, amount to withdraw, doubling their money, and amount to save.  This post will explain each rule of thumb that teachers might want to use to plan their retirement.  Remember, these rules of thumb are only simple guides and not ironclad guarantees.

Savings Rate:  The savings rate necessary to ensure a safe and secure retirement in the future is 15%, excluding pension and social security and approximately 10% when you include the two.  For younger teachers,every time they receive a raise in their salary, add 1% to the savings rate.  That includes both step raises and contractual raises.

Asset Allocation and Age:
For teachers the rule of 120 is usually recommended.  That is taking 120 minus your age and that is what should be invested in equities and the rest in a Fixed Income or Bond Fund.  For example, if you're 40 years of age, then its 120 - 40 = 80% equities/ On the other hand if your 70 years of age, its 120-70 = 50% equities.  For the risk adverse, you can substitute 100 rather than 120,  which is what was commonly used before 2010. A simple method is to use your age to determine the percentage of bonds and other fixed income instruments.  Age 65 = 65% bonds and other fixed income options.

Doubling Your Money:
The rule of 72 is commonly used for long-term investments, based upon historical average rate of return.  Obviously, if your investments exceed the historical average, you will double your money at a faster rate.  The ule of 72 is as follows:  72 /7% = 10.28 years.  I used the TDA's Fixed Fund of 7% since 65% of all TDA funds are in this option.  The rule of 114 is used to triple your money and the rule of 144 is used to quadruple your money.

Retirement Date:
Obviously, its different for different educators.  However, a general rule of thumb used by accounts for civil servents is the rule of 88.  Any combination of age and years worked towards a pension that equals 88 is when an educator should retire.  According to prople who follow this rule, beyond the number, the financial incentive rapidly diminishes. Playing with various retirement scenarios the rule of 88 seems to work, for the most part.  For example, if a teacher retires at 62 with 26 years in, the combination equals 88 and that is the time to retire.  Does it work for all scenarios?  Obviously not but its a fair estimation of when an educator should retire.

Withdrawal Rate:
A conservative withdrawal rate once you retire, is called the 4%  rule.  The 4% rule has proven to have worked under various scenarios and is used as a first withdrawal method.  The 4% rule allows for the retiree to withdraw 4% of his or her total investment and adjust it for inflation year after year.  For example assume a total investment of one million dollars.  The 4% rules allows the retire to withderawal $40,000 that year/  If inflation rises 3% the next year then the retiree can withdraw the $40,000 plus the inflation rate the next year.  For example, 3% of $40,000 is 1,200.  Therefore,the inflation adjusted withdrawal is $41,200.  If the next year the inflation rate remains at 3% then the following year's withdraw would be $41,200 x1.03% = $42,436.

These rules of thumb are simply guides and not the final say for saving, selecting a retirement date, and withdrawing your money. 

The TDA Fixed Rate Fund Is A Winner!

In New York City, teachers are known as"the smartest", due to their educational requirements that require a masters degree to achieve tenure and passing a content specialty test.  Of course I question that designation based upon teachers voting, time and again, for the same old disconnected union leadership who negotiate inadequate contracts, provide massive "givebacks" and fail to include member concerns when negotiating with the DOE.  A case in point the requirement of four to six observations when the rest of the State only needs to have two observations and the use of the punitive Danielson rubric.  However, there is one item that makes us teachers "the smartest", that is contributing to our Teachers Deferred Annuity (TDA) Fixed Income option.

Why do I say the teachers are "the smartest"?  Easy, the TDA Fixed Income option give the educator a fixed rate of 7% for UFT members and 8.25% for non-UFT educators.   With inflation running a little over 2% and money market funds giving a measly 1%, the no-fee Fixed Income Fund is a godsend and a windfall for educators who contribute to it.

According to the conservative and anti-union Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) the TDA's Fixed Income Option is attracting more and more educator money and in the last report in 2015, the percentage of TDA funds in the Fixed Income Option has risen to 65% of the total TDA contribution.  Compare that to 38% in 2006 and 25% at the creation of th Fixed Income option. Moreover, as of 2016, the average TDA balance was $325,000 and at 7% interest the UFT member can supplement their pension by taking out $22,750 annually.

While I sometimes question the designation as "the smartest", there is no doubt that educators who contribute to the TDA's Fixed Income option are "the smartest".

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly When It Comes To Screened High Schools.

There is a debate on whether there is too many screened high schools in New York City.  During the Bloomberg years, the amount of screened high schools quadrupled and about 33% of the high schools screen their students.  In addition, the high school admissions program seemed like the wild, wild, west with each screened school having different criteria, making the admission process a bewildering maze of conflicting information fo sort through.

The Good: 
The screened schools are good for the high achieving student  who are with other academically proficient students who want to learn;  This allows for positive peer pressure to achieve the most of the student's academic potential.  Moreover, it keeps middle class families in the public schools, who might otherwise leave the City for the suburbs or enroll in private schools.  Further, middle class parents will provide the additional resources that the school request to supplement their budget and provide the academic enrichment that attracts the high achieving student.  Finally, The screened schools allows for more advanced placement and honor coursers, which in turn, makes the student better able to be "college ready".

The Bad:
Screened schools help segregate schools by academic ability.  Many of the New York City schools suffer from segregation as the high achieving students that live in the neighborhood refuse to go to the local high school and are selected by the screened schools.  In addition, the academically weaker performing high schools struggle to retain effective teachers and teacher turnover is much higher.  The result is an unstable school environment as students see many of their teachers leave the school and question their own abilities or even blame themselves for the teacher leaving.  Furthermore, tracking hurts low achieving students who are relegated to basic skills and few opportunities to take higher level courses.  Finally, the student body struggles academically and being smart is a negative where the "cool kids" are the ones that have social skills but little academic ability and most never make it to college.

The Ugly:
The screened and specialized schools are not only segregated academically but are racially segregated as well.  The specialized schools have a student body that is primarily East Asian and White while the academically struggling schools are located in deep poverty neighborhoods and are primarily Black and Hispanic.  Many of the Renewal Schools fall into that latter and is one of the main reasons they struggle academically.

The online newspaper Chalkbeat has a nice article that deals with this issue and you can read it Here.

The Difference Between A Successful School District And The NYC Schools.

There is little doubt that the DOE is dysfunctional and rather than cooperate and support schools, they instead appoint and protect unqualified administrators.  Moreover, the DOE imposes top down policies that have little or no support by school staff.  Be it the unfair "Fair Student Funding" or the Charlotte Dainielson rubric.  Finally, the NYCDOE has a large legal organization, called the Office of Legal Services who's main job is to fire teachers through the 3020-a process.  Many educators call then the "gotcha squad".

Successful school districts have one very important thing in common, that's collaboration. From the Superintendent down to the novice teacher all employees support each other.  The school district usually goes out of their way to support the school and the classroom with adequate resources, a culture of cooperation, and an appreciation of all employees. These school districts might have one lawyer on staff or simply contract the few legal issues to an outside law firm.  3020-a hearings are a rarity and usually a fair settlement is negotiated.  Students need not worry that their teacher will suddenly disappears and they suffer academically for it.

By contrast. welcome to the bizzaro world of the NYCDOE.  The DOE is anything but cooperative.  Rather the DOE polices incentivizes principals to hire "newbie" teachers through their Fair Student Funding policy and encourages the pushing out of veteran teachers into either the 3020-a process or eliminate programs to dump them into the ATR pool.  To achieve this goal the DOE needs and employs a hundred or so lawyers and support staff to assist principals in getting rid of teachers and apparently money is no object.  For the 361 teachers, charged under section 3020-a in 2016, It costs an average of $215,000 to complete a 3020-a hearing, start to finish,  and while schools have recession era budgets and are only funded at 90% of what they should be, the bloated DOE Central Bureaucracy just gobbles up more money for themselves.

Every year or two the DOE has a new "flavor of the day" program or policy and pushes it on schools that end up not to work and wastes time and money to implement the failed program.  Moreover, NYCDOE appoints Superintendents based more on who they know and not what they know.  Teachers have little or no respect for these political appointees and the inferior principals they appoint.  Finally,  the DOE looks the other way when school administrators commit academic fraud and allows it to continue that allows students to graduate unprepared for the adult world.

In my opinion the NYCDOE practices policies and the disinformation that make the New York City Public Schools dysfunctional and only hurts teacher morale and adversely affects student academic achievement.

Teacher Turnover Is Higher At The Renewal Schools Than For The Rest Of The City.

A union investigation of teacher turnover rates for the two year period between October 2014 and October 2016 shows a much higher teacher turnover rates at the Renewal Schools than for the New York City Public Schools teacher turnover rate

The UFT report found that for the 78 Renewal Schools investigated, the average teacher turnover rate for the two years was 40%, compared to a 23% for all public schools.  The report was summarized in Chalkbeat and found the following factors that contributed to the high teacher turnover rates at the Renewal Schools.

• Difficult;t teaching conditions
• Intense pressure to show academic achievement.
• Unstable and poor school administrative leadership.
• Sagging enrollment.
• Low teacher morale
• Poor academic performance.of the mostly level 1 student body.

Here are just two examples.  The first being August Martin High School that saw 90% of the teachers at the school in 2014 are gone by 2016.  Most of the teachers left or weren't rehired when the school was forced to have their teaching staff reapply for their positions at the school.  The second example is Flushing High School that had seven, yes seven principals in eight years?  Talk about an unstable and poorly performing administration. This Spring both Flushing High School and DeWitt Clinton High School will join 8 other Renewal Schools who are forcing their teaching staff to reapply for their jobs.

Of the 73 Renewal Schools investigated, 50 of the schools had a two year teacher turnover rate of 33% or greater  Add that to a mostly "newbie" teaching staff. who have a steep learning curve to become a quality teacher, the mostly level 1 student body, and  you have a recipe for failure, the Renewal Schools!

For ATRs, there is one bright spot in the Renewal School saga.  The Chancellor, Carmen Farina, has ordered the DOE not to "force place" ATRs in the Renewal Schools, what a lucky break for us.

The Rules For Donating Cumulative Absence Reserve Days.

There seems to be some widespread confusion on how colleagues can donate some of their Cumulative Absence Reserve (CAR) to others in the school building who may have need for them due to medical or family emergencies.

Educators can donate CAR days to colleagues only if they have at least 50 days in reserve and no more than 180 days.  The limitations were set forth by the DOE, using the following rationale.

 The 50 day CAR limit allows for the donated employee to have enough CAR days if they experience a major illness or injury themselves.  The 180 day CAR limitation was determined to be the upper end of an employee's sacrifice in donating days.  Since educators cannot exceed 200 days, it was felt that allowing an employee to donate excess days above 180 does not make it a sacrifice since they were in danger of losing the excess days anyway.

The DOE encourages the CAR donation program since they eliminate 2 days the DOE owes the educator for every day that the educator donates to a colleague.  Therefore, if you give a colleague 5 days from your CAR, the DOE eliminates an additional 5 days from your remaining  CAR, resulting in a 10 day elimination of your CAR.  A good deal for the DOE.

Interestingly, it seems that in my experience the colleagues that push the CAR donation program, don't usually donate themselves.  The reason being that they usually have less than 50 days in their CAR  Then again, unless the colleague who needs the extra days has a major illness or injury and originally had an ample amount of days in their CAR, I don't donate my CAR days to a colleague that didn't bother to accumulate his or her days when they should have while healthy.

Remember, its important to accumulate your CAR days, just in case you are subject to a serious illness or injuryand that helps pay your salary while recovering.

When It Comes To Veteran Teachers And ATRs The DOE Only Has Tricks And No Treats.

The DOE has, over the years, implemented policies and practices that discriminate against veteran teachers and ATRs, who for the most part are veteran teachers.  These DOE policies and practices that discriminate against veteran teachers are thinly camouflaged with names like "fair funding", "mutual consent" and "open market".  Below is a list of these DOE policies that discriminate against veteran teachers and are simply "tricks" to fool the public.

Trick:
The DOE's Fair Student Funding formula hurts schools that hire or want to hire veteran teachers by imposing a financial penalty on the school. With already tight budgets that funds the schools at 90% of its fair funding.  The Fair Student Funding formula is unfair and discriminates against veteran teachers.

Trick:
The DOE encourages principals to hire "the cheapest and not the best " teachers for their school while claiming that they only want the best teachers for the students. The DOE just keeps tricking the parents and the students with their lies.

Trick:
The DOE's Open Market System is only useful by relatively new and untenured teachers.  Veteran teachers need not apply since the DOE policies and procedures make it difficult for schools to hire them..

Trick:
The DOE's "Mutual Consent" is not mutual since ATRs are being "forced placed" at these schools without their consent.

Trick:
The DOE encourages newspapers to write articles claiming ATRs are "bad teachers" rather than admit the truth that its about salary, seniority, institutional memory, and DOE policies that make the ATRs unwanted.

Trick:
The DOE's tight school budget incentivizes principals to reduce teacher numbers and have class sizes at contractual limits which means that veteran teachers become attractive targets for removal.

The DOE needs to stop with the tricks and treat school staff with the respect and resources they truly deserve.

My Job As A Father, Mission Completed.

I was at a wedding last night and talking with other men we compared stories about our now adult children growing up in the house.  Almost all of us experienced similar emotions and stories about our children. This post is about my children growing up and me as a father.

Pre School:
Coming home from a long day at work I was usually greeted by an excited child at the door who wanted to hug me and be picked up and loved since they missed you.  I was their best friend and play date.  Roughhousing was an everyday activity and my children learned sports and physical skills by their interaction with their father.  

Elementary School:
I became a real male role model.  My children learned right from wrong, experiencing the trials and tribulations of growing up in the world,  interaction between husband and wife which help develop the child's social skills when working with others, especially the opposite sex.  At this age, the child would usually greet me with a hello and an occasional complaint about mom that only dad can smooth over.

Middle School:
While I was still a role model, my children no longer greeted me at the door or even say hello but still looked up to me for guidance, problem solving, and to act as an occasional counter weight against problems with mom.  This is the time when dad becomes important for what he can do, like driving the middle school child to a friend's house, the mall, or to be dropped off or picked up at the movies or concerts. Free chauffeur service, that's dad..

High School:
I come home from work and only the dog greets me at the door.  What I usually hear are the bedroom doors slamming shut and I'm lucky to see them at the dinner table.  Of course, once they learn to drive, they will ask nicely about using the car and nag you until you get them a car for themselves.  Moreover, as they approach college age they soon realize how important the father is since I will be paying for most of the college  by taking out a parent loan and driving to various colleges with my child to check out the school.

College Age:
I'm practically irrelevant, except when the child needs the car or some spending money.  Yet I have done my job as a male role model and father.  I was always there to protect, support, and .guide my children from pre school to college and they knew that.  Was I perfect?  Far from it but I was always there to help my children with the many issues that affected their lives..

Now as a grandfather, I can only smile because I have seen my three grown children become successful adults with good jobs and in the case of the two older children , a family of their own.  I have done my job as a father and look forward to spoil my grandchildren as I watch my own children become even better parents then I and my wife was to them.  By the way.  If not for my wife who mothered our children and made them the nurturing compassionate adults they are today, I could not have come close to being the father that I am today.

ATRs Will Be Changing Schools On November 6th.

In keeping with their secrecy and lack of transparency, the DOE will be moving the ATRs to different schools without any ATR input.  Some of the ATRs will be "forced placed" in schools with vacancies or long-term assignments, while others will simply be rotated.

As we all know, the DOE has a "pecking order" for ATRs.  The ATRs that will be "forced placed" in vacancies and long-term assignments come from the excess list that resulted in closing schools or programs,  Once that group is exhausted, then the second group will be placed.  These ATRs came from discipline or were rated "unsatisfactory" but did not have either an OSI or SCI investigation.  The final list are ATRs that had a substantiated OSI or SCI investigation but were found innocent of those charges in their 3020-a hearing.  However, the DOE assumes they were guilty anyway.. These ATRs have the "scarlet letter" and are only placed if no other ATR is available in the subject area.

According to my sources, the ATR assignment office decides which ATR goes where, without any say from the Principal or the ATR.  In my case, I have had two principals and one assistant Principal inquire about my availability to cover an Earth Science program (none of them appear on the Open Market Transfer System) and when they allegedly contacted ATR assignment were told that they are working on it.  To my knowledge my next assignment does not include any of the three schools who inquired about my availability.  According to SESIS, I will be assigned to a different school, starting on November 6th.  Go figure!

The only good thing is that as an ATR, I cannot be assigned to those terrible Renewal High Schools thanks to the Chancellor's statement that ATRs will not be assigned to them.

Why I Don't Contribute To COPE.

I stopped contributing to the union's voluntary COPE program because of their lack of transparency on where the COPE funds go to and to the highly questionable causes our union leadership contributes to.  Lately, Chapter Leaders have been instructed to push COPE to the members for the "vote no" campaign to the State's Constitutional Convention, also known as ConCon and if I thought for a moment that all the COPE funding would go to that noble cause, I would contribute to it.

Unfortunately, the union leadership does not consult their members about how and for what causes COPE money is used.  In fact, the union leadership refuses to breakdown the amount of funding the union contributes to various organizations, without any input by the members.

For example, remember the Quail and booze party the UFT had in Albany, using COPE money?  Or their contribution to Al Sharpton's anti-police protest? How about the various fringe organizations that the union leadership supports with financial assistance?  That comes from our COPE money, whether the members support the organization or not.

Until the union leadership provides a detailed breakdown of the financial contributions that is funded by our COPE money, I will not provide one red cent to COPE and nor should the rest of the membership.

To discontinue your COPE contributions read my post on how to do just that.

The City Is Playing Hardball In Negotiating The Next Contract.

The City has started contract negotiations with the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) and in the first negotiating session the City has offered the PBA a 4.2% raise for 42 months.  That comes out to an annual raise of 1.2%, when inflation in the New York City Metropolitan area of 2.4% is factored in,  It's half the inflation rate.

Worse, the City expects the PBA to "self fund" the raises by requiring 100% "givebacks" for providing the money to pay for it.  According to the what I heard and read the 'givebacks" are as follows:

• Discontinue the police annuity fund.
• Install 10 hour tours to reduce overtime.
• Drop all "grievances" and unfair labor practice complaints.

Sure, this was only the first negotiating session and each side submits it's  maximum positions.  The PBA wants a 29% pay raise for 24 months for example.  However, the uniformed employees always gets a little more than everybody else.  Therefore, its safe to assume when our crack negotiating team (sarcastic) meets with Bob Linn of the City, expect the next contract to be, once again, short on raises, backloaded, and maybe a "giveback" or two.

I suspect that we will get a three or four year contract with most of the raises in the final two years and if we average the inflation rate of 2.4% I will be pleasantly surprised.  However, our union leadership, when negotiating with the City's Bob Linn its like "boys negotiating with men" and the members will come out with inferior raises. below the inflation rate and more "givebacks" as our disconnected union leadership declares victory once again as their members continue to lose more of their due process rights and ability to run the classroom that's best for the students.

Behind The Drop In 3020-a Terminations. The 2014 Teacher's Contract.

In today's New York Post, Susan Edeleman  published data that showed that under Bill de Blasio teacher terminations dropped, when compared to the final year of the Michael Bloomberg administration.  If one looked simply at the numbers, Ms. Edelman is correct.  However, if one looked deeper into the numbers they would find that many senior teachers, eligible for retirement, took a deal to retire rather than fight the 3020-a charges and risk losing up to $50,000 of retro money owed to them, thanks to the 2014 teacher's contract.

According to the article last year there was 127 educators who went through their 3020-a hearings and only 34 resulted in termination, or 27%    Compare that to the 2012-13 school year when 55 of 122 were terminated, or 45%.  I suspect the numbers are accurate but it does not tell the entire story.  In fact, 3020-a charges remain high during the Bill de Blasio Mayoralty.

The total amount of educators who went through their 3020-a hearings were basically the same for the two years, 127 under De Blasio and 122 under Bloomberg.  Only the amount of terminations were different, 27 under De Blasio compared to 45 under Bloomberg. . Critics claim the difference is due to sloppy prosecutions, weak cases, and Bill de Blasio's closeness to the teacher's union.  However, the real reason is the 2014 teacher's contract.

The 2014 teacher's contract had some very unique features in it.  For example, all the retroactive raises and lump sum payments were paid out in drips and drabs and members will not be made whole until 2020.  Moreover, educators who resigned, died, or were terminated would no longer get their money owed to them.  Consequently, many senior teachers were unwilling to go through their 3020-a hearings if they thought termination was a possibility,

The simple fact that senior teachers, eligible to retire, decided to settle their cases by irrevocably retiring, rather then lose up to $50,000 in retro and lump sum payments and since the DOE saves up to $100,000 or more by settling cases, its a win for the DOE.  They get rid of the educator for good and don't need to pay the financial costs of a full blown 3020--a hearing.  Of the 184 educators who took a settlement, I suspect that many, if not most of them, irrevocably retired due to the fear of being terminated and losing a significant sum of money and that's why there were less terminations under Bill de Blasio than Michael Bloomberg, thanks to the 2014 teacher's contract.

Coming To A High School In Your Neighbohood, More ATRs For The Bronx And Queens.

The Chancellor, Carmen Farina, has informed  226 teachers and other staff members that two Renewal high schools, DeWitt Clinton in the Bronx ( 96 staff) and Flushing high school (128 staff) in Queens, will have to reapply for their positions and add significantly to next year's ATR pool.  The two schools continue to struggle academically and were targeted by the DOE for poor performance.  Chalkbeat also has an article.

To be fair, both Renewal high schools have become a dumping ground for the Borough's students who have failed to land placements in other schools. Moreover, both Renewal Schools have high percentages of English Language Learners and Special Education students who usually have academic issues,  Finally, both schools have unstable administrations with the Principal of DeWitt Clinton, Santiago Taveras, accused of grade fixing and removed last November, while the Flushing High School Principal,  Tyee Chin, also accused of grade fixing removed this week.  Below are the latest statistics for the two schools.

School.....................ELL........Sp Ed....College Ready

DeWitt Clinton.........22%........18%...........19%
Flushing..................20%........14%...........18%

Just as important both schools  have high rates of chronically absent students, with DeWitt Clinton having 45% and Flushing 39%, which is down from the previous year's 46%.  The City average is 30%. and you can find the information in the latest snapshot for 2016-17 school year. 

You can read the stories on the two recently removed principals Here and  Here.

My understanding of the rules is that teachers not selected by the two schools for next school year will join the ATR pool but will be assigned to one school fore the school year and will only switch schools if the Principal requested his or her removal.  Expect most teachers who have 5 years or more experience in the two Renewal Schools to be excessed under the bogus 18D process.

The bottom line is that up to 150 teachers will be new additions to the ATR pool for the 2018-19 school year.  I guess DOE's draining the pool  is simply a pipe dream.

The Maximum TDA Contribution Is Expected To Increase By $500 Next Year.

There's some good news on the financial front as the Federal Government has raised next year's maximum contribution to 401(k) plans to $18,500.  That is a $500 dollar increase from this year.  If you are 50 years of age or over, the federal government allows for "catch up" contributions of $6,000 dollars for a total maximum contribution of $24,500 dollars.

Our TDA is a cost efficient 403(b) plan and the same rules apply as for the 401(k) plans when it comes to the maximum contribution and "catch up"  funds.  Therefore, expect the TDA to raise the maximum contribution limit by the same $500 dollars.

Depending on your age, the maximum contribution limits are as follows:

Age.......................Maximum Contribution

under 50...........................$18.500
50 or older........................$24,500

Just a reminder.  We will be getting a raise (3%) in May and another 2% in June.  A good rule of thumb is for every raise, you should increase your TDA contribution by 1%.  Moreover, the TDA is tax differed and until age 70.5 it continues to appreciate tax free, until the Required Minimum Distribution kicks in.

For more information go to TRS online and my article on the TDA.

Our Union's Complicity In The ATR Crisis.

It's been over a decade since our union negotiated the terrible and "giveback" laden  2005 contract.  The union leadership has claimed that they're not responsible for the ATR crisis and blames it entirely on the DOE.  However, a UFT sponsored report " Case Study In Partisanship" shows the union's complicity in the creation of the ATR pool.

On page five of the above referenced UFT sponsored report the union was well aware of the potential damage the contract will cause excessed teacher and the potential discrimination of all veteran teachers..

"The UFT negotiating team warned the DOE before the 2005 contract was signed that the new Open Market Transfer System would result in a growing number of unassigned teachers (ATRs) but the DOE said it was prepared to pay the price for the changes it wanted.  The UFT raised concerns about the waste of money and talent but the DOE did not seem to be worried at the time".

Interestingly, the report states that the UFT leadership was getting more concerned about the potential effects on the ATRs and all veteran teachers with the DOE's school based "Fair Student Funding" budgeting process and on April 7, 2008 filed an age discrimination lawsuit, only to quietly drop it in negotiating the 2009 ATR Agreement a year later

The union leadership was well aware that the combination of the "givebacks" iin the 2005 contract and the Fair Student Funding budgeting process made the ATR pool top heavy with older veteran teachers.  In fact, according to the report, 81% of the teachers in the ATR pool were 40 years of age or older while for the UFT educators as a whole. it was only 57%. Fast forward to 2017 and the age of the ATR pool is still about the same while the average age of teachers is decreasing.

In 2006, 44% of the newly excessed teachers had between 0-3 years experience while 22% had 13 years or more.  The next year, only 25% of the teachers with 0-3 experience were still in the ATR pool while 42% of those with 13 years of experence were still in excess.  A complete reversal from the year before and proves that principals were discriminating against veteran teachers.

So when the union leadership tells you that they never expected the DOE to demonize the ATR pool, don't believe them.  They knew what the DOE was planning to do before the 2005 contract was signed and still they agreed to the DOE's demands that made the ATR pool what it is today.

10% Of New York City's Students Are Homeless.

Despite the City having an economic Renaissance and a $6 billion dollar budget surplus,  the student homeless population continues to increase.  Of the 1.1 million students, approximately 140,000 are homeless or 10% of the student population.  In fact, there has been a 28% increase in student homelessness since Bill de Blasio became Mayor of New York City.  In the last 20 year period, between 1994 and 2014, there has been a 115% increase in sthe student homeless population and that has only increased in the last few years as it rose 22% in the 2015-2016 school year and another 6% in the 2015-2017 school year.

Obviously, the reason for the increased homeless population is due to an affordable housing shortage and the City still a attractive location for recent immigrants, many of then with limited English language skills,  In fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio has told Puerto Ricans that while their students are welcome to the New York City schools, their family better be able to have friends or relatives take in since the City has no housing to provide them with and the shelters are overcrowded as is..

Educationally, its a well known fact that homeless students experience higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates, and chronic absenteeism.  The ICPH study shows how homelessness affects student academic achievement.  Until the student homeless problem is solved, expecting real academic improvement is simply "smoke and mirrors".

In Queens schools the amount of homeless students vary by school district.  They are as follows:

District 24.............................4,186
District 25.............................2,020
District 26...............................945 
District 27............................3,164
District 28............................2,638
District 29............................2,782
District 30............................3,058

Total..................................18,173