The DOE Admits That Poverty Affects Student Academic Achievement, Despite Their Rhetoric That It Doesn't.

The New York Post published an article that stated that 150  schools who had their Regents graded outside their schools showed a significant decline in passing rates ranging from 6.7% in Living Environment to 3.9% for U.S. History.  Smaller drops were reported for English 2.1% and Math 1.7%.   More disturbingly were the large drops in the following schools:

•  Choir Academy of Harlem -34%
• Brooklyn Theatre Arts  HS -24%
• Victory Collegiate HS        -23%
• School For Social Change -20%
• Science Skills HS            -19%

At the Brooklyn Theatre Arts High School in Canarsie in 2011 77% of the students passed the U.S. History Regents in 2011 but when the 2012 Regents were graded outside the school, only 21% passed the Regents.  The same happened at the Choir Academy of Harlem, where in 2011 66% passed compared to 13% in 2012.

These incredible drops were found after New York City, under pressure from the State about shady scoring practices, selected the 150 schools to be scored centrally rather than have the scoring done in the school.  While the average reduction in passing rates of the 150 schools were not terrible, with the exceptions listed above, the reductions were significant.   While some of the drops can be attributed to teachers sympathetic to their school's students and are able to understand the student's intent in writing the essays and the use of English teachers grading ESL students, the incredably large drops in some schools can only mean one thing.  Yes, these schools had some very questionable scoring methods to boost the student passing rates on the Regents.  In other words, the school cheated!

Interestingly, TWEED who blame teachers and not poverty or their asinine policies on poor student academic achievement blamed the astoundingly large drop in Regents passing scores in these high schools on their high poverty student population.  In other words they admit that poverty affects student academic achievement despite their rhetoric  I guess student poverty only counts when it brings into question the DOE's letter grades and learning environment surveys.

The bottom line is now that all high schools will have their Regents graded independently, outside the school, how much will the Regents grade drop Citywide?  I predict it will be significant and the largest drops will occur in high poverty schools as poverty does matter in a student's academic achievement.

The Union Attemps To Make Lemonade Out Of A Lemon And Fails When It Came To The Teacher Evaluation System.

I almost laughed out loud when I read Michael Mulgrew's letter telling us how we won in the battle with the DOE on teacher evaluations.  According to the Mulgrew memo we enhanced our "due process rights",  a choice how many observations we are subject to,  have 22 instead of the DOE seven rubrics that a teacher must demonstrate in their lesson,  a weaker student survey score, and finally a teacher rated "ineffective" will have an evaluator. Let's take each union victory claim and see if it stands up to scrutiny.

"Due Process Rights":  Yes, the State agreed with the UFT appeals process but this process is in front of a DOE kangaroo court that, in the past, upholds almost 100% of the "U" ratings.  Only the "lucky 13%" will have an independent Arbitrator look at the "ineffective ratings"  With the new teacher evaluation system two consecutive "ineffective ratings" will almost surly result in termination since "the burden of proof "will be on the teacher and not how it is presently under State 3020-a law, where "the burden of proof "is on the DOE. Enhanced?  I think not.

Observations:  The two choices allows for the administration to do an unannounced observation and is a "gotcha  moment" by administrators to catch teachers unprepared.  Furthermore, there will be more observations then before and if the teacher is stupid enough to allow the administration to videotape their lesson then that teacher deserves to be terminated. Finally, the Principal has up to 90 days to write an e-mail of the observation and does not require the Principal to have an in-person discussion.  If anybody believes this is a win, they are delusional or on drugs.

Danielson Framework:  How can anybody believe that having an administrator rate you on 22 specific rubrics using the Dainelson Framework is a win is unbelievable.  The Danielson Framework will result in many teachers being terminated as the DOE will use the most stringent and rigorous interpretation to destroy a teacher's career. Some win!

Student Surveys:  Interesting how John King allowed student surveys to be part of the teacher evaluation but refused to have teacher surveys used for a Principal evaluation.  That's a real win right Michael?

The evaluator: Michael Mulgrew hailed this as a win but the evaluator seems more like PIP+ and past statistics show an over 90% termination rate under PIP+.  I hope we don't have many more wins like that Mr. Mulgrew?

Let the union spin the defeat and claim that the lemon is really lemonade but the truth is it has a bitter taste in my mouth and no amount of sugar will convince me that it wasn't a DOE win and a UFT loss.

Why Experience Counts When Hiring Teachers.

It's time for the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS) when teachers look for positions that better suit them or just looking for a change of scenery. Unfortunately, in the last two terms of the Bloomberg Administration few experienced teachers were considered by principals for their vacancies and "who can blame them"?  Since experienced teachers cost more money to the school, thanks to the unfair "fair student funding formula" imposed on the schools by the DOE. However, these principals are being "short sighted" and  doing a disservice to the students of their school when they practice "education on the cheap" by hiring inexperienced or "newbie teachers" instead of the "best teachers" to meet the ever increasing academic requirements such as "Common Core".

Why is it important for principals to hire experienced teachers?  Let me count the ways.

First, it's important for a teacher to have a deep knowledge of the curriculum he or she is teaching.  Without this understanding of the topic, the teacher can only scratch the surface and make it more difficult for the students to succeed academically, especially with "Common Core" being implemented in the schools.

Second, An experienced teacher has a track record and any Principal who cares to investigate the teacher's ability in the classroom can easily do so and decide if that teacher is appropriate for their school.  Inexperienced and "newbie teachers" do not have such a track record and when a Principal hires an inexperienced teacher for their school it's a "crap-shoot" to say the least and a good 50% of the time it will be "snake eyes" with th students losing...

Third, the most difficult part of teaching is "classroom management" and it takes years for inexperienced teachers to master the skills necessary to maintain discipline in the classroom. On the other hand, experienced teachers have "been their and done that" and are usually proficient in the difficult art of "classroom management".

Fourth, no Principal wants their students to become "guinea pigs" as the inexperienced teacher struggles through an unfamiliar curriculum and try to maintain classroom discipline at the same time. This steep learning curve for the teacher puts the students at a disadvantage academically to their peers who are fortunate to have an experienced teacher.  However, many principals do just that by hiring the inexperienced teacher, usually becuse of their school's budget.

Finally, an experienced teacher brings maturity and stability to the school and their experience can be used to mentor the inexperienced teacher in the many complicated skills it takes to run a classroom.

To New York City principals, the question I ask you?  Do you want the "best" or "cheapest"  teachers to lead the school's students and which would you want for your own children?  Ponder my question carefully when you are tempted to hire an inexperienced  teacher to save a few shekels.  Remember the saying "penny wise dollar foolish" when you play the game that will result in hurting student academic outcomes, known to all as  "education on the cheap"

Finally, Even The Non-Educators At Tweed Admit That The Leadership Academy Is A Costly Failure.

The City's Independent Budget Office (IBO) found that there has been a drastic decline in "Leadership Academy Principals" in the New York City School System.  It was only a couple years age that 17% of the Principals came from the "Leadership Academy" with little or no classroom experience and populated the UFT's list of "Principals In Need Of Improvement".   Now the DOE admits that "fast tracking" prospective principals with little or no classroom experience resulted in little academic achievement and high teacher turnover and only 30 principal wannabees are now in the "Leadership Academy"program.

While the DOE has not publicly discussed the reduction of "Leadership Academy Principals" in the New York City School system, at a principals conference in January of this year, Deputy Chancellor David Wiener said the following.

The department has “not done a great job” of recruiting principals, He added, “Starting at the end of the process might not be the best place.”

Now if the DOE will only eliminate the program entirely as the majority of  "Leadership Academy Principals" have not helped our student's academic achievement or proven worthy of working collaboratively with their teaching staff.  Too many of these Principals have found themselves in trouble  and then there is this!  Now many of the "Leadership Academy principals" find themselves under  fire by parents, teachers, and even the DOE!

It's time to eliminate this Joel Klein inspired program that is bad for students, bad for teachers, and bad for the New York City Public Schools.

Will The Next Mayor Grant Retroactive Raises? Yes...But.

One of the major questions that City workers have is whomever wins the Mayoral election will the new City Administration negotiate a deal that includes "retroactive raises"?   The short answer is yes but it will be more complicated than simply granting the "retroactive raises" and it depends on the union.

For the teachers union and a couple of others like CSA, who Mayor Bloomberg refused to follow the "City pattern", the new mayor will "bite the bullet" and give these unions the previous  "City pattern" that the Bloomberg Administration failed to do.  There may be some "face saving" cosmetic changes, especially when the non-binding Arbitrator report comes out with their recommendations.  However, with an improving economic climate and an Arbitrator report in hand, it will provide cover for the new City Administration to give to the few unions who were excluded from the previous "City pattern" to receive their "retroactive raises" with some modifications.

However, the new "City pattern" will not be as generous as the previous 8% two year contract since the inflation rate is only running at 2% and while the economic conditions in the City have improved, it's certainly not robust.  Therefore, look for a contract that hovers around the inflation rate which is half of what was offered in the last one, 4% annually for two years, and may be back loading the raises to the last year to save money for the City. It's possible that the "retroactive raises" may be negotiated in this contract to pay for health care or other benefits since most of these unions will be willing to give them up if they get better benefits as a tradeoff.

It's also possible that the new "City pattern" may be more generous than I am predicting but it will mean that the City and unions struck a deal for City workers to pay a share of their health care costs which will face stiff resistance from the older members and retirees and I am not expecting that to happen.  Therefore, look for the new Mayor to negotiate contracts with all the City unions that will include back loading most of the raises to the end of the contract while allowing for the "retroactive raises". 

In conclusion look for about a 2% annual raise with most of the first year raise payable toward the end of the contract and the "retroactive raises" being either back loaded or used for enhanced benefits.

It Appears That The UFT Will Endorse Bill Thompson And That Is Too Bad.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the UFT leaders will toss their collective hats and endorse Bill Thompson for Mayor.  This is the very same Bill Thompson who agreed with Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009 that teachers did not deserve raises, retroactive or otherwise.  Yes, the very same Bill Thompson who was President of the dysfunctional Board of Education and was City Controller who failed to investigate the many consultant thefts like CityTime. Now it seems that after yesterday's Delegate Assembly, the union will only support a candidate that can win.  In other words, it is either Christine Quinn or Bill Thompson from sources inside the UFT leadership.

Why do I think my union leadership will support Bill Thompson?  Let's look at the "tea leaves".

First,  Randi Weingarten has come out and supported Bill Thompson for Mayor and if you think Randi does not have any influence over her old union, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  Moreover, Bill Thompson has outlined his "education agenda" and UFT President Michael Mulgrew was favorably impressed by it.

Second,  it is highly unlikely the union will throw their support to Christine Quinn since she was partly responsible for Mayor Bloomberg's third term by allowing changes to the City Charter.  Furthermore, Christine Quinn quietly supported many of the Mayor's attacks on teachers and stayed silent on the Mayor's LIFO bill and the drastic cuts in school budgets.  Finally, she has been so closely aligned with Mayor Bloomberg that she is called "Bloomberg Lite" and I doubt her policy will be significantly different from the Mayor's.

Third, The other candidates are either unknown, too far to the left, or have political baggage and the union does not want to support a "loser".

While I do not have a favorite candidate, I would have like to see our union support either John Liu or Bill deBlasio but then I am only a member and my union does not listen to me.

An Interview With Chancellor Dennis Walcott

After reading the transparent propaganda piece that the Department of Education published about how Chancellor Dennis Walcott will improve teacher training and accountability, I decided it was important to print the truth of what the Chancellor really meant.

Doubling Teacher Training:  What the Chancellor really wants is to train more principals in how
 to terminate teachers by using the Danielson Framework rubric that includes 62 different items and also includes "Common Core", Differentiated Learning", and "VAM (Junk Science)" as  the basis for teacher evaluation.  He wants the money used to pay coaches to train principals how to properly document a teacher's weakness and provide support to initiate termination proceedings against these teachers.

Accountability: We will require teachers to be held accountable for student educational outcomes despite failing to provide the proper resources, services, and having the highest class sizes in the State .  Accountability is only for teachers and not the non-educators at Tweed,who are the real culprits who waste a billion dollars on near-useless technology and higly paid consultants for the lack of student academic achievement.

The Current System: The current system requires the DOE to show "just cause" to terminate teachers "ineffective ratings", even if the teacher is not "ineffective".
and requires the DOE to show real evidence to an independent Arbitrator to fire a teacher.  With the new system we can terminate teachers after two years of

Will the Teacher Evaluation System Work?  Who cares if it works or not?  We just want to terminate as many teachers as possible, especially senior teachers.

Do Teachers Trust the New System?  The Mayor does not care
what teachers think since he hates teachers and since I am the Mayor's poodle, I gladly follow his orders..

The Union Must Get A Commitment From Their Endorsed Candidate To Eliminate The Fair Student Funding Formula.

In my continuing series on what the union should require for their endorsement it's time to get rid of the "fair student funding formula" that has resulted in senior teachers not even getting interviews because of the budget constraints by this unfair funding method.  Before the "fair student funding formula", teachers were units and the "best teachers" were recruited by the schools who were considered the most desirable.  Included in this calculation for these "best teachers" was the neighborhood the school was located in, parking and transportation  availability, and the school's reputation.  Naturally, the schools who had the most to offer attracted the "best teachers".  Along came Chancellor Joel Klein's "fair student funding formula" that in theory would allocate additional money to schools that have a high percentage of "high needs" students (Special Education, English Language Learners, and poverty).  However, like all the Tweed inspired policies under the Bloomberg Administration, the "fair student funding formula" failed to allocate all the resources promised to these schools with "high needs" students.  Instead the "fair student funding formula" has morphed into a restraint on principals who would want to hire experienced teachers since it would hurt the school's budget while not allocating the additional funds to those schools with "high needs" students.

The question is what happened to the money?  While I do not pretend to know the answer since the DOE is not transparent about its funding and allocation mechanism, I can make an educated guess that a significant amount went to funding high-priced consultants and their suspect educational programs they peddle daily to the non-educators at Tweed.  Furthermore, the near useless "Children First networks" siphon badly needed funds from schools and have numerous high-priced managers and ousted principals that contribute next to nothing to the classroom.  Finally, the DOE is noted for its bloated central bureaucracy and it's no secret that badly needed school resources end up at Tweed to pay for their ever oversized headcount.

Why did our union allow the "fair student funding formula" to be implemented in the first place?  It appears this was yet another miscalculation by Randi Wiengarten that given a "bill of goods" by Joel Klein, she fell for it only to see that it ends up hurting both the teachers and the students.

In conclusion, our union should only endorse a candidate who is committed and supports the elimination of the "fair student funding formula" that not only discriminates against the hiring of senior teachers but forces principals to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their school and that is what I call "students last....always" when schools are hamstrung by the unfair "fair student funding formula"

Why Our Union Cannot Support Christine Quinn For Mayor.

In a month the UFT will endorse a Democratic candidate for Mayor and Christine Quinn is making a major push for that endorsement.  However, under no circumstances should our union endorse Christine Quinn for Mayor since she aided and abetted Mayor Bloomberg's grab for power by approving a third term that has been a disaster for the NYC Public Schools. She was rightfully booed at the UFT sponsored conference for some of her comments and seemed to agree with the Mayor's education policy in co-locating charter schools, a non-educator for Chancellor, and wants to keep the phony letter grades for schools.  Let me remind everyone that as City Council President she rarely ever stood up to the Mayor, especially when it came to the Mayor's divisive education policy. In fact, she supported many of the Mayor's policy programs when in came to education.

Why shouldn't the union support Christine Quinn for Mayor?  Let me count the ways.

First, she allowed the Mayor to change the City Charter so that he and she can run for a third term.

Second, she failed to provide leadership in not standing up to the Mayor's distructive education policies that included closing schools, ignoring commu, nity concerns, and demonizing teachers, allow charter school co-locations, agree to ever increasing class sizes, and a 20% reduction in school operating budgets since 2008.

Third, she still insists on looking at non-educators as a Chancellor and cited Arnie Duncan an example which caused teachers to give her a loud chorus of boos and deservingly so..

Fourth, she wants to keep the phony letter grades that most educators know is a farce and keeps Principals like Iris Blge in power.

Fifth, she opposes teacher seniority rights and quietly supported Bloomberg's LIFO bill.

Finally, she has failed to show any real independence from the Mayor's education policy and given the power of  being the Mayor will be like having "Bloomberg Lite" in office.  Consequently, the union should not endorsed her candidacy for any reason whatsoever. Now if only our tone-deaf union leader would hear their member vocies on this issue but don't count on it.

Another Princpal Acting Badly And The DOE Does Nothing About It.

The New York Post reported today that Independence HS Principal  Ron Smolkin apparently have written two anonymous letters against two teachers in an attempt to remove them from his school. Despite strong evidence that supported that the Principal wrote the letters, the DOE has allowed the Principal to stay in his position.  According to the DOE an internal (OSI) investigation found no real evidence against the Principal.  However, it certainly appears that the Principal should have lost his job if he indeed wrote those letters and it appears both teachers believe he did.

First, the Principal was accused by a teacher back in 2011 that he wrote an anonymous letter to his co-op board that accused the teacher and his partner of luring young boys to their apartment and infect them with AIDS.  The teacher , who was a Chapter Leader before retiring last year, filed a lawsuit and had a handwriting expert compare the letter sent to the co-op board and Principal Smolkin's handwritten notes and found them the same.  Principal Smolkin  also retaliated against the teacher by removing him from the classroom and filing 3020-a charges, forcing the teacher to retire.   The Principal's actions are subject to a criminal investigation and the DA is reviewing it presently.Yet the DOE investigation found the teacher's accusation to be unsubstantiated.  What a shock!

Now, we find that Principal Smolkin is in hot water again as a female teacher has claimed that  Principal Smolkin wrote another anonymous letter accusing the teacher of flirting with the boys, acting sexy in class, and making inappropriate comments on her Facebook page.  The letter allegedly came from an unknown source but the teacher believes that the Principal wrote it and then put into the teacher's official file.  The teacher has now also filed a lawsuit against Principal Smolkin for deformation of character and again OSI is investigating the accusation.  Yet, Principal Smolkin is still leading the school.

What do we know of Principal Ron Smolkin?  He had one of the lowest trust factors in the City in 2011 with only 32% of the staff trusting his judgement.  Principal Smolkin was also cited for ethics violations and fined by the City's Conflict of Ethics Board $5,000 for using school money to have his Secretary do work as he was working toward his Master's degree.  Finally, Principal Smolkin made the infamous "Bizarro World" list of principals acting badly

I guess when the DOE claims that they go after school personal when there is a "pattern and practice" it doesn't include administrators like Ron Smolkin.  Where is your "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to him Chancellor Walcott?  This is just another case of the "double standard" practiced by Tweed between staff and Administration.

Why Education Reformers Ignore Poverty In Student Academic Achievement.

In just the latest example of how Education Reformers will go to any lengths to ignore poverty as a major cause of poor student academic achievement, the founder of "Common Core", David Colman, in a conference where no school-based administrators or teachers were on the panel, stated that critics who blame poverty on poor student academic outcomes should help eliminate poverty by cutting teacher salaries and distributing the money to the poor.  David Colman's outrageous statement is just another example of Education Reformers attempt to minimize poverty as a major cause of poor student academic achievement and not seriously addressing the problem.  Why do they ignore poverty as a cause of poor student outcomes?  It's because they know that a child's social-economic environment is the major factor in academic achievement and to eliminate poverty costs tremendous amount of money and human resources.  Therefore, it is easier to blame the schools and in particular, the teachers rather than spend the money and human capitol necessary to eliminate poverty and improve student academic outcomes.

Be it ex Chancellor Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Bill Gates, it is best to ignore the effects of poverty on student academic achievement and blame it on other problems, namely teachers.  While study after study shows that poverty is linked to poor student outcomes the Education Reformers will go to great lengths to ignore this linkage.  In fact the Education Reformers will tell anybody who bothers to listen to them that poverty is no excuse for poor academic achievement, as if they can wish away with a magic wand the educational problems associated with poverty. Instead, these Education Reformers have decided that blaming teachers and making them scapegoats to their failed educational programs rather than face the reality of what really is the root cause of a child's educational problems, poverty!.  How many times have we heard that "if only were can hire and fire teachers at will so that we only have great teachers teaching our students" as if a "great teachers" is a cure all for the world's ills.

While we are now starting to see a backlash against the education reform agenda, it will be quite a "high needs" students with appropriate wraparound services such as family counseling, adequate food, medical checkups, and after school programs not the phony programs that serves the political needs of the Education Reformers at the expense of the students, especially the children who live in poverty..
while before education reform is exposed as a farce it is and will fade into history as just another failed experiment.  However, until that time in the future we must stand fast against the Education Reformers and protect our

Will The Union Require That The New Mayor Eliminate The ATR Crises As A Condition For Their Support?

It's getting to be "crunch time" as the likely winner of the Democratic primary will be the new Mayor and the endorsementt by the UFT may decide the winner.  Therefore, what should the union demand from the endorsed Democratic candidate? 

First, and foremost eliminate the ATR crises by requiring that all excessed teachers be placed in one school in their District.  No longer should teachers go weekly to different schools and be treated like garbage from the school Administration.  While the union will not publish the information, many senior and higher paid teachers are not even given a chance to interview for vacancies as age and salary discrimination runs throughout the New York City School system.   The approximately 1,500 ATRS need to be placed and feel wanted.  Going weekly to different schools is a waste of time and just dispirrits the ATRs.  Bring back the old system that requires principals to hire excessed teachers before they can hire "newbie teachers" outside the Public Schools. This would be good for students who would have experienced teachers instructing them and not be made "guinea pigs" as the "newbies" learn how to teach.

Second, demand that the candidate agree to full "retroactive raises" that was part of the 2008-09 "City pattern".  No back loading or "givebacks".

Third, eliminate the "fair student funding" fiasco that discriminates against senior teachers and restore the unit system.  This will allow principals to hire the "best teachers" and not the "cheapest" teachers as many are doing now which is not what our students need or want.

Fourth, reduce class sizes to levels that are the State average and add teachers to reduce class sizes to more manageable  levels, especially in the early grades.

Finally, allocate adequate resources to the classroom and eliminate the waste of money on unnecessary consultants and technology that strips over a billion dollars from the City Schools.

If the UFT does not require these promises from their endorsed candidate then our union will once again fail their members and that is not acceptable.

A Charmed Life!

I have a very close friend who is a bilingual special education teacher who worked in Southern Queens  and was brought up on 3020-a charges of corporal punishment and was terminated by an Arbitrator who was under pressure from the DOE which had reminded him that he was too lenient on a previous case.  The teacher appealed the unfair and shocking ruling and a judge agreed that the Arbitrator used an uncharged specification as part of the basis for the termination and remanded it to a different Arbitrator since the judge didn't think the teacher would get a fair hearing from the original Arbitrator. The City had appealed the judge's decision to the Appellate Court and then delayed their submission as long as they could since the teacher was not on the DOE payroll.  This month the Appellate Court will finally hear the case and hopefully my friend will get her job back, with back pay.  However, that is another story for another day.  This post is about the paraprofessional who was responsible for my friend's unfair termination.

The paraprofessional is one of these people that no teacher wanted to work with,  She was known to take a long lunch and bathroom breaks, leave school at a moment's notice, and was unreliable.  My friend had tried to replace her with a paraprofessional who was more dependable but the Principal refused to change paras since no other teacher wanted to work with her.  Therefore, my friend was stuck with the paraprofessional, let's call her Miss. Nasty.  Miss. Nasty was the prime witness against my friend and embellished the corporal punishment charge despite the denials from my friend and the other paraprofessional who was in the room at the time of the alleged corporal punishment incident. For those who want to know if the child testified?  The child did not!

My friend had a history with Miss. Nasty that resulted in my friend going to the Principal to ask for another para, any para but Miss. Nasty.  However, the Principal, who was forced to retire shortly thereafter, was a personal friend and Miss. Nasty would do the Principal's hair during school time.  Yes, instead of being with the most vulnerable of children, Misss. Nasty was running errands or doing favors for the Principal.

Now it seems in April of this year that Miss. Nasty was seen by both children and adults choking a sixth grade boy and threatening the same boy by allegedly saying "do you  want to go a round"? The corporal punishment incident was reported  to the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) not by the school's Administration but by a parent who's daughter had witnessed the incident and was so upset that she immediately called her mother and told her that Miss. Nasty was choking the boy.  In almost all cases when a staff member is accused of choking a student they are removed from the classroom.  However, what has happened to Miss. Nasty?  Nothing, nothing at all.  That's right Miss. Nasty is still in the classroom almost a month after the alleged corporal punishment incident was reported.  Obviously, Miss. Nasty is being protected by the school's Administration who failed to report the corporal punishment incident in the first place.  I wonder if they are being investigated by OSI for their failure to follow the rules?   While the OSI investigation is still open, nobody expects anything to come from it since the school's Administration is protecting her.  Miss. Nasty, who lied and embellished a corporal punishment incident that resulted in a great teacher losing her job seems to have a charmed life when it comes to her own job.

Mayor Bloomberg's Fuzzy Math When It Comes To Teachers.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated in his radio talk show that New York City teachers do not need retroactive raises since they averaged an annual 3.8% raise  in the last four years.  In fact, here is what the Mayor actually said.   “They’ve been getting raises all throughout this period,” Where did he get this "fuzzy math" from?  Abbott and Costello?

At first, I thought he was talking about step and longevity increases but those increases collectively averaged  about 1.5% yearly.  Where did he get the 3.8%?  Easy, the Mayor included the increased costs for health and pension as part of the 3.8% figure.  That's right, the Mayor is adding costs that do not show up in our paycheck as a justification for not approving retroactive raises to the teachers that he gave to almost all other unions. What a bunch of malarkey by the Mayor. I guess his hatred for New York City teachers is such that he will go to any lengths to justify not giving us a pay raise, even if he must use "fuzzy math".

I guess in the Mayor's fantasy world where he could have the unlimited authority to hire and fire teachers at will, ensure that the

teaching profession is temporary with no pensions and retiree health benefits, and have class sizes of up to 70 students is out of reach as he ends his destructive education legacy.  Therefore, the next best thing is to direspect teachers to the very end by not replacing teachers despite the best City budget in years.
 
Mayor Bloomberg, from all 72,000 NYC teachers it's "goodbye and good riddance" and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Has There Been An Increase In Teacher Incompetence Charges Under Section 3020-a? I Think So.

I have been hearing reports from sources involved in the teacher 3020-a process that the DOE is going after more teachers for incompetence under State law 3020-a.  According to my sources, in the last couple of months they have seen an influx of teachers who have been charged with incompetence and are now working their way through the 3020-a process.  While there is normally an uptick in teacher incompetence cases this time of year, it appears there are many more than normal, at least according to the people involved in the 3020-a process.

Assuming the increase in 3020-a incompetence cases are true, what could be causing it?  My guess is because of the upcoming teacher evaluation system.  If a Principal fails to have the DOE charge a tenured teacher with incompetence by the end of the school year, the Principal would be unable to charge the teacher with incompetence until the end of the 2014-15 school year since the proposed teacher evaluation system requires two consecutive years of "ineffective ratings" before the DOE can fire the tenured teacher. Worse yet, the DOE and Principal must show that they provided the necessary and adequate support to improve the teacher's ability in the second year and that may be an issue going forward for the DOE since their history is to provide little or no real assistance to a teacher.  In addition, the teacher must have an independent educator (PIP+?) observe them who will provide an "expert opinion" on whether the teacher is incompetent or not and that opinion will be part of the 3020-a hearings.  Unfortunately, the teacher termination path under the proposed teacher evaluation system is a "death sentence" for the 87% of the teachers, if the independent educator finds the teacher incompetent. As for the 13% of teachers whom the union will appeal their "ineffective rating" the DOE must shoulder the "burden of proof" to the Arbitrator that the teacher is really incompetent and is not as a result of differences with the Administration. That might be a "bridge too far" for the DOE and the Principal to prove it and I suspect few of the "lucky 13%" will have their "ineffective rating" upheld and be fired since the arbitrators will have plenty of the other 87% of the teachers to terminate.

In conclusion, if my sources are correct, then there should be a significant increase in 3020-a charges for incompetence as we approach the end of the school year as principals see their last change to rid themselves of teachers they don't want or like for the next two years and they are taking the opportunity to get rid of them using the present 3020-a process.

Note:"  I might not have gotten it exactly right but that is because our union lacks transparency and does not inform its members how the new teacher evaluation will actually work.  Furthermore, they have kept secret the "nuts n bolts" of the process. 

Teacher Apathy Is The Root Cause For The Low Turnout In The UFT Elections.

The UFT elections are now over and the Unity caucus  overwhelmingly won with 77% of the vote, despite the hoopla generated by MORE.  As for MORE, I was disappointed by their weak showing, only getting 13% of the vote.  I guess most voting teachers did not subscribe to the "social justice" plank and MORE should seriously reconsider their "leftist philosophy" if they are to be a real opposition caucus" going forward. What was most disturbing about the UFT election was the apathy that resulted in only 25% of the members who actually voted.  That means that three out of four educators failed to even bothered to vote and that is disgraceful.  What is worse that the majority of votes mailed in were by non-active members.  That's right, 53% of the vote came from retirees and that is very disturbing.  While I have no position on whether retiree votes should count, I do know that when retirees vote in greater numbers than active members and are the majority of votes then something is wrong, very wrong with the election system.

What is wrong is the teacher apathy that permeates the rank and file and I saw it first hand when a Chapter Leader asked a senior teacher did he vote?  The response was that he was too busy, he had too many things on his plate and coaching tired him out, he is a physical education teacher.  When the Chapter Leader asked him how much time would it take to mark an "X" and select a caucus, his lame excuse was that "his wife misplaced the ballot and he doesn't know where it is".  I bet he threw it out. This very same teacher has been heard complaining that the union does not care about his "working conditions".  Notice, it was not teacher but his "working conditions" that he complained about and that is the problem with many teachers who believe it is all about them and not the profession.

 The bottom line is that many teachers didn't bother to vote, yet these very same teachers complain about how the union does not care about them.  What hypocrisy and that is a shame!

Bill Gates Wants To Install Cameras In The Classroom. What Nonsense!

Apparently another of Mayor Bloomberg's billionaire buddies and education reform hero, Bill Gates is proposing that the nation's schools pay 5 billion dollars to install and monitor cameras in the classroom.  He is expected to announce his "cameras in the classroom" proposal on May 7th at the PBS education forum.

The Gates proposal follows up his many failed proposals such as "small schools" high-stakes testing"and "teacher quality" which has morphed into teacher accountability and scapegoating teachers.  While the education reformers continue to sing the praises of what "Bill Gates" proposes, money talks you know, the bottom line is that none of Bill Gates proposal has helped a child's academic outcome. Now, the clueless in the classroom billionaire has come up with the "cameras in the classroom" idea which he has apparently floated without success since 2011. 

In the world of Bill Gates the cameras will show which teacher is doing the job and help get rid of those teachers who are not doing the job.   George Orwell must have had Bill Gates in mind when he wrote "1984" except that it took until 2013 for "big brother" to invade the classroom.  I am sure Bill Gates will claim that his "cameras in the classroom" would improve student academic performance by identifying educational problems such as poorly behaved peers and proper remediation.  However, it will really be used to keep an eye on the teacher and the video will be used by the Administration to remove and terminate teachers who don't follow the education reformer developed rubric.  In other words what Bill Gates is proposing is technology to terminate teachers and not help student academic performance.

Bill Gates billions would be better spent providing wraparound services to "high needs" students and to "cameras in the classroom" proposal.
eliminate the effects of poverty on student learning.  Instead the misguided billionaire goes after the unreachable and unattainable goal of a quality teacher in every classroom without providing the salary and resources to attract the best and brightest to the profession. Instead his "cameras in the classroom" proposal will further discourage the hiring of quality teachers by treating them with disrespect and distrust and making teaching an unrewarding profession.

Just what we need another clueless billionaire who throws his wealth and power around to achieve his personal goals while not helping the children academically.

My Grade For Chancellor Dennis Walcott's Tenure Is A "F" For Failure!

The Daily News asked some high profile people in the education field, some not even being educators, what grade would they give Chancellor Dennis Walcott?  Predictably, the education reformers gave him a passing grade while opponents to education reform gave him poor or failing grades.  Interestingly, the Daily News failed to interview teachers to get their opinion of the job Chancellor Dennis Walcott has done. However, if you read the education blogs of New York City teachers it is very obvious that there is a near unanimous agreement that the Chancellor would receive a failing grade.  Regardless of what UFT caucus you follow and support, MORE, New Action, or Unity, the Chancellor's job approval ratings are dismal.  In fact, if the Chancellor was a student, he would need to go to "summer school" because of his failing grade from teachers.

Why do the New York City teachers despise the Chancellor?  Let me count the ways.

First, and most importantly, the Chancellor blindly follows what the Mayor wants and not what is best for the students in the New York City schools.  The Chancellor's lack of independent thought and deed from the Mayor has resulted in calls that the Chancellor is Mayor Bloomberg's "sock poppet"and  "poodle".  Even when the Chancellor tries to deviate from the Mayor, like an ATR buyout or the teacher evaluation system, he quickly retreated when the Mayor objected to the proposals. When you care more about the Mayor's wishes then what is best for the students, that makes you an uncaring and clueless leader.

Second, Dennis Walcott has refused to spend $240 million dollars of much needed money that a judge ordered released to the NYC schools and imposed cutbacks in school resources as a consequence of his wrongheaded decision.   As a result class sizes have increased as teachers aren't being replaced and classes are merged.  In fact, class sizes have increased throughout the Chancellor's inept tenure.

Third, he has shown to be a hypocrite time and again as he practices a "double standard" between disciplining
administrators and teachers.  He wants to fire teachers based on mere accusations but fails to terminate administrators or managers who were found guilty of doing even worse! A Chancellor who has different rules for different people is a failure as a leader.

Fourth, the Chancellor has been blind to the complaints of teachers about the deteriorating classroom environment and the emphasis on test preparation at the expense of real learning.  His failure to stop the increasingly hostile classroom environment and his ignoring of teacher complaints is a major reason for his failure as a Chancellor.

Finally,  in 2012 the Chancellor and the Mayor made many mistakes when it came to their educational legacy and had a bad year.  Things have not gotten any better in 2013 as even the City's Independent Budget Office found fault with the Chancellor as their report showed that schools scheduled for closing were a "dumping ground for high needs students" and that under Walcott, the DOE has  starved these schools of resources.

In conclusion, Chancellor Dennis Walcott has been a failure as  a leader of the New York City schools and deserves the grade of "F".

Mayor Bloomberg Proposes New Municipal Union Contracts - On His Terms.

Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway at the Citizens Budget Commission unexpectedly stated that the City is willing to negotiate raises for City workers which is a change from Mayor Bloomberg's "no raises without givebacks stance" from before.  This apparent change in the Mayor's attitude is his realization that he will go down in history as the only Mayor who left office leaving all municipal unions without a contract.  Moreover, he is very aware that the next Mayor will be under the gun to resolve these contracts, some like the teachers, that has been without a contract for four years!  He also realizes that the New Mayor will lay blame on him by claiming "he kicked the can down the road" and left the new Mayor with a mess. This will put a real crimp on Mayor Bloomberg's legacy

However, in Deputy Cas Holloway statement about a new contract Mayor Bloomberg did include two"conditions" to any union willing to negotiate a contract with the City.  First, he said that the contract cannot include any "retroactive raises" and that the union members will need to start paying a significant part of their health benefits.  Both "conditions" are non-starters and I highly doubt any union will seriously negotiate with the Bloomberg Administration since it has only eight months left in office.  Furthermore, the Mayor would like to establish a "new City pattern"  and ignore the old one with it's "retroactive raises", if he can only get one union (DC37?) to strike a deal with the City.  This way Mayor Bloomberg does not go down as the Mayor who refused to negotiate with his municipal employees and left the problem for the next Mayor to solve. Not a good thing for the Mayor's legacy as a financial genius.


I predict that no union will bother to negotiate with the Bloomberg Administration and wait until the new Mayor takes office, likely a Democrat who usually are more union friendly.   Considering that the City finances are slowly improving and the national recession is just a fading memory, it will be difficult for the new Mayor to plead poverty and refuse to negotiate a fair contract, complete with "retroactive raises" for the Municipal unions going forward.
.

What Is Mayor Bloomberg's Vision Of The New York City Public School System?

Last week when filling out my form to rate my school one question hit me.  The question was something to the effect "How do you rate the job the Chancellor is doing"?  Of  course like most everybody else I put down "VERY UNSATISFIED" and thought about why I felt that way about the Mayor's poodle. While the Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, may be a nice person, he really is the "sock puppet" of the Mayor and obediently follows the every whim of the Mayor.  A prime example is the $240 million dollars that the DOE lost when an agreement failed to be finalized for a teacher evaluation when the Mayor objected to Walcott's agreement to a two year sunset clause.  However, this post is not about the inept Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, but the educational vision of Mayor Bloomberg.

The Mayor's vision for the New York City Public Schools is to make teaching a temporary position with most teachers not lasting the ten years to be vested for a pension and the fifteen years necessary to get retiree health benefits.   He would eliminate tenure and require merit-based pay rather than step and longevity increases. He also would eliminate the 7% DOE contribution by the City to the TDA. Moreover, there would be no class size restrictions and in his vision a teacher would have up to 70 students and heaven help those hapless teachers who cannot show significant "student growth" based on "junk science".  As for teacher experience? The Mayor has already stated that teacher experience does not matter. The two year wonders from Teach for America and other alternate programs are just fine with him. Further, the Mayor wants the ability to fire teachers who are accused of "misconduct" despite an independent arbitrator who after carefully weighing the evidence found the accusation not credible. Finally, the Mayor's vision for the New York City public schools is to blame all the ills of the schools on their teachers and not the social-economic factors that is 80% of what affects a student's academic outcome. Accountability is for teachers and not his badly flawed education policies.


For Mayor Bloomberg, it's all about his educational legacy and to blame teachers for his educational  failures like the wide academic achievement gap and the low "career and college readiness rates".  When it com to the children of the New York City Public Schools it's about what's best for the  Mayor and not what is best for the children:.' For the billionaire Mayor it is his educational legacy first and the New York City Public School children last",

Expect The Racial/Income Academic Achievement Gap To Widen With The New State Tests.

Last week the State and City admitted that they expect a 30% reduction in the  students passing rate of the new and harder "Common Core" tests.   In fact, Chancellor Dennis Walcott expects that up to 80% of the students in some districts who take the test will not be considered "proficient" . While all expect the scores to plummet, the most affected will be those "high poverty students" .

However, education officials have decided not to publicize the expected widening of the student academic achievement gap based upon income and race.  While all students will see scores plummet, look for the greatest drops to occur in schools that have a population that comes from high poverty areas.  Unfortunately, these high poverty areas have a large population of Black and Hispanic students and education officials expect that these students will experience the greatest drops in test scores.

These "high poverty students" suffer from common social problems, a lack of household resources (books, computers, a private room to study in, and in many cases a safe environment) and in many cases come from a single family household which means money is scarce and discipline may be lacking. Too many times the only food the children get is the free breakfast and lunch programs at school.  Regardless, the lack of effective academic intervention programs for these "high poverty students" will manifest itself into low test scores and result in a widening income/racial student academic achievement gap.

What a fitting way for the Bloomberg Administration to end their tenure, with low test scores and a widening income/racial student academic achievement gap.   The education Mayor?  What a joke. 

The Union Screws The ATRs Yet Again!

It has recently come to my attention that the union has decided that ATRs are required to accept a long-term leave assignment, even if the ATR feels that the assignment is "not the right fit".  This is a change in position from what the union originally told ATRs.  Previously, if the ATR did not want to accept a long-term leave assignment and was waiting for a vacancy, the union told them that the ATR had to agree "that it was a good fit", otherwise, the ATR can refuse the long-term leave replacement position since it did not lead to a permanent position.  However, it now appears that the union has changed their tune on this issue and has told teachers that they must accept long-term leave replacement positions even if they do not want them.

What brought this change on?  I can only speculate that the discovery of the number being 1475 ATRs by Fransesco Portelos at the end of 2012 and not the 831 that the union seemed to claim, has embarrassed the union leaders who have falsely stated that the weekly ATR rotation successfully exposed ATRs to more vacancies.  WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!  The reality is that the ATR weekly rotation is a farce and the only ATRs getting picked up are the younger and less expensive ATRs.  Therefore, most of the ATRs are older and more expensive and have few opportunities to apply for the vacancies.  To make matters worse the ATR agreement allows schools to ignore seniority issues by seeking younger and less expensive ATRs who were most recently excessed.  The result is that ATRs who have been ATRs for two or more years are not likely to be interviewed for the vacancy.

Finally, the union's failure to include an ATR in the joint oversight committee and their general disrespect for ATRs by not allowing an ATR Chapter Leader points to the union's uncaring attitude to the most vulnerable members of the profession.  I am very disappointed that the union allows the ATR weekly rotation travesty to continue and  not provide the ATRs with their own representatives.  To me, this is a moral failure of our union to the needs and rights of the ATR s which, I might add, was responsible for the ATR crises in the first place. Is it any wonder why I have problems voting for the "Unity" caucus in the elections when they ignore the needs of its members?

The State And City Are Setting Up Teachers For Failure With The State's Common Core Tests.

This Spring, the State of New York has decided that their tests will be based upon the "Common Core standards".  While on the surface this seems to be a good idea, the problem is that New York City teachers have not been trained in using the "Common Core" and many have no or inadequate materials that can help them with the new standards.

The State has rolled out the new tests without funding the resources or materials for the "Common Core standards".  Even when the School Districts, unions, and parents complained about the lack of State funding, NYSED Commissioner John King stated that the "common core" materials were available on the State website, as if that was sufficient; It's not by a long shot. In fact, according to NYSUT, 70% of the teachers lack textbooks and materials required for the "Common Core" tests. According to the President of NYSUT Richard C. Iannuzzi, "no experienced teacher would test students without teaching them the materials, yet that is what the State is doing".

The DOE, with its 23 billion dollar budget and bloated bureaucracy has failed to provide any significant training for the "Common Core" tests. Now, after waiting patiently for the State and/or the City to provide training,  the UFT has belatedly taken upon itself to help teachers by providing information in a website called Share My Lesson.  However, for many teachers and their students it's "too little and too late" for this year's tests.  Even the State and City admit that the State test scores will be significantly lower than in the past. However, I predict when the actual scores come in and they are poor, guess who will be blamed?  Right you are, it's the teacher's fault!  I can see the New Yoirk Daily News and Post with blaring headlines and editorials blaming teachers for the poor test scores and the Mayor and Chancellor claiming that if only they had the power to fire "bad teachers" the scores would improve.

The bottom line is that look for the politicians and their media cronies to point fingers and blame the teachers for the poor results in the "Common Core" tests. It's always the teacher's fault.

Handicapping The UFT Elections

I pride myself on being independent and objective and have explored the policies and planks of the three UFT caucuses and have come to some decisions on who I will be voting for in the UFT election.  This post critiqued the different caucuses running in the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) elections and how I came to my decision.  I hope this guides many of you to make the right choices.

MORE:  This is a dynamic and vibrant organization and many of my favorite educators and bloggers are running under the MORE banner.  While I really want MORE to do well, their emphasis on the leftist dogma of "Social Justice" is very disturbing to me.   I suspect many educators who  are "moderate" like me  will have a problem with MORE's "Social Justice" part of their plank and is the main reason I cannot join MORE.  Nevertheless, MORE may be the first caucus that could garner enough votes in the high schools to capture a seat or two and maybe more since the hayday of ICE.

New Action:  This caucus, despite its leftist origin, has drifted into the center and is probably most closely aligned with my own philosophy.  While I really do understand why New Action "sold their soul" to Unity for some limited power, I would never have made such a deal and despite how closely I identify with the political goals of New Action, I cannot join an organization that sold their "soul to the devil".

Unity:  The most dominant caucus and likely winner.  However, the Unity caucus is a "top down organization" and fails to allow its members to vote on important matters that affect the classroom.  I have personally experienced the smug attitude and down right arrogance of the leaders and how they lack democracy and transparency when negotiating member rights.  .  Examples are the ATR crises which they created from that very same 2005 contract and then changed to make the ATR's life a living hell by rotating weekly to different schools, supporting the badly flawed "race to the top" program and allowing the DOE to use Charlotte Danielson's rubric which will have a detrimental effect on the classroom teacher. Who can forget the terrible 2005 contract that made teaching in the classroom a nightmare.  I could never join an organization that requires an oath that stifles dissent as a condition of advancement.

Listed below are my picks

President:  Julie Cavanagh - MORE  While Michael Mulgrew is a step up from Randi Weingarten, his failure to bring more democratic and transparent policies to better reflect member concerns was the determining factor.

Secretary:  Brian Jones - MORE  The co-star in" the inconvenient truth of Waiting for Superman" really impressed me and he deserves a chance to bring the union into another direction.

VP Special Education:  Carmen Alvarez - Unity.  She has done a great job and never replace what works.  District 75 in particular believe her advocacy has made their life easier and the driving force to get paid for working on SESIS.

Assistant Treasurer:  Michael Fiorillo - MORE  Few teachers are as intelligent and knowledgeable than Michael.  The other two cannot compare to Mr. Fiorillo.

Treasurer:  Camille Eterno - MORE  Mel Aaronson was a very effective Treasurer but has been long retired.  I want an active teacher who understands the present day realities of the classroom to handle my money.  Being married to James tells me she is a good decision maker.

Executive Board: - High School -

Jonathan Halabi -  New Action/Unity  He really tries and has been a dissenting voice in the past.
Kit Wainer - MORE Is an effective advocate for the classroom teacher.
James Eterno - MORE - The best there was, the best there is, and the best there ever will be.
Peter Lamphere - MORE.  We all know his story and I hope he wins.

Other people I will be voting for:

Amy Arundell - Unity.  She really helps teachers.  One of my heroes.
Peter Zucker - MORE.  A blogger and a fighter.
Rona Feiser - Unity.  A good person to have in your corner.
Norm Scott - MORE  A one person information center and that's important.
Debbie Saal - MORE. Great teacher, nuff said.
Richard Skibins - Unity One of the original bloggers.
Angela Artis: - Unity. She's always helpful, very knowledgeable.
Fransesco Portelos - MORE.  Rubberized and we need him to represent those teachers in trouble.

By default, I will be voting for MORE candidates when I have not identified a candidate because we need a change, despite their wrong headed "social justice" plank.  Remember, if you pick a caucus slate by putting an "X" on the first page and try to select candidates, you invalidate the entire ballot.  Therefore, either pick the candidates individually or select a caucus slate not both!

One last point is the absense from the UFT election process is the education deformer sock puppet and "fifth columnists" Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) and the reason is that they would have been exposed as a fraud with only the fringe (less than 100 TFA educators) who would actually vote for E4E. My advise to E4E just go away, your failure to participate in the election makes your organization irrelevant to New York City teachers.

 

 

 

No matter which caucus you support.....VOTE!

Will School Cheating Increase With The Flawed NYS Teacher Evaluation System? I Believe It Will.

Now that the Atlanta cheating scandal has resulted in indictments of 35 educators and a clamor to haul in Michelle Rhee and her underlings for the phony scores at Washington D.C. The question is what prompted the cheating in the first place?  It was the emphasis on test scores!  Even in New York there is a suspicion that many schools manipulated test scores to raise their school grades while the City and State officials and investigators chose to ignore the numerous complaints    You can go back to June 2010 when blogger JD2715 wrote a very detailed and informational piece about how the inept and terrible DOE investigators ignored the cheating and financial abuses at JFK High School in the Bronx that went back seven years! Now here we are in  a dawn of a new day when teachers and principals will be evaluated, in part, by student test scores.  These suspect  test scores, known by many educators as "junk science", will result in many good teachers losing their jobs simply because of the students they end up with and not because oi their teaching ability.  With regard to testing itself, Erika  Christakis said the following in her insightful article in Time Magazine when  it came to the education reformer's obsession with testing as the basis for good instruction.

  "Even if we eliminate all the cheating, what remains is a broken system built on the dangerous misconception that testing is a proxy for actual teaching and learning. Somehow, along the path of good intentions, testing stopped being seen as a diagnostic tool to guide good instruction and became, instead, the instruction itself. It’s as if a patient were given a biopsy, learned she had cancer, and was then told that no further medical treatment was necessary. If that didn’t sound quite right, we could just fire the doctor who ordered the test or scratch out the patient’s results and mark “cured” in the file".

Teachers will refuse to take the hardest to reach academically, English language learners, or special education students, simply because these groups represent the lowest scoring groups and will adversly affect the teacher's ratings.  In the past a student who had problems with one teacher would end up with another teacher.  However, no teacher will jeopardize his or her career by taking students that will lower their evaluation scores.  In fact, I see teachers going to great lengths in excluding students who will lower their scores. Furthermore, some schools will try to exclude some of these students from the evaluation system due to attendance or by other means to help the Principal and who can blame them?

The pressure on both teachers and principals to cheat, once test scores are factored in, will result in accusations of cheating throughout the system just like Atlanta and Washington D.C.  I predict that the flawed New York State evaluation system which is a "work in progress", will end up crashing since you can't fix a plane while airborne as New York State officials claim they will do, without it crashing.  The problem is how many teachers will end up being terminated before the plane actually crashes and the New York State evaluation system is proven to be faulty?