The Union Did A Good Job Getting Rid Of The "Rubber Rooms"

In what is a major win for reassigned teachers and the teachers' union the sorry saga of the Temporary Reassignment Center (TRC), commonly referred to as the "rubber room" appears to be finally history as of September of 2010. No longer will "good teachers" who were whistileblowers. had issues with administrators, or were subject to "false or embellished accusations" from students, languish for years in crowded rooms with little or nothing to do but wait for their hearings. Now all reassigned teachers will rapidly go through their hearings within 60 days (with some exceptions dealing with criminal court requirements and students who graduated and can only return to testify during college breaks) of responding to the DOE's 3020-a charges. To ensure the timelines are met, the amount of Arbitrators will be increased from 23 to 39, not including additional Arbitrators to hear expedited cases where termination is not being sought by the DOE ( maximum penalty, a one month suspension without pay). Furthermore, to get rid of the existing considerable backlog in 3020-a cases, the DOE has agreed to work with a Mediator/Arbitrator to develop realistic settlement offers to teachers. After very carefully reviewing this groundbreaking "rubber room agreement" I have come to the conclusion that it is a victory for the reassigned teacher. I must congratulate President Michael Mulgrew, Chief of Staff Leroy Barr, and Lawyer Adam Ross for, their work in crafting this agreement for reassigned teachers. It appears this agreement includes the contractual enforceability that the June 2008 "rubber room agreement" lacked and was widely ignored by the DOE. While I do have some minor misgivings and questions dealing with specific issues in the agreement, I do think the elimination of the "rubber rooms" is long overdue.

If one thinks back, before Joel Klein the new reassignment procedures are similar to what was in place in the 1990's where between 80 to 90 reassigned teachers (not the 600 to 700 presently) were sent to District or Regional offices and the reassigned teachers were required to do Administrative work. During this time principals would be closely questioned by the Superintendent's office before a teacher was reassigned because the District or Regional office did not want too many reassigned teachers there. By bringing back this requirement we should see a reduction of reassigned teachers as principals, used to dumping teachers they do not like or want out of their schools, will be unable to do that since they must be sent to their "Children Fist Network" office that is assigned to the school and who must authorize the reassignment.

I must admit I am somewhat suspicious of the agreement because of the secretive nature of the negotiations, a lack of participation by the elected leaders for the reassigned teachers (liaisons), the past actions of the DOE in ignoring the previous "rubber room agreement", the expansion of that awful and abusive "probable cause" provision, and the DOE's failure to go after Administrators for "false accusations" However, on its surface the agreement seems to have solved the public relations problem of the "rubber room" for both sides. I am also heartened that Mayor Bloomberg's office pushed to end this financially wasteful practice that gave both sides a black eye and cost the City over 30 million dollars annually. Money that is badly needed to close the City budget gap.

Let's all hope that this agreement stands the test of time and will be seen as the turning point for our union to return to the strong and effective"800 pound gorilla" we once were under Albert Shanker

These Stupid Politicians Are Dead Men Walking

Two misguided politicians, Assemblyman Jonathan Bing from the Upper East Side and State Senator Ruben Diaz from the Bronx were asked by lobbyists from the City to sponsor a bill that would eliminate New York Civil Services protections for determining teacher layoffs by seniority and replace it with a Principal directed procedure to determine the layoffs by different means.

The New York Times reported that the seniority based layoffs will be replaced by a school committee of administrators, teachers, and parents. However, we all know that the Principal will have the ultimate decision-making authority and it will be based upon the Principal's likes and dislikes as well as the teacher's salary. Not only is this proposal "wishful thinking" but is dead on arrival.

This misguided proposal, if accepted, would start a slippery slope of eroding the State's Civil Service protections that the unions have painstakingly built upon to ensure all public employees have fair and equatable treatment. Therefore, all the State, Municipal, and Local unions will rally against this blatant erosion of Civil Service rights. As for the two misguided politicians? They should be "dead men walking" as the unions should organize a campaign against their reelection and make sure they can never win again. Not even for dogcatcher! The unions must impress upon all the Assemblymen and State Senators that there are serious consequences for sponsoring bills against Public Service employees and that should be funding their opponents and taking out ads against these politicians.

To date, Michael Mulgrew's reaction to this outrageous and dangerous proposal was Randi-like (a very bad sign). Rather than strongly condemn the proposal he was bringing up the fact that in can cause high teacher turnover and destabilize the schools like in Washington D.C. Norm Scott in ednotes online said it best in saying:

It's economics, stupid, not about quality teachers
Sure, that is the reason to oppose the bill. To stop teacher turnover. Why not make the point that if they get rid of every single teacher who makes over $70,ooo they can keep lots more teachers? And why is the DOE still advertising new jobs? It's time for the UFT to start calling a spade a spade. Call this the BloomKlein version of a "buyout." Just fire all the senior teachers and save a whole lot of money. The "fire one and keep two" plan.

Norm's entire article can be found here.

I expect our union President to show these two politicians who is boss and punish them by helping them leave office as quickly as possible. Michael Mulgrew's tepid response so far is very discouraging and where is the strong rhetoric we heard before the election? I will be watching to see if Michael Mulgrew is a man of action or just a male version of Randi Weingarten.

Why The DOE Is Responsible For The Disconnect Between The Rising High School Graduation Rates And The Lack Of Academic Skills By The Graduates

Before Bloombeg and Klein took over the New York City Public School System, the high school graduation rates were lower but the students who did graduate knew if they worked hard they could legitimately attend college or join a job market where their education was a factor in being hired. However, along comes Bloomberg and Klein who have cheapened the high school diploma to the point employers find that many high school graduates have difficulty completing an employment application and that over 80% of the graduates who try college find they must take remedial courses because they were not educationally proficient for college work.

Why the disconnect between the improved graduation rate and the lack of readiness for the graduates in the business or college world? I believe you can trace this disconnect to at least three factors that have resulted in a student graduating high school without the necessary educational tools or skills to succeed in either the business or college environment.

First, one of the most common method to graduate students is for the Principal to change failing grades for seniors with and sometimes without the knowledge of the teacher. With principals given broad authority by the DOE to run a school as he or she pleases and with high school grades (maybe even bonuses) depending on the graduation rate, principals are tempted to improve their statistics. I wrote a post about this here and is a must read. Furthermore, principals have been accused of changing Regents grades and go unpunished since the investigative agencies have a different standard when investigating administrators. You can read it here as well.

Second, a significant rise in the "credit recovery program" for high school students during the Bloomberg/Klein Administration that are encouraged by the DOE and some of these "credit recovery programs" are as simple as writing a report over the vacation. Read here.

Finally, the single mindedness of Regents prep at the expense of a well rounded education is rapidly gaining favor in the high schools. Many high schools now put in Regents prep courses rather than giving students an option to take courses that could broaden their academic horizons. Is it little wonder that many of our graduates are deficient in academics despite graduating?

What ever happened to our mission to graduate well rounded boys and girls who would be a credit, not only to their family but the community as a whole? Now it seems that the DOE's mission is to get them out by any means necessary without giving them the proper tools and skills to succeed in the real world. Tweed's "children last" policy continues.

With Michael Mulgrew's Election, I Hope The UFT Makes Transparancy & Protecting Their Members As A Top Priority

I congratulate Michael Mulgrew on his election as UFT President and now comes the hard part, making the union more responsive to the members. The era of union appeasement under the failed leadership of Randi Weingarten is now officially over and Michael Mulgrew can now put his stamp on how the union responds to both pressure from the outside and how it handles member needs. I have previously been impressed with Mr, Mulgrew's rhetoric and the pro-active lawsuits against the DOE. However, I voted for James Eterno because of Michael Mulgrew keeping the failed leadership that caused so much damage to the members during Randi Weingarten's tenure. Therefore, here is what I expect from my newly elected UFT President.

First, demanding the "City pattern" in the contract negotiations. That includes two 4% raises (minus 0.58% for gaining back the two days before Labor Day) with "no givebacks". Our negotiating committee worked too hard in resisting the outrageous DOE demands to destroy the NYC Public School Teacher to let three unaccountable Arbitrators under PERB to impose any "givebacks" as a condition to get the "City pattern". Any PERB recommendation should go through the same negotiating committee for approval and not the present leadership that was so instrumental in giving us the terrible 2005 contract. Any contract with significant givebacks should be rejected immediately!

Second, No more secret deals with the City and Tweed that are not brought to the members for review and comment. In Randi's tenure she negotiated many secret deals that did not involve member input. Many of these deals were not enforceable and the DOE ignored their obligations. Now we hear that Michael Mulgrew is secretly negotiating with the DOE on the "rubber rooms". Scary, since the reassigned teachers or their liaisons are not even consulted about their fate. Lack of transparency has always been a problem in this union. Is it little wonder when the union leadership fails to include the members that the decisions prove to disadvantageous to the members.

Third, more democracy in selecting District Reps, Special Reps, and High School Reps. The union policy of selecting, not electing people for these positions has resulted in a culture of loyalty to the leadership rather than the members they are supposed to represent. This has led to the perceived disconnect between the member needs and the leadership duties.

Finally, it is no secret that I expect Mr. Mulgrew to make changes in the leadership that owe their jobs to their allegiance to Randi Weingarten. Whomever ends up in the leadership positions should be people more responsive to member needs and not to their own political agenda. We need leadership that provides solutions not obstructing member rights.

I will be watching to see if Michael Mulgrew is his own man or just another "ass kisser" who puckered up his way to the top.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract- Part 5: "Circular Six" Requirments Reimposed

This is the final part of my five part series on the horrible "givebacks" our union clowns agreed to in the terrible 2005 contract that has helped make the classroom teaching an increasingly hostile environment. Last but for many teachers, not least, was the return of "circular six" requirements to replace a teacher preparation period.

We had ridden ourselves of "circular six" when we agreed to the infamous "double zeros" back in the 1990's. However, thanks to the existing "Unity" leadership we now have to use a preparation period for things like "potty patrol, cafeteria duties, or hallway help". These unprofessional activities should be preformed by non-professionals, not teachers. Further, it put teachers at risk if they try to break up fights in the hallway or cafeteria and may lead to disciplinary actions by vindictive administrators. Here again our failed union leadership are not subject to "circular six" requirements and there were unsympathetic to teacher complaints about reimposing the "circular six" requirements. How can any union agree to "givebacks" that they themselves are not subject to? The answer is that many in the union leadership had lost touch with what the classroom teacher was subject to and this was evident in the 2005 contract negotiations where classroom teachers were excluded from the negotiating process and dissidents were met with evasive answers and insults by the "Unity" propaganda machine.

Now, as we send the contract impasse to PERB (a very bad idea in this economic environment). I fear that the teacher directed negotiation committee, who did a wonderful job in representing us, will be replaced by the same inner circle lackeys who were so instrumental in giving us the terrible 2005 contract, with disastrous consequences for the classroom teacher. I can only hope that Michael Mulgrew or James Eterno remember that they represent the classroom teacher and not the other way around. In any case it is important that whomever is the UFT President that he makes sure that they ensure the members voices are part of any agreed upon contract and that means replacing the clowns that were and are part of the problem and not the solution.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract - Part 4 : The "Probable Cause" Bomb

One of the most dangerous "givebacks" that our union gave up to the City was taking teachers off the payroll for up to three months simply when a student accused the teacher of sexual misconduct. No other school district in New York State has this provision and nor should they. Our union gave up the right of "innocent until proven guilty" simply on hearsay evidence. According to SCI and the DOE our President Barack Obama, could be subject to "probable cause" because of his apparent leering of the high school girl's backside. When this provision was discussed in Edwize, the leaders in objecting to this provision came from UFT Presidential candidate James Eterno, nyc educator, JD2718, and myself. As for Mike (call me Michael) Mulgrew doing this time? Not a peep. Unless he was the HS Shop Teacher who defended this contract. Time and again we demanded that the "Unity" minister of propaganda, Leo Casey clearly explain why the union agreed to this provision. Instead Leo Casey, responded by insulting us and accusing us of protecting pedophiles and perverts rather than answer the question on what constitutes "probable cause". You can find our complaints and Leo Casey's deceptive responses here. Of course Leo Casey knew full well that simple hearsay could land a teacher suspended without pay for three months since you only need to read what the union sent to NYSUT legal as evidence of "probable cause". You can find this shocking definition in an article right here. In essence Appendix H of the "probable cause" agreement allows the Arbitrator to take a teacher offline simply by hearsay evidence, not the facts.

Here are some real examples of people who were subject to the "probable cause" provisions.

Case 1: A teacher tells a student that does not belong in his class to get the F**k out of my class. The student, embarrassed told her two friend later that day that the teacher told her that he would like to f**k her. The three girls went to the Principal who took statements and reported it to SCI. Interestingly, not one person in his class heard him say what the girl claimed. However, Appendix H allows for hearsay and the teacher was put on "probable cause".

Case 2: A teacher was joking with his high school ESL class and said he has had many girlfriends over the years. When the students asked him if he had sex with them, He joked, everyone of them, who can resist me. The students laughed because he was quite ugly but one student reported it to Assistant Principal who contacted OSI and was found subject to "probable cause" for his light hearted bantering despite the 3020-a Arbitrator finding him innocent in his 3020-a hearing, the Arbitrator would not give him back the money he lost while under "probable cause".

Case 3: A teacher has been having a long-term relationship with a women who has a 13 year old daughter. The daughter tells her cousin that her mother's boyfriend is hot and she wants to have sex with him. Just a childhood fantasy? Well the cousins later had a fight and the cousin told her mother that the teacher and the girl had sex. The mother reported it to the police and ACS who both investigated and realized it was simply the girl trying to get her cousin jealous that a grown man was interested in her. However, in the bizarre world of the DOE any accusation must be true and had SCI investigate. Despite affidavits by all involved that nothing ever happened, SCI substantiated (how?) the cousin's recanted accusation and he is now under "probable cause".

Case 4: A female teacher was falsely accused of touching a special education student in his privates. The teacher was arrested but the police dropped all charges as the DA found that the child made up the story and had his two friends claim it happened. However, here comes SCI who believes the three students even after the DA found the students unbelievable and now the teacher is under "probable cause" despite the lack of credibility of the students.

Case 5: SCI claimed a teacher asked a student out on a date. However, in the 3020-a hearing the student admitted that he asked the entire class to go get ice cream, not just her. She claimed she told the SCI investigator that he never propositioned her but admitted she felt uncomfortable with the attention he gave her because of the personal problems she had. This poor teacher was subject to "probable cause" as well.

There are more cases like the five I identified and very few fall into Leo Casey's pervert or pedophile category. All five teachers are caring people and tried to do the right thing but for some reason the student didn't like the approach. Does this allow the DOE to remove a teacher? Thanks to Leo Casey and our union the answer is yes. If you think this will never apply to you? Just read this.

Teacher Contract 6/1/2003-11/12/2007

APPENDIX H
PROCEDURES FOR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS

On October 2, 2005 the following understanding was reached regarding probable cause hearings:

"The UFT will conduct a meeting of lawyers who represent UFT members in 3020-a proceedings to inform them about the new procedures regarding offenses involving sexual misconduct with a student or minor not a student. During that meeting there will be a discussion of what would constitute probable cause including that we agree that in a probable cause hearing the hearing officer may accept hearsay as evidence of probable cause, and that a criminal complaint and corroborating affidavit of the SCI report is sufficient evidence to create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause".

In other words simply hearsay is sufficient to remove a teacher on "probable cause". You can thank the "Unity" people for this. Here again. Leo Casey and the other "Unity" lackeys are not subject to this provision since they don't deal with the students. You can thank our union clowns that allowed this travesty of justice in their ongoing effort to destroy teacher due process.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract - Part 3: Giving Up Time And Days That Cost Us Dearly.

In my continuing series of the awful "givebacks" that our union handed to the City in the terrible 2005 contract., I have zeroed in on the amount of time and days we were forced to give back in exchange for a raise that barely beat the City inflation rate.

First, we were forced to work an extra 37.5 minutes, almost an extra period, by working with the most needy children who stayed after school. While I do not have a problem with working with a select group of children (a maximum of 10), I do have a problem how administrators would stuff 20 children with two teachers in each classroom and think that they can actually observe you in the process. A far different situation than Randi Weingarten said it would be. Randi claimed the extra 37.5 minutes would be used as "office hours". Meaning students would make an appointment with the teacher to work on specific issues in the allocated time. This became a 10% increase in a teacher's work day and this increase in time should have resulted in a 10% increase in pay annually by itself. Of course it didn't even come close.

Next, we also gave up the two days before Labor Day and if you work in Brooklyn and Queens, a third day. To many teachers, giving up the two days before Labor Day was unacceptable and now we find out that the two days equal 0.58% of a salary increase. This is the reduction in whatever pay raise we get in the next contract. The question is why would our union give up these two valuable days for a mere 0.58% in the first place ? This is yet another question that our union has failed to answer.

Yes, we now have obtained the two days before Labor Day back but it cost us 1.25% on our TDA (from 8.25% to 7.00%), a de facto Tier V retirement plan, and a reduction of 0.58% raise in our next contract for days we shouldn't have given up in the first place. "here comes the clowns" once again.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract - Part 2: Elimination Of Grievances When Given A Letter To The File

In my encounters with many of the teachers I meet at workshops and from other schools, I am stunned how little they know about the terrible consequences of the 2005 contract. While I do understand that the newer teachers really have no way of knowing what we gave up in the "giveback" laden 2005 contract. It was the lack of knowledge from more veteran teachers, especially the elementary school teachers who were actually clueless about the 2005 contract, except that they obtained a raise. Even the Chapter Leaders didn't seem to understand the things we gave up and I can only shake my head in disbelief at the lack of knowledge that New York's "Brightest" have. Is it any wonder why only 22% of the members actually voted? However, I need to remind the members what we gave up in the terrible 2005 contract and why it is important to the members. Part two deals with the elimination of grievances when given a disciplinary Letter-To-The-File (LIF).

Elimination Of Grievances For LIF:

The union has maintained that very few grievances were successful and that giving up the right to grieve was not a major loss. and that all disciplinary LIF would be removed after three years unless used in a 3020-a hearing. However, the grievances procedure actually was an effective check against vindictive principals who had to hear grievances and the DOE who found the three part grievance procedure wasteful and encouraged principals to be selective in issuing disciplinary LIF. Moreover, the few that the union took to Arbitration put a check on the Principal who could be identified as being too zealous in giving LIF to his or her teachers since the DOE had to pay their share of the Arbitration process. However, even one successful grievance was well worth it and stops principals from filing 3020-a charges within the three year period by using the LIF.

While the union has not published the increases in LIF since the terrible 2005 contract, it is a very good bet that principals have significantly increased LIF to their staff since there are no longer any checks on the principals. I am quite sure that the UFT research department know what this increase in LIF is, but are afraid to show these statistics., except to the leadership who approved the elimination of grievances. Remember, the leadership doesn't want to be shown that they made a terrible mistake, especially during an election year.

Therefore, while principals no longer fear giving their staff more and more LIF, the union professes to ignore the situation since they are not subject to getting LIF themselves. "Here comes the clowns" once again.

"Here Comes The Clowns" - The Legacy Of The 2005 Contract - Part 1: Elimination Of Seniority Transfer Rights

This is the first part of a five part series on the damage the 2005 contract did to the New York City teaching profession and the lasting impacts that affect us today. This series was sparked by a "Unity" member telling me why I should vote "Unity" since they are experienced in negotiating with the City. I reminded the "Unity" member about the terrible 2005 contract and was met with a blank stare. I also told him that these "bunch of clowns" at "Unity" have permanently hurt the teaching profession.His response was "really"? "I didn't know that"? Therefore, it is time to remind people of the 2005 contract disaster that has made an older and highly-paid teacher an endangered species. Part one of this series deals with the elimination of the seniority transfer rights.

Elimination Of Seniority Transfer Rights:

Prior to the terrible 2005 contract, principals were required to list half of their openings and teachers from other schools with seniority could bump "newbie" teachers out of these vacancies. During this time all excessed teachers must be placed in the subject area before principals would be able to hire a "newbie teacher". Finally, teachers who were from closing schools were given priority in placing them in the available vacancies. All this changed in October of 2005 as our crack "Unity" negotiators sold out the members by eliminating seniority transfer, bumping, and the ending of priority placement of teachers from a closing school. The result was an explosion of excessed teachers, many of them older and highly salaried. This explosion of excessed teachers is now known as the ATR crises and it is expected that in the next school year there could be 2,500 ATRs because our union gave up the cherished seniority transfer rights.

The union after first denying the problem existed. Then they thought that Tweed would wary of paying 60 million dollars annually for the ATRs. Finally the union realized the folly of their ways and tried to negotiate with the DOE and came up with the ATR agreement which the principals have widely ignored. Now it is projected that there could be 2,500 ATRs and more if the State cuts the budget This could cost the DOE upwards of 100 million dollars annually,

Now "Unity" wants me to trust them with contract negotiations after they caused the ATR crises with there inept negotiations with the DOE back in 2005. Maybe I would feel better if there were new leadership but the very same cast of characters that were responsible for the 2005 contract are in the very same positions except for one or two. I just dread what wonderful "givebacks" that our union has in store for us in the next contract. Hopefully, a new world order will appear and our union will hold the line. However, I will not hold my breath waiting for it to happen with these "bunch of clowns" running the show.

Thanks to ednotes online for the use of the picture.

The "Leadership Academy" Principal And Her "Children Last" Policy

A veteran teacher told me a real horror story about how her "Leadership Academy" Principal's dislike of an applicant was more important than what was best for her special needs children. While I cannot confirm the story, I have no doubt that the essence of the story is probably true.

The story starts with a recently appointed "Leadership Academy" Principal with two years of actual classroom experience (yes, not even tenured) found herself appointed as the Principal of a small special education school. She was not popular with the staff who believed the Principal was not qualified to run the school and was out of touch with the staff. However, the Principal would tell the staff that she ran the school based upon what was the best for the children. In other words, its "children first". When the Superintendent came to investigate the problems at the school the Principal complained that her staff did not care about the children and she did. Therefore, she said the problems were with some disgruntled teachers not her management style. The Superintendent left the school without taking any action and left the Principal in charge despite many staff members approaching the Superintendent with various improper actions they alleged the Principal did.

The veteran teacher was not one of the disgruntled teachers but kept to herself and did her job. She became one of the very few staff members the Principal trusted and was asked to sit in on the interviewing of Speech Therapists to fill a position in the school. Many of the people interviewed had worked under a contract for a period of weeks or months at the school and were not only familiar with the school but were known by the staff,including the Principal. One applicant stood out among others, she was an older women (in her 40s) who had come back to the field after staying at home to raise her children and seemed to have a real connection with the students in the school. Every teacher raved about her and even many of the autistic children seemed to respond to her and even asked for her when the contract was over. Quite a breakthrough for any teacher to get autistic children to respond that way. However, this Speech Therapist had a problem, the "Leadership Academy" Principal. It seemed that he Principal had interfered with the Speech Therapist's session at a time when she was achieving a critical breakthrough with a child. The Speech Therapist let the Principal know as nicely as possible that this was not a good time to have a talk as this was a critical moment in her session and she would speak with the Principal later that day. The Principal was obviously not happy about it but agreed to talk later. Fast forward to the interview process and the Principal, remembering her unsatisfactory encounter with the Speech Therapist saw this as a perceived slight and hurt feelings, she decides that this Speech Therapist is not appropriate for the position and another Speech Therapist gets he job.

The result is that the "Leadership Academy" Principal did what was best for her and not what was best for the special needs children of her school. Tweed would be proud of her as she is a shining example of the DOE's "children last" program.

My Executive Board High School Selections

In my previous post I have decided to vote for James Eterno of ICE/TJC for the reasons outlined here. However, I am not a ICE/TJC member and I vote for the person not the party. Therefore, of the five people I will be voting for four are ICE/TJC members and one New Action member. My explanation for voting for the five are as follows:

Arthur Goldstein ICE/TJC: One of the most intelligent and active high school Chapter Leader who is a Gotham News contributor and has taken on the DOE time and again. Arthur is always in the forefront of getting the UFT to protect their members. His influence goes well beyond his High School and he is a tireless advocate for the teachers in he trenches.

Jonathan Halabi New Action: Jonathan is a tireless advocate for the teachers and wears many hats in his school. He has no problem representing the union when asked to go to devastated cities like New Orleans and is a real asset to the teaching profession. I was especially impressed with his defense of the bloggers against Leo Casey and accurately predicted the problems with the 2005 contract. If only the union had listened to him.

Michael Fiorillo ICE/TJC: An aggressive Chapter Leader and is in the James Eterno mode of what makes an effective Chapter Leader. Very few Chapter Leaders are as effective as Michael Fiorillo who has the respect of almost all the school staff.

Kit Wainer ICE/TJC: A founding member and past Presidential candidate who has been in the forefront of many union actions and is a tireless worker for the members.

You may disagree with my selections but I believe I am voting for the best teachers to represent the members in the classroom.

Vote For James Eterno Since Michael Mulgrew Has Failed My Leadership Test

Unlike many of my fellow bloggers, I do not belong to any UFT caucus and will vote for the person and not the caucus. However, after seeing some very encouraging signs that Michael Mulgrew was not that appeaser, Randi Weingarten, I have become disappointed that Michael Mulgrew, despite the rhetoric, represents the same old "Unity" caucus politics. Therefore, I now have decided to vote for James Eterno to lead our Union back to the militancy of Albert Shanker and away from the appeasers that inhabit the "Unity" leadership. Here are the three tests the Michael Mulgrew has failed and made my choice for me .

No Change in the Failed Leadership:

I was shocked to see that the same old tired and disconnected leadership surrounds Michael Mulgrew despite private assurances that significant changes would be made. In particular, the retention of the "Unity" apologist and propagandist Leo Casey who cares more about Darfur and Mexican teachers than his own teachers in the trenches. It was Leo Casey who tried to bully and insult teachers who objected to the disastrous 2005 contract that resulted in the ATR crises, overcrowded "rubber rooms", loss of seniority transfer, three month unpaid suspensions based upon hearsay, and lack of grievances to Letter-to-the-File (LIF). For people who forgot Leo's defense of the indefensible 2005 contract you just need to read his article and the responses here. While I do admire and respect some of the "Unity" leadership I found their culture of unquestioning loyalty at the expense of the members is wrong, very wrong.. Therefore, Michael Mulgrew has failed test number one.

The Secretive Nature When Bargaining With The DOE:

When Randy Weingsrten was President of the UFT she would negotiate with the DOE and not include the affected members. Only a small group of her loyal inner circle were included and the result was usually not in the best interests of the members. Examples of this was the terrible 2005 contract, the ATR agreement, the "rubber room" agreement, the pension changes and the "fair student funding" problems just to name a few. Randi did realize that she needed to open up the next contract negotiations by including all caucuses and this has resulted in a more determined negotiation climate with no union givebacks. However, the Gotham News reports that Michael Mulgrew has secretly been negotiating with Tweed to streamline the disciplinary process. Were any of the people who deal with the "rubber rooms" consulted? Not to my knowledge. Here again Michael Mulgrew has retreated to the secretive negotiating process that has been a disaster for the teachers. . Therefore Michael Mulgrew has failed test number two.

Failure to Protect Member Rights:

Finally, I have asked Michael Mulgrew to have the UFT file a PERB complaint when principals fail to allow teachers take an "official business" day when meeting with their NYSUT attorneys that are related to DOE initiated legal action. The granting of the day has been a "long standing past practice" and PERB has already ruled in another union's favor on this issue. His response is to pass the buck and have his lackeys ignore the issue. Therefore, Michael Mulgrew has failed his third test and in my book three strikes and your out, as the President of the UFT.

Vote for James Eterno for President!

Bloomberg & Klein Close Down The Large Overcrowded "Rubber Rooms" & Create Mini For-Profit "Rubber Rooms".

This just in and is an exclusive by Chaz. Mayor Michael Bloomberg & Chancellor Joel Klein have decided to close down the large and overcrowded "rubber rooms" in New York City and will allow their well-connected friends to open up for-profit mini reassignment centers where there will each have two "Leadership Academy" administrators and a carefully selected group of reassigned teachers (no more than 25 per site) who will be worked to exhaustion with the tremendous amount of paperwork generated by those non-educators at Tweed. The motto for these mini "rubber rooms" will be "work will set you free". Where did I hear that before? hmmmm. Anyway the CEO's who run the for-profit mini "rubber rooms" will be allowed to select up to 25 reassigned teachers of their choice after interviewing them. Excluded from the interview process will be those teachers subject to felony charges, whistle blowers, union representatives, bloggers, teachers who dare read the blogs,and teachers who have time and attendance charges filed against them.

The teachers selected must expect to work an expanded day from 7:30am to 6:00pm with only a half hour lunch. Further, the selected reassigned teacher must "volunteer" his or her services two Saturdays a month to handle excess paperwork generated by Tweed in their ever failing attempt to get it right but always getting it wrong. Failure to show up on voluntary Saturdays will result in the reassigned teacher to be transferred to the large holding cell being built by Tweed under their building. Moreover, any teacher that fails to meet their quota will be further charged with "neglect of duty" and "insubordination". Finally, if the teacher does not meet the Administrator's arbitrary definition of quality, an "incompetence" charge will be added to the reassigned teacher's 3020-a charges.

Teachers excluded from the mini "rubber room" selection process or not selected will have a special place set up for them. These reassigned teachers will be put into the large holding cell in the basement of the Tweed building and shovel coal to keep the Tweed building warm. Any teacher that refuses to shovel coal will be removed from the payroll and forfeit their health benefits.

Oh god! What a nightmare I had. No teacher due process rights. "arbitrary & capricious" judgement by administrators who never taught in the classroom and clueless & vindictive non-educators running the system. Wait a minute it was not a nightmare it is really happening. It is real. God help us all in the New York City teaching profession.

It Appears That Principals Must Pay Teachers Who See Their NYSUT Attorney Based On A PERB Judge's Decision - Hear That Michael Mulgrew?

In a March 1, 2010 decision by a PERB Administrative Law Judge, Elema Cacivas, ruled that a "long standing past practice" cannot be changed unless it is through collective bargaining and not through the actions of a government agency. The reason this is important is that the UFT and NYSUT can now go to PERB and demand that all teachers who must respond to their 3020-a charges should be given the time off as "official business". This has been the "long standing past practice" until recently when many of the principals, probably with the the urging of Tweed either stopped paying teachers for seeing their lawyers or making the teacher take a pre-approved "personal day" that is subject to the Principal's approval. However, with the March 1, 2010 PERB ruling the UFT and NYSUT should file similar PERB complaints against Tweed for changing the "long standing past practices" without union approval.

In 2008 the Town Of Islip decided to take away government cars for non-emergency personnel for commuting purposes without negotiating with the union. The town employees union, Local 237 challenged the move and appealed to PERB. Since this practice was going on for 20 years, the PERB Administrative Law Judge said it meets the legal threshold of a "long standing past practice" and can only be removed through collective bargaining. This legal threshold should apply to all State and Local government contracts with their unions, including our contract.

Consequently, the UFT and their NYSUT lawyers have no excuse but to file a PERB complaint and show that it has been a "long standing past practice" to have teachers check "official business" as a paid day without using days out of their CAR. I previously wrote an article that detailed how the principals were informed by Tweed that they did not have to pay teachers to meet with their NYSUT lawyers despite the "long standing past practice" to do so. No longer will the UFT or NYSUT offer excuses that it is the Principal's discretion and they cannot do anything about it.. PERB has spoken and our union must file a similar PERB complaint against the DOE for every teacher who was denied the "official business" checkoff by their Principal.. I'm waiting to see if the UFT takes some real action and file the PERB complaint they need to do or is it just more empty rhetoric by our union. Michael Mulgrew I am waiting for your response.

Tweed's Idea Of A Good Teacher Is "Young & Dumb".

There is little doubt that student academic improvement is highly correlated with teacher quality. However, there is a real debate about what is a quality teacher? Most studies believe that a quality teacher has at least five years experience, has manageable class size, and is innovative when it comes to the classroom. Now compare this to what Tweed wants and see if Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel really wants quality teachers in the New York City Public School System?

Class Size:
New York City has the highest class sizes in the State and both the Mayor and Chancellor have used CFE money that the State allocated for class size reductions for other uses. In fact class sizes have actually risen over the last year. The result was that in January of 2009 the UFT, NAACP, the Hispanic Federation, and Class Size Matters filed a lawsuit accusing the DOE of violating the State mandate to reduce class size. The large class sizes is not consistent with good teaching practices.

Innovative Teaching:
It wasn't too long ago that teachers had control of their classroom and based upon the varied learning styles of their students tailored the lessons to maximize student academic achievement. Along came Tweed with its "one-program-fits-all "Workshop Model" that treated the students as widgets and teachers as cogs as if it wasa business model, which it is not, and ssumed all student learning was the same. It didn't matter that this program was not applicable to English language learners or special eduction students. All the children's learning style is the same and any deviation by the teacher would result in disciplinary action against the teacher. Gone was he academic enhancements and storytelling that made learning fun. So many teachers have complained about the Tweed domination of the classroom the UFT started a media blitz called "let teachers teach". However, the UFT quietly put this program to rest and the classroom teacher has found the classroom increasingly hostile with a tripling of useless paperwork. Teaching techniques that have been proven to work in the past is now not only frowned upon but can lead to disciplinary charges against the teacher as they struggle to control the classroom without the innovative teaching that made learning fun for the child.

Experience:
One of the most important factor in having a quality teacher is experience in the classroom. It takes a minimum of five years to acquire the classroom management skills to be an effective teacher. Furthermore, the experienced teacher can adapt to the ever changing classroom dynamics and tailor academic programs to best help the students academically. However, Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel practices "education on the cheap" where it is more important to hire "newbie" teachers that cost less money and leave before they are vested than hiring an experienced teacher. In fact to encourage principals to hire cheap teachers the DOE instituted the "fair student funding" formula that actually will penalize principals who hire experienced teachers. It is little wonder that many of the small schools are populated by untenured staff hired by the Principal (usually a leadership Academy Principal with limited classroom experience) so he/she can fund their favorite projects. Finally, the DOE encourages recruitment of "newbie" teachers over retention of experienced teachers and for Tweed it is not about the children but the budget as they practice their "children last" policy.

In conclusion, Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel are quite happy and encourages the principals to hire the "young and dumb" teachers in their schools. It is not about the children it is about what the money saved for Tweed to more easily fund theirno-bid high priced consultants for their pet projects that have little or no effect on the classroom.




.

In New York State's Race To The Bottom Academically Some "Knuckleheads" Have Proposed To Eliminate The New York State Regents Exams

In today's Newsday and tomorrow's New York Post and the Daily News, New York State in an attempt to save money has a proposal to eliminate 13 of 17 Regents exams and further dilute the once proud State academic standards that once made New York State the "gold standard" in education. This misguided proposal is estimated to save 13.7 million dollars because the State has proposed to cut the New York State Education Department's budget from 60 million dollars back in 2008 down to 43 million dollars. for the next school year.

Most educators have panned the knuckleheaded proposal and believe that it will further weaken already weakened academic standards and it was best described by Ms. Gloria Sessio who was quoted as saying " It's demeaning scholarship" . The elimination of the 145 year old New York State Regents exams is educationally damaging and will result in increasingly lowered academic standards. Furthermore, it will subject teachers to increased Administrative pressure to raise grades as they find devious ways to increase the school's graduation rate. The result would be a further lowering of academic standards since a 75% in New York City may not be a 75% in Scarsdale. On the other hand, the Regents exam grade of 75% is the same whether it is in Rochester or Riverhead.

It is bad enough that over the decade the State has "dumbed down" their tests at all education levels and which was once the "gold standard" in education has increasingly becoming a joke when compared to the national tests. Now some " knuckleheads" in Albany has proposed to further weaken the State's academic ability to compete not only nationally but globally. These "knuckleheads" should be fired or at least be hired by Tweed where they will fit right in with their "education on the cheap" and "children last" policies.

Another Clueless Person Who Blames The Victim When It Comes To The Education Budget

Here will go again. Another clueless person who knows very little about the education budget decided it would be better to blame the victim (teachers) for the misguided and discriminatory Tweed policies that waste billions of dollars.

In today's New York Daily News there was an opinion piece from the research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, Charles Brecher, who claimed that if the ATRs and reassigned teachers were suspended without pay the City would save 200 million dollars in the budget. This is another case of a clueless person who does not or chooses not to understand how the DOE operates.

Does Mr. Brecher subscribe to age discrimination since the majority of ATRs and reassigned teachers are over 50 years of age? Maybe Mr. Brecher believes that it is acceptable that over 30% of the DOE budget goes to non-classroom activities? Did Mr. Brecger look at the waste of money in the bloated central bureaucracy or the highly paid consultant services using a no-bid process and hiring of non-educators who provide little if any benefit to the schools? Of course not. How about the countless reorganization schemes (three in the last seven years) the DOE does that not only wastes money but makes the process inefficient as the people must learn their new responsibilities with the latest costly & unnecessary reorganization scheme going on now. What about the ever increasing central bureaucracy of non-educators at Tweed that contribute nothing to the classroom except increasing paperwork for their pet projects and "one size fits all" failed academic models? Of course Mr. Brecher somehow failed to investigate closely and found it easier to blame the victims of Tweed's discriminatory policies the teachers. Ask the ATRs and "rubber room" teachers do they want to teach in the classroom the answer would be a loud yes. Did he ask the teachers about how principals practiced "education on the cheap" by getting rid of highly paid older teachers so they can hire "newbie" teachers? Of course not. Does Mr. Brecher care about the children? I highly doubt it. "Children last" is the policy when it is about saving money.

Shame on Mr. Brecher and his faulty research by blaming the victims and not the aggressors who wastes hundreds of million dollars due to their failed policy and discriminatory activities..

The Difference Between The "Just Cause " Standard And The "Arbitrary & Capricious" Method The DOE Wants To Use In The Teacher Disciplinary Process

The DOE leaked their September 10th, 2009 contract demands to the News Media and while the DOE's demands are outrageous and disrespectful to the teaching profession. One of the more ominous demands is to replace the "just cause" standard to "arbitrary & capricious" as the rule in Arbitrator decision making. Why would the DOE want to replace the "just cause" standard with the "arbitrary & capricious" term is very simple. The use of the "arbitrary & capricious" term allows the Arbitrator to find the teacher guilty of the accusations without sufficient evidence to show the charges against the teacher is true. Let's look at the difference between the "just cause" standard and "arbitrary & capricious" term to determine teacher discipline.

Thanks to South Bronx School, he included a condensed version of the seven tests that the Arbitrator must find to be true to terminate a teacher.

"Just Cause" generally means; "the arbitrator first asks whether the employee's wrongdoing has been proven by the employer, and then asks whether the method of discipline should be upheld or modified." However in 1966, arbitrator, Professor Carroll Daugherty expanded this into seven tests that are frequently used by arbitrators. They are:

• Was the employee forewarned of the consequences of his or her actions?
• Are the employer's rules reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee?
• Was an effort made before discharge to determine whether the employee was guilty as charged?
• Was the investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
• Did the employer obtain substantial evidence of the employee's guilt?
• Were the rules applied fairly and without discrimination?
• Was the degree of discipline reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's offense and the employee's past record?

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the DOE to prove that the charges must meet all seven tests and that termination cannot be a discipline if all seven tests are not met. This makes it difficult for the DOE to achieve their ultimate goal in firing the teacher. Especially, if the teacher can show that the investigation was unfair and biased. I wrote about the corrupt investigations that go a long way in getting the teacher reassigned but also harms the DOE's case for termination against the teacher. On the other hand if the DOE gets their wish and only needs the "arbitrary & capricious " requirement, the burden of proof shifts from the DOE to the teacher since it is not based on actual evidence but on how the Arbitrator feels about the teacher. Arthur Goldstein wrote a piece on the DOE's contract demands which includes his take of the DOE's "arbitrary & capricious" demand and is a must read. South Bronx School also included the definitions of "arbitrary & capricious" and left in the hands of one person (Arbitrator) is quite scary.

Arbitrary is defined as;

• depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law
• marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

Capricious is defined thusly;

• sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action
• a sudden usually unpredictable condition, change, or series of changes

In other words, the DOE can simply claim the misconduct happened and use hearsay evidence to meet the greatly diminished standard of "arbitrary & capricious" as the basis for terminating the teacher. This would greatly increase the termination rate and lead to even more teacher reassignment and 3020-a charrges.
,