The DOE "Double Standard" Strikes Again When It Comes To Principals

The DOE's "double standard" when it comes to disciplining a Principal has shown up again as the Principal of Fordham Leadership Academy, Richard Bost in the Bronx was accused of groping and making lewd comments to a school secretary. What is most shocking is that after OEO (why not SCI?) substantiated the allegations against the Principal, the school secretary, not the Principal was removed from the school. You heard it right. The Principal was left in the school. Now new accusations of sexual harassment and sexual contact between the Principal and staff are being investigated, again by OEO and not SCI. A DOE spokesperson lamely explained that the Principal was left in the school because it did not involve a student and OEO has not completed their new investigation. Let's see the Principal can grope and make sexually suggestive comments and be accused of even more serious allegations to staff members and nothing happens to him? What is wrong with this picture? The New York Daily News printed the article here. Previously, I have posted about the DOE's "double standard" when it came to teachers and administrators here, and here. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since that time.

By contrast, I know a teacher who was falsely accused of verbally abusing a student by using the word F**K in a sentence that was taken out of context. Despite his denial of using the word. He was subject to an SCI investigation and was taken offline for three months by the "probable cause" Arbitrator. Simply the word of the student is enough to terminate a teacher while numerous staff complains of sexual harassment and even more by a Principal is met with indifference and a slap on the wrist. What is most disturbing is how the union does not take up the fight for the staff and does not file a formal complaint to the DOE and PERB about the Principal. Where are the union concerns for equal treatment? Instead what we get is deafening silence. It appears that our union leadership is more interested in negotiating more secret deals with the DOE then protect the rights of their members.

DOE's New Idea For "Credit Recovery" Double Credits For Summer School.

In the DOE's never ending quest to artificially raise the graduation rate of the high schools, Tweed has come up with the idea of splitting summer school into two three week sessions and giving the students double credit if they take both sessions. It is bad enough that many of the students don't have to show up during the year and are given "credit recovery courses" to artificially inflate the high school graduation rate. Now the DOE has quietly approved "credit recovery" for summer school by allowing students to get full credit for a semester by showing up for just three weeks. Students that show up for the entire six week course will get credit for both semesters or double the credit that summer school had previously allowed.

Over the years the DOE has approved the "credit recovery program" without so much as a guideline on what is "credit recovery". Principals, who are under pressure to raise graduation rates have gone to great lengths to use whatever means that are necessary to push out students to artificially raise the graduation rate and increase not only the school grade but to receive a financial bonous to the Principal as well. For example, the Principal at Lehman High School was accused of doing just that. I am sure every struggling high school in New York City can look at their own school and see abuses of the "credit recovery program". While the State has promised to look into the practice in New York City, So far the State has done little or nothing about these abuses. It is more important to artificially raise the graduation rate then to give a student a meaningful education. It is all about the numbers not about the quality of education.

Tweed's "children last" continues.

Mayor Blommberg Has Spoken Yet Again To The City Workers- "Hit The Road Jack". There Will Be No Retirement Incentive For Them.

Over the last month I have been hearing from teachers how the union and NYSUT are telling them that if the hold on to the end of the school year, the City will give city workers the New York State retirement incentive. I was confused since I always keep on top of the rumors and nobody I spoke to had any information that Mayor Bloomberg would approve of a retirement incentive. In fact, Mayor Bloomberg has repeatedly said no to the retirement incentive. Now it seems that Mayor Bloomberg has said it again. On his Friday radio show, Mayor Bloomberg stated that he does not believe that the City will save money and has no intention of having city workers participate in the Sate retirement incentive. What happens next?

I assume that business will go on as usual and as for the teachers? We will need for the PERB mediator to cry uncle and send it to the three Arbitrator PERB panel for their non-binding recommendations that may or may not be agreeable to the union or the City.

I will keep my ear to the wall for rumors and let you know if anything changes.

According To The DOE Teachers Are Guilty Until Proven Guilty But Are Never Innocent

There is tremendous pressure on reassigned teachers to admit guilt and take a settlement as the UFT and DOE want to eliminate the backlog by the December 31st 2010 date as proposed in the "rubber room agreement". Under the UFT/DOE agreement under 3020-a teacher innocence is not an option since the Arbitrator will always give something to the DOE for their efforts to terminate the teacher since the Arbitrators can only stay on the panel with the DOE's (and UFT's) approval. Therefore, it is extremely rare (2%) for a teacher to be found innocent, For example, the teachers accused of incompetence and took PIP+ the DOE deal was to irrevocably resign after one year or pay a significant fine ($15,000) to stay on for two years. Unless the teacher is ready to retire these settlements are unrealistic and are being rejected. The same goes for teachers subject to SCI investigations where the SCI investigator did not recommend termination. One teacher was offered a $70,000 fine and two courses and many others were given deals that exceeded $10,000 and suspensions of up to one year. Few of these teachers have actually taken such deals and are awaiting their 3020-a hearings or the long-awaited mediation. Regardless of the settlement, the teacher admission of guilt in taking the settlement is of prime importance to the DOE and will result in almost certain termination if the teacher is charged again under 3020-a.

Complaints to the UFT leadership about how the DOE has violated the spirit of the "rubber room agreement" has been met with indifference and inaction as not all teachers are being offered mediation and the DOE settlements in some cases are outrageous. Granted, nobody is putting a gun to a teacher's head to take a settlement but when the NYSUT attorney and the Arbitrator is telling the teacher the alternative could be termination, what is the teacher to do? It takes a brave teacher to say no when the possibility of termination is on the table and in all 3020-a hearings the DOE asks for termination as the only possible remedy. You can explain that only 10% of the teachers actually are terminated but when the teacher's own lawyer and Arbitrator tell them what the alternative can be, the teacher gets scared and takes a deal under duress.

It appears that the DOE philosophy that all teachers charged are guilty and stay guilty when they take a settlement is still in force and not in danger of changing anytime soon. Shame on the DOE and shame on the UFT for not changing the "teacher is guilty" process.

Michelle Rhee - Worry About Your Own Failed Administration And Schools. Mind Your Own Buisness When It Comes To Negotiating Our Contract.

The Chancellor of the failed Washington D.C. school system, Michelle Rhee, has stuck her feeble mind into the complex New York City contract negotiations in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News which only shows how out of touch and clueless she is to the New York State Civil Service laws. Michelle Rhee who once worked for the DOE and is a protege of Chancellor Joel Klein has inserted her idiotic ideas in how to negotiate a new contract for us. Fat chance that is going to happen. Both Accountable Talk, Perdido Street School, and Ednotes online have also commented on Michelle Rhee's article and are must reads.

Michelle Rhee, who is funding teacher raises with private funds (a very dangerous practice and may not be a recurring stream of funds in the future, then what?) has just about eliminated teacher tenure. Under the Washington D.C. contract an "ineffective teacher" can be fired immediately and a teacher that is "minimally effective" would have their pay frozen and can be fired after two years. The Chancellor claims that the Principal must work with a school committee before a teacher is rated but we all know it is just a "fig leaf" that will allow the Principal to do what he or she wants to, regardless of the teacher effectiveness. The Washington D.C. contract also eliminates seniority for determining layoffs and gives the Principal total discretion on who to lay off. Furthermore, she wants to fire all ATRs as if it is their fault that they can't find jobs. She ignores the "fair student funding" fiasco or the age discrimination issue in the ATR crises. Just blame the ATRs and fire them all. Finally, she recommended that Randi Wiengarten help negotiate the contract (I would think Michael Mulgrew must be throwing up when he read that). I can just see Randi Wiengarten agreeing to another disastrous October 2005 contract and Randi proclaiming that everybody wins as Leo Casey insults teachers that dare to disagree.

I could not help but see her lack of criticism of the bloated Tweed budget, the no-bid contracts, the high-priced consultants that inhabit the Central Bureaucracy, and the lack of educators in decision-making positions. I also laughed at her praise of the two year wonders from Teach For America. Then again she is one of these ed deformers who care more about control then the students.

Chancellor Michelle Rhee, "mind your own business". This is New York City not Washington D.C. You have enough trouble managing your schools.

Does Mayor Michael Bloomberg Really Have The Authority To Freeze Our Salaries? The Short Answer Is Yes But It Won't Happen

Mayor Bloomberg, with much fanfare, has announced a wage freeze for principals and teachers for the next two years. This wage freeze flies in the face of the "City pattern" that has always been followed and in fact the teachers union has already went to PERB to make sure the "City pattern" is followed. However, unlike the police any PERB decision is not binding and can be ignored by either side. Historically, both sides have used the "City pattern" and the PERB arbitration that generally follows the "City pattern" as political cover to get a new contract. Despite, the budget crises look for this to happen here but with a twist.

Look for the Bloomberg Administration to pick off a weaker union (DC-37?) to settle for a vastly inferior contract. Let's say 3% and a no layoff clause with "givebacks" for two years for the 2011-12 time period. Now there is a new "City Pattern" in place. Once the new contract is in place. Look for the Bloomberg Administration to follow the PERB recommendations, after ignoring them, and give the teachers a four year contract that will be 11% (4%, 4%, 1%,2%), with "givebacks" ( a sixth class, unpaid coverages, more time, etc.). Since the teachers have not had a raise in three years (May 19, 2008), the union leadership will recommend its approval because it is based upon the two "City patterns". Therefore, our salaries will fall further behind the neighboring suburbs and create an even more hostile classroom environment as our "givebacks" will reduce teacher discretion and individuality.

Yes, Mayor Bloomberg will lift the wage freeze but remember what the consequences will be for the New York City teaching profession.

Will Bloomberg Agree To An Early Retirement Incentive? I think Not.

My peers are all talking about the State passing the early retirement incentive and that many of them contacted the union leadership who have given them the false impression that the City will follow suit and allow the teachers to get the retirement credits they want. However, the bad news is that Mayor Bloomberg has stated time and again that he does not want to give a retirement incentive since these teachers are going to retire anyway. Therefore, the Mayor decided to impose a wage freeze and an additional 4% cut in the school budget instead. However, exempt from the budget cuts was the DOE adding $840,000 in bonuses and raises to the Central Bureaucracy. Unbelievable, and how hypocritical.

While it may make more sense to agree to the State's early retirement incentive, the Mayor and Chancellor do not want to reward senior teachers with up to three years pension credit when they are doing everything possible to get rid of them for "cause". With their failed attempt to get the "Keep Act" through the State Legislature, which would give the principals the right to determine who to layoff. The use of a wage freeze was preferable to them than the more reasonable early retirement incentive. "Why reward the senior teacher when we can screw all the teachers?"

It will be interesting to see what transpires but for now it appears that the City is not going to agree with an early retirement incentive. Despite what our union leadership is telling the teachers.

Teacher Bashing Is At A New High Thanks To The Politicians And The News Media

It seems like whatever the problem the nation's schools experience both the politicians and the news media seem to think it is the teacher's fault. The teachers are now the scapegoats in what is wrong with the education system. For example when President Obama unwisely agreed with the Central Falls School Board to fire all the high school teachers despite the heroic efforts many of them made with a challenging student population and starved for educational services.

No longer do the politicians and the media blame poor parenting skills, ridiculous rules concerning student discipline, incompetent administrators, poverty, or the students themselves. To them it is the teacher's fault. Notice how these so-called education forums and think tanks rarely have practicing teachers on them and classroom teacher input is almost non-existent. If a student is failing, everybody blames the teacher. It doesn't matter that the child may have learning difficulties, be a non-English speaker, or are academically behind due to attendance or health issues. Regardless, the fault is put on the teacher's lap.

Nationwide, teachers are under attack as politicians and their media allies demand wage freezes, paying increased health benefit premiums, tenure changes, and even rolling back pensions. In New Jersey, Governor Cristie has demanded wage freezes of teachers as a condition for getting State funds. No other group was targeted by the Governor but teachers. While in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has threatened to layoff 4,400 teachers if the State does not come through with additional funds. Further, the Mayor has failed to negotiate the "city pattern" with the teachers union and has demanded that the layoffs do not follow the State Civil Service requirements based upon seniority.

Disrespect for teachers ranges from the President, Barack Obama to the Chancellor, Joel Klein. However, the greatest disrespect for teachers are found in our local newspapers, the New York Daily News and the New York Post who operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein. Their editorials blaming the teachers or the unions reminds me of Pravda during the days of the Soviet Union. Even the New York Times print some articles that can be considered anti-teacher. Only Newsday seems to give a balanced prospective on education issues. This media disrespect has made teaching in the classroom an increasingly hostile environment and has resulted in a "blame the teacher society".

The only way to put an end to the continued assaults on teachers is to mount a well focused attack on politicians and the anti-teacher news media that support them. Giving in is not the answer. The union must dig in their heels and yell "not one step back" if we are to earn respect as a profession. No more sellouts, no more "givebacks" and more importantly let's get back our self respect and that is what our union should be doing.

Not All Arbitrators Are Equal - Ask Betsy Combier

One of the most closely kept secret by NYSUT attorneys that represent teachers and the DOE legal service's ATU and TPU groups are how Arbitrators rule on similar 3020-a cases. If the DOE believes that the Arbitrator is to teacher friendly, their annual contract is not renewed. Less common is if the Arbitrator is too harsh with his or her decisions against the teacher, the UFT/NYSUT will also not renewal the yearly contract with the Arbitrator. Therefore, many of the Arbitrator "awards" (penalties against the teacher) will have these competing factors in mind. In other words, there are very few terminations of teachers but even less acquittals. The "awards" can range from a simple "letter-to-the-file" to a one year suspension without pay. While all the Arbitrators are intelligent and honest men and women and try to do the what is right for all parties, the pressure on them to stay on the Arbitration panel encourages them to "split the baby" and make sure that both sides are happy. The DOE gets a suspension or fine and the UFT stops the termination of a teacher.

Within the gray area of "awards" you have some DOE friendly Arbitrators that tend to suspend many teachers that appear before them while the teacher friendly Arbitrators use fines and courses as an "award". While every 3020-a case is different and the Arbitrator usually is influenced by the teacher's own testimony and behavior, the Arbitrators do have a history of making decisions based upon their "body of work". However, try to get that information from the DOE or the union is impossible. Therefore, the next best source would be somebody who has had seven years experience dealing with the 3020-a hearing process and the Arbitrator decisions. That person is Betsy Combier, who writes under the blog "NYC Rubber Room Reporter". She is a paralegal who has participated in many 3020-a hearings and is familiar on the general decision making by the Arbitrators. Betsy Combier can be contacted at betsy.combier@gmail.com if you want more information about the Arbitrator assigned to your 3020-a case.

Another way to obtain information about your Arbitrator is to FOIL the New York State Education Department (NYSED) about the five most recent Arbitrator decisions in cases similar to your own. For example incompetence, misconduct, corporal punishment, etc. However, expect to pay anywhere between $25 to $75 dollars for the redacted information.

I suggest that you use both sources if you really want to get a good idea of how your Arbitrator "awards" cases based upon similar allegations. "Knowledge is power" and the more you know about the 3020-a process, the better chance you have in defending yourself against the allegations that the DOE has charged you with.

Even The General Publc Dislikes Chancellor Joel Klein

The latest Quinniapiac Poll has shown that Chancellor Joel Klein's approval ratings from the general public has plummeted to an all time low of 30%. Even the public realize that Joel Klein and his not-so-merry band of non-educators that surround him at Tweed are not good for the education of their public school children. If passing is 65% then our angry Chancellor should be given a well deserved grade of "F". Despite the ever continuing propaganda coming out of Tweed and their mouthpieces at the New York Daily News and New York Post, the general public just sees from their own children the inequities and favoritism that Tweed practices when it comes to charter schools vs. the public schools.

Even many of the school-based administrators (principals & assistant principals) have grumbled about how clueless Tweed is in running the school system. In one case they give the principals more authority to run their schools and then cut their budget as Tweed increases their own headcount of non-educators (8 Deputy Chancellors at $192,000 for a total of 1.5 million dollars just an example of the increase) at the expense of the classroom. As for the teachers, except for this group here, I suspect that Chancellor Joel Klein would be in the low single digits when it comes to approving his job performance. Why is the Chancellor almost universally disliked? I would like to say that our union did a magnificent job in demonizing the angry Chancellor. However, our union has been pretty much inept and only now is trying to ramp up opposition to Tweed through the media. No! The real reason is the misguided policies by the Chancellor, be it school closings, charter schools, budget priorities, and the increase in test preparation at the expense of a total education are a large part of the problem.

It is about time that people realize that Chancellor Joel Klein and his group of non-educators are the problem and not the solution for the New York City Public Schools as Tweed continues their "children last" and "education on the cheap" policies.

Has The DOE Fooled The "Hear-No-Evil" UFT Again On Implementing The "Rubber Room Agreement"? It Certainly Appears So.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the DOE is not meeting the conditions in the recently negotiated "rubber room agreement". For example, take mediation. Presently, there is no mediation going on as the DOE believes that they must agree to mediation requests before mediation is started to get rid of the backlog in existing 3020-a cases. Therefore, the only settlements being made are the DOE's take-it-or-leave-it settlement offer where the teacher must admit guilt. What has been the UFT response to the DOE's failure to uphold the agreement? Dead silence.

It appears that the UFT leadership has this "hear-no-evil" approach and refuses to take the DOE to task for their failure to live up to the "rubber room agreement". There is widespread skepticism on all sides of the 3020-a hearing process (Arbitrators, DOE lawyers, and the NYSUT attorneys) that the hearings will be fairer since the DOE refuses to settle with many teachers who are subject to SCI investigations and continue to offer outrageous settlements that are insulting to the teacher. What happened to leveling the playing field?

Many bloggers had objected to the "rubber room agreement" because the UFT leadership failed to include the reassigned teacher in crafting the agreement. While I supported the closing of the "rubber rooms" so as to stop warehousing teachers, I certainly questioned the other issues. I also believed the UFT leadership was in over their collective heads in understanding the 3020-a hearing process without input from the people most involved in it. Unfortunately, it appears that is the case here. The UFT has again allowed the DOE to ignore both the spirit and intent of the agreement and the losers are? You guessed it, the reassigned teachers.

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly. The "Rubber Room" Agreement One Month Later. How The UFT Disappointed The Reassigned Teachers

It is time to see how the "rubber room agreement" is being implemented and I must say the movie "The good, the bad, and the ugly" properly fits the failure of the DOE and the UFT meeting their obligations. I would like to report that the "rubber room agreement" is going smoothly. However, it appears that except for the eventual elimination of the "rubber rooms" where teachers were being warehoused, many of the promises have not been kept. Let's look at how the "rubber room agreement" is working.

The Good:

It does appear that the DOE is living up to Mayor Bloomberg's commitment to close the "rubber rooms" despite unhappiness from Tweed and the Children First Network (CFN) administrators. Furthermore, the DOE has made an effort to settle as many cases as possible (on their terms - more about this later). Finally, with a new transcription service, no longer are there lengthily delays to close a hearing because of a lack of transcripts.

The Bad:

The DOE still are allowing principals to remove teachers at will. Since the agreement the Washington Heights "rubber room" has received 20 more reassigned teachers, while the Queess TRC has welcomed 10 reassigned teachers. It appears that principals are escalating the teacher removal process before the year ends. Furthermore, there is no mediation process (more about this later). What happened to immediately? If a teacher does not report their arrest immediately (within 48 hours) to OPI and the Principal. The teacher can be brought up on charges for failure to satisfy the definition of immediately in Chancellor's Regulation C-105. How come we teachers must comply with the word immediately while the DOE is not accountable. One month later there is still no mediation occurring.

The Ugly:

The DOE has decided that their idea of mediation is to extort teachers with large fines, admission of guilt, take courses that establish what they are guilty of, and eliminate the right to sue the DOE. I have previously posted this before. This extortion by the DOE is bad enough but now they have the teacher's own Arbitrators pushing the frightened teacher to settle and this further pressures the teacher in taking an unfair settlement which marks the teacher as admitting guilt. What happened to mediation? According to the dictionary.

Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or "appropriate dispute resolution", is a way of resolving disputes between two parties. A third party member is involved in order to structure the meetings, and to help the parties come to a final decision based on the facts given through the discussions. Mediation is not legally binding so it does not have to be followed, although if one party does not, they can sometimes be taken to court by the disadvantaged member, depending on the mediation agreement.

Mediation, in a broad sense, consists of a cognitive process of reconciling mutually interdependent, opposed terms as what one could loosely call "an interpretation" or "an understanding of." The German philosopher Hegel uses the term "dialectical unity" to designate such thought-processes. This article discusses the legal communications usage of the term.

Mediators use appropriate techniques and/or skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial. Disputants may use mediation in a variety of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters. A third-party representative may contract and mediate between (say) unions and corporations. When a workers’ union goes on strike, a dispute takes place, and the corporation hires a third party to intervene in attempt to settle a contract or agreement between the union and the corporation.

Mediation is the only way assisted by one third, which promotes freedom of choice of protagonists in a conflict^[1].

Having the teacher's own Arbitrator pressure the teacher in taking the DOE settlement is not arbitration but can be considered an ugly form of coercion that exploits the frightened teacher who believes that if they don't take the settlement on DOE's terms, the Arbitrator may take offense and impose a more severe penalty. Therefore, the DOE has won by getting the teacher to admit guilt by taking a course and get a large fine. How is this mediation? It is not! How can the Arbitrator be fair if he or she pushes for a settlement and the teacher refuses? While I do have confidence that the Arbitrators are honorable and fair people and will rule on the evidence (or lack thereof) I can see how many a teacher would be fearful of not following the Arbitrator's lead. This is not only unfair but downright ugly. Mediation? Don't make me laugh, this is worse then ever for teachers who wish to expose the DOE's lies, misstatements, and embellishments in the 3020-a hearing

Mediation? Yeah right! What a joke! The DOE appears to have won again. Thanks for nothing Mike (call me Michael) Mulgrew. Clint Eastwood you are not.

Is This The Beginning Of The End For Seniority Protections? Is Teacher Tenure Next?

It appears that NYSUT and the UFT caved in to State pressure to gain RTTT funding by agreeing to a new teacher evaluation system. This system will allow teachers to be evaluated into four categories.

• Highly effective
• Effective
• Developing
• Ineffective

This new teacher evaluation system will make it easier for Administrators to remove senior teachers by labeling them "ineffective". While our unions claim that there will be additional protections to help and support struggling/targeted senior teachers, I'm not buying it. It is really a "gotcha program" to swiftly remove highly-paid senior teachers out of the schools and attack teacher tenure, In my opinion the unions prostituted themselves to get RTTT funds and put their members in danger. Our UFT press release praising the agreement notwithstanding.

Smart administrators will load up targeted teachers with the worst students, fail to supply them with proper support, unjustly compare the targeted teacher's class with higher achieving student classes, and write damaging observations to ensure the teacher gets two consecutive "ineffective" ratings and termination sixty days later. Furthermore, it will pit teacher against teacher and collaboration among teachers will cease to exist. Finally, look for an increase in cheating, not by the students, but by teachers. What were our foolish union leaders thinking? A possible short term funding gain at the expense of teacher due process? What will stop administrators from rating ATRs "ineffective"? Nothing according to this agreement.

I can only wonder what other goodies our union leaders have in store for us. How about donating part of our paychecks to Joel Klein to pay for his million dollar Deputy Chancellors he is hiring and the increased headcount at Tweed? Or is that where our raise will go to? How about exempting the teachers rated "highly effective" from seniority based layoffs? I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Mulgrew turns out to be "Randi lite" as many of my blogger friends have been claiming all along. I assume we will need to vote on this because it changes the contractual provisions. If so please vote Nooooooooooo!

What a piece of crap!

Will Bloomberg Finally Give In And Offer A Buyout To Senior Teachers? He Will Need To As Long As The Union Does Not Give Ground On Seniority.

Now that the Bloomberg doomsday budget is out and up to 6,400 teaching positions will be eliminated from the system (I believe it will be much less), the shrill calls from Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel to change the "last in, first out" seniority requirement are increasing. However, as long as the union stays firm, the Mayor will have to capitulate and to save the "newbie teachers" he needs to continue his "education on the cheap" policy. Therefore, what can Bloomberg do? The answer is really quite simple. He needs to offer "buyouts" to the senior teachers to save the jobs of the inexpensive and not vested "newbie teachers".

When will the City admit defeat and propose a "buyout"? Probably at the end of the school year once the State finances are better known. Depending on how much funding needs to be cut, look for the "buyout" to be a either a month for every year worked. for example a teacher who worked 24 years would get 2 years of pension credit. Or possibly a $25,000 lump sum payment. While the Bloomberg Administration is denying that any such "buyout" is in the offering. I don't believe for a second that Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel will allow the "newbie teachers" to be laid off. Just see how Tweed, while laying off 4,000 teachers is quietly trying to allocate up to five million dollars for the teaching fellows program. Unbelievable! Furthermore, take a look at Joel Klein's whining e-mail to the principals telling them how he wants to eliminate the seniority provision so they can get rid of any teacher they please. You can find it at Betsy Combier's blog here.

As long as the union stands their ground and let the politicians know the consequences to any attempt to reduce teacher "due process rights", the City will have no choice but offer "buyouts" to save their "education on the cheap" program.

Michael Mulgrew Got It Wrong When He Called Chancellor Joel Klein "Numbnuts". What Chancellor Joel Klein Really Is, Is Evil

Michael Mulgrew, the President of the UFT has allegedly called Chancellor Joel Klein "numbnuts" at a union meeting last month. "Numbnuts" is defined as "a person of severely limited intellectual prowess'. While I would like to believe our Chancellor is stupid, the reality is much different. Chancellor Joel Klein is not stupid but just evil when it comes to the experienced classroom teacher and the students they educate. Under his eight year destructive leadership we have seen clueless non-educators run the DOE and who are responsible for closing 91 schools to be replaced by Charter or small schools. Klein's disciples have caused the following problems. The creation of the ATR crises, the almost sevenfold increase and overcrowding of the "rubber rooms", the "fair student funding" fiasco, a threefold increase in unnecessary paperwork, "Leadership Academy Principals" with little or no classroom experience, The increase of headcount at Tweed at the expense of the rest of the education system, and worst of all flat scores on the NAEP's and the SATs.

Now the evil Chancellor wants to go after seniority, tenure, and have disposable teachers who leave the system before being vested for a pension or retiree health benefits. Furthermore, he would like to see more Charter schools at the expense of the neighborhood schools and does not want the Charter Schools to have to take students that are English Language Learners or have disabilities. The more "at risk" children going to the neighborhood school, the better the phony comparison between the neighborhood school and the Charter school that "cherry picks" their students. He also wants the Charters to be located in existing schools and take scares funding from the public school system. It is like having the "fox in the hen house" as Chancellor Klein and his non-educators devise ways to hurt the public school classroom.

"Numbnuts"! I wish this was true for Chancellor Joel Klein. Unfortunately, for the New York City teaching profession and the students they educate, Joel Klein and his awful policies are just plain evil.

Justice For Lal Singh!

The nightmare appears to be finally over for Lal Singh. His 3020-a charges were dismissed by Arbitrator Alan Berg who also stated that he should be put back into the classroom as quickly as possible.

The nightmare for Lal Singh started after a male special education student accused Mr. Singh of molesting him in a closet in his classroom after school and offering him $20 for a blow job three years earlier. OSI investigated the three year old accusation and substantiated the accusation even though there is no closet in Mr. Singh's classroom! With the OSI substantiation, the NYPD special victims unit arrested Mr. Singh and put him in jail until he could post bail. Furthermore, his name was plastered all over the local news media.

Mr. Singh was put on "probable cause" by the DOE and was given a three month unpaid suspension by the DOE (thanks Randi and Leo). Mr. Singh went to trial and, in part, after his Principal testified that Mr. Singh has no closet in his room and that because Mr. Singh had child care responsibilities, he left school right after the last bell. The evidence against Mr. Singh was so flimsy and unbelievable that the jury took all of 22 minutes to acquit Mr. Singh. That's right 22 minutes!

Did Mr Singh's acquittal by a jury in 22 minutes affect the DOE's prosecution of Mr. Singh? Not one bit. The DOE pursued 3020-a charges against Mr. Singh with the same flimsy case the DA had. Time and again Arbitrator Alan Berg questioned the DOE lawyer about presenting evidence and not unsubstantiated accusations and insults about Mr. Singh. What did the DOE lawyer allegedly call Mr. Singh during his 3020-a hearing? How about pedophile and child molester. He also was alleged to have told Mr. Singh that his parents would rollover in their graves having a child like Mr, Singh. He even allegedly said that it was best if Mr. Singh was "stillborn". In the 3020-a hearing the OSI investigator admitted that he didn't bother to see if Mr. Singh had a closet and he believed an excessed para who blamed Mr. Singh for her removal over the school's Principal about the closet.

The questionable ethics used by both the Queens DA and the DOE in using character assassination as a bases for charges and an unfair investigation by NYPD & OSI could have resulted in Mr. Singh losing his liberty as well as his job. However, Mr Singh's criminal & NYSUT lawyers and the jury of his peers as well as the Arbitrator saw right through the false allegations and Mr. Singh was cleared of all charges.

Now comes the problem, at the height of the media frenzy the DOE stated that Mr. Singh will never set foot in a classroom again. However, three years later he was found to be a victim of the Queens DA and the DOE who cared more about getting Mr. Singh than justice. Will Mr. Singh be sent back to the classroom? I think not since the DOE has already stated as much. Therefore, I must assume he will be added to Joel Klein's Chancellor's discretion list of teachers. That's too bad Mr. Singh is a wonderful teacher and a caring person who has worked with a very difficult population and his absence from the classroom only hurts the students who would benefit from his instruction. DOE's "children last" continues.

Why Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel Want To Eliminate Teacher Seniority. They Are Trying To Destroy The Teachers' Union

Now that the "rubber room" problem has been resolved (maybe). Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel have now focused on eliminating seniority for teachers. The two of them whine that they would have to lay off "good teachers" while keeping "bad teachers" due to seniority procedures of "last in, first out", a staple of the Civil Service System. They have recruited two, soon to be defeated, politicians to sponsor the "KEEP Act" that would allow the Principal to decide who to keep and who to terminate. Furthermore, they have allies in some naive "newbie teachers" who have developed a website supporting the "KEEP Act". This "divide and conquer" policy is destined for failure as both leaders of the State Legislature have claimed it "dead on arrival". However, look for the propaganda rags of the New York Post and New York Daily News plead with the politicians to save the "good teachers".

The problem is how does a person determine who is a "good teacher"? Not Mayor Mike or Chancellor Joel? Neither one has any clue what a "good teacher" is. Furthermore, most teachers have little respect or confidence in their "Leadership Academy Principals" who would have the responsibility to determine a "good teacher". In their world a "good teacher" would be determined by their age, salary, loyalty to the Principal, and who they can bully. What about the students? Wouldn't they know who is a "good teacher"? Of course they would but many of these teachers the students like are hated by the insecure and vindictive Principal because of their interactions with the students and their questioning of Principal directives that are not in the best interest of the school.

It takes an average of 8 years (6-10 years) to reach their peak as a teacher. Once a teacher reaches their peak, unlike an athlete, they maintain that level for decades to come. Teachers are not athletics that see their skills deteriorate over the years. On the other hand 50% of the "newbie teachers" fail to last five years in the system and some of them who start off trying to conquer the world become hardened and skeptical in the next few years as they leave the system before even being vested! Therefore, how can a "newbie teacher" be a "good teacher" when compared to an experienced teacher? They can't but don't confuse Mayor Mike & Chancellor Klein with these facts.

How come Mayor Mike doesn't propose to eliminate seniority for police, fire, and sanitation? Wouldn't the athletic component actually apply in these jobs? Of course they do but the real reason is simple, he does not like teachers and would just love to break the powerful teachers' union. Give it up Bloomie, just offer "buyouts" and the bogus seniority issue disappears.

The Educators4Excellence Group Is Just A Stooge For Bloomberg & Klein's "Education On The Cheap" Policy

Two misguided teachers, Sydney Morris and Evan Stone of PS 86 have become the stooges for the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy by questioning the long-standing union provision of "last hired, first fired" as they have developed a website called Educators4Excellence that supports Bloomberg and Klein rather than the union. These almost "newbie" teachers' classroom instruction are nowhere near the excellence they have named their website. Most education studies show a teacher needs a minimum of 6 years to achieve mastery of the classroom. The two of them combined only have 5 years experience! Excellence in teaching? Not even close. They have a long way to go to reach that goal, assuming they last that long. However, this does not stop them from developing the website due to their own self interest for protecting their jobs.

These two quislings support the Bloomberg/Klein attack on seniority and have worked with the failed and hopefully soon to be replaced politicians Ruben Diaz and Jonathan Bing to pass the KEEP Act. This program simply allows principals to decide who to keep (young, clueless, and inexpensive, no pension vesting) and who to fire (union advocates, highly paid senior teachers, and teachers the Principal dislikes). While, I can understand their concern about keeping their jobs. However, to allow themselves to be exploited by Bloombeg and Klein for their "education on the cheap" policy just shows how naive these two are.

The good news is that the KEEP Act is not only "dead on arrival" it was "dead before arrival" and your ill-considered attempt to change the "first in, last out" rule has only galvanized the support of union members against it and has exposed the two of you as self-serving stooges of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration and their "education on the cheap" policy. Gotham Schools wrote a piece that shows how dead it is.

You can read more about these two traitors who would eliminate our protected rights at the South Bronx School website and is required reading.

The DOE's Principals First & Children Last Policy

Over the tenure of the Bloomberg/Klein Administration the New York City Schools have seen an increase in Principal abuse of their staff as Tweed has given these principals more control of their school. Many of these principals are coming out of the "Leadership Academy" with little actual classroom experience, some not even tenured! Moreover, these principals have been told that they are the CEO of their school and run the school as a business. The problem is that the students are not widgets and the staff cogs. Every child is different and have individual learning needs, while among the staff, their are various teaching styles. The result is chaos at many of the schools and can result in the unfair removal of a teacher.

How many times have I heard about a teacher being removed from his or her class, usually instigated by the Principal, only to have no qualified substitute to handle the class. This results in an Administrator to come into the class of unruly students and say "if Ms. Jones was here, you wouldn't act this way". Of course if the Administrator had not targeted Ms. Jones in the first place, the class would not be a problem. This is called "collateral damage" and results in the DOE encouraged "children last" policy that has swept the New York City Public Schools.

You might ask why would a Principal deliberately hurt the students by removing a well qualified teacher? The answer is simple. Its about the Principal's power and control to impose their will over the staff. Any teacher criticism can and usually does target that teacher. Is it little wonder their are between 600 and 700 teachers in the "rubber rooms"? Many of the "Leadership Academy" principals are insecure and rule their schools through intimidation and fear. Therefore, they find any reason possible to push out senior teachers who are outspoken and defend the rights of the students and staff. The DOE allows these principals to gets rid of the teacher while enforcing the intimidation and fear aspect to others.

Another reason is the budget. Many schools are suffering from significant budget cuts of up to 5%. Therefore, many of the Principal's pet programs would need to be cut. However, if the Principal can drum up frivolous or bogus charges against a senior teacher, the school can save up to $100,000 after carrying the reassigned teacher's salary for only 60 days. Quite a temptation indeed.

Finally, just plain "age discrimination" as many of these insecure Principals want to hire "young, newbie teachers" who don't question idiotic decisions. That is why the "rubber rooms" have a majority of teachers 50 years or older.

Every time I hear Chancellor Joel Klein state that he has a "children first" policy I can only laugh and say when does it help the children when you remove a quality teacher because of a Principal's dislike of the teacher. To me that is Principal first and children last.

The Good News Is The "Rubber Rooms" Are Closing. The Bad News Is That Teacher Due Process In The 3020-a Process Remains Unchanged

The demise of the "rubber room" is a great victory for all reassigned teachers, regardless how people feel about the union leadership and their exclusive (secretive) negotiating techniques. However, to claim it was a "pure win" for the reassigned teachers as a very respected blogger claims is quite an exaggeration. Nothing in this "rubber room agreement" makes the 3020-a process any more fair than before. Let's look at why the reassigned teacher still must deal with the unfairness of the 3020-a process.

Unfair Investigations:

There are no changes to how investigations are done. When a Principal goes after a teacher the final result is the teacher is removed. I have previously wrote about these unfair investigations Here, Here, and Here. An independent investigator would make this a fairer investigation and would require the teacher to fully participate in it.

No Consequences For "False Accusations":

The agreement does nothing to ensure that either the DOE or UFT go after administrators or students that were found to have given "false accusations" against a teacher, despite language to do just that in the previous "rubber room agreement". To date, no Administrator has been disciplined for giving "false accusations" against a teacher.

The Expansion Of The Hated & Unfair "Probable Cause" Provisions:

The awful "probable cause" provision was expanded to include violent assault. Despite Leo Casey's advocacy for this provision, mere hearsay is enough to get a teacher offline for up to three months. Now we are adding another accusation to remove more innocent teachers.

Shortening The 3020-a Hearing Process:

You might think that this is a good thing. However, there is real concern that the hearings, with their stringent timelines could pressure Arbitrators from hearing character witnesses for the teacher because of the requirement of meeting the timelines (teacher witnesses go last). The hasty hearing process may turn out to be unfair to the teacher.

Arbitrator Selection:

The NYC 3020-a process is inferior to the State 3020-a process because teachers do not have the right to refuse an Arbitrator (the State allows this). Furthermore, for incompetence cases, one Arbitrator, rather than a three Arbitrator panel is used to hear teacher incompetence cases. More about this issue can be found Here.

Overall, it was a win for the reassigned teachers but a "pure win"? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Thanks South Bronx for the use of your picture.