In A Winter Of Abnormal Warmth, A Cold Wind Blows On The New York City Teaching Profession. Thanks To The Governor & Mayor.

This winter has been one of the warmest winters on record, with New York City reporting only 3.5 inches of snow. However, for the teaching profession in New York City it has been a very cold winter indeed.

First, in December Mayor Bloomberg made a speech that if he could have his way, there would be half the teachers employed in the NYC schools and they would have class sizes of 70 students, Here.

Second, at the end of December the DOE and the union failed to agree on a teacher evaluation system due to teacher "due process rights". In reaction, Mayor Bloomberg decided to close an additional 33 transformation schools by using the federal "turnaround model". The result could be the removal of at least 50% of the teachers and a possibility of 3,000+ ATRs in the system next school year.

Third, in January, the DOE published the very flawed, out-of-date, and useless Teacher Data Reports" despite promising not to release them to the public. The newspapers had a field day identifying the "bad teachers" without understanding the errors the TDRs had. The result was a shaming and scapegoating teachers.

Fourth, in February, it now seems the NYS teacher evaluation system will require truant students to be part of a teacher's grade. This will result in low teacher grades and discriminates against schools in high poverty urban areas.

Finally, in March the State Regents Chancellor, Meryl Tisch, called the Mayor's "turnaround proposal" as politically motivated and not educationally sound.

While this winter was one of the warmest since records began in 1869, the cold winds of bogus education reform from the State and City just keep on blowing and freezing out the classroom teacher.

My Students' Perspective Of What The "Turnaround Model" Means To Them.

The rhetoric about closing 33 schools and reopening them using the "Turnaround model" is loud and becoming louder with the threats of a union and parent lawsuit to stop the politically tainted proposal. However, what nobody seems to care about is what is the student perspective? Not even the so-called student lobbyist, Governor Andrew Cuomo, ever bothered to ask the students how they felt about closing their schools mean, Therefore, in one of my classes I had time, after giving my students a test, to ask them how they feel about the fact the school will be closing and at least half the teachers will no longer be at the new school next year? The student responses were, to say, at the least, quite interesting. One of my struggling students told the class that most teachers don't care about him and so he doesn't care about the teachers, except for Mr. Chaz of course. However, thankfully most of the class felt differently. The next student told the class that she likes her teachers and that the teachers who will replace them may not know how to teach and that is bad. A boy also said the same thing, especially about the two new young teachers who he now has who can't teach or control his class. Most of the class hated to see the teachers leave. One female student expressed real concern about the teachers being fired. Apparently, this was the first time many of the students heard that their teachers could be fired and reacted badly about that possibility with shouts of f**k the DOE and Mayor Bloomberg. I explained to her and the class that their teachers who will not be back next year in the new school will not be fired but will still have a job, just not at the new school. Of course I didn't want to tell them that many of the teachers will end up as one of the 3,000+ ATRs. What a waste of talent and money. My statement seemed to reassure most of the class and I was quite astounded and pleased how these usually "me first teenagers" really had warm and caring feelings for their teachers.

I asked them if they could change the school, what would they do to improve it? The answers were essentially what I expected. First, they all agreed that the school should "kick out" the students who don't want to learn. Second, students should be suspended who are found walking the halls and not going to class. However, they seemed split on the clothes issue with many of the boys believing that droopy parents were appropriate while all the girls thought that the ones who have their underwear showing was disgusting. Of course all the students see no problem what the girls wore, no matter how revealing. Finally, they were mostly in agreement that the school should be more responsive to student issues such as a reasonable cellphone policy, lateness (many of the students travel long distances to the school) and most of all student activities after school which have been eliminated due to budget restrictions.

Interestingly, the student complaints were very similar to the teachers of the school when it came to student discipline. However, it was different when it came to clothes, cellphone use, and lateness with teachers wanting to restrict cellphone use to common areas (cafeteria, auditorium, etc) and having a zero-tolerance lateness policy since late arriving students disrupt classroom instruction. Teachers and students alike all agree that the school needed to restore many of the extracurricular activities that attracted good students to the school in the past. The bottom line is that the students don't like the "Turnaround model" if it means losing their favorite teachers" and especially true if the school discipline issues remain unchanged.

If the Governor, Commissioner, Mayor, Chancellor, and the DOE really want to implement their "children first" policy, then why not ask the students what is best for them?

The NYS Regents Chancellor, Meryl Tisch, Knows The Truth About Mayor Bloomberg's Turnaround Schools Proposal As Being Political, Not Educational.

Gotham Schools reported that New York State Regents Chancellor, Meryl Tisch, criticized Mayor Bloomberg's "turnaround" maneuver for the 33 schools as being not about the students. She further went on to say the City's "turnaround program" was a political and not educational policy.

This is the first time that a high level education official came out and called the Mayor's wrong-headed proposal to close 33 schools using the "turnaround program" is politically motivated and not educationally sound. The question is will Meryl Tisch's complaints move the New York State Education Department Commissioner and the Governor to pressure the City to reject the Mayor's politically motivated proposal? I would not hold my breath that the State will reject the Mayor's "turnaround proposal" even when it really hurts the students that they claim to advocate for.

The Mayor now realizes that his educational legacy is in shreds with bogus graduation rates, phony "credit recovery programs" and a failure to narrow the income/racial academic achievement gap. Therefore, his new idea is to close all the large comprehensive schools he can before he leaves Office. Just like his education Reformer friends, it is not what is good for the students but to demonize public education, make teachers the scapegoat for society's ills, while giving a pass to the 1% who look at education as a business. Marc Epstein said it best in his Huffington Post article which best lays out the sorry state of public school teacher bashing, especially in New York City.

In the Mayor's world it is "children last" always.

New York State's Teacher Evaluation System Is A Potential Death Sentence For Teachers Who Work In Urban Schools With High Poverty Students.

The State's "Teacher Evaluation System" is a flawed, untested, and a "work in progress". If that was not bad enough, it now seems that if the State gets its way, teachers will be held responsible for students who fail to attend school! That's right, if a student decides to be truant and fails to show up to school for a substantial part of the school year, the State's proposal is that the truant student's lack of academic progress will be part of the teacher's grade. Unbelievable, but unfortunately, true.

Interestingly, the UFT has remained silent on this "fatal flaw" in the State's "Teacher evaluation system". Even the union's defender of the faith, Leo Casey has ignored the student attendance issue. The question is did Leo Casey not understand this problem or decided not to alert the affected members of what can be a devastating evaluation of teachers who have no control of truant students but will have their scores affected by them? While the union may believe they can negotiate the student attendance issue with the DOE, the reality is that Tweed will insist in keeping the truant students as part of the teacher's score and they will have the State's own proposal to back them up. To the DOE this is a mighty weapon to get rid of teachers and they wiull not give it up without a long, hard fight.

The teachers most affected will be those teachers who have "high needs students" which includes the following cohorts:

• High poverty students.
• Academically & behaviorally challenged students .
• Special education & English Language Learners.
• Dysfunctional families and homelessness.

These academically challenged students are disproportionally found in schools in low income, minority communities throughout the City. By contrast, schools located in "Middle Class" communities like Bayside and Riverdale will have few, if any truancy problems and the teacher scores will not be affected. Moreover, the screened and specialized school teachers may end up with artificially higher scores since their schools attendance rates are usually 95% or higher. Furthermore, when the City schools attendance and truancy rates are compared to the more affluent suburbs, you can guess which teachers will score higher on the New York State "Teacher evaluation system".

The teachers' union in Buffalo has realized the scope of the problem and has publicly refused to come to an agreement with the City because of it. Why hasn't the UFT done the same?

I call on the union to make the student attendance issue a non-negotiable item. No teacher should be unfairly saddled with truant students. What's next? Should the teacher pick the students up at their home? Feed them? How about wiping their noises and taking them to the doctor? It is bad enough the City and State want to dump all the problems on the teachers but why is the union not standing up for the teachers on the student attendance issue?

Why The DOE's "Turnaround Policy" Is Doomed To Fail.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Mayor Bloomberg's threat to close 33 schools by using the "turnaround model" is going to happen unless the union files a lawsuit to block it. It matters little to the Mayor and the DOE that they are inappropriate in using the "turnaround model" in the manner proposed. However, in the event the Mayor's temper tantrum succeeds and the "turnaround does happen. How will these schools change? Probably for the worse.

First, and most importantly, the "turnaround schools" will keep the same students that are the reason the schools are closing in the first place. The same students who come from high poverty communities, dysfunctional families, have poor attendance, and suffer from serious academic & discipline problems will be retained. Unlike the new small schools that are able to eliminate these "high needs students", the 33 "turnaround schools" will not be able to do that. Furthermore, the same high percentage of "special education and English Language Learners" will still be part of the "turnaround school". Again, the new small schools are encouraged to limit the enrollment of these two groups. Remember, these large comprehensive high schools were the "dumping ground" for many struggling students who were excluded from the small schools that replaced their neighborhood high schools.

Second, while at least 50% of the experienced teaching staff will be removed from their "appointed positions", most of the "turnaround schools" can expect an influx of "newbie teachers" especially from alternate certification programs like "Teach for America" and the "Teaching Fellows" programs. Up to 40% of the staff will consists of instructors who don't know how to teach and have no idea of what classroom management is. I can just envision a 23 year old TFA from Yale University who, after a five week training course, is now facing the reality of how to lead students who don't want to learn and will not respect her. I pity the students who are the guinea pigs of the many "newbie teacher" who doesn't understand curriculum and has no classroom management skills. The result will be academic chaos.

Third, in conjunction with the faulty and flawed "teacher evaluation system" there will be little teacher collaboration, rather there will be teacher competition as all the teachers will "teach to the test" and refuse to take failing students from other teachers that can adversely affect their grade. For example, if a student is failing due to attendance, academic, and/or behavioral problems and the Administration wants to transfer the student from a struggling "newbie teacher" to an experienced teacher who may have more success with the student. The experienced teacher would have to be insane to accept the student, knowing it will affect his teacher grade. I know, I know, Mayor Bloomberg did say teacher experience does not count. However, the rest of the world knows better.

Finally, unless school discipline policies are changed, the "turnaround schools" are destined to fail. If the schools refuse to enforce stringent student discipline codes, then students will walk the halls, use their ipods & cellphones, and disrespect school staff without an consequences for their bad behaviors. Moreover, many of these schools fail to enforce student dress codes and allow inappropriate "thuggish" and "sexual" clothing. The always outspoken Sate Senator Eric Adams is usually sympathetic with the plight of the poor and minority communities. However, even he has seen enough and demands that schools take action on student discipline and enforcing reasonable dress codes.

When you simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, it still will not stop the ship from sinking and the same goes for the "turnaround schools".

Why Doesn't The News Media Challenge Mayor Bloomberg's False Claim That He Has Reduced The Student Achievement Gap By 50%?

In an "Education Now" meeting in Washington D.C. the Mayor falsely boasted that his Administration has reduced the student achievement gap by an astounding 50% and that proves that "Mayoral Control" is on the right path to improve the New York City Schools. However, except for various education critics, the news media accepted the Mayor's false conclusions without question.

The Mayor falsely claimed that under his Administration the student achievement gap between "Asians & Whites" and "Blacks & Latinos" was narrowed by 50%. Yet not one newspaper or local network reporter questioned the Mayor's absolutely false and self-serving statement. Instead, the news media simply reported the Mayor's false boasts without checking it for accuracy. Is this simply incompetent journalism, or something much worse? Like being the Mayor's propaganda mouthpiece?

• The reality about the student achievement gap is that it has hardly budged since the Mayor took office. In the Gotham Schools Community, Aaron Pallas, in his "Emperor's New Close" showed what the real changes were between the achievement gap for "Asians & Whites" and "Blacks & Latinos". Since 2003 Mr. Pallas found that using the New York State tests for grades three through eight that the achievement gap narrowed by just 1% not 50%. Maybe the Mayor was talking about the "gold standard of the federal NAEP test" that tested fourth through eighth graders? Sorry, Mr. Pallas found that the achievement gap between "Asians & Whites" and "Blacks & Latinos" actually increased by 3%! What about the high school students? I wrote a column that showed the large and growing larger racial achievement gap in SAT scores between the two groups since 2007 Here. Worse, the racial achievement gap is wider in New York City than in other large cities and in some cases actually doubled Here. Unbelievable, that the Mayor can blatantly lie and not be challenged by the news media.

I guess that the news media rather bash and shame teachers than print the disturbing truth that the Mayor's education policies are failing, just like their media journalists who fail to independently investigate the false claims by the Mayor and his poodle the Chancellor.

The New "Credit Recovery Rules" Should Result In Schools Releasing More Realistic Graduation Rates" Starting Next Year. At Least I Hope So?

Quietly,during winter break, the DOE released new rules on the "credit recovery program". These rules will put a major crimp in many schools who rely on their bogus "credit recovery program" that result in an artificially high graduation rate.

Thanks to the always informative Jeff Kaufman, the actual rules are found on page 23 in the Feburary 23, 2012 DOE paper. I have been told the revised "credit recovery program" has three major components that schools failed to apply when they offered "credit recovery" to just about every student they can push out of the school. The three major changes are as follows.

• Students must have at least a 67% subject attendance rate to qualify.

• Teachers must recommend the student for the "credit recovery program".

• Students can only earn three credits in core courses based on the use of "credit recovery".

Furthermore, the "credit recovery program" must consists of real instruction not the phony three page essay or a trip to a museum, with no proof that the student actually went. Remember this story? If that doesn't outrage you, How about this story? More recently, is the story of ex-Principal Sharron Smalls. Now "credit recovery" will consist of intensive and targeted instruction by a teacher and online courses must come from an approved DOE vendor that demonstrated the online course is rigorous and meets State and City educational requirements. It still is possible that a school committee could overrule a teacher's recommendation but must document why and put their own positions at risk if the students should not have received "credit recovery".

I believe that this is what a real "credit recovery program" should be. However, many principals will do whatever it takes to artificially increase the graduation rates by any means possible. Remember this outrageous action by the Jamaica High School Principal? Therefore, the only problem I see is what happens when school principals ignore the new DOE rules and allow for the bogus "credit recovery program" to continue? Will the DOE actually enforce the "credit recovery rules" and punish the principals? Only time will tell.

Why Schools Fail. The Answer Is The "Broken Window" Theory.

.
.

Under the Bloomberg Administration approximately 115 schools have closed down with more expected to close in the next few years. The Mayor is well on his way to destroy the remnants of the large comprehensive high schools and claim victory as the many students suffer with limited choices of classes and extracurricular activities in the small and charter schools that replaced them, and worse of all, his failure to improve the career and college readiness of the students of the City.

The question is why did so many of these schools fail and close? The answer rests squarely at the door of the DOE and their student discipline policy that allows principals to dictate to the staff the "do's and dont's" on how they can discipline unruly and disruptive students. In many schools the principals put up roadblocks for teachers to effectively discipline students who also fear that any altercation with a student could result in the teacher being disciplined and subject to a 3020-a termination hearing. According to the Tweed Taliban, any teacher who tries to discipline a child can by accused of "corporal punishment or verbal abuse" and many a teacher have been brought up on these charges by a student or an Administrator. Therefore, teachers are reluctant and fearful in trying to discipline a student since it could cost them their job. The result is academic child abuse as these unruly students disrupt the classroom with their behaviors.

The failure of a school to handle student discipline problems can only cause a deterioration of the academic environment . Just like a community, if the community allows the "little things" to go unchallenged, like public drinking, smoking weed, urinating in public, or sidewalk gambling, the neighborhood deteriorates and crime increases as many families keep their small children inside. This is known as the "broken window theory" which states that if windows are broken and not repaired, the surrounding neighborhood deteriorates as people give up maintaining their homes and community, which in turn, attracts an unfriendly and undesirable element to the neighborhood which further worsens the problems associated with the deterioration.

Back to the schools, many of the large comprehensive schools were targeted by the Bloomberg Administration by steering many students with behavioral issues to these schools. The principals of these schools, rather than nip any problems in the bud by suspensions, or even arrests when necessary, looked the other way least they land on the State's "most dangerous schools list". In the more extreme cases a school like Hillcrest hardly ever reports incidents and were rewarded by the DOE as a "safe school" which is a subject of ridicule by the staff at that school. The principals developed a ladder of referral that requires Administrative intervention only when a student threatened a teacher with physical harm, throws furniture, or has a weapon. In all other cases, the teacher is required to handle the problem, at their own peril.
The result is that students walk the halls, show up to class late, curse at the teacher, or use their cellphones to text message their friend rather than doing their work. The result is that the other students see little consequence to misbehavior and just like a "broken window" that does not get fixed, they too start to lose academic focus. This finally shows up in the academic achievement of the school and a target for the Bloomberg Administration to add to the number of closing schools.

In summary if a window breaks, you promptly fix it to keep the neighborhood from deteriorating. The same goes for a school, if the Administration fails to enforce student discipline and dumps responsibility but not the authority on the teachers, you can expect a deterioration of the academic environment of the school and target the school for closure.

My Suggestion On How To Use A Simple "Value Added Formula" That Would Work For Teachers Who Are Teaching NYS Regents Subjects.

I am a Science teacher with an extensive background in Math and when I looked at the overly complex"value- added mathematical formula" used for the teacher data reports (TDR) and it can give one a real headache. (If you want to see what the teacher TDR "value-added formula" is, you can find it here). Obviously, there is tremendous wiggle room to apply different values for the various error-prone assumptions in the formula. While my fellow blogger JD2715 can figure it out, for the rest of us it is simply "fuzzy math" that turns our brains to mold. Is it any wonder that the "value-added formula" is considered a joke since the average error factors can be so large that a teacher rated "average" can really be rated either high or low. For example let's say that a English teacher is rated 50 (average) by the TDR but the error factor is 53%. Therefore, the teacher could be rated as low as 23.5 (below average) or 76.5 (above average). If we were to use the maximum error of 87% the teacher could be rated as low as 6.5 (the very bottom) or as high as 93.5 (the very top). This does not even account for all the error-prone factors for students that, in many cases, don't reflect reality. Is it any wonder that real educators find the teacher TDR values useless and does not show whether the teacher is realty "effective"?

While I do not want my union to negotiate with the DOE until the awful Mayor Bloomberg is no longer in office, I do suggest that the 20% of standardized test should come from the New York State Regents if we must have a "teacher evaluation system". What I recommend is that in the second week of September all teachers who are teaching classes that end with a June Regents will give all their students the previous June Regents to determine the baseline. Once, the students take the Regents at the end off the year, the two scores will be compared to determine the "value-added" for the teachers. This formula is much simpler and a more accurate indicator of how much the teacher actually added to the student learning. For example, lets say that student "A" received a 35% on the previous June Regents and achieved a 75% in the end of the year Regents. The teachers "value-added" grade for student "A" would be 40 (out of as total grade of 100). In other words, the teacher "value-added" number does not need to account for various assumptions. However, ESL and Special education students will need to be graded differently since my simple "value-added formula" may not be appropriate without some additional studies dealing with these special cohorts. My "value added formula" is as follows.

Value-added = (Post test) - (Pre test).

The only decision is how to determine the "cut scores" and that can be set based upon simple cohort analysis. Is my recommendation the perfect answer to teacher effectiveness? Of course not but it is simpler, better, and not subject to the error-prone assumptions the DOE used for the teacher TDRs and the potential that a similar complicated mathematical formula will be used for the "teacher evaluation process".

The UFT Needs To Stop Negotiating With The City & The DOE On Any "Teacher Evaluation System" Until Mayor Bloomberg Is Out Of Office.

Amid the public fiasco of the publishing of the inaccurate and error-filled teacher TDRs and the admission by the New York State Education Department (SED) that present state law will allow teacher grades to be made public, the UFT needs to cease any negotiations dealing with the "teacher evaluation system" and anything else with the City until Mayor Bloomberg leaves office. When will the UFT understand that dealing with the devil only gets you burned? Already today Gotham News reported that the City has started to proceed with the "Turnaround" for 33 schools even if the State SED does not approve of the City's proposal. A potential increase of 1,750 ATRs and another waste of $100 million dollars.

This Mayor has led the attack against New York City teachers by scapegoating them time and again and blaming them for all the ills that affect the New York City Public School System. He takes no responsibility for the lack of academic achievement, increasing class sizes, reduced resources, and outrageous consultant and technology budgets that starve the schools and hurt the children. Instead of fixing what is wrong with the schools, the Bloomberg Administration plays politics with his closing schools proposal. and seems to enjoy in humiliating teachers. Why would our union want to negotiate anything with this Mayor who scapegoat teachers for his failed education reform polices? Let's look at what his failures has been.

• Failure to improve student academic achievement and narrowing the gap.
  
• Bogus "graduation rates" aided by phony "credit recovery" programs.
  
• Creating 1,000 ATRS who should be teaching in a classroom.
• The infamous LIFO bill that failed to pass in the State Assembly.
• Closing of schools and warehousing struggling students in targeted schools.
• His refusal to give teachers & administrators the "city pattern" contract.
• Rising class sizes and less teachers in the system (8,000).
• Significant shrinking of school budgets (13.7% in the last three years).

I beg our union to cease all negotiations with the City and DOE until Mayor Bloomberg is out of office since any agreement will be bad for teachers and worse for the students they serve.

Humiliating Teachers By Publishing Their Scores Based Upon Faulty Tests, Will Result In An Exodus Of Teachers And Hurt Student Academic Achievement.

The news media has had a field day in attacking New York City teachers by publishing their bogus TDR's despite the large errors associated with them. The errors associated with these TDRs are so large (53 for English and 35 for Math) that makes the TDRs meaningless. Worse, the maximum TDR error was calculated to be to be 87 for English and 75 for Math, yet the news media think these numbers actually mean something. Furthermore, the latest school year used for the TDRs was for 2009-10, almost two years ago. Yet the News media has jumped on the teacher bashing bandwagon by publishing articles like this. Now that all teachers will be receiving a numerical grade for their evaluations starting next year, look for the news media to FOIL the scores of every teacher in the State since a precedent has been set. Yes, the UFT and NYSUT claim that these numbers cannot be FOILED but don't count on that to be true.

Imagine, all teacher scores, which are a work in progress, will now be published by the local newspapers and open up the educators to ridicule and shame despite the flawed, and questionable assumptions used in the score. Just look at today's New York Post.The result will be that many teachers will flee the profession and as the economy recovers, there will be few people who will want to work as a teacher, knowing that their grades will be published for all to see. What sane person would work in this "climate of fear"? Look at the great article that nyc educator wrote about this issue. Better yet, read the article that Carol Corbett Burns wrote
about the consequences to students in poor and resource starved school districts.

It is hard enough being a teacher, now it will be worse as we will be"teaching to the test", try to select students based upon attendance, and behaviors, tutor only our own students, and refuse to accept difficult students from other classes, least we get artificially low scores and be humiliated in the media. More importantly, look for an increase in cheating as teachers look the other way while their students copy off each other. I guess Mayor Bloomberg will eventually get his way as the New York City teaching profession will be a low-paying, temporary position with very few getting tenure and only a select few actually getting a pension while the children that need "experienced quality teachers" will never get them and suffer academically.

Has The UFT Leadership Failed Us Again? I Believe They Have!

I have been trying to absorb all the information about the pros and cons of the "teacher evaluation system" and believe that the final product will result in a tremendous increase in teachers being rated "ineffective" and eventually terminated. In particular, I see senior teachers being the ones most at risk as they are when it came to the ATR issue. While it is true what union propagandist, Leo Casey, said in his Edwize article that much of the "teacher evaluation system" needs to be "collectively bargained" with the union before it can take effect, the reality is the union will allow the DOE to effectively eliminate tenure as we know it.

Reading Leo Casey's defense of the union's approval of the "teacher evaluation system" reminds me of his infamous defense of the terrible 2005 contract that he tried to convince us was good for the classroom teachers. History has showed otherwise. Rather than go into detail of the faults of the "teacher evaluation system", please read Accountable Talk, the ICEUFT blog, and nyc educator. I might add that many New York State Principals oppose the use of the "teacher evaluation system". Why would our union and NYSUT cave in to an obviously flawed system?

I will blog more about the specifics of the "teacher evaluation system" as I digest all the information and try to come out with a more reasoned analysis that links everything together.

The "Teacher Evaluation System" Is A Win For The State, City, and Union. However, the Losers Are The Teachers And The Students.

The approval of the "teacher evaluation system" has been hailed by the State and City as a success and will allow principals to grade teachers in four categories, "highly effective", "effective", "developing", and yes, the all important "ineffective" rating. The union also congratulated themselves by ensuring that some semblance of "due process" was retained in the agreed upon version. At least for the 13% that the union chooses to fight for. However, to the teachers in the trenches it is the beginning of the end for teachers who want to make a career of teaching and believe that a student should be exposed to "total learning". Instead, teachers will be teaching to the test, trying to recruit the "best students" (no attendance, behavioral, or academically challenged students wanted), and instead of collaborating with fellow teachers to help all the students in the subject area, look to them as competitors which can only hurt the most needy of students.

The fact the all the education reformers, even those "fifth columnists at E4E" praised the deal is proof enough the "teacher evaluation system," is terrible for the classroom teacher. Worse, will be the effects on the students, instead of being taught about a topic and provide enrichment to make the learning of the topic interesting and understandable the student will be subject to endless test preparation and get to dislike school as boring and unbearable. Instead of a total learning experience, these students will receive a narrowly focused education linked to questionable tests that will not allow for real student academic growth. Finally, the lack of teacher collaboration means that students who are being taught by struggling teachers will not be able to receive help from the other teachers since the "teacher evaluation system" pits one teacher against another. No longer will a teacher offer to tutor other teachers students knowing that if she succeeds in improving his academic standing, it could work against her when that student's improvement will be credited to his classroom teacher who is then compared to the teacher's own students.

This "teacher evaluation system" will lower, the already low teacher morale, force a destructive competition between teachers, and eliminate collaboration between colleagues, necessary to help all the students. The losers are truly the teachers and their students with this untested, poorly organized, and potentially abusive procedure that will leave both teachers and their students behind.

The Failure To Enforce Student Discipline Codes By The Administration Is The Main Cause Why Schools Fail.

I am in a Transformation/Restart school and am treated very well by the AP who is willing to ignore my lack of technology in my lesson plans. Yes, I know how to use the technology but I am in three rooms and two floors and refuse to lug around equipment that takes 10 minutes or more to set up, However, the Bloomberg threat to eliminate up to 50% of the teaching staff has caused the already low morale to plummet to a level that is affecting the students. I already have had some of my students ask me if I will really be here for the rest of the school year and are worried that they will get teachers who never taught in the classroom next year. One student told her classmates in my class about a "newbie" teacher that she had this year who can't teach and quit two weeks ago, leaving the students knowing little and with day to day substitute teachers. The school caught a real break, they just hired an excellent teacher from the ATR ranks and my student thinks he is great.

While teacher morale is at an all time low, the real problem is the lack of enforced student discipline at the school. This school has expanded their student body greatly by taking many students who have questionable academic skills and documented behavioral problems. These students tend to walk the halls, walk into the classroom way late and refuse to do any work when they do show up. Some will tell the classroom teacher to "shut up" when the teacher asks the student to open his or her notebook. Others are using their cellphone or Ipad and ignore the teacher. Cursing out a teacher is not a rare event and if the student does not actually threaten the teacher, the Administration looks the other way. I suspect that many of the Transformation/Restart schools suffer from the same problems with the Administration's failure to support student discipline codes and bury their heads in the sand of denial. Even a once great school like Martin Van Buren is failing due to the poor school Administration. Moreover, the failure of the screened and small schools to take these students worsen the situation.

Since the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration wants to close all the Transformation/Restart schools and keep the existing student body, it would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic but far worse as the "newbie teachers" who take over will be in for a culture shock and quit in droves during the school year, even further destabilizing these once great schools and hurting the students the Administration claims to care so much about in their "children last" program.

The Bloomberg/Walcott Administration's Goal Is For Everybody To Get A High School Diploma, Even A Dog Could By Using The Bogus Online Programs.

The Bloomberg/Walcott Administration continues to destroy the New York Public Schools by using any means possible to close the large comprehensive high schools by warehousing the most vulnerable of students with high educational needs in those schools and then blame the schools for failing the already failing students dumped into these schools. Now, the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration is expanding online education, be it bogus "credit recovery programs" or a "school of one". Soon all who reach high school will be getting a high school diploma. Even the DOE's Lisa Nielsen advocates online learning using the IZONE and wrote a guide for high school students on how to opt out of school and use online learning at home. All these programs use technology as a crutch and not an aid for learning. Worse, these programs are subject to abuse as there is little oversight to ensure the student is actually doing the work.

That brings me to the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration's goal to achieve a 100% graduation rate by the time they are booted out of office. While the 100% graduation rate is a worthy goal, it should not be at the expense of real learning and with the rapid explosion of online course work, that is what is happening. The Administration must have received inspiration from the State of Texas as they awarded a dog who took online courses with a high school diploma. Quite a smart dog I say, I'm sure the dog did her classwork all by herself too, just like all the students who take those online courses that has shot up all over the New York City school system. If that is not enough, the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration can send these students who are obviously not prepared for work or college here. Of course, to my knowledge no dog or cat for that matter have received a high school diploma in NYC but the potential of abuse of the online learning process is real and makes most educators wonder if the City only cares about awarding diplomas without proof that the student achieved academic success necessary to survive the adult world.

In the Bloomberg/Walcott Administration anybody taking online courses can earn a worthless high school diploma, even a dog, as what happened in Texas. The education Mayor claim is just a sick joke in his failed "smoke and mirrors" education policy.

I Believe That High School Student Opinions Should Be Part Of Any "Teacher Evaluation System". Why Doesn't the DOE, State, and UFT Advocate For It?

In the battle between the DOE and UFT over the "teacher evaluation system", neither side advocates one of the most important aspects of what makes a "quality teacher". That is what the students think of their teacher? While I understand that student input at the elementary and middle school level would be heavily influenced by the teacher and would not be an appropriate group to make a teacher evaluation. However, high school students usually have the maturity to make rational decisions and are not afraid to speak their mind. Therefore, any part of the "teacher evaluation process" should include input from high school students. Governor Andrew Cuomo claims he will be the "student lobbyist" but he also has ignored any student input into the "teacher evaluation process" he threatens to implement, some "student lobbyist" ! Further, the DOE claims it is "children first" but they too ignore student input about their teachers as well. Only those fifth columnists from E4E has included a student input into the "teacher evaluation process" and that would be a minuscule 5%. I believe that for the high schools, the minimum student input should be 25% since these students are with the teacher 45 minutes every day. Wouldn't these students have a better idea about how good their teacher is? Having Assistant Principals do six observations yearly using a framework that can be abused or perverted and a State test that is of questionable value as the basis of wherever a teacher is "effective or not" is subject to abuse of the process by the Administration. Even 1,330 Principals, 30% of all New York State principals, have signed a petition to delay the "teacher evaluation system". Unfortunately, very few New York City Principals have signed the petition, about 10%.

The question is why don't the various education entities want to include student input in the "teacher evaluation system" is very clear. The student input portion cannot be predicted by any of them and would reduce Administrative control of the "teacher evaluation process". For example let's say a teacher tends to run a relaxed classroom, so that occasionally a student is looking at her cellphone or another student is not writing down all his notes. However, the teacher gets higher passing grades on tests and the students respond well to her teaching style. An Assistant Principal, using the "Danielson Framework" could find numerous weaknesses of the teacher. However, the students really like and respect the teacher and it shows up on their grades. Without the student input the Assistant Principal could reasonably give the teacher an "ineffective or developing" grade, despite her students doing well on tests. With a student input component, the Assistant Principal would be required to give the teacher an "effective" rating. Of course the opposite may be true and that is a risk that every teacher should be aware of.

What questions should be asked in the student survey about their teachers and what percentage of student responses in a class would be considered significant would need to be worked out. However, without real student input, the "teacher evaluation system" will be based upon a few observations by Administrators who can abuse the "Danilson framework" to come up with any rating that want.

Does The DOE Really Dump "Low Achieving Students" Into The Large Struggling Schools? You Better Believe That They Do!

I am now in one of those large struggling schools that Mayor Bloomberg has threatened to make a "turnaround school" and eliminate 50% or more of the teaching staff. However, unlike the real "closing schools" the Mayor and his poodle the Chancellor wants to retain the students and the Administration, To me it appears to be a bluff or a sham. I personally don't believe he can do this and if he tried it will probably end up in court. The real question is how did these schools end up struggling in the first place? Much of the cause can be blamed on the DOE's policy that eliminated neighborhood high schools and that allows many of the small and themed schools to exclude students with disabilities, attendance issues, and behavior problems forcing these already struggling students to travel long distances to schools that already struggle with an increasingly challenged student population.

My school is located in Northern Queens and mass transit to the school is somewhat limited. However, when I was going over the address lists of my students I was shocked how many of them came from far Southeastern Queens. I even had one from Far Rockaway! Not surprisingly many of these students travel two hours or longer to get to school and are having trouble academically achieving success. I wonder why? I spoke to two of those students, I will call them "Jack and Jill". They informed me that none of the small schools at Campus Magnet and Springfield Gardens would accept them. "Jack" admitted to me that he hung around with the "wrong crowd" and didn't show up to the middle school all the time and his grades reflected it. "Jill" told me that she was an 'English Language Learner" in middle school and she had a tough time learning English and was placed in an English speaking class with only a hour of language training a week. Therefore, she did poorly on tests. I'm sure if I asked the others, the ones who show up, I would get similar responses. "Jack's" mother even went to the local District Office when no school selected him and was told to reapply to the large high schools in Queens since that was his best chance and he ended up traveling over two hours each way, to get to school. "Jill's" parents simply did as was told by her middle school and she ended in a school that makes her take two buses and a train and takes almost two hours to get to school. Is it any wonder that many of these children are sleepy, tired, frustrated, and feel abandoned by the school system? What responsible entity forces struggling students who had problems in their middle schools to travel long distances and in the dark just to go to a high school that accepts them? Yet that is what the DOE does as they eliminated zoning for the neighborhood high schools and sentenced many of the most vulnerable students to long commutes and dangerous conditions just to get an education.

I am sick and tired of hearing and reading the propaganda on how the Bloomberg /Walcott Administration is improving the schools when the truth is quite the opposite. In fact, they are leaving many struggling students behind. While the DOE's slogan may say "children first" their actions show that the all the struggling children are being left behind in their "children last" policy.

The Dark Underside Of The U.S. Jobs Report & The Future Of The National And The New York City Teaching Profession.

On Friday, there was a surprising and very encouraging economic jobs report that appears to show that the United States economy was starting the upward part of the economic "U curve". The stock market rose to three year highs and the fears of the "double dip recession" appears to be over. However, most of the increased jobs came from three lower wages areas. Health care, retail, and hospitality & leisure. What still remained flat was the middle class professions such as technology, teaching, and financial services. Only professional positions to show gains were accounting and engineering. The public sector work force continued to decline with a reduction of 14,000 jobs countrywide. This increases the total public employment job loss to 276,000 since last year, excluding education and the postal service.

The latest numbers for eduction showed a loss of 24,400 teaching positions nationwide this school year and since hiring and layoffs occur during the summer, no real change is anticipated until the summer of 2012. Many Long Island School Districts expect additional layoffs for the 2012-13 school year and that assumes the State does not renege on anticipated increases in school aid, something the State has done over the years. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg's new budget spares teacher layoffs for the 2012-13 school year. However, he will not replace teachers who will leave the system at year end. Since the projected "attrition rate" is usually 2,500 and could be even higher as many teachers are refused tenure and leave the City schools in frustration. In the Mayor's goal to reduce the number of teachers and increase class sizes, he has already achieved a reduction of 8,000 teachers in the last three years and with at least another 2,500 teachers leaving the system and not replaced, look for that number to approach or even exceed 11,000 or 14% of the 2008 teaching force while the NYC student population continues to increase.

Throughout the nation teaching positions are being eliminated as education is being squeezed with all public employment. Even in a recession proof State like Texas almost every school district experience significant teacher layoffs with 10,000 teaching positions gone this school. year and last due to "layoffs and attrition". Overall, over the last three years nationwide 280,000 education jobs have been eliminated and more are expected for the next school year.

Back to New York City, look for the number of teachers to be further reduced due to "attrition" until Bloomberg is out of office in January of 2014 or 697 days from now. That means one more year of the Mayor increasing class sizes before the nightmare is over in his "children last" policy.

Teacher Morale Is At A New Low As The Bullies, Cuomo, Bloomberg, King, And Walcott Try To Destroy The Teaching Profession.

One of the slogans that go around schools is "stop bullying". Posters, advertisements, and even the WWE superstar wrestlers have commercials that condemn "bullying". However, over the last couple of years Governor Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, SED Commissioner King, and Chancellor Walcott have been trying to "bully" the teacher unions (NYSUT & UFT) in their attempt to break the unions. You can even add President Obama and his education head, Arnie Duncan, to the list of "bullies".

The Governor has threatened to withhold school aid increases if the school districts fail to implement his very flawed and untested "teacher evaluation system". Moreover, the Governor has threatened to implement his own "teacher evaluation system" if the unions and the school districts cannot agree to a process. He even told NYSUT to drop their lawsuit which a State judge upheld when the Governor's ill-advised decision to increase the "teacher evaluation system" to include a 40% testing requirement. His SED Commissioner, King has already withdrawn $58 million from New York City and $69 million from the rest of the State when the school districts and the unions failed to implement an approved "teacher evaluation system" that would destroy teacher tenure.

Mayor Bloomberg has made no secret of his contempt for the New York City teaching profession and how he would just love to destroy the UFT. Furthermore, his ideal teaching force would be half the teachers with class sizes reaching 70 students! Moreover, the Mayor's goal is to have a young and replaceable teaching staff that would never be tenured or vested for a pension. His contempt for teachers has resulted in the City failing to negotiate a contract with the teachers union and a continuing demand to impose a time limit on the ATRs that his hand-picked previous Chancellor, Joel Klein, created in the first place. His present Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, simply is the Mayor's pet poodle and whines about needing "exceptional teachers" but fails to define what "exceptional is. Rather than sit down with the UFT on a use of an independent Arbitration process his representatives walk out of talks and wants Commissioner King to approve the DOE proposal without union input. Just unbelievable but that is what bullies do when they don't get their way.

Now the Mayor wants to take 33 restart/transformation schools to become "turnaround schools" and create nearly 4,000 ATRs list costing the City $300 million annually. The morale in the teaching workforce is terrible and getting worse as teachers believe they are under attack and dread the "gotcha system" that the DOE wants to impose on the teaching workforce. Except for those fifth columnists at E4E and their naive TFA followers (a couple of hundred at best), teachers realize that once you are over 40 and make $75,000 annually, you are a target for the DOE.

The DOE motto really is that "the beatings will continue until morale improves". In their "children last" policy.

The "Peer Effect" And DOE's Setting Up Targeted High Schools For Failure.

The Bill Gates sponsored MRDC study has once again falsely claimed that Bloomberg's small schools outperformed the closed large school they replaced. However, if one looks closely at the data the MRDC used to demonstrate their conclusions, you can find some very obvious flaws in the study.

First, and I must say most importantly, is the "peer effect". In the closed and closing high schools the DOE has been and are "warehousing" students with disabilities and self-contained special education students into these schools. Even the State Regents Chancellor, Meryl Tisch, has said as much here. When you put a significant amount of special needs students, especially ones with behavior and attendance issues, it will destabilize the school. Even the "good students" will realize that the school is becoming an unsafe and non-stable environment and start acting up as well. The impact of the "peer effect" on teenagers is a given and when a school gets too many struggling students, it will affect the student body. The study by NYC Community for Change shows this when it came to the self-contained students. Table 1 in the report found that the closed schools averaged almost 12% self-contained students of the school's student population while the small schools that replaced them averaged less than 4%! Moreover, under Chancellor Joel Klein these small schools were allowed to exclude special needs students in the school's first two years as policy during the 2005-2009 school years.

Second, many of the small schools have small class sizes, while the closed and targeted high schools are programed for 34 students, the contractual limit. Even many education reformers admit that class size does matter. Some of the principals of the more successful small schools have credited their academic achievement to small class sizes.

Third, the eighth grade attendance figures between the students going to the closed high schools and the small schools show a 10% difference for the class of 2006, with the lower figure at the soon to be closed high schools. That means that the small schools used attendance as a means to determine which student to select.

Fourth, the Annenberg Study debunks the assumptions used to justify the MRDC study and questions the success of these small schools. More information can be found on the NYC Public School Parents blog here.

Finally, the so called "unscreened small schools" are really screened. They ask for the student's grades, attendance and want recommendations from teachers and Administrators. Jennifer Jennigs reported this in her observations at three of these schools.

My observations revealed that many schools used applications, mandatory information sessions, and much stronger language to deter unwanted applicants. For example, 12 unscreened schools shared a similar application requiring that students provide the most recent report card and two letters of recommendation, one from an eighth-grade teacher and one from a guidance counselor, assistant principal, or principal. The application also asked for the student’s test scores, retention history, and involvement in advanced courses during the eighth grade. Finally, the application included additional questions requiring a narrative response….

The district’s application system provided opportunities for unscreened schools to choose higher achieving students. Through this computer system, each school received a list of students applying to the school, although the school did not know whether the student ranked it, for example, 1st or 12th. ….

In conclusion, the Bloomberg/Wallcott small schools are not a success that they falsely claim but a result of steering and "warehousing" the most difficult of students into closing and struggling schools. It is like comparing "apples and oranges". It is time the media exposed this travesty. For the DOE it is "children last"...always.