The Racial Gap Fails To Close - DOE's Children Last Program Continues

The DOE propaganda machine continues their spin on how they are improving minority student achievement. However, a national study by the Schott Foundation For Public Education has shown that the racial gap is not closing. Especially for the black male student. The New York Post reported that the percentage of black males that graduate from high school was only 32% in New York City while the white male student graduation rate was was 57%. New York City ranked a dismal 54th compared to the 67 large school districts surveyed. That means only 13 school districts ranked worse than NYC in the black male graduation rate. A quote by the president of the research group that did the study is quite telling.

"When you have a 32 percent graduation rate you're talking about the largest cadre of black male dropouts in the country - so it's a significant issue in New York."

Of course, the Kleinberg administration will tell us otherwise. They will claim that their policies are closing the racial gap and will continue to do so. I guess Tweed doesn't include black male students in their analysis. Interestingly, the research group complained about the availability and reliability of data from NYC in the footnotes of their report, when compared to the rest of the Nation. I guess when you spin statistics like Tweed does, it becomes difficult for organizations to obtain transparent and accurate data.

The Kleinberg "children last" program continues unchallenged in the New York City Public Schools.

The Two-Faced DOE Propaganda Machine

During the Kleinberg administration the two-faced DOE propaganda machine has been working in overdrive as they have presented to the outside world how well they are improving the NYC public schools and if only they could rid themselves of Teacher tenure, they could achieve even better results. Tweed has spun statistics, lacks transparency on allocations, and ignore teacher input as they present their two-faced policy on the city schools. Let's look at the Tweed spin machine and the truth of what is going on in the NYC public schools.

1. Student improvement: - The DOE has trumpeted the alleged improvement in student scores from the increasingly dumbed down State test where every State district did better. The reality is that the NAEP and SAT scores have remained unchanged since the Kleinberg administration took over the schools.
2. Overcrowding & Large Class Sizes : - The DOE has stated time and again that they are addressing the overcrowding situation & large class sizes. They have also stated that large class sizes is not a problem for student learning. The reality is that many of the attractive public schools are grossly overcrowded, some having three times their capacity. In addition, NYC has the highest class sizes in the State. All independent studies show that the smaller the class size, the better the learning environment.
   
3. Quality Teaching: - The DOE claims that they want quality teachers in the classroom. The reality is that many principals are hiring newbies and many of them from "TFA" and the "Teaching Fellows" program. Few of these teachers last the five years necessary to master the classroom environment and become a quality teacher.
4. Recruitment Over Retention: - The DOE has spent time, money, and effort in recruiting teachers to the schools by intergalactic advertisements, giving tuition reimbursement, and rent subsidies. However, no such programs are available for teachers already in the system. Is it any wonder that over 4,600 teachers resigned in 2007? Look for it to be higher this year.
   
5. Teacher Respect: - The DOE claims that they respect Teachers and that they give the classroom teacher the support they need. The reality is that Tweed fosters an atmosphere of teacher disrespect. How many teachers have found themselves teaching in trailers in overcrowded schools? Have inadequate supplies and support? Why is there n ATR crises? Overcrowded "rubber rooms"? Teacher respect? Not in the Kleinberg administration.
6. Small Schools: - The DOE claims that small schools work and add to student improvement. However, the DOE allows the small schools to select the incoming student body and is allowed to exempt special education and ELA students for the first couple of years. In addition, they usually don,t take level 1 students who have attendance and disciplinary problems. Little wonder that the first few graduating classes have good results, when compared to the large comprehensive high schools. The reality is that these small schools are usually run by a "Leadership Academy Principal" with little classroom experience and they make a point of selecting inexperienced and inexpensive teachers to run the classrooms. Further, once the small schools are required to take the very students that they excluded when they formed, their graduation rates will reflect it.
7. Large Comprehensive High Schools: - The DOE claims that it is to the advantage of the student to break down the large comprehensive high school into smaller /charter schools. The reality is that if the Large Comprehensive High School works, they grossly overcrowd it. If not, they allow the bottom feeders and the students excluded from the small schools to hasten the destruction of the school. What is left unsaid by the DOE is that the large comprehensive high school has a wide variety of courses, majors, and extracurricular activities, unavailable to the small/charter schools.
8. Charter Schools: - The DOE claims the Charter Schools do much better than the neighborhood schools. However, they fail to mention that all Charter Schools have a parent interview and involvement program. Therefore, only those parents that bother to apply and agree to help the school have their children accepted. THE REALITY IS COMPARING CHARTER SCHOOLS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL IS LIKE COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES!
   

The two-faced DOE propaganda program needs to be blunted at every turn and the truth exposed.

What Is A False Accusation By An Administrator?

The UFT has championed the new agreement as a "win" for the teachers. However, I and many others beg to differ. This agreement is not a win for the teachers. Far from it, it's the UFT spinning it for the sake of saving face. Let's look at one of the unenforceable agreements that the UFT negotiated with the DOE, "false accusations by administrators".

One of the "wins" that the UFT claims in it's unenforceable agreement with the DOE is that the DOE will take disciplinary action against an administrator for knowingly making a "false accusation" against a teacher. Sounds good. Finally, the DOE will take action against administrators that make "false allegations". Right? Wrong! The key world here is knowingly! The DOE regulations state that a complainant made in "good faith" even if found to be unsubstantiated, will not be considered a "false accusation". To prove a knowingly "false accusation" is nearly impossible, based upon the DOE regulations. Let's take a couple of examples on why this is true. Note: The three cases below are a composite of various cases told to me and are not actual cases.

Example 1: A very popular teacher who also is not well-liked by an administrator, due to personal reasons, is taken out of the classroom as rumors circulate that the teacher is having an inappropriate relationship with a student. After an SCI investigation the rumor is unsubstantiated and a year later the teacher is sent back to the school. Is this a "false accusation"? The answer is no. According to the DOE regulations the Principal acted in "good faith" and is not subject to disciplinary action.

Example 2: An administrator claimed that she was informed by a parent that a teacher grabbed her child by the shoulders and arm and roughly pushed her into the seat. OSI investigated the alleged incident and could not substantiate the complaint. In fact, the student stated that all the teacher did was touch her shoulder and told her "to be quiet". The parent was interviewed and stated that I told the administrator that I would appreciate it if you tell the teacher not to embarrass my child in front of other children. Is this a "false allegation"? Of course not, just because the administrator may have twisted, perverted, and embellished the action, the incident still happened. Hence, it is not a knowingly a "false accusation".

Example 3: A student was sexually abused by a former boyfriend outside the school grounds and complained to an administrator about it. The administrator, after talking to the parent, decided not to report the incident. The student then told a teacher who followed procedures and reported it to guidance which reported it to ACS and NYPD. The administrator retaliated against the teacher, accussing the teacher of inappropriate behavior with students and had the teacher removed, pending an SCI investigation. Is this a "false accusation"? Not a chance, even if SCI cannot substantiate the accusation their report will give the complainant enough "wiggle room" so as not to cite the administrator of making a "false accusation". The key word is "knowingly". How do you prove this? The answer you can't. The result? Don't hold your breath waiting for the DOE to discipline administrators.


My opinion of thie UFT/DOE agreement?Take this agreement and shove it!

Why I Broke My Vow Not To Comment On Edwize

I broke an almost three year silence on commenting on Edwize after reading Ron Issac's article on the the recently negotiated agreement with the DOE on the Teachers Reassignment Center (TRC) commonly known as the "rubber room". I couldn't let the article and Ron Isaac's betrayal of the teachers he is supposed to represent go without responding to it. It is bad enough that the UFT keeps negotiating with the DOE at the expense of the teachers but it is worse when they brag how they helped the teachers when common sense suggests otherwise. The Ice blog and myself previously wrote a piece about how this settlement was not good for the teachers and can be found here.

First, I must comment on how most people think that the teachers reassigned to the TRC belong there. Nothing is farther from the truth. Most teachers are reassigned to the "rubber room" due to incompetent, vindictive, or insecure principals. Furthermore, ageism and salary are also a factor. Finally, the investigative process is one-sided and unfair, every teacher can be accussed oi misconduct or incompetence if the administration is out to get you. Since only 7% of the teachers, subject to 3020-a charges are actually terminated, the question is why make things easier for the DOE in their persecution of teachers? Leave it to the UFT in doing just that with their agreement with Tweed. Let's look at how Ron Issac spun the agreement.

• The principals no longer need to show up at the 3020-a hearing but can testify from the comfort of their office where notes and reminders are sitting on their desk. Where is the teacher's due process rights? What happened to the right of facing your accuser? How is this a win Ron?

• The disciplinary process that is one-sided and unfair, remains unchanged. Why didn't the union demand an independent investigation to determine if the teacher needs to be removed? If the DOE and UFT wanted to reduce the "rubber room" overcrowding they could have had an independent arbitrator review the existing cases to determine if they should be sent back to the classroom. How is this a win Ron when the process remains unchanged?
  

• The adding of 8 arbitrators is a win for the DOE and a loss for the teachers. Three out of four teachers want the process to run as long as possible. Even Randi acknowledged this. The longer the hearing process goes, the fuzzier the memory, witnesses disappear, and the web of half-truths fall apart. Expediting the 3020-a hearing process not only saves the DOE money, but helps them in their case against the teacher. This further weakens the safeguards of teacher "due process" rights. This is another win Ron?
  

• The unenforceabilty of any DOE decision that violates this agreement. The UFT does not have any enforceable authority if the DOE does not follow the agreement, and of course as history has shown, Tweed will only follow what they want to. Anything that is not enforceable is not worth the paper it's written on.
  

At one time Ron Issac fought the union and was respected for his advocacy for the teachers in need. However, since blogging with a phony name to support the terrible 2005 contract that has resulted in the problems we have today, Ron has become a shrill for the same people that he would rant about. Gone are the days Ron Issac was an advocate for the teachers. Now he is just one of the many Randi's cronies who does what's right for the union leaders and not for it's members. In my opinion Ron Issac rivals Leo Casey as a spin meister that is not worthy of the classroom teachers' respect.

The DOE Is Reading Our Blogs

It is good to know that the DOE is spending precious education money to have it's staff reading our blogs. Imagine, Kleinberg mandates cuts throughout the school system but they employ staff at Tweed to read our blogs! Norm of ednotes online doesn't think we are on their list. However, I beg to differ and believe many of us are on the ever changing list of 24 education bloggers that the DOE wastes precious time and money on. What is this group at Tweed called? Why, it's the "truth squad". It sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can an organization that twists, spins, and perverts information on a continuous basis know anything about the truth? How much extra money is assigned to this ridiculous group?

Where did the name "truth squad" come from? Well it seems to be the idea of that wonderful Deputy Chancellor, straight from the private school sector, Christopher Cerf. He was quoted as saying

"We try to keep track of what people are saying about us, and we respond periodically," a deputy schools chancellor, Christopher Cerf, who came up with the Truth Squad concept, said. "Because we believe in the truth."

I can't believe it, Tweed searching for the truth? Is this the same organization that allows lying administrators to do as they please in their schools? Is this the same organization who doesn't let the facts interfere in their investigation against a teacher? Is this the same organization that causes the ATR crises and overcrowded "rubber rooms" and blames it on the union? I think I get it. Since Tweed doesn't know what the truth is, they must form a "truth squad" to learn what the real truth is! By the way, the complete New York Sun article on the DOE "truth squad" by Elizabeth Green can be found here.

George Orwell would be happy to know that "big brother " is alive and well in the form of Tweed's "truth squad".

My Education Heroes And Those Nasty Villains

I was recently asked a question by a colleague who do I think are the heroes and the villains in educating the public school children of New York City. I have thought about it and have come up with my list. Excluding the real heroes, the teachers and paras in the classroom!

Heroes: The education bloggers who write about the flawed education policy by Kleinberg , called "children last". Special praise are given to nyc educator, ednotes online, and nyc public school parents as they keep us constantly updated on a daily basis.

My chapter leader who time and again took on the principals in my school and usually won because he knew the contract inside out and was able to intimidate these principals. He made sure we knew our rights and fought tooth and nail to ensure our rights were not violated. Without this chapter leader, life would be much more difficult for the staff in my school. A good chapter leader is a necessity for a school staff to work well in a school. However, there are some chapter leaders that are much too friendly with the principal and are kiss-ups. These chapter leaders need to be replaced for the school staff's own good.

Betsy Combier, an advocate who has taken up the cause of parents with children with disabilities and teachers unjustly accussed of misconduct or incompetence. Yes, she works part-time for Randi Weingarten at the UFT and she has her detractors, but this hasn't stopped her from representing teachers as they face 3020-a charges. She even attends their 3020-a hearings to assist the teacher's NYSUT or private attorney. She goes out of her way to help teachers in trouble.

Villains: Joel Klein and his cronies at Tweed. Never has there been a more anti-teacher group of non-educators that have caused such collateral damage to the classroom and the teaching profession with their "children last" program. Just look at the ATR crises and the overcrowded "rubber rooms" resulting from Tweed's misguided policies.

The investigative process, whether done by the Principal, OSI, or SCI, is biased and unfair. Their motto should be "Don't let the facts interfere with our version of the story".

The media, especially the New York Daily News and the New York Post. The newspapers rarely take an even-handed approach and blindly follows the DOE line.

The small schools that replace the closing of big schools that are a major cause of the ATR crisis.

Bully principals whom have been given a free hand by Tweed to wreck havoc on their teaching staff. This is especially true of the "Leadership Academy Principal" who has little or no classroom experience.

UFT's Unity caucus leaders that has lost touch with what is important to the average classroom teacher. Time and again Randi Weingarten and her insiders negotiate with the DOE and the results are usually bad for the teacher.

I would like comments on what your education heroes and villains are.

Thanks to Eduwonkette for the use of her clip art.

UFT Negotiates A Deal With The DOE & The Teachers Are Screwed Yet Again

Just days after the school year ended the UFT negotiated away more due process rights of the very teachers the union is supposed to represent. Despite repeated protests by "rubber room" teachers that the UFT should not add arbitrators to speed up the process and demand a truly independent investigation system for determining whether a teacher needs to be removed. Randi ignored her own members and liaisons and has teamed-up with the DOE to speed up, not improve or reform, the teacher disciplinary process. Of course the UFT championed this agreement as a triumph for the teachers in their press release. However, the UFT spin machine doesn't tell the truth. A more accurate analysis of this agreement can be found on the ICE-UFT blog. Unfortunately, even the ICE-UFT blog didn't get it completely right. Let's see how the agreement will really affect the disciplinary process.

First, three out of four (75%) teachers reassigned to the "rubber room" DO NOT WANT THEIR CASES SPEEDILY RESOLVED! The longer it takes to get a 3020-a hearing, the harder it is for the DOE to prove their case against the teacher. Memories get fuzzy, stories change, and witnesses disappear. In many cases, an already weak case becomes that much weaker as the alleged evidence turns out to be hearsay or non-existent. Randi knows that it was in the accussed teacher's best interest to allow their case to take years to be heard. Why did she agree to a speedier hearing without real reform in the investigative process is another example of her giving in to Kleinberg at the expense of the teachers she is supposed to protect.

Second, the UFT failed to reform the disciplinary process There is no independent investigative process put into place despite repeated teacher complaints about unfair and biased investigations. Notice there is no mention of the investigations conducted by the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI) which has up to a year to write their report? The reason is that there is an unwritten agreement between Tweed and SCI that no settlements can be offered by the DOE lawyers no matter how frivolous the case is once SCI substantiated the alleged incident. The UFT/DOE agreement does not change this unholy agreement that causes long delays in the hearing process.

Third, the principal no longer needs to show up at the 3020-a hearing. That means the teacher no longer has the right to face his/her accuser. The principal can just phone it in from his office and keep notes around his desk to remind him of what he needs to say. Another erosion of teacher due process rights.

Finally, the DOE only agreed to review a Principal's decision to remove a teacher and unless you believe in the tooth fairy. If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Very few of the Principal's decisions will be reversed by Tweed, given their anti-teacher bias. Further "general grounds" for removal is not defined and if the teacher is subject to an SCI investigation, which many are, the above agreement does not apply.

The UFT proclaimed that if an administrator makes a false allegation against a teacher they will be subject to disciplinary action. Yeah right! However, what about the administrator who takes an innocent action and perverts, embellishes, or twists it into misconduct. Does that fall under false accusations? Of course not.

The UFT/DOE agreement also reaffirms that a 3020-a pre-hearing be held and that teachers removed from their schools end up in their borough rubber room whenever possible. Both of these issues are already required and should not have been necessary in this agreement.

I agree with Jeff Kaufman of ICE that the UFT/DOE agreement is unenforceable by the UFT and is not in the best interests of the teachers. As for Randi Weingarten's statement that "justice delayed is justice denied" rings hollow as she agreed to further erode teacher due process rights.

The Bully Principal

Since the Kleinberg era the New York City schools have seen less and less veteran teachers working their way into administration. Almost gone is the 10+ year veteran teacher who becomes an administrator and after 5+ years as an Assistant Principal is finally given a Principal's job. While not all these old-time principals were good, most of them did work with the school staff and didn't forget their roots as a veteran teacher. However, under the Kleinberg regime of terror, we now have the "Leadership Academy Principal, who are usually young, with little or no classroom experience, and have difficulty working with school staff.

These Leadership Academy Principals seem to have one characteristic in common. They have little interpersonal skills and "bully" the staff when they don't get their own way. These bully principals harass veteran teachers and will have them removed from the school when given the opportunity. Further, these bully principals will only hire newbie teachers and try to intimidate them to do what the principal wants. Many of these schools are small schools and have a staff that is almost entirely made up of inexperienced teachers. Finally, because the Leadership Academy principal is told to run the school as a business and to work with Tweed, there is no loyalty to the school staff and all incidents, no matter how trivial or minor, is promptly reported to Tweed.

Well, the New York City Public School cannot be run as a business. The students are not widgets and the teachers are not cogs. Every student is different and a teacher must adjust their teaching style, based upon student composition. No one style or model works for every classroom and veteran principals understand that. However, the Leadership Academy Principal obviously doesn't and they demand that their teachers follow the approved model or else. Is in any wonder that in these schools there is anecdotal evidence of an increase in "Letters-To-The-File" (LIF), greater teacher turnover, and low morale. Many of these bully principals have signed on to be "empowerment principals", meaning even less DOE oversight.

You would think that these bully principals would be removed by Tweed. However, the DOE is very slow in removing principals, unlike teachers, principals are presumed innocent and are given every opportunity to correct their problems and even when they are eventually removed from the school 3 to 5 years down the road, just like a bad penny they show up as a principal in another school to continue their regime of terror in that school. Even Chapter Leaders are not immune to the bully Principal. In the New York Teacher, Ron Issacs wrote an article that shows how easy it is to remove a teacher, even a Chapter Leader!

It is time for the UFT stop with the editorials and start suing these bully principals and force Tweed to retreat into a more reasonable stance on what actions allows a principal to remove a teacher. Our union's inaction has caused both the ATR crises and overcrowded "rubber rooms". I have said it again and again, principal abuses will continue until there is a consequence to their abusive actions.

"LIF" For Life, Or How The DOE Snookered The UFT Again At The Teachers' Expense

This is another investigative article on how the October 2005 contract that the UFT rammed down our throat has adversely affected the teaching profession. In this case we are talking about the infamous "Letter To The File" or "LIF". As we all know, The union gave up the grievance protection when an administrator dumps a "LIF" into a teacher's personnel file. However, the union claimed the teachers won a more significant gain in having "LIF" removed from the teacher's file after three years, unless it was used in a 3020-a hearing, a "U" rating, or in a discontinuance proceeding. However, what seems to be an inadequate tradeoff is much worse than you think.

In a January 31, 2006 letter by Joel Klein in the Principals' Weekly he explained exactly how the "LIF" works.

"Teachers or other UFT represented employees who wish to have a letter removed from their file pursuant to the new agreement should follow the current procedures for viewing their personnel file by making an appointment with the principal or his/her designee when the principal or designee is available. The employee will be permitted to view his/her personnel file in the presence of the principal or designee. Employees may identify any letter that has been in the file 3 years or longer. The supervisor shall remove the letter from the file if he or she knows that the letter has not resulted in further disciplinary action, such as 3020a charges, a discontinuance, an unsatisfactory rating, or a suspension and confirms that it is 3 years old or more. Copies should be made of all the documents to be removed and the employee should be given the originals. The records will be kept in a central repository and maintained under the control of the New York City Law Department. They will be used solely in defense of the Department of Education or the City of New York in litigation or administrative actions and as otherwise required by law, and DOE supervisors will not have access to them. The records will be destroyed 6 years after an individual retire, resigns, or terminates. if the records are accessed the UFT will Be notified".

Let's take this statement apart and see what it means.

"Teachers or other UFT represented employees who wish to have a letter removed from their file.....

The above statement means that unless a teacher formally requests to review their personnel file to see if unwanted or dated material is in it. The principal is not obligated to take them out. Since most teachers don't want to take the time before or after school hours to review their file and some are unaware of their rights, unwanted or outdated items can remain in a teacher's personnel file indefinitely!

Copies should be made of all the documents to be removed and the employee should be given the originals. The records will be kept in a central repository and maintained under the control of the New York City Law Department.


That means that even when unwanted and dated material are removed from a teacher's personnel file, a copy is sent to the New York City Law Department for deposit!

The records will be destroyed 6 years after an individual retire, resigns, or terminates. if the records are accessed the UFT will Be notified".

The records are not eliminated until 6 years after the teacher leaves the system? Notice how the UFT must be informed when these records are accessed? Obviously, the UFT knew about the contract provision and agreed to it.

Let's see how this works. The teacher on his/her own time must request that the principal, when available, oversee the review of the teacher's personnel file. Any unwanted or outdated material the principal agrees to remove from the teacher's personnel file must be copied and sent to the New York City Law Department for deposit. The records can be accessed at anytime for litigation or administrative hearings and, of course, the UFT will be informed of this. In other words, any "LIF" given to a teacher will always be available to New York City even if the "LIF" is removed from the teacher's personnel file.

The DOE snookered our wonderful union again. The result for teachers? It's "LIF" for life!

The Experienced Teacher - An Endangered Species

Tweed's crusade against the experienced teacher is moving full steam ahead as it appears that more teachers will be retiring or resigning from the New York City Public School system than ever before. True, the 25/55 pension change is an important factor. However, the classroom environment keeps getting worse and more teachers are tossing in the towel. Last year saw a doubling of teachers leaving the system and this year appears to be no different.

Tweed cannot be happier about how their recruitment over retention policy is succeeding beyond expectations. Teachers have to wait to November before they can even get an appointment for a pension consultation. Further, many talented and experienced teachers are now ATRs and many other experienced teachers find themselves in the "rubber room" for minor, frivolous, and false allegations.

Where does Tweed find these inexperienced and low-paid teachers to replace the experienced teachers they push out of the system? Easy, besides the truly naive college graduate there are the two year wonders of "Teach For America" and the not ready for the classroom "Teaching Fellows". In addition, Tweed runs their usual intergalactic job fair that brings teachers from Jamaica, Philippines, Slovakia, and if NASA find life on Mars, maybe even a Martian to the city classroom! Moreover, Tweed has allowed the principals to go after experienced teachers to get them off the budget. Many of the new small schools have few experienced teachers and the ones in the school are always at risk of being removed due to budget considerations.

If you were a parent, would you want an experienced teacher who knows how to manage a class, work with a curriculum, and handle student problems? Or a newbie teacher who is clueless in the classroom and must follow a steep learning curve to manage classroom issues teaching your child? A no brainer. Right? Wrong, in the wacky world of Tweed a newbie teacher is more important to the DOE than an experienced teacher. Remember, in the Kleinberg administration its all about the money and not about the students.

As for our union? Forgetaboutit! Randi has bought into Tweed's recruitment over retention policy and don't expect any help from Randi and her friends. Look for more experienced and senior teachers to find themselves as ATRs and in the "rubber room". Hence Tweed's "Children Last" program continues unabated.

A Nightmare Scenario - DOE Wants To Take Over Teacher Certification

That wonderful "Education Reform Warrior", Joel Klein continues to push his anti-teacher crusade by giving a six item "wish list" in a Florida summit of politicians, hosted by Jeb Bush. Apparently, they again forgot to invite classroom teachers, I wonder if that was an oversight? In the New York Sun article, Joel Klein also wanted to make it easier to fire teachers, use test scores to evaluate teachers, and take over teacher certification from universities. Furthermore, he also wanted more accountability for schools that fail to improve college student scores. Where is his accountability? I forgot he doesn't need to be accountable, that's for the little people. The politicians that support these pseudo-reform groups were fawning all over Klein. An example was President Bush's education secretary, Margaret Spellings, who also spoke yesterday. Her remarks praised a group of people she described as "education reform warriors," including the group Mr. Klein recently launched with Reverend Al Sharpton, the Education Equality Project. She also singled out Klein as a leader in education reform. I almost choked on these statements about our Chancellor.

Bloomberg and Klein's education policies look worse and worse as they continue to blunder their way through numerous reinventions that result in low morale, uncertainty and flat NAEP and SAT scores. However, they have managed to snooker the pseudo-reform educators. The people in the trenches know better. In an Andrew Wolf article he points out how Bloomberg's education excellance rating has dropped from 19% in October 2005 to just 5% in 2008.

Kleiberg's "smoke and mirrors" no longer fool the parents and school staff of the New York City Public School system anymore but they can still fool those pseudo-reformers that want change in the education system. However, while change may be good at times, change for the sake of change is a disaster. I can't wait for January 2010. If I can survive that long.

More Fuzzy Math BY Those Wonderful Education Reformers

I couldn't help but laugh when I opened up to the New York Daily News opinion page and read how that pseudo- education reformer Michael Antonucci used "Fuzzy Math" to show that the New York City public schools have an oversupply of teachers. Really? According to Mr. Antonucci for every teacher there are 14 students. Overcrowded classrooms? What overcrowding? How did he come up with this erroneous conclusion? What Mr. Antonucci did is he took the total number of students and divided that number by the total number of teachers. What a ridiculous way to determine a student to teacher ratio. Obviously Mr. Antonucci has not been a public school teacher and doesn't understand all the duties a teacher is expected to do in a school. Mr. Antonucci, the Director of the Education Intelligence Agency, is apparently clueless of the various duties assigned to a teacher. If he had really done his homework he would have realized that his "Fuzzy Math" would have resulted in a failing grade and the well deserved "dunce cap". Let's see why Mr. Antonucci is wrong.

First: Special education teachers are mandated by State and Federal law to have between 6-12 students, depending on their disabilities. In fact, in some cases it is one teacher for no more than three students, as mandated by law. Mr. Antonuuci forgot to mention that.

Second: Some teachers are itinerant teachers that go from school to school or home to home to provide services on a one-on-one basis, also mandated by law.

Third: A few teachers are coaches that work with other teachers on Math, English, Literacy, etc.
These teachers are extremely important and don't usually work with students.

Fourth: In the middle and high school many teachers have dean duties that reduce or even eliminate their classroom duties. Discipline is necessary for school safety and teachers fill the critical dean position.

Fifth: Every school uses teachers for scheduling, grade advisors, and mentors, which reduce the classroom teaching time by these teachers.

Finally, the DOE must take some blame on the "Fuzzy Math" used by Mr. Antonucci. Because of Tweed's misguided policy to allow schools to hire new teachers rather than place excessed teachers, there are close to a thousand ATRs with no students assigned to them. Include another eight hundred teachers in the "rubber room" and is it any wonder that Mr. Antronucci's "Fuzzy Math" came up with a misleading 14:1 student to teacher ratio?

Mr. Antonucci, please don't apply as a math teacher because your "Fuzzy Math" makes you unqualified to teach and I hereby bestow you the "Dunce Cap".

The Collaterial Damage Done To The Students When A Teacher Is Removed

The DOE's dirty little secret is the damage that is done to the students when a teacher is removed from his/her classroom. While a few teachers need to be removed because they really are a danger to their students (examples: sexual abuse, corporal punishment, gross incompetence, and drugs etc.). However, the DOE has lumped teachers accussed of these serious behaviors with the 93% of teachers who will end up back in the classroom. The DOE refuses to differentiate between minor or frivolous incidents, if they are even true, with serious incidents. The lack of a clear and fair removal policy allows Tweed to encourage principals to remove teachers at will. Especially highly-paid veteran teachers. Moreover, the unfair, one-sided, and biased investigation process allows the DOE to keep teachers in "rubber rooms" for over two years at full pay until their 3020-a hearings are completed.

While these teachers will eventually find their way back to the classroom, what about the students they left behind? The DOE does not even acknowledge the collaterial damage to the students that removing a teacher brings. In many cases the school must use substitutes or ATRs that are not even certified in the subject area for the remainder of the school year. In fact some special programs such as Advanced Placement classes must be discontinued in mid-year due to a lack of a quality teacher. Further, the trust between teacher and the students is destroyed and any academic progress is reversed. Moreover, the removal of a fellow teacher lowers morale and inhibits other teachers to make the extra effort to reach the difficult student. Finally, the removal of a teacher from the classroom may be a short-term victory for the principal, it is a long-term disaster for the school as teacher distrust and fear make cooperation and collaboration with the administration highly unlikely. This lack of unity affects the student body as well as few teachers are willing to sponsor clubs or provide adult direction for student activities for fear of being accused of inappropriate behavior. Is it any wonder that overall student achievement is flat?

It is a pity that in the zeal by Tweed to get teachers to retire or resign they seem to have forgotten their prime responsibility. To do what is best for the students. In the wacky world of DOE "children last" continues.

The Chancellor's Failing Grade

I just checked off my survey and not surprisingly I found myself strongly disagreeing with Chancellor Klein's policy. In other words Chancellor Klein's initiatives was given a grade of "F"! I suspect that except for a few clueless newbie teachers, a smattering of "Teach For America" two year wonders, and an isolated "Teaching Fellow", the grade I gave the Chancellor is the grade that the rest of the teachers will be giving him as well.

Under the Kleinberg "children last" program we have seen little or no improvement in children's test scores, micromanagement of the classroom, destruction of large traditional schools, incompetent "Leadership Academy Principals with little classroom experience, increased teacher disrespect, and low morale."Furthermore, why hasn't Tweed reduced class size despite the money from CFE? Where is it going? I will not even go into the ATR crises and the "rubber room" overcrowding that wastes up to 146 million dollars a year.

I envision that the UFT will publish the results on the front page of the New York Teacher newspaper. Nice, but who other than a few teachers read it? The best that you can expect is a small paragraph buried on page 12 of the daily tabloids. This is inadequate and will not embarrass Chancellor Klein or his non-educrats. However, if Randi Weingarten is really serious about challenging the Chancellor. Try this approach.

A full page advertisement in all the New York City newspapers announcing the Chancellor's grade and why the teachers voted the way they did. Our union can certainly afford it. Further, Randi should be making a public relations blitz on all local news shows on why the teachers believe the Chancellor is destroying New York City public schools. Certainly, Randi is very good at talking a good game, this should be right up her alley. Moreover, let the local press interview teachers who could explain why Chancellor Klein's course is bad for the public schools.

Finally, Randi should adopt the slogan "Chancellor Klein's Children Last Program" showing the damage the Chancellor has done to the classroom. For example, the failure to reduce school and classroom overcrowding, the waste of talented and experienced teachers as substitutes, and the collaterial damage done to the students when their teacher is removed based on false, frivolous, and twisted accusations, or for minor incidents.

It's time for our Union to send out the attack dogs and expose Chancellor Klein for what he is. An anti-teacher, pro- charter school politician that does not serve the public school students.

The Operation Was A Success However The Patient Died

Only in the bizarre world of the Kleinberg DOE can a principal of a failing school that is closing down get a $15,000 bonus. A second principal will collect a $5,500 bonus even as he was removed for mismanagement in December. In addition, four principals who's schools received an "F" grade will be getting between $10,000 to $15,000 of bonus money. Can you imagine if a teacher was given an "F" grade, what would that teacher's future be? Right, a charge of incompetence, and termination.

With amusement, I read the Daily News article on the monetary bonus the principal of EBC/East New York High School for Public Safety and Law is getting. His school, which was given a grade of "D" and is being closed down due to a dismal academic environment, is getting a $15,000 bonus. I kid you not. Another principal, removed in December from the Acorn High School for Social Justice for mismanagement is still getting a $5,500 bonus, even as his school was graded an "F". Only, in the warped world of Tweed can poor principal performance result in monetary bonuses.

Randi Weingarten said " it's a cockeyed situation" is putting it mildly. What Randi should have said " it's insane to give principals of failing schools a bonus. Where's their accountability?"

Unfortunately, Tweed's "children last program" continues.

Patrick Lynch & Randi WeingartenThe Strong & The Pathetic

The two most powerful unions in New York City are the Police and Teachers. However, the union leaders have dramatically different approaches in dealing with the City. Patrick Lynch, the president of the police union fights tooth and nail for his existing members. The result? Four consecutive 5% pay raises in the last four years, ending July 31st 2006. Their givebacks were mostly put on the "unborn". Less salary, vacation days, and more flexible time limits for their patrol duties. While only minor givebacks were associated with the existing members. Lynch's hard-nose negotiations has made the City look bad with fewer and fewer police recruits willing to join the police force.

By contrast Randi Weingarten has taken the opposite approach. She has negotiated contracts that contained many givebacks by her members while buying into the City's recruitment over retention policy. Randi's pathetic negotiation committee only achieved raises that were marginally more than DC 37 (22% for the last seven years or 3.15% per year) and well below the 20% raises the police achieved in the last four years, despite the UFT giving back significant time and duties for it's existing members . I have previously identified these givebacks and won't waste time listing them. However, you can find many of these givebacks here.

The union educrats bring up that a union should not "eat it's unborn". However, a union's main goal is to protect it's existing members first. In the UFT's case, that didn't happen. Hence, the ATR crises, overcrowded "rubber rooms", and teacher disrespect. Is it any wonder that in the last year over 4,600 teachers resigned, double the average in previous years? It seems that Patrick Lynch, has represented his members a whole lot better than the pathetic Randi Weingarten has her members

The Open Market System - Are All The Vacancies Being Posted?

One of the most contentious giveback of the terrible 2005 contract was the elimination of the "Seniority Transfer System" that allowed senior teachers to transfer to another school and possibly bumping a less experienced teacher. We all now know the consequences of the elimination of the "Seniority Transfer System" . The nearly thousand ATRs that now float from school to school and eat up the DOE budget. Of course the DOE and UFT knew this was going to happen and let it happen anyway. Shame on them. In it's place was the wonderful, or so Leo Casey claims, "Open Market Transfer System" where all the school vacancies must be posted, rather than half of them. No more hiding school vacancies, all vacancies must be posted! Yeah, tight and I am really the tooth fairy.

The "Open Market Transfer System" was touted by the UFT spin mister Leo Casey in Edwize last year showing how well it worked in the first year of operation. Of course it was quite obvious that even using Leo's suspect statistics you can see that senior teachers had more trouble transferring than new teachers. In fact, according to Leo Casey's statistics there were 1,202 teachers who transferred with less than five years of experience in 2005 (there were only 31 teachers who transferred in this experience group under the old system) compared to only 163 senior teachers with twenty or more years of experience. Note, this is for 2006, before the "fair student funding" program and the school budget cuts which will further limit senior teachers from changing schools. I would like to see the 2007 statistics Leo, where are they? Did you forget to post them like you did last May? What is even more worrisome is that the UFT knew that senior teachers would have a tough time finding a new school and agreed to it anyway.

As we progress into the 2008-09 school year there seems to be anecdotal evidence that many of the vacancies, especially in the new small schools and in schools that have Empowerment or Leadership Academy Principals are not being posted in the "Open Market Transfer System". Just to give an example in all of Queens, there are only six Math positions posted for the middle and high schools. The same is true for the Physical Sciences (Earth Science, Chemistry, & Physics) where only five positions are listed. These two subject areas are in great demand and subject to severe shortages. Why aren't these positions being posted? It could be the tight school budgets and the uncertainly it fosters. However, I believe it is much more than just the budget.

In the education blogosphere many teachers post that their schools have vacancies but they are not on the "Open Market Transfer System" why? One teacher blogger stated that the principal likes to hire the two year wonders from "Teach For America". These teachers sign a two year contract and usually leave the system shortly thereafter. Many other positions are saved for the "Teaching Fellows" and newbie teachers at the job fairs. It seems to me that despite the UFT spin mister Leo Casey's claim, all the vacancies are not listed on the "Open Market Transfer System". Is it any wonder that we have a serious ATR crises?

The UFT must ensure that no vacancies are left behind. In other words all vacancies must be posted or take the DOE to court on the violation of the contract. However, our union has shown to be all talk but very little action. Let's see what they dol this time.

The Chancellor's Fuzzy Math

The education mayor and his sidekick, the Chancellor have done it again. They have taken a 4.5 billion dollar city budget surplus and are cutting 300 million from an already tight school budget. This budget cut is in spite of the State giving the schools additional funding. In other words, the hypocrite Mayor and Chancellor whine for more money from the State while cutting the local school budget despite a sizable surplus. If you would like, The Chancellor's budget is here.

To the casual observer, you would think that the DOE would wisely limit overhead and maximize the school budgets. However, it appears the opposite is true. Since October of 2004 the head count at Tweed increased from 1,582 to 2,350. a 67% increase at the Central Bureaucracy. Eduwonkette, has more information on the ever- increasing Central Bureaucracy at Tweed. Tweed's appetite grows larger and larger at the expense of the schools and the students. "Children Last"? you better believe it!

The most astounding information that came out of the City Council's review of the education budget was the "Fuzzy Math" that Joel Klein was using to justify the budget. When the Chancellor was giving his budget presentation, Council Member Oliver Koppel said at one point, "To tell you the truth, I don't believe you…You should hire a new accountant.” Furthermore, the chair of the Education Committee, Robert Jackson stated that "the school cuts are not 99 million dollars but was more than 180 million dollars". Just like Albany, the City Council has questioned the "Fuzzy Math" of Tweed. Here are just some of the discrepancies and lack of clarity they have found.

• The actual cuts from the Central Bureaucracy is 21 million dollars, not 200 million dollars.

• 24.1 million dollars are allocated for diagnostic assessment (testing programs).

• Joel Klein's staff budget is $968,000 for his eight staffers (averaging $121,000), not the $1,117 in the budget..

• Tweed's "Accountability Office" actually has 97 staffers, not the 18 staffers in the budget

• An additional 154 million dollars in the budget for "indispensable initiatives" . While most of the programs are unspecified, an educated guess would include the Principals' Leadership Academy, Small School start ups, and the teacher "gotcha squad", just to name a few.

• The City Council report states that 190 million dollars will be cut from the school budget...not 99 million dollars as the budget stated.

Finally, where does the money come from to help "Charter Schools"? It was unclear where the DOE funding was. However, in the last two years it averaged more than 100 million dollars.

In conclusion, using Tweed's "Fuzzy Math" has resulted in a misleading budget that doesn't reflect the real budget cuts. Is it an wonder that our students have not seen gains in Math education under the Kleinberg administration. Look who their role models are. The "Fuzzy Math" crowd at Tweed!

Some of the information used in this post was taken from and can be found at the New York City Public School Parents Blog.

The "Baby Boomer" Retirement Dilemma. How Much Do You Need To Retire?

The New York City Teaching Corps have many "baby boomers" among them. These "baby boomers" are fast approaching retirement age in the increasing unfriendly New York City school system where teaching in the classroom is becoming more and more difficult. This teaching burden is increased by DOE's policy of recruitment over retention, teacher disrespect, and an increased workload. Further, with Tweed's emphasis on small schools and 20-something administrators, it's difficult for the "baby boomer" teacher not to consider retirement. However, can the "baby boomers" retire comfortably? Let's see.

First, some background. The "baby boomer" generation is defined as the age group between 45 and 62 years of age. This generation has saved on the average of $38,000 in retirement savings, excluding pensions, homes, and social security. However, "baby boomers" with a 401(k) or 403(b) plan has an average retirement savings of $88,000. Not bad but not good either. The $88,000 of retirement savings comes to an annual retirement income of about $6,000 yearly. Not the type of income a retiree can live comfortably on. To get an exact amount, based on your age and retirement savings, you can use the immediate annuity link. Unfortunately, almost 25% of the people with the 401(k)/403(b)plan take ill-advised loans out of their plans. These loans average $8,000 and in many cases. are never paid back into the plan. In other words, lost savings.

As New York City teachers, we are in a much more fortunate position than most. First, many of us will receive a pension that can range from 40% to 60% of our final three years of annual salary (It could be more or less, based upon years worked and age of retirement). Further, we accumulate a modest annuity of $300 per year and averages about $1,000 annually at retirement. However, the bulk of our savings is the 403(b) plan, known as the TDA.

The dilemma for most of the "baby boomer" teachers is "when do I retire"? With the 25/55 plan, boomers can retire at age 55 with no penalty with 25 years of teaching under their belt. This gives these teachers 50% of their final three year salary for the rest of their lives or $45,000 annually. based upon the average final three year salary of $90,000. Therefore, what should my TDA have to have to keep my standard of living the same after I retire? Most financial advisors suggest 75% of the working income or $67,500 annually. Based upon the immediate annuity link, the amount in the TDA should have at retirement should be $325,000! This is about 3.7 times the average balance for all 401(k)/403(b) participants. With more and more "baby boomer" teachers retiring, it is very important to figure out "what type of retirement will I have"?

An alternative plan financial advisors use is the 4% plan. Under this plan you take out 4% of the available balance yearly. if the stock market gives you good returns your retirement savings will increase dramatically. The 4% withdrawal is conservative enough to limit any real pain during stock market downturns. However, you will need about $525,000 to get the same $22,500 return as an annuity. The nice thing about the 4% solution is you can leave a large nest egg to your children or to yourself. Unlike an annuity the money is yours, not the annuity company's. See the Trinity Study article here. A more comprehensive retirement calculator is the T Rowe Price financial calculator link. This calculator allows you to look at many retirement simulations and select the best one for you.

There are numerous alternative calculators that use many different assumptions to determine your retirement income. Some of the simpler ones are here and if you have a retirement shortfall, here. I hope you seriously consider your various retirement options. It is difficult to unretire once you make the decision to retire.


Finally, I do not believe annuities from an insurance company or bank is a good idea. The high cost fees and surrender charges can be expensive. Especially if you try to get out of the annuity within the original seven year period. However, annuities from many of the mutual fund companies like Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, and Vanguard are low-cost and have no surrender charges. Our TDA annuity fall into the later category and keeping part (10-25%) of your retirement savings in a low-cost annuity guarantees a stable flow of income.

Good luck on preparing on your retirement. I hope this information will help you in being better educated on making retirement work for you.

The DOE's "Children Last" Shell Game Is Exposed By Albany..... It's About Time

The Kleinberg administration has over the years has worked the old shell game that allowed them to use money as they see fit while starving the classrooms of supplies, teaching talent, and keeping class sizes unreasonably high, the highest in the State. No-bid contracts and highly-paid consultants are quite common at Tweed and even the alleged 200 million dollar cuts will not significantly change this cosy relationship. As for these cuts being real, seeing is believing. However, the Kleinberg shell game has been exposed and Albany is now aware of the DOE ploy. For the first time the big three of Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver, and David Patterson have told the Kleinberg administration to forget about getting permission to change State aid rules. We know what you are doing and we are not amused. In fact here is what the Governer said:

"The lack of flexibility in State funding reflects the State's policy that Contract for Excellence funding should go disproportionately to schools with the greatest needs. If the City were not reducing its own promised spending for schools, it would have sufficient money to balance funds for other schools if it chose to do so."

In other words. You are cutting 300 million out of your budget and want the State to allow you to spend the extra 63 million dollars of State aid as you see fit? Forget about it!

To understand how well the Kleinberg administration has played the game of hide the money, the editorial and reporting staff of the New York Daily News and New York Post believe the DOE spin machine and that this hypocrisy is justified. Despite all three State leaders comments.

However, an article in the New York Sun by Andrew Wolf exposes the Kleinberg hypocrisy and writes about the Kleinberg administration's "smoke and mirrors" statements of educational progress as phony. Wolf writes about that there has been little or no progress in student test scores and a reduction in high school SAT results. Amdrew Wolf's article speaks the truth and in my opinion, the only tangable results from the Kleinberg administration has been a worsening of teacher morale, more ATRs, and an incrrease in "rubber room" teachers.

Let's see, the City is cutting 300 million from the DOE with 99 million coming directly from the schools. How can the DOE make up this artificial shortfall? Well 81 million can be saved by placing ATRs in schools before new teachers are hired. The remaining 18 million dollars can be saved by reducing the "rubber room" population by 90% (since only 10% of the present rubber room teachers will be terminated, retire, or resign). That means that of the 65 million dollars spent on the "rubber room" teachers, the DOE will have 58.4 million dollars to spend, well above the 18 million dollars needed to save any school budget cuts. Just think, instead of a 99 million dollar cut to the schools, the DOE will have a 40 million dollar surplus!

Realistically, don't look for Kleinberg to do the obvious, bring experienced teachers back in the classrooms while eliminating school budget cuts and reducing class size with the surplus. Instead, look for the DOE to keep the ATR and "rubber room" problem going and indirectly cut school programs that come from Tweed's 200 million dollar budget cuts.

In other words, Tweed's "Children Last Program" will continue until the next mayor takes office.