Chaz's School Daze

Today President Obama has finally decided that all school districts must have an "educator equity plan" by April 2015 that requires all States and school districts to place"quality teachers"in front of the classroom.   This long neglected part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that all classrooms have an equally high percentage of "highly qualified teachers", regardless of income or racial composition. This long neglected provision of NCLB allowed school districts to hire whom they pleased and in many "high needs"communities that meant hiring uncertified or alternate certification instructors who lasted a year or two and then left the school. Teacher turnover is a serious problem and negatively affects student learning as many of these teachers are hired simply because they are cheap and its not children first but money first! It now appears the Obama Administration will no longer give waivers to this part of NCLB as it has previously. However, time will tell if they don't bow to political pressure from Teach For America and education reform groups who depend on an influx of poorly trained and unqualified "newbie" instructors to fill the schools. The Federal Department of Education's websitehas the entire initiative called "Excellent Educators For All".

That brings me to the New York City DOE who has long practiced "education on the cheap" policy and with their perverse "fair student funding" requirements forces schools to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their schools. This is in apparent contradiction to the new imitative. Will The Obama Administration penalize the City for their policy that fosters teacher inequality in the schools or will they ignore the blatant violation of the educator equity plan of the NCLB as they have been doing for a decade?   Furthermore, how can the City explain the hiring of uncertifed TFA and Fellows for these schools while"highly qualified teachers" as defined by NCLB , languish in the ATR pool being used as glorified babysitters?

It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration is serious about the teacher inequity problem and refuses to give waivers to States and school districts from the educator equity plan as they have been doing previously.   If the President follows through on his initiative then the DOE must rethink how they fund schools and eliminate the "fair student funding" that hinders the hiring of "highly qualified teachers"for the schools most in need of these teachers. Only time will tell if the enforcing of the educator equity plan under NCLB will actually happen. If it does, I'm sure the DOE will try to tiptoe around the educator equity plan and maintain their "education on the cheap"policy at the expense of the poor and minority students of the affected "high needs" schools.

We all know that the UFT negotiated a bad contract with the City that included inadequate raises, a "caste system" for ATRs, and no retroactive pay for members who resign, are terminated, or die, making the contract more like an annuity. However, as other unions are now settling with the City, their terms appear to be more favorable than the UFT negotiated. Just compare our contract with DC37's contract.

In September, our union inexplicably agreed to a meager raise of 2%, plus an equally miniscule .14% of retroactive pay, for a total raise of 2.14% until May 2015. By contrast DC37 will get three 1% raises starting from 2011 and a 1.5% raise in September 2014 for a total of 4.5% and since the 1% raises go back to 2011, the compounded raises will be 0.5% for an effective increase of of 5%. That's right the DC37 pact will more than double the UFT negotiated raise for the fall checks!

Another thing, the DC37 pact does not have eighteen months of "zeros" as the UFT pact does and while the UFT agreed to sacrifice some of its members (ATRs) the DC37 pact does no such thing. In fact, the contract throws open the chance of the DC37 members to get more money if they can come up with cost savings, similar to what the Sanitation union received when they went from a three man to a two man truck.

Finally, the DC37 pact will allow the union to receive all their retroactive pay quickly and not have it deferred as far back as 2020 as the UFT pact does. In addition, the DC 37 raise occur eighteen months ahead of the UFT raises and the City gave DC37 an extra 0.52% from March to July of 2017. No annuity for DC37 as it is for the UFT. Everybody gets the raises!

Pay Raise............................UFT.........................DC37

2011................................... 0%..........................1%
2012....................................0%..........................1%
2013....................................1%..........................1%
2014....................................1%.........................1.5%
2015....................................1%.........................2.5%
2016...................................1.5%.........................3%
2017...................................2.5%.......................0.52%
2018....................................3%...........................?

Total...................................10% ....................10.52% +

Decide for yourself what you think of the wonderful UFT contract now?

An audit by the City Comptroller found that an astounding 33% of New York City public schools were overcrowded and that Tweed used "fuzzy math" and creative bookkeeping to falsely claim that these overcrowded schools were within capacity. The audit clearly points out the shenanigans the DOE used to shoehorn students into inadequate spaces and co-locate charter schools into existing buildings. Some of the most startling findings in the Comptroller's audit was.

First, the deliberate shrinking of regular classroom space from 600 to 500 square feet by the now discontinued and discredited Office of Portfolio Management to hide overcrowding.

Second, the slashing of specialty rooms such as music, art, and science labs from 1,000 to 500 square feet and special education rooms from 770 to 500 square feet to give the false impression of adequate space being available.

Third, enrichment rooms for subjects like dance, drama, and computer courses were included as classroom space in the classroom utilization report known as the "blue book", to make it seem that there was more space per student then there really was.

Finally, many guidance and social work staff were crammed into closet-like spaces to give the false appearance of adequate classroom space.

Why did the Bloomberg Administration fudge the numbers? How else can they ensure that charter schools and his favored small schools can be squeezed into an existing public school building? Who needs a dance studio, a band room, or a Science lab when it can be downsized into cramped classrooms and make it appear the school is not overcrowded. Moreover, who cares if Tweed included trailers, most of them over a decade old and some with mold as part of the equation? An article by Juan Gonzales is a must read as he discusses many of the problems found in the audit.

Just like the graduation rate, the utilization rate used in the DOE's "blue book" is bogus and uses "fuzzy math" to falsely show figures that served the purpose of the DOE and not that of the students who suffered from it.

While Mayor Bill de Blasio is starting to address this issue, it will take many years to change the culture at Tweed and he really needs to put Chancellor Carmen Farina back into retirement and hire a competent educator to be Chancellor who will really clean house of the Bloomberg ideology that permeates throughout the senior management at the DOE..

In a groundbreaking decision that has ramifications throughout the nation, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a 6 to 1 decision ruled that the State cannot reduce retiree health benefits, once approved. According to the state's highest court the constitutional protections trump the State's proposed 2012 pension reform changes that the Legislature and Governor have agreed to. The decision, written by the chief justice said the following:

The Court, led by Justice Charles Freeman, did not specifically rule on the pension reform law, but declared “it is clear” that all pension benefits, including health insurance, cannot be, as the Illinois Constitution mandates, “diminished or impaired,” which the ruling called the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the state’s Constitution.

The key here is the State's Constitutional mandates that pension benefits cannot be "diminished or impaired". This very same clause is in New York and a dozen other State Constitutions. Therefore, these States, including New York, will now have a precedent to follow if any of these States decide to reduce retiree pensions, including health benefits. Therefore, in 2017, when the next New York State Constitutional Convention is convened and if the State Legislature and Governor decide to tackle pension reform, it will appear that already retired State and Local government employees will not be affected, based upon the Illinois court decision.

While its possible that New York State could tackle pension reform in 2017, it appears highly unlikely that the State cannot change the Constitutional mandate that retiree benefits cannot be "diminished or impaired"based upon the Illinois Court precedent.

That brings me to the education reformers who are spearheading the assault on educator pensions and teacher tenure laws. All these education reform groups want to eliminate pensions and replace it with an inferior 401k/403b plan or none at all. Furthermore, when one looks atcharter schools, which is what the education reform groups strongly support and believe all schools should end up to be, almost all of them have inferior pension plans, some don't have matching contributions and afew don't even offer a pension plan! In the education reform playbook its not about educator job security and pensions but how to maximize profits for their hedge fund allies who fund their groups and the charter schools. In fact, long-serving teachers is not what they want. High teacher turnover, and making the teaching profession a transitional job is their goal and teacher tenure laws and adequate pension benefits is contrary to that goal. Consequently, look for the education reform groups to continue to attack teacher "due process rights" and compensation in the form of pensions and health benefits.

Once again, I have checked over ten schools in Queens that advertized for an Earth Science teacher on the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS), and didn't receive one interview. That's right, not one interview! Maybe because I am part of the "untouchables", ATRs who survived their 3020-a hearings that the DOE doesn't want to see in the classroom. However, in speaking to many of my teaching colleagues coming from closing schools or programs, they haven't received any interviews either! According to Gene Mann of the UFT 4,000 teachers change jobs using the OMTS. What Mr Mann fails to say is few of them are highly experienced and high-salaried teachers. The vast majority are untenured teachers who want to get out of poorly performing schools resulting in a destabalizing of the very schools that need a stable teaching staff.

What do we excessed teachers have in common? Age and salary/ Most of my colleagues make $80,000 or more and are over 50 years of age. That's right its age and salary discrimination. Principals will not hire us because of the "fair student funding"and the bias against ATRs. Try to get this information from the DOE and UFT and they claim ignorance and a FOIL request to the DOE was ignored since neither organization wants the truth out. Now that there is no "hiring freeze" look for the ATR pool to increase by September from the 2,400+ to as much as 3,000 as few ATRs took the inadequate buyout.

Our union betrayed the ATRs and no matter how our union spins this contract, the union is allowing the DOE to stigmatize excessed teachers and demonize those that won their 3020-a discipline hearings. No other City union would agree to make some of their members second class citizens and allow the DOE to practice a de facto age and salary discrimination as part of the contract. However, no other union is like ours that screws some of its members while slapping themselves on the back for an inferior contract that even DC37 beat.

Over the last few years the New York State Education (NYSED) has directly or indirectly used some of the RttT funds to go after teacher licenses who were terminated in their 3020-a hearings for "moral turpitude". While theState always went after educators found guilty of a crime or criminal actions and removed their teaching license, it appears the State has expanded their definition of "moral turpitude" to include non-criminal actions as well in an attempt to get rid of more teachers. Lately the Office of Teaching Initiatives has allocated more money to investigate more 3020-a termination cases that were not criminal in nature. According to my sources, NYSED has used a portion of the increased federal funds allocated to the State (RttT?) to expand the State's "good moral charterer" determination to include non-criminal actions of sexual misconduct, corporal punishment, and other non-criminal actions that lead to the teacher's termination in the 3020-a hearing process.

Moreover, the NYSED has also included educators who took a stipulation to resign or retire rather than go through their 3020-a hearing that fit into the ever broadening definition of "moral turpitude". It appears all this is part of NYSED's attack on teachers, be it the badly flawed Teacher Evaluation System, their insistence to use high stakes testing against teachers while admitting that it's not appropriate for students, or the ever broadening of the "moral turpitude" clause of Article 83.. In fact, I know of a case of a teacher who was unjustly terminated in 2011 for corporal punishment in which she tried to restrain a violent child and never hurt the child in restraining him. When her unfair 3020-a decision was reversed by the State Supreme Court as being "shocking to the conscience", only to be reversed again in a 2 to 1 Appellate Court decision, ahe found herself three years later subject to NYSED's punitive Article 83 regulation.

While nobody wants teachers who are a danger to the children to have a license, it appears that the NYSED is using a broad brush to label many educators as not deserving of a teacher's license and many deserving educators can no longer be a teacher simply because the NYSED has expanded the "moral turpitude" clause to include educators who are not and never have been a danger to the children and that's not fair or right for that matter.

The education reformers have redoubled their efforts in trying to eliminate teacher tenure and flush from a victory in California,which I believe will be reversed on appeal, they and they deep pocketed benefactors have filed asimilar lawsuit in New York State. The premise of the lawsuit in New York State is that the state teacher tenure laws violate the constitution that requires that every student should have an adequate education. This lawsuit is just another attack by the education reformers on the teaching profession and the teacher unions.

Interestingly, the tenure laws in New York State are more stringent than in California. For example, it takes three full years of satisfactory ratings before tenure can be granted by the Principal. Furthermore, the tenure decision can be extended for another year or two if the Principal and teacher agree to do so. In the last year in NYC only 56% of the teachers received tenure, while the rest were either extended or discontinued. Moreover, once tenure is achieved, the teacher can still be terminated for misconduct or incompetence but gets "full due process rights"by going through a State 3020-a hearing in front of an approved arbitrator who decides the case.

Until a teacher gets tenure, the Principal can terminate a teacher "at will"and its extremely rare for an untenured teacher to win their appeal when terminated. Chapter Leader Arthur Goldstein wrote about one such case when an untenured teacher went to bat for his students as their IEP's were being violated by the school administration and where not getting the state mandated services they needed.

When I was in the infamous "rubber room", I encountered hundreds of teachers during my stay. The common theme was that most of the teachers were there because of problems with their principals. I'm not saying that that the teachers were blameless but in many cases the principals were told how to embellish, pervert, and distort the incidence to make it seem serious, just to get the teacher out of the school. It is only when the teacher goes in front of his or her 3020-a arbitrator can the teacher reasonably expect an impartial hearing. If the DOE had its way, almost 100% of the teachers charged would be terminated, just like that for untenured teachers orteachers who appealed their "unsatisfactory ratings".

If there wasn't tenure would any teacher stick their neck out and advocate for their students, report wrongdoing, or question policies that appear to hurt the academic achievement of the students? Few would. Does one want to go back to the "bad old days" when nepotism, cronyism, and personal likes or dislikes dictated the fate of teachers? I think not. One of my friends who was untenured reported cheating to her administration and her satisfactory observations before the cheating report became unsatisfactory after the report and was discontinued since it appears the administration was in on the cheating (in fact SCI was called and confirmed that cheating took place). Hopefully, the State Supreme Court will find in her favor and force the DOE to give her job back,

Nobody wants to work in an environment where any accusation by a student or administrator or the failure to take on extra responsibilities could lead to termination without "due process". As it is, there will be a teacher shortage in five years and weakening or eliminating teacher tenure will accelerate the pace of good teachers leaving the profession. Yes, tenure is important if school districts are to attract and retain"great teachers"and do what's best for their students by placing them first.

As I expected, some ex-members who resigned or were terminated before the age of 55 have decided to file a lawsuit to get their much deserved retroactive raises between the 2009-13 school years which was unfairly deprived by the City and the UFT in the recently negotiated contract. How any union could eliminate up to 9,000 ex members from getting the retroactive pay that they worked for is just plain wrong. Yet, that is exactly what happened with the UFT. It appears the UFT violated the equal protection under the law provisions in New York State, I guess time will tell if the lawsuit is successful.

While I believe the inadequate contract was a favor to the De Blasio Administration that allowed the City to establish a"city pattern" that got the City off cheaply. However, why did the union sacrifice many of the members to satisfy the City? Not only will 9,000 ex members who resigned. terminated, discontinued, or died not get their retroactive pay but add another 3,000+ ATRs who are now second class citizens with an expedited 3020-a process based on a vaguely worded and defined "unprofessional behavior". Moreover, any ATR that won their 3020-a hearings will be not offered vacancies or temporary positions by the DOE. These 250+ educators are now known as the "untouchables". This group, I'm told will include any ATR "U rated" in the last school year.

Hopefully, the ex members will win their lawsuit and be getting their much deserved back pay and the next lawsuit the union may have to deal with is the ATRs for their failure to properly represent them and allowed the DOE to impose different rules on them that no other Municipal unions have for their members.

It now appears the UFT leadership not only screwed some of their own members, the ATRs, teachers who resigned or discontinued or died, and members on unpaid maturity leave and yes, members who went on disability, but it now appears the UFT contract allows the City to not pay retroactive raises to ex UFT members who resigned between 2009-2014 to become DOE administrators. That's right, all these administrators who became assistant principals and principals are assumed to have resigned by the City and are not getting their well deserved retroactive raises that they worked for. Moreover, for UFT members who want to be administrators in the future, will not be getting their retroactive raises or lump sum payments going forward. While I have little sympathy for these administrators, especially the vindictive and leadership academy administrators its still not fair to deny them of the money owed them. Apparently all UFT members who went to a non-UFT title will also be screwed and not receive their retroactive raises as well.

According to chalkbeat, this is one of the major stumbling blocks between the City and the CSA in negotiating a new contract. However, there may be other unresolved issues as well. For example the City wants the CSA to agree to a 7% return on their TDA instead of the existing 8.25%, without any givebacks and the CSA agreeing to a similar ATR provision for their excessed members.

The City and UFT agreed not to call the two 4% raises as retroactive raises to get around giving every member and ex members their well deserved raises but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't claim its a goose. However, both the UFT and the City is doing just that. Blogger JD2718 has an excellent post on how the UFT stopped using the term "retroactive raises"when they sold the contract to the members and is a must read.

One of the ATRs went down to 65 Court Street to make some changes in her personnel file and decided, while there, to get a DOE employee identity card. She had her picture taken and received her new identity card. Shockingly, she noticed that the new identity card had stamped on it "ATR". The educator told the person who gave her the identity card that she didn't understand why "ATR" must be stamped onto the card since its demeaning and by September she might land a position. The response is that is what the DOE has ordered her to do. An itinerant teacher who I know showed me her DOE identity card and it just had her name on it not "itinerant teacher". This is just another example of labeling the ATRs.

We all know that being an ATR confers"second class citizenship", Thanks UFT, and if one won their 3020-a discipline hearing they are labeled"untouchables". Now it seems that the DOE is stamping on the identity cards "ATR"! What's next? Requiring the ATR status on our clothes? If the DOE could legally require it, in my opinion they would. The DOE already have included a red discipline flag on files of educators who have had a substantiated OSI or SCI investigation even when the substantiation turned out to be false when required to provide real and relevant evidence in front of an independent hearing officer.

There is no doubt in my mind that the DOE is trying their best to eliminate the ATR pool by any means possible. Be itfield supervisor harassment, useless weekly rotations, or special rules that reduces ATR "due process rights". I expect the DOE to use anything in their toolbox to make being an ATR an uncomfortable experience and if an ATR breathes wrong, expect a "U rating" or 3020-a charges to follow. The union? They are part of the problem and not part of the solution since they have either agreed to, or ignore the DOE onslaught on the ATRs.

The Wall Street Journal received from the NYCDOE the 3020-a statistics for the last two years April 2012 to January 2014 on educators who were charged under section 3020-a for tenured educators. If you browsed through the chart supplied by the newspaper it would seem that only 40 out of 826 cases ended in termination or 5% and that's what the newspaper wants you to believe. However, if you read the article more thoroughly, you realize that 330 cases have not been resolved and the termination rate jumps from 5% to 8%, not a large jump but its not 5%. Wait there's more. Of the 826 disciplinary cases, it turns out that apparently 235 educators agreed to resign or retire rather than go through the 3020-a hearing process. Add the 235 to the 40 terminated educators and the total educators removed from the system is 275. Since only 496 cases have been resolved (826 - 330). the total percentage of educators that left the system after being charged under the 3020-a law is 55%! That's right 55% not the 5% the Wall Street Journal would like you to believe is the case.

While the data shows no educator acquittal rates, historically, its been consistently around 4%in the last decade. Therefore, of the 826 disciplinary cases, one could expect approximately 20 educators to be exonerated.

The Wall Street Journal article is just another example of how the media uses "fuzzy math"to distort and pervert the statistics to suit their ideological aims and to support the attack on teacher"due process rights". Michael Bloomberg may be gone but his ideology still inhabits the corridors of Tweed and the New York City media. The ICEUFT blog also has a similar take on how the Wall Street Journal manipulated the statistics.

When the UFT was negotiating with the City for a contract, the City kept claiming poverty and the UFT accepted their argument by allowing for a cheap "City pattern" to be established by giving a 10% raise for a seven year period or 1.43% annually, much less than the inflation rate. Before the UFT agreed to the contract a very respected economist, Mel Levy, stated in the Civil Service paper,The Chief, that for every 1% point the NYC pension funds exceeded the average7% rate of return, the pension funds kicks back 2 billion dollars to the City's general fund. However, both the UFT and City ignored this extra money as they negotiated a contract.

Now according to the New York City Controllers Office, the NYC pension funds made 17.4% for the last fiscal year. Much of that difference went into the City's general fund and was quite a windfall. The UFT leadership will make the case that they didn't realize the NYC pension fund did so well. However, when the stock market went up 22% for the same period, what did they think the NYC pension fund's rate of return would be since its heavily invested in stocks? Moreover, in the last 5 years, the average rate of return was 13.4% which allowed the City to get a windfall of many of billions of dollars if one uses Mel Levy's projections. Yet the union accepted the City's claim that they were broke, despite the economic uptick in the City's finances. It certainly seems like the City came out ahead of the game when it came to the UFT contract.

Its one thing for the City to claim they're broke but its something else for the union leadership to swallow the bull, hook line, and sinker, and give its members an inferior contract..

The education reform groups and their deep pocketed hedge fund supporters have decided to go to the courts to attack teacher tenure, claiming that teacher tenure protects bad teachers and hurts poor and minority children. Led by the clueless Campbell Brown who claims that she doesn't want to eliminate teacher "due process rights" but to reform it. However, when asked how she would reform it, she was vague on what the specifics were for reforming tenure. What we do know about Campbell Brown is that she called for the firing of all teachers accused of sexual misconduct. According to Ms. Brown simply having a DOE assigned investigator substantiate the accusation is the only proof needed to fire the teacher. In her warped vision no real or relevant evidence is necessary to show that the teacher, in fact, committed sexual misconduct. When it was brought to her attention that the DOE investigation process does not determine guilt or innocence, only whether, in their opinion, the possibility exists that sexual misconduct did occur. Ms Brown decided the Chancellor should then have the final say in terminating the teacher and not an independent or impartial arbitrator who is trained to hear and evaluate real and relevant evidence.

Campbell Brown does not want teacher "due process rights"what Campbell Brown wants is to give a school district the right to fire a teacher without a fair or impartial hearing. Sure she supports a school district hearing but she knows full well that an internal hearing almost always results in termination. Just take a look at the "U" rating appeals by the NYCDOE where only 0.2% were reversed by DOE hearing officers. Similar percentages are probably true for discontinued teachers who never achieved tenure. The same results are likely if the DOE had the right to determine the fate of a tenured teacher and not an independent arbitrator.

That brings me to the DOE investigation process which I believe is corrupt, especially when the Principal wants the teacher gone from the school. When a teacher is subject to either an OSI or SCI investigation, the first thing the investigators do is to talk to the Principal. If the Principal likes the teacher, the worst that could happen to the teacher is a letter to a file . However, if the Principal dislikes the teacher, the two investigative agencies will substantiate the most frivolous of charges, including unfounded hearsay and have the teacher removed and subject to 3020-a charges.

If Campbell Brown gets her wish any politically motivated investigation of a teacher by a school district would almost certainly result in that teacher's termination, even when the charges are false, that's not "due process".

In today's New York Post, an article was written on how the DOE has wasted over a billion dollars since 2005 to get ATRs to leave the system but for the most part, failed to do so. The article was light on facts and didn't really discuss-the ATR issue in detail. However, the article reflected the DOE's frustration of paying hundred of millions of dollars annually in the last eight years to keep the ATR pool rather then putting them back into the classroom where they belong. The NY Post article states that the DOE's ATR buyout, that ends tomorrow, is expected to be an utter failure with few ATRs actually taking the inadequate buyout.

Interestingly, the DOE told the New York Post that while all vacancies posted after October 15th must be filled by an ATR, the Principal has the right to remove the ATR from the position after only one day for no reason whatsoever. Moreover, the DOE apparently told the New York Post that "ALL TEACHERS WHO WENT THROUGH THEIR 3020-a PROCESS AND WON HAVE A PROBLEM CODE ON THEIR FILE! That's right the ATRs have their own"Scarlet Letter"! That means that principals who look at an ATR's file will see the "red flag"on the file and will not offer the vacancy to the teacher no matter how qualified the teacher is.

Unfortunately, the article didn't explain the "fair student funding" that discourages principals from hiring teachers due to their high salaries or that the four"job fairs" this summer excluded invitations to ATRs to participate in. While James Eterno was quoted, it consisted of a two sentence statement that said the DOE's policies will not eliminate the ATR pool and the ATRs need to be placed. Otherwise, the article was slanted to the DOE's position.

Finally, the ideological slant of the New York Post was obvious in this article as they called the ATRs "outcasts".

I was watching the Colbert Report with the clueless Campbell Brown who told the host that it takes an average of 830 days to get rid of an incompetent teacher. However, like usual, she got it wrong. She was using old and outdated data from 2004-08 and these figures were not the average but the longest cases it took to get a decision According to the State School Board Association, the average tine for a decision during this time period, from start to finish, was 520 days and excluded New York City cases. The latest data shows a much swifter 3020-a process and that for 2013 it took only 177 days to complete the State 3020-a process, including a decision, and 190 days for the New York City cases (the union claims its 150 days for the last two years 2012-13).

It would appear that if Campbell Brown tries to use the lengthy 3020-a process as a major factor for her lawsuit, it will fail since the days when it took two or more years to reach a decision is a thing of the past and for most educators the entire 3020-a process rarely goes beyond a year.

This is yet another example of the clueless Campbell Brown using outdated and false statistics to try to prove her case. Interestingly, in her long ago cancelled cable show her slogan was "no bias, no bull". However, she violates that slogan by advocating for school districts to terminate teachers for any reason and at any time without giving them their "due process rights". What a hypocrite she is. For her it's not children first but to destroy teachers and their tenure, plain and simple.

This June, John Hopkins published a study called "Children's Life Trajectories Largely Determined By The Family They Were Born Into". The study showed that the family and poverty were the most important factors in determining a child's fate as an adult. This study followed 790 children in Baltimore as they entered first grade in 1982 and ended when these children became 28 or 29 year old adults in 2004-05. The results were disappointing if you are an education reformer since it shows that the two major factors were unrelated to the school the child went to. The two factors are family and poverty. You can hear the study Here.

The John Hopkins study just reinforces the many previous studies that show that a child's social economic factors were the major factor in a child's development. Most of these studies show that the school environment contributes to anywhere between 10-20% of a child's academic achievement and some studies show an even less of an impact. Obviously, the John Hopkins study supports this as well. Sure, that an amazing teacher is nice to have but the major driving force for students are outside the classroom and lies with the family's financial condition and the community that the child grows up in.

The John Hopkins study found the following from children who grew up in low income backgrounds:

Almost no children from a low income household made it through college.
Only white males from a low income family, without a college degree found high paying jobs.
Low income women did much netter when they were married or in a committed relationship.
Low income men had a criminal conviction rate of 41% (white) to 49% (black)

The study convincingly shows that growing up in a low income family makes life difficult to find success as an adult.

That brings me to the education reformers who ignore the major factors of family and poverty that accounts for 80% or higher of a child's fate and instead concentrates on eliminating teacher tenure and "due process rights" as if that will magically result in better student outcomes. Of course as any educator knows it won't. If Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdock, and Bill Gates really want to help students as they claim, then they need to use their wealth and influence to eliminate poverty and improve access to good paying jobs and most importan tly, keep the fathers as part of the family rather than relying on single mothers to carry the load. As the graph above shows, the deeper the community is in poverty, the lower the academic scores the children produce. The Annenberg Institute report showed almost the same correlation for New York City when they used communities Ignoring the effect of family and poverty and blaming it on teachers is not only wrong but results in the continuing failure of these cohort of child as they advance through the education system without the proper and necessary family and financial support necessary to narrow the academic achievement gap.

The DOE issued a press release that claimed that 9% of the ATRs took the buyout and it will cost $1.8 million dollars. Moreover, the DOE estimates it will save the agency $15 million dollars next year. Sounds good? However, what is obvious is that vast majority of the ATRs that took the buyout were retiring anyway! Therefore, the DOE's estimated cost savings of $15 million dollars is all "smoke and mirrors". Furthermore, the DOE's "fuzzy math"does not account for the retirement costs such as pension, health care, and the retroactive raises and lump sum payments. The DOE press release falsely assumes that all the ATRs who took the buyout resigned rather than retired which is the contrary of what really happened.

DOE's Fuzzy Math:
The DOE press release also claims there was 1,300 ATRs (1,131 teachers) that had UFT titles in the pool in the Spring. However, it didn't include ATRs who were filling long-term leave replacements or provisional vacancies and were temporarily removed from the ATR pool. These ATRs were also eligible for the ATR buyout and if you accept the union number that approximately 50% of the ATRs are placed in a school by the end of the year to fill these positions, the real number of ATRs would be closer to 2,600 (2,262 teachers). Therefore, the fact that only 115 ATRs (97 teachers) took the buyout, the real percentage is 4% not 9% as the DOE press release claims.

DOE's Toolbox Spin:
The DOE claims they will be reducing the ATR pool by placing ATRs in vacancies after October 16th. However, the DOE admits there is no "mutual consent", the ATR has no say in the placement or interview. Worse, if the ATR fails to show up for an interview or refuses to take a position, the ATR will be considered to have resigned and not receive their retro and lump sum payments. While there are no "forced placements" for principals, there are for ATRs.

DOE's Wishful Thinking::
Finally, the DOE believes that there will be less ATRs in the pool; but since principals are allowed to hire who they want and are hiring the cheapest teachers they can fit into their tight school budgets, the DOE will see either the same or even more ATRs than last year. That brings me to Chancellor Carmen Farina's quote

“We're developing a world-class school system, and to do that, we need world-class teachers ucating our students. We are pleased that through this educator's contract, we were able to develop a process that is mutually beneficial for the DOE by reducing spending and for the teachers who have chosen to leave. And we are doing so while respecting mutual-consent hiring. There is no forced placement of these teachers.”

Looking at the quote you can see where the inaccuracies are right away/

Hiring the cheapest and not the best teachers do not make for a world-class teaching staff.
There is no mutual consent hiring since the ATR has no right to refuse an interview or placement.
There is forced placement since the ATR must accept an offered position.

The ATR pool with its "second class citizens"and "untouchables"is a product of the DOE and UFT and my advise if you are an ATR be careful, very careful, because the DOE is out to get you and the UFT is its willing partner to shove you out the door.

Even before the Open Market Transfer System had closed on August 7th, principals were trying to hire teachers outside the DOE approved process, be it, the open market, ATR pool, or new teacher finder programs. A couple of years ago, I uncovered a school who advertised on Craigslist and it was reported to the union leadership who chose not to make an issue of it. Now I have seen two separate Craigslist advertisements. One being from a well regarded school, Bayside high school. The school's Craigslist advertisement is found below.
_________________________________________________________

Bayside High School Teaching Positions (Bayside High School - Bayside, NY)

compensation: Per most recent UFT contract

Bayside High School anticipates that the following positions will be available for September 2014:

-Commercial Art (Digital Art)
-Computer Programming (Computer Technology)
-Media Communications (Music Production/Recording Arts Technology)
-Technology Education (Environmental Engineering)
-Natural Resources & Ecology (Environmental Engineering)
-Drafting/CAD (Environmental Engineering)
-Business and Marketing (Non-Profit Management)
-Sports Medicine/Personal Training
-Chemistry
-Physics
-Chinese Language
-Japanese Language
-SWD Biology
-SWD Mathematics
-SWD ELA
-SWD Social Studies
___________________________________________________

If interested, please complete ALL of the steps below:
1. Email cover letter AND resume to hiring@baysidehigh.org
2. Compose email subject line to include position of interest and name, according to the following sample: CHEMISTRY: SMITH, JOHN
3. Submit all requested information at: https://docs.google.com/a/baysidehigh.org/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHhhNDViSUI4bjBXUkxzZFI4aDYyY1E6MQ

Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
do NOT contact us with unsolicited services or offers

post id: 4608899530

posted: a day ago

updated: a day ago

email to friend

___________________________________________________

That's right, the school is advertising for 16 vacancies outside the approved DOE hiring process. If you noticed, there is no requirement to have a valid teaching license or be certified. Is this Craigslist advertisement the exception? Unfortunately, its not. If you look at the picture next to this paragraph you will

see another school advertising for an 8th grade Science teacher on Craigslist. The question is what is the DOE doing about this? Better yet, will the union do the right thing and demand that the DOE follow their own rules and regulations and punish these schools for circumventing the hiring procedures. I won't hold my breath waiting for the DOE and the UFT to take action.

Over the Bloomberg years and in the beginning of the De Blasio Administration, the New York Post, echoed the education reformer slogan that a great teacher in every classroom is the major factor in closing the racial/income academic achievement gap. To the New York Post it wasn't tight school budgets, a bloated DOE bureaucracy, large class sizes, unqualified administrators, social-economic factors, or family. It was about firing teachers for any or no reason at all and making sure every classroom had an effective teacher. Just like the education reformers, the New York Post would write editorials saying that the quality of the teacher is the most important factor in a child's educational development while ignoring the fact t5hat the schools were hiring the cheapest and not the best teachers for the schools.

However, in an attempt to dump on Bill de Blasio's inequality agenda, the New York Post editorial cited poverty as the root cause of the gap, the blind spot that all education reformers ignore. That;s right, the New York Post editorial finally admits its the elimination of poverty that needs to occur if the inequality gap is to be closed. The editorial claims that raising the minimum wage, universal pre-k, and affordable rents are praiseworthy, however, the real problem is poverty. Interesting how the New York Post all of a sudden claims poverty is the major factor in the inequality gap when it suits their purpose to belittle Mayor De Blasio's plans but never questions education reformers on this same issue? What a hypocrite the New York Post is.

One needs to just look at the John Hopkins study to realize its poverty and family that is the most important factors in reducing the inequality gap, not a great teacher in every classroom.Its time the education reformers and their media allies admit it.

.

Despite assurances from UFT President Michael Mulgrew that all the members will get back every dollar owed to them, it now appears that the City and UFT have worked out an agreement that there will be no retroactive increases for per session pay for the 2009-14 time period. Why do I believe this is the case? It turns out the new per session pay rate has increased by only 2%, (instead of the 2.12% when the 2013-14 retro is included) from $41.98 to $42.82 starting this summer, that's why. The per session increase of 2% does not include any retro payments from 2009 to 2014, as promised by Michael Mulgrew. Had these retro payments been included, the new per session rate would be much higher.

While I understand that calling Michael Mulgrew's claims of getting all our retro payments into question may cause him to place me on his list of trying to punch me in the face, I stand by my analysis that his claims appears to be false. In fact, this is another example of a group of his members being screwed by the union leadership and the City. Now it seems that all the members who put in for per session activities between 2009 and 2014 will not be getting any more money after all. Had all the retroactive raises been incorporated in the new per session rate, the per session rate would be $46.18 not $42.82. This tells me that the City has no intention of paying members any more per session money, based upon the new per session rate and the union has apparently allowed it to happen.

To all the members who were assured by our union representatives that all the retros will be paid, here is another example of our union not telling us the truth. The real truth is that the DOE agreed not to adjust the per session pay of $41.98 that was paid out between November of 2009 and June 2014 for the new per session rate. That's the only answer why the new per session rate is only $42.82 and not much higher. Therefore, don't expect any additional checks coming to the members who were looking for a payday of $1,000 or more owed to them for their per session work for the 2009-14 time period.

It seems as the contract terms become clearer, the long list of members being screwed just grows. The ATRs, ex members who resigned or were terminated, newly minted administrators, members who died in service, went on disability or unpaid leave, and now added to the list are the members who worked per session. The list continues to grow with the new contract. I hate to think who's next to be screwed by the contract down the road. Hopefully its not you.

Memo To President Obama. In New York City Its Not About Hiring Quality Teachers But The Cheapest Teachers For The Schools.

How Bad Is Our Contract? Just Compare It To The DC37 Pact?

One Third Of New York City Public Schools Found To Be Overcrowded. Just Another Nail In The Coffin Of Mayor Bloomberg's Education Legacy.

The Illinois Highest Court Rules Against The State's Attempt To Reduce Retiree Health Benefits.

The Open Market Transfer System Is A Joke.

New York State Education Department Is Going After Teacher Licenses Under Article 83 For Non-Criminal Actions.

Great Teachers Also Need Tenure Laws To Protect Themseleves From Vindictive Administrators.

Ex Members Who Resigned File A Lawsuit Against The UFT To Get Back Their Retroactive Pay. - Are The ATRs Next To Sue?

The UFT Contract Screws The CSA As Well.

The DOE Labels ATRs With A Special Identity Card.

The Fuzzy Math The Wall Street Journal Used For Their 3020-a Statistics

The New York City Pension System, Flush With Cash, Gives Billions To The City Coffers.

Teacher Tenure And The DOE Investigation Process.

DOE Wastes Over A Billion Dollars In Trying To Get ATRs To Leave The System.

How long Does It Take For A 3020-a Hearing To Result In A Decision?

The John Hopkins Study Shows That Family & Poverty Are The Major Factors In Academic Achievement.

The DOE Issues A Press Release Full Of Inaccuracies About ATRs.

Principals Continue To Advertise For Teachers Outside The DOE Approved Process.

The NY Post Shows Its Hypocracy When It Comes To Improving Schools.

Bad News! No Retroactive Per Session Pay After All.