DIGGING DEEP IN THE NEW EDUCATION LAW REVEALS THE TOTALITY OF OUR DEFEAT ON "FAILING" SCHOOLS

We were patient waiting for the release of the final language of the budget bill that included the new teacher evaluation rules and much more. The bill passed late Tuesday evening.  It is a complete disaster for public education, educators and students.

I read through much of the actual bill and saw Jessica Bakeman's excellent summary at Capital.  Everyone should take the time to close read (sorry I couldn't help myself common core haters) the legalize and try to understand it for yourself.  In addition, I recommend going regularly to Perdido Street School for updates and reaction.

Overall, it is obvious Governor Andrew Cuomo slaughtered UFT-NYSUT completely with this monstrous law. He got almost everything he wanted to ruin public education and he can complete his annihilation by raising the charter school cap in June. Others have already written on the evaluation system and other parts of the law so I want to focus this piece on the provision on so called "failing" schools, a part of the law not many people are concentrating on.

In reality, a school deemed "failing" is pretty much always one that has a high concentration of students who are living in poverty, English language learners, students with interrupted formal education, special education pupils, overage students or a combination of these kids with the greatest needs.  However, to the bureaucrats and politicians making policy on public schools, who know virtually nothing about education, a failing school is a place where teachers and administrators are doing a lousy job and must be replaced.  This is ridiculous.

I was in a so called failing school last year.  I am the same teacher now in a non-failing school.  I am willing to bet part of my pension that the Measures of Student Learning portion of my rating this year will be better than it was last year because of who I am teaching, not because of how I am teaching.

Keeping this in mind, let's now examine the actual language in the new evaluation law on receivership. Receivership is when "failing schools" are taken over by the district or state and given over to an all knowing receiver to manage.  UFT President Michael Mulgrew in his delusional email Sunday said we kept local control on this issue so we won.  I would like to ask our president this: Whether it is the district that takes your job or the state when schools are redesigned, what's the difference?  We still are likely to be out of a job.  This line in the new law (it's buried way down at the bottom in subdivision 154) is downright frightening:

In accordance with Paragraphs (B) and (C) of this subdivision, to abolish the positions of all members of the teaching and supervisory staff assigned to the failing or persistently failing school and terminate the employment of any building principal assigned to such a school, and require such staff members to reapply for their positions in the school if they so choose.

That language is bad enough. However as we dig even deeper, it becomes worse:

The receiver may abolish the positions of all teachers and pedagogical support staff, administrators and personnel service providers assigned to a school designated as failing or persistently failing pursuant to this section and require such staff members to reapply for new positions if they so choose.  The receiver shall define new positions for the school aligned with the school intervention plan including selection criteria and expected duties and responsibilities for each position.  For administers and pupil personnel service providers, the receiver shall have full discretion over all such rehiring decisions.  For teachers and pedagogical support staff, the receiver shall convene a staffing committee including the receiver, two appointees selected by the school staff or their collective bargaining unit.  The staffing committee will determine whether former school staff reapplying for positions are qualified for the new positions.  The receiver shall have full discretion regarding hiring decisions but must fill at least fifty percent of the newly defined positions with the most senior former school staff who are determined by the staffing committee to be qualified.  Any remaining vacancies shall be filled by the receiver in consultation with the staffing committee.

And if that is not bad enough, there is more:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a member of the teaching and pedagogical support, administrative, or pupil personnel service staff who is not rehired pursuant to this paragraph shall not have any right to bump or displace any other person employed by the district, but shall be placed on a preferred eligibility list in accordance with the applicable provisions of  section twenty-five hundred ten, twenty-five hundred eighty-five, twenty-five hundred eight or three thousand thirteen of this chapter.

*(This post has been updated with links to all of the relevant laws which have also been copied in the comments section for those who wish to do further research.)

I am not a lawyer but this would seem to mean we will be laid off if the receiver doesn't want us and we would have to find a new job in the system on our own. (I will gladly correct this if I am reading incorrectly so please, please someone tell me I am wrong.)

The parallels to the failing schools provision and Article 18D of the UFT contract cannot be overlooked. This is taken directly from Article 18D Staffing New or Redesigned Schools in Section 3:

"If sufficient numbers of displaced staff apply, at least fifty percent of the School's pedagogical positions shall be selected from among the appropriately licensed most senior applicants from the impacted school(s), who meet the School's qualifications.

Does anyone think it is just a coincidence that Article 18D and this new provision in the law look somewhat alike?  I don't. Those UFT lobbyists were there in negotiations for a reason.

Rest assured the receiver will most likely end up with a veto (committee operates on consensus) and will be able to determine most of the teachers from the "failing" school are unqualified. Committees do it all the time in New York City when schools are closed and new schools replace them. 

I have some firsthand knowledge of this as Jamaica High School was phased out and four new schools were phased in starting in 2011.  I am aware of just five former Jamaica teachers who are employed today in the new schools that replaced us even though we had over 100 teachers just a few years back. I personally applied for one of the new schools and only heard back that the position was filled.  I was sent to another school in the building for a mandatory interview but of course was never hired.  I guess I am not qualified.

UPDATE: We wrote a revised post when we read Education Law 2588 which covers NYC layoffs. We are laid off by seniority in license in NYC so it looks like the new law is going to create a whole bunch of Absent Teacher Reserves in the city and layoffs outside of NYC.


Even rudimentary due process is a thing of the past if someone is unlucky enough to work in a "failing" school that goes into receivership.  As NYC Educator pointed out:

Then there is the failing schools model, and it looks like it's designed to create them. When you mandate that the bottom 5% are failures, there will always be failures.

Yes, I know it will take a while before a school goes into receivership but criteria will probably be set so that it happens enough to make a real difference. 

Why would anyone want to work in a school even in jeopardy of failing?

Truly, the people who will lose the most from this new law are some of our most needy students who most veteran educators will need to risk their livelihoods to work with.

.