Monday, May 23, 2016

CAN A DEVELOPING RATING BE APPEALED?

Last fall we wrote about an alarming development where the Department of Education was bringing incompetence charges against tenured teachers in dismissal hearings who have never been rated ineffective. The teachers had been rated developing. The union said that a developing rating would only lead to a Teacher Improvement Plan. They never hinted that teachers would face dismissal if rated developing.

Two people contacted me this past weekend about challenging developing ratings through the appeals process. While I make no claim to be any kind of expert on the current teacher evaluation system or the one going into effect in the fall, I see nothing that says we can appeal a developing rating. I don't know if there is anything that says we cannot either.

I put this out to our readers: Does anyone know if a developing rating has been appealed?

Can we set a precedent?

If the DOE is violating the spirit of the education law by charging people with developing ratings with incompetence in dismissal hearings, then certainly we should be able to appeal these ratings.

It seems the DOE has been given a double victory here. For teachers rated ineffective twice, the burden of proof is on the teacher to prove they are not incompetent in dismissal hearings. These teachers are guilty until proven innocent. At the same time the DOE is still charging people with incompetence the traditional way, with the burden of proof on the Board of Ed, who have never been rated ineffective.

Don't you wish you had a union that wouldn't stand for this?

25 comments:

Jonathan said...

I cannot point you to a source, so this is 95%, not 100%, but I am certain that on at least one iteration of Advance only year-end Ineffective ratings could be appealed (Some union leaders claimed there were no consequences to a D - bull)

Closest I can find is the UFT page on how to appeal - it specifies appealing an "Ineffective."

Jonathan

Anonymous said...

Has anybody here been rated developing for their end of the year rating and had to go through a TIP? It seems like the TIP is kind of a hassle for principals to go through. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Have a teacher (I think maybe two) who are on TIPs. Does not seem like it's tough on the Principal at all. Honestly, I've had a great career until now. But, now I wish I had never become a teacher. It is clear as day that getting fired has nothing to do with competence and everything to do with age and salary. Every single ATR and TIPed teacher I've seen has 20 years experience. *Every* *single* *one*. If I knew my career was going to be so short, I would have done something more lucrative so I could have some dignity in my old age. This used to be a job where you could work hard, feel good about what you do, and have some very modest security in old age. Now your future is completely arbitrary and capricious. It's frightening.

Anonymous said...

You would think there would be a link to TIP and non-tenured teachers as they are still new to the game and honing their craft. I say if veteran teachers are getting a TIP that means they are being hassled. How can a 20 year teacher suddenly become a "teacher in need of improvement"? It defies logic. The 2 TIP teachers I know one had 3 years in and one had 7 years in.

Anonymous said...

Never met a newbie on a TIP. Although, that could change. The Principal seems to realize the optics of going after only veteran Ts. Now seems to be gearing up to go after a couple of new (and phenomenal) Teachers for this year so as to look fair. Wow. This Principal cuts off own nose so much, can't even smell own BS.

James Eterno said...

Jonathan-Can we come up with some kind of resolution on this? This is totally unfair to our members and it should not be tolerated.

NYCDOEnuts said...

Modesty aside, I still haven't met anyone who knows as much about this system as I do. You cannot appeal a Developong rating unless you hire a lawyer and/or go throw the courts (or unless the union somehow throws weight around and decides to appeal which, obviously, they'll never do).

James Eterno said...

Unless we pressure them to change policy.

Anonymous said...

This is your union dollars at work folks. The fact that 80% of membership won't even vote in this election gives the clown Michael Mulgrew carte blanche to ignore members rights.

Anonymous said...

Sad but true.

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew negotiated a contract giving us a $1,000 signing bonus. The Custodial Engineers just tentatively agreed to a contract in April giving them a $10,000 signing bonus. YES, 10 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Anonymous said...

Forget Mulgrew and forget de Blasio. 10 grand?!

Anonymous said...

de Blasio is a sexist douche. He stiffed us b/c Ts are 80% women; thinks we won't fight. But, custodians ask and he makes it rain. What a jerk.

Jonathan said...

I'm not sure what Advance's status is now (interim? permanent? open for negotiation?) - and I am not sure if the appeals process is embedded in Advance, or a separate agreement. We need to figure that out in order to know where the change has to happen.

NYCDOEnuts said...

Right. So process for appeals are laid out in the still applicable state imposed arbitration decision by King. Advance is just a policy designed to meet the conditions of that framework. The framework allows appeals for "I" and nothing else. I'm sure the union would appeal wif they wanted to but there isn't anythjng in the framework saying so and good luck getting them to want to alpseal a "D". it is fascinating how the district policy is surving through so many edits and add-ons to the state frameowrk, But at the end of the day, it's still that framework (with add ons) leading to the district policy we all know as Advance.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but what is the official deal with our observation numbers for next year? State mandate is 2 minumum and 1 must be from outside evaluator. WHEN WILL WE FIND OUT ABOUT THIS?

Anonymous said...

Does anybody, (including the author) know with 100% certainty that there are in fact a handful of teachers who were brought up on 3020a charges due to two developings? Or rather, is it more of a case of "I got a call from somebody who knows somebody who was brought up on 3020a charges due to two developings?" I would really like to hear the details from somebody who was actually brought up on these charges or hear from somebody who is actually representing or a witness to this person before I believe to be true. I am only bringing this up because if this information is actually true, then it is a deal changer for every single teacher in NYC. 3020a hearings are open to the public if the teacher wants it to be. Let's see how this actually pans out.

Anonymous said...

Yes. I was bought up on 3020a charges for developing rating. I've had two ratings of developing. I am a tenured teacher in the system for 18 years. Ive hired an attorney. I was told that the DOE can do this. But the burden of proof is on them. So yes, its happening. My hearing will also be public.

Anonymous said...

Yes. I was bought up on 3020a charges for developing rating. I've had two ratings of developing. I am a tenured teacher in the system for 18 years. Ive hired an attorney. I was told that the DOE can do this. But the burden of proof is on them. So yes, its happening. My hearing will also be public.

James Eterno said...

Members have called me and asked for help on their 3020a hearings with two developing ratings.

Anonymous said...

Here is my thoughts: Of course the DOE can bring somebody up on 3020a charges after 2 developings. However, they can also bring up 3020a charges on somebody with 2 effectives or even with 2 highly effectives. The point is that the burden of proof is still on the DOE to prove incompetence regardless if it is after 2 developings, 2 effectives or 2 highly effectives. On the flip side, a teacher with 2 consecutive innefectives "may" be brought up on 3020a and 3 consecutive innefectives means the teacher "must" be brought up on 3020a charges. Only when the teacher has 2 innefectives does the burden of proof switch to the DOE. This is my reading and interpretation of the law. Anybody want to chime in? Bueller? Bueller?

Anonymous said...

Correction: burden of proof switches to teacher after 2 innefectives.

James Eterno said...

Your reading of the law is correct but after two effectives, what kind of case does the DOE have? Arbitrators almost always give the DOE something so they are getting fines and/or suspensions based on two developing ratings. That is unconscionable. the union needs to stop them.

Doctor Sizzle Chest said...

After my 3020 hearing my lawyer said that new charges will suffer the burden of proof vs the doe. Basically they're making it harder on teachers to contest he charges. I have 18 yrs in and only 2-3% of those charged D or Ineff. will their cases as per (on the side) my lawyer at the doe

Anonymous said...

Good luck