CONTRACT CHECK: BOARD OF ED RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACING TEACHERS

There is controversy between gothamschools.org's Anna Phillips, whom I respect, and the Wall Street Journal over how many excessed teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve pool have actually pounded the pavement to look for jobs. The two news organizations also disagree on whether Joel Klein is offering to keep ATR's forever. Our take is that both the Journal and Gotham need to read the UFT contract.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is not totally wrong (OK right there that might be unusual). Klein wants principals to be able to hire their staff and then be held accountable for the school's results just as the Journal says. If a teacher is forced out of a school because a school closed or a program shrank, the Journal is saying that Klein wants to offer job protection for that teacher. That is what has happened since 2005 and will keep going forever unless there is a change in the contract that the UFT will never agree to so the Journal is basically correct.

Anna Phillips from Gothamschools says Klein wants to get rid of the ATR's but is being forced to keep them because of the UFT contract. Anna is kind of right too but she doesn't mention that Klein is the one who agreed to this system in 2005 so he is stuck with it.

Because we have the Taylor Law, the UFT contract that expired in October of 2009 stays in effect until there is a new one. The UFT is a very weak union for sure. I know first hand because of the way the UFT sold out Jamaica High School after winning the law suit to keep us open, but subsequently they allowed two new schools to illegally take over our space so we are de facto phasing out anyway. Yes, it is a weak union but they are not suicidal.

Since the Department of Education closes schools in droves these days, it would mean that the UFT would basically be killing off its veteran membership if they agreed to allow ATR's to be terminated if they can't find a job after a year as Klein wants. As many have pointed out, there is a financial disincentive for principals to hire veteran teachers so thousands would be let go as has happened in other cities.

UFT will not set this precedent by giving up seniority rights for ATR's as the entire municipal labor movement would soon be asked to do the same because of pattern bargaining. Imagine the city closing sanitation garages to get rid of veteran sanitation workers. I don't forsee the UFT selling out the entire municipal labor movement so basically the Journal is right as the UFT can go forever without a new contract which means Klein is essentially offering ATR's jobs indefinitely. Both the Journal and Gotham are vindicated; successful mediation by the ICE blog.

On the issue of why there are ATR's, all sides miss this one by a wide margin.

Klein is making a big deal out of the actual number of ATR's who have looked for jobs. Anna Phillips has the facts clearly on her side over the Wall Street Journal concerning the percentage of ATR's who have applied for jobs, but the whole argument doesn't address the main issue at all. ATR's contractually have no obligation to look for any jobs. If they wait to be placed in a regular or ATR position, they are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

The ATR crisis is completely made up by Joel Klein and his friends at the UFT. If they were to follow the UFT contract, then it would be up to the Board of Education (official title of DOE) to place teachers.

Let's go to the actual contract where Article 17B Rule 4 states: "Teachers in excess in a school unit or office under the juristiction of a community district must be placed in vacancies within the district to the fullest degree possible. For school units, districts, or other organizational units under the juristiction of the central board, teachers in excess must be placed in appropriate vacancies within the district or central office." That is pretty clear language that puts the responsibility to place excessed teachers on the Board of Education.

In the horrible 2005 contract, the Board and the UFT added a Rule 11 to Article 17B that says: "Unless a principal denies the placement, an excessed teacher will be placed by the Board into a vacancy within his/her district/superintendency. The Board will place the excessed teacher who is not so placed in an ATR position in the school from which he/she is excessed, or in another school in the same district or superintendency."

These are the only changes from Rule 4 that were added by the new Rule 11:

First, to the fullest degree possible is out so excessed people must stay in their district/superintendency.

Second, now principals can deny placements and then the teacher becomes an ATR who has to stay in his/her district.

Where in the contract does it say that an excessed teacher has to call principals, go door to door, check on line for vacancies, apply and give demonstration lessons as if they are a new hire? It doesn't; the responsibility to place teachers belongs to the Board of Education, not the teacher. Case closed. It says it in the contract.

The fact that the Board no longer places excessed employees but instead tells people in excess to go to job fairs or pound the pavement as if these are laid off workers or new people looking for a job is a violation of the contract. The Board is supposed to place excessed employees. The fact that the UFT allows this to go on and gives classes to veteran teachers in polishing up their resumes shows how the UFT is basically in sync with the Board of Ed.

This is how it should work according to the contract. A teacher is placed in excess and is sent to a new school inside the district. The principal can accept that teacher or deny placement. If the teacher is accepted, then he/she is part of that new school. If the principal says no, then the person can become an ATR or be sent to another school in the district.

Teachers who want to transfer should apply for openings as it gives them more options which we are not against. However if someone is excessed and chooses to wait to be placed, it is a contractual right to be placed by the employer just as the city places firefighters when firehouses close or police officers when they clear out precints. How many jobs an excessed teacher has applied for is completely irrelevant. Joel Klein has authority to place all of the excessed teachers and he chooses to scapegoat them instead of finding them teaching positions. He has no right to force them to look for positions.

Parents Want Answers from PEP and Joel Klein

Parents shut down a Panel for Educational Policy meeting two weeks ago when they weren't allowed to comment directly after DOE officials tried to explain away falling test scores. The Department of Education rescheduled the meeting for last night and NY1 reports that things didn't go much better this time.

http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/education/124669/parents--doe-go-head-to-head-over-test-scores/

Keep your $700,000,000?

NY won the Federal Race to the Top money but except for a longtime Unity rep, the people aren't very happy over at Gothamschools.org. Most believe the funding will be used to further teacher bashing and I agree.

Diane Ravitch explained it all earlier this month.

Yesterday, Professor Ravitch kind of summed it up succinctly: "Gosh, as a result of Arne's largesse, NY will have many more charters, teachers will be evaluated by whether students scores go up, and many principals and teachers will be fired so their low scoring school can be turned around. Hasn't worked anywhere yet, but hey you never know!"

Diane

What do you think?

The Charter Option

It looks like the principal at Columbus wants the school to become a charter school to save it.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/bx_hs_seeks_charter_rebirth_z8wTCum9pUU4Fj1V69NQbP

Our options would seem to be bad, worse or worst.

NY Teacher Reporter Fired for Union Organizing

The UFT has fired NY Teacher reporter Jim Calaghan. Callaghan alleges that the cause of the dismissal is that he was trying to organize the reporters into a union.

Read all about it in the Daily News here.

Believe it or Not Some Editorial Support

A newspaper editorial that actually gets it. No this isn't from the Daily News, NY Post or NY Times. This is an editorial from the Queens Tribune on school closings.

Meanwhile, at Ed Notes they are battling the co-location fight and noting how lawless the schools are in 2010.

NEW YORK TEST SCORES PLUNGE

It seems as though many people are almost gloating over the huge fall in state test scores. People are saying that it finally proves, what teachers knew all along, that tests were dumbed down to fit the mayor and chancellor's political agenda.

I am not expecting any apology from Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein in the near future. I don't think they are going to come in and say, "You know those teachers were right all along and maybe we should listen to them from now on."

Instead, my crystal ball (for what it's worth) sees them doubling down on the test,test, test the kids and blame, blame, blame the teachers policy in the next year or two. You see they play a game of heads I win and tales we lose.

If the test scores go up, they will say it is obviously because of Klein's great managerial skills which proves that you just have to bash the teachers to get them to teach harder so the kids learn.

On the other hand if the scores go down, they will assert that it clearly has nothing to do with DOE's management of the schools which they say is superb. They will say it's those pesky inflexible union rules that are to blame. DOE will actually have the nerve to say the giveaways that took away most of our rights in 2005 and since haven't gone nearly far enough.

Watch out as we move ahead and the powers that be come after us with even more force. Notice the Daily News and Post don't have anything negative to say about the mayor or the chancellor in their editorials on the test scores.

I hope I'm wrong and that forces aligned with sanity will win the day but I am not holding my breath waiting.

WEEK IN REVIEW ON SCHOOL CLOSINGS

Ed Notes reported extensively on the UFT agreement with the DOE that I refer to as a stab in the back where two new schools are going to be allowed to start in Jamaica's building in the fall. This illegal change in school utilization has ramifications for the entire city and beyond as it illustrates the sorry state our union is in. The UFT won the lawsuit on school closings and then was victorious again in the appeal. A little over a week later the UFT was back collaborating with the DOE to give away half of the schools by letting DOE invade our space with new schools so we can't properly run comprehensive programs.

At Jamaica, the community has reacted strongly. Community activist Kevin Forrestal has written a second letter to UFT President Mulgrew (a copy is below or follow this link; Ed Notes has the first letter). Members of the School Leadership Team met with community activists and it was covered by Jamaica Times reporter Anna Gustafson.

Then, this past Monday we were once again at the Panel for Educational Policy standing up for ourselves and our students. Seven of us from Jamaica attended, four spoke and my public comment is copied below (I didn't finish because my two minutes were up). One of the great unpublicized stories on school reform is how many students are casualties. The pupils who are in a school have their education compromised to make way for the "flavor of the day" schools that are pushing the downsizing school out. The impact of the de facto phase out is appalling as programs and classes are dropped like flies.

It is also interesting to note that on Monday Joel Klein admitted that the UFT and DOE merely agreed on how to implement the lawsuit and that there wasn't a settlement of the case. We think they are both now violating the law.

On Thursday, Public Advocate deBlasio had a press conference in front of Tweed where he released a report that calls for a moratorium on school closings and co-locations until an independent study can be done assessing its impact. Sounds like a good idea that will probably never get off the ground under the current regime at Tweed and City Hall, but it's a start. Ten of us from Jamaica attended this event and we saw people from Maxwell and PS15 as well as many others.

We are now in the process of reaching out to Jamaica's school community to decide how to proceed.





Queens Tribune


Illegal Collusion
To The Editor: Open Letter to Mr. Michael Mulgrew, President, United Federation of Teachers:

This is in follow up to an e-mailed letter to you dated June 11, 2010, with the subject line, "Justice for Jamaica High School." (See Ed Notes) With that letter, we forwarded a copy of a letter to a student admitting the student to Francis Lewis High School rather than to the student's choice of Jamaica High School.

Today we write in response to the agreement made yesterday between the United Federation of Teachers and the Department of Education. The plan submitted to the Panel for Educational Policy in January was for a phased closing of Jamaica High School combined with a phased opening and growth of three new small schools. Accompanying it was a flawed Educational Impact Statement. This plan, approved by the Panel for Educational Policy, was presented as one integrated resolution. The Supreme Court of New York State, upheld by the Court of Appeals, has found the PEP votes for the approval of that resolution null and void and annulled the votes.

New York Education Law - Article 52-A, § 2590 - clearly gives the procedure for the co-location of new schools in an existing school. See also Chancellor's Regulation A-190, "Significant Changes in School Utilization", which clearly outlines the procedure which begins with a filing six months before the start of the school year and calls for an EIS, hearings, and a vote of approval by the Panel for Educational Policy. The announcement of the UFT and the Department of Education's agreement to allow the placement of new schools at Jamaica High School in violation of New York State Law is reprehensible. It sends a terrible example to the students and staff. The action pairs the UFT with the DOE as co-collaborators to circumvent the letter and the spirit of community-based decision making.

I call upon you to reconsider your decision and extricate yourself from a course of action that is a flagrant act of defiance of the new Mayoral Control Law passed last summer.

Kevin J. Forrestal,President, Hillcrest Estates Civic Association

James Eterno
Panel for Educational Policy Statement
July 19, 2010

Iam James Eterno, a social studies teacher at Jamaica High School. Those of us from Jamaica did not plan on being here tonight in the middle of July but last week’s events where the UFT and DOE agreed to hand our school a de facto death sentence compelled us to act once again and speak here.

I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that the new school governance law was broken by DOE and now UFT too with your new agreement. There is a significant change in Jamaica High School's usage, the co-location of two new schools in the Jamaica High School building, that will virtually kill Jamaica HS and probably result in fewer high school seats in crowded Queens that is being allowed to move ahead without a proper educational impact statement or a joint meeting of the School Leadership Team.

How will our school be impacted? Teachers are being thrown by the score into the Absent Teacher Reserve Pool where teachers do not want to be so of course we are being affected. But now let’s talk about the students. It is supposed to be children first always but once again children are getting treated horribly.

The following courses and programs were announced as being done away with in June at Jamaica because of the possible co-locations of two new schools in our building. AP US History dropped, a new AP Government class gone. Also phasing out is the Finance Academy program, the Virtual Enterprise program and the Freshmen Law classes. There will be no African American history, no pre-calculus, no psychology class, no environmental science, no Latin American literature elective or African American literature elective, no more visual basic classes, no music classes at all and we are down to two very overcrowded health classes. There will be no social studies ESL classes for grade nine and no native language classes for Spanish freshmen. In fact there are no classes scheduled at all for our incoming ninth graders.

Even if you were to restore all of these classes today, there would be no room for them because you gave away the east wing of the third floor and the east and west wing of the second floor to the two new schools and a third school, Queens Collegiate, which is expanding to include a grade six class.

Even if you gave us our teachers back and said ok you can teach those classes, with so few rooms left it would be a nightmare to try to program all of this where students would get the classes they need and their programs would fit. Even if you give us back our staff, you would be asking us to do the impossible: run a full comprehensive high school program with honors level and Advanced Placement classes, regular classes, self contained special education, and English as a Second Language programs in half a building. Please help us instead of defacto killing us.

Committee At Jamaica Vows to Fight on After UFT Gives us Away

The following is an excerpt from something sent out to the Jamaica email list. Help us if you can as this is positively a call for assistance. Jamaica was the only one of the nineteen schools originally slated for closure, that were saved by the courts, to have two new schools started inside its building in September in this latest giveaway from the UFT to the DOE (we already have another school inside that is growing).




Hi Everyone,

We suffered a setback today when the DOE-UFT agreed to co-locate the two new schools in our building for September and the UFT agreed not to sue. It is hard to believe how we were stabbed in the back by the UFT. They didn't even have the decency to consult with us before they allowed the DOE to move new schools into our building.

I must admit that I was caught off guard. I thought the whole process to significantly change the usage of a building was supposed to be done with full community input. Isn't that what the new governance law and the lawsuit the UFT just won were all about? That seems to have been ignored. It appears our union will ignore the law when it wants to just like the DOE.

Let's understand that we are still open as a school but we are much smaller now with three small schools taking over our building. DOE promised support but not money.

Seven of us: four teachers, a retiree, PTA President and a community activist met tonight to discuss our options. Our work was covered by a local reporter. The sentiment of the meeting was to be defiant and not give up the fight for our school.

Right now we need incoming students to fill seats or else the DOE will continue to insist there is room in our building for new schools. We plan on continuing to pursue our attempt to get contact information from the DOE of students in our zone so we can publicize Jamaica as an alternative to overcrowded Queens High Schools.

After the meeting, I contacted important people who might be able to assist us legally. Any strategy will not work, however, unless we have full support of the Jamaica High School community!

Link to Gotham Schools piece.

Appellate Court Stops City’s Attempt to Discipline Through the Conflicts of Interest Board

In an apparent case of first impression the Appellate Division, First Department, has unanimously affirmed a lower court's determination that the only way to discipline a tenured pedagogue was through the 3020-a process and it was improper to utilize the Conflicts of Interest Board for such employees.

The case, In re Stephen Rosenblum, the DOE declined to bring 3020-a charges against a tenured Assistant Principal (acting as a principal at the time) for allegedly using his influence to call the principal at another school where his son was a teacher to save his son's job. The son's principal reported Rosenblum and the DOE referred the matter to the Conflicts of Interest Board.

The Conflicts of Interest Board is a City agency which rules on issues where, among other things, city employees are alleged to utilize their city employment in improper ways. The COIB attorneys offered Rosenblum a $10,000 fine and he brought a lawsuit declaring that, as a tenured pedagogue, the COIB had no right to discipline him since the exclusive method for disciplining tenured pedagogues was through the 3020-a process.

The lower court and the Appellate Division agreed. There have been many tenured pedagogues who have been disciplined by the COIB. Under COIB rules the case goes before an OATH Administrative Judge (a city employee) who makes factual findings and disciplinary recommendations to City Department heads after an administrative hearing. Under 3020-a rules, arbitrators, jointly picked by the DOE and the Union, make final disciplinary determinations.

A NEW DAY IN TEACHER UNIONISM

Take a look at Gotham for a link to the speech that newly elected Chicago Teacher Union leader Karen Lewis gave last week upon taking office. She won an election where her Caucus of Rank and File Educators defeated Chicago's version of Unity. Dissidents taking over a union isn't a pipe dream. It can happen.

http://gothamschools.org/2010/07/07/chicagos-aggressive-new-union-leader-introduces-herself/

I will have more to report on the school closing decision here in NYC soon. Thanks to Jeff for keeping this issue alive while I was away.

Closing School Litigation: Pyrrhic Victory?

After a long anticipated period the Appellate Division, First Department has upheld Justice Lobis' decision to enjoin the DOE from closing 19 schools. In their decision the Appellate Division found, as the lower court did, that the DOE failed to follow the newly drafted law which required parent and community input in school closing decisions. The law requires, among other things, the preparation and dissemination of an Education Impact Statement whenever the DOE wants to close a school. In the 19 schools case this was found to have been done improperly.

The Appellate Division also dealt with the DOE's main argument in the case wherein the City claimed the Union (and other plaintiffs) had no standing or right to bring the lawsuit. This was rejected summarily when the Appellate Division found that the union had designated persons (Chapter Leaders) on each School Leadership Team and the SLTs were an indispensible part of the law.

Before we start dancing in the aisles it is still unclear what impact, if any, this decision will have on the actual closing of the schools. The DOE has technically complied with the decision by admitting a small freshman class. (Jamaica is reported to have only 22 students enrolled for this September). And of course, there is nothing in this decision which prevents, deters or any way prohibits the DOE from trying to close the schools (or any other school) again. This decision only dealt with the inadequate procedural requirements that the law requires for closing a school.

Additionally there may be other schools, like Rikers, which close without any Impact Statement or notice and because of their lack of parent or union support get little media coverage.

When all is said and done we do have a lot to be proud. In schools like Jamaica students, teachers, staff and in some cases even the union, got together and registered their dissatisfaction with DOE unilateral decision making. Our work is not done. We will continue to sound our voices even after this administration can no longer buy its way into office.

DOE To “Close” Rikers’ Schools: Students and Teachers Left Holding the Bag

The DOE plans to announce the closing of the two remaining schools on Rikers Island tomorrow in a meeting called on the last day of school. According to DOE and union sources the two schools, Island Academy and Horizon Academy, which service 16 to 21 year old incarcerated youth on Rikers Island will undergo a restructuring leaving most teachers as ATRs and the future of incarcerated education uncertain.

The Rikers schools are part of the Alternative High School district, District 79, which has gone under restructuring almost every year since Cami Anderson became superintendent in 2006. In past reorganizations the move was done with Union blessing. (See, e.g., http://www.uft.org/member/contracts/teacher/appendix_i/ )There appears to be no union-management agreement for the Rikers schools.

District 79 had been criticized for being too big and too expensive to operate. In one restructuring over 750 teachers became ATRs when it was decided that the GED schools were not cost-effective. Many of those teachers are still ATRs.

When a school reorganizes or restructures teachers are forced to reapply for their jobs or risk being placed as ATRs. Non-tenured teachers also face possible dismissal. While our contract does allow restructuring this cannot be done without consultation and when done must follow the procedures of Article 18 of our contract.

PRESS DISCOVERS CLOSING SCHOOLS HAVE VIRTUALLY NO INCOMING NINTH GRADERS

A high school needs freshmen to keep going but the Department of Education has basically starved the closing Queens High Schools of new students. You can read all about it at these links. We are quoted extensively and are still fighting this injustice. Please help us if you can.


http://gothamschools.org/2010/06/16/saved-from-closure-a-queens-high-school-faces-phase-out/

http://gothamschools.org/2010/06/17/after-ruling-kept-schools-open-city-discouraged-enrollment/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/few_kids_at_rescued_schools_vxSPjS8F8YGNBZHWITK5MM

http://www.queenstribune.com/deadline/Deadline_061710_SavedSchools.html

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100616/FREE/100619875

ICERS ON THE RADIO TONIGHT

If you are near a radio or computer tonight, please tune in to WPAT, 930 am between 7:00p.m. and 9:00 p.m. as Joan Seedorf and I will be on the Teddy Smith show. It's a music-talk format. We will be talking about education. Please call in if you can.

Here is a link to the station.

DOE Decides That It Is Better Not to Show Layoffs on Open Market Screen

Just as quietly as it appeared the layoff and retention section of the open market screen has disappeared.

It is unclear why the DOE deleted these two references but we are glad it was done.

We wish it were that easy to take layoffs off of the table.

Change to Open Market Screen Hints of Lay-offs

Without warning or explanation the Open Market System has been changed to reflect "Current Status" which indicates whether the DOE employee is laid-off, excessed and current assignment. For those of you who do not have access to the system an example is reproduced above. (Click on the example to enlarge it).

MAYOR UNILATERALLY DECIDES TO FREEZE OUR WAGES TO STOP LAYOFFS

Contract negotiations between the UFT and the city are at impasse and a state mediator is attempting to bridge differences. In the midst of this process, Mayor Bloomberg on his own decided yesterday that in order to plug part of the Department of Education’s budget gap that he would be imposing a two year wage freeze on teachers. To me this is merely an accounting trick that will have little bearing on actual contract negotiations. With the so called savings, however, Mayor Bloomberg has decided that there will be no need for layoffs of teachers at this time. Other cuts to education will still go into effect unless we can restore funding from Albany and DC. Step and longevity increases will continue; these are not raises.

A close look at the city’s budget the last three years shows that two years ago the city set aside money for UFT raises for 2009 and 2010 of four percent each year since other city unions had already been awarded those same increases. The city did this based on pattern bargaining where one city union settles on a raise with the city and that sets a pattern for other city workers.

The pattern of two years worth of four percent increases was set by DC 37 in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. Last year the city lowered the projected increase for UFT members in its spending plan to annual raises of two percent and now they are decreasing the projection to zero. Can they get away with this? For now the answer is yes as we have no recourse other than to go to fact finding arbitration which is non binding and did not serve us well in 2005. Sadly, our union is not strong enough to have the leverage to stop the mayor. On the other hand, the city has argued for years that pattern bargaining should prevail as the best way to settle labor contracts so they seem to be completely abandoning their traditional bargaining position. This will play out over the long haul so nothing here is set in stone.

In terms of the publicity campaign, the Department of Education for now has backed off their threat to lay off senior people but they still put out a deceptive statement with their no layoff decree. The DOE stated that since step, longevity and education increases are still in effect, teachers will still get salary increases that will average 3%. Talk about misleading information. I have never heard other city agencies that have experience steps, such as the police, talk about advancing up steps as raises. Also, since the steps and longevity increments for teachers only go to 22 years, anyone who is more senior, like me, is truly frozen. There are thousands of us that fit this category and we are once again being treated with disrespect by our employer.

In the end, we are relieved that there won’t be layoffs but UFT members have not had a real salary increase since May 19, 2008 (the date our last contractual raise went into effect) so we have already had a two year wage freeze. We will keep you posted as more details emerge.

The New Classroom Teacher (and Principal) Evaluation Scheme: What Was Our Union Thinking?

With the recent passage of the new rating system for classroom teachers and principals (nothing in the law about other titles) a thorough review of the new provisions is in order. Additionally we must examine why our duly certified bargaining representative agreed to this (and more than doubling the Charter cap) on the hope that our application for $700 million from the feds will win this ridiculous competition.

First, some general observations.

The most important, if not the only, reason for a union's existence is to provide protection to its members that individually any single member could not provide. Seniority rules and tenure were developed to protect teachers from administrative discrimination by giving administrators enough time to evaluate new employees and recognize that employees become more valuable (and should be paid more) as they become more experienced.

Nothing could be more anti-union than the erosion of these basic rights. Yet, time and time again our Union, in order to protect its own interests, has sacrificed ours as experience becomes a liability and in this recent legislation the protections from arbitrary dismissal are significantly weakened.

The New Rating System

Within the next two years our current system of Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory ratings will be replaced by a scheme that will include "measures of student achievement." While much of the details will be forthcoming in NYSED regulation-making and UFT-DOE labor negotiations it is clear that decisions for employment, promotion, retention, tenure, termination and merit pay must be made on this student data. (UFT Q &A erroneously states that this new law does not impact tenure). This data, depending upon the availability of tests, is based on "student growth" which is defined as the change in student achievement for an individual student between 2 or more points in time.

Teachers will now be rated "Highly Effective," "Effective," "Developing," and "Ineffective," with the bottom two ratings making the teacher subject to a "Teacher Improvement Plan," which will be unilaterally imposed by the DOE. (The UFT Q&A erroneously states that this plan will be negotiated between the teacher and the principal but that language was not in the law).

The Teacher Improvement Plan must be implemented within 10 days of the start of the new school year and identify needed areas of improvement, a timeline, the manner in which the improvement will be assessed and differentiated activities to help the teacher to avoid termination.

The law provides for an appeals procedure which appears to be a mirror of the current appeals procedure yielding little, if any, substantive rights.

After two consecutive "ineffective" ratings and appeals affirming those ratings the DOE must bring an expedited termination hearing where the fact of the two consecutive ineffective ratings will be treated as "very significant evidence of incompetence" constituting "just cause for removal." While the Teacher Improvement Plan can be raised as a defense the DOE need only show that the plan was "developed and substantially implemented."

The expedited hearing requires that the hearings be completed within 60 days and must start within 7 days of the pre-hearing conference.

An Additional Tidbit (Where Did This Come From?)

Although nowhere mentioned in the media the new legislation includes a provision to permit private, profit and non-profit, organizations to take over the role of superintendent over failing schools. The new law allows the school district to enter into 5 year contracts to allow these organizations to turn around failing schools. While there are minimal protections to teachers in these failing schools (the collective bargaining agreement is still in effect and the teachers still work for the school district) it is unclear what these outside organizations will do to the schools and their staff to turn them around.

Questions Remain

Without the regulations and the results of the negotiations it remains to be determined just how this new litigation will impact teachers. The UFT website heralds the new law as replacing a system that "doesn't work for us" with one that "embeds professional development."

How doesn't the present system work for us?

When a small percentage of employees are dismissed for incompotence you either have a competent group of teachers, an effective and protective union or both. The fact that there are not large numbers of teachers being fired means that someone is doing their job. Why do we want to fix this system? It doesn't appear broken.

Embedding professional development?

What happened to all of the peer intervention programs and the failure to negotiate meaningful terms. Does the Union believe that they will do better now after we have given up these rights?

Student Data

Measurement of student data is not only a slippery slope it is the entrance to a cesspool. Despite the evidence demonstrating that short term individual student data does not correlate with teacher effectiveness we have bought, hook, line and sinker the notion that this is a proper measure of our abilities. While many teachers are rightfully concerned about the low achievers the higher achievers have to reach new heights in order not to get you fired as well.

Just Cause

Despite the hype in the media, tenure is a protection against arbitrary and discriminatory DOE action. The hearing that tenure provides requires the DOE to prove that a teacher charged with incompetence is, in fact incompetent. Teachers so charged are permitted, through counsel, to test every aspect of the charge. Our new rating scheme creates a statutory presumption (a legal term meaning there is nothing to prove) and shifts the burden to the accused teacher of establishing that their ineffective rating was not very substantial evidence of their incompetence. With the tightened schedules the teacher rating will be given almost dispositive proof of the teacher's incompetence; a significant change from our current system. Currently U ratings are only one factor to be considered by the arbitrator. This is perhaps the most egregious part of the new legislation.

Our Union, Once Again, Knows What's Better For Us Than We Do

The UFT has the audacity to spring this new system without membership, DA or other meaningful consultation and approval. Perhaps they know as well as we do that this scheme is a significant erosion of a previously well protected right and no one in their right mind would agree. It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to shove this legislation down our collective throats.

Yes, the present (er, former) system is subjective. And yes, in some instances, it has worked to hurt some teachers, but in the final analysis this system does not change the fundamental nature of subjective evaluation and only provides a quicker and more certain route to the unemployment line.

Oh, by the way, if we lose Race to the Top do we get our rights back?

Early Retirement Law Passed

Yesterday, the governor signed into law a measure which would allow an incentive for teachers to retire early. Under the law the City must agree to the plan to participate which the City has given no indication that it will.

If the City decides to participate it must choose either or both parts of the incentive. The first part (Part A) allows teachers to retire without penalty at 55 with a minimum of 25 years teaching. The second part (Part B) provide an additional month of member service credit up to 36 months, for each year of service. Only those over age 50 with at least 10 years of teaching are eligible for this part of the retirement incentive. (Early retirement penalties will still apply).

The DOE has until July 1, 2010 to "opt-in" to the plan for 55 year old teachers and August 30, 2010 for the additional month up to 36 month plan and must provide a 3 month window for teachers to apply when they do.