Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Sunday, June 25, 2017

The Supreme Court Gives Cheryl Wilson Her Job Back Because She Has Tenure By Estoppel

The New York City Department of Education has, it seems to me, a habit of dumping anyone cited for anything into a "rubber room" somewhere, and, often forgetting about this person.

That seems what happened to Cheryl Wilson. The Department forgot that her extension of probation ran out September 2, 2015, then placed her back in a teaching position on March 7, 2016. She went on leave until the end of the school year in April 2016 and was terminated from employment on June 15, 2016. She had, by then, received tenure by estoppel. All tenured teachers must have a 3020-a hearing in order for the DOE to make any changes to their terms of employment.

Congratulations, Attorney Stewart Karlin!

Betsy Combier
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

In the Matter of the Application of CHERYL WILSON, Petitioner,

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,



Docket No. 158592/2017, Motion Seq. No. 001.2017 NY Slip Op 31273(U), Supreme Court, New York County. June 12, 2017.


Petitioner's petition to inter alia reinstate petitioner to a position as a tenured teacher with back pay is granted in part and denied in part.


Petitioner was a teacher for respondent. Petitioner contends that her most recent assignment was as a special education teacher from 2011 through June 2016 as a probationary employee. Petitioner acknowledges that she was reassigned to a "rubber room" pending an investigation in March 2015 due to an incident involving a group of students; that investigation lasted about a year. Petitioner claims that although some of the allegations against her were substantiated, she was placed back in a teaching position on March 7, 2016. Petitioner argues that she went on leave until the end of the school year in April 2016 and was terminated from employment on June 15, 2016.
Petitioner insists that her employment probationary period was for three years and that the probationary period should have ended on or about September 2, 2014, but that she continued to be employed until about July 15, 2016. Petitioner maintains that she was asked to sign an extension of probation but does not believe the extension was accepted—petitioner observes that even if it was accepted, the probationary period would have expired on September 2, 2015 (while she was in the rubber room). Petitioner argues that she is entitled to tenure by estoppel and, therefore, is entitled to a hearing before she can be terminated.
In opposition, respondent observes that petitioner received ineffective ratings after supervisors conducted observations of her teaching abilities. Respondent also notes that petitioner violated school policies on March 18, 2015 when she allegedly failed to follow proper protocol during post-lunch student collection, supervision, and escort duty. Respondent claims that as a result of petitioner's' failure to collect students and to notify the office that the students were missing, some eighth grade students prompted first grade students to fight each other.
On March 20, 2015, respondent reassigned petitioner from her teaching position to an administrative assignment (the rubber room) where she did not perform any teaching duties.
Respondent claims that petitioner is not entitled to tenure by estoppel. Respondent argues that petitioner's absence from her teaching duties from March 2015 through March 2016 tolls the completion of her probationary period. Respondent also relies on petitioner's medical leave from April 12, 2016 through the end of the year to reduce her probationary period. Respondent argues that petitioner was not performing teaching duties, so she cannot acquire tenure by estoppel.


In an article 78 proceeding, "the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious" (Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d 587 [2013] [internal quotations and citation omitted]). "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" (id.). "If the determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable" (id.). "Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [1974]).
"A board of education has the right to terminate the employment of a probationary teacher or principal at any time and for any reason, unless the teacher or principal `establishes that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith'" (Palmore v Bd. of Educ. of Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 AD3d 1072, 1074, 44 NYS3d 509 [2d Dept 2016] quoting Matter of Frasier v Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 765 [1988]).
"Tenure by estoppel results when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher's probationary term" (Speichler v Brd. of Co-Op Educ. Servs., Second Supervisory Dist., 90 NY2d 110, 114, 659 NYS2d 199 [1997] [internal quotations and citation omitted]).
The key issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner acquired tenure by estoppel. If petitioner was probationary, then respondent was entitled to fire respondent for nearly any reason. Therefore, the Court must first look to the extension of petitioner's probation. Although petitioner denies that her extension was accepted, both petitioner and respondent signed the extension (verified answer, exh 2). The extension states that petitioner's probationary period was extended for one additional year — to September 8, 2015 (id.). Specifically, the extension provides that "The parties agree that the decision to either grant completion of probation, deny completion of probation, or grant an additional extension of probation to Cheryl Wilson at a date no later than September 8, 2015" (id. ¶ 3).
It also provides that "This written agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto in regard to the extension of probation for Cheryl Wilson. No other agreement, oral or otherwise, regarding this matter shall be deemed to exist or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary any of the terms contained herein" (id. ¶ 9).
Respondent does not deny that no action was taken regarding the expiration of petitioner's probationary period. There was no effort to further extend petitioner's probationary period another year (to September 2016) before the deadline or to deny (or grant) petitioner tenure. Instead, respondent attempts to gloss over this failure to act by focusing on petitioner's reassignment to the rubber room from March 2015 to March 2016.
Respondent's argument is that since petitioner was not performing teaching activities during this time period she cannot gain tenure by estoppel. This claim fails. The agreement extending petitioner's probationary period clearly states that respondent had to choose between three options before September 8, 2015—whether to keep her on, fire her, or grant another year of probation. This was not done. Instead, petitioner was permitted to resume her teaching duties and was fired at the end of the 2016 school year. This may have been an oversight but the Court cannot simply ignore the valid agreement entered into between petitioner and respondent.
The Court does not make this decision lightly. The allegations that led to petitioner's reassignment to non-teaching duties are serious and the Court has no interest in help a sub-standard teacher retain her position. But, for some reason, respondent did not fire petitioner for her alleged transgressions despite the fact that she was a probationary employee. Respondent could have fired petitioner, by all accounts a probationary employee, at any time before September 8, 2015 — it could have fired her due to lousy evaluations, it could have fired her due to the incident which caused her to be sent to the rubber room, it could have fired her during her time in the rubber room. Instead, respondent continued to keep petitioner on, paying her, and then, after the investigation concluded (after a year in the rubber room), respondent saw fit to return her to the classroom. Obviously, her missteps could not have been as serious as respondent now contends because respondent allowed petitioner to start teaching again.
Respondent had multiple opportunities to terminate petitioner for a variety of permissible reasons including, but not limited to, her poor observation reports throughout the 2014-2015 school year and her ineffective APPR in 2014-2015 and her dereliction of duty regarding the failure to pick up the students. Not only did respondent fail to fire petitioner, it put her back in the classroom. Respondent's actions make its current argument that she was so terrible ring hollow.
Besides, the argument that petitioner's pedagogy failed to meet the minimum standards for obtaining a tenure recommendation misses the point. Respondent entered into an agreement where a specific date was set for a tenure determination for petitioner and respondent did nothing. Petitioner consented to another year of probation in exchange for a determination about her tenure. Respondent failed to fire her during that year (although it had ample opportunity and reasons to do so) and therefore she obtained tenure by estoppel. Accordingly, respondent's decision to terminate petitioner without a hearing (the procedure afforded to a tenured teacher) was arbitrary and capricious.

Attorneys' Fees

The Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees because respondent has demonstrated that its position was substantially justified (see CPLR 8601 [a]). "The phrase substantially justified has been interpreted by the [U.S.] Supreme Court as meaning justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, or having a reasonable basis in both law and fact . . . The test of whether or not a government action is substantially justified is essentially one of reasonableness. Where the government can show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and fact, no award will be made" (New York State Clinical Lab. Assn., Inc. v Kaladjian, 85 NY2d 346, 356, 625 NYS2d 463 [1995] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).
Although it may seem that because this Court has granted petitioner's application to get her job back, with tenure, respondent's argument cannot be substantially justified. Here, however, the record before respondent prior to this proceeding demonstrated that petitioner did not immediately contend that she was entitled to tenure after she was fired. Although she later raised the tenure by estoppel argument, respondent reasonably opposed the instant petition on the ground that petitioner was a probationary employee who could be fired for any permissible reason. So even though petitioner wins this proceeding, the Court finds that respondent's position was reasonable under the circumstances.


Petitioner is entitled to a position as a tenured teacher and to back pay starting from the date of her termination (July 15, 2016).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is granted to the extent that petitioner Cheryl Wilson is entitled to a position as a tenured teacher and to back pay starting from July 15, 2016 to the present; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees.

This is the Decision, Order and Judgment of the Court.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Violent Film Star Wanna-Be and P.S. 132 Principal Anissa Chalmers-Reilly Assaults a Student and Causes Harm to the NYC Department of Education

PS 132 Principal Anissa Chalmers-Reilly

The picture above is from Principal Anissa Chalmers' movie "Surrender"/"Gang Girl". If you notice, she has blood all over her hoodie, behind the gun she is pointing straight into the camera.

PS 132 Principal Anisa Chalmers-Reilly (now just Reilly) is a tyrant with a temper who wants to be a film star. I actually bought several copies of her disgustingly horrible video Gang Girl to submit to Arbitrator David Reilly (no relation to Anissa) at the 3020-a of a spanish-speaking special ed teacher who hired me to help her, but he would not accept them. The video can be watched online for free (keep your children in another room) or you can buy the tape for $2.10, which is what I did.

Anissa Chalmers-Reilly should not be in any position that puts her in contact with children. She is an assault-prone person who cannot stand any behavior which upsets her in any way.

I know, because I did my research on her after I was hired to do the 3020-a arbitration of a wonderful, skilled, caring, special education teacher who was charged with threatening to kill Principal Chalmers. Below are her charges:

SPECIFICATION 1:   On or about October 5, 2012, Respondent, in sum and substance, while addressing Principal Anissa Chalmers, yelled and/or stated the following:

(a)   Who are you to talk to me like that?
(b)   You are nothing.
(c)   I look at you like the bottom of my shoes.
(d)   I am going to come back and kill you.
(e)   I don’t care if I have your blood on my hands.

SPECIFICATION 2:   On or about October 5, 2012, Respondent, while engaging in all or some of the misconduct indicated in Specification #1 as indicated above, approached Principal Anissa Chalmers in an aggressive manner and attempted to grab her.

She did not do that, and we proved it. How? The teacher, R.S., taped everything secretly. We made several copies of the tape and the transcript, which was done at Ubiqus (the same organization which does the transcribing of the 3020-a hearings). And no, I am not getting a commission.

This is what happened:

R.S. was told that as she was a co-teacher in the ICT class, that she did not have to do lesson plans, but she had to work with the regular ed teacher and those lesson plans, to adapt the lesson to the students with IEPs. On October 5, 2012 the AP  came into her classroom and asked where her lesson plan was. R.S. told the AP that she had been told she did not have to write lesson plans. The AP left. Principal Chalmers sent word to R.S. that she wanted to see R.S. in her office after the class. R.S. went to the meeting in Chalmers' private office. Chalmers said where are your lesson plans, and R.S. tried to explain that she was told she should work on the plans of the co-teacher. The principal ordered her to go back to the classroom to get the lesson plans. R.S. got upset, and told the principal that there weren't any. Chalmers got angry, and told the teacher that she would start teaching a general education english class the following week. R.S. was unhappy with this as she had never taught English, and she spoke spanish, she was not able to teach an English class on such short notice.

R. S. then reminded Chalmers that she, R. S., had a blood clot on her lung, and she was worried that she might be on her way to a pulmonary embolism or imminent death from the clot. It's all on the audiotape. R.S. was taken by ambulance to a hospital where she was served re-assignment papers and then 3020-a charges.

The tape and the transcript saved her job.

Public School 132 Principal Anissa Reilly is pictured in this undated photo
And yes, Principal Chalmers came in and lied under oath. She did not know that she had been taped.

In the Daily News article posted below, teacher Gilsa Frias seems to have violated her mandate to report the Principal as a mandated reporter:

"The Social Services Law provides confidentiality for all sources, including mandated reporters of child abuse and maltreatment reports. Mandated reporters who fail to report suspected abuse or neglect can be charged with a crime."

But Frias won't be charged with anything because she is being a good employee by protecting the principal.
Carmen - (Carmen Farina, Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education) when are you removing this person, Anissa Chalmers and charging her with 3020-a? I want to know.

Betsy Combier
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Controversial Bronx principal accused of pushing fifth-grade girl to floor, hurling table at her in class
Ben Chapman and Noah Goldberg, NY Daily News
Vanessiana's scabbed shoulder after the alleged attack.
A Bronx principal known for starring as a killer in a B-movie gang flick threw a fifth-grader to the floor and then threw a table on her, injuring the girl and terrifying her so badly that she’s been unable to return to school, the student and her mother charge.

Bronx mom Vanessa Roman and her daughter Vanessiana Himes, 11, say controversial Public School 132 Principal Anissa Reilly flew into a dangerous rage upon encountering Vanessiana’s unruly classroom on May 24. Reilly threw a scary temper tantrum and pushed Vanessiana onto the floor, causing a cut and bruise to her arm, the mother and daughter said.

“My daughter still can’t return to class, she’s so upset,” Roman said. “The class was out of control, and Ms. Reilly pushed my daughter down. She came home crying. It was too much.”

After the incident, Roman took Vanessiana to file a police report at the 42nd Precinct stationhouse, where the girl said Reilly pushed her, causing her to hit her shoulder.

Roman has photos she says were taken at the time, showing cuts and bruises to her daughter’s arm.

“My class was really bad, but I wasn’t acting out,” Vanessiana said. “I was just standing there and Ms. Reilly came to my desk and pushed me and I fell and then she pushed a table on top of me.”

During the incident, Vanessiana said her teacher did nothing. The teacher, Gilsa Frias, said she could not discuss the alleged attack.

“I was advised by my union that I cannot say anything about it until all the investigations go through," Frias said Thursday.

Since the incident, Vanessiana has been moping at home, too depressed and frightened to return to PS 132.

“It made me feel sad, but I don’t want to go back to school because I’m scared of Ms. Reilly,” she said.

Roman has been giving Vanessiana home-school lessons since the alleged attack and says she believes the girl, who she says is a good student, will graduate fifth grade.

An 11-year-old boy, who said he was in Vanessiana’s class, said Reilly threw a fit that day.

“Our class was not behaving. She came in screaming. She hit two students. She kicked a desk over. After, she told us to pick up her mess,” the student said.

Police are investigating the case, but Reilly, meanwhile, remains on the job.

The principal, 45, who started working in city schools in 1996 and earns an annual salary of $143,721, has grabbed headlines and earned official reprimands with a string of scandals and transgressions.

In 2013, parents raised concerns over Reilly’s side career as a B-movie actress, when she starred as a vicious, homicidal drug dealer in the title role of the unrated 2009 flick “Gang Girl.”

Reilly, who was formerly known as Anissa Chalmers, also caused controversy in 2012 when she canceled the graduation ceremony for the entire fifth grade class at PS 132 because kids were behaving badly.

Roman and Vanessiana say Reilly canceled graduation again this year, but Education Department officials wouldn't confirm or deny it.

Reilly received a letter of reprimand in 2012 for violating regulations that govern fund-raising and protect the rights of parents who participate in parent-teacher associations.

In May, Education Department officials found Reilly had failed to report instances of wrongdoing at PS 132, a charge for which she still faces official disciplinary action.

Reilly did not respond to calls for comment.

But Education Department spokesman Michael Aciman said the city is probing the latest, disturbing charges of physical violence leveled against Reilly over the May 24 incident.

“We are investigating these serious allegations and will ensure appropriate followup action is swiftly taken,” Aciman said.


The NYC DOE Double Standard: PS132 Principal Anissa Chalmers-Reilly, GANG GIRL, Gets a Reprimand For Threatening Staff

Anissa Chalmers, now Anissa Reilly, has made it once again into the NYPOST. This time, OSI substantiated in their report (OSI Case #12-5472, dated November 25, 2013) that she threatened staff :

"....confirmed that, because 'a large percentage of the staff did not support her,' during a faculty conference, Principal Chalmers told her staff, en masse, that "if she went down, everyone [would] go down with [her] substantiated." Investigator Manuel Lassalatta was on the case, and the report was signed and approved by OSI Director Candace McLaren and Mr. Lassalatta;

other substantiated charges were: Chalmers violated Chancellor's Regulation A-660 by authorizing the expenditure of Title 1 Parent Involvement funds without obtaining proper PA membership approval; she violated Chancellor's Regulation A-610 by allowing parents and a parent of a former student to sell snacks without her written authorization; she violated Chancellor's Regulation A-812 by allowing parents and a parent of a former student to sell approved and unapproved food items inside the cafeteria on a daily basis; and she committed employee misconduct by allowing              and                       , who are neither staff members nor relatives of current X132 students, and who never passed OPI background checks, to sell snacks to students inside X132 on a regular basis.

 Superintendent Dolores Esposito determined that Principal Chalmers-Reilly's punishment would be a letter to file. (see letter, above). I believe that this shows, beyond a shadow of doubt, the unfair disparate treatment that teachers must deal with as opposed to principals and/or Superintendents inside the NYC Department of Education. Teachers cannot make the DOE "look bad" at any time, for any reason. See my article about Francesco Portelos and Lydia Howrilka, David Pakter, and Christine Rubino, to name a few. All the people to whom I have shown the video "GANG GIRL" and the Surrender photo above, have said the same thing, "OMG - this person is a principal in a NYC elementary school? "

Betsy Combier


Bronx principal gets slap on wrist over lunchroom scandal

A Bronx elementary-school principal who starred in a bloody B movie as a killer gang queen has been slapped on the wrist for letting people without criminal-background checks sell snacks to students in the cafeteria every day — and for warning her faculty, “If I go down, everyone goes down with me.”

Anissa and her husband, Gordon Reilly

Anissa Reilly, principal of PS 132 in Morrisania, allegedly uttered the threat at a staff meeting, saying she was unhappy that “a large percentage of the staff did not support her.”
Reilly denied making the remark but admitted she let two parents and the parent of a former student peddle potato chips and other snacks during three lunch periods.
Reilly was told by the Department of Education to brush up on policy, but she was not reprimanded for moonlighting as an actress who shoots an innocent woman and kills four people in the indie flick “Gang Girl.”
I rated the movie. Despite countless incidents reported to authorities by staff, Anissa Chalmers thought she was a "teflon principal" - everything reported wouldn't stick. Her staff couldn't take it anymore. Do not let your children watch her movie.

Think about the double standard of the New York City Department of Education, where a teacher who taps a child on the shoulder and says "good job!" or, "Let's get back to work!" is brought to 3020-a for termination by the Gotcha SquadPlease continue to send me and media outlets such as the NY POST stories like this one so we all - parents, teachers, staff - can expose this pattern of lawlessness at the NYC DOE. DOE, I hope you pay for the dental work for Haifa Soto's son!!!! 

Betsy Combier 

PS 132 Principal Anissa Chalmers (now Anissa Reilly)

Sunday, March 17, 2013

PS 132


Bronx school principal’s movie role as gun-slinging gangsta alarms parents

  • Last Updated: 5:26 AM, March 17, 2013
  • Posted: 11:45 PM, March 16, 2013
  • LINK
The principal of a Bronx elementary school moonlights as an actress, starring in a bloody B-movie as a vicious gangbanger who deals drugs, robs, rapes and murders.
Anissa Chalmers, principal of PS 132 in Morrisania, plays a gangsta who shoots an innocent woman in an initiation rite, rapes and kills a man for revenge, and slaughters three others in the un-rated “Gang Girl.”

 In real life, Chalmers, 40, is under investigation by the city Department of Education for an undisclosed allegation, an agency spokeswoman said.

Over 112 days in the current academic year, her school has seen 172 reported student “incidents,” including 111 offenses such as smoking, cursing and misusing property. PS 132 has been the scene of several recent violent altercations among kids, and two secretaries were charged with theft.
PS 132 Principal Anissa Chalmers
“Gang Girl” was released in 2009, about three years after Chalmers was named principal of PS 132, where she makes $129,920 a year.
The movie, set in The Bronx, is filled with foul language, beatings, blood and sexual violence. It ends with Chalmers’ character, gang leader “Queen V,” on death row.
“Open, motherf--ker. You like the way that tastes, n----r?” she snarls, shoving a gun into a man’s mouth. She then blows him away.
Some teachers and parents say life imitates art at the school.
Last June, an 8-year-old boy at her school slashed a 9-year-old classmate’s neck with a razor.
Parents say bullying and fighting are a big problem at PS 132, which the DOE gave an overall grade of “D” but an “F” for student performance and an “F” for “environment,” which includes safety.
One mother, Haifa Soto, said her 10-year-old son, Zahid Benzan, suffered a cracked front tooth in a fight last year. Chalmers, she said, refused to file a report and did not call cops.
“She just told me, ‘Go to the dentist,’ ” Soto said.
Shortly after The Post asked the DOE about the incident Friday, Soto arrived at school at dismissal to find Zahid in Chalmers’ office.
“She wanted to see his face,” the furious mother recalled.
In 2011, the mother of a third-grader who traded blows with a classmate sued the city. After speaking with Chalmers and a teacher, cops handcuffed the kid and “paraded” her out of the school, the suit said. No charges were brought. The city settled for $20,000.
In 2008, two PS 132 secretaries were arrested and charged with looting $200,000 in school funds. Last November, they were put on probation and ordered to pay a total $106,000 in restitution.
Some parents have seen “Gang Girl” — DVDs sell on the street for $5, and an online rental is $1.99 — and were disturbed by it, despite a redemptive ending in which Chalmers’ Queen V character turns to Christianity and serves in the Scared Straight program.
“It’s crazy. It’s real graphic,” a mother said, referring to scenes in which Queen V is raped and tortures one of her attackers before killing him. “It’s not something you want your kids to see. My son hasn’t seen it, but imagine if he did?”
Another mom said: “One of these students could find this on the Internet, and then what? How am I supposed to explain that to my children?”
Teachers say the principal is hardly a role model for kids.
“She’s like the ‘Gang Girl’ principal,” one said. “The video is reflective of her personality at school — the bullying, in-your-face approach. She can be very intimidating.”
Chalmers also has parts in the indie flicks “Speedsuit,” about a school bully, and “We Fall Down,” about a pastoral couple in crisis.
She referred questions to the DOE press office, which declined to comment on her “Gang Girl” role.
One parent defended Chalmers, saying: “She’s a great principal. Ronald Reagan waved a gun in Western movies, and he became president of the United States.”
PS 132 in Morrisania is a blackboard jungle:
* Two school secretaries charged in 2008 with stealing $200,000.
* 172 reported student “incidents” over 112 days this school year, including 111 offenses such as smoking, cursing and misusing property.
* 10-year-old girl cuffed by cops in 2010 after exchanging kicks and punches with classmate; city pays $20,000 to settle mother’s lawsuit.
* Eight-year-old boy slashes classmate’s neck with a razor
* 10-year-old boyhas front tooth chipped off in school fight
* Chalmers remains under investigation since last year

Principal of violent Bronx elementary school moonlighted as murderous gangster in foul-mouthed B-grade movie

Parents and teachers at PS 132, a school based in same area of the Bronx where a 23-year-old recently butchered his mother and littered her body parts around the neighborhood, are outraged at the example Anissa Chalmers is setting for students.
According to The New York Post, Chalmers is under investigation by the Department of Education, though the allegations against the 40-year-old aren't clear. In the gruesome 2009 film, called 'Gang Girl,' her character 'Queen V' ends up on death row after a rampage of robbing, raping and slaughtering.
For her initiation into the gang, Queen V shoots an innocent woman and later she rapes and kills a man in a revenge attack then slays three others.
'Open, motherf***er. You like the way that tastes, n*****' she says in the film before putting a gun in a man's mouth and pulling the trigger.
According to The Post, 172 student 'incidents' have been reported at Chalmers' school over 112 days in the current academic year. The vast majority were offenses such as smoking, swearing and mistreating school property but others were fights among students, the newspaper reports.
Chalmers earns $129,920 a year and has been principal for around six years but some claim she's a bad role model for the students.
'She's like the 'Gang Girl' principal,' one teacher told The Post. 'The video is reflective of her personality at school — the bullying, in-your-face approach. She can be very intimidating.'
Scroll down for video

Example: Parents and teachers at PS 132 are outraged at the example Anissa Chalmers, pictured front bottom in character, is setting for students

Investigation: Chalmers, pictured in character, is under investigation by the Department of Education, though the allegations against the 40-year-old aren't clear
A concerned mother told the newspaper: 'It's crazy. It's real graphic,' referring to scenes where Queen V is raped and tortures one of her attackers before slaughtering him for revenge. 'It's not something you want your kids to see. My son hasn't seen it, but imagine if he did?'

Another parent said: 'One of these students could find this on the Internet, and then what? How am I supposed to explain that to my children?'
DVDs of the movie are on sale in the street for $5 and it can be rented online for $1.99.

School: Chalmers earns $129,920 a year and has been principal at PS 132, pictured, in the Bronx for around six years
The Department of Education rated PS 132 a 'D' overall but in the student performance and school environment categories it scored an 'F'.
According to The Post, an eight-year-old student at the school used a razor to slash the neck of a nine-year-old classmate last June. 
Haifa Soto said her son, Zahid Benzan, 10, cracked his front tooth during an altercation with another student last year but she said the principal wouldn't file a report or get the police involved.
'She just told me, "Go to the dentist,"' Soto told The Post.
In 2008, two school secretaries were arrested and charged with stealing $200,000 in school money.
They were put on probation and ordered to pay back $106,000.
Chalmers and the DOE press office refused to comment on the film.

 VIDEO  Bronx elementary school teacher in foul-mouthed B-movie

DOE raps ‘gangsta’ principal

  • Last Updated: 3:59 AM, March 18, 2013
  • Posted: 1:03 AM, March 18, 2013
  • LINK
Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott yesterday blasted a Bronx principal for playing a gun-wielding gangbanger in a bloody B-movie.
“The chancellor is aghast at the images in and content of the film, which are totally inappropriate,’’ a city Department of Education spokeswoman said.
The Post revealed yesterday that Anissa Chalmers, principal of PS 132 in Morrisania, acted in the low-budget flick “Gang Girl,” which features beatings, shootings and rape.
“The chancellor is always concerned about both real and perceived violence and its impact on students,” the spokeswoman said.
Chalmers’ school has seen several recent violent altercations. PS 132 got an overall grade of “D’’ and an “F’’ for “environment,’’ which includes safety.
Chalmers received a waiver to appear in the film, but the DOE didn’t know the film’s content, according to the spokeswoman.