Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts sorted by date for query Judge Cynthia Kern. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Judge Cynthia Kern. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Alonzo Yanes, Burned in His High School Chemistry Lab, Wins $29 Million Award For Past and Future Pain And Suffering.

Alonzo Yanes after the fire

The picture above of burned student Alonzo Yanes says it all. Anna Poole, who was a science teacher at his school, Beacon High School on Manhattan's West Side, did an experiment that she should never have done, and burned student Alonzo Yanes after the experiment went horribly wrong. Ms. Poole was punished by being given an administrative job at the NYC Department of Education. I am not making this up. I can't help but think about all the teachers I know who made a mistake that was silly and not as serious as that of Ms. Poole and were terminated at a 3020-a arbitration. Teacher tenure discipline and punishment are random and arbitrary in NYC.

Below is a re-posting of the story on this blog in 2020  with the update, namely that the Appellate Division First Department has awarded Mr. Yanes $29 million for past and future pain and suffering, the largest pain-and-suffering damages amount approved by an appellate court in state history, according to the NY Law Journal.

UPDATE: 
From the New York Law Journal, November 22, 2021

First Department Appeals Court Halves Jury's $60M Pain-and-Suffering Award—But It's Still a Record


Anna Poole

Alonzo Yanes, Burned at School, Keeps His $60 Million Award While Teacher Anna Poole Gets a Raise From the NYC DOE

NYC Rubber Room Reporter, August 21, 2020

Principal Lacey testified "she made a terrible mistake" and cried on the stand, but was ousted from Beacon in August 2020, basically for this incident and her alleged "racist" policies.

Ruth Lacey

‘Hypocritical’ Beacon principal squeezes rich parents while students rally against ‘privilege’

Some readers may say that I am a teacher advocate and therefore should support all teachers at all times.

I do not believe this. If I want to be believable in hearings or on my blog, (which I do),  I must dig into the facts of a story or case, and tell the reader those facts. If an educator is guilty of misconduct based upon a review of the facts, then I will say exactly that. I still argue for a punishment that is fair, based on the evidence, so I usually do not agree with a termination award and will fight to overturn any termination decision I think was not deserved.

In the case of Alonzo Yanes, I do believe that the NYC DOE should fire the teacher who caused such harm, Anna Poole. One of my reasons for feeling this way is that I know of so many cases where arbitrators have terminated good teachers for no reason or a low-grade accident or mistake that did not harm a child.

Alonzo Yanes and his parents

I just cannot accept the fact that Ms. Poole did such a stupid act and was rewarded, with her student suffering so much from his injuries. I know personally many teachers who allegedly made a far less serious "mistake", admitted to making a mistake or not doing what they are accused of, were charged with 3020-a and terminated.

More proof that the teacher disciplinary procedures and penalties must be changed and made more fair.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

NYLJ, Jason Grant, November 22, 2021

A state appeals court has awarded $29 million—the largest pain-and-suffering damages amount approved by an appellate court in state history—to a former Manhattan public high school student burned over much of his body during a class experiment gone wrong, though the court did cut the jury verdict of $60 million roughly in half.

The Appellate Division, First Department awarded the $29 million in past and future pain and suffering to the plaintiff, referred to as A.Y. in the opinion, while only briefly addressing its decision to halve the trial-court award. And the panel did not address in detail how it arrived at the $29 million total.

The unanimous panel of five justices used most of the opinion to detail the “catastrophic physical injuries, with psychological and emotional sequelae” suffered by the plaintiff, who has been identified in multiple news reports as Alonzo Yanes, at the time of the chemistry class accident in 2014 and in the years since. Yanes was 16 when, in a chemistry class at Manhattan’s Beacon High School, a teacher conducting an experiment “poured methanol from a gallon jug” into dishes containing nitrates, and “a giant fireball erupted … and engulfed” Yanes, and he burned for at least a minute, according to an earlier decision in the litigation by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Alexander Tisch, who cited witness accounts.

After detailing the pain and suffering Yanes has experienced, the First Department panel wrote simply that “under the circumstances of this case, we find the jury’s awards for past pain and suffering (5.5 years) and future pain and suffering (54 years) excessive only to the extent indicated,” citing Peat v. Fordham Hill Owners.

Earlier in the opinion, the panel had laid out “the extent indicated,” writing that a jury in 2020 had awarded “A.Y.” the “principal sums of $29,585,000 million for past pain and suffering and $29,585,000 for future pain and suffering over 54 years, plus 9% interest.” And the panel said in the Nov. 18 opinion that it was allowing Yanes to stipulate to a reduction of the trial-level awards to $12 million for past pain and suffering, and to $17 million for future pain and suffering.

Ben Rubinowitz, the attorney for Yanes and managing partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, has indicated that his client will accept the $29 million amount allowed by the First Department court, rather than attempt to retry damages in the case.

And in an email Nov. 19, he said that “it is hard to imagine the extent of the pain and suffering that Alonzo went through and will continue to go through for the rest of his life.”

“The bottom line is that Alonzo would give back every penny if he could have his health back,” Rubinowitz also said. And he added that “it is unfortunate that the city of New York failed to follow their own safety protocols and rules and so badly injured Alonzo.”

The New York City Law Department, which has represented the defendants, including the city of New York, the New York City Department of Education and the chemistry teacher who conducted the experiment gone wrong, in the long-running case, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

In the opinion that mostly detailed A.Y.’s injury and suffering, the panel, composed of Judges Troy Webber, Cynthia Kern, Lizbeth González, Manuel Mendez and Martin Shulman, wrote that his “physical injuries included, among other things, third-degree burns to 31% of plaintiff’s body — mainly on his face, ears, neck, arms, and hands — as well as degloving injuries to his hands and a corneal abrasion to his right eye.”

“Within the first 24 hours of his hospital admission immediately following the accident, 38 pounds of fluid were pumped into plaintiff’s body in an attempt to provide adequate fluid replacement to his damaged tissue, and plaintiff was placed in an induced coma for three days,” the panel also wrote.

Later in the opinion, the justices added that “the third-degree burns that plaintiff suffered also destroyed the nerves and sweat glands underneath his skin, causing him both to lose sensation in those areas and to be unable to regulate his own body temperature.” Moreover, they wrote, “Following his two-month hospital stay, plaintiff was required to wear compression garments, which caused him to overheat. Plaintiff’s treating physician testified not only that these injuries were permanent and incurable, but that plaintiff will also suffer from ‘double or triple’ the problems he ordinarily would have as he ages due to skin atrophy, i.e., the loss of elasticity and thickness of the skin.”

The justices also said that “as for his psychological and emotional suffering, plaintiff testified, in detail, about the sensations he experienced being on fire,” and that “despite stopping, dropping, and rolling in a futile attempt to extinguish the fire, plaintiff said that he ‘felt trapped in [his] own body’ and ‘completely helpless.’”

“He described it as ‘the worst pain [he had] ever felt in [his] entire life,’ and that ‘[n]ot a day passes by where [he does not] think about it,’” they added. “Plaintiff also attested to the unceasing, excruciating physical pain that he endured during his hospital stay, which was minimally alleviated, if at all, with pain medication.”

In August 2020, Tisch had upheld a jury verdict of $60 million in pain and suffering damages awarded to the former 10th-grade student, in a 38-page opinion.


MAR 22, 2018 

City educators, parents, and students were sickened Thursday to hear an Upper West Side teacher found a pot of cash and a cushy job at the end of a rainbow experiment that burned two students.

Beacon High School teacher Anna Poole has landed $23,000 in raises since the 2014 accident that permanently disfigured one teen and prompted nearly $40 million in lawsuits.

She is now an instructional leader assigned to the Education Department headquarters and teaches city teachers how to perform science lessons.

New York City Parents Union founder Mona Davids was appalled.

"I think that's outrageous and ludicrous. It's actually insulting," said Davids. "But it's typical DOE. That's what they do, reward poor performance."

As an example, Davids cited former Bronx principal Santiago Taveras, who lost his job at DeWitt Clinton High School in a 2017 cheating scandal. Despite a probe that found he changed students' grades, Taveras landed in another high-paying city schools gig, as an educational administrator.


Poole, 35, was a rookie science teacher on Jan. 2, 2014, when a chemistry rainbow experiment went horribly wrong and caused a classroom explosion that injured two students.

"Oh my God, I set a kid on fire," Poole cried out, according to a Special Commissioner of Investigation report published five months after horrific blast.

But instead of firing Poole, Education Department officials gave her a new job as citywide instructional specialist, and a series of raises the agency said were contractually required. She currently makes a $79,484 a year — up from $56,048 on the day of the explosion.

City public school teacher and education activist Axia Rodriquez said Poole's plum gig shows the Education Department disciplinary system is upside-down.

"The DOE is helping this lady reboot her career because it was a tragic accident," said Rodriquez, who teaches English-language learners. "But when whistleblowers speak up, their careers are in tatters."

Queens teacher Bobson Wong said on Twitter that the city should put its brightest educators in positions to lead important professional development classes.

"I think this says a lot about the quality of professional development — who gets chosen to do it," Wong tweeted. "I wish teachers had more of an opportunity to run PD, but given how busy we are, this is difficult."

Beacon students were shocked that Poole is giving city educators lessons on how to lead science classes. The classroom blast she touched off four years ago melted the ear of one student, burned the forearms and hair of another, and left a third with PTSD.

So "maybe continuing to work with chemicals isn't a super responsible decision," said sophomore Henry Pearl, 16.

Poole didn't pick up her office phone when called for comment, and her coworkers at 52 Chambers St. said they were too spooked to comment on her story.

"Good luck," said one DOE staffer approached by a Daily News reporter outside Tweed Courthouse. "There's a lot of fear here."


Ben Chapman is an award-winning reporter who covers education for the New York Daily News. A graduate of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, Chapman has written more than 2,000 articles about New York City schools for the Daily News since joining the paper in 2009.

By Priscilla DeGregory, NY POST August 10, 2020

The city lost its attempt to avoid paying the $60 million verdict that was awarded to a Beacon High School student who was badly burned in a since-banned chemistry experiment gone awry, a judge ruled Monday.

Alonzo Yanes was awarded the stunning sum by a jury on July 1, 2019, following a trial that detailed how Yanes, then 16, suffered horrific and disfiguring burns on Jan. 2, 2014, after his chemistry teacher, Anna Poole, conducted a “Rainbow Experiment” that erupted in a fireball.
The trial also laid out the harrowing physical and emotional recovery that the teen went through in the months and years following the incident.
“All of this excruciating physical and emotional trauma experienced by Mr. Yanes has essentially stopped his young life before it even began,” Manhattan Supreme Supreme Court Justice Alexander Tisch wrote in a decision upholding the jury’s verdict.
The city last August filed a motion seeking to toss out or renegotiate the hefty verdict claiming that Yanes wasn’t nearly as disfigured as other accident victims in New York cases who have received smaller payouts.
Tisch said the verdict — which awarded for past and future pain and suffering — is appropriate as “Mr. Yanes was subjected to literally being burned alive.”
Yanes, now 22, spent painful months recovering in hospitals including undergoing skin grafting to his face, neck, arms, and hands and losing his ears, according to trial testimony. He has disfiguring scars on his face and body and has lost the ability to sweat and feel in the burned areas, a doctor testified.
“Having miraculously survived being severely burned and the related trauma of the accident, Mr. Yanes became acquainted with the agonizing pain and suffering he would have to endure daily,” Tisch wrote of Yanes’ recovery.
And as for his future, the judge wrote, “While Mr. Yanes is supposed to be entering the prime of his life, he has been unable to establish a romantic relationship and has never even experienced his first kiss or had a single sexual encounter.”
Tisch said there is no sign that these emotional consequences “will somehow lessen over the remainder of his life.”
The physical and emotional impact of the accident will continue to affect Yanes’ job prospects, his future relationships, his self-confidence, his independence from his parents, and his friendships throughout his life, Tisch said.
he jury “awarded a sizable, but fair monetary award for the substantial injuries … that Mr. Yanes has endured and is statistically likely to continue to endure for an additional 54 years post-verdict,” the decision read referring to Yanes’ predicted life expectancy.
Yanes’ lawyer Ben Rubinowitz told The Post he and his clients are “very pleased” with the decision.
“This young child suffered horrific injuries through the negligence of the Board of Education and a teacher who failed to provide protection for the students,” Rubinowitz said. “Although the award offers some measure of damages I know that my client would return it in a heartbeat if he could have his health back.”
The DOE deferred comment to the city Law Department.
Law Department spokesman Nicholas Paolucci said, “This was a tragic incident and the experiment has been banned in our schools.
“While we respect the court’s ruling, we believe the award is not consistent with the awards that have been upheld by the courts in similar cases.”
Paolucci said the city is “reviewing the city’s legal options” when asked if there would be an appeal.
Case Upheld

As a chemistry teacher at Manhattan's Beacon High School "poured methanol from a gallon jug" into dishes containing nitrates, "a giant fireball erupted ... and engulfed" the student, and he burned for at least a minute, wrote the judge.


Saturday, April 8, 2017

Vassilev v NYC DOE (NY Supreme Court, 2013): Petitioner Denied a Complete Chancellor's Committee Report

It seems strange to me that the NYC DOE does not give Chancellor Committee Reports to educators appealing their end-of-year ratings, in a timely fashion.

In the Vassilev case, Judge Cynthia Kern wrote that they must make a decision  but they dont have to give it to Mr. Vassilev:

" In the present case, petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks as the Chancellor's Committee's issuance of a final determination is a ministerial, not a discretionary, act. The Committee's hearing was held in March 2012 yet no final determination has been made thus far. This court is not advising the Committee on what decision to render but only that the Committee must issue a final determination regarding petitioner's "U-rating" for the 2009-2010 school year as expeditiously as possible.
Finally, petitioner's request for a complete and unredacted copy of the Chancellor's Committee's report is denied. In an Article 78 proceeding, "a petitioner is not entitled to discovery as of right." 

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com


2013 NY Slip Op 31788(U)
In the Matter of the Application of ANTON VASSILEV, Petitioner,
For an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DENNIS WALCOTT, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, Respondents.
Docket No. 100526/13, Sequence No. 001.
Supreme Court, New York County.
August 2, 2013.
Filed August 6, 2013.
DECISION/ORDER
CYNTHIA S. KERN, Judge.
It is ordered that this motion is decided in accordance with the annexed decision.
Petitioner Anton Vassilev brings the instant petition pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") (1) challenging respondent the New York City Department of Education's (the "DOE") determination sustaining (a) his Unsatisfactory end-of-year rating ("U-rating") for the 2009-2010 school year and the denial of completion of probation; and (b) the discontinuance of employment and termination as a teacher for the DOE; (2) seeking an Order mandating that respondents reinstate petitioner nunc pro tunc to his employment as of September 9, 2010 with all backpay and other lost benefits and emoluments of employment, including granting him tenure; (3) ordering respondents to immediately turn over to petitioner a complete and unredacted copy of the Chancellor's Committee report pursuant to CPLR § 408; and (4) compelling respondents to issue a final determination regarding his "U-rating." Respondents cross-move for an Order pursuant to CPLR § 7804(f) and 3211(a)(5) dismissing the petition on the grounds that it is time-barred and that petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and seeking costs, fees and disbursements. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is granted in part and denied in part.
The relevant facts are as follows. Petitioner was appointed as a probationary mathematics teacher with the DOE in or around September 2006 at Junior High School 291 ("J.H.S. 291") in Brooklyn, New York. For the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, petitioner received "Satisfactory" ratings on his end-of-year evaluations. Petitioner alleges that he was tenured by estoppel at the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year as he had received three consecutive "Satisfactory" end-of-year ratings. During the 2009-2010 school year, petitioner alleges that his class lessons were observed three times by Assistant Principal Noel Moses ("AP Moses") and that all of those observations were rated satisfactory but that Principal Sean Walsh ("Principal Walsh") rated petitioner's overall performance for the 2009-2010 school year "Unsatisfactory."
Due to the "U-rating," by letter dated July 9, 2010, petitioner received notice that his probationary employment was terminated and petitioner was denied tenure allegedly pursuant to an Extension of Probation Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated December 7, 2009. The Agreement states that petitioner "agrees to serve, an additional one year probationary period commencing December 7, 2009, and concluding on December 8, 2010 in the tenure area of 762B Mathematics" and that "[n]o later than December 8, 2010, [petitioner] shall either be granted tenure upon satisfactory completion of the additional probationary period or denied completion of probation and/or discontinued prior thereto." Further, the Agreement states that "[t]he parties agree that the decision to either grant tenure to [petitioner] at a date no later than December 8, 2010, shall be based upon an evaluation of [petitioner's] probationary service during the additional one year of probationary service herein granted and also upon an evaluation of [petitioner's] probationary service rendered prior to December 7, 2009." Finally, the Agreement states that "[petitioner] waives any possible rights, claims or causes of action for tenure as a Mathematics Teacher arising on or prior to December 7, 2009."
Petitioner appealed both his "U-rating" and termination to the DOE's Office of Appeals and Reviews ("OAR") and a Chancellor's Committee hearing was held on March 26, 2012. Principal Walsh died before the hearing so petitioner was unable to question him. At the hearing, Debra Poulos, petitioner's union representative, asserted that there was no evidence to support petitioner's "U-rating" and that petitioner should be tenured by estoppel as the December 7, 2009 Agreement was never signed by petitioner and that the signature on the Agreement was forged. Ms. Poulos asserted that when confronted with the Agreement, she contacted the DOE's Special Commissioner of Investigations ("SCI") to investigate whether the Agreement was a forgery but that SCI closed the investigation, allegedly due to Principal Walsh's death. At the hearing, the Chancellor's representative noted certain irregularities on several documents and stated that he was not "one hundred percent convinced that probationer did sign [the Agreement]." Petitioner has not yet received a final determination affirming or overturning his denial of completion of probation and his "U-rating." Petitioner commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to challenge the "U-rating" he received for the 2009-2010 school year and his termination.
As an initial matter, the City of New York must be dismissed from this case as it is an improper party. It is well-settled that "[the DOE] is not a department of the [C]ity of New York" but rather a separate and distinct entity. Ragsdale v. Board of Education, 282 N.Y.323 (1940), citing Divisich v. Marshall, 281 N.Y. 170 (1939)see also Perez v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 378 (1st Dept 2007) (holding that "the City and the [DOE] remain separate legal entities.") As the City of New York did not make the determination petitioner seeks to challenge and is a separate entity from the DOE, it must be dismissed.
Further, that portion of the petition which seeks to challenge petitioner's termination is denied on the ground that it is time-barred. There is a four month statute of limitations to bring an Article 78 proceeding. See CPLR § 217. "The Statute of Limitations runs from the date the administrative determination becomes final and binding." Matter of De Milio v. Borghard, 55 N.Y.2d 216, 219 (1982). "A petition to challenge the termination of probationary employment on substantive grounds must be brought within four months of the effective date of termination" as "[t]he time to commence such a proceeding is not extended by the ... pursuit of administrative remedies." Kahn v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 A.D.3d 521 (1st Dept 2010), aff'd 18 N.Y.3d 457 (2012). In the instant action, petitioner was notified of his termination on July 9, 2010. However, petitioner did not commence the instant Article 78 proceeding challenging such termination until March 29, 2013, more than two and a half years later. The fact that petitioner appealed his termination to the OAR and had it reviewed by the Chancellor's Committee is without merit as such review did not toll petitioner's time to commence this proceeding. Additionally, petitioner's assertion that he was entitled to a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a is also time-barred. If petitioner desired a § 3020-a hearing, it was necessary for petitioner to demand one and await a refusal before commencing an Article 78 proceeding. However, petitioner may not extend indefinitely the statute of limitations period by waiting to make such a demand. See Austin v. Bd. of Higher Educ., 5 N.Y.2d 430 (1959).
Additionally, that portion of the petition which seeks to challenge petitioner's "U-rating" for the 2009-2010 school year is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Appeals of unsatisfactory ratings are governed by section 4.3.1 of the DOE by-laws, which specify that a "U-rating" is not final until the Chancellor renders a decision. See Kahn v. Dep't of Educ., 18 N.Y.3d 457 (2012)see also Bonilla v. Bd. of Educ., 285 A.D.2d 548 (2d Dept 2011). In the instant proceeding, petitioner has yet to receive a final determination from the Chancellor regarding whether his "U-rating" for the 2009-2010 school year will be sustained. As no final determination has been made, petitioner's challenge to the "U-rating" is premature and must be dismissed. However, to the extent petitioner seeks relief in the nature of mandamus to compel respondent to issue a final determination regarding the "U-rating" so that petitioner may commence an Article 78 proceeding challenging such determination, such request is granted. Under New York law, "mandamus lies to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought." Matter of Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County v. Scheinman, 53 N.Y.2d 12, 16 (1981). Mandamus does not lie to compel acts that "are entrusted to the respondent official's discretion. Mandamus is available only where the petitioner's right to performance is so clear as to admit of no doubt or controversy." Coastal Oil New York Inc. v. Newton, 231 A.D.2d 55, 57 (1st Dep't 1997). In the present case, petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks as the Chancellor's Committee's issuance of a final determination is a ministerial, not a discretionary, act. The Committee's hearing was held in March 2012 yet no final determination has been made thus far. This court is not advising the Committee on what decision to render but only that the Committee must issue a final determination regarding petitioner's "U-rating" for the 2009-2010 school year as expeditiously as possible.
Finally, petitioner's request for a complete and unredacted copy of the Chancellor's Committee's report is denied. In an Article 78 proceeding, "a petitioner is not entitled to discovery as of right." Town of Pleasant Valley v. New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 253 A.D.2d 8, 15-16 (2d Dept 1999). In a special proceeding, discovery will be permitted only where a petitioner first "demonstrate[s] that there is need for such relief." Id. at 15. In the instant action, petitioner seeks discovery in the form of the Chancellor's Committee's report because "such reports have been routinely turned over or compelled to be turned over to teachers in similar proceedings." However, petitioner fails to demonstrate his individualized need for the report, which is necessary to obtain discovery. See Town of Pleasant Valley,253 A.D.2d at 15. Further, the Chancellor's Committee's report is a predecisional report that is advisory, not binding, in nature.
To the extent respondents seek costs, fees and disbursements in this action, such request is denied as respondents have failed to provide a basis for such relief.
Accordingly, the petition is granted only to the extent that respondents are hereby compelled to issue a final determination regarding petitioner's "U-rating" for the 2009-2010 school year as expeditiously as possible. If respondents are unable to issue a final determination within four months of the date of this decision, the parties shall appear for a Compliance Conference on December 10, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. at 60 Centre Street, Room 432. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.


Monday, October 12, 2015

Observations are Now Punitive, Replacing Rational Conclusions of Fact

re-post from 2012 on observations and evaluations.

The PIP+ program no longer exists, and has been replaced by Field Supervisors and Peer observers. Same old thing, focusing on the removal of teachers after finding everything wrong.

The Issue Of Observation Reports And Using These To Punish and Terminate Teachers

June 12, 2012
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Betsy Combier, Editor
The issue of teacher evaluations is fascinating, when you realize that the New York City Department of Education and the UFT (and NYSUT) violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") all the time.

Take the UFT/DOE Peer Intervention Plus (PIP+) process, for example. The way it works is this: RMC, the PIP+ vendor (at approximately $330,000/year) hires former educators (you can work for them if you have not worked for the DOE for 1 year) to observe teachers who are targeted for termination. RMC is contacted by the DOE and given an assignment: an employee who is not, supposedly, 'up to par' with the expected workload. In fact, any principal can request PIP+ after one "U" rating, a violation of their contract with the DOE -see my website and blog 
RMC Contract 1-53 
RMC Contract 54-105 
RMC Contract 3

Training Manual 1
Training Manual 2

The RMC observer goes to the school and discusses the employee with the principal. The principal tells the observer what he/she wants the person to observe, and what the person is supposed to "find".
The RMC protocols do NOT call for pre-observations, which is a blatant violation of the contract which states that there must be a pre and post observation for each formal observation. RMC observers ignore this. In fact, I have heard RMC employees testify that they have never read the CBA. 

The UFT did not object to the procedures used by RMC, thus there is no repercussion for the RMC observer for breaking the rules of observations. I can only wonder, "What was Randi Weingarten/Mike Mendel/mike Mulgrew thinking when they approved PIP+, the Termination Program? 

 Below is the information gathered from the UFT on Observations:

Observation and Evaluation


The information below is about observations and evaluations. This information is the process REQUIRED by contract. Please use this to introduce the next hearing, because it shows that the PIP+ program violated the contract with the UFT and Teaching For the 21st Century, but also that Sue Lichtenstein's observations can hold no weight. Here is the link:
I'm home all weekend (drat)
Betsy
Observations and evaluations fall under the general category of performance review, which is cited in Article 8J of the UFT contract. Performance reviews are intended to help teachers accomplish their educational goals with their students.
Currently, the UFT and the Department of Education have an agreed-upon plan for teacher evaluation that is incorporated in the contract and is spelled out in the document “Teaching for the 21st Century.”
Under that plan, tenured teachers, in consultation with their supervisors, may choose either the “performance option” or the traditional classroom observation as the basis for their performance review.
New and probationary teachers at all levels should expect to have formal, traditional classroom observations several times a year. If you think you are being excessively observed, keep a log of the visits and speak to your chapter leader.
A formal observation is one which includes pre- and post-observation conferences and written feedback and/or comments. A supervisor has the right to enter a teacher’s class unannounced. However, such informal visits generally are not written up. If your supervisor writes up such an informal observation and if it is negative in nature, you should ask in writing for a post-observation conference with the supervisor.
A pre-conference may be: 1. one-to-one conferences between the supervisor and teacher; 2. small group meetings; or 3. a written notification outlining a menu of possible instructional areas to be evaluated during the formal observation, with teacher input on the area(s) to be addressed.
One-to-one conferences are required for all formal observations of probationary teachers or U-rated teachers.
Tenured teachers who have been rated satisfactory are entitled to an individual, lesson-specific pre-observation conference if they request it in writing. The UFT recommends that all teachers make such a request at the beginning of each school year. A written request for a one-to-one conference must be granted (see Chief Executive Memorandum # 80, 1997-98). If your written request is denied, you may grieve under Article 8J and Article 20 of the teachers’ contract.
Following the observation, you should write down your recollections of the lesson, which will be helpful to you in the post-observation conference with your supervisor.
You will receive a written report of the observation after the post-observation conference and will be asked to sign it to indicate that you have seen it, whether or not you agree with it. If you believe the observation was improper, you should speak to your chapter leader, who can help you formulate a written response and advise you of the other options open to you. Your response must be attached to the original report and placed with the original in your file.

THE NEW EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TEACHERS

In May 2010, the UFT, NYSUT and the State Education Department agreed to create a new teacher evaluation and improvement plan.
This new evaluation system will include content knowledge, pedagogical practices, instructional delivery, classroom management, knowledge of student development, use of assessment techniques/data, effective collaborative relationships, and reflection of teaching practices (criteria that currently exist) as well as multiple measures of student learning such as test scores, classroom work, presentations and projects. The mix of those measures in New York City will be negotiated between the UFT and the Department of Education, but the use of state test scores will be capped at 25 percent.
The new system will take effect starting in the 2011-2012 school year. The union will be at the table during the 2010-11 school year working out the details of the agreement and determining the criteria to be used.

USEFUL RESOURCES FOR OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATIONS


Below is an email that my friend Harvey Elentuck sent to Daily News reporter Kenneth Lovett about teacher evaluations: 

to:  Ken Lovett
from:  Harvey M. Elentuck
cc:  Betsy Combier, Robert J. Freeman, Esq., Camille S. Jobin-Davis, Esq.
date:  6/12/12

Hi, Mr. Lovett!

I just saw your article, "Shhh, it's a secret!" about teacher evaluations in the print edition of today's Daily News.  I also looked at the online version, "Unions want Cuomo to allow parents to see teacher evaluations."

I was the petitioner in Elentuck v. Green (202 AD2d 425).
That was a CPLR Article 78 suit (relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Law) in which the Second Appellate Division found that there were no "statistical or factual tabulations or data" in a large collection of records that I had requested, including unsatisfactory lesson observation reports and Chancellor's Committee reports that were in possession of Community School District 24 and Community School Board 24.  Don't ask me how the court made such a finding when there was never an in camera inspection of all the records that had been requested.  The Court of Appeals turned down my Motion for Leave to Appeal, so the decision stood.


My case was cited in the following advisory opinion of the NYS Committee on Open Government:


My case was also cited by the lower court (Judge Cynthia Kern of NYS Supreme Court, New York County) in the Mulgrew case about "teacher data reports" (which was the case responsible for the current push to close off access from the general public):


If there are no "statistics" or "facts" in lesson observation reports, then one must wonder:

1)  What good are they?

2)  Why is so much public money being spent on having supervisors observe lessons, discuss the lessons with teachers afterward (the "post-observation conference"), and then write up such reports?

3)  Why are teachers sometimes rated unsatisfactory or fired based on their contents, thereby denying teachers' rights to due process?

If there are no "statistics" or "facts" in Chancellor's Committee reports, then one must wonder:

1)  What is the purpose of holding administrative hearings that result in the issuance of such reports?

2)  How would the Chancellor know whether to adopt or reject the recommendation contained in such reports (which is practically always to sustain the adverse personnel action that had been taken -- such as a U-rating, discontinuance of probationary service, or denial of tenure) without a recitation of the facts and statistics upon which the recommendation had been based?

In my opinion, it is imperative that the final ratings of teachers, plus the statistical and factual aspects of the supporting documentation, continue to be made available to the general public pursuant to FOIL requests.  Furthermore, if teachers are being given "instructions to staff that affect the public" within the body of performance evaluations, then, that type of information, too, should continue to be accessible.

For one thing, school districts are spending huge sums of money on "professional development."  Think of how this can be avoided if teachers were simply able to easily access the specific "secrets of good teaching" (to emulate) and the "secrets of bad teaching" (to stay away from) as revealed in the supporting documentation.

For another thing, occasionally the evaluations of teachers and administrators reveal unsafe conditions in the schools, and these need to remain within the sphere of public access.

Here is an example of an evaluation of a high school principal which was released to me under FOIL over thirty years ago by Ruth Bernstein, the (at the time) Deputy Records Access Officer of the NYC Department of Education:

    [Name Deleted]’s performance as principal during the school year 1980-81 was unsatisfactory.
            This evaluation is based on a review of the degree to which he fulfilled specified goals and objectives, and on his performance in the organization, administration, and supervision of other school-based matters.
            However, it should be noted that [Name Deleted] did satisfactorily fulfill, at least in part, some specified priorities.  These included formulation of plans to accomplish schoolwide goals and objectives; making plans for review of lesson planning; establishing plans to increase the school’s holding power and to improve attendance and decrease cutting.  Unfortunately, while these plans were made, few were implemented successfully.
            A major positive accomplishment was the establishment of an Honor Academy in the 9th grade.  This will serve as the basis for expansion of the Honors program into higher grades.  In addition, objectives to strengthen communications among and between members of the school’s staff appear to have been met.  The Business Education program was expanded.
            [Name Deleted]’s overall performance, however, was unsatisfactory in the following areas:

(1)        He violated policy with regard to admitting students who arrived late to school.
(2)        He failed to address or remedy the lockout situation until mid-October 1980 despite the superintendent’s prior instructions.
(3)        He failed to organize and administer a procedure to properly and accurately record pupil lateness to school in such a way that parents would know of these latenesses.
(4)        He failed to follow the superintendent’s instructions to identify, diagnose, and analyze absenteeism and cutting so as to improve performance in those areas.
(5)        He failed to organize, administer, and supervise a program of classroom observations by assistant principals in a manner and on a schedule which would afford sufficient opportunity and time to provide assistance to teachers for improvement of their performance.
(6)        He failed to administer and supervise procedures to guarantee a safe, secure, and wholesome school atmosphere with special reference to stairways and the student cafeteria.
(7)        He violated instructions and guidelines concerning implementation of a funded PSEN math position.
(8)        He failed to properly follow instructions concerning the exclusion of non-immunized pupils.
(9)        He violated High School Division instructions regarding the administration of final examinations and end-of-year activities for the Spring 1981 semester.  This resulted in a loss of 4 full days of instruction to students, waste of instructional time and resources, waste of tax-levy and funded monies, and substantial and unwarranted decrease in attendance.
[Name Deleted] has demonstrated by the above that while he is generally capable of making plans, either alone or with others, to address daily and/or ongoing school-based problems and situations, he is inefficient and incompetent in satisfactorily fulfilling the administrative and supervisory functions and activities necessary to their successful implementation, in keeping with the level of performance expected of a high school principal.
                                                [Superintendent’s Signature Deleted]
                                                            [Superintendent’s Name Deleted]

Wouldn't you agree that the above performance evaluation contains material that is of vital public interest to the students who attended the school in question, and, of course, to their parents, guardians, members of the community, the media, etc.?

I hope you will contact your colleagues at the Daily News, and at other newspapers, and see to it that the newspapers and publishers of New York State and New York City step forward to vehemently oppose the three "bad bills" which are currently in Albany that seek to exempt records of teacher evaluation from the Freedom of Information Law.

I'm aware that back in April, the Daily News came out pretty strongly for public access in the opinion piece, "Don't even think of a gag order for parents on teacher evaluations."

Here are the URLs of the bills:

Take a look at the following article from Education Week as reprinted in Betsy Combier's blog, NYC Rubber Room Reporter:


Take a look at the following North Dakota judicial decision which was referred to in the above article:


Take a look at the following Michigan judicial decision on the same topic:


Take a look at the following advisory opinion from the NYS Committee on Open Government:


It seems to me that the benefits of disclosure far outweigh the potential for "embarrassment" of named employees.

Finally, here is a little-known judicial decision, Blecher v. NYC Board of Education (NYLJ, 10/25/79), which I "rediscovered" in the 1980s, when I saw it summarized in the FOIL Case Summary of the NYS Committee on Open Government.  You may wish to research the case.