From DTOE: ATR Survey
Friday, September 5, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Cheon Park, Former Owner of a Queens-Based Special Education Provider, Sentenced To 24 Months In Jail
 |
| New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli |
NEWS
From the Office of the New York State Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli
DiNAPOLI: SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTRACTOR CONVICTED FOR $2 MILLION FRAUD
The former owner of a Queens-based special education provider, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges earlier this year following a joint investigation by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District Preet Bharara, was sentenced today to 24 months incarceration and ordered to pay $2,151,318 in restitution and forfeit another $1,924,318.
“Cheon Park enriched himself and deprived children with physical, developmental and emotional disabilities of the help they need,” DiNapoli said. “His conviction today stands as a warning for those who attempt to cheat taxpayers and instead use the money for their personal benefit. I’d like to thank U.S. Attorney Bharara for prosecuting this crime and working with my staff to bring Park to justice and recover stolen taxpayer money.”
In July 2012, DiNapoli’s office issued an audit of Bilingual SEIT & Preschool Inc. that found Park inappropriately charged New York City’s Department of Education for salaries, vehicle leases and items such as cosmetics and children’s furniture. There were also a number of questionable issues related to staff salaries. For a copy of the audit, visit: http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/
DiNapoli referred the findings to United States Attorney Bharara’s office and worked to prosecute Park and recover the stolen funds. DiNapoli also praised the work of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for New York City’s Department of Education, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Education, and the Queens County District Attorney’s Office for their collaboration in this investigation.
DiNapoli has identified fraud and improper use of taxpayer funds in a recent series of audits and investigations of special education providers, resulting in multiple criminal convictions and the recovery of over $3 million. His office has completed 23 audits of preschool special education providers, finding nearly $23 million in unsupported or inappropriate charges. There are currently 18 additional audits of preschool special education providers in progress.
In December 2013, Governor Cuomo signed legislation – proposed by DiNapoli and sponsored by Sen. John Flanagan and Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan – mandating the Comptroller’s Office audit all of the more than 300 preschool special education providers in this $1.4 billion program by March 31, 2018.
###
Education Policy Implementation = National Security
Another article I posted on my website Parentadvocates.org in 2004.
Still true, 10 years later.
Betsy Combier
Still true, 10 years later.
Betsy Combier
Betsy Combier: Silencing Opposition: Education Policy Implementation Becomes a Matter of National Security
From Betsy Combier, Editor:
E-Accountability OPINION: Governments that want to take public money for politically desired projects without opposition must close the government procurement to prying eyes. This means that contracts are signed without competitive bidding, Freedom of Information requests are not honored, and the media is co-opted. The NYC BOE is our model. by Betsy Combier
Betsy Combier and Colin Powell, SAIS 60th Anniversary Gala, Washington DC October 13, 2004
While attending a course on International Affairs at Columbia University in 1973, I heard about the trillions of dollars spent on armaments by the Pentagon. The class discussed why, when so much money is spent on tanks, bombs and missiles, there has to be a process for creating a war with minimum opposition. A year later, as a student in The School For Advanced International Studies' Master's Program in Bologna, Italy, I researched the growth and development of the Soviet Military Industrial Complex. I saw that the amount of money spent on American defense was not justified because by all accounts the Soviet defense industry was in almost total disrepair at the time. Of course, we know that for 'national security' the end justifies the means, and we must support our military if their work protects us. We needed the US government to keep secret the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, and we need to keep our spies away from exposure. There are, therefore, many reasons for secrecy in providing homeland security and global justice, but even in the defense area there must be oversight and accountability.
The defense industry, nonetheless and by necessity, has perfected a process which uses secret no-bid contracts and highly paid 'consultants' to acquire public support for the spending of public money. This effort is non-partisan, which means that it has nothing to do with the political party in power. It has everything to do with 'who is friends with whom', and who owes someone a 'favor'. Friends help friends make money in the business of defending our country. This is the way the system works. We, the public, elect people to the highest level of power with the hope that they will honor the Common Good while they spend public funds, and few will deny the fact that if you work for the defense industry, or work for one of it's subsidiaries, then you will benefit from the expenditures, even if - especially if -it means war.
An Editorial published October 31 2004 in the NY Times ("More questions About Halliburton") shows the closed government that we are hidden from knowing too much about. Vice President Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton, a company now charged with price gouging and improper influence over providing the Pentagon with lucrative deals in Iraq. The article explains this process:
"There is a reason that big defense contractors often recruit well-connected former government officials as their chief executives. They do not operate in a normal business environment, where companies must compete on the basis of their performance and efficiency. Instead, they sit in a kind of financial wonderland where huge profits can be made with minimal risk. Lucrative contracts are awarded without competitive bidding, and unexpected cost overruns and other dubious charges are simply passed along to the taxpayer. Most of this is, unfortunately, completely legal."
Whether the President is Bush, or someone else, the secret government is here to stay.
This same process is being used in our nation's public schools to stop the public from participating in, or knowing anything about, the allocation of taxpayer money to public school education. Our research into how School Boards, education officials and even PTA Presidents get elected has shown us that this process is not democratic or open. In fact, there is 'systemic sabotage' of open government rules often so complex that a person actually looking for the misinformation or non-compliance has difficulty finding it. But it is definitely there, because the system depends on maintaining control over the process of getting lucrative contracts signed, sealed, and delivered.
Members of school boards often have an agenda that seems to be very similar to the BOE in town and the BOE Attorneys. In addition, many Chancellors across America are 'consultants' for law firms and corporations that make money from the links to education. In order for this to happen smoothly, Boards of Education have taken the defense industry model for procurement and made it their own. The same links between education and industry are there, as are the same tactics used to keep all transactions secret and away from the public eye.
Public education has, in other words, become a matter "of national security". Secrecy, harassment of those who do not go along with The Plan, and whistleblower retaliation are all used to promote and maintain programs designed by Those Who Know What Our Children Need. In New York City, the venue we know best, the 'national security' program for our public school children is called at the present time "Children First". The problem is that Bloomberg/Klein are not skilled defense industry tacticians, and are not implementing correctly the military model they have adopted.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's takeover of the NYC Board of Education in June 2002 was, in our opinion, a good thing. In 2002 many Superintendents were not performing their jobs with integrity, statistics proved that the NYC education system was failing the children, and there was very little proof of any success in the System. Then, it seems that the Mayor and his appointed Chancellor Joel Klein took the defense industry strategies to promote their education reform program, "Children First". Evidence of this top-down defense model includes:
1. Tweed Courthouse has become the education Pentagon, where in the name of security all people entering must be photographed, and everyone sits in open rooms where The Boss rules with an iron hand. We love the lack of closed doors so that everyone can be watched at the same time. This is creative thinking at work, literally.
2. All telephone calls to the Tweed Pentagon are screened so that any serious complaints are not responded to right away or at all, in the hope that the person who made the complaint can be 'persuaded' to leave the issue alone, or go away without resolving the problem. If an issue is responded to - which, by the way, does not mean resolved - false assurances of "I'll look into it" are normal. Complaints are, of course, against "national security".
3. As all complaints by parents, teachers, paraprofessionals or anyone else threaten the security of the system, almost all those who bring a problem to the attention of a BOE employee are told that they are wrong. The complaint is 'not valid'. The issue is not the problem, the person making the complaint is. If a complaint or problem has an easy solution, such as there is no toilet paper anywhere in a school, this may be taken care of quickly because the resolution has nothing to do with changing the core autocractic nature of the system. The BOE employee who obtains the money for the toilet paper gives all credit to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein, for acting so quickly and decisively, or to "The System" for it's efficiency. Send in the Press! The potential threat to our 'national security' - a complaint - is thus disposed of. No one asks how the bathrooms in our city's public schools got so dirty and decrepit in the first place, or how they stayed that way for 30 years. No one goes back 1 month later to check and see if there is any toilet paper left after the reporters have gone onto another story. Why? Because the story isn't really about toilet paper, it's about media, press releases, and political successes that can be touted in the future. Isn't it interesting that the amount of toilet paper in a school can be made into such a political media event? No one wants to touch the Big Stuff, the $ billions that are misallocated on a daily basis.
Indeed, resolutions of complaints such as the toilet paper issue are staged to get maximum press exposure, and BOE officials all make false promises that they have no intention of keeping. Not only is all this a show, but all the actors know that there are no consequences for what they say or do. No one who works for the BOE in defense of our national security need explain anything to anyone. There is no accountability.
4. Teachers who may jeopardize 'national security', are laid off, fired, forced to resign, or harassed, and the people doing the harassing don't care about the violation of due process going on. We have, over the past four years, heard from countless teachers, paraprofessionals and school aides who, merely by asking questions such as "Where's the money?", or "Why do I have to Teach it this way?" find themselves attacking 'national security' and out of a job. The National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse focuses on this problem, and gives many examples.
A closed government can also go after innocent people in order to 'show' others what might happen to them, and this is one major reason for closing the door.
Leo, a Math teacher given unexplained U ratings, may not understand what he did to incur the wrath of the system, and as he is ushered out the door of his school, still doesn't. Neil, Tom, Ed, Dr. B., Yolanda, Iris and I and so many others have been accused of wrongdoing that was 'made up' by the Tweed ring, and we were all pursued by the Office of Special Investigations whose modus operandi resembles that of the CIA or MOSSAD. We have all been told that our "crime" is known, and the 'proof' has been found, so all we have to do is move out of state, hide, ask for forgiveness, or repent. Neil was told that he could not be hired by anyone but he still doesn't know what his 'crime' was. We presume his name, mine and all the other parents and teachers who have crossed the line into jeopardizing 'national security' are on The Monitoring Unitwebsite.
If these threats dont work to scare off, silence, or put the victim on the run, tougher measures are called for, and one lovely example of this is NYC Office of Legal Services'Chad Vignola's email about my "crimes" and about his very helpful resolution to all the problems, all of which were completely false, sent to all the members of the New York State Assembly on April 1, 2002, April Fool's Day in America.
Attacks such as this serve no useful purpose other than to intimidate. The questions that we, the intended victims, all ask are: how and why do Board of Education officials get away with this? We believe that the answer is in the pocketbooks of the people acting under color of law to make sure no one stops the removal of troublesome people from the process (of secretly taking public money). Keeping the answers to these questions hidden from the public is a matter of 'national security'.
5. Parents are kept out of this web of secrecy for good reason. What is going on in our city schools is, by all accounts, disastrous for the success, health, and welfare of the children inside. In NYC, despite the thousands of pretty fliers streaming out of the Tweed pentagon, our children are not being protected from terrorists; we do not have enough defibrillators or trained personnel who know how to use them (we called approximately 60 schools); safety of the school (building and personnel) comes before the protection of students from discrimination, physical violence and emotional harassment; special education children are being kicked out of their classrooms, locked up, physically and emotionally hurt, and the politico-educational complex is powerful enough to persuade judges at the city and state levels to go along with The Plan.
Below is an email received from a teacher when Chancellor Klein took over and changed the Math Curriculum:
From a Bronx teacher:
"I just wanted to share with you my thoughts on the High School Choice of Curriculum. We all know that a Book is NOT a curriculum, so that is Klein's first mistake... And then he said that he picked this book because it was aligned with Math A. Well I do not know how I will share this with him, but I have on my shelf, and in my possession a Prentice Hall Algebra Book "Algebra, Tools for a Changing World" That is identical to the Prenctice Math A book!!! The only difference is the COVER!!!! The first 500 pages are identical!!! (I am NOT kidding!) SO how could this book be aligned with the regents!!!
Two years ago my school purchased $65,000 worth of IMP books... Last year after fighting the superintendent we purchased $30,000 worth of Amsco Math A books... and now i have to purchase Prentice Hall books???? And did you know that they are $58 each!!! who can afford that!! The IMP book was $35 each and the Amsco book is $20. Is Bloomberg going to help us re-sell our IMP books?? They were only used once?? He is the buisness man.. shouldnt he know what to do? I am going to take a picture of my book rooms on monday and I am going to mail these pictures to the chancellor... Do you think it will make any difference??
Everyone is threatened into silence. Almost everyone, that is.
My story, Tom's story, Leo's story and all the other parents and teachers who have contributed to this report and website are proof that not everyone can be harassed enough to run from the abuse that the NYC BOE levies every day against those 'They' do not like because they cannot control us. This is, for Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Michael Cardozo, Richard Condon, Rebecca Loughran and all the others who stand under the 'national security' "Children First" banner, the primary reason for their failure. They simply cannot win a war - education reform - without the support of the troops: the parents and teachers. They will fail, and after a new Mayor is elected and a new Chancellor appointed, many of the mistakes and secret dealings will be exposed for years to come. The tragedy is that the children in our public schools are the victims. Too many of them are not getting the help they need, and are being treated as if they are felons rather than kids in need.
6. The Tweed ring could not succeed at all without the support of the publishers, Editors, and producers of the news. Reporters who work at The New York Post (Rupert Murdoch's newspaper) have told us that they will not use any material that threatens The System, nor are any reporters allowed to quote parents who speak out in opposition to The System. Mr. Murdoch is, we have heard, a teacher for The NYC Leadership Academy. We wonder what he is teaching.
Who is Rupert Murdoch?
The Center for American Progress has on their website: "How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy". They write that he "has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: according to Businessweek, 'his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered'."
Exerpts from this website: Mr. Murdoch is a Media Manipulator, a War Monger, Neoconservative, Oil Imperialist, Intimidator, Far-Right Partisan, Bush supporter and Bush family employer ( hehired Bush cousin John Ellis), Apologist for Repressive Regimes (China), Union Buster, and more. Some or all of these claims may be true, but the point is to show how politicized our media really is. Money always 'talks'.
Of course, there are powerful others.
Most of us who read the news or listen to TV news know about the memos Dan Rather tried to pass off as true. Yet "ordinary" citizens just trying to find out what happened and why, cannot. We are 'allowed' every once in a while to take a peek behind the curtain, but this is rare. We have been told also by reporters who work at the Daily News that they cannot print anything about the potential breakdown of The NYC Education System because of a close relationship between the paper and Chancellor Klein.
The NYCBOE Office of Legal Services decides on a random basis whether or not to comply with Freedom of Information requests. Not one of my FOIA requests for information on MS 54 Principal Larry Lynch, Superintendent Patricia Romandetto of District 3, or The Review Committee, were complied with from 2001 to 2003. Then Mr. Robert Freeman of The Committee on Open Government told me that he had called the OLS, and someone there told him that they had complied, therefore, Mr. Freeman told me, he could "not give me the material a second time." I called Mr. Freeman up and asked him if he would agree to anything I said if it contradicted the OLS, and he said "no".
Michael Cardozo, Chief Counsel for the NYC Law Department/Corporation Counsel, oversees the attacks on teachers, parents and children who seek special education services and resources, teachers complaining about the lack of due process in NYC, and violations of civil rights. He is also the Legal consultant for NBC television's "Today" Show where my old friend Gabe Pressman works. Gabe asked me, in 1971-2, to accompany him while he taped news shows for channel 5 (now FOX TV). Now he no longer returns telephone calls. Michael Cardozo signed the Motion to Dismiss Federal complaint 03 Civ. 10304 against the New York City BOE, the City of NY, and 11 Defendants, in which he and his Assistant Corporation Counsel state, "Plaintiff also vaguely alleges, without any corresponding prayer for relief, that she has suffered some retaliation due to her actions as President of the PTA at Booker T. Washington MS 54..." Yet his agency sent the parents at Booker T., on the Review Committee, the Contract indemnifying all of them as they were removing me from the PTA as paid employees of the NYC BOE.
The City Law Department wrote, in this Contract, that the parents were paid to scream at me such things as "You abused my daughter", ""You are a liar", and "You have raised too much money for the PTA, therefore you must be intending to steal it." The parents were not paid nor were they employees of the city government, and could not be indemnified. But they were, and Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Shafer ordered that the City sidestep my lawyer and sanction me personally for filing a frivolous case against defendants who were protected by the City Law Department, whose salaries are being paid by my taxes.
Does the Mayor of New York City maintain a closed government? He certainly does. We can use the process whereby SNAPPLE became the drink of New York to prove it.
Tom Robbins on "Deals in the Dark: Snapple Town"
The Village Voice, June 1st, 2004
New York is Snapple Country now, thanks to the first-ever marketing deal that makes the beverage firm the city's exclusive brand. But that's not the only novel aspect of the arrangement. A $126 million pact gives Snapple the sole right to place juice and water vending machines in city buildings, plant its happy-script logo on sundry city properties, and promote itself as the city's official brand. A separate $40 million agreement allowed the company to place its machines in city schools.
But despite their size, neither deal underwent the kind of scrutiny normally accorded such contracts-and city and state officials are asking why not.
Last week, attorneys for comptroller William Thompson were before Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun seeking to overturn the citywide marketing deal on the grounds that Mayor Bloomberg skirted proper procedures by refusing to submit it to the city panel charged with approving all franchise and concessions.
Why didn't it require a vote? Because the deal was for "intellectual property," not tangible property like a parking lot or a bus shelter, which clearly calls for a vote in the city charter, a lawyer for the mayor argued. Thompson's attorney countered that the charter's definition was intended to be much broader. "These are the kinds of matters that need to be exposed to the public," said Judd Burstein, who is representing the comptroller.
The Snapple schools contract also sailed through without the usual vetting process. The mayor's people have dual explanations for that one. On the one hand, the new Department of Education is still under state legislation that doesn't require registration of all contracts with the comptroller. Also, in the case of the Snapple agreement, it was "a revenue type contract," not one involving the expenditure of public monies, an agency spokesman said.
Either way, two state lawmakers, Assemblyman Jim Brennan from Brooklyn and State Senator Eric Schneiderman from Manhattan and the Bronx, are sponsoring legislation that would change the education department's procurement policy. Their bill would obligate the agency to register its contracts, and to put no-bid deals-which have tripled under Bloomberg's reign-before the Panel on Educational Policy that replaced the old board of education.
"There would be the opportunity for sunshine, advance notice, and debate, as well as the necessity for justifying what they are doing out there," said Brennan."
and,
Gulp! How Mayor Bloomberg's business pros dribbled their marketing mission: Snapple in the Apple
by Tom Robbins, The Village Voice, April 27th, 2004
A big part of the rationale for electing a billionaire businessman as mayor was just that: Michael Bloomberg was a businessman, he'd made billions, ergo, he could get the job done.
But consider the flap-now in court-over the Bloomberg administration's maiden voyage into the brave new world of city marketing: its $40 million deal to sell Snapple Beverage Corporation the exclusive right to place its vending machines in city schools, along with a separate, $126 million pact to make Snapple New York's official brand.
Since Bloomberg announced the agreements last fall, city comptroller William Thompson has blasted them as tainted and improper. Last week, Thompson went to court to block the "official beverage" contract, arguing that Bloomberg's aides sidestepped City Charter rules in awarding it. Bloomberg, baring his new tough-guy sneer, dismissed the complaint as "political red tape." Such quibbling, he suggested, threatened some hefty corporate cash for New Yorkers. But just how businesslike has the performance of Bloomberg's team been in handling the Snapple affair?
Not very, according to an audit of the school vending machine contract released by Thompson last month. The audit depicts both outside expert consultants hired by the city and in-house bureaucrats as engaged in bumbling missteps and confusion, while promoting commercialism so crass that even Coca-Cola was appalled. Some examples:
With a pioneering, multimillion-dollar contract in the offing, exactly how did officials go about recruiting possible bidders? Answer: They made a couple of calls. According to the audit, Octagon, the high-priced private marketing firm retained by the Department of Education to handle the project, never sent solicitation letters to would-be vendors. Nor did it advertise. Instead, calls were made to two rather well-known companies, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola (Coke later dropped out, saying it couldn't get adequate information). The five other bidders all said they learned about the city's solicitation from "local vending machine operators." One company, Apple & Eve, told auditors that it learned about the contract opportunity in mid August, only one week before the deadline. In its response, the city said that advertising is ineffective and that Octagon called other firms as well-but they didn't apply.
How many vending machines can fit in the city's schools? This basic question, according to auditors, was a moving target. The outline provided by Octagon to bidders stated that there were 2,500 to 3,000 such machines in the schools. Was that a minimum? A maximum? A guess? One company, Veryfine, said that it was told that 3,000 was the limit. Snapple said it thought it was the minimum. Even those evaluating the bids expressed confusion. Octagon said it wanted to leave room for other vendors to provide milk and snack machines; agency officials said they wanted to keep the number secret to help evaluate the bids. The city response to the audit stated that Octagon and the agency "quite consciously" didn't set a figure.
Were teachers' lounges included? Three of five losing bidders said Octagon told them not to include them. Two others said they were told the opposite. The education department demonstrated just how confused it was on this score when it sought new bids for beverage vending machines in employee lounges just as it was agreeing to have Snapple provide 500 such machines. The new bids had to be cancelled.
How many ads can be beamed at school kids? Octagon's bidders' information package suggested that the lucky winner could place "six pages of advertising" in student planners, and affix its logo on "725 outdoor [basketball] backboards." Such product placements, Octagon said, offered a potential for 97.2 million annual "corporate identity impressions" on students. Logos placed in "general use facilities" could yield an additional 134 million such hits. Auditors said this approach runs afoul of state education policy, a claim the city denies. But Coca-Cola told auditors such direct targeting of students was "appalling," and even Snapple decided to forego the student planner and backboard ads.
Was Snapple's offer the highest bid? The mayor says yes; the comptroller said Snapple came in low, but hiked its bid significantly after Octagon and the director of the city's new Marketing Development Corporation drove to Snapple headquarters in White Plains to urge the firm to do so. Snapple was also preferable, the city said, because it is a popular brand with school kids. But Thompson said he found no evidence of market research to back the claim, despite city insistence that it had such information. Either way, both sides agree that the new 100 percent juice drinks proposed by Snapple for the schools had never been market tested anywhere before they were accepted by the city.
How did New York become Snapple country? The audit cites an exchange of e-mails between city officials and consultants, written on the eve of Snapple's selection, in which the controversial decision to dramatically expand the deal to include a citywide marketing arrangement was made. The decision was prompted by a desire to leave an opening for another city partnership with a carbonated soda firm, and also created a bias toward bigger firms that could handle a larger citywide deal, Thompson said.
In an April 12 letter ordering the comptroller to register the citywide contract, Bloomberg called the Snapple agreements "praiseworthy," but admitted problems. "They have not been the product of a perfected process that the city will seek to replicate in the future," wrote the mayor.
SNAPPLE
The latest stats over the secret SNAPPLE deal shows why no-bid contracts, secret deals, and political procurement processes are not good for taxpayers and non-defense government agencies:
Mayor's 'Snapple plan' running $750K deficit
BY CURTIS L. TAYLOR, NY Newsday
LINK
"The city's controversial new marketing agency ran a deficit of nearly $700,000 during its first year of operation, despite landing a lucrative contract granting Snapple exclusive beverage rights in the Big Apple, according to an independent audit obtained by Newsday.
The York City Marketing Development Corp. had a $692,249 deficit when its first fiscal year ended June 30, according to the audit conducted by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP.
The agency also had an outstanding loan of $1.2 million from the New York City Economic Development Corp., according to the audit.
The marketing development corporation's biggest expenses during the fiscal year were $1.1 million in personal services and $321,944 in contract costs, the audit showed.
In a statement yesterday, Joseph Perello, who heads the marketing agency, acknowledged the deficit and the outstanding loan but said the not-for-profit agency had been operating in the black since April.
"No other city in the country has a marketing office like this generating millions of dollars in new revenue for New York City to use for essential services," Perello said of the operation, which has exclusive authority to sell the city's sponsorship and licensing deals."
Really? How will the public ever know?
Education policy should not be implemented in secrecy without accountability. Children are not guns, missiles and tanks. We must make every effort to stop the education establishment from simulating the American military-industrial complex.
Related articles:
Debate on Secret Program Bursts Into Open
By DOUGLAS JEHL , NY TIMES, December 10, 2004
LINK
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - An intense secret debate about a previously unknown, enormously expensive technical intelligence program has burst into light in the form of scathing criticism from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
For two years, the senators have disclosed, Republicans and Democrats on the panel have voted to block the secret program, which is believed to be a system of new spy satellites. But it continues to be financed at a cost that former Congressional officials put at hundreds of millions of dollars a year with support from the House, the Bush administration and Congressional appropriations committees.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, denounced the program on Wednesday on the Senate floor as "totally unjustified and very, very wasteful."
Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, later called it "unnecessary, ineffective, over budget and too expensive."
Neither senator would say much more about what he was referring to. Even in private on Thursday, most Congressional and intelligence officials who were asked refused to comment about the name, purpose or cost of the program. But former Congressional and intelligence officials who oppose it said it would duplicate capabilities in existence or in development, as part of the country's vast network of satellites, aircraft and drones designed for eavesdropping and reconnaissance.
Among the possibilities suggested by private experts, including John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a research organization in Alexandria, Va., were that the system might be a controversial unproven program to launch a reconnaissance satellite that adversaries could not detect. Former Congressional officials said they would discount speculation that the debate had to do with any antisatellite space warfare capability.
A number of satellite programs in development, including a Future Imaging Architecture system that Boeing is developing, have been the subject of considerable public controversy, because of technical problems and cost overruns. But current and former government officials said they did not believe that the Boeing program was the subject of the new dispute.
In addition to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, two other Democratic senators made their opposition public on Wednesday, saying the money dedicated to the acquisition program could better be transferred to other intelligence gathering as part of what is widely understood to be the $40 billion intelligence budget.
The program being disputed by the senators is to be financed this year, but current and former government officials said Republicans as well as Democrats intended to redouble their efforts to block it.
The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to a request for comment about the dispute. The Republican chairman of the House military appropriations subcommittee, whose support for the program has been instrumental in keeping it alive, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The most specific public hints on the program were by Mr. Wyden, who said on the Senate floor, "This issue must be highlighted, because it is not going away."
"Numerous independent reviews," he said, "have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk."
The Senate Intelligence Committee first expressed concern about the program three years ago, and it has voted to block it for the last two years, Congressional officials said. A former Defense Department official said of the program: "This is something that does not pass muster and is indicative of the inability of intelligence agencies to prioritize or make decisions. There are billions of dollars of waste in the intelligence budget."
A former Congressional official said that "hard decisions should have been made to make choices" when Congress first authorized and appropriated the money several years ago.
"Instead," the former official said, "the decision was made to just go ahead with go with everything."
Even the $40 billion figure attached to the current intelligence budget remains no more than an estimate, because spending figures remain classified by law. But much of the budget is widely understood to be devoted to the design, construction and operation of satellites and other platforms used to collect images, signals and other forms of technical intelligence.
Many critics have long complained that human intelligence programs remain underfinanced, at least in relative terms. In a directive last month, President Bush asked the C.I.A. to spell out a plan and a timetable to increase its clandestine service by 50 percent.
A compromise negotiated between the House and Senate this week provides authorization for continued financing for the disputed program. It was approved by 13 of the 17 senators on the Intelligence Committee and all of their House counterparts.
Because the financing had been approved in a military appropriations bill, Congressional officials said, the authorizing committees did not have the power to transfer the money to other intelligence programs.
But an unclassified version of the conference report released on Wednesday reported that Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, along with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, had refused to sign the compromise.
The report said the senators believed that the money dedicated for what was described only as "a major acquisition program" ought to be "expended on other intelligence programs that will make a surer and greater contribution to national security."
Secret Sessions of House and Senate
Texas Attorney General Vows To Prosecute Violations of the Texas Public Information Act.
Silencing Opposition: The Constitution is Suspended in New York City Until Further Notice
ALERT: Pentagon Officials are Considering Using Disinformation as a Tool to Win Allies, Conquer Foes
What happens if New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer decides to prosecute the FOIA violations and other secret no-bid contracts here in New York?
E-Accountability OPINION: Governments that want to take public money for politically desired projects without opposition must close the government procurement to prying eyes. This means that contracts are signed without competitive bidding, Freedom of Information requests are not honored, and the media is co-opted. The NYC BOE is our model. by Betsy Combier
Betsy Combier and Colin Powell, SAIS 60th Anniversary Gala, Washington DC October 13, 2004
While attending a course on International Affairs at Columbia University in 1973, I heard about the trillions of dollars spent on armaments by the Pentagon. The class discussed why, when so much money is spent on tanks, bombs and missiles, there has to be a process for creating a war with minimum opposition. A year later, as a student in The School For Advanced International Studies' Master's Program in Bologna, Italy, I researched the growth and development of the Soviet Military Industrial Complex. I saw that the amount of money spent on American defense was not justified because by all accounts the Soviet defense industry was in almost total disrepair at the time. Of course, we know that for 'national security' the end justifies the means, and we must support our military if their work protects us. We needed the US government to keep secret the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, and we need to keep our spies away from exposure. There are, therefore, many reasons for secrecy in providing homeland security and global justice, but even in the defense area there must be oversight and accountability.
The defense industry, nonetheless and by necessity, has perfected a process which uses secret no-bid contracts and highly paid 'consultants' to acquire public support for the spending of public money. This effort is non-partisan, which means that it has nothing to do with the political party in power. It has everything to do with 'who is friends with whom', and who owes someone a 'favor'. Friends help friends make money in the business of defending our country. This is the way the system works. We, the public, elect people to the highest level of power with the hope that they will honor the Common Good while they spend public funds, and few will deny the fact that if you work for the defense industry, or work for one of it's subsidiaries, then you will benefit from the expenditures, even if - especially if -it means war.
An Editorial published October 31 2004 in the NY Times ("More questions About Halliburton") shows the closed government that we are hidden from knowing too much about. Vice President Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton, a company now charged with price gouging and improper influence over providing the Pentagon with lucrative deals in Iraq. The article explains this process:
"There is a reason that big defense contractors often recruit well-connected former government officials as their chief executives. They do not operate in a normal business environment, where companies must compete on the basis of their performance and efficiency. Instead, they sit in a kind of financial wonderland where huge profits can be made with minimal risk. Lucrative contracts are awarded without competitive bidding, and unexpected cost overruns and other dubious charges are simply passed along to the taxpayer. Most of this is, unfortunately, completely legal."
Whether the President is Bush, or someone else, the secret government is here to stay.
This same process is being used in our nation's public schools to stop the public from participating in, or knowing anything about, the allocation of taxpayer money to public school education. Our research into how School Boards, education officials and even PTA Presidents get elected has shown us that this process is not democratic or open. In fact, there is 'systemic sabotage' of open government rules often so complex that a person actually looking for the misinformation or non-compliance has difficulty finding it. But it is definitely there, because the system depends on maintaining control over the process of getting lucrative contracts signed, sealed, and delivered.
Members of school boards often have an agenda that seems to be very similar to the BOE in town and the BOE Attorneys. In addition, many Chancellors across America are 'consultants' for law firms and corporations that make money from the links to education. In order for this to happen smoothly, Boards of Education have taken the defense industry model for procurement and made it their own. The same links between education and industry are there, as are the same tactics used to keep all transactions secret and away from the public eye.
Public education has, in other words, become a matter "of national security". Secrecy, harassment of those who do not go along with The Plan, and whistleblower retaliation are all used to promote and maintain programs designed by Those Who Know What Our Children Need. In New York City, the venue we know best, the 'national security' program for our public school children is called at the present time "Children First". The problem is that Bloomberg/Klein are not skilled defense industry tacticians, and are not implementing correctly the military model they have adopted.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's takeover of the NYC Board of Education in June 2002 was, in our opinion, a good thing. In 2002 many Superintendents were not performing their jobs with integrity, statistics proved that the NYC education system was failing the children, and there was very little proof of any success in the System. Then, it seems that the Mayor and his appointed Chancellor Joel Klein took the defense industry strategies to promote their education reform program, "Children First". Evidence of this top-down defense model includes:
1. Tweed Courthouse has become the education Pentagon, where in the name of security all people entering must be photographed, and everyone sits in open rooms where The Boss rules with an iron hand. We love the lack of closed doors so that everyone can be watched at the same time. This is creative thinking at work, literally.
2. All telephone calls to the Tweed Pentagon are screened so that any serious complaints are not responded to right away or at all, in the hope that the person who made the complaint can be 'persuaded' to leave the issue alone, or go away without resolving the problem. If an issue is responded to - which, by the way, does not mean resolved - false assurances of "I'll look into it" are normal. Complaints are, of course, against "national security".
3. As all complaints by parents, teachers, paraprofessionals or anyone else threaten the security of the system, almost all those who bring a problem to the attention of a BOE employee are told that they are wrong. The complaint is 'not valid'. The issue is not the problem, the person making the complaint is. If a complaint or problem has an easy solution, such as there is no toilet paper anywhere in a school, this may be taken care of quickly because the resolution has nothing to do with changing the core autocractic nature of the system. The BOE employee who obtains the money for the toilet paper gives all credit to Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein, for acting so quickly and decisively, or to "The System" for it's efficiency. Send in the Press! The potential threat to our 'national security' - a complaint - is thus disposed of. No one asks how the bathrooms in our city's public schools got so dirty and decrepit in the first place, or how they stayed that way for 30 years. No one goes back 1 month later to check and see if there is any toilet paper left after the reporters have gone onto another story. Why? Because the story isn't really about toilet paper, it's about media, press releases, and political successes that can be touted in the future. Isn't it interesting that the amount of toilet paper in a school can be made into such a political media event? No one wants to touch the Big Stuff, the $ billions that are misallocated on a daily basis.
Indeed, resolutions of complaints such as the toilet paper issue are staged to get maximum press exposure, and BOE officials all make false promises that they have no intention of keeping. Not only is all this a show, but all the actors know that there are no consequences for what they say or do. No one who works for the BOE in defense of our national security need explain anything to anyone. There is no accountability.
4. Teachers who may jeopardize 'national security', are laid off, fired, forced to resign, or harassed, and the people doing the harassing don't care about the violation of due process going on. We have, over the past four years, heard from countless teachers, paraprofessionals and school aides who, merely by asking questions such as "Where's the money?", or "Why do I have to Teach it this way?" find themselves attacking 'national security' and out of a job. The National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse focuses on this problem, and gives many examples.
A closed government can also go after innocent people in order to 'show' others what might happen to them, and this is one major reason for closing the door.
Leo, a Math teacher given unexplained U ratings, may not understand what he did to incur the wrath of the system, and as he is ushered out the door of his school, still doesn't. Neil, Tom, Ed, Dr. B., Yolanda, Iris and I and so many others have been accused of wrongdoing that was 'made up' by the Tweed ring, and we were all pursued by the Office of Special Investigations whose modus operandi resembles that of the CIA or MOSSAD. We have all been told that our "crime" is known, and the 'proof' has been found, so all we have to do is move out of state, hide, ask for forgiveness, or repent. Neil was told that he could not be hired by anyone but he still doesn't know what his 'crime' was. We presume his name, mine and all the other parents and teachers who have crossed the line into jeopardizing 'national security' are on The Monitoring Unitwebsite.
If these threats dont work to scare off, silence, or put the victim on the run, tougher measures are called for, and one lovely example of this is NYC Office of Legal Services'Chad Vignola's email about my "crimes" and about his very helpful resolution to all the problems, all of which were completely false, sent to all the members of the New York State Assembly on April 1, 2002, April Fool's Day in America.
Attacks such as this serve no useful purpose other than to intimidate. The questions that we, the intended victims, all ask are: how and why do Board of Education officials get away with this? We believe that the answer is in the pocketbooks of the people acting under color of law to make sure no one stops the removal of troublesome people from the process (of secretly taking public money). Keeping the answers to these questions hidden from the public is a matter of 'national security'.
5. Parents are kept out of this web of secrecy for good reason. What is going on in our city schools is, by all accounts, disastrous for the success, health, and welfare of the children inside. In NYC, despite the thousands of pretty fliers streaming out of the Tweed pentagon, our children are not being protected from terrorists; we do not have enough defibrillators or trained personnel who know how to use them (we called approximately 60 schools); safety of the school (building and personnel) comes before the protection of students from discrimination, physical violence and emotional harassment; special education children are being kicked out of their classrooms, locked up, physically and emotionally hurt, and the politico-educational complex is powerful enough to persuade judges at the city and state levels to go along with The Plan.
Below is an email received from a teacher when Chancellor Klein took over and changed the Math Curriculum:
From a Bronx teacher:
"I just wanted to share with you my thoughts on the High School Choice of Curriculum. We all know that a Book is NOT a curriculum, so that is Klein's first mistake... And then he said that he picked this book because it was aligned with Math A. Well I do not know how I will share this with him, but I have on my shelf, and in my possession a Prentice Hall Algebra Book "Algebra, Tools for a Changing World" That is identical to the Prenctice Math A book!!! The only difference is the COVER!!!! The first 500 pages are identical!!! (I am NOT kidding!) SO how could this book be aligned with the regents!!!
Two years ago my school purchased $65,000 worth of IMP books... Last year after fighting the superintendent we purchased $30,000 worth of Amsco Math A books... and now i have to purchase Prentice Hall books???? And did you know that they are $58 each!!! who can afford that!! The IMP book was $35 each and the Amsco book is $20. Is Bloomberg going to help us re-sell our IMP books?? They were only used once?? He is the buisness man.. shouldnt he know what to do? I am going to take a picture of my book rooms on monday and I am going to mail these pictures to the chancellor... Do you think it will make any difference??
Everyone is threatened into silence. Almost everyone, that is.
My story, Tom's story, Leo's story and all the other parents and teachers who have contributed to this report and website are proof that not everyone can be harassed enough to run from the abuse that the NYC BOE levies every day against those 'They' do not like because they cannot control us. This is, for Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Michael Cardozo, Richard Condon, Rebecca Loughran and all the others who stand under the 'national security' "Children First" banner, the primary reason for their failure. They simply cannot win a war - education reform - without the support of the troops: the parents and teachers. They will fail, and after a new Mayor is elected and a new Chancellor appointed, many of the mistakes and secret dealings will be exposed for years to come. The tragedy is that the children in our public schools are the victims. Too many of them are not getting the help they need, and are being treated as if they are felons rather than kids in need.
6. The Tweed ring could not succeed at all without the support of the publishers, Editors, and producers of the news. Reporters who work at The New York Post (Rupert Murdoch's newspaper) have told us that they will not use any material that threatens The System, nor are any reporters allowed to quote parents who speak out in opposition to The System. Mr. Murdoch is, we have heard, a teacher for The NYC Leadership Academy. We wonder what he is teaching.
Who is Rupert Murdoch?
The Center for American Progress has on their website: "How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy". They write that he "has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: according to Businessweek, 'his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered'."
Exerpts from this website: Mr. Murdoch is a Media Manipulator, a War Monger, Neoconservative, Oil Imperialist, Intimidator, Far-Right Partisan, Bush supporter and Bush family employer ( hehired Bush cousin John Ellis), Apologist for Repressive Regimes (China), Union Buster, and more. Some or all of these claims may be true, but the point is to show how politicized our media really is. Money always 'talks'.
Of course, there are powerful others.
Most of us who read the news or listen to TV news know about the memos Dan Rather tried to pass off as true. Yet "ordinary" citizens just trying to find out what happened and why, cannot. We are 'allowed' every once in a while to take a peek behind the curtain, but this is rare. We have been told also by reporters who work at the Daily News that they cannot print anything about the potential breakdown of The NYC Education System because of a close relationship between the paper and Chancellor Klein.
The NYCBOE Office of Legal Services decides on a random basis whether or not to comply with Freedom of Information requests. Not one of my FOIA requests for information on MS 54 Principal Larry Lynch, Superintendent Patricia Romandetto of District 3, or The Review Committee, were complied with from 2001 to 2003. Then Mr. Robert Freeman of The Committee on Open Government told me that he had called the OLS, and someone there told him that they had complied, therefore, Mr. Freeman told me, he could "not give me the material a second time." I called Mr. Freeman up and asked him if he would agree to anything I said if it contradicted the OLS, and he said "no".
Michael Cardozo, Chief Counsel for the NYC Law Department/Corporation Counsel, oversees the attacks on teachers, parents and children who seek special education services and resources, teachers complaining about the lack of due process in NYC, and violations of civil rights. He is also the Legal consultant for NBC television's "Today" Show where my old friend Gabe Pressman works. Gabe asked me, in 1971-2, to accompany him while he taped news shows for channel 5 (now FOX TV). Now he no longer returns telephone calls. Michael Cardozo signed the Motion to Dismiss Federal complaint 03 Civ. 10304 against the New York City BOE, the City of NY, and 11 Defendants, in which he and his Assistant Corporation Counsel state, "Plaintiff also vaguely alleges, without any corresponding prayer for relief, that she has suffered some retaliation due to her actions as President of the PTA at Booker T. Washington MS 54..." Yet his agency sent the parents at Booker T., on the Review Committee, the Contract indemnifying all of them as they were removing me from the PTA as paid employees of the NYC BOE.
The City Law Department wrote, in this Contract, that the parents were paid to scream at me such things as "You abused my daughter", ""You are a liar", and "You have raised too much money for the PTA, therefore you must be intending to steal it." The parents were not paid nor were they employees of the city government, and could not be indemnified. But they were, and Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Shafer ordered that the City sidestep my lawyer and sanction me personally for filing a frivolous case against defendants who were protected by the City Law Department, whose salaries are being paid by my taxes.
Does the Mayor of New York City maintain a closed government? He certainly does. We can use the process whereby SNAPPLE became the drink of New York to prove it.
Tom Robbins on "Deals in the Dark: Snapple Town"
The Village Voice, June 1st, 2004
New York is Snapple Country now, thanks to the first-ever marketing deal that makes the beverage firm the city's exclusive brand. But that's not the only novel aspect of the arrangement. A $126 million pact gives Snapple the sole right to place juice and water vending machines in city buildings, plant its happy-script logo on sundry city properties, and promote itself as the city's official brand. A separate $40 million agreement allowed the company to place its machines in city schools.
But despite their size, neither deal underwent the kind of scrutiny normally accorded such contracts-and city and state officials are asking why not.
Last week, attorneys for comptroller William Thompson were before Supreme Court Justice Richard Braun seeking to overturn the citywide marketing deal on the grounds that Mayor Bloomberg skirted proper procedures by refusing to submit it to the city panel charged with approving all franchise and concessions.
Why didn't it require a vote? Because the deal was for "intellectual property," not tangible property like a parking lot or a bus shelter, which clearly calls for a vote in the city charter, a lawyer for the mayor argued. Thompson's attorney countered that the charter's definition was intended to be much broader. "These are the kinds of matters that need to be exposed to the public," said Judd Burstein, who is representing the comptroller.
The Snapple schools contract also sailed through without the usual vetting process. The mayor's people have dual explanations for that one. On the one hand, the new Department of Education is still under state legislation that doesn't require registration of all contracts with the comptroller. Also, in the case of the Snapple agreement, it was "a revenue type contract," not one involving the expenditure of public monies, an agency spokesman said.
Either way, two state lawmakers, Assemblyman Jim Brennan from Brooklyn and State Senator Eric Schneiderman from Manhattan and the Bronx, are sponsoring legislation that would change the education department's procurement policy. Their bill would obligate the agency to register its contracts, and to put no-bid deals-which have tripled under Bloomberg's reign-before the Panel on Educational Policy that replaced the old board of education.
"There would be the opportunity for sunshine, advance notice, and debate, as well as the necessity for justifying what they are doing out there," said Brennan."
and,
Gulp! How Mayor Bloomberg's business pros dribbled their marketing mission: Snapple in the Apple
by Tom Robbins, The Village Voice, April 27th, 2004
A big part of the rationale for electing a billionaire businessman as mayor was just that: Michael Bloomberg was a businessman, he'd made billions, ergo, he could get the job done.
But consider the flap-now in court-over the Bloomberg administration's maiden voyage into the brave new world of city marketing: its $40 million deal to sell Snapple Beverage Corporation the exclusive right to place its vending machines in city schools, along with a separate, $126 million pact to make Snapple New York's official brand.
Since Bloomberg announced the agreements last fall, city comptroller William Thompson has blasted them as tainted and improper. Last week, Thompson went to court to block the "official beverage" contract, arguing that Bloomberg's aides sidestepped City Charter rules in awarding it. Bloomberg, baring his new tough-guy sneer, dismissed the complaint as "political red tape." Such quibbling, he suggested, threatened some hefty corporate cash for New Yorkers. But just how businesslike has the performance of Bloomberg's team been in handling the Snapple affair?
Not very, according to an audit of the school vending machine contract released by Thompson last month. The audit depicts both outside expert consultants hired by the city and in-house bureaucrats as engaged in bumbling missteps and confusion, while promoting commercialism so crass that even Coca-Cola was appalled. Some examples:
With a pioneering, multimillion-dollar contract in the offing, exactly how did officials go about recruiting possible bidders? Answer: They made a couple of calls. According to the audit, Octagon, the high-priced private marketing firm retained by the Department of Education to handle the project, never sent solicitation letters to would-be vendors. Nor did it advertise. Instead, calls were made to two rather well-known companies, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola (Coke later dropped out, saying it couldn't get adequate information). The five other bidders all said they learned about the city's solicitation from "local vending machine operators." One company, Apple & Eve, told auditors that it learned about the contract opportunity in mid August, only one week before the deadline. In its response, the city said that advertising is ineffective and that Octagon called other firms as well-but they didn't apply.
How many vending machines can fit in the city's schools? This basic question, according to auditors, was a moving target. The outline provided by Octagon to bidders stated that there were 2,500 to 3,000 such machines in the schools. Was that a minimum? A maximum? A guess? One company, Veryfine, said that it was told that 3,000 was the limit. Snapple said it thought it was the minimum. Even those evaluating the bids expressed confusion. Octagon said it wanted to leave room for other vendors to provide milk and snack machines; agency officials said they wanted to keep the number secret to help evaluate the bids. The city response to the audit stated that Octagon and the agency "quite consciously" didn't set a figure.
Were teachers' lounges included? Three of five losing bidders said Octagon told them not to include them. Two others said they were told the opposite. The education department demonstrated just how confused it was on this score when it sought new bids for beverage vending machines in employee lounges just as it was agreeing to have Snapple provide 500 such machines. The new bids had to be cancelled.
How many ads can be beamed at school kids? Octagon's bidders' information package suggested that the lucky winner could place "six pages of advertising" in student planners, and affix its logo on "725 outdoor [basketball] backboards." Such product placements, Octagon said, offered a potential for 97.2 million annual "corporate identity impressions" on students. Logos placed in "general use facilities" could yield an additional 134 million such hits. Auditors said this approach runs afoul of state education policy, a claim the city denies. But Coca-Cola told auditors such direct targeting of students was "appalling," and even Snapple decided to forego the student planner and backboard ads.
Was Snapple's offer the highest bid? The mayor says yes; the comptroller said Snapple came in low, but hiked its bid significantly after Octagon and the director of the city's new Marketing Development Corporation drove to Snapple headquarters in White Plains to urge the firm to do so. Snapple was also preferable, the city said, because it is a popular brand with school kids. But Thompson said he found no evidence of market research to back the claim, despite city insistence that it had such information. Either way, both sides agree that the new 100 percent juice drinks proposed by Snapple for the schools had never been market tested anywhere before they were accepted by the city.
How did New York become Snapple country? The audit cites an exchange of e-mails between city officials and consultants, written on the eve of Snapple's selection, in which the controversial decision to dramatically expand the deal to include a citywide marketing arrangement was made. The decision was prompted by a desire to leave an opening for another city partnership with a carbonated soda firm, and also created a bias toward bigger firms that could handle a larger citywide deal, Thompson said.
In an April 12 letter ordering the comptroller to register the citywide contract, Bloomberg called the Snapple agreements "praiseworthy," but admitted problems. "They have not been the product of a perfected process that the city will seek to replicate in the future," wrote the mayor.
SNAPPLE
The latest stats over the secret SNAPPLE deal shows why no-bid contracts, secret deals, and political procurement processes are not good for taxpayers and non-defense government agencies:
Mayor's 'Snapple plan' running $750K deficit
BY CURTIS L. TAYLOR, NY Newsday
LINK
"The city's controversial new marketing agency ran a deficit of nearly $700,000 during its first year of operation, despite landing a lucrative contract granting Snapple exclusive beverage rights in the Big Apple, according to an independent audit obtained by Newsday.
The York City Marketing Development Corp. had a $692,249 deficit when its first fiscal year ended June 30, according to the audit conducted by the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP.
The agency also had an outstanding loan of $1.2 million from the New York City Economic Development Corp., according to the audit.
The marketing development corporation's biggest expenses during the fiscal year were $1.1 million in personal services and $321,944 in contract costs, the audit showed.
In a statement yesterday, Joseph Perello, who heads the marketing agency, acknowledged the deficit and the outstanding loan but said the not-for-profit agency had been operating in the black since April.
"No other city in the country has a marketing office like this generating millions of dollars in new revenue for New York City to use for essential services," Perello said of the operation, which has exclusive authority to sell the city's sponsorship and licensing deals."
Really? How will the public ever know?
Education policy should not be implemented in secrecy without accountability. Children are not guns, missiles and tanks. We must make every effort to stop the education establishment from simulating the American military-industrial complex.
Related articles:
Debate on Secret Program Bursts Into Open
By DOUGLAS JEHL , NY TIMES, December 10, 2004
LINK
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - An intense secret debate about a previously unknown, enormously expensive technical intelligence program has burst into light in the form of scathing criticism from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
For two years, the senators have disclosed, Republicans and Democrats on the panel have voted to block the secret program, which is believed to be a system of new spy satellites. But it continues to be financed at a cost that former Congressional officials put at hundreds of millions of dollars a year with support from the House, the Bush administration and Congressional appropriations committees.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, denounced the program on Wednesday on the Senate floor as "totally unjustified and very, very wasteful."
Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, later called it "unnecessary, ineffective, over budget and too expensive."
Neither senator would say much more about what he was referring to. Even in private on Thursday, most Congressional and intelligence officials who were asked refused to comment about the name, purpose or cost of the program. But former Congressional and intelligence officials who oppose it said it would duplicate capabilities in existence or in development, as part of the country's vast network of satellites, aircraft and drones designed for eavesdropping and reconnaissance.
Among the possibilities suggested by private experts, including John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a research organization in Alexandria, Va., were that the system might be a controversial unproven program to launch a reconnaissance satellite that adversaries could not detect. Former Congressional officials said they would discount speculation that the debate had to do with any antisatellite space warfare capability.
A number of satellite programs in development, including a Future Imaging Architecture system that Boeing is developing, have been the subject of considerable public controversy, because of technical problems and cost overruns. But current and former government officials said they did not believe that the Boeing program was the subject of the new dispute.
In addition to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, two other Democratic senators made their opposition public on Wednesday, saying the money dedicated to the acquisition program could better be transferred to other intelligence gathering as part of what is widely understood to be the $40 billion intelligence budget.
The program being disputed by the senators is to be financed this year, but current and former government officials said Republicans as well as Democrats intended to redouble their efforts to block it.
The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to a request for comment about the dispute. The Republican chairman of the House military appropriations subcommittee, whose support for the program has been instrumental in keeping it alive, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The most specific public hints on the program were by Mr. Wyden, who said on the Senate floor, "This issue must be highlighted, because it is not going away."
"Numerous independent reviews," he said, "have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk."
The Senate Intelligence Committee first expressed concern about the program three years ago, and it has voted to block it for the last two years, Congressional officials said. A former Defense Department official said of the program: "This is something that does not pass muster and is indicative of the inability of intelligence agencies to prioritize or make decisions. There are billions of dollars of waste in the intelligence budget."
A former Congressional official said that "hard decisions should have been made to make choices" when Congress first authorized and appropriated the money several years ago.
"Instead," the former official said, "the decision was made to just go ahead with go with everything."
Even the $40 billion figure attached to the current intelligence budget remains no more than an estimate, because spending figures remain classified by law. But much of the budget is widely understood to be devoted to the design, construction and operation of satellites and other platforms used to collect images, signals and other forms of technical intelligence.
Many critics have long complained that human intelligence programs remain underfinanced, at least in relative terms. In a directive last month, President Bush asked the C.I.A. to spell out a plan and a timetable to increase its clandestine service by 50 percent.
A compromise negotiated between the House and Senate this week provides authorization for continued financing for the disputed program. It was approved by 13 of the 17 senators on the Intelligence Committee and all of their House counterparts.
Because the financing had been approved in a military appropriations bill, Congressional officials said, the authorizing committees did not have the power to transfer the money to other intelligence programs.
But an unclassified version of the conference report released on Wednesday reported that Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, along with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, had refused to sign the compromise.
The report said the senators believed that the money dedicated for what was described only as "a major acquisition program" ought to be "expended on other intelligence programs that will make a surer and greater contribution to national security."
Secret Sessions of House and Senate
Texas Attorney General Vows To Prosecute Violations of the Texas Public Information Act.
Silencing Opposition: The Constitution is Suspended in New York City Until Further Notice
ALERT: Pentagon Officials are Considering Using Disinformation as a Tool to Win Allies, Conquer Foes
What happens if New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer decides to prosecute the FOIA violations and other secret no-bid contracts here in New York?
Two Innocent Men Are Freed After A "Fair Trial" Convicted Them - 30 Years Ago
Thirty years from now are we going to hear about all the people who were wrongfully accused, lost their jobs, homes and families after being found guilty for no reason by unfair Arbitrators at 3020-a arbitration?
I hope not. Fight false claims, never give up!
Betsy Combier
I hope not. Fight false claims, never give up!
Betsy Combier
TUE SEP 02, 2014 AT 05:56 PM PDT
Does a Supreme Court Justice just say, "oops"?
Today in NC two innocent men were freed 30 years after being wrongfully convicted of murder. Which means for thirty years the innocent 11 year old girl left lying in a field after being raped and suffocated to death didn't get justice. Which means that for thirty years the real killer did not pay for his crime. Which means that for thirty years, the real killer was able to destroy the lives of even more innocent people.
Both men, who have IQ's below 70 falsely confessed to crime. As is usual in these situations, they confessed after hours and hours of pressure, locked in a room. Contrary to what people believe, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.
According to a University of Virginia report released Aug. 21, nearly 20 percent of defendants who have been exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed to the crime.
DNA found at the scene and finally tested after all of these years, exonerated the two men. The prosecutor did not even oppose the Motion to dismiss the charges against the two men. In fact, the DNA implicates a man already convicted of similar crimes at a time very close to the time this crime was committed. But really, at this point, the exoneration of innocent men is hardly big news. At least 317 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
The real news is below the fold:
What is news in this NC case is that the arrogance and wrong-headedness of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has been put on display for everyone to see. In 1994 the Supreme Court turned down a request to hear the appeal in Mr. McCollum's case. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, an eventual opponent of the death penalty had voted to hear the case. Justice Blackmun noted that Mr. McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old and said “this factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional.” In fact, Justice Blackmun had completely renounced the death penalty in general saying he would, "no longer tinker with the machinery of death". He said that decisions involving the death penalty were too subjective and prone to human error for the death penalty ever to be administered constitutionally.
Unfazed by Justice Blackmun's concerns, Justice Antonin Scalia accused Justice Blackmun of attempting to “thrust a minority’s views upon the people.” Scalia strongly maintained that society had a need for the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. In fact, as evidence for his opinion he wrote about two cases before the Supreme Court at the time, which he believed made death by lethal injection look “enviable.” One of those cases concerned the brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie, committed in Red Springs, North Carolina. That case, the one that Justice Scalia found to be most deserving of the death penalty, is the murder for which these two men were exonerated today.
Henry McCollum was 20 when he was sentenced to death for committing the crime Scalia described. Today, he walked out of prison a free man. Like most of those who are exonerated, Mr. McCollum is looking forward instead of backward. But the ability of these two men to forgive and forget doesn't mean that the rest of us should ignore the fact that, contrary to the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, neither of these men deserved a day in prison, much less execution. The arrogance of a society that thinks taking another person's life is justified so long as they had "a fair trial" is on full display. The belief that any system that relies on fallible humans can ever be reliable enough to kill in the name of the Government shows a complete lack of understanding basic human nature. It isn't often that a Supreme Court Justice is shown just how utterly wrong his opinions are. Luckily today, at least two men have overcome a system designed to convict the accused and have proven just how fallible our highest court can be. I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say now.
6:03 PM PT: Please see sydserious' diary that was posted just before mine for more about this.http://www.dailykos.com/...
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
From Parentadvocates.org, 2004: The Monitoring Unit ("Ineligible/Inquiry List; no-hire list")
I heard about the Monitoring Unit in 2004. This Unit operates the database which holds the social security numbers of all the teachers who are on the "no hire" list, as in "we don't want you; you are trash; you should go away...."
I wrote the article below to publicize this blacklist. Nothing has changed.
Betsy Combier
PS. the URL for Vault used to give all the internal emails of Bloomberg LLP. I loved reading how people employed by Mike B. hated working there! The link is no longer active, but I left it in the article to remind me of the fun I had reading that stuff.
Don't forget about this:
Just Standard
I wrote the article below to publicize this blacklist. Nothing has changed.
Betsy Combier
PS. the URL for Vault used to give all the internal emails of Bloomberg LLP. I loved reading how people employed by Mike B. hated working there! The link is no longer active, but I left it in the article to remind me of the fun I had reading that stuff.
Don't forget about this:
Just Standard
Education Law 2590-h (The NYC Chancellor MUST have a contract)
PIP+ Peer Observation and Evaluation
The Administrative Trials Unit (ATU) has hired a team of lawyers who work in a new ATU subgroup called "Teacher Performance Unit". Randi Weingarten, President of the United Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers, calls them the "Gotcha Squad". The use of TAC (Technical Assistance Conference) memos in the preparation of charges to prefer against allegedly incompetent teachers is an outrageous process that I hope, with this exposure, will end.
![]()
From Parentadvocates.org October 2004:
Silencing Opposition: The Manual for Principals and The Monitoring Unit of the NYC DOE
The New York City Department of Education officials have no interest in teachers who complain, even if their complaints are valid ( parents as well). On November 17, 2004 we read in the NY POST that there is a manual for Principals on the "How to" get rid of teachers.
NYC'S SECRET GUIDE ON FIRING TEACHERS
By DAVID ANDREATTA , NY POST, November 16, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE
It's the secret manual the city Department of Education wants no teacher to see - a 61-page blueprint for how to keep New York's Brightest in line without violating union rules.
The guidebook, drafted by the department's Labor Division and sent to principals last week, provides a step-by-step outline for rating teachers unsatisfactory, firing tenured teachers and school aides and preventing administrators' decisions from being overruled by a judge.
The manual even includes 13 sample letters that principals can reference when chastising a teacher for insubordination, tardiness and inflicting corporal punishment.
A sample letter for inappropriate punishment stresses principals should cite specific offenses, such as:
"You grabbed John Doe by the arm, twisted it, and ejected him from the classroom," or, "You called John a 'moron' when he asked you to explain the homework assignment."
Two furious Queens high-school teachers, who chanced upon the manual and gave a copy to The Post, called it "a blueprint for how to screw over every teacher in the city."
Word about the manual - which seeks to "ensure greater predictability that supervisors' actions will not be overturned" - comes as teachers and the city are engaged in contentious contract talks moving at a sloth-like pace.
Teachers-union President Randi Weingarten was more diplomatic in her assessment of the document than the Queens teachers, but no less outraged.
"I've never seen a document that is so unbalanced, so focused on finding the worst in teachers and not even attempting to figure out how to help principals make their schools better," she complained.
Weingarten added that the document is evidence the Bloomberg administration never had any intention of signing a contract before the Dec. 1 deadline.
"It's a perfect example of why contract talks have stalled to the brink of dying," she said.
Jerry Russo, a spokesman for Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, denied there was any link between the manual and the contract negotiations.
"This is a training and technical assistance manual that is put out annually," Russo said, adding that the last one was issued in September 2003.
"It's confidential because it offers legal advice to principals."
Jill Levy, president of the union representing school supervisors, acknowledged there was nothing unusual about the department issuing guidelines to principals.
But she said the manuals are not issued annually and have never been so in-depth or kept confidential.
"Why shouldn't teachers have a copy of this?" Levy asked.
"There is something in here that doesn't make sense to me."(Italics added by parentadvocates.org Editor)
And we know that there is "The Monitoring Unit":
The Monitoring Unit of the NYCDOE is not linked to any other page on the NYCDOE Website and is the secret abuse hotline. No one can get into the data unless you are a Principal or Superintendent, according to Mr. Steve Catalano:
Dear Mr. Catalano,
Several weeks ago I sent a request to you concerning your email to me that is pasted here:
Subj: RE: USERID AND PASSWORD REQUEST
Date: 8/2/2004 8:48:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: SCatala@nycboe.net
To: so___@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
I'm sorry but access to the U-Rating file is limited to superintendents,
dept superintendents and selected regional personnel staff.
-----Original Message-----
From: so___@aol.com [mailto:solarmedia@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:39 PM
To: Catalano Steven
Subject: USERID AND PASSWORD REQUEST
As I have been experiencing erratic service by my server, and as I have not heard from you concerning questions that I have about your reponse, I am resending my questions, and I hope you will reply quickly, and thank you for your prompt reply to my request to enter The Monitoring Unit's database!
I would like to know:
1. whether the decision to close The Monitoring Unit's database to anyone outside of "superintendents, dept superintendents and selected regional personnel staff" was your decision or someone else's?
2. If the decision was yours, I request your title, telephone number, and fax number; if the decision was someone else's, I need this person's name, title, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address.
3. I request information that you used to make your decision to keep the Monitoring Unit's data closed. On what basis did you make your decision?
4. Is your decision appealable? If so, to whom? and what is this person's title, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address?
5. What categories of information are kept in The Monitoring Unit's database?
I am disappointed that you have sent me an email maintaining the inaccessibility of The Monitoring Unit's data, as I believe that parents in New York City must be able to access information about U-ratings of pedagogical staff.
I am prepared to speak about this matter at City Council hearings and at meetings of the Panel for Educational Policy, as I feel that this database and your email needs to be brought to the public. I look forward, therefore, to a prompt reply to the above questions so that I can pursue further the release of the very important information in this database and your reasons for not granting me access to it.
Thank you very much!
Respectfully,
Betsy Combier
DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Monitoring Unit
65 Court St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
Phone (718) 935-2663
Robert Lombardo
Director
(718) 935-5260
THE MONITORING UNIT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1999 TO INSURE TIMELY RESPONSE TO INCIDENTS WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS
Develop a networked database, both inter-office and inter-divisional, to insure accountability in follow-up and closure for all employee reviews.
Provide on-going case status for all employee actions and distribution of system reports.
Provide ad-hoc reports as requested.
Organize and order processes to identify central accountability for office and division actions.
Maintain and distribute the DHR Ineligible List to all users.
Provide assistance to all corresponding departments in developing up-to-date data base systems to eliminate paper work and increase productivity.
Return to Division of Human Resources Home Page Interactive Turnaround Document Login screen M.U.I.T.D. Forms & Documents:
CSD's and HS Districts Central HQ & D85
Welcome to the Q/A section of the Interactive Turnaround Document
What is the Interactive Turnaround document?
Each day, communication is generated between districts and various central operations regarding disciplinary actions. It is done via telephone, mail or fax. The DHR Monitoring Unit has begun the process of organizing these communications into one on-line web site.
How does it work?
Over the past year, the relevant central offices, i.e., Office of Special Investigations, Office of Legal Services, Office of Personnel Investigations have developed new databases to track information. We are in the process of linking these databases to the Internet. When you enter data to the web site it is forwarded to the appropriate database. In this way, all information will be shared and available.
When you log onto the web site, the database with information specific to your district will open. There will be three areas, "Actions to Be Taken," "Actions to Be Monitored" and "Enter New Information."
Does the interactive turnaround system generate the same results as the paper forms?
We have the same results. It provides answers to our questions but it is done with a lot less work than before and a lot quicker.
Who should use this feature?
This site is designed for use by districts and central operations. We recommend that the Superintendent identify a designee who can check the web site each day. To go into the site, a log in and password must be assigned. If you are ready to begin, press the comments button below and send us an e-mail.
Please provide us feedback!
Give us suggestions for new content, information you need or better ways to present information. We know that the better we can share the information we have, the better we can provide safe schools for all of our children. Feel free to e-mail or call the Monitoring Unit Director, Bob Davidson, directly at (718) 935-5260.
Joann Molter
Administrator
(718) 935-2832
Carol Labozzetta
Deputy Administrator
(718) 935-2820
Vacancy Circular Released: Applications: Supervisory Application
January 8, 2001
Application for Placement on Qualifying Supervisory Eligible List
February 7, 2001
QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACTED WHICH ELIMINATED THE REQUIREMENT FOR PASSING AN EXAMINATION FOR SUPERVISORY LICENSURE; HOWEVER, THE LAW STILL REQUIRES THE ISSUANCE OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS FOR APPOINTMENT TO SUPERVISORY VACANCIES. PLEASE REFER TO PERSONNEL MEMORANDUM # 3, DATED JULY 7, 1998 REGARDING THE PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS FOR SUPERVISORY POSITIONS.
REQUIRED STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
All advertised positions will be filled in accordance with Chancellor's Regulation C-30. Only those applicants who are on qualifying supervisory eligible lists based on possession of a Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement issued by the Office of Recruitment, Personnel Assessment and Licensing (ORPAL), OR a valid New York City license issued previously are eligible to apply for advertised positions in the specific areas for which they hold a certificate or license. Qualified applicants will be appointed upon selection from qualifying supervisory eligible lists. However,if there are fewer than three (3) applicants for a position after everyone on the list has been contacted (hereinafter referred to as canvassing of the list), applicants who do not possess the appropriate New York City certificate or license but who hold appropriate New York State Certification and meet the experience requirements may be considered. Applicants who do not possess the required New York City Certificate of Eligibility or license who are properly selected shall be assigned as acting supervisors. Persons assigned as acting supervisors are required to apply immediately for an appropriate Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement. Upon issuance of the appropriate certificate, an acting supervisor will be appointed.
FILING PROCEDURES
PLEASE NOTE: THE STANDARD APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY VACANCIES HAS BEEN REVISED. ALL APPLICANTS MUST USE THE REVISED APPLICATION WHEN APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY VACANCIES. APPLICATIONS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISORY SUPPORT SERVICES AT 65 COURT STREET, ROOM 617, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201 OR FROM THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITY CENTER.
To apply for positions, candidates must forward a standard Board of Education application directly to the responsibility center indicated in the Supervisory/Administrative Vacancy Circular. Each applicant should attach to the application a copy of the appropriate license, Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement or state certificate, whichever is required for the position. In addition, a completed Personal Information Form must be attached to each application. The required application and form may be obtained at the Office of Supervisory Support Services, 65 Court Street, Room 617, or the appropriate responsibility center. Applications must be mailed or hand delivered directly to the responsibly center.
TRANSFER PLAN
Supervisors shall be eligible to apply for transfer in accordance with Article I of the Agreement between the CSA and the Board of Education.
It is the policy of the New York City Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or sex in its educational programs, activities, and employment policies, and to maintain an environment free of sexual harassment, as required by law. Inquiries regarding compliance with appropriate laws may also be directed to:
Mr. Stephen A. Mitchell
Office of Equal Opportunity
65 Court Street - Room 923
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone # (718) 935-3320
"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M/F/H (MINORITIES/FEMALES/HANDICAPPED)"
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES
65 COURT TREET
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201
RE-ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEE INFORMATION FORM
Please complete and fax to the Monitoring Unit of the Division of Human Resources
at (718) 935-2035 within five (5) days of re-assignment.
Name of Employee File# S.S.#
Re-assigned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Title
Reasons for re-assignment (Check one): Date Re-assigned
0 Pending medical exam
0 TAC scheduled
0 TAC held, charges being drafted
0 3020-a charges preferred
0 Arrest – no disposition
0 Arrest – disposition reviewed
0 Re-assigned per Office of the Special Commission of Investigation
0 Re-assigned per Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations
0 Corporal punishment investigation by OSI 0 By school
0 Corporal punishment finding
0 Other ______________________________________
Job Assigned:
0 Location District Office 0 Location Other:
Name, Title and Phone number of person completing the form:
NYC Teaching Fellows
A related secret - in this case anonymous - whistleblowing of Bloomberg's company can be read at the VAULT Message Board
From Parentadvocates.org October 2004:
Silencing Opposition: The Manual for Principals and The Monitoring Unit of the NYC DOE
The New York City Department of Education officials have no interest in teachers who complain, even if their complaints are valid ( parents as well). On November 17, 2004 we read in the NY POST that there is a manual for Principals on the "How to" get rid of teachers.
NYC'S SECRET GUIDE ON FIRING TEACHERS
By DAVID ANDREATTA , NY POST, November 16, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE
It's the secret manual the city Department of Education wants no teacher to see - a 61-page blueprint for how to keep New York's Brightest in line without violating union rules.
The guidebook, drafted by the department's Labor Division and sent to principals last week, provides a step-by-step outline for rating teachers unsatisfactory, firing tenured teachers and school aides and preventing administrators' decisions from being overruled by a judge.
The manual even includes 13 sample letters that principals can reference when chastising a teacher for insubordination, tardiness and inflicting corporal punishment.
A sample letter for inappropriate punishment stresses principals should cite specific offenses, such as:
"You grabbed John Doe by the arm, twisted it, and ejected him from the classroom," or, "You called John a 'moron' when he asked you to explain the homework assignment."
Two furious Queens high-school teachers, who chanced upon the manual and gave a copy to The Post, called it "a blueprint for how to screw over every teacher in the city."
Word about the manual - which seeks to "ensure greater predictability that supervisors' actions will not be overturned" - comes as teachers and the city are engaged in contentious contract talks moving at a sloth-like pace.
Teachers-union President Randi Weingarten was more diplomatic in her assessment of the document than the Queens teachers, but no less outraged.
"I've never seen a document that is so unbalanced, so focused on finding the worst in teachers and not even attempting to figure out how to help principals make their schools better," she complained.
Weingarten added that the document is evidence the Bloomberg administration never had any intention of signing a contract before the Dec. 1 deadline.
"It's a perfect example of why contract talks have stalled to the brink of dying," she said.
Jerry Russo, a spokesman for Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, denied there was any link between the manual and the contract negotiations.
"This is a training and technical assistance manual that is put out annually," Russo said, adding that the last one was issued in September 2003.
"It's confidential because it offers legal advice to principals."
Jill Levy, president of the union representing school supervisors, acknowledged there was nothing unusual about the department issuing guidelines to principals.
But she said the manuals are not issued annually and have never been so in-depth or kept confidential.
"Why shouldn't teachers have a copy of this?" Levy asked.
"There is something in here that doesn't make sense to me."(Italics added by parentadvocates.org Editor)
And we know that there is "The Monitoring Unit":
The Monitoring Unit of the NYCDOE is not linked to any other page on the NYCDOE Website and is the secret abuse hotline. No one can get into the data unless you are a Principal or Superintendent, according to Mr. Steve Catalano:
Dear Mr. Catalano,
Several weeks ago I sent a request to you concerning your email to me that is pasted here:
Subj: RE: USERID AND PASSWORD REQUEST
Date: 8/2/2004 8:48:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: SCatala@nycboe.net
To: so___@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
I'm sorry but access to the U-Rating file is limited to superintendents,
dept superintendents and selected regional personnel staff.
-----Original Message-----
From: so___@aol.com [mailto:solarmedia@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:39 PM
To: Catalano Steven
Subject: USERID AND PASSWORD REQUEST
As I have been experiencing erratic service by my server, and as I have not heard from you concerning questions that I have about your reponse, I am resending my questions, and I hope you will reply quickly, and thank you for your prompt reply to my request to enter The Monitoring Unit's database!
I would like to know:
1. whether the decision to close The Monitoring Unit's database to anyone outside of "superintendents, dept superintendents and selected regional personnel staff" was your decision or someone else's?
2. If the decision was yours, I request your title, telephone number, and fax number; if the decision was someone else's, I need this person's name, title, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address.
3. I request information that you used to make your decision to keep the Monitoring Unit's data closed. On what basis did you make your decision?
4. Is your decision appealable? If so, to whom? and what is this person's title, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address?
5. What categories of information are kept in The Monitoring Unit's database?
I am disappointed that you have sent me an email maintaining the inaccessibility of The Monitoring Unit's data, as I believe that parents in New York City must be able to access information about U-ratings of pedagogical staff.
I am prepared to speak about this matter at City Council hearings and at meetings of the Panel for Educational Policy, as I feel that this database and your email needs to be brought to the public. I look forward, therefore, to a prompt reply to the above questions so that I can pursue further the release of the very important information in this database and your reasons for not granting me access to it.
Thank you very much!
Respectfully,
Betsy Combier
DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Monitoring Unit
65 Court St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
Phone (718) 935-2663
Robert Lombardo
Director
(718) 935-5260
THE MONITORING UNIT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1999 TO INSURE TIMELY RESPONSE TO INCIDENTS WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS
Develop a networked database, both inter-office and inter-divisional, to insure accountability in follow-up and closure for all employee reviews.
Provide on-going case status for all employee actions and distribution of system reports.
Provide ad-hoc reports as requested.
Organize and order processes to identify central accountability for office and division actions.
Maintain and distribute the DHR Ineligible List to all users.
Provide assistance to all corresponding departments in developing up-to-date data base systems to eliminate paper work and increase productivity.
Return to Division of Human Resources Home Page Interactive Turnaround Document Login screen M.U.I.T.D. Forms & Documents:
CSD's and HS Districts Central HQ & D85
Welcome to the Q/A section of the Interactive Turnaround Document
What is the Interactive Turnaround document?
Each day, communication is generated between districts and various central operations regarding disciplinary actions. It is done via telephone, mail or fax. The DHR Monitoring Unit has begun the process of organizing these communications into one on-line web site.
How does it work?
Over the past year, the relevant central offices, i.e., Office of Special Investigations, Office of Legal Services, Office of Personnel Investigations have developed new databases to track information. We are in the process of linking these databases to the Internet. When you enter data to the web site it is forwarded to the appropriate database. In this way, all information will be shared and available.
When you log onto the web site, the database with information specific to your district will open. There will be three areas, "Actions to Be Taken," "Actions to Be Monitored" and "Enter New Information."
Does the interactive turnaround system generate the same results as the paper forms?
We have the same results. It provides answers to our questions but it is done with a lot less work than before and a lot quicker.
Who should use this feature?
This site is designed for use by districts and central operations. We recommend that the Superintendent identify a designee who can check the web site each day. To go into the site, a log in and password must be assigned. If you are ready to begin, press the comments button below and send us an e-mail.
Please provide us feedback!
Give us suggestions for new content, information you need or better ways to present information. We know that the better we can share the information we have, the better we can provide safe schools for all of our children. Feel free to e-mail or call the Monitoring Unit Director, Bob Davidson, directly at (718) 935-5260.
Joann Molter
Administrator
(718) 935-2832
Carol Labozzetta
Deputy Administrator
(718) 935-2820
Vacancy Circular Released: Applications: Supervisory Application
January 8, 2001
Application for Placement on Qualifying Supervisory Eligible List
February 7, 2001
QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACTED WHICH ELIMINATED THE REQUIREMENT FOR PASSING AN EXAMINATION FOR SUPERVISORY LICENSURE; HOWEVER, THE LAW STILL REQUIRES THE ISSUANCE OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS FOR APPOINTMENT TO SUPERVISORY VACANCIES. PLEASE REFER TO PERSONNEL MEMORANDUM # 3, DATED JULY 7, 1998 REGARDING THE PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE LISTS FOR SUPERVISORY POSITIONS.
REQUIRED STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
All advertised positions will be filled in accordance with Chancellor's Regulation C-30. Only those applicants who are on qualifying supervisory eligible lists based on possession of a Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement issued by the Office of Recruitment, Personnel Assessment and Licensing (ORPAL), OR a valid New York City license issued previously are eligible to apply for advertised positions in the specific areas for which they hold a certificate or license. Qualified applicants will be appointed upon selection from qualifying supervisory eligible lists. However,if there are fewer than three (3) applicants for a position after everyone on the list has been contacted (hereinafter referred to as canvassing of the list), applicants who do not possess the appropriate New York City certificate or license but who hold appropriate New York State Certification and meet the experience requirements may be considered. Applicants who do not possess the required New York City Certificate of Eligibility or license who are properly selected shall be assigned as acting supervisors. Persons assigned as acting supervisors are required to apply immediately for an appropriate Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement. Upon issuance of the appropriate certificate, an acting supervisor will be appointed.
FILING PROCEDURES
PLEASE NOTE: THE STANDARD APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY VACANCIES HAS BEEN REVISED. ALL APPLICANTS MUST USE THE REVISED APPLICATION WHEN APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY VACANCIES. APPLICATIONS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF SUPERVISORY SUPPORT SERVICES AT 65 COURT STREET, ROOM 617, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201 OR FROM THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITY CENTER.
To apply for positions, candidates must forward a standard Board of Education application directly to the responsibility center indicated in the Supervisory/Administrative Vacancy Circular. Each applicant should attach to the application a copy of the appropriate license, Certificate of Eligibility for Supervisory Placement or state certificate, whichever is required for the position. In addition, a completed Personal Information Form must be attached to each application. The required application and form may be obtained at the Office of Supervisory Support Services, 65 Court Street, Room 617, or the appropriate responsibility center. Applications must be mailed or hand delivered directly to the responsibly center.
TRANSFER PLAN
Supervisors shall be eligible to apply for transfer in accordance with Article I of the Agreement between the CSA and the Board of Education.
It is the policy of the New York City Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or sex in its educational programs, activities, and employment policies, and to maintain an environment free of sexual harassment, as required by law. Inquiries regarding compliance with appropriate laws may also be directed to:
Mr. Stephen A. Mitchell
Office of Equal Opportunity
65 Court Street - Room 923
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone # (718) 935-3320
"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M/F/H (MINORITIES/FEMALES/HANDICAPPED)"
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES
65 COURT TREET
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201
RE-ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEE INFORMATION FORM
Please complete and fax to the Monitoring Unit of the Division of Human Resources
at (718) 935-2035 within five (5) days of re-assignment.
Name of Employee File# S.S.#
Re-assigned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Title
Reasons for re-assignment (Check one): Date Re-assigned
0 Pending medical exam
0 TAC scheduled
0 TAC held, charges being drafted
0 3020-a charges preferred
0 Arrest – no disposition
0 Arrest – disposition reviewed
0 Re-assigned per Office of the Special Commission of Investigation
0 Re-assigned per Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations
0 Corporal punishment investigation by OSI 0 By school
0 Corporal punishment finding
0 Other ______________________________________
Job Assigned:
0 Location District Office 0 Location Other:
Name, Title and Phone number of person completing the form:
NYC Teaching Fellows
A related secret - in this case anonymous - whistleblowing of Bloomberg's company can be read at the VAULT Message Board
Monday, September 1, 2014
Lottie Almonte Leaves Murry Bergtraum HS In Shame
Another Principal from Hell is given a promotion, raise, or both. The DOE attacks good principals and supports the bad ones. Goodbye, Lottie.
Betsy Combier
Murry Bergtraum HS principal leaves following Post report
LINK
Two years after The Post first exposed horrible conditions and mismanagement at Murry Bergtraum HS, its principal has left the building.
Lottie Almonte, who has presided over the F-rated downtown school since 2012, wrote in a farewell email that she’s “taken on a new challenge in our city to support students and families in different communities.”
Almonte, who made $144,777 last year, will become a city adult-school principal.
Bergtraum, just two blocks from City Hall, has weathered a slew of scandals in the last two years.
The school’s “blended learning”, launched by Almonte, let hundreds of students take it at home in place of they failed or didn’t want to attend, prompting a state Education Department investigation.
The state found the school failed to provide required services for special-ed students. Teachers reported constant threats and assaults by out-of-control kids during Almonte’s tenure. Dozens of staffers fled.
“The memories of our days together and all of our work at Murry Bergtraum HS will forever resonate in my life,” Almonte wrote to staff. “I am confident that (Bergtraum) will become the flagship high school that it once was.”
The school had a 51.2 percent graduation rate in 2013.
“Teachers feel relieved,” said John Elfrank-Dana, a teacher and union chapter leader, referring to Almonte’s departure. “The school was turned into a nightmare for the staff and students, and the Post was there to shed light on it.”
On paper, he’s a super-teacher. To critics, he’s the poster child for academic fraud in New York City.
Alexis Pajares “teaches” 475 students at Manhattan’s Murry Bergtraum HS for Business Careers in all grades and all disciplines — including algebra, biology, chemistry, Chinese, earth science, economics, English, government, health, history, law and Spanish.
Students failing any of those subjects get dumped on Pajares, who signs them up for an online course they can do in a computer lab or at home. Students can snag full credit without attending class.
“There’s little to no traditional instruction going on, which makes the whole thing a farce,” said history teacher and union chapter leader John Elfrank-Dana. “It’s a credit-recovery trick, in most cases, to move kids along and get them out.”
Principal Lottie Almonte started the program last year, appointing Pajares the “blended learning” teacher. But staffers charge that it violates state rules that online programs must include “substantive interaction” with a teacher certified in the subject. Pajares is certified only in social studies.
Elfrank-Dana, citing complaints from teachers and students, said he has repeatedly asked Almonte to explain the program but got no response.
Two blocks from City Hall, “F”-rated Murry Bergtraum has struggled in recent years as a “dumping ground” for overage or held-back students who lack credits. The school had only a 51.2 percent graduation rate last year.
Almonte referred questions to the Department of Education. A spokesman admitted Pajares doesn’t teach all 475 kids, but “is running the blended learning program,” that other certified teachers “support students” and students are required to be in classes with traditional instruction.
Teachers and guidance counselors dispute those claims. Schedules show students in blended learning without an equivalent class.
“You don’t learn a lot,” said a 21-year-old senior — a recent immigrant from the Dominican Republic — who takes an online chemistry course.
“We just sit down, sign on to the program and that’s it,” he said.
He watches a video of a teacher giving a lesson, then has to answer questions in a quiz. If he doesn’t know the answer, he watches the video again — or uses Google. He takes notes, but “nobody checks our notes.”
Another senior took blended learning English after failing the class in her junior year.
“There’s no attendance. You just log on when you feel like it,” she said.
The online course, which she did at home, took three weeks — while a classroom semester lasts 4¹/₂ months. She said she got no feedback on the one essay she was required to write and doesn’t know who grades it.
Other kids take the online classes purely as a convenience — instead of a regular class that starts early and requires a lot more work.
A math teacher said the program is flawed because kids take tests at home — not under school supervision — raising the possibility of cheating.
Staffers have heard that some students pay friends $80 to $100 to take the online exams for them.
Another math teacher had a student who “sat there doing nothing all semester,” the teacher said. “He told me, ‘I don’t have to do any work in your class. I can take blended learning.’ ”
After flunking out, the kid scored 82 online.
But students who pass the online courses stumble in subsequent classes. “I have not seen any kid who can handle material at the next level after blended learning,” the teacher said.
Betsy Combier
Murry Bergtraum HS principal leaves following Post report
LINK
 |
| Murry Bergtraum HS
|
Two years after The Post first exposed horrible conditions and mismanagement at Murry Bergtraum HS, its principal has left the building.
Lottie Almonte, who has presided over the F-rated downtown school since 2012, wrote in a farewell email that she’s “taken on a new challenge in our city to support students and families in different communities.”
Almonte, who made $144,777 last year, will become a city adult-school principal.
Bergtraum, just two blocks from City Hall, has weathered a slew of scandals in the last two years.
The school’s “blended learning”, launched by Almonte, let hundreds of students take it at home in place of they failed or didn’t want to attend, prompting a state Education Department investigation.
The state found the school failed to provide required services for special-ed students. Teachers reported constant threats and assaults by out-of-control kids during Almonte’s tenure. Dozens of staffers fled.
“The memories of our days together and all of our work at Murry Bergtraum HS will forever resonate in my life,” Almonte wrote to staff. “I am confident that (Bergtraum) will become the flagship high school that it once was.”
The school had a 51.2 percent graduation rate in 2013.
“Teachers feel relieved,” said John Elfrank-Dana, a teacher and union chapter leader, referring to Almonte’s departure. “The school was turned into a nightmare for the staff and students, and the Post was there to shed light on it.”
‘Fail factory’ teacher churns through 475 students per year
 |
| Alexis Pajares (left) teaches 475 students this semester under principal Lottie Almonte's 'blended' online programs |
Alexis Pajares “teaches” 475 students at Manhattan’s Murry Bergtraum HS for Business Careers in all grades and all disciplines — including algebra, biology, chemistry, Chinese, earth science, economics, English, government, health, history, law and Spanish.
Students failing any of those subjects get dumped on Pajares, who signs them up for an online course they can do in a computer lab or at home. Students can snag full credit without attending class.
“There’s little to no traditional instruction going on, which makes the whole thing a farce,” said history teacher and union chapter leader John Elfrank-Dana. “It’s a credit-recovery trick, in most cases, to move kids along and get them out.”
Principal Lottie Almonte started the program last year, appointing Pajares the “blended learning” teacher. But staffers charge that it violates state rules that online programs must include “substantive interaction” with a teacher certified in the subject. Pajares is certified only in social studies.
Elfrank-Dana, citing complaints from teachers and students, said he has repeatedly asked Almonte to explain the program but got no response.
Two blocks from City Hall, “F”-rated Murry Bergtraum has struggled in recent years as a “dumping ground” for overage or held-back students who lack credits. The school had only a 51.2 percent graduation rate last year.
Almonte referred questions to the Department of Education. A spokesman admitted Pajares doesn’t teach all 475 kids, but “is running the blended learning program,” that other certified teachers “support students” and students are required to be in classes with traditional instruction.
Teachers and guidance counselors dispute those claims. Schedules show students in blended learning without an equivalent class.
“You don’t learn a lot,” said a 21-year-old senior — a recent immigrant from the Dominican Republic — who takes an online chemistry course.
“We just sit down, sign on to the program and that’s it,” he said.
He watches a video of a teacher giving a lesson, then has to answer questions in a quiz. If he doesn’t know the answer, he watches the video again — or uses Google. He takes notes, but “nobody checks our notes.”
Another senior took blended learning English after failing the class in her junior year.
“There’s no attendance. You just log on when you feel like it,” she said.
The online course, which she did at home, took three weeks — while a classroom semester lasts 4¹/₂ months. She said she got no feedback on the one essay she was required to write and doesn’t know who grades it.
Other kids take the online classes purely as a convenience — instead of a regular class that starts early and requires a lot more work.
A math teacher said the program is flawed because kids take tests at home — not under school supervision — raising the possibility of cheating.
Staffers have heard that some students pay friends $80 to $100 to take the online exams for them.
Another math teacher had a student who “sat there doing nothing all semester,” the teacher said. “He told me, ‘I don’t have to do any work in your class. I can take blended learning.’ ”
After flunking out, the kid scored 82 online.
But students who pass the online courses stumble in subsequent classes. “I have not seen any kid who can handle material at the next level after blended learning,” the teacher said.
Fidgety: A Day in the Life of an ATR
I have known this wonderful, caring teacher for several years, and can vouch for the fact that she is everything a GREAT teacher could and should be. I love and respect her.
She does NOT deserve to be in the ATR pool.
Shame on the UFT.
Betsy Combier
She does NOT deserve to be in the ATR pool.
Shame on the UFT.
Betsy Combier
September 1, 2014
A Day in the Life of an ATR...
After 20 years of teaching in the NYC schools, I have spent the last three years rotating on a weekly basis to and from 52 different school locations . While most professionals change jobs an average of 3 times at most in a lifetime, an ‘ATR’, aka a teacher belonging to the ‘Absent Teacher Reserve’, begins a new job every Monday morning. Yes, a new job, meaning new school, new colleagues, new principals, and a brand new set of rules every Monday morning.
Oh, you don’t know what an ATR is? I’m not surprised… It is scarcely mentioned in the UFT paper or discussed at UFT meetings. There are even tenured teachers who know nothing about Absent Teacher Reserve thanks to the UFT who tries to keep it under wraps. The ATR status, created by the Department of Education/ and the Useless United Federation of Teachers, has been purposely destroying careers of tenured teachers for quite some time now, right under the nose of its’ very own employees .
ATRs are hard working, tenured and experienced professionals who are often 50+ years in age and high on the salary ladder. It is no wonder that these highly qualified teachers are unwanted by principals and their limited budgets… A principal can easily fill 2 positions for the price of one ATR. ATRs have lost their permanent position in their school building due to either a school closing, or a failed attempt to have them terminated through false or trumped up allegations by their administrator. Regardless of an arbitrator’s decision to have these teachers return to their classroom through 3020a, the Department of Education has single handedly deemed them unfit and ineligible to teach, and REFUSES to play fair and place them back in their classrooms.
The DOE lies when they say that the ATRs are incompetent and don’t want to work. They do want to work, ARE working and have been working, but are treated as unwanted visitors and/or substitute teachers, (not their choice) and have been rotating from school to school on a weekly and often daily basis while the UFT turns the other way.
Who are the ATRs? (You can read about some of them HERE)
So, here it is… The life of an ATR…
While regular teachers have the same issue, I’m sure many ATRs will agree when I say that PARKING is one of the toughest issues facing an ATR who relies on their car to get to work. What makes it especially tough is that an ATR has no idea what their schedule will be on any given day. I have arrived 60-90 minutes early to an assignment just to procure a legal parking spot, one in which I won’t have to move during the day for alternate side parking. Unlike a regularly assigned teacher, I have no way of knowing in advance if I will have a lunch or prep period that coincides with my need to move my car. In addition, most schools have a limited number of parking passes that are equally distributed to their teachers and rotated on a monthly basis.
Once entering a school building, I am asked to sign in and show my ID at the security desk . In some schools, I must only show ID on Monday, but in some, I am asked to show ID every day of the week. I am given a “visitor’s” sticker or “visitor’s” pass that I am required to wear around my neck, which I find degrading since I am not a visitor, I am an employee, (who are they kidding?) and directed to the main office, which is usually one flight up the stairs.
It is in the main office that the tone for my day is set with a either a greeting, a casual groan, a dirty look, a few whispers, or most often, the complete denial of my existence.
When I am finally acknowledged it’s like this: “Oh the ”ATR” is here.” (My new name) “Oh you’re back”, or “What’s your file number?” I am often handed a school manual, which cites the individual rules of the school and asked to sign a paper stating that I received it.
“Here’s your time card and schedule.” I am asked to “clock in”, although as a teacher, I am not required to. I do this as a protective measure so that a school cannot say that I wasn’t there, or that I was late.
My schedule is handed to me by *someone. (*school aide, secretary, or an assistant principal. It wouldn’t surprise me if a custodian handed me my schedule.) Your guess is as good as mine-- because in this ‘professional’ setting, no one bothers to introduce themself /selves unless asked to. If there is no schedule prepared for me, I am either ignored, or asked to wait on a bench, or to wait in the teacher’s lounge, or some other remote location for an unspecified amount of time. When I actually get to the teacher’s lounge or wherever I am asked to wait, it is usually at that point when I am immediately paged to return to the office for my schedule.
From a professional point of view, do you think that it might be beneficial for a teacher to know what grade, type of class or subject they will be teaching for the next 8 hours? As a common branch teacher who is not certified in Special Education, one might think it would be important to know whether the students have IEPs, special needs or diversified schedules. The DOE thinks not. While the DOE is ridding Common Branch Licensed teachers from the Junior High and High Schools, they are sending CB licensed ATRs to fill those vacancies on a provisional basis. Does this make sense?
I take a few seconds to look at the schedule I am given, and ask if there are any specific instructions pertaining to lunchtime transitions and dismissal procedures. (I ask because nine out of ten times I am left by myself to dismiss children as young as 5 to parents, uncles, cousins and guardians whom I am seeing for the first time. In which case, if I am informed early enough, I will pre-request assistance with dismissal.)
I must note that while in rotation from school to school, one learns quickly that no two schools are the same in any way, shape or form. This significant difference between schools makes the job of rotating so much more difficult. It is impossible to get familiar with the staff/master a routine/ learn the safety/fire drill code & the expectations of administration in 1 to 5 days…then run off to another school and learn another routine, etc. on the following Monday. If one is not familiar with the safety code of a school and is supposed to follow it, wouldn’t that be cause for concern? This lack of uniformity between schools is foreign and most surprising news for those who never leave the comfort of their appointed work place. Administration expects that because one is a “teacher”, one automatically knows everything about schools and children- ALL of the schools and ALL of the children. Kind of the same ignorant way of thinking that the reformers have….if one sat in a classroom as a child, shouldn’t they be able to dictate what should be taught and how? A school is a school isn’t it? Umm, not exactly.
NEWS FLASH! ---No two schools have the same rules, procedures or time schedules. Let’s look at some of the differences between schools that may throw off a tenured teacher, substitute teacher, visitor (even a teacher in rotation) who is entering the school for the first time…
Some schools have a half of a minute or two between periods, and some do not. (no time between periods translates to no time for a bathroom break for an ATR.)
Some schools have ‘extended’ day worked into their schedule and some have an additional complicated routines added on to their day either in the am or pm part of the day.
Some admins provide ATRs with a clear gridded schedule with periods, school hours and preps to follow. On the other hand, admins have handed me a barely legible scribbled ‘post it’ note with some classes written on it- that lacks a time schedule.
Individual schools have their own codes written on time schedules, such as PE, or G, or *&^%$ meaning gym and an ATR is left on their own to decipher these codes everyday.
The rest is on a ‘need to know’ basis and because I need to know, I have to ask…
“Where is the bathroom, teacher’s lounge, auditorium and lunchroom?”
“Is there a place where I can hang my coat?” It is quite burdensome to carry around a coat all day when moving from class to class each period.
“Do you have a teacher’s lounge, refrigerator, microwave, place to stay on a prep?”
“Is there a bathroom key?” I am quite sure that I am never going to get a bathroom key, but I humor myself each time, and ask anyway. In response, Ms. Secretary looks at me like I have 5 heads and tells me that I need to catch a teacher either going in or coming out of the bathroom. I think to myself, “Is that like catching a bus?” “We never give bathroom keys to subs,” says Ms. Secretary.
Next question, classroom key…I ask for a classroom key and am directed to an unlocked key cabinet where several hundred keys hang in disarray.
“The classroom door should be unlocked already, but if it’s not, come back down (which translates to, “Walk up 5 flights of stairs, check the door and if it’s locked, come back down for the key”)", says Ms. Secretary.
Last but not least I ask, “Where do I pick up the kids?” I am often sent to the auditorium only to learn that the students are outside, have already been picked up by a cluster teacher, or in the lunchroom.
I get to the classroom and the door is locked. With hands full of schedules, attendance folders and lessons, coat, bag and lunch, I find an open door nearby and manage to juggle the phone to call the office and then must wait for a custodian to open the classroom door. With zero time to search the room for a lesson plan that may be nonexistent, I drop off my things and head down to ‘find’ my class. I enter into an auditorium filled to the brim with kids and wait till someone notices that I have no idea where I am.
Then, I claim my students and I go off…into the abyss of this unfamiliar hallway with equally confused students to this mystery classroom in the insane world of the DOE.
Aside from the usual pettiness that most teachers engage in over coffee machines and water dispensers, cruel notes left on the refrigerator door and who sits where at the royal lunch table is the bubble of ignorance that these teachers and colleagues exist in…
Here are some of their actual comments:
You’re so lucky you don’t have to be observed!
The slave labor is here!
Why don’t you apply for a classroom position?
I had an ATR in my classroom once and he did nothing.
Aren’t you the rubber room people?
You get paid as much as we do, you should know what to do!
How can I get to be an ATR and do nothing all day?
I would give anything to not have to write lesson plans.
Are you a sub?
So, what is it exactly that you do? The saddest part of is, is that these questions are not coming from young, newbie teachers. What’s an ATR? I once told a teacher that the ATRs are really sent to observe the classroom teachers. That really made her day!
As a regular classroom teacher, I was required to leave a lesson plan or ‘sub folder’ in the room if I was going to be out for the day. Why is it then that nine times out of ten, there are no lesson plans in the room when I arrive? As an ATR, I am always prepared with at least one comprehensive lesson plan for each grade of the school I am in, as I never know in advance what grade I will be sent to each day. I may be required to go to a different grade each period, or be assigned to one class for the entire day. Yes, I am a teacher, but I am not a magician who can pull a complete day of lessons out of a hat at a moment’s notice.
As I begin my fourth year as an ATR, I am ridden with frustration and anxiety. Time and again, the articles in the paper fail to tell the truth, and the public continues to be misinformed about who we are. We are professionals who ARE WORKING and WANT TO CONTINUE WORKING and are being denied the privilege of working in the capacity where we can be most productive. Weekly Rotation denies us the continuity of knowing our students and colleagues and the productivity that results from daily interaction. Rather than utilize the enormous talent available in the ATR pool, our new chancellor has allowed the hiring of young and inexperienced teachers to fill the vast amount of open positions resulting from the expansion of Universal Pre-K and huge retirement incentives in the new contract. Why hire new teachers when you have hundreds of qualified ATRs already on payroll? We are tired of being named as the scapegoats for an already dysfunctional education system. Which leads me to the final question that has all of us wondering…
Mr. Mulgrew, Where are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)