Parents and Staff of Central Park East 1 Want Principal Monika Garg Removed. Now.

Monika Garg, Principal of Central Park East 1

The outrage of parents and staff against Monika Garg has reached a boiling point and the NYC DOE has still not done anything to resolve the anger directed at "the worst principal in New York City".

One of the things that I dislike about Carmen Farina is that she HATES being told what to do. Hates it. Trust me, I know. And she HATES being told that someone she relied on is no good. hates that. She goes after the messengers. All of them, teachers, parents, staff.

The latest update from Norm Scott, well-known teacher advocate:

April 7, 2017: 2PM

I'm just back from spending the day so far at CPE1 for the rally and the emerging by the people who spent the night in the auditorium. (See my earlier report --Parents Occupy Auditorium - Central Park East 1 Update: Rally, SLT Meeting and Overnight Stay Surrounded by Police)

I got there at 8:30 and there was a rally in front of the school. They ended occupation and came out for a press conference at around 9:30. I am putting up some brief video excerpts on my FB timeline. Go check them out. 

There was some press there this morning - NBC, CBS, NY Times - Kate Taylor was there last night too. There was muttering by some over the disappointing reporting she has done on education in general and on her previous report on CPE1 - like having a link to the website of a principal supporter but not the savecpe1 site. So they don't expect much -- like if 20 people speak against Garg and 5 for she will include a quote from one on each side, thus inferring an equal split.

So it was interesting after the press conf when they went back into the school to meet with YAUDOES - Yet Another Useless DOE Slug -- that someone said to wait outside to speak to Leslie Brody from the Wall St Journal who is a good reporter. How interesting that people seem to mistrust the so-called liberal NY Times and have more faith in Rupert's WSJ. 

I'm more skeptical but when Leslie arrived I listened in to her questions and she was the only reporter who really seemed interested in what has made CPE a progressive school -- stuff came out that I wasn't aware of. Now the article she writes will be small and probably won't include much if any of what they said, but at least she asked.

She had already left when the people who spent the night without sleep came out from the meeting and packed up to go home and get some sleep.

I spoke at length to a guy named Bruce, who was a teacher at CPE1 and then the principal at CPE2 who filled me in on some remarkable stuff (his wife still teaches at CPE1). We are same gen and talked about the old days and found we knew lots of people -- he was in Teachers Action Caucus - TAC - which morphed into New Action and we know lots of people in common. He did look so familiar. And after he left I asked his last name and it is Bruce Kanze who I did really know back then. Bruce told me today the essence of the problem is that they just don't trust teachers and CPE1 did - until Monika Garg showed up as an agent from the DOE to destroy them. (I'll go more into this teacher trust issue, especially when I address the CPE2 principal support for Garg.)

A few parents went off to get some breakfast and invited me along. I got some education. One left after an hour. The other and I spent another hour or more talking about so much stuff my head is crammed. I learned so much about the real shit Monica pulled from day 1 and how betrayed parents like this, who moved into the area partially to get into CPE1, are -- also about the political and racial situation around East Harlem (she is white) and so much more beyond the CPE 1 story -- about immigrants and daily panic they feel every day when they wake up - if they can sleep at all- some too sensitive for me to get into.

Oh, the depths of this story. I feel like that reporter for This American Life - the people doing the Serial series - especially the latest must hear S-Town Podcast - shit town https://stownpodcast.org/

Yes, the DOE is Shit-Town in spades --Serial people, come calling if you are looking for a story for next time.

I may have more later tonight or tomorrow morning. I am going to head over to see my Unity slug pals at their little junket at the Hilton on 54th and 6th Ave. It is 3PM and I missed the Stronger Together meeting. Tomorrow I will meet up with Arthur and we will have some fun.

Norm Scott has followed this stories:

Parents Occupy Auditorium - Central Park East 1 Update: Rally, SLT Meeting and Overnight Stay Surrounded by Police

A Political Attack: Superintendent Alexandra Estrella Orders Chapter Leader Removal from 

Central Park East I - Sign the Petition

DOE/Legal Rushes to 3020a Kangaroo Court for Central Park East 1 Chapter Leader Starting 

Today: Parents to Rally Outside

Historic 3020a: Massive Parent Turn-Out to Support CPEI Chapter Leader on Few Hours Notice

Here is Eric Chazinoff's post: Chaz' School Daze

MORE Demands Immediate Support for CPE1 Chapter Leader and JHS 145

Reso to Support CPE1- Tabled by UFT Leadership

I had the good fortune to be on one of my 3020-a cases one of the days Marilyn and her friends - I'd say about 40 - filled the waiting room at 100 Gold Street, 3rd Floor, where 3020-a hearings are heard. 

Unfortunately as Marilyn did not request an open and public hearing, so none of these people were allowed to observe the hearing, but some stayed the entire day anyway in support of Marilyn.

Carmen, you must remove Garg. After she charged beloved Chapter Leader Marilyn Martinez there was no turning back.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Parents at 100 Gold Street 

***Breaking Update: Following a meeting of more than 100 parents, teachers and community members, families have been occupying their school at CPE1 since 6:30pm on Thursday, April 6th. The DOE has promised to send someone to meet with occupying families at 8am. Parents are asking Mayor  de Blasio to step in and resolve the crisis at CPE1 by removing Principal Garg immediately. Supporters and families will be holding a press conference and rally at 8:30am to explain their demands and next steps in their struggle.***

BREAKING NEWS RELEASE

CONTACT: Jen Roesch (917) 319-7008 or jenroesch@gmail.com

Kaliris Salas-Ramirez (718) 704-7387

Kenya Dilday, kdilday@gmail.com

Parents Sitting In at Central Park East 1 to Demand Principal’s Removal

Letter Sent to Mayor DeBlasio asking him to personally intervene after DOE’s failure to address long-standing issues

Majority of Families Want ‘Worst Principal’ in NYC Out; Retaliation Against Teachers, Abuse of Parents, Children Must Stop

Afternoon of April 6th, Central Park East 1 at 1573 Madison Avenue: Parents, including members of the Parents’ Association leadership and School Leadership Team, are currently refusing to leave their school until their principal, Monika Garg, either resigns or is removed. They say they represent a majority of parents who have signed a statement of “no confidence” in the principal. This letter was presented at the School Leadership Team immediately preceding the sit-in. Other parents and supporters are holding a solidarity rally outside.

Parents say they have appealed to the DOE for over a year about significant concerns but have not had their needs adequately addressed. Garg is statistically the WORST principal in NYC: she has had the greatest drop in ratings from parents and teachers on the 2016 DOE school survey of any principal in the city and oversaw the city’s largest drop in test scores after her traumatic first year at the helm (2016).  NYC has approximately 1800 public schools. They are refusing to leave until Mayor De Blasio intervenes. They cite his claim that his administration will make parent voice and building trust in our schools a top priority.

Parents cite serious concerns about Principal Garg’s leadership, including abuse of teachers, children and families. Two teachers have been removed from the school for investigations that parents consider retaliatory in nature. The investigations come in the wake of an open letter signed by tenured staff expressing concerns. Another third of the teaching staff left at the end of last year. All tenured teachers have faced investigations and disciplinary action under Garg’s tenure.

Parents say that children have been harmed as a result of these investigations. Garg interviewed very young children without parents’ knowledge or consent. Many only found out as a result of other parents whose children had told them. In one instance, a 7-year old child had documented emotional issues and was being assisted by the school guidance counselor. This child was interviewed without his parent or his guidance counselor being informed. He was asked about 2-year old incidents and told that his cooperation was necessary in order to keep his school safe. This parent failed to receive an answer to her concerns from either Garg or the DOE. More than 55 parents filed complaints with the DOE without any response. Children in the classes with teachers removed are suffering emotional and social distress and have not received proper support.

Since her appointment in 2015, which came via a questionable process, Garg has deliberately fomented division, mistrust and turmoil at the iconic public progressive elementary school. With the support of District 4 Superintendent Alexandra Estrella, Garg has harassed and retaliated against teachers, mistreated students and families, and undermined the school’s successful practices.

Kansas High School Students Expose Lies By Their Principal, Then the Principal Resigns

This is great news!

New York is mentioned as a state where the exposure of a principal's background would not be allowed by student journalists.

Let's change that!!! We need to have freedom of the press in our schools, or fear, hate, fraud and employment discrimination goes without notice or anyone doing something about it.

If you suspect a person who works at your school is not telling the truth about their licenses and certifications, go to Educator Lookup at New York State Education Department, put in the person's name, and see what you get. You can also get information by going to See Through NY, and plugging in Education Admin to the search box.

If you see something, say something.

Betsy Combier

Gina Mathew, Kali Poenitske, Maddie Baden, Trina Paul, Connor Balthazor and Patrick Sullivan at Pittsburg
High School in Pittsburg, Kan. CreditEmily Smith/Pittsburg High School

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

High School Journalists Land a Scoop, and the Principal Resigns

By CHRISTOPHER MELEAPRIL 5, 2017

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More

Four days after students at a high school newspaper in Kansas published an article that questioned the credentials of a recently hired principal, she resigned.

The episode, which unfolded at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kan., about 125 miles south of Kansas City, garnered news coverage and won praise from journalism organizations for investigative reporting by student journalists.

The story began to germinate on March 6, when the Pittsburg Community Schools announced it had hired Amy Robertson as the high school principal.

In a statement, it said her “diverse and extensive experience impressed district staff and leadership and repeatedly propelled her to the top” of the list of candidates. She had “decades of experience in education” and was the chief executive of a consulting firm that advised companies on education, the statement said.

Maddie Baden, a 17-year-old junior and a staff member of the student-run newspaper The Booster Redux, set out to write a profile. Emily Smith, a teacher and adviser to The Redux, said on Wednesday that she had not expected the reporting to lead to questions about Ms. Robertston’s credentials.

“We’re Midwesterners,” she said. “As soon as somebody puts something on paper, we think they’re honest about what they’re saying.”

But in multiple interviews over several days, Ms. Robertson provided details of her background that did not hold up, Ms. Smith said.

Then Ms. Robertson became increasingly evasive.

“She was asked direct questions,” Ms. Smith said. “She couldn’t give direct answers.”

Ms. Smith coached the students to press for clearer responses, pushing them to be more assertive with an adult in authority than they were accustomed.

The students questioned the legitimacy of Corllins University, an institution where Ms. Robertson said she got her master’s and doctorate degrees. It lists no physical address on its website and has been the subject of consumer complaints and warnings about its lack of accreditation. Her profile on LinkedIn, the professional networking site, did not identify where she had earned her master’s degree and Ph.D., listing only “N/A.”

Smaller details also aroused the students’ curiosity. For instance, Ms. Robertson said she had earned a bachelor’s of fine arts degree from the University of Tulsa, but when the students checked, they learned it does not confer that kind of degree, Ms. Smith said.

The students and Ms. Smith met with the school superintendent, Destry Brown, about their concerns, and he was “supportive and open,” she said. They kept reporting and “continued to write up to five minutes before it went to print,” she said.

On Friday, The Redux, a monthly broadsheet published 10 times a year, hit the newsstands with a front-page story, headlined “District Hires New Principal” and with the subheading, “Background called into question after discrepancies arise.”

On Tuesday night, the board of education met and announced that Ms. Robertson had resigned. “In light of the issues that arose” she felt it was in the district’s best interest, a board statement said.
Ms. Robertson, who was to assume the $93,000-a-year position starting on July 1, could not be immediately reached for comment on Wednesday.

Ms. Robertson, who lived in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was the principal of the Dubai American Scientific School, and recently had her license temporarily suspended by education authorities there, The Gulf News reported. Immigration issues prevented her from getting needed permits, The News reported.

Mr. Brown praised the students for their persistence but acknowledged he felt a twinge of disappointment about how it unfolded. He said Ms. Robertson’s hiring was contingent on passing a background check and producing needed documentation. He said the details would have come out eventually, but the students’ work sped thing up.

“I believe strongly in our kids questioning things and not believing things just because an adult told them,” he said. “I have a little bit of heartburn over the whole article. I wasn’t going to stop that because I believe in that whole First Amendment thing.”

Journalism groups were also full of praise.

Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute, a journalism research and training group, said his organization has seen outstanding work from college students working with professional journalists on investigations but said that what the high school students did “really stands out.”

At a time of shrinking resources in newsrooms, students are helping to fill gaps in coverage, he said, adding, “There’s a sense that significant journalistic investigations can come from anywhere now.”

Student journalists are routinely underestimated by those in positions of authority, Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said on Wednesday. The students consulted with him about their reporting on the article.

The article might never have appeared had it not been for the Kansas Student Publications Act, which grants students independent control over their editorial content, including material that might paint a school in an unflattering light, he said. A 1988 Supreme Court ruling gave administrators the authority to censor the content of student journalists.

Ten states, including Kansas, passed laws giving students independent control, although administrators can still remove material that is obscene, defamatory or poses a danger to the school. Similar bills are pending in nine other states, Mr. LoMonte said.

“If that same situation happened in Texas, New York or Florida, that story would not have seen the light of day,” he said.

He credited school administrators for taking a hands-off approach and letting the students pursue the reporting.

“I hope it really emboldens young people to take on substantive news stories even if they are afraid of administrative censorship,” he said. “This story proves you can make positive changes in your community through journalism.”

A.C. v West Babylon Union Free School District: Second Department Denies For Leave To Serve A Late Notice of Claim

After you have been harmed/damaged by someone who works in a city agency or the Department/Board of Education,  you must file a notice of claim within 90 days in order to be able to sue in Court to recover any damages.

Matter of A.C. v West Babylon Union Free Sch. Dist.

2017 NY Slip Op 01351 [147 AD3d 1047]

February 22, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, March 29, 2017

[*1]

In the Matter of A.C. et al., Respondents, v West Babylon Union Free School District, Appellant.

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, NY (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for appellant.

Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., Mineola, NY (James R. Baez of counsel), for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, West Babylon Union Free School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated October 5, 2015, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Service of a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent to commencing an action against a school district (see Education Law § 3813 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Matter of Doyle v Elwood Union Free School Dist., 39 AD3d 544, 545 [2007]). In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider whether (1) the school district acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the injured child was an infant at the time the claim arose and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (3) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (4) the school district was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see Education Law § 3813 [2-a]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 535 [2006]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 148 [2008]). The first of these factors, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim, is the most important (see Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 148). Actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim means "knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the [proposed] notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves" (id.).

Here, the petitioners failed to show that the appellant obtained actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the incident or a reasonable time [*2]thereafter. While a medical claim form was prepared during the week of the incident and signed by the principal or a designated school authority, this form, which merely indicated that the infant petitioner was injured when another student collided into her during recess, did not provide the appellant with actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim that the appellant, inter alia, failed to properly monitor and supervise the students during school recess (see Matter of Sparrow v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free Sch. Dist. [#14], 110 AD3d 905, 907 [2013]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 149-150).

Moreover, the petitioners did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the delay in filing the petition (see Matter of Hampson v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 AD3d 790, 791 [2014]). While the injured person here is an infant, the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and the delay in seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim were not the product of the infant petitioner's infancy (see Matter of Sparrow v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free Sch. Dist. [#14], 110 AD3d at 906). Furthermore, the infant petitioner's mother failed to submit any evidence to support her allegations that the delay was attributable to the fact that she was more concerned about dealing with her daughter's alleged injuries than with retaining an attorney (see Matter of Hampson v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 AD3d at 791).

Finally, as to the issue of substantial prejudice, the petitioners presented no "evidence or plausible argument" that their delay in serving a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in defending on the merits (Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 NY3d 455, 466 [2016]; see Matter of Sparrow v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free Sch. Dist. [#14], 110 AD3d at 907; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152-153). The petitioners contend that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced in its defense because the condition of the accident location has not changed. The condition of the accident location is irrelevant, however, to the petitioners' claim of negligence—that the appellant was negligent in its supervision of students during a noon recess—and, thus, to the issue of substantial prejudice as well. The petitioners also assert that there were no known witnesses to the incident and, therefore, their delay in filing a notice of claim did not substantially prejudice the appellant in its ability to investigate. This contention runs counter to the petitioners' allegation that the incident, a collision between the infant petitioner and another student, occurred during a group activity. Lastly, the petitioners contend that the availability of records as to the infant petitioner's injuries establishes a lack of substantial prejudice. The medical records, however relevant to the issue of damages, have little, if anything, to do with the appellant's ability to conduct an investigation as to its liability (see Matter of Sparrow v Hewlett-Woodmere Union Free Sch. Dist. [#14], 110 AD3d at 907; Matter of Castro v Clarkstown Cent. School Dist., 65 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2009]; cf. Matter of Allende v City of New York, 69 AD3d 931, 932-933 [2010]). Thus, their availability does not support the petitioners' argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced. Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to present any evidence or plausible argument that the appellant has not been substantially prejudiced by the delay, the appellant never became required to make "a particularized evidentiary showing" that they were substantially prejudiced (Matter of Newcomb v Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 NY3d at 467).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Murray v NYC DOE: Probationary Teacher Gets Her U-rating Overturned Because The Principal Deprived Her of Her Substantial Rights in the Review Process

Yes, a probationary teacher can win in Court. Juanita Murray, with the help of NYSUT Attorney Eric Chen, got her U-rating overturned by the First Department Appellate Division because the principal made many procedural and contractual errors which showed bad faith.

The Judges wrote,

"The record is clear that petitioner was deprived of her substantial rights in the review process culminating in her U-rating."

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Matter of Murray v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

2015 NY Slip Op 06866 [131 AD3d 861]

September 22, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, November 4, 2015

[*1]

In the Matter of Juanita Murray, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Richard E. Casagrande, New York, (Eric W. Chen of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 1, 2013, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul respondents' determination, dated September 19, 2012, which denied petitioner's appeal of an unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for the 2010-2011 school year, and granting respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted to the extent of annulling the U-rating.

Petitioner is a tenured school social worker employed by the Department of Education (DOE) (sued here as the Board of Education). She challenges a year-end overall U-rating issued by her principal, Robert Mercedes, in her Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) for the 2010-2011 school year. The APPR, which she received on June 21, 2011, indicated unsatisfactory ratings in seven categories: attendance and punctuality, where Mercedes indicated that petitioner's attendance was "nearing limit"; professional attitude and professional growth, where he indicated that she lacked professional growth based on observation; resourcefulness and initiative, where he wrote that she lacked initiative and growth; analysis and interpretation of assessment data, where he indicated that she was unable to provide information upon which to base progress; translates assessment findings into educationally relevant goals and objectives, where he wrote that she was unable to assist students served; appropriateness and flexibility of counseling approaches, where he wrote that she was not flexible; and assessment reports, where he wrote that assessment reports were not submitted on time.

The documentation accompanying the APPR consisted of three letters written by Principal Mercedes to petitioner. The first, a May 31, 2011 letter, noted that petitioner had not provided Mercedes with previously requested particularized information concerning her work with, and the progress of, three of her students selected as a sample. The second, a June 7, 2011 letter, indicated that the documentation she subsequently submitted was unsatisfactory. The third, a June 15, 2011 letter, detailed the information previously requested and what petitioner had provided, and requested details of her specific strategies to improve her students' coping skills, the interventions she used that could be "qualitatively analyzed," and evidence that she conferenced with teachers and measured and tracked the success of her students. The June 15, 2011 letter concluded that because the documentation she provided was intended to be used "in lieu of a formal observation" (as had been set forth in a letter of May 10, 2011 included in the record on appeal but not as an attachment to the APPR), she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation.

As was her right under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, petitioner appealed her U-rating to the Chancellor of the DOE. A hearing took place in May 2012, at which both petitioner and Principal Mercedes testified. No transcript is included in the record; respondents instead rely on the report of the hearing issued by the Chancellor's Committee, which described the parties' arguments, made findings of fact, and recommended that the U-rating be sustained. [*2]The Committee concluded that petitioner had not countered respondents' claims that she took nine absences, all of which were before or after weekends and holidays, that she had been told at the beginning of the year that she was responsible for submitting logs but had not submitted any, that Principal Mercedes was unable to determine what techniques and strategies she was using or how often she met with any of the students, and that her claim that her work had been favorably reviewed by an in-discipline supervisor during the year was "hearsay," as she provided no documentary substantiation. The Committee also noted that the principal was accountable for evaluating all pedagogues in a school.

By letter dated September 19, 2012, petitioner was notified that the U-rating was sustained "as a consequence of a pattern of excessive absence (before and after weekends and holidays), and a lack of impact on student growth."

Pursuant to CPLR 7804, petitioner timely commenced this proceeding. Because she challenges the entirety of the U-rating, there was no need for her to have first filed a grievance based on her unsatisfactory rating for attendance and punctuality. The appeal to the Chancellor's Committee was her exclusive contractual and administrative remedy.

Petitioner establishes that in evaluating her performance, respondents did not adhere to their procedures or those provided in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Special Circular No. 45, a memorandum issued by respondents in response to the mandate set forth in Commissioner of Education Regulations (8 NYCRR) § 100.2 (o), outlines the procedures for rating professional personnel, as does the related manual produced by the New York City Public Schools, entitled Rating Pedagogical Staff Members. Specifically, as a pedagogical employee, petitioner was to be given at least one full period of review during the school year by her principal, followed by a meeting with the principal to discuss her strengths and any areas in need of improvement. Additionally, as a social worker employed at a school, she should have been evaluated by the school principal in consultation with the in-discipline supervisor, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.

Respondents point to Principal Mercedes' May 15, 2013 affidavit wherein he states that he had in fact observed a group counseling session conducted by petitioner in April 2011 but felt that a single observation was insufficient to gauge the effectiveness of her work. However, he apparently he did not testify about the April observation at the Chancellor's Committee hearing, and petitioner disputes that it occurred. There is no documentation of the April observation, and Mercedes makes no claim to have spoken with petitioner following that observation.

It is also of great concern that an in-discipline supervisor did not critique petitioner's work as required by the collective bargaining agreement. Because there is no transcript of the Chancellor's Committee hearing, we have only petitioner's assertions, made in her underlying papers and again on appeal, that Principal Mercedes admitted to not having the experience or qualifications to evaluate petitioner without input from the in-discipline supervisor prior to asking petitioner for documents.^[FN1] Mercedes' May 15, 2013 affidavit offers the additional [*3]statement, made in response to petitioner's claim that he did not collaborate with the in-discipline supervisor when making his year-end evaluation, that the supervisor position for his school was dissolved "after May 2010." There is nothing in the record to substantiate this claim. Presumably such a decision would have been made by persons with more authority than the principal. Moreover, such an action seemingly contradicts the provision in the collective bargaining agreement. In any event, left unstated is that it appears on the record that Mercedes apparently had never conferred with the in-discipline supervisor about petitioner's work prior to the dissolution of the supervisor's position.

There is no evidence that petitioner was notified before the end of the school year in June 2011 that her work was considered unsatisfactory. Although Principal Mercedes testified at the Chancellor's Committee hearing that petitioner was told to keep and be prepared to submit logs of her work, and that she always stated that they were unavailable, there is no indication that she was advised that this was unacceptable and would result in an unsatisfactory evaluation. Mercedes testified that teachers complained they were unable to discuss their students with petitioner, but there is nothing to show petitioner was aware of that criticism prior to the annual performance review, or that she was directed to change her practices. Petitioner was also apparently not cautioned about her absences prior to June 2011, as the only letter sent to her concerning her attendance, oddly not included as part of the APPR, is dated June 2011.

The record is clear that petitioner was deprived of her substantial rights in the review process culminating in her U-rating, when compared with, for instance, Matter of Cohn v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. (102 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2013]). In Cohn, the petitioner's second annual U-rating was based on "detailed observations in reports prepared by the principal and two assistant principals, describing petitioner's poor performance in class management, engagement of students, and lesson planning" (102 AD3d at 586). He had been provided with a professional development plan at the start of the school year, and he received professional support throughout the year, including several classroom observations by the principal and two assistant principals, all of whom gave "detailed" letters making specific recommendations to improve his instructional deficiencies (id. at 587). Thus, although the petitioner in Cohn did not receive pre-observation conferences before every classroom observation, as required by the collective bargaining agreement and respondents' manual, Rating Pedagogical Staff Members, the U-rating was rationally based. In comparison, the instant record does not show that petitioner was provided with support, or formal constructive criticism, of any kind.

This case also differs from Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. (117 AD3d 605 [1st Dept 2014]), where we found no violation of a lawful procedure or substantial right despite the probationary teacher's arguments that she did not receive any mandatory prescreening conferences before classroom observations, was not provided a curriculum or a professional development plan, did not receive help to manage disciplinary problems in class, and did not receive model lesson plans from another teacher (id. at 606). However, the record showed that the petitioner was given three formal observation reports describing her poor performance in class management and engagement of students, and was sent to professional development sessions after receiving her first unsatisfactory report, but her [*4]instructional skills did not improve (id. at 606-607). In contrast, here respondents have not demonstrated by competent proof that they gave petitioner, who was tenured, any feedback of any kind.

The facts alleged here are more akin to those in Matter of Kolmel v City of New York (88 AD3d 527, 527-529 [1st Dept 2011]), where the U-rating given to the probationary teacher in his fourth year of teaching was arbitrary and without a rational basis because the principal who awarded the U-rating did not observe the petitioner's teaching during either of his last two years at the school, and because the year-end report indicated that all but two categories were unsatisfactory even when there was no evidence to support the rating, or the rating was contradicted by evidence in the report.^[FN2] In Matter of Kolmel, the respondents' failure to adhere to the regulations tainted the findings of two negative classroom observations cited in the year-end report, two file letters claiming unbecoming conduct, and the year-end U-rating (id.).

Similarly, in Matter of Brown v City of New York (111 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2013]), we held that the deficiencies in rating the petitioner "undermined the integrity and fairness of the entire review process." There, the petitioner, in her second year, was observed by the principal, informally and for the first time, at the end of January and was criticized for failing to have a daily plan. She was formally observed about a month later and, although found deficient in other areas, was not provided with the written evaluation until early June; nine days after receiving the formal evaluation, she was formally evaluated for a second time and found, unsurprisingly, to have made no improvement.

In short, the complete absence of constructive criticism and warnings during the entire school year, compounded by the lack of a formal observation and accompanying feedback during the school year, "undermined the integrity and fairness of the process" (Matter of Kolmel, 88 AD3d at 529). Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed, and the petition granted to the extent of annulling the U-rating. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Feinman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 32292(U).]

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Respondents cite Batyreva v New York City Dept. of Educ. (50 AD3d 283 [1st Dept 2008]), to argue that the Board of Education is not required to include a transcript of a Chancellor's Committee hearing when a proceeding is commenced under CPLR 7803 (3). Batyreva addressed whether that particular proceeding should have been brought pursuant to CPLR 7803 (4), requiring a substantial evidence analysis, and concluded that it was properly brought under the arbitrary and capricious standard (CPLR 7803 [3]). As to the hearing transcript, which had not been included in the record, we noted that the petitioner had not "demonstrated that a full transcript of the hearing before the Chancellor's Committee . . . was unavailable upon request" (Batyreva at 283-284). However, the evidence in Batyreva included eleven unsatisfactory classroom evaluation reports over the course of two years, and there was no question that the administrative decision to uphold the U-ratings was not arbitrary and capricious. Here, in contrast, while respondents have provided a litany of petitioner's failings, the issue is whether petitioner had notice of the complaints, or was in essence blindsided at the end of the school year. The hearing transcript might have shed some light on this question, as well as on the issue of Mercedes's alleged admission that he lacked the competence to evaluate social workers. 

Footnote 2:Additionally, the principal had stated at the administrative hearing that she did not rely on the file letters in making her tenure recommendation, and the petitioner submitted a statement by a current DOE employee who formerly worked at the high school, that the principal pressured assistant principals to give negative U-ratings without observing the teachers (Kolmelat 528-529). 

Humbug: Carmen Farina's "I love You" Speech to Teachers

I say Carmen is giving her usual "I love you" speech to teachers as part of her silent deal with Mike Mulgrew to get rid of tenure and to keep his hands off of the terrible, harmful 3020-a process she, Carmen Farina, has set up (watch the video).

UFT Attorney Adam Ross, UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew, Carmen Farina, Former NYC DOE General Counsel
Courtenaye Jackson-Chase

Her "I love..." speeches are Humbug, political nonsense, rubbish.

I've been watching and researching the so-called "termination" hearings for 14 years, and I also watched Carmen when she was principal of PS 6, where my youngest daughter attended. Carmen had no respect for teachers, and picked her army (favorites) to help her attack, belittle or embarrass any staff member who dared to get in her way. She did away with the Gifted and Talented program, because she believed that all students should have the same education at a nice and comfy Level 2 or Level 3, not Levels 1 or 4.

I reported her for violating the NYC Department of Education rules for School Leadership Teams, then for not telling us parents where the money was from the Annenberg Arts grant. I and other parents were not afraid to speak up.

Carmen was removed as principal of PS 6 in February 2001.

Dont be dulled into complacency.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Chancellor Carmen Fariña appears at the first of a series of town hall meetings with UFT members, this one
held at the union's Manhattan headquarters

Fariña’s goal: Restore dignity, respect to teaching

UFT.org

BY DOROTHY CALLACI AND RACHEL NOBEL | APRIL 17, 2014 NEW YORK TEACHER ISSUE

Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña assured UFT members at a town hall meeting at union headquarters that her first priority — and the accomplishment by which she most wants to be judged — is restoring dignity and respect to the teaching profession.

“No one works well if beaten down,” she said at the first in a series of five town halls with educators from each borough.

The chancellor vowed to work with UFT President Michael Mulgrew to ensure that the most innovative educational ideas in the country come from the New York City school system
“The best-kept secret is the great work teachers do,” she said.

Why hire consultants, she asked, “when we have experts right here on the ground?”

Opening the March 31 meeting on an optimistic note, Mulgrew predicted that by September, “We expect to have a better school system in which to work, a system that respects and listens to teachers’ voices.”

Fariña introduced herself and outlined her long career as a teacher, administrator and Department of Education executive with some amusing anecdotes. She described a “traveling sideshow” when, during her 22 years as a teacher, she was sent on Fridays to other schools to model lessons.

“At heart, I am still a teacher,” she said.

Mulgrew led off the Q and A, with the question: “How do we get schools to work together, to cooperate?”

Fariña explained that she has been emphasizing collaboration and sharing in her meetings with principals, superintendents and network leaders. She also pointed to eight schools, all with high numbers of high-need students, which will serve as demonstration sites featuring best practices. She said she hopes to increase the number to 45 by September.

“These are not perfect schools,” she said. “They are places where there is energy and excitement and educators who want to get better.”

Asked by PS 110 Chapter Leader Ellen Gentilviso to share her vision for gifted and talented programs, Fariña said that she was bringing back the DOE official who was originally in charge of the program after several years when no one was at the helm.

“Gifted and talented is a label and is only as good as the teaching and practices in each school,” she said.

Fariña said she would encourage the principals of gifted and talented programs to come together to share best practices, with an eye to the best ideas being picked up by all schools.

When several members asked her about high-stakes tests and the damage they were inflicting on schools, Fariña acknowledged that it was problem that she was working on.

Deborah Williams spoke of the lack of dignity and abuse she feels as a UFT member in the Absent Teacher Reserve pool and asked Fariña when excessed teachers would be returning to the classroom.

Fariña said that she was continuing her predecessor’s policy of no forced placements, but, she said, for the first time, the DOE was arranging interviews for ATRs for vacant positions.

At the end of the short exchange, the chancellor asked other teachers to write their questions on index cards, and she promised to answer every one.

A version of this story originally appeared on uft.org on April 2 at 11 a.m

This is ugly, folks. The Renewal Program is failing, special needs kids are not getting their resources, and educators and Guidance Counselors are getting fired for no reason....but TWEED expands!

That why we need financial oversight of the Department. No one is there right now. Get rid of Mayoral Control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Mayor Bill de Blasio

DOE doubles number of top administrators under de Blasio

By Selim Algar

The Department of Education nearly doubled the number of top-level administrators under Mayor de Blasio — and plans to more than triple the payroll, according to city data.

The preliminary budget for 2017-2018 is so bloated that it allocates $11,386,000 in salary for central office “pedagogical” staff — a massive hike from $4,055,000 in the last pre-de-Blasio fiscal year of 2013-2014, budget reports show.

The DOE has quietly expanded the gilded group of educrats from 39 in 2014 to 76 this year, according to city data, including Chancellor Carmen Fariña’s top deputies and other senior staffers whose work relates to student instruction and curriculum.

Overall spending on DOE brass has fattened during each of de Blasio’s years in office, the budget data show.

De Blasio’s adopted budget for central administration compensation was $4,055,000 in 2014, $5,053,000 in 2015, $7,809,000 in 2016 and $9,501,000 this fiscal year, according to city records.

“First we learned that Mayor de Blasio put 264 special assistants on his City Hall payroll, and now we learn the city has doubled its spending on bureaucrats in the Department of Education’s central office,” said Jeremiah Kittredge, CEO of charter-school advocate Families for Excellent Schools.

“Because every dollar spent on the mayor’s allies at Education headquarters is a dollar that can’t also be spent in classrooms, this paycheck padding directly and dangerously hurts innocent students,” he said.

The per capita spending average for this year, according to the current version of the city’s adopted budget, amounts to $290,636 for just 33 people.

But a DOE spokesperson said the numbers were out of date and that there were actually now 76 administrators in the category splitting $10.7 million. As a result, the per-person spending would be roughly $140,000.

The spokesperson attributed some of the overall increase in budgeting to a raft of major new initiatives undertaken by the DOE under de Blasio, which have required greater support from the central office.

“We’re investing in every student with our Equity and Excellence for All agenda, and this funding is critical as we continue to raise record-high graduation and college-enrollment rates, and provide pre-K for every 4-year-old,” DOE spokesman Will Mantell said.

Mantell stressed that next year’s preliminary budget was tentative and that adjustments to both spending and the number of central administration pedagogical employees would change.

“These are preliminary allocations and do not reflect any final spending,” Mantell said.

Overall funding of DOE bureaucracy — in addition to just the top administrators — has also risen under de Blasio.

According to the preliminary budget for next year, a total of 1,918 central administration workers are slated for $210,227,000 in overall pay. That compares to $163,947,000 in 2015 for 1,922 staffers.

DOE bloat isn’t limited to the central office headquarters.

As revealed by The Post earlier this month, the department shells out a staggering $40 million on contracts a year to consultants for help with Mayor de Blasio’s beleaguered Renewal school program.

That’s in addition to an $8.5 million payroll for 72 DOE bureaucrats dedicated to rescuing the cratering campuses from closure.