Toxic Chemicals Close Down Bronx New School

The people in charge at the NYC Department of Education are well-known for trying to hide what 'they; are doing. Who cares if the effect is harm to children, employees, parents, anyone? As long as their relatives and friends aren't harmed, or until they are," leave it alone".

No one does anything until the press embarrasses the DOE. That's what happened here.

Betsy Combier

Bronx New School closed because of years-old toxic chemicals that made students sick

BY Juan Gonzalez, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, August 19th 2011, 4:00 AM
LINK
 
The air at a North Bronx school may have been contaminated by dangerous chemicals for as long as 20 years.


Officials closed the Bronx New School at 3200 Jerome Ave. after repeated air monitoring tests since January revealed unsafe levels of several toxic chemicals, especially trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a possible carcinogen.

At an emotional meeting before several hundred parents of the school last night Dennis Walcott announced that the new location will be at a former Catholic school, Saint Martin of Tours more than two miles away.

Walcott called this "a highly unusual situation" and promised to do everything possible to facilitate a transition to the new location. Several angry parents told Walcott that children have been complaining of headaches, nausea and other illnesses for years. A thorough investigation of possible health effects on teachers and students is called for, something that Walcott did not commit to do.

Still unanswered is why the contamination was not discovered sooner.

This week, I asked Walter Hang of Ithaca-based Toxics Targeting Inc., to do a quick hazardous waste profile of the school's site and the blocks around it.

Hang's firm compiles such information from scores of state and federal environmental monitoring agencies. It then issues site-specific reports for businesses and local governments that want to guard against potential dangers before buying a property.

Within 24 hours, Toxics Targeting produced for me a 241-page report on the Bronx New School, also known as Public School 51.

The two-story building was a factory and industrial warehouse for more than 70 years before the old Board of Education leased and renovated it back in 1991.

One of the building's previous occupants was Nessen Lamps Inc. In 1987, Hang found, Nessen reported to the state's Department of Environmental Conservation generating 130 gallons of "spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing." Solvents like TCE.

The previous year, Nessen reported generating 218 gallons of "halogenated solvents."

In other words, the very toxic chemical that school officials suddenly discovered at more than 10 times safety levels in the building's air had been used at that site back in the 1980s.

Nessen wasn't the only neighborhood company that reported using such solvents. So did a city water pumping station across the street, and the Transit Authority's Jerome Ave. train yard, which is less than 500 feet from the school.

If it only takes a few hours to identify these potential chemical dangers, why did it take education officials 20 years to even check the air?

The agency, after all, was paying top dollar to rent the building from its owners, the Rinzler Family Parnership.

Last year, the DOE paid $506,000 in rent for the 18,500 square-foot building. That works out to nearly $28 per square foot, an astonishing rate for a Bronx factory. Plus, the DOE paid for all renovations and utilities, and its lease absolved the landlord from paying any property taxes.

Bradley Rinzler, the firm's executive vice president, did not return calls for comment.

There's no excuse, given the site's industrial history, for the DOE's failure to even check the air until now.

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

Boycott The "On Education" Forum Hosted By City Hall and Gotham Schools

We do not have to go to the "On Education" Breakfast hosted by City Hall Magazine and Gotham Schools. In fact, we need to boycott the breakfast. Do you really want to pay to hear a group of people talk among themselves about how wonderful the state of public school education is, and how much Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done to help our children?

If you really want to know what they are saying wait for the review on the Gotham Schools' blog.

Here is the email that I sent to J Freeman and Anthony Hawkins:

To:
jfreeman@manhattanmedia.com,

ahawkins@cityhallnews.com,
betsy.combier@gmail.com
date Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:59 PM
subject Education Forum

I received an email to attend the Education Forum at Con Edison on August 25, 2011, and as a member of the press who writes about issues surrounding the disasters known as the New York City Department of Education, the Rubber Rooms, and the United Federation of Teachers (for whom I worked as staff for 3 years and I am writing a book on) I would have considered attending in order to write a scathing article about how no one on the Panel knows what they are talking about or would admit to same, I dont think I will take my valuable time to listen to the same rubbish that I have heard regurgitated over and over again since 2002.

Your arrogance that you would believe you can continue to stuff the false facts that the people on your panel cite down any informed parent, teacher, or informed citizen's throat now, after all the blogs and websites out there are touting the real facts, is astonishing.

Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, NYC Public Voice

It has been a tumultuous summer in the education world, full of budget fights and labor showdowns. Heading into the new school year we are sitting down with a panel of leaders and influencers in the education field to better understand how the past year’s fights will play out in the school year ahead and how these events will impact education policy, city politics, teachers and parents for years to come.


MODERATED BY:

Andrew Hawkins
Managing Editor at City Hall News

Philissa Cramer
Managing Editor of GothamSchools.Org

THURSDAY
AUGUST 25, 2011
8:00 a.m.
Networking Breakfast

8:30 -10:00 a.m.
Panel Discussion Followed by Q&A

Location:
Con Edison Building
4 Irving Place (@14th Street)
New York, New York

TICKETS:
EARLY REGISTRATION:
$30 for individual tickets/
$250 table of 10

AFTER 8/24:
$40 for individual tickets /
$350 for a table of 10

PURCHASE TICKETS BELOW
*$20 ticket for government and non-profit employees

FOR MORE INFORMATION or sponsorship opportunities
call 646.442.1662 or email us here.

PANELISTS:

LEO CASEY
Vice President of Academic High Schools, UFT

SYDNEY MORRIS
Co-Founder of Educators 4 Excellence

EVA MOSKOWITZ
Former City Council Member & Founder/Chief Executive Officer of Success Charter Network

SHAEL POLAKOW-SURANSKY
Department of Education Deputy Chancellor & Chief Academic Officer

BILL THOMPSON
Former President of the NYC Board of Education & Former NYC Comptroller

MERRYL TISCH
Chancellor of the NY Board of Regents

JOSEPH P. VITERITTI
Thomas Hunter Professor of Public Policy at Hunter College

Terminated Probationary Teacher Has No Property Right in His Or Her Position

Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ.


2010 NY Slip Op 09168 [79 AD3d 521]
December 14, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Leslie Kahn, Respondent,
v
New York City Department of Education et al., Appellants.

—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellants. New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York (Adriana C. PiÑon of counsel), for respondent. James R. Sandner, New York (Wendy M. Star of counsel), for New York State United Teachers, amicus curiae. Charity M. Guerra, Brooklyn, for Council of School Supervisors & Administrators, amicus curiae.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2009, which denied respondents' motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Petitioner challenges the termination of her probationary employment as a social worker, and asserts due process claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1983. She began working for the Department of Education in February 2005 as a social worker, spending 2½ years at Williamsburg High School. In July 2007 she switched to Khalil Gibran International Academy, where respondent Salzberg, as Interim Acting Principal, gave her a rating of unsatisfactory in an evaluation on December 19, 2007. Two days later, the Superintendent wrote to petitioner, denying her a certification of completion of probation, and advising that her service would be terminated effective January 25, 2008, and that she was entitled to administrative review under the collective bargaining agreement.

Petitioner proceeded with an administrative appeal on January 3, 2008. Following an administrative hearing, the Department of Education, by letter dated May 9, reaffirmed the denial of petitioner's certification of completion of probation. On or about September 9, 2008, [*2]petitioner commenced this proceeding.

Petitioner's claims, which are equitable in nature, are not barred by her failure to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1), which is only required when money damages are sought (Ruocco v Doyle, 38 AD2d 132 [1972]).

However, her claims are time-barred. A petition to challenge the termination of probationary employment on substantive grounds must be brought within four months of the effective date of termination (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296 [2008]; Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 AD2d 140 [2001]). The time to commence such a proceeding is not extended by the petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies (Matter of Strong v New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 AD3d 592 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]). Petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months of the effective date of her termination. Although the notice of termination was procedurally defective in that she was not given the requisite 60 days' prior notice of discontinuance, as required by Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), that defect does not invalidate the discontinuance or render the statute of limitations inapplicable; at best, it would have entitled petitioner to additional back pay, had she served a notice of claim and sought money damages (see Matter of Pascal v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 100 AD2d 622, 624 [1984]).

Nor does petitioner have a valid claim for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. Such a claim requires an allegation that the proponent was deprived of a property or liberty interest without due process of law (see Ciambriello v County of Nassau, 292 F3d 307, 313 [2d Cir 2002]). A probationary teacher does not have a property right in his or her position (see Pinder v City of New York, 49 AD3d 280 [2008]; Donato v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., 96 F3d 623, 629-630 [2d Cir 1996], cert denied 519 US 1150 [1997]). The process provided for in the collective bargaining agreement did not create such an interest (see Sealed v Sealed, 332 F3d 51, 56 [2d Cir 2003]). Moreover, petitioner was not deprived of a liberty interest by the "stigma" arising from allegations of poor work performance. To establish such a "stigma plus" claim, a petitioner must prove "some action by the [agency] imposing a tangible and material burden, and . . . [the] utterance of a false statement that damaged his reputation in connection with the burdensome action" (O'Connor v Pierson, 426 F3d 187, 195 [2d Cir 2005]). While Salzberg's accusations against petitioner may "go to the heart of [petitioner's] professional competence and damage her professional reputation to such an extent as to severely impede her ability to continue in the education field in a supervisory capacity" (Donato, 96 F3d at 633), [*3]petitioner's "stigma plus" claim is defeated by the availability of a post-termination administrative hearing (see Segal v City of New York, 459 F3d 207 [2d Cir 2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ

New York State Supreme Court Judge Paul Fineman Dismisses Steglich v Board of Education

Judge Fineman wants Plaintiffs to go to the NYS Commissioner first:
"It should be emphasized that this dismissal does not constitute any factual finding by this court as to the propriety of the planned co-location; rather, the action is dismissed because procedurally, the court finds that in light of Mulgrew v Board of Education (___AD3d___, 2011 NY Slip Op 06088 [1st Dept 2011]), the State Education Department Commissioner should be permitted to exercise his concurrent jurisdiction in the first instance. Upon a final determination by the Commissioner, any aggrieved party may, of course, exercise any right to judicial review it may have by statute."



Betsy Combier

Steglich v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N .Y.


2011 NY Slip Op 21282

Decided on August 12, 2011
Supreme Court, New York County
Feinman, J.

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

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
Lisa Steglich, individually and as parent and natural guardian of ALEXANDER HERLIHY, infant, RIC CHERWIN, individually and as parent and natural guardian of MARLEY CHERWIN, infant, CAROL BARKER, individually and as parent and natural guardian of OMAR BROWN, infant, GINA DEMETRIUS, individually and as parent and natural guardian of SEBASTIAN DEMETRIUS, KIMBERLY JARNOT, individually and as parent and natural guardian of MARGARET THOMAS, infant, NYDIA JORDAN, individually and as parent and natural guardian to HARRY D. JORDAN, infant, KAVERY KAUL, individually and as parent and natural guardian of ASHOK KAUL, infant, RUBIN and GERALDINE LOPEZ, individually ans as parents and natural guardians of SHANE LOPEZ, infant, MADELINE OLMEDA, individually and as parent and natural guardian of CRISTINA JULIA CRUZ, infant, LAZARA QUINONES, individually and as parent and natural guardian of DORIS ALCANTARA, infant, and MARILYNN SARJEANT, individually and as parent and natural guardian of ALIYA CLUNIE, infant, Plaintiffs,

against

The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York a/k/a THE PANEL FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and DENNIS M. WALCOTT, as Chancellor-Designate of theCity School District of the City of New York, Defendants. UPPER WEST SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL a/k/a SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, MATTHEW MOREY, individually and as parent and natural guardian of THOMAS MOREY and CLAIRE MOREY, MARTIN AARES, individually and as parent and natural guardian of in- fant SABINE BALOU-AARES, GABRIEL BAEZ, individually and asparent and natural guardian of in- fant of CHRISTOPHER BAEZ, LISBETH DELOSSANTOS, individually and as parent and natural guardian of infant MIYAH MUZO, ELANA KILKENNY, individually and as parent and natural guardian of infant LIAM KILKENNY, ELISSA KLEIN, individually and as parent and natural guardian of infant AVA KLEIN, REBECCA KUHAR, individually and as parent and natural guardian of infant ROBERT MAXWELL KUHAR, LATISHA SINGLETARY, individually and as parent and natural guardian of in- fant RANIYA GARRETT-WELLS, MICHAEL SUCHANEK, individually and as parent and natural guardian of infants SALLY SUCHANEK and AMELIA SUCHANEK, and DAVID TURNOFF, individually and as parent and natural guardian of in- fant HUNTER KIM-TURNOFF, Intervenor-Defendants.

 107173/11

Plaintiffs
Phillips Nizer LLP
By: Jon Schuyler Brooks, Esq.
Marc Andrew Landis, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Adinolfi, Esq.
Paul A. Victor, Esq.
Chryssa V. Valletta, Esq.
666 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10103
(212) 977-9700

Defendants
Michael A. Cardozo, Esq.
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
By: Chlarens Orsland, Esq.
Emily Sweet, Esq.
100 Church Street
New York NY 10007
(212) 788-0904, 1171
Intervenor-Defendants
Arnold & Porter LLP
By: Stewart D. Aaron, Esq.
Emily A. Kim, Esq.
Mary Sylvester, Esq.
399 Park Avenue
New York NY 10022
(212) 715-1000

Paul G. Feinman, J.
Papers considered on plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment: PapersE-Filing Document No.
Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [FN1]84, 94 (Ret. for correction)
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion85
Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Facts86
Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Facts90
Rouhanifard Aff. in Opposition91
Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition92
Defendants' Verified Answer & Rouhanifard Aff.97, 97-1
Intervenor-Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontested Facts93
Kim Aff. in Opposition93-1 through 93-16
Intervenor-Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition93-17, 95
Intervenor-Defendants' Verified Answer96
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion98
Appendix to Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum99

Plaintiffs in this action are concerned parents of school-age children who attend one of the public schools currently located at the Brandeis Educational Campus (Brandeis Campus). Defendants are the Chancellor of the New York City public school system as well as the executive branch agency charged with overseeing educational policy for the City of New York. Intervenor-defendant Success Academy Charter School (Success Academy) is a charter school which is intended to serve kindergarten and elementary school children. In this lawsuit, plaintiffs seek, among other things, to prevent the co-location of Success Academy at the Brandeis Campus during the 2011-2012 school year. Brandeis Campus currently houses five public high schools.[FN2] The court previously denied plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order and motion [*2]for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs now seek partial summary judgment. Upon a search of the record, the court denies plaintiffs' motion and dismisses the action in its entirety.

I. Background and Arguments

The first attempt to halt this proposed co-location was made in response to a vote of the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) made on February 2, 2011 (February PEP vote), approving the co-location. On April 8, 2011, plaintiffs brought an Article 78 proceeding against defendants challenging the co-location, entitled Steglich v Board of Education, Index No. 104300/11 (Steglich 1). Defendants opposed the challenge.

On June 1, 2011, defendants abandoned the original PEP vote, and provided, in the same month, a new notice of the proposed co-location, with a revised Educational Impact Statement (EIS), and revised Building Utilization Proposal (BUP). On June 27, 2011, after public hearings were duly held on the revised proposal, PEP again voted to approve the co-location (June PEP vote).

Following these revisions, and before the June PEP vote, plaintiffs commenced the present action. On June 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, seeking to have the June PEP vote declared a nullity.[FN3]

Plaintiffs argue that (1) the Department of Education (DOE) lacked the authority to revise the EIS and BUP after the February PEP vote, in that the February PEP vote was a final determination of the issue on the administrative level; (2) the revised EIS and BUP are improper, because, under the Education Law (EL), they are untimely, having been brought less than six months before the start of the school year; (3) the revised EIS impermissibly includes a school not mentioned or addressed in the original EIS; and (4) defendants did not comply with EL notice requirements prior to the June PEP vote, by providing a notice of hearing in English only, and then, purportedly in an untimely manner, published the notice in Spanish. On this motion, plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment voiding the June PEP vote.

In response, defendants, and intervenor-defendants (all parents of school-age children who are slated to attend Success Academy, and who, as a result, support the co-location), argue that the Success Academy would be placed in an under-utilized space within Brandeis, and so cause no harm to the existing schools. For example, some of the rooms allocated to Success Academy are currently being used to store file cabinets and extra furniture. They maintain that this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' action and the present motion, because (1) the Commissioner of the State Education Department (SED) has exclusive, original jurisdiction over the issue; (2) plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, in that they did not refer their grievance with the PEP vote to the Commissioner, in derogation of the EL; or (3) that the court should defer to the Commissioner as a matter of primary jurisdiction.

On the merits, defendants argue that (1) they had the right to revise the EIS and BUP after the February PEP vote; (2) the revised EIS and BUP were timely brought; (3) the revised EIS did not include a new school, as the Young Adult Borough Center (YABC) is a "program" not a "school"; and (4) defendants complied with all statutory notice requirements, in that the notice of hearing concerning the revised EIS and BUP was timely, despite the fact that a Spanish version appeared later than the original notice. [*3]

II. Discussion

In a recent decision of this court (Mulgrew v Board of Education, ___Misc 3d___, 2011 NY Slip Op 21252 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]) (Mulgrew), this court found that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the Commissioner to address the validity of a PEP vote, despite language in EL §§ 2853 (3) (a-5) and 310, citing that a dispute under these sections "may" be directed to the Commissioner.

In a totally different lawsuit between the same parties, concerning class size, Mulgrew v Board of Education (___AD3d___, 2011 NY Slip Op 06088 [1st Dept 2011]) [Mulgrew 2), the Appellate Division, First Department, very recently released a decision which makes findings and reaches conclusions which necessarily require this court to reconsider its earlier interpretation of the EL provisions concerning the SED Commissioner's jurisdiction. This court's earlier analysis was conducted without benefit of controlling or persuasive appellate authority interpreting the relevant EL provisions.

In Mulgrew 2, the Appellate Division found that an action brought to decide a dispute involving Education Law § 211-d should have been brought before the Commissioner before it was brought before the court. The language of the statute was extremely specific as to this point, and so, the Court's determination is not surprising.

EL § 211-d, denominated the Contract for Excellence, is concerned with the allocation of funds to the goal of reducing class sizes in New York City. Reduction of class size was to be accomplished "through creation or construction of more classrooms and school buildings, placement of more than one teacher per classroom, or by other means (Education Law § 211-d [2] [b] [ii])." Mulgrew 2, 2011 NY Slip Op 06088, at *2. The statute provides that "the sole and exclusive remedy' for violation of this paragraph would be a petition to the State Education Department Commissioner, whose decision would be final and unreviewable.'" Id., citing EL § 211-d (2) (b) (ii).

Inasmuch as this is not the section of the EL at issue in the present case, were this all the Appellate Division had held, this court would have no more guidance as to how to proceed in this action than it did previously. However, the Court went on to determine that the plaintiffs in the Mulgrew 2 class size case had also failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in approaching the court in the first instance, even if EL § 211-d (2) (b) (ii) did not apply, because under EL § 310 (7), a statute which lists the issues which "may" be brought to the attention of the Commissioner, the matter was particularly within the expertise of the Commissioner. The Court reflected that EL § 310 (7) "does not provide for exclusive or original jurisdiction," but that, it would be "consistent with the statute's scheme to require those petitioner-organizations whose complaints do not fall under section 211-d (7) to exhaust their remedies under Education Law § 310 (7) before proceeding to court." Id. at *6.

The Court reasoned that:

the issue raised by petitioners is whether the Board of Education improperly utilized funds allocated for the particular purpose of reducing class size to make up for reductions from its other funding sources. Determination of this point falls squarely within the purview of the State Education Department, as it will require review and comparison of budgets, expenditures and funding allocations.

*4]Id.
In the present action, the court is faced with issues regarding how the Department of Education allocates its resources for the purpose of placing new schools within already existing schools, with emphasis on fairness of the allocations. Although, as this court previously found, and the Appellate Division clarifies, there is indeed concurrent jurisdiction over these issues, the determination in Mulgrew 2 appears to show a decided reluctance on the part of the higher Court to take on disputes of this nature. In other words, the Appellate Division's decision makes clear that, in the first instance, disputes of this nature should be heard by the executive branch agency with the relevant expertise, here the State Education Department Commissioner. In short, it appears that the issues raised by the co-location of Success Academy in the Brandeis Campus should be heard in the first instance by the Commissioner, and not by the court. If aggrieved by the Commissioner's final determination, the parties have appropriate remedies at that juncture to seek judicial review of his actions.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs' motion must be denied, and upon a search of the record pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), intervenor-defendants' informal request for summary judgment granted, and the action dismissed. It should be emphasized that this dismissal does not constitute any factual finding by this court as to the propriety of the planned co-location; rather, the action is dismissed because procedurally, the court finds that in light of Mulgrew v Board of Education (___AD3d___, 2011 NY Slip Op 06088 [1st Dept 2011]), the State Education Department Commissioner should be permitted to exercise his concurrent jurisdiction in the first instance. Upon a final determination by the Commissioner, any aggrieved party may, of course, exercise any right to judicial review it may have by statute.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motion Support Office and the Clerk of Court are directed to accept the Notice of Motion e-filed as Document No. 84 as properly filed and to assign this motion an appropriate motion sequence number forthwith and to then file this decision and order as resolving said motion; and it is further

ORDERED that the motion for partial summary judgment brought by plaintiffs is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted to defendants and intervenor-defendants; and it is further

ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to be accorded to defendants and intervenor-defendants as taxed by the Clerk of the Court, upon presentation of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Dated: August 12, 2011_______________________________________

J.S.C.
Footnotes

Footnote 1: Apparently the Motion Support Office has rejected the Notice of Motion. Because of time exigencies, and because all parties were desirous of a prompt resolution of the issues raised, the court agreed to hear oral argument on the motion on the papers filed before it left on vacation on July 21, 2011 notwithstanding the Motion Support Office's rejection of the Notice of Motion and the lack of a motion sequence number being assigned. Because all parties were fully heard on the motion and the court has had an opportunity to review all the enumerated papers, the Clerk of Court is directed to accept the Notice of Motion e-filed as Document No. 84 and to assign this motion an appropriate sequence number forthwith and accept this decision and order as resolving said motion.

Footnote 2:There is a dispute as to whether the Young Adult Borough Center, which is housed at Brandeis, is a "school" or a "program," as discussed infra.

Footnote 3:All parties agree that Steglich 1 has been abandoned as moot.

Sanctioning Misconduct

See below for this quote: "...the ratio of transgressions to punishment is inexplicably lopsided when it comes to rule-breaking by officialdom. Courts that find “prosecutorial misconduct impropriety” rarely, if ever, impose punishment."

If what I'm saying, as well as all the other blogs and websites out there, that the finding of guilt is often based upon false or at least undefined misconduct at 3020-a and in the Courts, then what we are dealing with is the Sanctioning of Misconduct.

Betsy Combier




Sanctioning misconduct
The Public Defender
LINK


In a system that is built on accountability, the punishment for violations of accepted standards is notoriously one-sided. Defendants, almost exclusively, are the ones penalized for failing to conform their behavior to the standardized and socially accepted norms. With good reason, obviously. But the criminal justice system isn’t a one-team sport: there are also judges and prosecutors. And all participants in this game are guilty of misconduct, albeit less frequently. Yet the ratio of transgressions to punishment is inexplicably lopsided when it comes to rule-breaking by officialdom. Courts that find “prosecutorial misconduct impropriety” rarely, if ever, impose punishment.

I wrote almost a month ago about the CT Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision in State v. Patrick Lenarz, in whose case the prosecutor received, read and utilized at trial confidential documents from the defendant to his attorney. The Lenarz case is remarkable not only for the strong language in the decision, but the fact that the Court was so troubled by the actions of the prosecutor that it ordered Lenarz released back in November, after oral argument. In fact, the Court found that the violation by the prosecutor was so egregious that it ordered that the prosecution be dismissed.

But still, this is a prosecutor we’re talking about. The Court doesn’t bother to name the offending prosecutor in its decision, but if you know how to read CT appellate opinions, you know that the last prosecutor listed in the “credits” is usually the prosecutor who handled the matter at the trial court. It is a rather tiresome feature of our appellate courts that they will not hesitate to name defense counsel when evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, but when it comes to conduct by a prosecutor that is “extremely troubling”, they still cannot bring themselves to put the name down in print, even though the significance of the prosecuting arm of the state using illegal and unethical measures to secure convictions against the citizenry is something far more egregious and dangerous.

But I digress.

As if this coddling and protection of prosecutors wasn’t infuriating enough, the laissez faire attitude toward such impropriety gets even worse with the complete failure of any entity to impose sanctions on that prosecutor. It is a common refrain heard around the criminal justice system that prosecutors are rarely – if ever – held accountable for their “extremely troubling” acts of misconduct. I mean, c’mon, if a court isn’t even going to name them, then do you think there’s ever be any sanctions imposed?

That’s the subject of a powerful article in the CT Law Tribune by former Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois, who comments on Lenarz and the failure of courts to correct this misbehavior:

One part of the decision troubled me though. In Lenarz, the majority noted that it was “extremely troubled” by the conduct of the state’s attorney because the communications were clearly of an attorney/client nature, even being noted that at the top of some of the pages. Yet despite being troubled, the court imposed no discipline on the prosecutor.

Professor (I took one of his classes once, so he’ll always be “Professor” to me) Dubois then points out something that I was unaware of, that’s rather surprising:

Practice Book 2-32(a)(2)(F) allows the Grievance Committee to screen out and dismiss any case where the alleged conduct occurred in a court, “and the court has been made aware of the allegations of misconduct and has rendered a decision finding misconduct” or has either determined that no misconduct has occurred or has declined to refer the matter to the Grievance Committee. Yes, “or” can be used conjunctively—“would you like cream or sugar in your coffee?” — but the common use of the word is as a disjunctive. The use of “or” instead of “and” in the rule seems to suggest a presumption that if a court finds misconduct, it will impose discipline. The Grievance Committee, being only an “arm of the court,” cannot act where a court has already taken jurisdiction and found misconduct, even if no discipline is imposed.

Here’s the relevant Practice Book section:

(a) Any person, including disciplinary counsel, or a grievance panel on its own motion, may file a written complaint, executed under penalties of false statement, alleging attorney misconduct whether or not such alleged misconduct occurred in the actual presence of the court. Complaints against attorneys shall be filed with the statewide bar counsel. Within seven days of the receipt of a complaint the statewide bar counsel shall review the complaint and process it in accordance with subdivisions (1), (2) or (3) of this subsection as follows:

(2) refer the complaint to the chair of the statewide grievance committee or an attorney designee of the chair and to a nonattorney member of the committee, and the statewide bar counsel in conjunction with the chair or attorney designee and the nonattorney member, shall if deemed appropriate, dismiss the complaint on one or more of the following grounds:

(F) the complaint alleges misconduct occurring in a superior court, appellate court or supreme court action and the court has been made aware of the allegations of misconduct and has rendered a decision finding misconduct or finding that either no misconduct has occurred or that the allegations should not be referred to the statewide grievance committee;

Prof. Dubois interprets that to mean that once a court has found misconduct and imposed no sanction, the Grievance Committee must not take further action against the prosecutor. But I don’t see where in the rule it says that the Committee cannot proceed with disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutor based on the record created by the appellate decision. I’m assuming the professor knows more than I do in this area, so I invite him to correct my mistake.

Even if that is the case, it certainly does not divest the court of its authority to refer the matter to the Grievance Committee for disciplinary proceedings. And we all know that never happens:

A quick Westlaw search reveals many cases where courts have found misconduct by prosecutors, ranging from Brady violations to evidence destruction to calling defendants “fiends” and “rats.” While some of the misconduct has been sufficient to warrant new trials or dismissals, none if it that I can think of has resulted in discipline of the lawyers involved. Perhaps the appellate courts think that the Grievance Committee will clean up that loose end. But it never happens. And as prosecutors are immunized from civil liability, the conduct goes unpunished.

This indifference approach to ethical violations in the most grievous of settings is another symptom of a system that places finality above all else, that condones the erosion of individual rights and liberties in favor of a more authoritarian society. With the legislature unable to act, it will be up to the Courts – well populated with former prosecutors – to bring accountability in an impartial way. If the Chief Justice is indeed serious about restoring faith and integrity in our justice system, she might want to go further than characterizing the conduct as “extremely troubl[ing]” and actually hold those people who undermine that same integrity responsible.

Don’t hold your breath.

Washington D.C.'s Mr. Teachbad: Why I Believe I was Really Fired

Posted at 04:00 AM ET, 07/29/2011

D.C. teacher: Why I believe I was really fired

LINK

By Valerie Strauss

Peter Gwynn, a D.C. public school teacher who was one of 206 teachers fired this month under the IMPACT evaluation system, writes here about why he believes he was really let go. The fired teachers, my colleague Bill Turque reported, amount to 5 percent of the 4,100 teachers in the system. IMPACT was first implemented under the chancellorship of Michelle Rhee, who quit last October and was succeeded by her deputy, Kaya Henderson. IMPACT has been criticized on a range of issues, with critics calling it arbitrary and punitive and primarily a way to fire veteran teachers. D.C. schools officials reject the criticism.

By Peter Gwynn

Ambiguity can be a friend or an enemy. If you are a D.C. Public Schools teacher, it might just depend on who gets to measure the difference between words like sometimes and frequently.

I was one of the 200-plus DCPS teachers fired last week due to poor evaluations. I believe, though I cannot prove, that I was fired from DCPS, the Columbia Heights Education Campus (CHEC) in particular, because of the opinions and ideas expressed in my blog. Given the facts, this is simply what makes the most sense to me. But the more important point is that the system’s teacher evaluation system, IMPACT,is riddled with ambiguity and imprecise language such that administrators could easily manipulate teacher scores to punish or reward as suits their ends.

For most teachers, IMPACT is composed primarily of five, half-hour observations throughout the year. Three observations come from school-based administrators; two from a District master educator.

In each observation the evaluator uses a rubric to judge the teacher in nine separate performance categories. In each category, the teacher is scored a 1, 2, 3 or 4. These are averaged to produce an observation score of 1-4. The five separate observations are then averaged to produce an overall yearly score of 1-4.

The magic number is 2.5. If you score at or above this mark, you areeffective or highly effective and your job is safe. Scoring below 2.5 defines you as ineffective or minimally effective and your job is lost or in jeopardy. I scored below 2.5 for two consecutive years and was fired.

I believe that my administrators wanted to get rid of me and that I was punished for my writing. In the blog I never reference people or places by name — and my name is not on it — though I do recount events from my school truthfully and in detail. It is satirical, vulgar, bombastic, and critical. If I worked for myself, I would want to fire me. Many people have expressed disapproval of the blog. That is their right, as it is my right to write it.

I believe I was targeted by the administration because that is where the evidence points.

Over two years of IMPACT, my master educator scores averaged 2.75, comfortably effective (your job is job safe). Over the same two years, my in-house evaluations averaged 2.06, comfortably minimally effective(your job is in danger). The difference is 0.69; fairly large on a scale that runs only from 1 to 4.

But the timeline is what draws my attention most. My first school-basedIMPACT observation was in November 2009. I was scored effective. I started the blog one month later in December. By the end of January 2010, I had been informed that the administration was aware of my blog and reading it. This was confirmed by another source shortly after. Strategically, I suspect, the administration has never asked or confronted me about the blog.

Henceforth, my school-based evaluators scored me, without exception,minimally effective or ineffective. Meanwhile, the master educators continued to score me effective. One master educator this year noted how much I had improved since last year.

So, how could this happen?

Ambiguity in the language of IMPACT invites the capricious, perhaps subconscious, punishment or reward of teachers by administrators. Though it is cloaked in the false precision of a rubric, it is infinitely subtle and subject to manipulation. For example, in a single half-hour observation, while simultaneously monitoring and scoring eight other performance measures, an evaluator is expected to be sure if a lesson is:

Accessible and challenging to all students (score 4)

Accessible and challenging to almost all students (score 3)

Accessible and challenging to most students (score 2); or

Not accessible and not challenging to most students (score 1).

Most teachers live in the 2-3 range. If I was an administrator and I wanted to get rid of somebody, I would shade to the 2. Nobody could stop me. Nobody else was there to witness what happened. Nobody is able to check if I am consistent between teachers. It is up to me to decide what almost all means and how I will measure it in that half hour.

IMPACT is littered with language like this; subjective and inviting manipulation.

I don’t know for certain that I was targeted and that the ambiguity of IMPACT was used to illegally punish my speech. But the language of IMPACT, my IMPACT data, and the CHEC administration’s well-earned reputation for tolerating no dissent give me specific cause to suspect it.

If IMPACT is to be taken seriously in the future, this should be fixed.-0-

Follow The Answer Sheet every day by bookmarkinghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet. And for admissions advice, college news and links to campus papers, please check out ourHigher Education page. Bookmark it!

More than 200 D.C. teachers fired

By Bill Turque

LINK

UPDATE 4:05 p.m. This item has been updated to reflect a new count of the total number of teachers fired for poor ratings--206, not 227. Also, the tally of teachers fired in 2010 for poor ratings is now given as 75, not 126.

The District fired 206 teachers for poor performance Friday, the second year in a row it has dismissed significant numbers of educators for sub-par work in the classroom.

Those fired amount to 5 percent of the 4,100 teachers in the city school system.

They were dismissed for poor scores on the evaluation system known as IMPACT, which grades teachers on five 30-minute classroom observations and their compliance with nine broad standards. These include ability to express course content clearly, teach students with differing skill levels and manage time effectively. For some teachers, half of their appraisal is contingent on whether students meet predicted growth targets on standardized tests.

The evaluation system, one of the nation’s most rigorous and closely watched, is a legacy of Michelle A. Rhee’s tenure as city schools chancellor. Rhee, who resigned in October, was succeeded by her deputy, Kaya Henderson.

Of the 206 fired, officials said 65 were rated ineffective this year and 141 were judged minimally effective for the second consecutive year. Others were let go for licensure problems or other issues.

Four teachers who were rated minimally effective two years in a row received waivers from Henderson, enabling them to continue to teach in the city, based on the recommendation of principals who said they still had potential for improvement.

Another 663 teachers (16 percent) were rated highly effective, making them eligible for performance bonuses of up to $25,000. The vast majority were rated effective.

Last year, IMPACT’s first in operation, 75 teachers were let go for poor scores.

“Great teachers are critical to our success,” Henderson said in a statement. “We are delighted to be able to shine a spotlight on our top performers. We also remain committed to moving out our lowest performers in an effort to ensure that every child has access to an outstanding education.”

Large-scale dismissals of teachers for job performance is still a rarity in big city schools, experts say. Collective bargaining agreements and often-cumbersome appeals processes, combined with a reluctance on the part of officials to confront politically potent unions, have limited firings.

“The only people who typically lose their jobs in districts are people who are guilty of a crime,” said Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, an organization that studies and promotes methods to improve instruction in schools. “It’s rare that there are any significant numbers of teachers who lose their jobs because they are not good at teaching their subjects.”

D.C. public schools and other school systems have had annual evaluation systems for many years. But they have typically been pro forma affairs, with the overwhelming majority of educators receiving satisfactory ratings.

Rhee, citing research that showed teacher quality is the largest in-school factor driving academic growth, revamped evaluations. Her effort was buoyed by an unusual feature of District law, which unlike many other cities, exempts evaluation systems from collective bargaining. That meant Rhee enjoyed broad latitude in designing IMPACT.

Union leaders and many teachers have assailed the system as arbitrary and punitive. They call it a vehicle for Rhee, and now Henderson, to push older veterans out of the system. They assert that IMPACT does little to help develop them professionally and makes little allowance for school or classroom conditions that hinder instruction and lead to lower evaluation ratings. Union leaders are fighting IMPACT in the courtroom and in discussions with Henderson and members of the D.C. Council.

In the 2009-10 school year, when IMPACT debuted, almost 70 percent of teachers (2,892) scored in the “effective” range. About 16 percent (663) were rated “highly effective,” making them eligible for performance bonuses of up to $25,000. Less than 2 percent (72) were deemed “ineffective” and dismissed. Another 13 percent (568) were found to be ”minimally effective.” Of those, a small number had their jobs eliminated last year for budget or enrollment reasons. The rest are subject to termination this month if they receive the same rating.

New York City Department/Board of Education: Administrators Needed

Are you a "network innovation manager"? Do you have experience managing/staffing an office for "central innovation"? If so, then run over to the nearest CFN (Children's First Network) and give out your resume with these important buzz words in there somewhere. Maybe you got a college degree in cup-cake creation. That definitely could go under "innovation manager" - every cupcake is unique, right? The frosting is swirled left on one, right on another, etc., etc. Just leave out the part about the cupcake.

Betsy Combier

Educrats win Race to the Top

By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter, Last Updated: 10:09 AM, August 8, 2011
LINK

The city's plan for more than $255 million in federal Race to the Top funds has something for everyone -- especially educrats, data analysts and consultants, a Post review has found.

The 32-page document calls for creating dozens of positions for midlevel managers at a tab of $28 million -- including $5 million to hire "network innovation managers" and "central innovation staff" to create personalized learning programs at just 25 schools.

Another $3.3 million will go toward hiring such experts as operations analysts, to oversee "talent management," which essentially means supporting the staffers who support the schools.

Nearly $6 million in funding is also earmarked for hiring external consultants to analyze, strategize and design several of the new initiatives.

"I see a lot of money going to figuring out how to measure things . . . I don't see anything in here that's for kids," United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew said.

The money is part of New York's $696 million share of the $4 billion pot of last year's Race to the Top funds.

City Department of Education officials said federal guidelines dictate that the money be spent in just four categories: standards and assessments, data systems that support instruction, great teachers and principals and turning around low-performing schools.

The guidelines also require 25 percent of the district's funds to be spent on new teacher- and principal-evaluation systems.

Of the $47 million the city has earmarked for developing new assessments and online tests, $32.2 million is needed for tests that are aligned with a new Core Curriculum the state is adopting. The UFT’s parent union has even sued the state to ensure that districts have tests other than the current annual state tests for evaluating teachers.

DOE officials said the goal of Race to the Top wasn’t to introduce a program here or a program there, but to make deeper changes that reform teaching and learning across the board.

Since much of that effort involves training teachers and principals on using new systems or initiatives, as much as $78 million will go toward bulking up staff at networks that directly support schools – including $22.8 million dedicated to special education instruction and data analysis work.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com


Making grade

By CHUCK BENNETT,  NYPOST, July 16, 2011
LINK

Nothing like a $65 million federal grant to get the city Department of Education and teachers union to come together to fix struggling schools.

The two sides announced a deal yesterday to institute wide-ranging reforms on how teachers are evaluated and compensated at 33 low-performing high and intermediate schools to meet the terms of the grant.

Under the agreement, teachers at the 33 schools -- all considered "lowest achieving" -- will use a new state-approved system that rates teachers by four categories: highly effective; effective; developing; and ineffective.

Currently, teachers are ranked only satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Teachers with two years of ineffective ratings could be removed.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew praised the deal, but noted that the new ratings won't spread to other schools.

"Does this mean because of the agreement we are moving towards schoolwide agreement? No, it does not mean that," Mulgrew told The Post.

Sources told The Post that state education officials pressured both sides to reach an agreement to avoid losing the grant.

Yesterday's deal involves other major changes. as well.

The schools will have four models or plans of improvement to follow.

Under those plans, principals of the failing schools will generally be replaced while skilled teachers who take on more responsibility in the schools will get paid more.

"With this agreement, we will be able to bring millions of dollars in federal funding to these struggling schools," Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said.

For instance, "master teachers" are eligible for a 30 percent bump in pay if they mentor other teachers and work an additional 100 hours a year. And nonprofits will consult with schools to boost student achievement.

Granted Under the deal:

* City gets $65 million federal grant to fix 33 low-performing schools.
* Pays for higher teacher salaries, nonprofit consultants.
* Union agrees to a more rigorous teacher-evaluation system.
* Principals can be replaced with new leadership.

Haunting Words to Inspire Every Teacher

By Marilyn Rhames on August 2, 2011 10:48 AM

LINK

Back in the days when I had no idea of what was actually required to be a good teacher, back when I was in grad school studying education theory and making foolish assumptions about how to manage students, I walked in on a conversation in a teacher's lounge that would change my life.

I had recently fled—yes I said fled—an elementary school on the West Side of Chicago. My year of student teaching had begun with the principal telling her staff that she hired us because we were physically attractive and that she loved the "green stuff" (gesturing money with her fingertips) and thus would have no problem firing any of us to save her job. She frequently used the P.A. system to spread her tyranny. Once she announced basketball try-outs and bluntly added that students who weren't skilled at the game should not show up. "I like to win," she said.

I shared a class with a mentor teacher who passed out worksheets all day and once responded to an insult from a student by saying, "You're talking about yo' mama." Some days I felt more like a bouncer than a resident teacher because I had to break up fights in the hallways and shout at the top of my lungs to get students' attention in class. I knew that if I were to gain any positive teaching tools, I'd have to go to another school. So after six months, I fled. The split was so messy that I didn't get a chance to say good-bye to my students. I ended up finishing my training at a progressive public school on a different side of the city.

That's when I stumbled in on that life-changing conversation in the teacher's lounge. The chatter was animated. A few teachers were reminiscing about their classroom horror stories at other schools: John dashed out of the classroom ... Sarah threatened to jump out the window, again ... Angel knocked over bookshelves in a fit of rage .... And in my desire to fit in and one-up the last tale, I began to share about the unbelievable dysfunction at my old school. Even though I hadn't yet earned my teaching certificate, I felt like I had earned some stripes. I was persevering to educate the youth despite the insanity within the urban public school system. I was the heroine of the story, fearless and unafraid.

"It happened to them," were the four words that shut me and the other teachers up. "It happened to them, not to you. You tell the stories like it's some kind of entertainment, but it happened to them—the kids. They are the ones who 30 years from now will remember these stories with tears in their eyes."

It was the middle school social studies teacher. He was a demur white man in his late 30s who often wore cardigans like Mr. Rogers. Until then he had kept silent, even as each story gave rise to a higher level of ridiculousness. He went on to explain that he, too, used to complain and feel like the victim until another teacher rebuked him with those words. He felt compelled to pass that wisdom on.

It happened to them: This truth has haunted me for the past eight years I've been teaching. I am only glad that I got set straight early in my teaching career. Some teachers never seem to get it. You know this when their debates about education reform are centered around teacher rights, and not student rights. Teachers' needs are important—I have a mortgage; I have a family; I would like to retire one day—but they are not the core issue. The mission is bigger than us. Educators and policymakers must boil the chatter down to two essential questions: To what degree will this policy enhance student learning and how will we know?

My children attend the school where I teach so I am all the more aware that "it"—whatever "it" is in a school, good or bad—is happening to them. I have to continually raise my expectations for myself, as a practitioner and as a parent. I must think deeply about what I believe, and then advocate for it. I can no longer rely on the teachers' union (if I were still in one) to represent my views and values about education. I must be like that social studies teacher who took a risk and spoke up for what was right. That is the only way anyone has ever changed the world. And that's why I am "Charting My Own Course."

New Agreement Leads To New Titles "Master" and "Turnaround" Teachers

Ok, maybe its me, but I'm constantly looking at new "agreements" made between the UFT and DOE as reason for concern, as far as individual teacher welfare is concerned,

I'd like very much to hear from any teachers who fall under this agreement as to whether or not the terms are complied with.

Thanks!

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

UFT, DOE reach agreement on 33 struggling schools

by Micah Landau | published August 4, 2011

LINK

After intense negotiations, the UFT and the city’s Department of Education reached a groundbreaking agreement on July 15 that will spare 33 city schools on the state’s “persistently lowest achieving” list from possible closure while securing additional state funding to provide resources to help them improve. [Read the agreement here [1].]

Under the agreement, which President Michael Mulgrew described to the schools’ chapter leaders in an email that day, the schools will implement either the “restart” or “transformation” models for school improvement at the start of the new school year in September. Those two models are the least punitive of the four federally approved school intervention models, which also include “turnaround” and “closure.”

The agreement means that none of these 33 schools will face immediate closure and that the staff in each school will stay intact, Mulgrew explained to the chapter leaders, noting that under the harsher “turnaround” model 50 percent of the schools’ staffs would have been excessed. The union contract remains in effect.

It also means that educators in these schools may have a meaningful chance to help students that have been simply left behind by the DOE’s policy of closing schools in recent years. “This agreement helps lay the groundwork,” said Mulgrew in a joint press release with the DOE. “Now we have to focus on providing the resources these struggling schools need to make a real difference in the lives of their students.”

Negotiations with the DOE on the transformation model broke down earlier this spring when the DOE refused to require that a principal meet with a teacher who requests a meeting after a negative evaluation on an informal observation (even though they admitted that this is a best practice). In the end, the best practice was implemented and the DOE has written to principals telling them that such a meeting is required.

The DOE will receive up to $2 million per year per school over the next three years — or as much as $65 million annually — in federal School Improvement Grants, a U.S. Department of Education program that provides funding to help transform struggling schools nationwide, to support the schools.

Each of the 33 schools will participate in a teacher evaluation system that is aligned with the state’s new teacher evaluation law and is based on a four-category rating system of highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective, instead of the current system that simply gives teachers a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The new evaluation system will go into effect for all teachers once local negotiations have concluded.

The 33 schools will have the opportunity to hire “master” or “turnaround” teachers, depending on the schools’ individual funding situations and the choices of their principals. Master teachers earn 30 percent above their base salary and are expected to serve as mentors for other teachers in their schools, working an additional 100 hours per year. Turnaround teachers earn an additional 15 percent and must open their classrooms to other teachers to learn best practices, working an additional 30 hours per year. To remain eligible for either position, teachers must maintain a rating of “highly effective.”

The UFT has long advocated for a career ladder for teachers, and these two positions are a start in the direction of creating a true career ladder, Mulgrew noted.

Restart

• Bread & Roses Integrated Arts HS
• Automotive HS
• Bronx HS of Business
• JHS 80 Mosholu Parkway
• IS 136 Charles O. Dewey
• JHS 166 George Gershwin
• John Dewey HS
• Sheepshead Bay HS
• Newtown HS
• Grover Cleveland HS
• August Martin HS
• Richmond Hill HS
• John Adams HS
• Bushwick Comm HS

Transformation

• Unity Center for Urban Technologies
• Chelsea Career and Technical Education HS
• School for Global Studies
• Cobble Hill School of American Studies
• Franklin D. Roosevelt HS
• William E. Grady Vocational HS
• Queens Vocational and Technical HS
• Flushing HS
• Long Island City HS
• Washington Irving HS
• Herbert H. Lehman HS
• JHS 22 Jordan L. Mott
• MS 391
• Grace H. Dodge Career and Technical HS
• John Ericsson Middle School 126
• Boys and Girls HS
• William Cullen Bryant HS

Still to be decided

• Banana Kelly HS
• IS 339

Paul Karrer: Obama, NEA Hosed Teachers

The National Education Association's warm corpse has gone rigid. Any hint of a pulse has dissipated with its needless and early endorsement of President Barack Obama. If ever there was a time to negotiate against No Child Left Behind or Race To The Top, this would have been it, more than a year before the presidential election.

The NEA has given its 3.2million members a knee to the groin and has shown that its feeble leadership is too wimpy to negotiate for what is right for kids what is good for public education.

Rarely has a teachers' union endorsed a candidate so early. A candidate who in words and expression seems to do so much for teachers, but who in reality has done actual harm to public education.

Obama undermined public education with his own destructive Race To The Top federal contest of financial grants given to some states if they comply with the obscene No Child Left Behind law, a law that frames the impossible measure of 100 percent proficiency as the goal and punishes all schools that don't reach this trap. It is a law every bit as wrong as Prohibition or the Dred Scott decision.

Race To The Top has four evil elements:

1. The continued condemnation of poor schools and its pretense that poverty and social conditions have nothing to do with outcomes.

2. The punitive actions taken against low-performing schools, such as transferring of principals, closing of schools, moving of teachers, etc.

3. Teacher evaluations based on Standardized tests, paying no heed to conditions of the real world, e.g. student mental illness, poverty concentrations, gang contact, lack of parents, parental incarceration, transience, second language learners, "special education realities," huge classes, unemployment, low reading levels at home, absenteeism, etc.

4. Ultimately, the wholesale sellout of a social contract between society and public education replaced with an outrageous new focus on profitability and a market-based outcomes. This plays itself out with the privatization of "for profit" charter schools and the undermining of the public good with vouchers for private schools.

The NEA should have held its cards a little closer to the chest and "negotiated" the end of No Child Left Behind, declaring the 100percent proficiency law a statistically unachievable abomination. It should have insisted on ending Race To The Top. Obama needs to admit that poverty is the issue. He needs to help and actually assist teachers and kids in poor communities — not pillory them. Even Education Secretary Arne Duncan had a brief moment of clarity with his revelation that 82percent of public schools will be failing by 2014.

Think about it. Can 82percent of the teachers in public schools be that bad? Of course not. The measurement of their failure is wrong. It is called No Child Left Behind, with its love affair with the publishing/ testing industry and the gold rush of money to be made with standardized testing.

The NEA may have endorsed Obama but it is very unlikely that large numbers of teachers will. He hosed us and so did the NEA.

Paul Karrer teaches in Castroville and writes about education issues for this page.