Union-Run Charter School In Fight for Survival

By BETH FERTIG

LINK

When the United Federation of Teachers opened its own charter school in 2005, then-teachers union president Randi Weingarten called it “an oasis.” At a time when privately-run charter schools were springing up all over the city – without unionized teachers – Weingarten wanted to prove that a charter could succeed with the cooperation and expertise of labor.

AFT President Randi Weingarten

But today, the U.F.T. Charter School in East New York finds itself fighting for survival. Just a third of its elementary students were proficient on this year’s reading tests, and the school got a “D” on its annual progress report. It’s also been plagued by high teacher and principal turnover. The State University of New York’s Charter Schools Institute put the school on probation in 2010, by renewing its charter for only three more years instead of five, and will decide in early 2013 whether or not it should close.

With so much at stake, the teachers union led education reporters on a brief tour of the K-12 charter school’s elementary campus Tuesday.

The school looks very much like a typical city public school. It’s co-located in a school building covered with scaffolding. Student work is showcased in the hallways and a bulletin board shows off smiling photos of the students of the month. Students wear uniforms – khaki pants and polo shirts with a U.F.T. star logo.

In a third grade classroom, teachers Niambi Allen and Kathia Darius worked with 26 children, many of them students with disabilities, during a literacy lesson. They were learning how to write persuasive essays by debating a heated topic: whether or not to get a classroom pet.

“What are phrases that opinions start with?” asked Allen, the special education teacher. The students offered the phrases “I believe,” “maybe” and “I think” as ways to write about an opinion.

“Here’s the thing about opinions,” Allen clarified. “Opinions are always going to start with ‘I.’ I think, I believe, I wish.”

Eight year-old Maliah Harris shot up her hand when the teacher asked for transition words. “First, next, last and finally!”

Allen just started working at the school this fall. She said she’s worked as a substitute at many other schools, including private schools, and believes the U.F.T. Charter School knows what it’s doing.

“I think that this school is amazing because there are so many things to help students and intervene if there is a problem,” she said, referring to the use of weekly assessments. She estimated that at least 75 percent of her students are “right where they should be” academically.

“I’ve had far more challenging kids, these guys are awesome,” she said. “It’s unfortunate what the test scores say because it doesn’t really reflect what we do in the classroom.”

The school’s English Language Arts exam scores for grades 3-8 this year were the same as the average for District 19 in Brooklyn: 33 percent reading at or above proficient. Its math scores were slightly lower than the distict-wide average of 43.7 percent at or above proficient.

Elementary school leader Michelle Bodden-White agreed the scores don’t tell the whole story. She’s in her fifth year in charge (the school uses the term “leader” instead of principal) of the elementary school, which spans grades K-5. She was previously Vice President of the teachers union and taught in Brooklyn.

“We have over time seen our scores rise which tells us we were going in the right direction,” she said, referring to the school’s progress reports from the city. She attributed this year’s low scores, partly, to the death of a fifth grade student from meningitis right around the time of the state exams. “The school was devastated,” she said. “He had been here from kindergarten.”

She also described positive changes since she started five years ago. “The teachers really work together weekly,” she said, referring to the regular math and reading assessments. “We’ve put a lot of emphasis on reading non-fiction and responding and understanding informational text because that’s a very big focus of the Common Core.” And each K-3 classroom has two teachers.

In 2010 the U.F.T. brought in Shelia Evans-Tranumn to oversee both the elementary and secondary campuses. Evans-Tranumn is a veteran of the city schools. “There were many problems,” she acknowledged, noting “teacher absences and teachers not focusing during the workday on the work at hand” as well as a “culture of failure” among students and lack of discipline. She said the secondary school campus is located about a mile away in a neighborhood rife with gangs.

But when asked why other charter schools get better results with low-income students at risk, Evans-Tranumn suggested they have some advantages.

“Right now in this building, our level 3 and 4 students are being recruited by other charter schools, out of the fourth grade,” she said. “We don’t go in and rob another school of their top learners. But many charter schools have an aggressive on-the-ground campaign to get the better students.”

Other principals around the city have made similar complaints, but those accusations are tough to prove.

Evans-Tranumn also said struggling students may feel more welcome at her school than in some of the “no excuses” charters, which have rigid disciplinary systems. Whole classrooms are rewarded when students behave well, to encourage cooperation. And Evans-Tranumn said students at the U.F.T. Charter school are rarely suspended.

As in district schools, the U.F.T. Charter promotes students to the next grade with a level 2 on their state exams (just short of proficiency), though it requires them to do extra work. Some of the more demanding charters demand level 3′s. And while those schools often have 9-10 hour school days, the U.F.T. Charter’s day is similar in length to that of regular district schools – while also offering after school support.

SUNY’s Charter Schools Institute is expected to decide in the next month or two on whether the U.F.T. Charter School will be allowed to stay open after June 2013. Critics of the teachers union often point to the school as a sign that the union doesn’t always know the best ways to educate children. Evans-Tranumn acknowledged there were risks when the union opened the charter school. She gave the U.F.T. credit for trying, and for picking such a challenging low-income neighborhood.

“All of us in education can’t just take the easy roads,” she said. “We have to take the hard roads. We have to do what we can to transform schools in our own community, in this state, in this nation.”

Beth Fertig is a senior reporter at WNYC. Follow her on Twitter @bethfertig

David Hedges: Tough on Teachers, Soft on Disruptive Students

 

LINK

The current climate that prevails in the Brooklyn High Schools where I have been assigned on weekly rotations is that principals have an systemic incentive to be tough on teachers, but when it comes to handling students who prevent other students from learning, they are very lenient. 

Why would this be?  Well, the age of the weak principal has been ushered in by the data driven leadership.  It's about getting students to graduate.  Hear now: in olden times the students who couldn't cut it became factory workers, mechanics, or gave their lives to their country.  Then came social promotion.  Now, the students who can't behave themselves get every chance in the book (written, probably, by a well-meaning bleeding heart).  The least well behaved students know that they have the principal by the proverbial balls.  Such students now know that the principals are under pressure to kowtow to them.  "If you fail me you'll get fired," is the standard line I hear.  Another popular refrain is to spread rumors.  Teacher X is a racist.  Sorry to say it, but principals are especially likely to water down requirements, and become very worried about their six-digit salaries being a subject of student approval and review. 

With more teachers leaving than ever, even before their salaries make it worth their while to stick it out the real reason intelligent humans become teachers: summers off, of course.  You need a real purpose to get through 180 days of disrespectful treatment.  (Teachers are bookended daily by being belittled and micromanaged by their supervisors, who are, at least in my case, chronological subordinates).  The cult of disrespect must be very catching, for the students join in and presume to be in league with the administration.  Students who may not know enough to pass a Regents exam, but who sure know their way around litigious language and the finer nuances of blackmail. 

Principals are in a tough place: if they are tough on the disruptive ones, they risk losing their numbers (oh, I mean students), and that fancy salary they get.  They also risk being found out as Tweed-brown-nosers.  The nice-guy syndrome is about the only talent it seems to take to keep a job in management.  At every faculty meeting I attend, the unifying motif is how to increase, not improve, student learning.  A well paid administrator preaches to rookie teachers about how their job is on the line unless more kids pass.  Pavlov's dog has everyone by the collar.  Only on one occasion did I hear a very tough principal say that what he wanted to see in the classroom was more creativity in the lessons.  Data-schmaytta, he said, in so many words.  Data doesn't make you a better teacher: creative lessons are what we need, not more data-crap.  He even shunned Cathy Black when she made one of her ridiculous visits. 

Sadly, most of the teachers who aren't ATRs are so nervous about losing their jobs that they forget that teaching is supposed to be the marriage of duty and inclination.  We aren't circus seals trainers, flinching under the ring master's whip.  We are supposed to be the ones who model thinking beyond the Euclidian world and the carpentered horizon of the box.  Even logic is more beautiful than the kind of obedience and intimidation that passes for leadership in most schools nowadays.  With the loss of the older teacher, whether he or she was good or not, the system loses its conscience.  There is nobody left to contextualize the progress anymore.  Are students any brighter or more compassionate now, or are their test scores modified so they feel better about themselves?  I think the leadership academy may just have gone aground, rather than to a better land of learning.

Is it really worth the money?  (Actually, it's not such a fancy salary: if you work out the arithmetic, hourly wage, that is, their salary is just about what a teacher's is, who is getting top pay.  So why is the DOE paying top dollar for principals who don't have as much experience as their veteran teachers?  Why not ask the guy who runs the show, a member of the one-percent.  Gee, maybe there is a reason why principals are coddling the  disruptive ones- as long as they graduate kids whose maximum wage will be the prevailing minimum wage, there's more profit for the one-percenters, isn't there?

Tribute To The Teachers and Children Killed in Sandy Hook, Conn.

Thank You,Teachers by Chris Clarke
 
Victoria Soto, age 27, apparently died yesterday while trying to get her students into a safer spot in their classroom at Sandy Hook. She stood between the murderer and her students, and he killed her....given the kind of person who chooses to remain in the profession despite all the sacrifice and opprobrium because they want to help kids, Soto’s tragic sacrifice isn’t in the least surprising. It’s what teachers do.

From Betsy Combier

Victoria Soto

Lauren Rousseau

Editor, Parentadvocates.org

The tribute below has expressed the thoughts of so many people - including myself - that I am re-posting here. My heart is torn in pieces over this senseless killing, and I hope that people throughout America can now throw politics out, and deal with getting those individuals in pain and distress the help that they need before something like this happens again.

Betsy Combier

Pictures of many of the shooting victims.

Thank you, teachers
Education by Chris Clarke

Victoria Soto, age 27, apparently died yesterday while trying to get her students into a safer spot in their classroom at Sandy Hook. She stood between the murderer and her students, and he killed her.
This is Soto right here.

(Updated to add: Andrew Revkin shares more on Soto's colleagues Kaitlin Roig and Maryrose Kristopik: "Kaitlin Roig locked her students in the bathroom and kept them safe, while Victoria Soto was trying to do the same when she came face-to-face with the gunman and was shot, execution style. Maryrose Kristopik barricaded her music students in a closet, while the gun man fought to get in." Roig and Kristopik survived, thankfully.)

I spent a little time thinking about Soto and her colleagues this morning. I’ve known quite a few grade school teachers over the years. Until 2009, I was married to one. And I realized as I was thinking about Soto that there’s not a single one of those grade school teachers I’ve known, my ex- emphatically included, who I could imagine doing anything but jumping between the gunman and his or her students.
I know that’s an argument from incredulity. I know teachers are human beings, and human beings freeze up when they’re frightened. But I’ve also seen the sacrifices grade school teachers make on days the media don’t notice. Over and over, day in and day out, with no hope of any relief outside of leaving the job.

And for this they get to be one of the most denigrated groups of professionals in the United States, targeted every single goddamn year for one “reform” after another, vouchers from the fundies and charter schools from the liberals, forced by law to take every spark of individuality and interest out of their curricula and then blamed when their students lose interest, resented their pensions and their health care by people who then blame them when their kids turn out to be apathetic.

Once the media horror dies down about Soto and her co-workers’ sacrifices, I guarantee you this: public school grade school teachers will go right back to being the despised class. “Union thugs.” “With three-month vacations.” “Teaching kids their ABCs.” All the idiotic, ill-informed, right wing anti-intellectual myths will rev up again as if nothing had happened. And in the meantime the people the Fox pundits despise will go on teaching kids to read and do math and treat each other with respect.

In other words, it’s not really that much of a jump to imagine all the teachers I know instinctively taking a bullet to protect their kids. To a first approximation, every single one of them does the same thing every waking moment, giving up their lives by increment to give their students a chance at a better life.

I don’t at all mean to trivialize the sacrifice Soto and her colleagues made by comparing it to, say, having to buy pencils on your own dime because the Republicans cut your district’s budget even further. What I’m saying is that given the kind of peson who chooses to remain in the profession despite all the sacrifice and opprobrium because they want to help kids, Soto’s tragic sacrifice isn’t in the least surprising. It’s what teachers do.

So I just thought I’d take a moment to thank those of you reading this who are, or who have been, grade school teachers for your routine heroism. We don’t recognize it enough.

Let me anticipate a likely semi-trollish objection: yes, there are grade school teachers who should not be teaching. Yes, there are burned out seat warmers. Yes, there are people teaching subjects they’re not really qualified to teach. Yes, there are the occasional people who shouldn’t be around children at all. If our society valued teachers the way teachers as a class deserve, such people wouldn’t be there. The incompetent and the abusive would never make the cut, and the burned-out would be far less burned out.

Victoria Soto: Sandy Hook teacher who wanted to mould young minds
First-grade teacher Soto, who had worked at the school for five years, reportedly died trying to shield her students from harm

A teacher who died trying to protect her children in Sandy Hook school has been described as a dedicated educator who had her dream job.

Victoria Soto, 27, was one of six adults and 20 children killed in the elementary school shooting on Friday.

It is thought Soto died trying to shield her students. According to a cousin, Jim Wiltsie, a police officer, said the family had been told that Soto was attempting to get her class into a closet when the gunman entered the room. "In our eyes, she's a hero," Wiltsie told ABC News.

"She was trying to shield, getting her children into a closet and protect them from harm. And by doing that put herself between the gunman and the children and that is when she was tragically shot and killed."

Wiltsie said the family had taken some comfort in knowing that Soto died while doing a job that she loved.

"Her life dream was to be a teacher and her instincts kicked in when she saw there was harm coming towards her students," he told ABC News, adding: "She lost her life doing what she loved. She loved her kids. Her goal in life was to be a teacher to mould young minds."

Her desire to educate started at an early age, those close to the teacher said. As well as teaching first grade, Soto was also studying for a master's degree in special education at Southern Connecticut State University. She graduated from Eastern Connecticut State University with an elementary education and history degree. "I have a passion for learning," she wrote on her online teacher's page.

Soto listed her passions outside school as spending time with family members, along with her dog, a black Labrador named Roxie. Soto had been at the school for five years, first as an intern, then as a classroom teacher.

"I look forward to an amazing year in the first grade with my amazing students of room 10!" she wrote.

Condon v Sabater: Judge Huff Rules Against SCI Chief Richard Condon

**2] In the Matter of RICHARD J. CONDON, in his official capacity as Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District, Petitioner,

-against -

PATRICIA SABATER, Respondent. Index No. 401175/12

401175/12

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY

2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5503; 2012 NY Slip Op 32889U

November 30, 2012, Decided

JUDGES: [*1] CAROL E. HUFF, J.S.C.

Richard Condon

Motions with sequence numbers 001 and 002 are consolidated for disposition.

In this special proceeding made pursuant to CPLR 2308(b) (Disobedience of subpoena -- non-judicial), petitioner, as Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District ("SCI"), moves to compel respondent to comply with a subpoena ad testificandum issued by SCI (sequence 001). Non-party New York State United Teachers ("NYSUT") moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief (002).

The motion by NYSUT for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, which is not opposed, is granted. Respondent Patricia Sabater is an assistant principal and tenured teacher at an elementary school in Brooklyn. SCI is charged, pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 11 of 1990, with the authority to investigate alleged misconduct within the New York City Department of [**3] Education. SCI seeks Sabater's sworn testimony in connection with an investigation into allegations of the failure to report sexual harassment and unlawful touching committed by students upon students at the school. The investigation seeks to determine whether respondent failed to act on and report complaints [*2] made by two female students, in violation of Chancellor's Regulation A-831.

Sabater's attorney initially informed SCI that she would appear voluntarily to be interviewed under oath. The attorney then informed SCI that she would not appear. SCI issued a subpoena ad testificandum dated April 24, 2012, directing Sabater's appearance to testify, and it was agreed that she would appear on May 3, 2012. On May 3, Sabater appeared with counsel and was placed under oath. She answered background questions relating to her address, phone number and Department of Education file number, but refused to answer any additional questions, citing her rights under the holding in Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York v Mills, 250 AD2d 122, 680 N.Y.S.2d 683 (3d Dept Page 11998), lv. denied 93 NY2d 803, 711 N.E.2d 201, 689 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1999).

In Mills the Third Department affirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York that the respondent teacher was entitled not to submit to sworn questions during a prehearing investigation, citing Education Law § 3020-a(3)(c)(I), which provides that an "employee shall not be required to testify" during his or her hearing. The Mills court found:

Significantly, petitioner does [*3] not dispute that any information gathered during the prehearing investigation would be admissible at the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, even if an employee chose not to testify at the hearing, his or her prehearing statements to the SCI would be admissible as admissions against interest. Clearly this contravenes Education Law § 3020-a which provides a significant protection, that of shielding employees against testifying against themselves in a proceeding in which their job rights are in jeopardy.

250 AD2d at 126.

[**4] SCI argues that Mills was wrongly decided and that this Court should rule differently and compel the prehearing, sworn testimony of Sabater. He argues that the Education Law was amended to include the "employee shall not be required to testify" language after the charges were filed in the Mills case. That does not, however, affect the Appellate Division's interpretation of the statute. He further argues that General City Law § 20.21 should be given at least equal weight to Education Law § 3020-a, However, § 20.21 only provides generally that cities have power to subpoena witnesses in connection with investigations, while Education Law § 3020-a specifically excludes a class [*4] of persons from testifying against themselves. SCI also attempts to distinguish Sabater from the respondent in Mills because Sabater is an assistant principal. Education Law § 3020-a applies, however, to any "person enjoying the benefits of tenure," which Sabater does.

In People v Shakur, 215 AD2d 184, 185, 627 N.Y.S.2d 341 (1st Dept 1995), the First Department stated: "Trial courts within this Department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another Department until such time as this Court or the Court of Appeals passes on the question." Since neither the First Department nor the Court of Appeals has issued a ruling contrary to Mills, and petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the error of the Mills holding, the petition is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion (002) of NYSUT for leave to submit an amicus curiae brief is granted; and it is further

[**5] ADJUDGED that the petition (001) is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

Dated: NOV 30 2012

/s/ Carol E. Huff

J.S.C

In the Matter of Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Appellant, v. Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.) 81362 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT 250 A.D.2d 122; 680 N.Y.S.2d 683; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11900 November 12, 1998, Decided  November 12, 1998, Entered PRIOR HISTORY:  [***1]  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Vincent G. Bradley, J.), entered May 22, 1997 in Albany County, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Education denying petitioner's request to terminate a tenured teacher for misconduct.  DISPOSITION: The judgment is affirmed, without costs. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner city board of education challenged a judgment of the Supreme Court in Albany County (New York), which dismissed its application to review a determination of respondent education commissioner denying the board's request to terminate a tenured teacher for misconduct. OVERVIEW: The board by resolution created the Special Commissioner of Investigation, which investigated a high school teacher for having an inappropriate relationship with a student. The teacher refused to answer questions about his relationship with the student and the board sought his termination under .N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-a The hearing panel found misconduct and imposed a penalty but did not find insubordination. The commissioner upheld the ruling but imposed a harsher penalty. On appeal, the court held (1) the commissioner had the power under N.Y. Educ. Law § 305(1) and (2) to interpret statutes and his interpretation must be upheld unless it was unreasonable, (2) the board's resolution requiring employees to answer questions during investigations or to be subject to dismissal for insubordination conflicted with N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-a(3)(c)(i), which shielded employees from testifying against themselves in a proceeding involving their job rights, (3) the state law was controlling under the home rule provision of the N.Y. Const., (4) the commissioner' s interpretation was reasonable, and (5) the commissioner did not commit error with respect to the penalty imposed. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment. CORE TERMS: answer questions, teacher, penalty imposed, insubordination, inappropriate, prehearing, disciplinary hearing, romantic relationship, required to testify, abuse of discretion, sense of fairness, use immunity, school district employees, misconduct, suspension, home rule, disciplinary proceeding, physical education, committed misconduct, subject to dismissal, educational system, grossly disproportionate, failure to cooperate, school system, disciplined, conscience, admissible, engaging, jeopardy, female LexisNexis® Headnotes Education Law > Administration & Operation > Boards of Elementary & Secondary Schools > Authority Education Law > Faculty & Staff > Discipline & Dismissal > Causes Governments > Local Governments > Duties & Powers On June 1990 the position of Special Commissioner of Investigation ( SCI) is created by a resolution of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York pursuant to Executive Order No. 11 of the Mayor of the City of New York (Executive Order), the City Charter, and N.Y. Educ. Law § 2554. The SCI is given responsibility and authority to investigate unethical conduct and other misconduct in the New York City school system. Both the resolution and the Executive Order mandate full cooperation by all school district employees with the SCI during all investigations. They provide that if an employee refuses to answer questions during an SCI investigation, the employee must be advised that any answer given and any information or evidence derived shall not be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding except in a perjury or contempt prosecution. After being so advised, refusal of the employee to answer questions constitutes failure to cooperate with the investigation and is sufficient cause for dismissal. The Commissioner of Education of the State of New York (Commissioner) has the power to interpret statutes and provide guidelines with regard to their construction. N.Y. Educ. Law § 305(1), (2). It is a cardinal principle of construction that, in case of doubt, or ambiguity, in the law it is a well-known rule that the practical construction given to a law by those charged with the duty of enforcing it takes on almost the force of judicial interpretation. Upon review, the court's function is limited because it is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld. Thus, the standard of review is whether the Commissioner's determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Although local governments have the power to enact laws or regulations, such regulations must be consistent with both the N.Y. Const. and the general laws enacted by the legislature. N.Y. Const. art. IX, § 2(c). No local legislative body is empowered to enact laws or regulations which supersede state statutes, particularly with regard to the maintenance, support, or administration of the educational system. N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 11(1)(c). N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-a(3)(c)(i) is construed to be in conflict with a resolution of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York requiring that employees answer questions during prehearing investigations or be subject to dismissal for insubordination. N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-a provides a significant protection, that of shielding employees against testifying against themselves in a proceeding in which their job rights are in jeopardy. An administrative penalty is not to be set aside unless it is so clearly disproportionate to the offense and completely inequitable in light of the surrounding circumstances. HEADNOTES Schools - Teachers - Disciplinary Proceedings - Refusal to Answer Questions during Misconduct Investigation The State Commissioner of Education properly determined after a teacher disciplinary hearing that Education Law § 3020-a was the sole means through which a teacher could be disciplined and that while respondent, a tenured physical education teacher in the New York City school system, committed misconduct warranting his suspension by engaging in a romantic relationship with one of his students, he could not be terminated for insubordination merely for having refused to answer questions about this relationship during an investigation conducted by petitioner's Special Commissioner of Investigation. Education Law § 3020-a (3) (c) (i), which provides that school district employees cannot be required to testify against themselves in a disciplinary proceeding in which their job rights are in jeopardy, was properly construed to be in conflict with petitioner's resolution created pursuant to an Executive Order of the Mayor of the City of New York requiring that employees answer questions during prehearing investigations or be subject to dismissal for insubordination. In such instances, State law is controlling under principles of home rule (see, NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c]; § 3 [a] [1]), particularly where the "maintenance, support or administration of the educational system" is involved (see, Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 [1] [c]). Furthermore, the penalty of a three years' suspension without pay imposed by the Commissioner is reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. In light of the circumstances of this case as presented in the record, including the observations of the Hearing Panel and the Commissioner and the limited nature of the inappropriate relationship allegation as set forth in the charge, the penalty imposed was not so grossly disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's conscience and sense of fairness. COUNSEL: Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Steven J. Rappaport of counsel), for appellant.  Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan and Robert A. Siegried of counsel), for Richard P. Mills, respondent.  Malvina Nathanson, New York City, for Andrew Cadet, respondent.  O'Hara & O'Connell, Syracuse (Dennis G. O'Hara of counsel), for New York State Council of School Superintendents, amicus curiae.  James D. Bilik, Albany, for New York State United Teachers, amicus curiae.  JUDGES: Mercure, J. P., White, Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur.  OPINION BY: Spain  OPINION  [*123]   [**684]  Spain, J. In June 1990 the position of Special Commissioner of Investigation (hereinafter [***2]  SCI) was created by a resolution of petitioner pursuant to Executive Order No. 11 of the Mayor of the City of New York (hereinafter the Executive Order), the City Charter and Education Law § 2554. The SCI was given the responsibility and authority to investigate "unethical conduct and other misconduct" within the New York City school system. Both the resolution which established the SCI and the Executive Order mandate full cooperation by all school district employees with the SCI during all investigations; they further provide that if an employee refuses to answer questions during an SCI investigation, the employee must be advised that any answer given and any information or evidence derived therefrom shall not be used against the employee in a criminal proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or contempt. After being so advised, refusal by a school district employee to answer questions constitutes failure to cooperate with the investigation and is sufficient cause for dismissal.  [*124]  In April 1991 the SCI received an anonymous letter alleging that respondent Andre  [**685]  Cadet, a physical education teacher at Julia Richman High School,  [***3]  was having an inappropriate relationship with a female student. An initial investigation revealed that Cadet had, in fact, formed a romantic relationship with the student. During the course of the investigation Cadet refused to be interviewed by a confidential investigator for the SCI. In June 1991 Cadet was subpoenaed to appear at the office of the SCI to give testimony during a prehearing inquiry concerning his relationship with the student. Cadet appeared with his attorney and, prior to being questioned, was informed that he had an obligation to cooperate with the investigation, that he was being granted use immunity and that if he failed to answer questions at this stage of the proceeding, his refusal would be construed as a failure to cooperate and would subject him to dismissal. In spite of having been granted use immunity, Cadet answered only pedigree and background questions, refusing to answer any questions regarding his relationship with the student. Thereafter, petitioner found probable cause to prefer disciplinary charges against Cadet pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, seeking his termination. Cadet was charged with inappropriate contact [***4]  with a female student by having a romantic relationship with her and with uncooperative, disobedient and insubordinate behavior by refusing to answer questions regarding the performance of his official duties during a sworn examination by the office of the SCI. A disciplinary hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a was held at which a number of witnesses testified. The Hearing Panel determined that Cadet had committed misconduct by engaging in a romantic relationship with one of his students. However, the Hearing Panel also determined that, although Cadet did not respond to the SCI's questions after being given use immunity, such conduct did not constitute insubordination. The Hearing Panel noted that Education Law § 3020-a, which provides that an employee shall not be required to testify at his or her disciplinary hearing, conflicted with the Executive Order and petitioner's resolution and, under the principles of home rule, Education Law § 3020-a was controlling; therefore, Cadet could not be required to testify at the hearing or during the investigation leading up to such a proceeding. The Hearing [***5]  Panel concluded that, despite its determination of misconduct with respect to Cadet's behavior with the student, he remained fit for continued service; it further concluded that Cadet should  [*125]  be suspended for a period of one half of the regular teaching year without pay. Both petitioner and Cadet appealed the determination to respondent Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner concluded that Education Law § 3020-a was the sole means through which a teacher could be disciplined and agreed with the Hearing Panel that this provision was in conflict with both the Executive Order and petitioner's resolution. Finding that State law was controlling in such an instance due to the home rule provisions of the State Constitution, the Commissioner upheld the Hearing Panel's negative determination with regard to the charge of insubordination. The Commissioner also upheld the Hearing Panel's determination regarding Cadet's inappropriate relationship with the student; however, the Commissioner determined that the penalty imposed by the Hearing Panel was too lenient and substituted a penalty of a three years' suspension without pay. Petitioner and Cadet [***6]  then commenced separate CPLR article 78 proceedings to challenge the determination of the Commissioner. Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, agreeing with the Commissioner that Education Law § 3020-a is in conflict with the Executive Order and petitioner's resolution and that the State law is controlling in such instances, particularly when read with Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (c) and NY Constitution, article IX, § 3 (a) (1). Supreme Court also concluded that the penalty imposed by the Commissioner was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. Petitioner and Cadet both appealed; Cadet has now withdrawn his appeal. We affirm. The Commissioner has the power to interpret statutes and provide guidelines with regard to their construction (see, Education Law § 305 [1], [2]). Notably, "[i]t is a cardinal principle of construction  [**686]  that, '[i]n case of doubt, or ambiguity, in the law it is a well-known rule that the practical construction that has been given to a law by those charged with the duty of enforcing it … takes on almost the force of judicial [***7]  interpretation' " ( Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 272, 281, quoting Town of Amherst v County of Erie, 236 App Div 58, 61, affd 260 NY 361, 369-370). As such, upon review, the court's function is limited because "[i]t is well settled that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld" ( Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438; accord, Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., supra, at 281-282; cf., Matter of Johnson v Joy, 48 NY2d  [*126]  689, 691). Thus, the standard of review "is whether [the Commissioner's] determination 'was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion' " ( Matter of Conley v Ambach, 61 NY2d 685, 687, quoting CPLR 7803 [3]; see, Matter of Cargill v Sobol, 165 AD2d 131, 133, lv denied 78 NY2d 854). Although local governments have the power to enact laws or regulations, such regulations [***8]  must be consistent with both the NY Constitution and the general laws enacted by the Legislature (see, NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c]); no local legislative body is empowered to enact laws or regulations which supersede State statutes, particularly with regard to the "maintenance, support or administration of the educational system" (Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 [1] [c]). Education Law § 3020-a (3) (c) (i) was properly construed to be in conflict with petitioner's resolution requiring that employees answer questions during prehearing investigations or be subject to dismissal for insubordination. Significantly, petitioner does not dispute that any information gathered during the prehearing investigation would be admissible at the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, even if an employee chose not to testify at the hearing, his or her prehearing statements to the SCI would be admissible as admissions against interest. Clearly, this contravenes Education Law § 3020-a which provides a significant protection, that of shielding employees against testifying against themselves in a proceeding in which their job rights are in jeopardy.  [***9]  In our view, the Commissioner's interpretation of the laws was rational and reasonable and should not be disturbed. Finally, we find no error on the part of the Commissioner with respect to the penalty imposed. "It is now well settled that an administrative penalty is not to be set aside … unless it is so 'clearly disproportionate to the offense and completely inequitable in light of the surrounding circumstances' ( Kostika v Cuomo, 41 NY2d 673, 676) as to be 'shocking to one's sense of fairness' ( Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233)" ( Matter of Nino v Yonkers City School Dist., 43 NY2d 865, 866; see, Matter of Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285). In light of the circumstances of this case as presented in the record, including the observations of the Hearing Panel and the Commissioner and the limited nature of the inappropriate relationship allegation as set forth in the charge (see, Matter of Caravello v Board of Educ., 48 AD2d 967, 969), we reject petitioner's contention  [*127]  that the penalty imposed upon Cadet was so grossly disproportionate to [***10]  the offense as to shock one's conscience and sense of fairness. Mercure, J. P., White, Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.