The Script: How To Get Rid Of An "Incompetent" Teacher

The NYC Teacher Performance Management Termination Script
Parentadvocates.org
LINK

 The How To Get Rid Of Tenured Teachers document scripts the entire process of getting rid of a teacher who is, according to somebody with power and influence, "incompetent" - whatever that means. In NYC Mayor Bloomberg leaves nothing to chance. He wants tenure to end, and I have the scripts written as "letters" where principals fill in the blanks.
The UFT is as much at fault here as the NYC Department of Education, because Mike Mulgrew, Ellie Engler, Mike Mendel, Claude Hersh and Richard Casagrande (NYSUT) allowed the PIP+ process (a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement evaluations clause) and the "guidelines" posted below to be used against any teacher, not defined as good or bad by any data or facts.
 
Betsy Combier

The NYC Teacher Performance Management Termination Script

As most people now know, the NYC Department of Education wants to get rid of all tenured employees of the Department. These people are, it is said, lazy, incompetent, and harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of children, and should never have been given a job for life (tenured position).

In fact, the NYC DOE wants teachers with tenure out so badly that they will gladly alter your performance record and change your U ratings to S ratings if you sign your name to a settlement agreement saying you will immediately and irrevocably resign. And you can never sue the Department for any reason.

As I have written many times before, this is a sad joke on the employee, who, thinking that the settlement is a great idea, signs it, and then cannot get a job anywhere else. Why? Because he/she did not demand a giveback - his/her removal from the "Ineligible/Inquiry List". This List is the same as the anti-communist protests of the '50's under Joseph McCarthy. There is no rational reason for the mobbing of individuals simply because they used to work for the Department of Education.

Yet, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) may deny that it exists, so that Special Representatives may continue to earn astonishing sums of money (members' dues) while doing nothing. Yet, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) may deny that the Ineligible/Inquiry List exists, so that Special Representatives may continue to earn astonishing sums of money (members' dues) while doing nothing. All the UNITY caucus and UFT Special Reps. say in private that every re-assigned member is "guilty" of whatever is charged against them. There is no effort to help any member win his/her U-rating appeal, grievance, or 3020-a, for that matter. And, it does not matter if this is unfair, as can be seen in the Special Complaint filed by Gail Friedman. The 2005 UFT contract took away the right to grieve "unfairness".

Anyway, the basic bottom line is, to get tenured (and expensive) teachers out of the system in order to hire two newbie teachers for the price of one. The rating and evaluation processes have nothing to do with individual performance. A person may be Teacher of The Year, but if he/she makes too much money, out he/she must go.

Of course Mayor Bloomberg is a control freak. He does not have too much faith in the capabilities of anyone to accomplish quickly and efficiently what he wants (i.e., get rid of tenure and tenured teachers). Therefore, he created the Teacher Performance Unit in 2007, and opened a new floor - the 7th - at 51 Chambers Street to accommodate the expedited hearings under the TPU, the "incompetency" 3020-a.
These are all expedited and there is no room for error.

Mike Bloomberg had his underlings create a script for all the Principals who may not be aware of how to quickly get rid of a teacher in the building. The Office of Labor Relations is at the same location as the Gotcha Squad, and drew up, in 2007, the document below. I was given this document several months ago by a principal.

I turned around the first couple of pages from the original, in order to make for easier reading:
Performance Management
Performance Management
Performance Management

2012: More Investigations, Less Information To The Public

Allegations of wrongdoing in schools pile up but stay in the dark

by Philissa Cramer, at 3:28 pmLINK

Investigators who look into the city’s schools received more allegations and opened more cases than ever last year. But they found wrongdoing less often than at any time in the last decade.

And once again, only a tiny fraction of the investigations were made public.

The Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation received 4,173 complaints in 2012, 20 percent more than in the previous year, according to the annual report it released today. The complaints prompted 795 investigations.

SCI looks into alleged violations of law and department regulations, from accusations of sexual misconduct to concerns about fraud and embezzlement, to allegations of cheating on tests. (The Department of Education also has an internal investigative unit, the Office of Special Investigations.)

In 2012, SCI also closed 752 cases, many opened in previous years because SCI investigations frequently move slowly. Of them, investigators found wrongdoing in 247 cases for a substantiation rate of 32.8 percent, the lowest in a decade. Condon recommended that 83 education department employees be fired as a result — 20 percent fewer than in 2011.

Condon’s office released just 16 investigation reports, meaning that 94 percent of times when investigators found wrongdoing, their findings stayed under wraps.

The release rate was in line with past years, when SCI has published reports about substantiated allegations between 5 and 10 percent of the time.

Last year’s SCI releases included reports about nepotism, corruption, and sex abuse. It did not include any reports about cheating or academic improprieties.

In a year with a spate of high-profile sexual abuse allegations in schools, the unit received 679 allegations of sexual misconduct, or 16 percent of the total number of allegations. That proportion was in line with recent years.

SCI reports that are not published are sent to Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, who has the power to act on Condon’s recommendations or take other steps to address wrongdoing. At that point, the only way for a report to become publicly available is via a Freedom of Information Law request. That means that an enterprising reporter, advocate, or elected official would have to know first that an investigation happened, and then would have to file a legal request for permission to look at the report on it.

The 'U'-Rated Teacher "Plague"

As we all know, "U" and "S" are opinions, have no facts or data, are meaningless, and are changed by the NYC DOE if the teacher agrees to resign. We, the public, actually have no idea who is in the classroom with our children.

See the misleading report below.

Betsy Combier

Bad apples: New report shows dozens of city schools are plagued with 'unsatisfactory' teachers

A scathing new report from the education reform group StudentsFirstNY shows that kids in poorer neighborhoods who need more help in school are more likely to end up with the underperforming teachers.

 NYDAILY NEWS 

Jan 10, 2013 

LINK

Dozens of city schools are crammed full of bad teachers, with some kids seeing incompetent hacks in as many as a third of their classrooms.

A scathing new report from the education reform group StudentsFirstNY shows that kids in poor neighborhoods who need the most help in school are far more likely to end up with the learning lemons.

“It’s a double hit,” said Micah Lasher, StudentsFirstNY’s director. “These kids start out with challenges, and then we give them a sub-par education. We’re making the challenges worse.

”

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

The report looked at the number of teachers in each of the city’s 1,509 general education schools who received “unsatisfactory” ratings from their principals.

The so-called “U-ratings,” which are based on formal classroom observations and used in tenure decisions, are very rare, with only 3% of the city’s 65,000 general education teachers receiving failing grades last year.

Nearly half of the city’s schools had no U-rated teachers at all.

Yet U-rated teachers were concentrated in certain schools, particularly in struggling neighborhoods of central Brooklyn, the South Bronx, southern Queens and lower Manhattan.

At a stunning 30 schools, 20% of teachers had unsatisfactory ratings.

Two schools had lemons in at least a third of their classrooms.

But teachers and parents say U-ratings aren’t just about teacher quality. They’re also a reflection on how aggressive principals are in pushing out teachers they don’t like.

Parents at Public School 4 in the Bronx suspected tough management led to 34% of instructors getting U-ratings last year.

“If the principal is rating the teachers, who’s rating him?” asked Anthony Patterson, 52, whose daughter, Tajanae, is a sixth-grader at the A-rated school. “I’ve never had an issue with the teachers.

”

The report on teacher quality advises the city to adopt a new teacher evaluation system and find new ways to attract high-quality instructors.

It comes a day after Gov. Cuomo used his State of the State speech in Albany to call for bar exam-style tests to keep bad teachers out of public schools as the city battles the teachers union over new teacher evaluations.

If the union and the city fail to reach an agreement on a new teacher rating system by Jan. 17, the state will withhold $250 million in funding.

Education Department officials said they are already working to implement the recommendations of the report.

“Having a great teacher is critical to our students’ success, which is why we have pursued many of these recommendations,” said agency spokeswoman Connie Pankratz.

bchapman@nydailynews.com

Richard Santer Wins His Free Speech Issue In The Appeals Court

Matter of Santer v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist.

2012 NY Slip Op 08750

Decided on December 19, 2012

Appellate Division, Second Department

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 Official Reports.

Decided on December 19, 2012 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P. 
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS 
L. PRISCILLA HALL 
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2010-11006
(Index No. 1997/10) 

[*1]In the Matter of Richard Santer, appellant, 

v

Board of Education of East Meadow Union Free School District, respondent.

Richard E. Casagrande, New York, N.Y. (Melinda G. Gordon of 
counsel), for appellant. 
Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Craig R. Benson, 
George B. Pauta, and Ethan D. Balsam 
of counsel), for respondent. 

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated January 8, 2010, made in connection with a compulsory arbitration pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, which, after a hearing, sustained a charge of misconduct against the petitioner and imposed a fine against the petitioner in the sum of $500, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, Jr., J.), dated October 7, 2010, which denied the petition.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the award is vacated.

During the 2006-2007 school year, the Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District (hereinafter the District) and the District's teachers' union were engaged in negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement. As negotiations continued without an agreement, teachers engaged in concerted actions, including weekly picketing in front of the Woodland Middle School (hereinafter Woodland) when students were being dropped off. Woodland encompasses the sixth through eighth grades, and its students generally are between 11 and 14 years old. On March 2, 2007, it was raining, so some of the teachers decided that, rather than stand outside of the building to picket, they would park their cars along nearby Wenwood Drive and display their signs in their car windows. Wenwood Drive, a two-way street, was one of several locations where parents would drop off their children. The petitioner, Richard Santer, the union's building president at Woodland, participated in this protest. Beginning at 7:25 A.M., approximately 8 teachers parked their cars, in legal parking spaces, along either side of Wenwood Drive, with 15 to 16 teachers participating in total. None of the teachers' cars blocked either of two curb cuts in front of the school. According to the school principal, the parking activity caused traffic to become extremely congested, and some children were dropped off in the street and had to cross traffic lanes to reach the sidewalk. No school official asked the teachers to move their cars during the protest, and no child was injured.

The District preferred a disciplinary charge pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a against Santer, a tenured teacher, alleging that he [*2]

"intentionally created a health and safety risk by purposely situating his vehicle alongside the curb of Wenwood Drive in front of the Woodland Middle School in order to preclude children from being dropped off at curbside. The action resulted in children being dropped off in the middle of the street which resulted in an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary health and safety hazard."

At the ensuing arbitration hearing, the petitioner argued, inter alia, that he had a constitutionally protected right to peacefully picket in a public area before the beginning of the school day. The arbitrator rejected this argument, found the petitioner to be culpable of the charge of creating a health and safety hazard, and directed that he pay a fine in the sum of $500. The petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the arbitration award. The Supreme Court confirmed the finding of misconduct, and denied the petition. The petitioner appeals.

Where, as here, arbitration is statutorily required, "judicial review under CPLR article 75 is broad, requiring that the award be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence in the record" (Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175, 186). "Due process of law requires . . . that the [arbitrator's determination] under the power conferred by statute have a basis not only in his [or her] good faith, but in law and the record before him [or her]" (Mount St. Mary's Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 507). The award must be rational and not arbitrary and capricious (id.; see Matter of City of Buffalo v Rinaldo, 41 NY2d 764, 765-767). Here, evidence that children were dropped off in the middle of the street due to the arrangement of the cars provided a rational basis for the arbitrator's determination that Santer contributed to the creation of a health and safety hazard, and the award was not arbitrary and capricious, as we held in another matter concerning the same protest (see Matter of Trupiano v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 89 AD3d 1030).

The petitioner here, however, raises an argument that the petitioner in Trupiano did not raise in our Court, specifically, that the disciplinary proceeding commenced against him, and the discipline ultimately imposed, violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Like other public employees, teachers "do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door, even though it is plain that those rights are somewhat diminished in public employment" (Melzer v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 336 F3d 185, 192, cert denied 540 US 1183). In determining whether a disciplinary measure taken against a public employee violates the employee's First Amendment rights, a court must first determine whether the speech that led to the discipline related to a matter of public concern. If so, the court must balance free-speech principles against the threat to effective government operation presented by that speech (see Pickering v Board of Educ. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 US 563; Melzer v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 336 F3d at 193; Rankin v McPherson, 483 US 378, 384-388). The government bears the burden of showing that the disciplinary measure is justified (see United States v Treasury Employees, 513 US 454, 466; Rankin v McPherson, 483 US at 388; Melzer v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 336 F3d at 193).

Santer's "speech" regarding collective bargaining issues indisputably addressed matters of public concern (see Clue v Johnson, 179 F3d 57, 61; Boals v Gray, 775 F2d 686, 693). Moreover, despite the evidence establishing that the manner in which the protest was carried out interfered with the safe and effective drop-off of students (see Matter of Trupiano v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 89 AD3d 1030), we find that the District failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Santer's exercise of his First Amendment rights so threatened the school's effective operation as to justify the imposition of discipline (see Rothschild v Board of Educ. of City of Buffalo, 778 F Supp 642, 656). Significantly, Santer did not violate any law or school policy. In parking his car on Wenwood Drive and moving it prior to 8:00 A.M., Santer fully complied with the applicable parking regulation. Had other members of the public parked their cars along Wenwood Drive in this manner, the District would have had no recourse, because such parking was entirely legal. If the municipality in which Woodland is located believed that it was unsafe for cars to park along Wenwood Drive during the time when parents dropped off their children at the school, it could have prohibited parking during the relevant time periods, but it did not do so.[*3]Moreover, no school official asked the teachers to move their cars during the protest, and no student was injured as a result of the protest. Consequently, the record establishes that the danger presented by the legally parking teachers could not have been substantial. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the District failed to demonstrate that Santer's legal speech so threatened the effective operation of the school that discipline of him was justified (cf. Melzer v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 336 F3d at 198). 
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that "[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools" (Shelton v Tucker, 364 US 479, 487). The disciplinary measures imposed on Santer would likely have the effect of chilling speech on an important matter of public concern—the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement. 
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Teacher's Contract Protest Protected by 1st Amendment Free Speech

 East Meadow school district fined Richard Santer $500 after he parked his car at the curb and placed his contract protest sign in the car window on a rainy day.  On other days the teachers protesting for a better contract walked on the sidewalk in front of the school.  East Meadow School District filed charges pursuant to Education Law Section 3020a.

The Second Department held that review under Section 75 is broad and requires: 1) the arbitrator's determination display good faith under the law and in the record and 2) the determination must not be arbitrary and capricious.

The arbitrator found that Santer "intentionally created a health and safety risk by purposely situating his vehicle alongside the curb of Westwood Drive prevented the school buses from dropping the kids off at curbside.  The arbitrator sided with the school district and found Santer culpable.  The Supreme Court, Nassau County confirmed the determination after Santer filed a CPLR Section 75 appeal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed and held that Santer had a protected First Amendment right to protest because contract rights are a "matter of public concern."

Joint Committee of Investigation "Investigates" Workplace Harassment

Are you a person who buys a book because you like the cover?

Then you will believe that the Joint Committee of Investigation, making the UFT and DOE partners, will look into what is going on and resolve the issues.

I have a bridge to sell you.

I spoke today with a member who filed a harassment grievance, and he told me that the "Committee" members came to the school, pretended to listen to him for 3 minutes, and left. He said, "This was not an investigation into anything. What a joke!"

His claim was not substantiated. 

The UFT members should not rely on this fake group, they will still lose the grievance. Only now the Joint Committee must be nullified, and not just a single person, such as the so-called "investigator" from OSI, SCI or OEO.

Special complaints

What to do if you are being harassed by a supervisor

MARCH 22, 2012 NEW YORK TEACHER ISSUE

LINK

Unfortunate though it is, at times UFT members report being harassed or subjected to intimidation by their supervisors. These acts of intimidation may take many forms, which is why it is important that you contact the union for help.

You do not have to — nor should you — tolerate such harassment or acts of intimidation. A special complaint process was expanded in the 1990s to protect you from harassment or intimidation by your supervisors.

If you believe that you are the victim of supervisory harassment, tell your chapter leader immediately. You should also notify your UFT district representative. The first thing you will need to do is to keep an anecdotal log indicating the place, time, date and any witnesses who were present during each incident. It is important to make this log as factual as possible, simply a recitation of the events as they occurred.

Article 23 of the UFT Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement and corresponding articles in other UFT agreements set out a procedure to follow in cases of special complaints. It was designed to set up an expedited process for speedy resolution of special complaints not covered by the grievance procedure.

A special complaint will be filed with the chancellor by the UFT. Within 24 hours after it is filed, the Department of Education will inform the union of its representative to the joint investigating committee.

The joint investigating committee will be set up, composed of both DOE and UFT representatives. Its purpose is to reach a prompt resolution of disputes without having to resort to formal procedures.

The joint investigating committee will use a private meeting space at your school to discuss the issue and should complete its investigation in no more than one school day. The joint investigating committee will meet with you, the alleged harasser and witnesses to the alleged harassment that you notify them of. The purpose of these interviews is for the committee to gather enough information to help resolve the matter.

If the complaint is not resolved by the joint investigating committee, the union will determine if the matter has sufficient merit to request a hearing before the chancellor or the chancellor’s representative.

At the chancellor’s level meeting, the chancellor’s representative is required to “make every effort to informally resolve” the complaint. The joint investigating committee will report its findings and all persons involved will have the opportunity to be heard. According to the contract, the chancellor or his/her representative will make a decision within 72 hours of the close of the hearing.

If the complaint is not resolved by the chancellor, the union will review the matter to determine if it should be submitted for a fact-finding hearing before an arbitrator. Once the hearing has been held, the fact finder is required to issue his or her recommendation within 72 hours.

The UFT went to arbitration to ensure that cases are completed in this expedited manner. The arbitrator agreed that the Department of Education must issue special complaint decisions within 72 hours of the close of the hearing.

If you have a special complaint, you should be prepared to answer questions that come up with the joint investigating committee and you should focus primarily on the big issues — your most serious concerns.

Always be respectful and listen to all parties. You should also have witnesses to the harassment who can speak about what they saw or heard. Be prepared to prioritize your witnesses in case time runs short.

Think of what you want the resolution of the problem to be. This can include being treated fairly and respectfully, or more specific remedies that address your particular situation.

You should be aware that the joint investigating committee has no authority to discipline the alleged harasser. The goal is to resolve the problem going forward.

NYC DOE Releases A List of 17 Schools Which Will Be Closed

17 New York City schools targeted for closing

Updated at 11:05 PM today

TAGS:

new york city, school closing, new york news, jeff pegues

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Report a typo
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 

Jeff Pegues 
More: Bio, Facebook, Twitter, Stories by Jeff Pegues, News Team

Eyewitness News

NEW YORK (WABC) -- There are 17 schools that the Department of Education say have not make the grade, and there may be more that are added to the list - that includes schools in 4 of the city's five boroughs.

In Manhattan there are four schools on the list - there are also five in the Bronx, six in Brooklyn and two in Queens.
Deputy School's Chancellor Marc Sternberg released a statement saying,

Related Content

MORE: Follow us @EyewitnessNYC

MORE: Get Alerts

"We expect success. After a rigorous review of academic performance, we're proposing to phase out a select number of low-performing schools."Officials say the proposals that are being made are the result of a thorough evaluation of each school's record. They believe that now is the time to take action.
However, when you talk to representatives of the Teacher's Union, the lesson plan is different.
FULL LIST OF CLOSING SCHOOLS

High School of Graphic Communication Arts

M.S. 45/S.T.A.R.S. Prep Academy

Choir Academy of Harlem

Bread & Roses Integrated Arts High School

M.S. 203

Herbert H. Lehman High School

P.S. 064 Pura Belpre

Jonathan Levin High School for Media and Communications

MS 142 John Philip Sousa

Freedom Academy High School

P.S. 167 The Parkway

J.H.S. 166 George Gershwin

J.H.S. 302 Rafael Cordero

Sheepshead Bay High School

General D. Chappie James Middle School of Science

P.S. 140 Edward K Ellington

Law, Government and Community Service High School

The NYC Department of Education Teacher Observation Scam

For years, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the NYC DOE he controls, with the full knowledge and consent of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), have pushed out all teachers with tenure, all who are disabled, too tall, too black, too outspoken, too....something with "U" ratings which are meaningless. The DOE will, in fact, change all these U ratings to "S" ratings if you irrevocably resign from the DOE within a very short time.

When a NYC DOE employee is served 3020-a papers, the moment is traumatic. Often, the specifications are false claims of absences which were due to many valid reasons, claims of extreme misconduct and/or incompetency, all created by some attorney at the Gotcha Squad.

What they dont tell you, the tenured teacher, is that you are already on the "Ineligible/Inquiry List" or No Hire List, so you will never be hired by anyone anyway, whether or not you take the deal and exchange a fake U for an S on your record. There are no facts in observations, so a U or an S is only a hearsay opinion, nothing more.

Yet, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) may deny that this "Ineligible/Inquiry List"  exists, so that Special Representatives may continue to earn astonishing sums of money (members' dues) while doing nothing. All the UNITY caucus and UFT Special Reps. say in private that every re-assigned member is "guilty" of whatever is charged against them. There is no effort to help any member win his/her U-rating appeal, grievance, or 3020-a, for that matter. And, it does not matter if this is unfair, as can be seen in the Special Complaint filed by Gail Friedman. The 2005 UFT contract took away the right to grieve "unfairness".

Betsy Combier

The city has a secret weapon to rub out incompetent teachers — an eraser.
Sue Edelman, NYPOST, January 6, 2013
LINK

If a teacher who is deemed a dud agrees to quit or retire before a termination trial, the Department of Education will wipe out all of her “unsatisfactory” or U ratings and — voilà — change them to S for “satisfactory,” thus helping her land a job elsewhere.

In an e-mail obtained by The Post, a DOE lawyer offers the deal to a teacher with U ratings two years in a row, grounds for dismissal.

“The department will provide, upon request, a neutral letter documenting her employment with the DOE and will convert her U ratings to S ratings in the DOE computer system.”

It adds, “Thus if she were to seek employment outside the DOE, her computer employment records would show only ‘satisfactory.’ ”

The teacher is accused of failing to carry out lessons, sloppy record keeping and poor classroom management, among other charges.

Former Chancellor Rudy Crew once called the shuffling of lousy principals from school to school “the dance of the lemons.”

Some educators share a disgust for a likewise dirty deed — the U whitewash.

“They’re making a mockery of the entire system,” a veteran teacher said. “If someone is found incompetent, it should go on their permanent record. The DOE should not be Monty Hall on ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’ ”

Betty Rosa, a member of the state Board of Regents and a former Bronx superintendent, called the document doctoring “unethical . . . a lie.”

But a hearing officer, who recently oversaw many such deals for suspect teachers idling away in departmental “rubber rooms,” hailed the method.

“It saves time, it saves money, and it gets guaranteed results,” he told The Post. “It’s morally right, because New York kids will not have to suffer with a teacher who’s allegedly incompetent. She’s out. She’s gone.”

Future employers, he said, can probe a teacher’s past.

The debate comes as the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers wrangle over a new evaluation system to rate teachers from “highly effective” to “ineffective.”

If they don’t agree by Jan. 17, the city will forfeit $250 million in state funds, Gov. Cuomo has warned.

In the 2010-11 school year, the DOE charged 78 teachers with incompetence, it says. Hearing officers agreed to terminate 18 after long administrative trials. Other teachers kept their jobs with lesser penalties, such as paying a fine or taking a course

But 49 settled and resigned or retired, bringing the total booted to 67.

Last year, the DOE charged 88 teachers with incompetence. It won just 11 dismissal cases but tossed 39 teachers who quit in settlements.

Betsy Combier, a paralegal who helps defend teachers in discipline cases, blasted the backroom maneuvers.

“It says to teachers, ‘We didn’t mean it when we brought you up on charges. Let someone else worry about how bad or good you are. We just want you out,’” Combier said.

But educators grab the deal to avoid the risk of being found guilty, which becomes public record.

A teacher who recently quit in exchange for erasing her two U ratings was accused of weak instruction, a lack of lesson plans and a disorganized classroom.

“She’s looking for work right now — anywhere. She’s going on interviews,” Combier said.

The DOE did not answer repeated requests for comment.

susan.edelman@nypost.com

COMMENTS

Betsy Combier · Advocate/Paralegal at Advocatz · 405 subscribers
The Bloomberg process was set up so that a Supervisor could "observe" a staff member, say he/she is not competent, not "effective", not (blank), and give him or her an unsatisfactory rating without any accountability for whether it is true or not. Then the so-called 'incompetent' is brought to 3020-a, where the same observations are accepted as facts, and boom the teacher is fired. The Gotcha Squad doesn't want to spend time and money giving these people due process, so they dreamed up the settlements in order to get them out faster, while still keeping total control. The goal is to get people out, not evaluate.

Jeff Kaufman · 89 years old
You have only a part of the story. What about supposed "U" rated teachers who are hired back to the DOE under different licenses? Or teachers who agree to transfer to becoming an ATR in exchange for the removal or guarantee that a U rating will disappear. In a large system you would always expect to find anecdotal evidence of wheeling and dealing but a large part of the U rating system is institutionally corrupt. When you can be given a U rating for reasons other than being unsatisfactory you can see how deep the corruption is. I fear whatever new evaluation system is in place as the hidden schemes will be more deeply embeded.

Joel Moss · Top Commenter
You constantly write about a teacher evaluation system by Jan.17 or all that state funding will be lost. So what, N.Y. won the ridiculous Race to The Top funding a couple of years ago and no one really knows what happened to the money nor is there any evidence it improved education in any way.You constantly blame the UFT for wanting a fair evaluation system, but the mayor and his cronies want a system which relies on state test scores when many teachers in the system are not involved in state wide testing in language and math. How are they to be judged?
In a system in which your mayor, supposedly in charge of education, compares the UFT to the NRA there is no real chance for fair agreement on anything.

Carol Wolf · Mason Gross School of the Arts
It takes two years of full-time study to earn a teaching credential, at a cost of about $20K, and then there's that year of teaching for no pay under a mentor. So, during that time no one notices that the teacher isn't competent? And can you promise that this evaluation system won't be used simply to cashier a teacher (say, the ones that have made it to the top of the pay scale)? That's what the tenure system was created for: to keep administrators (who make three times the salary, by the way) from firing experienced teachers because they now cost more money to pay. Or simply because they were annoyed by them. Schools full of cowed teachers, wow, who thinks that is a good idea?

Got a teacher you don't like? Load her class with all the worst kids (it's called a "loaded class") and then charge her with not keeping order, and being incompetent because she doesn't teach them anything. This system is ripe for abuse. Guess why tenure was such a good idea when it was put in place?

So, okay, if this is such a good idea, where is the equivalent evaluation system for doctors, lawyers and other professionals? Police, for example? Or, hey, I know, how about school administrators, and Congressmen? I know there's some kind of secret law these days that you can't even look at evaluating bankers, not even when they commit egregious fraud. But hey, we sure can beat up on the teachers!

So, under this kind of system, what kind of people are going to enter this former "profession" now?

Vincent Powell · Top Commenter
It's the system set up by teachers unions. if in fact incompetency was fired at will....like so many other jobs, then no rubber rooms, no administrative trials. Money spent on this foolishness would go toward educating our youth. And as the unions have always said..."its for the children".

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
I've seen this happen not in schools, but in hospitals...where subpar nurses and doctors get shuffled around and edged out with the promise of an 'adequate' rating...and this was in an 'open shop'. It really has nothing to do with unions, but with the incompetence of supervisors, administrators (and their supporting boards of directors) who have neither a clue about how to examine workers nor how to document problems so that they'll 'stick' at termination. Without that, litigation begins...union or not. What we need is more training and 'gumption' in the upper echelons, which would get them out without 'bargains'.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Doreen - Doesn't make sense. Why would "open-shop", at-will employers (incompetent or not) shuffle around subpar med-pros? If there's no penalty for firing, what is their motivation - cash bribes or something? It seems they would be doubly motivated to fire because of potential legal liability to their business/employer and being held personally responsible & liable too? Please explain.

Doreen Meyer · Top Commenter · Servite HS Detroit, MI
Despite having an 'open-shop' hospitals are risk-averse. Physicians, particularly, will litigate terminations or 'lockouts' as being damaging to their 'good name' or as a 'trade restriction.' It takes a tremendous amount of documentation; most hospitals don't want this information to potentially end up in an open court, as it may also open them up to liability for continuing an MD whose practice has been known to be subpar. Nurses will also litigate, and often know where institutional secrets are 'buried', giving them leverage. It does sound as if they should be able to terminate at will, but they don't.
Good administrators--ones who know how to handle the process with little to no 'fallout'--are few and far between. Such actions are also usually highly 'political' and require a high level of skill and commitment to pull off.

Peter Goodman · Indiana University
Between 80-90% of cases in the civil and criminal courts are resolved through a plea bargain, why should teacher discipline cases differ... accusations do not mean a finding of guilt...

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
Peter Goodman - The difference is that I'm not paying the defendants in civil and criminal courts to educate my children nor do I trust them with my child's care. It is exactly that kind of twisted mentality which you display with that ignorant comment that is the problem.

Park Windsor · Top Commenter
Can't wait till Bloomberg is over his ill gotten 3d term.

Glenda Barker · Top Commenter
As if this is the first lie told by these people... just get rid of them. They do more harm, then good.

Denise Fryburg · Top Commenter · Hunter College
Teachers are being given U ratings for just that reason, to make them resign. It has little to do, in most cases, with performance, but how much they make. No one should buy into this.

Robert Dunn · Top Commenter · Fordham University
This is just like the Catholic Church recycling pedophiles. If a teacher is not proficient, passing them off to another district is a disservice to the families of the next school.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Catholic Church and Peds? How about the NEA/AFT Peds with Teaching Certificates who get passed on by Schools to others? I've seen it twice that I'm certain of, and probably more often when it was better covered-up. News is full of both male and female teachers who've abused their students in mulltiple districts for years.

Ron Archetti · Top Commenter
As an employer, I would now be suspect of ANY applicant that listed the DOE under previous employment on their résumé. Hiring any one of them would be like buying a pig-in-a-poke.

William Lee · Top Commenter
What a system. These "unsatisfactory" teachers can now go somewhere else to "teach". This is what's wrong with unions - always protect the bad members.

Paul Girgenti · Top Commenter
we need to start firing them for failing our children.

Baz Clark · Works at University of Pikeville
Too bad common sense isn't!

Pua Tokumoto
As a retired school principal I can honestly say that an excellent teacher is the biggest indicator of a child's success in school. We are with a child at least 6 hours a day, five days a week, in a structured environment. This is powerful and a great teacher can influence a child sometimes much more than a parent.
Unfortunately, poor teachers hurt not only children but good teachers as well. I've had experience with the union trying so hard to get rid of really poor and incompetent teachers to no avail. Teachers who were passed around from school to school. Teachers who took up a good chunk of my resources when trying to change behavior by sending them to workshops, had mentor teachers work with them, etc. The school districts know this to be so true yet strong unions are there to back them up. We need teachers unions to work for the child as well as for the teacher. The unions must realize that the public is sick and tired of incompetent teachers who are still allowed to "teach" and yet students are not learning. We are headed for disaster as a country unless the unions work with the school district in upgrading the caliber of teachers. Most teachers want to teach and play a strong role in the lives of children.
Work with the school district to keep great teachers and kick out the poor teachers. Our kids deserve no less.

Michael Reed · Top Commenter · Owner/ President at Self-Employed Consultant/Writer
Gotta' love this! NYC is chicagoing! They bribe Education Professionals (NEA/AFT members) into leaving with a promise of passing them on to some other unsuspecting sucker school district with falsified documentation. How nice, how professional and who is being held accountable for this fraud?

Peter Hirsch · Port Washington, New York
I'm sure this was a concession to the Teacher's Union, the most Evil Union On The Planet. Creates the most waste and disfunction of any organization known to Man.

Scott Manlin · Subscribe · Managing Member at Bonvivino Capital, LLC
Gotta love government

Abul Rahman · Rutgers University - College Avenue Campus
Sick

Cindy Right · Subscribe · Top Commenter
They'll just get a job at another school.....just passing the buck again. Libtards will never let anyone fix a problem.....evil butt holes.

Jan Snipes · Las Vegas, Nevada
Doesn't this just perpetuate the problem? This is why good administrators who work to change poor teachers are made out to be the bad guys.

Valerie Hofheins · University of Phoenix
...and then those teachers apply to CCSD..

Katherine Walden · Works at I'm retired
I'm one of those teachers, Val. I had a terrible eval my very first year in Prospect, and I was terrible. When I got hired I told them that it was my first year and that I would need help. I got nothing but a bad evaluation. They changed it to a satisfactory one after I agreed to not return. So when CCSD hired me, I was that teacher. But, I got better. I had help--Vandolah, Christine Jannette, Jan Snipes, even you, Val. Teachers need help being better.

Charlie Riley · Top Commenter · Electronics Supervisor at Uncle Sam
They will qualified to teach honors classes in Chicago or Detroit.