Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

August 20 3020-a for Jonathan Hinesley Has Been Cancelled

The August 20, 2015 3020-a Arbitration before Arbitrator Elliott Shaller has been cancelled.

Johnathan Hinesley is a teacher and Chapter Leader who wants the public to watch his 3020-a arbitration.

He asked for an open and public hearing.

His hearing begins August 19 at 10:00AM. His attorney is NYSUT attorney Wendy Star, and his arbitrator is Elliott Shaller.

Location:
100 Gold Street, 3rd floor room 3400. Please plan to arrive early at 100 Gold, because you have to go through security and be in the waiting room no later than 9:45 so that chairs can be placed into the hearing room for the public.

Be mindful that during the hearing you cannot speak, whisper or have any contact with Johnathan or anyone at the table. You can write notes. Do not tape.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Sunday, August 16, 2015

UFT President Says That the Just-Released Test Scores Are Good News

My comment:

Who wrote this for him?
Michael Mulgrew

The press office of the UFT spews out nonsense and gets a lot of money to do it. They of course ignore the huge amount of scrubbing in New York City and the current grade-fixing/"credit recovery" scandal going on, as well as the on-going waterfall of UFT members brought to 3020-a and given no defense by their NYSUT attorneys. Teachers, and ATRs, are front-line. They see and are given the directive to graduate all the students, no matter what. If they stand up to these directives, they are re-assigned, sent to 3020-a. NYSUT continues to bring termination decisions from the panel of arbitrators, based upon the omission of objective data.

I see very often violations of the UFT Collective Bargaining Agreement, and ADVOCATZ fights these violations and wins.

Where is the UFT and why didn't someone over there stop the charges from getting to arbitration in the first place?

Betsy Combier

OPINION: INCREMENTAL TEST SCORE GAINS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE REAL

by Michael Mulgrew
LINK
The incremental gains New York City recently scored on statewide reading and math tests are good news for our schools and children – and a much more positive and credible development than the rapid, but ultimately meaningless, increases in scores touted by Michael Bloomberg during his tenure as mayor.
During the Bloomberg years, state and city test scores exploded, to the point that in 2009 nearly 70 percent of city elementary and middle school students were supposedly proficient in reading, and more than 80 percent were proficient in math – results that Bloomberg and his allies in the “school reform” gang could not stop boasting about.
The UFT and experts warned that these results were smoke and mirrors, and by 2013 those numbers had fallen dramatically – to 26 percent proficiency in reading and 30 percent proficiency in math, thanks to new tests based on the Common Core learning standards, and to the state’s overtly political decision to set the new passing mark very high.
It generally takes students and teachers some time to adapt to new curricula and test approaches, and it has been a slow road back. The 26 percent in reading proficiency in 2013 grew to 28 percent last year and to more than 30 percent in the most recent results. Math proficiency is now up to more than 35 percent. 
An indication of real progress is the fact that the rate of increase for city reading scores this year (1.9 percentage points) was more than twice that of the state’s (0.7 percentage points). Overall, city reading scores are now close to the same level as the state’s, which has traditionally outscored the city by significant amounts in this area.
Schools set aside for special interventions also appear to show real progress. More than half the schools that have been in the UFT’s Community Schools program for more than two years showed increases in reading scores, several of them well above the average citywide increase. 
On average, schools in the PROSE program, which provides schools with wide flexibility to change their instruction based on input from teachers, showed significant reading gains – up 4.8 percentage points (versus 1.9 percentage points citywide).
Despite all the clamor from “reformers” about charter schools, charter reading gains in 2015 (1.3 percentage points) were under the average gain for public schools, and, as usual, overall city charter reading scores remain below the average for public schools (with public schools’ reading proficiency average at 30.4 percent versus the charter school average of 29.3 percent).
The racial achievement gap – the difference in performance between whites/Asian students and black/Hispanic students – is a stubborn and troubling phenomenon, and a feature of local, state and national standardized tests. 
The new scores did not show any major improvement in this category, though “reformers” – who were largely silent when Bloomberg and then-Schools Chancellor Joel Klein were making transparently fictitious claims about progress in this area – seem to have adopted it as a key concern since Bloomberg’s departure.
Unfortunately, a concentration on test scores obscures some important questions about the usefulness of standardized tests as a measure of educational quality. But, to the extent they do reflect reality, their incremental increases are more likely to reflect real progress based on the hard work of teachers and their students.
 
Michael Mulgrew is president of the United Federation of Teachers
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Lenny Isenberg: Will Truth Finally Prevail in Los Angeles About Teacher Jails and the Rubber Room Process?

Lenny Isenberg is a teacher advocate in Los Angeles

Listen - he has important statements to make.

Betsy Combier



ARE WE FINALLY GETTING CLOSER TO LAUSD'S JUDGMENT DAY?
LINK
David Holmquist

Ramon Cortines

 
On Thursday August 13, 2015 the law firm of Geragos & Geragos filed a detailed 91 page cause of action on behalf of nationally acclaimed Hobart Elementary school teacher Rafe Esquith against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Esquith Complaint (Conformed).pdf . More specifically, and in addition to suing LAUSD as a legal entity, the lawsuit also names as individual defendants Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines, Chief Legal Officer David R. Holmquist, and 50 John Does to be subsequently named after they are identified through the discovery process- a process now open to the plaintiffs to finally compell LAUSD administrators and others to tell the truth or face serious and costly- both financial and personal- legal consequencess for failing to do so.
In filing this lawsuit, the Geragos firm is in for a pleasant surprise, since it will soon find as the case unfolds that LAUSD and its corrupt and long bullying administration have literally made no attempt to cover up any of their reprehensible behavior toward Esquith or any of its other unjustly targeted employees. And that literally nobody in LAUSD administration has every had any good faith belief that the vast majority of teachers they have targeted have done anything wrong. Rather, to quote Marlon Brando's Vito Coreleone in The Godfather, what will become perfectly clear is that, "It's just business."
As the trial progresses and LAUSD's usual stall tactics- that have served them so well against defenseless teachers abandon by their union United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)- fail against a Geragos lawfirm with the bank to go against them toe to toe for the long run, what will become abundantly clear in this first neutral forum to dispassionately exam LAUSD's claims against its senior teaching staff is that the charges in the vast majority of cases are completely fabricated and based exclusively on the totally illegal motive of targeting teachers at the top of the salary scale, and/or about to vest in expensive lifetime health benefits, and/or disabled, and/or teachers like Esquith who stood up against ill-conceived and often downright illegal programs.
Simply stated, LAUSD's witch hunt has been about money and has had nothing to do with "child safety" as claimed by both Superintendent Cortines and his predecessor and now Broad Foundation employee John Deasey. And I can not help but wondering if John Deasey might also be one of the to be named John Does 1-50 in this lawsuit.
Furthermore, as more evidence is gathered in the Esquith case, a class action suit is likely to be filed or at the very least many more lawsuits like Esquith's, since a pattern and practice of illegal behavior will clearly emerge. What it will shows is literally thousands of other certificated or classified staff that bullying LAUSD administrators and their coerced subordinates either forced into early retirement or brought up on knowingly false charges. Where this case is likely to break wide open is when some of the coerced administrators, who at the behest or threat of their superiors finally speak up to save themselves about knowingly and with malice aforethought going after completely innocent teachers. Some candidates that the Geragos firm might choose take depositions from are those presently being fired by Superintendent Cortines.
Already in the pleading filed by Geragos & Geragos on behalf of Rafe Esquith, clearly illegal activity has been alleged that literally thousands of targeted teachers can substantiate and which LAUSD has no evidence to counter. In fact, the evidence clearly and convincingly substantiates what the Esquith lawsuit states:
1. No exculpatory evidence of teacher innocence or good behavior was allowed to remain in the teacher's file in a one-sided process only designed to ultimately get rid of the teacher;
2. Teachers were systematically submitted to "psychological torture" in longterm "teacher jail" incarceration that not only had no reason to exist in a purposefully protracted "investigation process," which was ultimately dispensed with even before LAUSD decided to resurrect it against Rafe Esquith;
3. In complete derogation of the legal standard establish in the tragic Mc Martin Preschool case, where all teachers and administrators were ultmately found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, rules were established as to what permission needed to be obtained from parents prior to student questioning, who was qualified to question impressionable students, and neutrality of questions to not lead highly impressionable youth into a preconceived result. In the Esquith case and in literally thousands like it, LAUSD administrators purposefully chose to ignore these legal standards in interrogating students without parents permission, where questions suggested the predetermined answers sought by people- principals- who were completely unqualified to question the students that they improperly and illegally manipulated.

4. And in typical bully behavior, any attempt by Esquith or other targeted teachers to defend themselves against clearly fabricated and disproven charges only seems to inspire LAUSD in a long established and verifiable practice to just pile on more and more serious charges that inexplicably were never brought until the teacher tried to defend themselves.

But there might just be a silver lining to the regrettable situation in which LAUSD now finds itself. When one looks at the likely astronomical damages in the billions that LAUSD faces in the Esquith case and the thousands likely to follow, maybe LAUSD can take a page from the City of Detroit bankruptcy in making lemonade out of its lemons. If LAUSD is ultimately forced into bankruptcy, they might just get out of ALL their contractual liability for wages, benefits, and retirement programs, which after all seems to have been the reason they started the witch hunt against senior certificated and classified employees in the first place back in 2006.
If you or someone you know has been targeted and are in the process of being dismissed and need legal defense, get in touch:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sheri Lederman Puts Teacher Value-Added Modeling Scores on Trial in a Precedent-Setting Case

Sheri Lederman
 See my prior posts:
Teacher Sheri Lederman's Lawsuit Against NY State's Teacher Evaluation System Moves Forward

Betsy Combier

Controversial teacher evaluation method is on trial — literally — and the judge is not amused
by Valerie Strauss, Answer Sheet, August 15, 2015
LINK
Here is a report on what happened this week in a New York court where a judge is hearing the case brought by Sheri G. Lederman, a fourth-grade teacher in the Great Neck public school district, against state education officials over their controversial method of evaluating her — and, by extension, other N.Y. teachers.
The method is known as “value-added modeling,” or VAM, and it purports to be able to use student standardized test scores to determine the “value” of a teacher while factoring out every other influence on a student (including, for example, hunger, sickness, and stress). One way it works is by predicting, through a complicated computer model, how students with similar characteristics are supposed to perform on the exams, and teachers are then evaluated on how well their students measure up to the theoretical students. New York is just one of the many states where VAM is a key component of teacher assessment. Evaluation experts have warned  policymakers that this method is not reliable for evaluating teachers, but VAM became popular among school reformers as a “data-driven” evaluation solution.
 
Lederman’s suit against state education officials — including John King, the former state education commissioner who is now a top adviser to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan — challenges the rationality of the VAM model, and it alleges that the New York State Growth Measures “actually punishes excellence in education through a statistical black box which no rational educator or fact finder could see as fair, accurate or reliable.”
Here’s what happened to Lederman: In 2012-13, 68.75 percent of her New York students met or exceeded state standards in both English and math. She was labeled “effective” that year. In 2013-2014, her students’ test results were very similar, but she was rated “ineffective.” Meanwhile, her district superintendent, Thomas Dolan, declared that Lederman — whose students received  standardized math and English Language Arts test scores consistently higher than the state average — has a “flawless record.”
Lederman and her attorney husband, Bruce Lederman, sued and obtained affidavits of support from a number of education experts. You can read about what they said here.
On Aug. 12, New York Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough presided over a hearing in the case — and he was not amused with the state’s case. Following is a report on the hearing by Carol Burris, the executive director of the nonprofit Network for Public Education Fund. Burris retired in June as an award-winning principal at a New York high school, and she is the author of numerous articles, books and blog posts (including on The Answer Sheet) about the botched school reform efforts in her state.
By Carol Burris
The exasperated New York Supreme Court judge, Roger McDonough, tried to get Assistant Attorney General Galligan to answer his questions. He was looking for clarity and instead got circuitous responses about bell curves, “outliers” and adjustments. Fourth-grade teacher Sheri Lederman’s VAM score of “ineffective” was on trial.
The more Ms. Galligan tried to defend the bell curve of growth scores as science, the more the judge pushed back with common sense. It was clear that he did his homework. He understood that the New York State Education Department’s VAM system artificially set the percentage of “ineffective” teachers at 7 percent. That arbitrary decision clearly troubled him. “Doesn’t the bell curve make it subjective? There has to be failures,” he asked.
The defender of the curve said that she did not like the “failure” word.
The judge quipped, “Ineffectives, how about that?” Those in attendance laughed.
Ms. Galligan preferred the term “outlier.” Those who got ineffective growth scores were “the outliers who are not doing a good job,” the attorney said. She seemed oblivious to the fourth-grade teacher who was sitting not 10 feet away from where she stood.
“Did her students learn nothing?” Justice McDonough asked. “How could it be that she went from 14 out of 20 points to 1 out of 20 points in one year?” He noted that the students’ scores were quite good and not that different from the year before.
Back behind the bell curve Ms. Galligan ran. As she tried to explain once again, the judge said, “Therein lies the imprecise nature of this measure.”
I met Sheri Lederman a year before she became an “outlier.” In April of 2013, a group of principals organized a forum at Hofstra University, called More than a Score. Sheri’s principal, Sharon Fougner, recommended her as a panelist. “She is not only a remarkable teacher, she is a scholar in childhood education,” Fougner said.
At that forum, Sheri spoke eloquently about her students. She explained what good elementary education should be. Her thoughtful presentation full of authentic concern for the effects of Pearson testing on her fourth-graders was the most moving presentation of the evening.
The following year, in 2014, Sheri received her ineffective score from the state. Principal Fougner called her into her office to tell her, so she would not have to suffer the indignity of reading it on a computer screen.
The master teacher, known for her high expectations for students and her belief that every single student can succeed with her help, was in shock. Just the year before her score was rated “effective.”
After being told the bad news, Lederman recalls sitting at her desk thinking that there must be some mistake. She thought about quitting — and then she got angry.
What started out as a personal affront became a cause. As she recently told me:
“I spend a lot of time teaching my students about the injustices that have historically plagued populations across the world. It is often the case that one single person must step up and take a stand against an unjust law or governing body, becoming the tipping point for so many others. I could not stand by and accept what SED [State Education Department] and the Legislature were doing to me and every other educator out there. I have made the choice to take a public stand. Win or lose, I won’t stand by and be ineffective in this fight.”
She and her husband, attorney Bruce Lederman, filed for a review. She received a dismissive letter from the State Education Department saying there was no review and if she didn’t like it, the only recourse was an article 78 action.
And that is just what she and her husband began.
Lederman was not the only teacher in the school to get a poor score. In 2014, 21 percent of the staff at E.M. Baker School received a score of “ineffective,” 21 percent “developing” and 57 percent were “effective.”  Just the year before, not one teacher received an “ineffective” score.
The irrationality was not limited to the teachers of Sheri Lederman’s school, one of the highest performing elementary schools in the state. In 2014, 44 percent of the teachers of the Fox Meadow School in Scarsdale received growth scores that said they were not “effective” teachers with 22 percent rated “ineffective.”  Yet 61 percent of the school’s students were proficient in English Language Arts, and 75 percent were proficient in math—more that double the state’s proficiency rate.  Similar results were found at the high-achieving Harbour Hill School in Roslyn, where 36 percent of its teachers received growth scores that labeled them “ineffective.”
The Lincoln School in Rochester, is a school designated as a priority/failing school by the state. Its proficiency rate was less than 3 percent. In 2014, 100 percent of its teachers received “effective” state scores, with 7 percent being rated “highly effective.”  At another school facing receivership, The Martin Luther King Jr School in Utica, New York, 60 percent of the teachers received “effective” VAM scores and 40 percent were given VAM scores of “highly effective .”
I point out these dramatic differences not to disparage or embarrass the teachers of any school, but rather to shine a light on the irrational state-produced teacher scores based on the New York Common Core tests. For more information on the unreliable manner in which these scores functioned in 2013 and 2014, read here.
Bruce Lederman argued the irrationality of that rating system before the court. He laid out a careful, systematic argument. He was not opposed to evaluation. He was not even opposed to evaluation based on a measurement of student learning growth. He objected to a rating created in a black box that spit out predictions that compared his wife’s students to “avatar students.” He was disturbed that when questioned, that system responds with “because we say so.” He noted that “the magic of numbers brings a suspension of common sense.”
“There is nothing in the law that requires a bell curve,” he argued. He explained that a bell curve with its forced failures violates that law that requires that every teacher must be able to get all scores. Not only did he want the court to set aside his wife’s score, he wanted the court to “declare the measure an abuse of discretion” because “the State Education Department does not get a pass on unreasonable and irrational actions.”
After 90 minutes of argument, the court adjourned.
At its core, this story is a love story. It is the story of a teacher who loves her students, her profession and justice so much that she is willing to stand up and let the world know that she was “an outlier” with an “ineffective” score.
It was love that compelled teachers, retired and active, driving from all corners of the state to be in that courtroom to listen on a hot summer’s day. It was love that compelled her principal to drive to Albany to be there. It was the deep and abiding love of a husband for his wife that compelled Bruce Lederman to spend countless hours preparing an extraordinary defense.  And it is love that nourishes and sustains the good school, not avatar score predictions for performance on Common Core tests.
 
Supreme Court Justice McDonough’s decision is expected in two to three months.

 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 14, 2015

Rafe Esquith is Under Investigation by LAPD Sex Crimes Unit

Rafe Esquith
When attacked, Rafe fights back - Rafe's lawyers file a defamation lawsuit.

Yay for justice!! Keep up the good fight, Rafe!

Betsy Combier
LA School Report has confirmed that an LAPD sex crimes unit has an open investigation of celebrated teacher Rafe Esquith involving allegations of “inappropriate touching.” Meanwhile, Esquith’s attorneys are striking back with threats of additional lawsuits and a “declaration of war against LAUSD.”
One of Esquith’s attorneys, Ben Meisales, said, “This continued defamation by LAUSD knows no bounds. This is a slap at all hard-working teachers and it has created a declaration of war against LAUSD.”
Lead attorney Mark Geragos added, “People all across the country are watching these unscrupulous tactics. LAUSD is acting as a criminal cartel that needs to be put out of business, and we will put them out of business.”
Meanwhile, the Sexually Exploited Child Unit of the West Bureau Sex Crimes of the Los Angeles Police Department has a case that is opened against Esquith and being investigated by Detective Rachel Saavedra. The attorneys for Esquith said they were unaware of the investigation, which is being conducted by police at the Olympic Division of the LAPD in the district of the Hobart Boulevard Elementary School where Esquith taught fifth grade until he was unceremoniously taken out of the classroom last April and confined during the day hours to the “teachers jail” in a downtown LA building.
On Thursday, Geragos filed a class action lawsuit against LA Unified not only claiming age discrimination and unfair business practices, but defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hours after receiving the lawsuit, LAUSD issued a letter for the first time dealing with alleged serious allegations against Esquith, including “highly inappropriate conduct involving touching of minors” during his time as a district teacher as well as “inappropriate photographs and videos of a sexual nature” on his school computer. The letter also mentions allegations of “threats to a parent and two students” and “possible ethical” violations of district policy regarding Esquith’s nonprofit after-school program, the Hobart Shakespeareans. 
Through attorneys, Esquith denies all the allegations. Esquith is the author of some popular books about teaching, won the National Medal of Arts from President Obama and was named one of the best teachers in the country by The Washington Post.
School officials are required by law to report all sexual allegations involving children to the proper authorities, and because of the “inappropriate touching” allegations, LA School Report asked LAUSD if police officials were notified.
Shannon Haber, the district’s director of Communications & Media Relations, issued a statement reading, “Yes, as mandated reporters, we always report allegations of suspected child abuse to the appropriate agency.”
LAPD officials had no further details about the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, Geragos said he plans to ask for a criminal investigation against the school district by going to the Department of Justice, and they also plan to file a lawsuit against Toni Tosello, the liabilities claims coordinator who wrote the Aug. 13 letter from LAUSD’s Risk Finance and Insurance Services department. The letter said that while investigating the original allegations (of a reading from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn), they discovered “additional serious allegations of misconduct” by the 61-year-old teacher.
Meanwhile, Esquith’s attorneys claim the noted teacher is a victim of a “witch hunt” and that after one day, their class action has gone from about 200 hundred teachers to more than 1,000 who have contacted the office with similar complaints.
“The only child who was been hurt by all this is one of Rafe Esquith’s students who when LAUSD started this witch hunt attempted to commit suicide when [Esquith] was taken from the classroom,” Meiselas said.
Meanwhile, in a letter dated Thursday from Student Safety Investigation Team director Jose Cantu, the district asked for an interview with Esquith for the “investigation of alleged misconduct” according to the letter. They planned the interview on Aug. 18 with investigator Ray Johnson. That interview won’t happen, Esquith’s representatives said.
“The only discussion now about this will be in court,” Meisalas said.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 13, 2015

AMPLIFY, Joel Klein's New Business, Fails

Joel Klein fails again!!!!!
Shouldn't he be living in an assisted facility in Florida by now?
Joel Klein
Betsy Combier
President, ADVOCATZ 

News Corp. Planning to Sell Off Money-Losing Education Unit
By 

LINK
Robert Thomson

Amplify, a much-heralded push by News Corporation into digital education, led by Joel Klein, a former New York City schools chancellor, is nearing an inglorious end.

News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, said on Wednesday that it would take a $371 million write-down on the education division and would move to wind down the production of tablets for schoolchildren, a key part of the unit’s offering.

Moreover, News Corporation’s chief executive, Robert Thomson, said in an earnings call with analysts that the company was in an “advanced stage of negotiations” with a potential buyer for the remaining education business.

Together, the moves highlight the difficulty that has confronted News Corporation and others looking to move teaching into the digital age, relying on the Internet and tablets to update traditional curriculums.

Few initiatives possessed the prominence of Amplify, which grew out of a nearly five-year-old acquisition of a testing software maker that became a small but visible part of News Corporation. And it gained a prominent leader in Mr. Klein, who oversaw New York City’s public schools under Michael R. Bloomberg and was known for pushing technology — sometimes controversially — into the city’s education system.

Among Amplify’s main propositions: an online curriculum that taught arts in a more vivid way, including videos, games and apps. An introduction to “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass” relied on a video of the actor Chadwick Boseman, while a lesson on Edgar Allan Poe drew on games that students could play to solve a mystery.

Such lessons could be run on several devices. But Amplify focused on its own custom-made tablets that would be leased out to schools.

Yet the rollouts to various schools have been marred by problems, from malfunctioning tablets to slower-than-expected sales. In a note to Amplify employees sent on Wednesday, Mr. Klein said that many school districts lacked the necessary Internet connections.

To that end, he wrote, Amplify will stop marketing the tablet and will no longer accept new customers, though it will continue to support existing subscribers.

“This move will allow us to focus our efforts on the growth and success of our digital curriculum and assessment products,” he wrote.

The division is now in talks with “an outside investor” who would most likely be backed by the unit’s existing management.

“As positive as this relationship has been, Amplify and News Corp. both believe it is time to explore new and exciting strategic opportunities, working with partners who share a deep understanding of what it takes to be successful in education,” Mr. Klein added.

In part, News Corporation’s exit from its education business is the result of the company’s recent reorganization. When it created Amplify in 2012, the company was much larger, with the 21st Century Fox movie studio and Fox television assets under its umbrella. But a year later, Mr. Murdoch split the company in two: 21st Century Fox, the lucrative entertainment assets, and News Corporation, which includes the newspaper assets and the education business.

Losing hundreds of millions of dollars on a start-up education business became far less tenable inside a much smaller and far less profitable News Corporation.

RELATED COVERAGE


21st Century Fox Announces New Murdoch Roles JUNE 16, 2015


No Child Left Untableted SEPT. 12, 2013
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

New Teachers and TENURE

Tenure

UFT.org

Appointment and New York City licensure

When a New York City school permanently hires you to fill a vacancy you are “appointed” to that position. Your appointment must match your state certification by both subject and level.

As part of this appointment process the DOE automatically generates its own teaching license. This New York City license must match your New York State certificate subject area and, in addition, the grade level of your NYC teaching assignment. The NYC license specifies the area in which you will be considered for tenure decisions and accrue seniority; the latter can be very important if there isexcessing in your school. While there are no more New York City paper licenses, there are still license/appointment areas, each with a different code. When you begin teaching, the DOE notifies you by personal email of your license/appointment area and includes the license code. Make sure that you are appointed in the subject area and division level (i.e. elementary, middle or high school) that matches your state certification.
You can only be appointed in an area that matches your state certificate. It can be a little confusing, however, as New York State certification often includes different grade ranges than those of a New York City license. For example, a New York State English or math or social studies certificate will state it is appropriate for grades 7-12 (middle and high schools). A New York City license, however, differentiates between high school and middle school, depending on your appointment.
Unfortunately, “out of license” teaching assignments are not unusual. Since some teaching positions are harder to fill than others, newer teachers are often assigned to teach out of their license areas, in a different level, subject area or both. While such “out of license” assignments don’t affect your salary, they could affect your ability to attain tenure and your right to keep your position if excessing occurs. Teachers who have taught “out of license” could find their probation period extended if the principal or superintendent thinks there is not enough experience in, or evidence of, effectiveness in the appointed license area.
If you believe your appointment, New York City license, or teaching assignment does not match your state certification, speak to your chapter leader at once. Your chapter leader can help you discuss this with your principal and get your program corrected as soon as possible. Or you can call your UFT borough office immediately and ask to speak to an educational liaison.
You can be appointed under only one license at a time, and your license area of appointment determines the area in which you will be granted tenure. Sometimes your certification permits you to be appointed under another license; however, if you agree to switch to a new appointment you are on probation again. In addition, if you switch to another license before you receive tenure in your first license you must serve probation in that license, and there may be other ramifications. Contact yourUFT borough office before you switch your license.
In any case, your salary does not change when your license changes. Be sure you check with your payroll secretary that your appointment date is correctly entered in the computer.

Probationary period

State law requires teachers and other staff to serve a four-year probationary period after being appointed to a position. During that time supervisors are supposed to observe you several times a year and evaluate you in areas including classroom management, lesson planning, presentation skills and how you use student data to help plan instruction.
Generally, at the end of four years of acceptable service, you will be entitled to due process rights under Section 3020a of the state Education Law, which governs the discipline and dismissal of tenured educators. This is commonly called acquiring tenure, but it is effectively the completion of your probationary period.
If the DOE intends to discontinue, that is, terminate, your service at any time prior to the completion of your probationary period you must be given 30 calendar days’ notice. If you are discontinued, call your UFT borough office. They will assign an advocate to assist you in fighting the termination.
Sometimes a principal will ask you to sign a document stating that you agree to an extension of your probationary period beyond the four years. If this occurs contact your chapter leader or your UFT borough office immediately so we can arrange, if necessary, for an attorney to review the document in order to protect your rights as a probationary educator.
There are two ways to reduce your probationary period:
  • If you worked satisfactorily as a regular substitute in the same license and in the same school level you can reduce the normal four-year probationary period by up to two years. This is called Jarema Credit and you should apply if you think you are eligible. The application form is online.
  • Another way is called "traveling tenure." If you received tenure in one license area and elect to take an appointment in a new license area or if you were tenured in another school district in New York State, you should apply to have your probationary period reduced to three years.
If you think you are eligible for either of these options, or have any questions, contact your UFT borough office.

Tenure

Principals making tenure decisions use the DOE's Tenure Decision-making Framework as a guide.
The framework affects only teachers who are on probation, not teachers who already have tenure. It has no bearing on the rating system that administrators use for their annual review of all teachers.
Under New York State law, appointed educators achieve tenure after completing a probationary period and fulfilling all requirements for the professional certificate. In New York City, tenure is granted in your license appointment area, which is why it is of utmost importance that your license code match the subject and level in which you are teaching.
Having tenure means you may not be disciplined or terminated without due process. As a tenured member you have the right to a hearing before an independent arbitrator regarding any charges brought against you. This due process right protects you from being fired for personal, arbitrary or political reasons.
As described above, the process for determining whether or not you will get tenure is rigorous, and tenure is not automatic at the end of the probationary period. You must:
  • Complete all your state certification and city licensing requirements, file an application and receive professional certification.
  • Have a record of acceptable service during your probationary period.
  • Be recommended for tenure by your principal.
In order to recommend you for tenure, your principal will use a framework developed by the DOE in 2010. He or she will rate you as highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective in three categories:
  • Instructional practice, which can be measured by formal and informal classroom observations, your work products and annual reviews;
  • Professional contributions to your school and profession, which can be verified by feedback from students, parents and colleagues; your attendance and punctuality; and the work you do on school teams; and
  • Impact on student learning, or the gains your students make in meeting New York State standards as evidenced by their work, portfolios, passing rates and achievement on state exams.
Principals are encouraged to recommend highly effective and effective teachers for tenure. If you are rated a developing teacher, your principal may ask you to agree to extend your probationary period to a fifth year. In this case, you should contact your chapter leader or UFT representative to help ensure that your rights are being protected.

How can teachers prepare for their tenure decision? 

The UFT encourages teachers to be proactive in preparing for their tenure decision. Here are some steps you can take throughout your probationary period:
  • If your principal has not initiated a meeting about your tenure decision, ask for an appointment to find out where things stand and what is expected of you. Do this even if your tenure decision is a year or two away so you have time on your side.
  • Become familiar with the multiple sources of evidence for each factor that principals will use to prepare their tenure recommendations.
  • Put together a professional portfolio of your effectiveness as a teacher. Organize your portfolio with a table of contents to separate the various components. Include a cross-section of your work but be selective in choosing the materials to include. Add a brief explanation or context for each piece of evidence you include and be sure to show how you differentiate to accommodate children with diverse abilities.
  • Every spring the UFT offers workshops in our borough offices to help teachers prepare for tenure. Check the union newspaper, New York Teacher, and theUFT website for a schedule of tenure workshops.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)