Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Sunday, June 18, 2017

The New York City Department of Education Reading Coach Application Site - Is the New York City Department of Education Hiding It?

I have a new question for you, Carmen:

Is the New York City Department of Education hiding Literacy positions so that ATRs cannot apply?

Word is, ATRs are not being given all open positions or access to information about them. I guess the NYC DOE is looking for candidates only within a certain limited pool that excludes Absent Teacher Reservists (ATRs).

Hmmmmm. What's up?

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com



NYC DOE Chancellor Carmen Farina
Welcome to the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) Universal Literacy 
(ULIT) Reading Coach application site!

Applications are now being accepted for the Teacher Assigned Universal Literacy Reading Coach position for 2017-2018. 

The posting for this position is entitled: "TEACHER ASSIGNED VACANCY CIRCULAR NO. 5 (READING COACH) 2017-2018 (UNIVERSAL LITERACY COACH) REPOST-EXT."  Click this LINK to see the posting/job description for more information.  (Note that even if it is past the deadline date, you may still apply for the position.)

Please create an account here to submit your application.  Under "Category," choose New Application if you are applying for the first time.  Choose Re-appointment if you are a current Cohort One Universal Literacy Reading Coach.

If you have started an application and have not yet finished, log in to complete for submission.

For New Applicants:
Once submitted, your initial application will be reviewed and if qualified, you will be asked to complete part two.  If you remain a qualified candidate, you will then be asked to interview.

Note that currently you must be a NYCDOE tenured teacher to apply.  It is preferred that candidates hold a "Common Branches," "Reading Specialist," and/or a "Literacy (Birth to Grade 6)" certificate and that their tenure was earned under one of these licenses as well.  Check back as these conditions may change in the near future.

Also note that you will have to choose three districts in which you prefer placement and may not receive an offer for your first or second choice.

Finally, be aware that acceptance of an offer means that you will be available to attend our three week summer training institute - Monday, July 10th to Friday, July 28th (9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. in lower Manhattan each week day).  Details will be provided in your offer package.  Per session will be paid for all time attended.

Information Sessions:
We have been holding special events where candidates can learn more about this position.

Thursday, April 27th - Brooklyn
Wednesday, May 10th - Bronx
Thursday, June 8th - Bronx

We may hold an additional in-person session or one on-line.  Check back here periodically for more information.

For Re-appointment:
Information on this process was disseminated via e-mail to all Cohort One coaches on Monday, May 29th, 2017.

(Last updated: Monday, June 12th, 2017)

UFT President Mike Mulgrew, Chancellor Carmen Farina, Mayor Bill De Blasio
City will hire 100 reading coaches to kick off of universal literacy initiative
New program aims to bring 100 percent literacy by 2026
Posted 
By Lisa Herndon
Seven out of 10 young children in New York City public schools lack basic reading skills, according to the Department of Education’s figures – a problem that the city hopes to fix through a coaching program scheduled to begin this fall.
The project, officially dubbed the Universal Literacy Initiative, is expected to cost $75 million annually after it has been fully phased in by 2019. The goal is to achieve “100 percent literacy” among third graders by 2026, according to a statement by Mayor de Blasio’s office.
New York’s geographic District 10 – the northwest section of the Bronx – is among a handful of the city’s areas that will receive the first cohort of coaches this fall. The others are districts 9 in the Bronx and 17 and 32 in Brooklyn. The districts have been selected for having a high number of young students and a large share of third-grade students with low test scores in English Language Arts.
“This is the most support the city has ever given to pre-K-2 teachers,” said Andrew Fletcher, director of Early Literacy, one of the people who will be overseeing the program.
Much of the initiative’s millions of dollars in funding will be used to send reading coaches to schools. But instead of working with struggling students, coaches will provide training and support for elementary school teachers – who are then expected to help students improve reading skills.
Program leaders promoted the plan at the Community Education Council of District 10 in late June. The initiative received a cautious response from the audience: While the idea itself was great, the implementation might prove difficult, activists said.
“I’m right behind it and I understand how coaches can help teachers,” said Dean Parker, a former Community Education Council member who attended the meeting. However, he wonders how the DOE will meet its target: “It’s a wonderful goal. But ... it’s unlikely that they will achieve that.”
The ambition is to make sure that “at least two-thirds of students will be able to read with fluency by the end of second grade, with the target of 100 percent literacy by 2026,” according to the Education Department.
Currently, only 30 percent of third-graders in New York City public schools can read at grade level, according to the department’s statistics.
A potential hurdle to implementing the literacy initiative lies in the fact that many young newcomers to the U.S. are entering New York City schools with limited or no English skills, Mr. Parker said.
“There are many immigrants every year,” he said. “So, it’s going to be a portion of second graders who are discovering English as a new language.”
The literacy initiative’s authors seem to recognize the difficulty, and their project envisages additional help for students with special needs and English language learners.
Still, “it’s going to be challenging,” the head of the District 10 Community Education Council, Marvin Shelton, told The Press in a telephone interview.
Mr. Shelton also expressed doubts that tutoring teachers, rather than students, was a particularly efficient approach.
“You hired a coach to teach the teachers and it sounds cumbersome,” he said.
The Education Department counters that coaching the teachers will equip them with the newest instruction methods, which the teachers can then use in every class where they work.
“We have to be thinking about … keeping our eyes on the prize, which is training coaches to be a support to teachers, making sure the teacher experts are supporting the children,” said Esther Klein Friedman, executive director of Literacy and Academic Intervention Services.
Working with English-language learners at an early age would help to ensure they are on track for long-term academic success, she added.
The current focus is training new coaches, she said. So far, 63 out of the 103 coaches for this year’s cohort have been hired and will begin a three-week training, followed by twice-monthly training during the school year.
Reading coaches, who are being recruited from among tenured and experienced K-2 teachers, will rotate between each grade on six-week cycles. Most schools will receive one coach, and smaller schools, with fewer than 50 students per grade, would share a coach.
The initiative will add 14 additional districts in 2017, and the remaining 14 in 2018. The teaching approach will stress five pillars of learning: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, plus writing. To measure the initiative’s progress, Education Department employees will use tools such as Gates-MacGinitie.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Aster v Board of Education: Non-Tenured Teachers' Appeal Process is Unconstitutional (1972)

In 1973, Kings County Supreme Court Judge Harold McLaughlin ruled that the
"hearings conducted for nontenured teachers who appealed their dismissals did not “satisfy due process under the 14th Amendment.” and,

... that a nontenured teacher who was dismissed was entitled to the same rights‐in his appeal as tenured teacher—representation by counsel, confrontation and cross‐examination of adverse witnesses and a written opinion."

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Court Backs Dropped Teachers' Fight

A State Supreme Court justice in Brooklyn has ruled that the appeals process available to non‐tenured New York City school teachers who have been dismissed from their posts is unconstitutional.

In a decision announced last week, Justice Harold McLaughlin held that the hearings conducted for nontenured teachers who appealed their dismissials did not “satisfy due process under the 14th Amendment.”

The verdict was described as a “major victory” for teachers' rights by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case on behalf of Ellen Aster, a former fine‐arts teacher at Brooklyn's Lafayette High School.

Shanker's ‘Delighted’

“We are delighted with the Aster decision,” Albert Shanker, the president of the United Federation of Teane:‐s, declared when he learned of the outcome. “It is in accord with the U.F.T.'s view that all teachers are entitled to due‐process hearing in dismissal cases.”

A school system official estimated that about 50 such appeals are brought each year by nontenured teachers who have been dismissed.

The court decided that a nontenured teacher who was dismissed was entitled to the same rights‐in his appeal as tenured teacher—representation by counsel, confrontation and cross‐examination of adverse witnesses and a written opinion.

“We feel the judge is in error and we will probably have to appeal his decision,” G. Gary Sousa, assistant counsel to the Board of Education, said last week.

In a similar case last May in Queens, a State Supreme Court justice also upheld the right of a nontenured teacher to due process in a hearing in which dismissal was appealed. That verdict was appealed by the Board of Education.

New York City teachers have traditionally remained on probation and without tenure until they have been on the job for three years. During that period they have not enjoyed all the rights of their tenured colleagues.

“It has been generally held,” Justice McLaughlin wrote in his decision, “that a teacher has no vested rights during a probationary period and the services of a probationary teacher may be discontinued without a hearing and without giving reasons therefor.”

The judge ruled, basing his decision in part on a United States Supreme Court verdict of last June, that because of the “definite danger” that a dismissed teacher “may be deprived of the opportunity of future employment” the teacher is entitled to due process in a hearing on an appeal.

The school system official said that “the percentage of dismissals that is reversed is small,” and added: “But that stands to reason because when someone is recommended for discontinuance of probationary service, the principal or community school superintendent turning in the report does not take the matter lightly.”

It was contended by the New York Civil Liberties Union that “last year not one teacher ever won on the merits of an appeal, although a few won on procedural technicalities.”

https://casetext.com/case/aster-v-board-of-educ
 ASTER V. BOARD OF EDUC., 72 Misc.2d 953, 958 (N.Y. Misc. 1972) 
. “The court carefully noted (p. 574, n. 13), " Mere proof, for example, that his record of nonretention in one job, taken alone, might make him somewhat less attractive to some other employers would hardly establish the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of `liberty.'" However, in the case under discussion, the issue is not nonretention alone but a loss of license, limitation of future employment opportunities and a possibly damaged reputation, all of which I find amounts to deprivation of liberty and property under the Fourteenth Amendment requiring a full prior hearing.” Quoted 1 time

HAROLD J. McLAUGHLIN, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a probationary teacher of fine arts at Lafayette High School, Brooklyn, seeks judgment expunging the unsatisfactory rating given her and reversing, annulling and setting aside the determination discontinuing her services as a nontenured teacher.

The undisputed facts reveal that petitioner was appointed as a regular teacher of fine arts at Lafayette High School for a probationary term commencing September 9, 1970. She taught at Lafayette High School from September 9, 1970 through January 31, 1971 at which time she sought and was granted a one-year leave of absence. Prior to petitioner's appointment to Lafayette she taught in the New York City school system for four years under a substitute license where she received a satisfactory rating.

On January 29, 1971 petitioner was notified by her principal that her teaching performance for the period from September 9, 1970 through January, 1971 had been evaluated as unsatisfactory and recommended that her license be terminated. On or about February 4, 1971 petitioner appealed the unsatisfactory rating with the Office of Personnel of the Board of Education pursuant to section 105(a) of the by-laws of the Board of Education, but no action was taken on the appeal since petitioner was on leave of absence at that time.

On January 7, 1972 petitioner wrote to her principal advising him that she intended resuming her teaching duties on February 1, 1972.

Thereafter, on January 13, 1972 petitioner's principal sent petitioner three copies of a report concerning her probationary services wherein she was rated unsatisfacory in 15 out of 24 categories. The principal recommended that petitioner's probationary services be terminated; the recommendation was approved by the assistant superintendent in charge.

On January 26, 1972 petitioner was notified to appear at a hearing relative to the discontinuance of her probationary service. Petitioner appeared at the hearing along with the aid and assistance of a United Federation of Teachers advisor.

On or about February 22, 1972 the Chancellor's committee unanimously recommended "Discontinuance of Probationary Service", which recommendation was subsequently approved by said Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York.

Petitioner brings this proceeding challenging her dismissal on the ground that the proceedings under which petitioner was dismissed were legally insufficient and in violation of her due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Petitioner contends that the failure of the by-laws here in question (§ 105[a]) to provide for cross-examination of adverse witnesses and representation by counsel deprived her of her constitutional rights. Petitioner cites the recent case of Board of Regents v. Roth ( 408 U.S. 564), in support of her position.

Up to this time it has been generally held that a teacher has no vested rights during a probationary period and the services of a probationary teacher may be discontinued without a hearing and without giving reasons therefor. (See Matter of Butler v. Allen, 29 A.D.2d 799; Matter of Pinto v. Wynstra, 22 A.D.2d 914; Matter of McMaster v. Owens, 275 App. Div. 506; and Matter of High v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 7, North Hempstead, 169 Misc. 98, affd. 256 App. Div. 1074, affd. 281 N.Y. 815.)

As recently as May of this year, the Appellate Division of this Department in Matter of Clausen v. Board of Educ. of City of N Y ( 39 A.D.2d 708) held "the hearing afforded petitioner which resulted in the discontinuance of her services was adequate to protect her rights. Neither statute nor due process requires a plenary hearing or representation by counsel in such a matter".

The relevant statutes involved also suggest that a probationary teacher is not protected by due process rights.

Thus, former subdivision 1 of section 2573 Educ. of the Education Law read in part as follows: "Teachers * * * shall be appointed by the board of education, upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, for a probationary period of not less than one year and not to exceed three years * * * The service of a person appointed to any of such position may be discontinued at any time during such probationary period, on the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, by a majority vote of the board of education."

Section 100(7) of the by-laws of the Board of Education provides: "The service of a person appointed for a probationary period * * * may be discontinued by the Board of Education at any time within such probationary period on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools."

Section 105(a) of such by-laws gives the probationary teacher the right to a notice of the time and place of hearing and the matter to be considered. It also provides the right to be accompanied and advised by an employee of the Board of Education, to be confronted by witnesses, to call witnesses and to introduce any relevant evidence, but stops short of granting such petitioner the right of cross-examination and representation by counsel.

However, in June of this year and subsequent to the holding in the Clausen case ( supra), the Supreme Court of the United States came down with its ruling in the Board of Regents v. Roth case ( supra) which appears to refine the rights of nontenure teachers not heretofore recognized and brings into sharp focus the necessary ingredients of due process rights, as spelled out in Goldberg v. Kelly ( 397 U.S. 254).

In the Roth case, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a teacher without the necessity of a hearing or other emoluments of due process procedures. The court found that the petitioner was not deprived of liberty or the loss of her property right as those rights are understood. However, during the course of its opinion the court made some relevant and interesting observations concerning the rights of probationary teachers. The court stated the general principle as follows (p. 569): "The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. When protected interests are implicated, the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount. But the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite." The court then went on to state (p. 571) that it "has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between `rights' and `privileges' that once seemed to govern the application of procedural due process rights."

The court declared that the terms "liberty" and "property" in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are not to be narrowly construed but must be given a broad interpretation. Thus, the court held (p. 572) that the concept "Liberty * * * denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children * * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized * * * as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" and that property interests extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate chattels or money.

As the court stated further (p. 573): "The State, in declining to rehire the respondent, did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he had been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality. Had it done so, this would be a different case. For `[w]here a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential' * * * In such a case, due process would accord an opportunity to refute the charge before University officials." (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar the charges made against petitioner involved her reputation and good name as a teacher, which comes within the concept of liberty as expressed in the Roth case.

Speaking of possible property rights of nontenured teachers, the Supreme Court held that (p. 573): "There is no suggestion that the State, in declining to re-employ the respondent, imposed on him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. The State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities. Had it done so, this, again, would be a different case. For `[t]o be deprived not only of present government employment but of future opportunity for it certainly is no small injury. . . .' * * * The Court has held, for example, that a State in regulating eligibility for a type of professional employment, cannot foreclose a range of opportunities `in a manner . . . that contravene[s] . . . due process,' * * * and, specifically, in a manner that denies the right to a full prior hearing."

In this case the record clearly shows that there is a definite danger that petitioner may be deprived of the opportunity of future employment. Subdivision (g) of section 241 of the by-laws of the New York City Board of Education provides that a license shall terminate "if and when the service of the license is terminated by the discontinuance of probationary appointment or by dismissal."

Moreover, section 250 of the by-laws provides that: "A person who has been dismissed from a position by the Board of Education, or who has resigned while charges against him were pending, shall not be eligible for reemployment under any license held by him at such time of severance from service; and no substitute certificate shall be issued by virtue of licenses held by such employee."

The afore-mentioned statutory provisions clearly foreclose petitioner's opportunity for future employment as a teacher in the New York City school system. Upon this record, I would venture to say that petitioner would have an almost impossible task in obtaining a teaching position at any time and at any place.

The court also stated (p. 577) that "It is a purpose of the constitutional right to a hearing to provide an opportunity for a person to vindicate those claims."

Though the Supreme Court in the Roth case ( supra) rejected the concept that nonretention by one university or college would create practical difficulties in a teacher's subsequent and academic career, it did so on the most narrow grounds.

1

The court carefully noted (p. 574, n. 13), " Mere proof, for example, that his record of nonretention in one job, taken alone, might make him somewhat less attractive to some other employers would hardly establish the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of `liberty.'" However, in the case under discussion, the issue is not nonretention alone but a loss of license, limitation of future employment opportunities and a possibly damaged reputation, all of which I find amounts to deprivation of liberty and property under the Fourteenth Amendment requiring a full prior hearing.

I am of the opinion that the hearing conducted herein under section 105(a) of the by-laws does not satisfy due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It would seem that the Supreme Court in the Roth case left open the type of hearing that should be afforded a nontenured teacher whose liberty and property right had been endangered, but there are strong indications in the opinion that the court was thinking in terms of a full prior hearing. Thus, the court uses phrases such as: refutation of charges, right to full prior hearing, and right to vindication. The extent of what constitutes a due process hearing under the circumstances here disclosed was fully spelled out in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly ( 397 U.S. 254). In that case the Supreme Court granted welfare recipients, denied assistance, full due process protection. Thus, the court held: "`The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.' (p. 267). * * * In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. (p. 269). * * * `The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.' (p. 270). * * * Finally, the decisionmaker's conclusion as to a recipient's eligibility must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing * * * To demonstrate compliance with this elementary requirement, the decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on" (p. 271).

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Board of Education for a hearing in accord with the principles herein set forth.
ASTER v. BOARD OF EDUC•72 Misc.2d 953, 958 (N.Y. Misc. 1972) 
https://casetext.com/case/aster-v-board-of-educ

BACK TO ASTER V. BOARD OF EDUC




Top of Form




Bottom of Form

INSIGHTS (0)

CITING CASES (7)

SortCOURT

·

HARON V. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF NEW YORK, (E.D.N.Y. 1976), 411 F. SUPP. 68 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) • CITING 3 TIMES

… Plaintiff relies heavily on a series of State cases to support the claim that she has been denied a property right, but we find the cases cited unpersuasive. Aster v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 72 Misc.2d 953, 339 N.Y.S.2d 903 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co. 1972), for example, does hold that after Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, a probationary teacher must be accorded a due process hearing before termination, but the court relied on the mistaken assumption that a teacher lost his or her teaching license upon termination. That was the contention of the unsuccessful plaintiffs in Finucane and Rice. …



·

SIGMON V. POE, (W.D.N.C. 1947), 381 F. SUPP. 387 (W.D.N.C. 1974) • CITING 3 TIMES

… Ct., N.D.Ill. 1972); Stout v. Whiteaker, 379 F. Supp. 218 (M.D. Tenn.); Francis v. Ota, 356 F. Supp. 1029 (D.C.Haw. 1973); Ortwein v. Mackey, 358 F. Supp. 705 (M.D.Fla. 1973); Thomas v. Ward, 374 F. Supp. 206 (M.D.N.C. 1973); Aster v. Board of Education, 72 Misc.2d 953, 339 N.Y.S. 2d 903 (Sup.Ct. 1972). Neither the legislature nor the defendants have provided a machinery whereby the Board's application of the statutory standard can be measured. …



·

JAMES V. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, 37 N.Y.2D 891 (N.Y. 1975) • CITING 2 TIMES

… I note that at least one New York court has held that the termination of a probationary teacher on the grounds that her services were unsatisfactory meets the test of injury to reputation set forth in Board of Regents v Roth ( 408 U.S. 564, supra) since it has the effect of barring the teacher from future employment in the same local area and perhaps elsewhere as well. (Aster v Board of Educ., 72 Misc.2d 953.) It is under Perry, rather than Roth, however, that his primary allegations fall more exactly. …



·

MATTER OF SANFORD V. ROCKEFELLER, 35 N.Y.2D 547 (N.Y. 1974) • CITING 2 TIMES

… As such, public employees should receive more than token due process. In addition to the direct sanctions of the Taylor Law, the employees are stigmatized for having been convicted of participating in an illegal strike since the guilty determinations become a part of their personnel files and may adversely affect their civil service careers in the future (see, e.g., Aster v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 72 Misc.2d 953). The United States Supreme Court has recognized the value of an individual's good name and reputation and held that a person may not be deprived of it without notice and an opportunity to be heard ( Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433). …



·

MATTER OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES V. WALLACH, 48 A.D.2D 923 (N.Y. APP. DIV. 1975) • CITING 2 TIMES

… Insubordination, on the other hand, is a charge which carries sufficient stigma to affect rights, liberty and property. On that charge, even a probationary employee is entitled to a hearing (cf. Matter of Reeves v Golar, 45 A.D.2d 163; Matter of Mengrone [New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.], NYLJ, Nov. 20, 1974, p 16, col. 2; Aster v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 72 Misc.2d 953). Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur. …



·

PRYLES V. STATE OF NY, 86 MISC.2D 205 (N.Y. MISC. 1975) • CITING 3 TIMES

… In a concurring opinion to Perry ( 408 U.S. 593, 603, supra) Chief Justice BURGER noted "that the relationship between a state institution and one of its teachers is essentially a matter of state concern and state law." A recent lower court case, Aster v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. ( 72 Misc.2d 953), discusses the ramifications of Perry and Roth under New York law. In finding the loss of a teaching license a disability of the kind entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections, the court noted (p 958) its factual situation did not involve mere nonretention, but also entailed "a loss of license, limitation of future employment opportunities and a possibly damaged reputation". …



·

MATTER OF ANDERSON V. BD. OF EDUC, 77 MISC.2D 904 (N.Y. MISC. 1974) • CITING 2 TIMES

… 24 [1973 Supp., pp. 90-91]). In New York, two reported decisions involving discontinuance of probationary teachers' services have granted the teachers a full hearing with the assistance of counsel before the board upon proof that their "liberty" and "property" rights were directly affected ( Aster v. Board of Educ., 72 Misc.2d 953; Matter of Pall, N.Y.L.J., April 10, 1973, p. 20, col. 1). Nonetheless, those factors are not present here and the court concludes that petitioners have no constitutional right to written reasons for the discontinuance of their services nor to a hearing before the board (cf. 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 7. …



HARON V. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF NEW YORK, (E.D.N.Y. 1976), 411 F. SUPP. 68 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) • CITING 3 TIMES

… Plaintiff relies heavily on a series of State cases to support the claim that she has been denied a property right, but we find the cases cited unpersuasive. Aster v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 72 Misc.2d 953, 339 N.Y.S.2d 903 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co. 1972), for example, does hold that after Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, a probationary teacher must be accorded a due process hearing before termination, but the court relied on the mistaken assumption that a teacher lost his or her teaching license upon termination. That was the contention of the unsuccessful plaintiffs in Finucane and Rice. …



·

SIGMON V. POE, (W.D.N.C. 1947), 381 F. SUPP. 387 (W.D.N.C. 1974) • CITING 3 TIMES

… Ct., N.D.Ill. 1972); Stout v. Whiteaker, 379 F. Supp. 218 (M.D. Tenn.); Francis v. Ota, 356 F. Supp. 1029 (D.C.Haw. 1973); Ortwein v. Mackey, 358 F. Supp. 705 (M.D.Fla. 1973); Thomas v. Ward, 374 F. Supp. 206 (M.D.N.C. 1973); Aster v. Board of Education, 72 Misc.2d 953, 339 N.Y.S. 2d 903 (Sup.Ct. 1972). Neither the legislature nor the defendants have provided a machinery whereby the Board's application of the statutory standard can be measured. …
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, June 11, 2017

New York City Department of Education Chancellor Carmen Farina Unveils a New Plan: Integration

Oh - NOW Chancellor Carmen Farina says the integration of the NYC Department of Education is something she has believed in all her life?

From the Daily News article below:

“This is something I’ve believed in all my life,” Fariña told The News exclusively on Tuesday. “And I think having it on paper, where people can see it and the vocabulary is the same for everyone, is very important.”

Then why has she waited so long to talk and do something about the wide-spread segregation and disparate treatment of minority children? See Carmen's face in the photo below that's what she really believes. Nothing.

Long-Awaited Plan for Integrating Schools Proves Mostly Small-Bore


Mayor Bill de Blasio and the schools chancellor, Carmen Fariña, in February. On Tuesday, a principal critical
of their new plan to increase diversity in public schools said, “It’s not a plan to integrate the schools.”
Most people involved in the NYC DOE no longer find Carmen credible. I certainly don't.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

New York City unveils plan to improve diversity in public schools
Ben Chapman, NY Daily News, June 7, 2017

Carmen Farina
Education officials on Tuesday revealed a master plan to integrate city schools that includes everything from enrollment targets to ways to make it easier for busy families to apply to sought-
after schools.

In a 12-page report, the Education Department detailed how it will expand desegregation programs already in place at some schools to bring in more kids from underrepresented communities.

On Monday, the department exclusively told the Daily News another pillar of the plan is to enroll more black and Hispanic kids in elite high schools.

The city’s new program seeks to ease barriers faced by families looking to enroll children in public schools by:

* Eliminating requirements to attend school open houses.

* Posting applications online.

* Boosting school programs that set enrollment targets for demographic groups by expanding them to privately run prekindergarten programs.

* Launching a web page to share information and resources related to diversity efforts.

* Opening 15 new schools or programs over the next three years that have specific plans to serve diverse populations.

By 2021, Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña wants 50,000 more kids enrolled in schools with student bodies that reflect the system’s overall racial makeup.

Currently, there are about 300,000 kids enrolled in such schools, Education Department officials said, of 1.1 million students systemwide.

The Education Department is clarifying the city’s mission to support “learning environments that reflect the diversity of New York City” and establishing an advisory board to issue recommendations on how to desegregate the schools.

Schools in New York suffer from the worst racial segregation of any state, with city schools earning similarly dismal marks for diversity, according to a 2014 report published by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

But Fariña, who’s worked in city schools for five decades, said she’s proud of the new plan that’s intended to serve as a roadmap to diversify classrooms.

“This is something I’ve believed in all my life,” Fariña told The News exclusively on Tuesday. “And I think having it on paper, where people can see it and the vocabulary is the same for everyone, is very important.”

Fariña and Mayor de Blasio have been under fire to develop a plan to desegregate the public schools since the landmark UCLA study was published three years ago.

Influential figures such as NAACP New York State Conference President Hazel Dukes praised aspects of the plan, but other local leaders slammed it for doing too little.

“It’s a bunch of gobbledegook,” said Mona Davids, president of the New York City Parents Union. “If the mayor and chancellor really wanted to address the problem, they would start by eliminating school zones and creating enrollment lotteries for every school that has more applications than seats.”

Success Academy charter school founder Eva Moskowitz ripped the plan for failing to mention charter schools, which enroll about 10% of city students.

“It’s disappointing that the mayor is ignoring the role that charters can play,” Moskowitz said.

In answering critics of his efforts on school integration, Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, has largely blamed New York City’s residential patterns for the problem, because most children go to elementary school near their homes.

But District 1, which includes parts of the Lower East Side and the East Village, is different. There, families choose where their children will go to elementary school, and in 2016, 84 percent of families got one of their top three choices for kindergarten.

But their choices still added up to segregation.

Though the elementary school population is roughly half Hispanic, with the other 50 percent close to evenly divided among black, white and Asian children, few schools reflect that distribution. White families largely cluster in a handful of schools with a progressive bent. A school with a Mandarin-English dual language program is 71 percent Asian. At four of the district’s 16 elementary schools, at least 90 percent of the students are black or Hispanic. Those schools lag far behind the district average in performance.

A group of educators and parent leaders has been pushing the city’s Education Department to let the district adopt a system called “controlled choice,” which takes into account families’ preferences, but also factors like socioeconomic status, with the goal of making each school reflect the demographics of the district. In 2015 District 1 got a federal grant to develop a new admissions policy, but work appears to have stalled, in part because of clashes between parent leaders, who want quick action, and city officials, who have been taking a more cautious approach.

In the diversity plan released by the city on Tuesday, the department says it will work with District 1 to create “a districtwide equitable admissions model” in time for the 2018-19 school year.

Some in District 1, like Naomi Peña, 37, a parent who is a member of the district’s Community Education Council, think the department has been afraid of alienating rich white parents who, as she said at a recent council meeting, might “lawyer up” if their preferences were blocked.

But as the city proposes to move forward on desegregation, conversations with dozens of District 1 parents of all races over the past few months suggest that it is not only wealthier white parents who might be disappointed by their assignments under a new system, at least in the beginning. Parents choose schools for a constellation of reasons, including the simplicity of going to a nearby school, a preference for a certain educational approach, or a desire to see faces similar to their own in classrooms and at parent-teacher association meetings.

For many, the choice comes down to feeling at home at a school. Nancy Zhang sends her two children to Public School 184, the Shuang Wen School, the district’s majority-Asian elementary school. She and another Chinese-American mother said they feared their children would be bullied at other schools in the district. But more than that, Ms. Zhang said, “here I feel and also the kids feel more comfortable.”

When Rita LaRosa was looking at schools for her daughter, she visited two that share a building on East Third Street. At the S.T.A.R. Academy, which takes a traditional approach, 84 percent of the students are black or Hispanic, and the same portion qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. At the Neighborhood School, which has a progressive philosophy, close to half the students are white, and just 39 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

Ms. LaRosa, 44, chose S.T.A.R. “In S.T.A.R. Academy, I feel like my voice is heard,” said Ms. LaRosa, who is Hispanic. When she interacts with Neighborhood School parents, she said, “I feel like I have to talk a certain way or express myself a certain way, because I feel like I’m being judged.”

In contrast, Ella and Brett Leitner, who are both white, gravitated toward the Neighborhood School, where students call teachers by their first names and have a say in deciding whether the class will study, say, the civil rights movement or the debate over the Dakota Access pipeline.

“For us the social-emotional piece was such an important metric of what made a school good,” said Ms. Leitner, 43. If they had not been able to choose a progressive school, she said, they might have tried to get a scholarship at a private school or sent their children to a traditional school and pushed for a more progressive curriculum.

The district started the progressive schools in the late 1980s and early ’90s, in an effort to stanch a steady loss of students from the district, mostly to District 2. (It also allowed students from outside the district to enroll, and today 30 percent of elementary school students live elsewhere.) Hispanic, black and Asian families apply to the progressive schools at lower rates than whites, and the schools are all whiter than the district as a whole, with fewer low-income students.

Bradley Goodman, the principal of the East Village Community School, said the imbalance was “something that we’ve been thinking about and talking about for a long time and wanting to address.” His school is 55 percent white. He and the other principals from progressive schools have been part of a diversity initiative that let them set aside a certain number of seats for students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch or who are still learning English. The four schools met their targets this year, though both Mr. Goodman’s school and the Neighborhood School made offers to several families who ranked their school as a fourth, fifth or even sixth choice, while turning away other families who ranked it first. But drawing more black and Hispanic parents may be tough.

Over time, parents’ choices can solidify into a school being known as a “white school” or a Hispanic one, said Amy Stuart Wells, a professor of sociology and education at the Teachers College at Columbia. That identity becomes self-perpetuating. “When you ask parents to make choices within a segregated system, they choose segregation,” she said, “because they don’t want to be the only family or just a handful of families that go against that.”

Sade Scroggins, 29, has a son in second grade at P.S. 64, the Robert Simon School, which shares a building with the progressive Earth School. P.S. 64 is 85 percent black or Hispanic, and 93 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. The Earth School is 48 percent black or Hispanic, and 46 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

Ms. Scroggins had friends who sent their children to P.S. 64, and through them she had gotten to know some staff members. But when she came to register her son for kindergarten, she said, she walked into the building’s entrance on Avenue B, which is used by the Earth School. Ms. Scroggins, who is black, recalled being charmed by the art on the walls.

“It looked kind of, like, village-y,” she said. “It was like walking into a futuristic type of school, just the paintings and the art and the animals.”

But when she got to the office and asked for P.S. 64, they referred her to the office next door.

Did she consider registering her child at the Earth School instead?

No, she said. “I didn’t know anybody who had a child who was in the Earth School,” she explained. “Everybody that I know had their children in 64.”

Lilah Mejia’s three younger children started in the fall at the Children’s Workshop School, another progressive school, which has managed to draw a sizable number of Hispanic families.

Ms. Mejia, 39, said she loved the topics that her children were learning about, but was concerned that they were not getting much homework and that the teachers were not correcting their grammar and spelling. She said her first grader’s teacher had explained that she did not correct students’ grammar because she wanted them to just write. “I love the teacher, she’s amazing,” Ms. Mejia said. But, she added, “I was just a bit taken aback by that, because that’s not how I was raised.”

Ms. Peña, from the education council, said she looked at one of the progressive schools for her youngest children, who are twins. But she decided against it because she felt that her family would not fit in. “No parent wants their child to be the only black or brown child in the classroom,” she said. “And parents don’t want to walk in having to defend their background, their language, their culture to other parents.”

Her twins now go to P.S. 20, the Anna Silver School, which is roughly half Hispanic, a little more than a third Asian, 8 percent black and 4 percent white. It has both Spanish and Mandarin dual-language programs. While it does not perfectly replicate the district’s racial breakdown, its population does reflect the district’s economic diversity.

“It’s a really nice window of what the perfect school should look like, in my opinion,” Ms. Peña said. She said her daughter had a good friend who was of Chinese descent. “That’s exactly what I want for her,” she said. “Some people may look like her, but she’s also friends with people who don’t look like her. It’s really comforting.”

Jonathan Wolfe and Yuhan Liu contributed reporting.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

The Arrogance and Stupidity of Manhattan Bridges High School Assistant Principal Georges Mathieu

The main point, I think of the story of Georges Mathieu is that when you talk to someone at any public school in New York State - which is a one-party state - assume you are being taped.

But it seems to me that Assistant Principal Georges Mathieu is so arrogant that he probably cannot think about anything but his own immunity from any prosecution, anytime.

This is, as we now know, a mistake.

No one below the principal/Superintendent/Chancellor level is immune all the time in every situation. notice I say anyone "below" those positions. Anyone who is a principal/Superintendent/Chancellor can do anything they want. A case in point is Santiago Taveras, who changed grades at DeWitt Clinton High School because he could as principal, was found guilty by the Office of Special Investigations, and was removed.....only to re-surface at a re-assignment center where he makes his salary and now has a new job and title, something to do with training principals. He is not going anywhere, not even a 3020-a.

Why? he knows too much. He gets put into a 3020-a and big heads -VIPs at the NYC DOE such as Carmen Farina - would roll. In other words, if he gets charged, he may spill alot of beans on important people at the top, and they cannot afford to do that.

So back to Georges. His life as he knew it is over, and he should resign and move on. He wont, he will wait around, hoping for a deal which includes a nice raise and  new title.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Listen to this assistant principal try to ‘seduce’ a student

, June 10, 2017
NY POST
http://nypost.com/2017/06/10/listen-to-this-assistant-principal-try-to-seduce-a-student/
A city assistant principal who boasted “I haven’t gotten caught for anything” was caught apparently trying to seduce a female student who secretly recorded his creepy come-ons, The Post has learned.
Georges Mathieu, 54, an AP at Manhattan Bridges HS in Hell’s Kitchen, is heard on tape pressuring a resistant 17-year-old senior to meet him outside school so they can “spend time” together.

Georges Mathieu
"If things can blossom,” the alleged lothario tells the girl. “My philosophy is this — if you think it’s good, go for it.
“Honestly, I shouldn’t be thinking like that, but I don’t want to be like a 100 years from now thinking I should have … Life is short, you got to enjoy it.”
The city Department of Education has bounced Mathieu — who collected $130,600 in salary and $20,500 in overtime last year – to a disciplinary rubber room.
The office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools has an open probe, a spokeswoman confirmed.
Manhattan Bridges High School in Manhattan
Mathieu’s conduct came to light in late March after the teen confided to a teacher and guidance counselor that he was sexually harassing her. She turned over a tape of one conversation so officials would believe her, a staffer said.
When asked about the accusations, Mathieu said, “That’s incorrect,” but would not elaborate. “I got to go,” he said, and hung up.
On the tape, obtained by The Post, the girl rebuffs Mathieu’s advances, while prompting him to explain his aggressive pursuit.
The conversation starts when Mathieu confronts the girl near the cafeteria and presses her to explain why she seemed so upset in a conversation he had overheard.
“I know it wasn’t your mom,” he says, speculating that she had an argument with a boyfriend.
“You shouldn’t let a guy have that much control over you to get you so upset,” he says, adding, “You left me for that guy?”
“What do you mean I left you?” she asks.
“You keep running away from me,” he says.
“I need to run,” she replies. “You’re basically one of my teachers.”
“No I’m not, I’m an administrator,” he says.
The girl says she won’t give Mathieu the address where she works after school “because you can’t go.”
Mathieu repeatedly insists, “Why not?”
He calls it “an opportunity to meet, spend time.”
“What do you want to meet me for?” she asks.
Then he explains his philosophy: “If you think it’s good, go for it.”
She tells him, “Well too bad. You’re the administrator and I’m a student. You know if somebody finds out what’s going to happen to me.”
“Nothing,” he says.
“Oh no, everybody’s gonna know — and people are gonna laugh at me … People are not stupid.”
“People are stupid, they are. Take my word for it,” he says.
“You think they’re stupid,” she replies. “When you think somebody’s stupid , they’re smarter than you.”
“Listen,” he says. “I haven’t gotten caught for anything I’ve done in life, and I’ve done things you shouldn’t do.”
The girl retorts: “This is not the first time you’re doing it. You sure you don’t do it to another girl? … I see you talking with a lot of girls.”
A Manhattan Bridges junior told The Post that Mathieu made her uncomfortable last year. She met privately with him to complain about an older boy she had rebuffed who was calling her “a slut” around school.
During their talk, Mathieu asked questions about her relationship with a former boyfriend, she said: “He asked me who I lost my virginity to, and why did I have sex with that person.”
Manhattan Bridges serves many low-income kids and immigrants. All 525 students qualify for a free-lunch, 99 percent are Hispanic, and nearly half are English language learners, records show.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)