The UFT got three Department of Education staff members to reveal that one principal, Iris Blige, head of Fordham High School of the Arts, used her power to send teachers to the teacher reassignment centers, or “rubber rooms,” as a method of intimidating teachers and scaring anyone that potentially challenges her absolute power.
This is a blockbuster of a story. This is the first time that a print publication, with a reporter's by-line, has reported on a principal's ability to use such power. Moreover, the story carries the concession, by third parties, that a principals has sent staff to “rubber rooms” out of spite. The New York Times has address the power relationships that undergird the ability of administrators to wield unchecked power. The Times has not drawn the parallel between Mayor Michael Bloomberg's arrogance (witness his impatience at the wheel-chair-using reporter when the reporter's recorder accidentally played back recordings), the centralized structuring of power in the Department of Education (so as to elide any public input), and the virtually unlimited power granted to principals. It is rather sad in this time of the eroding centrality of newspapers in our public lives that newspapers are not taking up such crucial issues, and that we must rely on more obscure sources: union publications, local newspapers and blogs. This is not to dismiss these outlets, but the city's newspaper of record ought to take this responsibility. (Truth be told, I've had to rely on the racist New York Post and the Daily News for the above reference links.) It is fine that the minor outlets reveal this story, but they do not carry the powerful disseminating power that the New York Times does. In failing to seriously cover the Department of Education the New York Times is lessening its importance.
The minutia of the story are essential and are included. They show how bureaucratic maneuvers are used to silence and eliminate staff that speak for their rights. They also show how principals intimidate their assistant principal subordinates to carry out the dirty work for the principals:
One former AP at the school, Ahmed Edwards, said he wrote negative comments about one teacher, Fannie Davis, “under duress” because Blige said she wanted to “get” Davis so she could be sent to the rubber room, which is what happened.
Davis, who had an unblemished 35-year record, spent one year away from her students based on Blige’s accusation, which was lodged the day after Davis grieved the fact that she was excessed in violation of the contract. Davis also said that Blige accused her of threatening her.
The DOE never formally charged Davis.
Another former AP, Osvaldo Mancebo, told the New York Teacher that Blige had a list of teachers who she wanted to rate Unsatisfactory even before any observations took place.
Another DOE official, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals from Blige, said charges against one chapter leader were invented by Blige because she wanted to show teachers in the school what could happen to them if they “crossed” her.
“She treated chapter leaders like garbage,” the official said. “She was paranoid. I heard her say many times that she would destroy the union.”
The chapter leader, too, was released with no charges filed after spending two years in the rubber room.
Teachers say that Blige uses the rubber rooms as a way to punish them when they defy her “my way or the highway” management style. She has sent seven teachers to the rubber rooms.
Virginia Barden is another chapter leader targeted by Blige. She has received an Unsatisfactory rating after 30 years of teaching. According to the DOE official, the U-rating was pre-ordained as a way to harass Barden and to weaken the union.
“This is the price I am paying to bring justice for my colleagues. This is the least I can do for others,” Barden said.
The UFT's "New York Teacher" story gives credence to the allegations and analysis in a wise and broad-ranging critique that the Teacher Advocacy Group has written, "The Rubber Room: DoE's Dirty Little Secret":
Certainly some teachers should not be in classrooms, but many charges against teachers are exaggerated or simply not true. For example, reporting unsafe conditions is insubordination; failing to immediately admit a late student to class is corporal punishment.
Principals frequently use false charges to retaliate against whistleblowers and to remove competent teachers who question the policies of the administration.
. . . .
The UFT is reluctant to protest the abuse of the disciplinary process. The UFT receives dues from over 2,000 ATRs and rubber room teachers, approximately $2.4 million annually. Positions for these teachers have been given to new hires and changing the system will cost the UFT money.
Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Joel Klein are looking for a union-free environment at the Board of Education. In the corporate world executives can wield unchallenged power. They are seeking to replicate the corporate world, where employees can be terminated at will. In such a work world employees never speak up for propriety for the students or the staff.
Bloomberg and Klein wanted to end tenure. They failed in this wish. But they have instead used the harsh intimidation of teachers to accomplish the goal of shortening the terms of teachers. Is it any wonder that the most common denominator of a rubber room teacher is someone with over fifteen years in the system and a relatively high salary?
On the other hand, perhaps tenure is a curse for the staff. For the health of the corporation, some executives and managers might have in mind the idea that low morale is bad for the company. Rule by terror could drive away quality staff. In the corporate world, a manager acting as Blige does, might be called into an office and told to “go easier” on the staff. Yet, in the Department of Education, principals have been given unchecked power. The ability of principals such as Blige or the recently departed Principal John Murphy of MS 8 of Jamaica, Queens, to harass both students and staff goes unchecked.
In the corporate world staff often leave corporations if the offices are too hostile. In the Department of Education tenure and the expected pension at the end of service keep teachers committed to enduring abusive relationships. Building seniority in terms of having preferable class assignments keeps teachers committed to individual schools.
Removing Blige is far from sufficient to address this issue. What is at greater stake is (a) correcting the Department of Education protocols that allow administrators to act in such a manner, and (b) the need to end mayoral control (again, dictatorial power), so as to (c) have open hearings on how principals are trained to use such power. As the Abu Ghraib and Guanatamo Bay debates are spurring us to ask, if there is such a pervasive pattern of abuse, was there ever training to engage in such abuse of power? Public education is a public service. Public institutions, the postal service, the police and the schools are operations of the state. The state in a democracy is an instrument of the public. Righteousness and democracy demand that mayoral control be replaced by a more collective structuring of power in New York City's schools.
The Rubber Room: DOE's Dirty Little Secret (TAG NYC's flyer)
What is the ‘rubber room’?
Approximately 800 Department of Education teachers are warehoused in Temporary Reassignment Centers, known as rubber rooms. The DOE considers these individuals too dangerous to be around children, yet most will return to schools after languishing for months or years in off-campus sites.
Teachers receive full pay while waiting for the resolution of their cases. The financial costs are estimated as high as $65 million dollars; the human costs are seldom considered.
Reassignment Centers are called rubber rooms because doing nothing is maddening. Outwardly, teachers play cards, watch DVDs, knit, read books, and sleep. Inwardly, teachers lament the loss of successful careers and worry about uncertain futures. Feelings of fear, doubt and shame never subside.
Why are teachers removed?
Allegations of sexual misconduct, corporal punishment and other misconduct are so disturbing that the DOE banishes teachers to rubber rooms on just the word of a principal, teacher or student.
Certainly some teachers should not be in classrooms, but many charges against teachers are exaggerated or simply not true. For example, reporting unsafe conditions is insubordination; failing to immediately admit a late student to class is corporal punishment.
Principals frequently use false charges to retaliate against whistleblowers and to remove competent teachers who question the policies of the administration.
Reassigned teachers may also be charged with incompetence or be accused of crimes by outside agencies.
Incompetent teachers should be terminated, but many principals and assistant principals are not qualified to judge competence. Principals and assistant principals are required to have only three years of teaching experience. Possession of an administrative license does not guarantee knowledge of pedagogy.
The decision to remove a teacher is often based on personalities; a teacher who caters to the whims of the administration is rarely reassigned and never accused of incompetence.
-2-
Why do disciplinary proceedings take so long?
Education Law states that disciplinary proceedings against charged teachers must be completed within five months. The DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) modified the proceedings. These modifications do not provide teachers with increased protection; instead they infringe on the rights of teachers and lengthen the process. The DOE and the UFT agreed that teachers can be removed before charges are preferred. Teachers are supposed to be charged within 6 months of their removal, yet some teachers remain in the rubber room for years without charges.
The DOE and the UFT also denied teachers the right to choose arbitrators. A fixed number of arbitrators are assigned on a rotating basis, supposedly to accelerate the disciplinary proceedings. However, more arbitrators are needed, timeframes are ignored, and cases can last for years.
The accused teachers are not responsible for the delays and they can expedite cases only by admitting guilt and settling.
Teachers who are charged with crimes by an outside agency face similar obstacles. Prosecuting attorneys continually ask for postponements, claim they are ready to proceed, and then ask for additional postponements. The teachers are again powerless to hasten the process except by admitting guilt.
Is justice served?
Arbitrators are paid approximately $1,700 per day and must be approved by both the DOE and the UFT. Arbitrators have a huge incentive to please both sides.
The UFT is happy if teachers do not lose their jobs; the DOE is happy if the arbitrator renders any finding of guilt. Teachers are rarely terminated or exonerated. The decision of an arbitrator is very predictable: a finding against the teacher, a fine, and reassignment as an Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).
Teachers who become ATRs are substitute teachers permanently assigned to schools. They do not have programs and have little hope of returning to the classroom in a meaningful capacity. There are approximately 1,400 ATRs in the DOE. Most ATRs are tenured teachers with excellent records who lost jobs after schools were closed
Why does the process continue?
Principals who abuse the disciplinary process are not punished and they achieve their desired results: a troublesome teacher is removed and the remaining teachers are intimidated.
The DOE hopes that public opinion inflamed by the newspapers will result in the termination of ATRs. Mostly tenured teachers will be dismissed, and teachers without tenure are cheaper and easier to control.
The UFT is reluctant to protest the abuse of the disciplinary process. The UFT receives dues from over 2,000 ATRs and rubber room teachers, approximately $2.4 million annually. Positions for these teachers have been given to new hires and changing the system will cost the UFT money.
Teachers and students are hurt by the system, but neither group has a voice.
Parents and the public are kept in the dark and trust that policymakers will make the right decisions. So far they have not.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment