2. “Egregious” is not a self-evident term, but it certainly is the case in NYC that a teacher who has been accused of serious misconduct such as assaulting a student is removed from the classroom pending the adjudication of charges against him/her.

3. Teachers at all levels of seniority can be and are removed for failure to perform satisfactorily. In most cases where the teacher are unable to succeed in the classrom, they leave well before the conclusion of the dismissal process, through resignation or retirement. Before the final decision, there are grievances and U rating appeals which often provide indications of what would happen in the 3020a process. Very few people who are unsuccessful in the classroom have the will to fight to the end when the results are predictible.

1. They have a non-contractual development and action plan to work with teachers that are not performing well.

2. They dismiss teachers under their “just cause” provision based on either some “egregious” action by the teacher or for failing to improve performance under the development and action plan.

3. A dismissed teacher could, in theory, dispute the dismissal under the “conflict resolution” section of the contract but that hasn’t happened yet to the best of his knowledge. Also, he would think that during the “conflict resolution” process, the teacher would not be teaching.

4. He expects that the next contract will include more details to mirror how the process is currently working.

A few points I would make based on my understanding of this:
1. If a teacher does something “egregious”, Green Dot could dismiss the teacher immediately and the teacher’s recourse would be the “conflict resolution” process. In other words, if Green Dot judges that a teacher does something egregious, the teacher could be out of the classroom immediately. The “conflict resolution” process could not last more than about 100 days.

2. All teachers, regardless of seniority, could be dismissed for poor performance as judged by Green Dot provided that this performance problem has been communicated very clearly and a reasonable “development and action plan” has been conducted. Once dismissed, the teacher is out of the classroom and, although it has never happened before, could go through the “conlict resolution” process that, again, could not last more than about 100 days.

How does this compare to the current NYC process?

Ken

Is it not a fact that a major factor of the school report card is that students show a full year progress? If not, then my principal is giving out false information.

Is it not a fact that NYTeacher recently printed an article about the plight of ATRs?

Is it not fact that a majority to teachers face issues that I point out such as discipline problems, no a/c, overcrowding, schools in disrepair…
Of course it’s much nicer at union headquarters and easy to forget what it is like in the classrooms and dismiss other points of view as generalizations.

Could it be you will soon be packing up your office and moving to DC? I certainly hope so because we need union officials who are willing to answer the questions put forth by all members, and not just the ones who praise you.

I would agree with you that “generalizations without details” do not make for convincing arguments. I would put the generalization “it is conventional wisdom amongst administrators that it is a nightmare to dismiss even the most egregious cases” in that category. I would also say that arguments seeking to sustain generalizations about an entire system based on anecdotal evidence are also problematic.

The problem here is that it is your premises which are in question, precisely because they are generalizations based on the above.

So it’s either agree with you, or be ignored.

Edwize is not your private domain. It is sponsored by the UFT as a place where members can express opinions.
You are not in a position to judge what is substantive, especially when members have concerns.
Last month I reminded you how Klein disrespected ATRs in an email sent to principals (as reported by the Times), and even found a post by CitySue that once echoed my concerns on this subject. You ignored that.

It must irk you personally to be reminded by the members you serve how this administration and union have hurt us.

As for tenure issues, Ken is correct.
The process to remove a bad teacher is tedious, but principals have been lazy to do their job during the probation period too. Tenure must be preserved otherwise teachers could be removed for personal vendetta. Not too long ago NYTeacher reported on teachers that were removed from their school and threatened because of “whistle blowing”. A charter school teacher was removed for having conversations with other teachers about salary. When I took a training workshop with Mike M. on U-ratings, he refused to talk about bad teachers and said since they paid dues they deserved advocates. He may have been right on the latter, but it seemed it was the union’s position not to have substantive discussions on the subject of bad teachers. Had we done so, tenure would not be a point of contention now.

Teachers do not deal with the same conditions as the business world. We are teachers, counselors, babysitters for parents who do not care for their own children. We deal with fighting children, and many teachers have been assaulted. We must teach in conditions that are dirty and in disrepair, and on the hottest days work in classroom that are not air conditioned. When students disrupt a class, we have no support.

Yet we report for work each day because we believe we can make a difference in the lives of children.
Making a difference sometimes means changing their behavior and making students see that education is important. That child may only score a little higher on the assessments, but it took a year to get that child to care about the assessment. Now it is only the score that counts, not the child. This is why tenure is important.

As Peter pointed out, SLTs are no longer a collaborative process. Hiring under the SBO is no longer a collaborative process. Teachers under this union lost input in the decision- making process. As Frank pointed out,
the DoE no longer regards their more experienced teachers.

Would working for Green Dot give teachers greater input, or would the same principals we have now be running the show? Is Randi going to rubber stamp Green Dot and are the members going to have the opportunity to vote on this?

Of course these concerns won’t be addressed under the blood-oath imposed by an individual who is supposed to represent me on a blog that is sponsored by my own union.

A few more (!) thoughts on this:

1. I have reached this point in a conversation with you before: you suggest (I think?) that there is nothing unreasonably difficult about the dismissal process in NYC while it is conventional wisdom amongst administrators that it is a nightmare to dismiss even the most egregious cases. Sadly, it is to the point that I feel like some people are being intellectually dishonest with respect to this issue. I have often seen speakers show the multi-page flow chart of steps that must be taken to remove a teacher. Is this all a hoax?

2. Are you suggesting that it is state law that leads to the extremely complex process and not the contract itself? Where can I find the simplest step-by-step explanation of the process in New York City that is consistent with both the contract and state law?

3. As I am sure won’t surprise you, I was thinking in terms of reforming the contract for the traditional public schools in NYC, not unionizing NYC charter schools. My position is that if we must have a contractual process (which I think is a mistake), the process should be a reasonable one.

In general, I think, as others have suggested, that one needs to consider the particulars with respect to these issues. I fear that some of the generalizations without the details can be used to argue either position in a sloppy manner.

Ken