The teacher is out of your school, so why would you give a shit if someone else wants to hire them? Only a personal grudge would lead to such a despicable act.
Below is a link to a petition.
Here are previous ed notes stories on the Dreaded D.
Nov 07, 2011
As
a discontinued teacher, I completely understand the experience. I find
that principals have too much and little is done to check and balance
it. Principals know they have a better union than the UFT and know that
teachers ...
Apr 11, 2012
I
have been discontinued and U rated and I have been subbing in 2 other
NYC public schools. The AP's in both schools picked up my resume
(through networking). In fact, one of the AP's loves my classroom
management and ...
Sep 28, 2012
Principal
Olga Livanis gave out 7 U ratings and a Discontinue to a non-tenured
and popular teacher last year, in addition to driving at least one top
notch fed-up teacher into resigning. The D is a career-ender (vs a U
which ...
Dec 30, 2013
End
the Discontinue that kills a teacher's career immediately. Revamp DOE
Legal and OSI. I will not be cheering for Carmen Farina until I see some
changes in these policies. She ought to walk across the street one day
in ...
Mar 18, 2010
Now
on to the UFT. If you find you are blacklisted by the dreaded D and ask
the UFT for help you will get 12 different answers. The most common is:
Don't worry, that is only for your district. You can be hired by
another district.
May 06, 2012
Over
the years we at ICE have been contacted by a number of teachers who
received the Dreaded D rating which basically blackballs them from
teaching under their license again even if another principal wants to
hire them.
Save the Careers of Discontinued Teachers
-
-
-
Petition byStaten Island, NY
-
Her
name is Jennifer and she is in her early twenties. She wanted to be a
teacher since she was a little girl. It’s August and she gets the call
that her interview at a local elementary school went well. Principal
Higgins wants her to fill an opening for a 5th grade position. Jennifer
and her family of teachers are ecstatic. Then, several months later and
out of the blue, it happened. Without even realizing it, Jennifer
crossed Principal Higgins by questioning some change in assignment and a
preparation period she felt she was owed. Suddenly, Jennifer stopped
receiving "satisfactory" observation reports and began receiving several
"unsatisfactory" ones. Principal Higgins then rated Jennifer
unsatisfactory for her first year final rating. Jennifer was devastated.
It didn’t make sense. The students and parents liked her. She received
unofficial praise from the assistant principal, but to Principal Higgins
Jennifer didn’t differentiate instruction. She didn’t have coherent lessons and didn’t demonstrate knowledge of resources.
Then came the letter from the
district superintendent stating that the NYC DOE would be making a final
decision concerning discontinuance of her probationary period.
Jennifer’s heart sank even more. She rounded up exemplary student work.
Her mother and family of teachers jumped in to help save her young
career. Parents and students wrote letters. Jennifer even bound
everything nice and neat before submitting it to the superintendent.
Unfortunately, it was all for naught. She was ultimately discontinued
and her probationary period terminated. Jennifer was now red-flagged in
the DOE Human Resources system, and assigned a “problem code” next to
her name. This meant that none of the other 1700+ principals in the NYC
DOE could hire her.
Jennifer is not alone. From
2011 to 2013, over 450 teachers were discontinued and problem-coded.
Many have been barred from teaching our 1.1 million children only
because of personality conflicts with one administrator. In many cases,
when attacking pedagogy was not enough, the administrator also submitted
trumped up charges with the Office of Special Investigations, the
Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Equal
Opportunity.
In light of a new mayor and
chancellor in New York City, we are calling for a full and unbiased
evaluation of the problem-coded railroaded teachers. These teachers
were:
-Discharged with malice by limiting or preventing their ability to work as a teacher in other schools.
-Coerced to sign paperwork extending their tenure. Many of these teachers were terminated.
In the end it was another casualty and point for the attack on tenure and the teaching profession.
To:
Katherine Rodi, New York City Department of Education Human Resources
OPI Problem Code, New York City Department of Education Human Resources
Ursulina Ramirez, New York City Department of Education Chief of Staff
New York City Department of Education, Chancellor Fariña
Katherine Rodi, New York City Department of Education Human Resources
OPI Problem Code, New York City Department of Education Human Resources
Ursulina Ramirez, New York City Department of Education Chief of Staff
New York City Department of Education, Chancellor Fariña
Chancellor Fariña,
Please consider reevaluating the way these probationary teachers are problem-coded with Human Resources and the Office of Personnel Investigation. You have the power to undo the previous administration’s methods and help competent teachers, like Jennifer, be allowed to teach our children again.
Please consider reevaluating the way these probationary teachers are problem-coded with Human Resources and the Office of Personnel Investigation. You have the power to undo the previous administration’s methods and help competent teachers, like Jennifer, be allowed to teach our children again.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your name]
I will happily sign this petition... this needs to be corrected with a new administration.
ReplyDeleteSo much underhanded things happen in education that a new administration has to look into. I will also happily sign the petitiom.
DeleteOK, I need some help here. I think cases like Jennifer's are disgraceful, and something of course should be done about this. Quickly.
ReplyDeleteBut, we can't have it both ways. People complain that the union makes it hard to "get rid of bad teachers." The main answer to that is that principals have three years to determine whether a probationary teacher should be granted tenure. If someone doesn't do well in the classroom during all that time, they shouldn't be granted tenure.
If you remove the D list, does it mean probationers with poor ratings can stay in the system forever without tenure, jumping from school to school? Wouldn't you be then killing off that strong argument for tenure, that if you are deemed suitable in those first three years, you should be granted tenure, and if you can't perform adequately, you should be cut at that time and not "gone after" for political reasons, personality conflicts, or activism later in your career?
I know that probationers may be subject to the whims of unethical, unskilled and/or vindictive principals, but I think it's not as simple as getting rid of the D list concept. There are probationers that are profoundly unsuitable for the job, and a mechanism has to be invented that doesn't take away our argument for keeping tenure.
UA,
ReplyDeleteA lot of teachers have been unfairly victimized under the old Bloomberg/Klein/Walcott administration, many who were excellent and have developed inferiority complexes, post traumatic stress from being harassed on the job and insecure feelings from being scrutinized like a lab experiment.
Yes, there may be teachers who do not belong in the profession however that does not excuse the many teachers who were unfairly victimized and harassed by their so-called administrators.
The huge hole in this argument is not acknowledging that there are some people who should not be working in schools. It is not always a matter of the principal "not liking" a teacher. There are cases where there are numerous examples of documented evidence of repeated incompetent behavior that is detrimental to students and to the learning environment. There are two sides to every story.
ReplyDeleteThe huge hole in YOUR argument is that you are willing to hand over to the principal - many of whom are not fit - to make this sole decision to ruin a career. You should have seen me in my first year. Totally incompetent - By the end of my 2nd year I would say I was pretty darn good and recognized as such. The AP in the first year and a half would have discontinued me in a minute if he could. A few months later when I "got" it he went around the school raving about me.
DeleteDoes a U rating or ineffective rating at the end of the school year create a problem code on your record?
ReplyDeleteIs it incumbent upon the NYC DOE and the UFT to define the term U Rating?
DeleteHas the U Rating been eliminated?
Is it a conflict of interests that the NYC DOE and the UFT jointly obfuscate this?
I'm guessing it does put some code on.
ReplyDeleteTo be Discontinued....must the Superintendent review the personnel action?
ReplyDeleteCan an IAP Rating Officer discontinue a Teacher? Or, is he not licensed to do so?
Can the IAP Rating Officer ONLY make a Recommendation to Discontinue a Teacher?
For a Circular 31 Hearing must the UFT supply an "advocate selected by the
Union?" And, if the UFT neglects to do this?
Must the role of the Superintendent be documented?
DeleteSaul Brodsky represented District 9 at a Hearing of Appeals and Review. Does he represent other Districts beside 9?
DeleteDiscontinued from a school that went into the Chancellor's District. District 9 had lost all authority over the school...yet it's Superintendent continued to come after me. How can the Superintendent from District 9 take a personnel action against a Teacher in the Chancellor's District?
ReplyDeleteReview of Blacklist by protected class.
ReplyDeleteReview of all those who have been removed from the Blacklist
Right to review and verify the licenses of those persons who take personnel actions effectively placing persons on Blacklist.
Review of the affirmative burden of the NYC DOE and the UFT to vouchsafe that placement on the list is not discriminatory.
Burden of the UFT and the NYC DOE to document Orientation, Notification of placement on Blacklist---or to vitiate these related personnel actions... .
What is the burden of the NYC DOE have to deny or affirm the establishment and maintenance of a Blacklist?
DeleteIs it incumbent upon the UFT to compel the NYC DOE to deny or affirm the establishment and maintenance of a Blacklist?
What is the burden of the UFT to review its role in the placement of Teachers on the Blacklist?
What is the burden of the UFT to review the Blacklist by protected class?
Are we entitled to a list of all Blacklisted----living and deceased?
List of the list. FOIL request of the names of all those with unencumbered access to the list.
Review of the Blacklist by District. Both the UFT the NYC DOE thwart this. How many Teachers are discontinued from District 12....or District 9? Why does the Union refuse to review Discontinuance by school districts and protected class?
ReplyDeleteCompel review of these discriminatory matters by the NYS Division of Human Rights....
Review Blacklist as a conflict of interests with the UFT and the NYC DOE. UFT does not hold the DOE To Orientation....proof of licensure of persons taking disciplinary acts.....
ReplyDeleteRequest review of the joint and affirmative burden of the NYC DOE and the UFT to vouchsafe that Blacklisting is not used to discriminate against members of a protected class.
ReplyDeleteRequest review of the joint and affirmative burden of the UFT and NYC DOE to vouchsafe that LGBT et al are notified of all adverse personnel actions. That this Notification is delineated pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Request review of the joint and affirmative burden of the UFT and the NYC DOE to vouchsafe that personnel actions are vitiated when DOE has not proven that Grievant was notified of personnel actions.
Request review of right of the NYC DOE to communicate personnel information regarding the Blacklisted on the Internet.
Request review of the right of DOE employees who have been incarcerated to communicate information regarding the Blacklisted via the Internet.
Request review the cases of never married Jewish males over the age of 40 who have died while Blacklisted.
Request review of the burden of the NYC DOE and the UFT to review the Orientation of the Discontinued and Blacklisted of those from schools under custodial review.
Schools under Custodial Review.
ReplyDeleteDo do different rules apply to such schools?
Must the NYC DOE and UFT prove Orientation to such schools?
Review of the licenses of Administrators who work in such schools????
Racial assignment of Teachers to schools under Custodial Review.
Right to students to refuse instruction in racially segregated schools??
Right of Teachers to refuse assignment to schools under custodial review on the basis of race?????
Is it incumbent upon the NYC DOE acknowledge placement on the List by dint of a FOIL request?
ReplyDeleteMust the DOE prove Notification of placement on the List?
Review of Lost and Destroyed Personnel Files....
ReplyDelete1. Are these available pursuant to FOIL requests?
2. How many of the Blacklisted have had personnel records lost or destroyed?
Review the joint and affirmative burden of both to investigate the loss and destruction of personnel records of the Blacklisted. Champion right to new hearing when DOE has destroyed records.
ReplyDeleteCan we review the destruction of records by:
ReplyDeleteprotected classes,
LGBT,
Those over 40
Does the UFT and the DOE have joint liability in this regard?
How many of the Blacklisted have alleged that such status is the result of discrimination?
ReplyDeleteDo the Blacklisted have the right to review communication of the DOE to potential employers and educational institutions?
Review of the joint and affirmative burden of the NYC DOE and the UFT to make available to the general public what information regarding the Blacklist is
ReplyDeleteaccessible to the general public.
1. Review production of Teacher records by dint of FOIL requests.
ReplyDelete2. For how long can the DOE frustrate and stymie production of Teacher Records?
3. Can we limit it to say, 45 biz days?
Does the NYC DOE have the statutory authority to transmit personnel information regarding the Blacklisted via the Internet?
ReplyDeleteFor what chronology?
What is the joint and affirmative burden of both the NYC DOE and the UFT to review Blacklisting as excessive?
ReplyDeleteLet's get our elected officials to the fore!!!
HOW MANY HAVE CHALLENGED ACTS OF LDISCONTINUNACE AND BLACKLISTING AS AN ACT OF DISCRIMINATION?
ReplyDeleteDOES THE NYS DIV OF HUMAN RIGHTRS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THESE PERSONNEL ACTS AS DISCRIMINATORY BY:
AGE
MARITAL STATUS
LGBT
Is it possible to be nominated as a Substitute while on the Blacklist?
ReplyDeleteCan Blacklisted Teacher from NYC DOE work in a Charter school?
ReplyDeleteI would bet they can.
ReplyDeleteNeed this in writing, please.
ReplyDeleteIs it incumbent upon the UFT to deny or affirm the establishment and maintenance of a Blacklist by the NYC DOE?
ReplyDeleteFINGERPRINTS!!!
ReplyDeleteDo they BLACKLISTED HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR FINGERPRINTS?
If so, for how long?
Current status of Schools Chancellor?
ReplyDeleteBurden of Chancellor to review Personnel actions of the DOE for discrimination, et al.
ReplyDelete