This is the second time in 4 years this chapter has managed to convince a Chancellor but NOT THEIR OWN UNION, that a principal is abusive... Elfrank-Dana, CL, Murry Bergtraum HSHo hum, par for the course -- the UFT protecting principals over teachers for their pals at the CSA.
I love John Elfrank-Dana -- He's so prolific I don't even have to write ed notes. Seems these days lots of people are writing to Janella Hinds, UFT VP for High Schools. (Eterno on ICE: MY OPEN EMAIL TO JANELLA HINDS ON ALL THE ADVERSE RATINGS DURING THE FINAL YEAR OF JAMAICA HS).
Hi Janella,
A colleague at another school mentioned to me that when UFT leadership was visiting last year and the question of the principal at Murry Bergtraum, Lottie Almonte, came up, my friend said the UFT reps from 52 (Bwy) told them that the principal "was not the problem at Bergtraum". That has been the vibe I have been getting the last couple of years from 52.Be that as it may, apparently the Chancellor disagreed with this view by removing the principal. This is the second time in 4 years this chapter has managed to convince a Chancellor but NOT THEIR OWN UNION, that a principal is abusive. Although there was union support early on in 2010 from then then DR and VP High Schools to remove Dr. Lewis, there was a change in policy of "play nicely with others."Now that I hear of schools where no one got an Ineffective or Developing rating. But, I see about 20+ Ineffective/Developing ratings so far at Bergtraum, I wonder- Have we been singled out for special treatment? Will our appeals take into account an Unsatisfactory rating officer? Will Chancellor's appeals have a better than 1 percent record of overturning ratings under this new system? Under the old system losing was a foregone conclusion. Will Bergtraum teachers be scapegoated for a failed admissions policy that Diane Ravitch and others have called being setup for failure?Look forward to seeing you on Thursday.In solidarity,John
Sounds a little vague. Certainly there is an excess of bad principals in our city because that is where the previous administration put all of their chips. The letter above just seems like it is more conjecture than established fact. If we are trying to protect people by not naming names, why are we naming names?
ReplyDelete