I have some questions about a u-rated teacher in my school

UPDATED: June 27, 10pm

SEE UNDER ASSAULT COMPANION PIECE: Branding


This came in over the transom. Email me or leave comments if you have answers:


A teacher came to me -teaching less than 10 years; tenured. Got all S's, except this year: U rating.

Showed me the 5 or 6 observations, and I couldn't tell which they were considering "formal" or "informal". I believe some were meant to be informal because they filled in after
PRE-OBSERVATION: n/a

They did not include one observation in this back up material. It was an "S" observation.
Apart from that, they made the standard weird comments — like saying the kids were not engaged, yet they attached the paperwork that showed that the kids were in fact quite engaged and doing the assignment.

Can anyone help me with some of these questions?

1. The UFT website says to contact the dist. office for help. Are they actually going to do something for you, or is that a waste of time?

2. Art. 21. (Due Process) says in the last clause (D.3) that: " 3. Teachers who receive doubtful or unsatisfactory ratings may appeal under Section 4.3.1 of the by-laws of the Board of Education." I don't think it's talking about probationers at this point, correct? If so, do you do this with the district's help, or on your own?

3. How can you tell what's formal and what's informal? Is there a special "procedure" they've not followed if you can't tell the difference between one observation report and another?

4. Is the district going to do that with or for this teacher when he/she contacts them?

5. Where does it stay that if you get a U rating your salary freezes on a certain step? I can't find it.

Principal Doublespeak: Having the Lesson Plan Takes Priority Over the Lesson

If you haven't been following the travails of Moriah, a middle school science teacher in the process of receiving a U-rating, head on over and read the latest entry in the bizarre world of the NYCDOE. I know people at the school and this principal, notorious for emphasizing minutia and noted for choosing one teacher a year to pick on for a career-ending experience. One day Moriah will give the ok to go public with this stuff so that when someone googles the principal's name they will read this excerpt (head over to Untamed Teacher for the entire saga.)

MORIAH: There is a big difference between not having a lesson plan and not having a lesson plan on the desk during a lab.

PRINCIPAL: Tell me what the difference is.

MORIAH: The difference in not having a lesson plan would have meant that I did not know that I had to bring 8 triple beam balances. I did not know that I had to bring 8 graduated cylinders, two bars of soap. In other words, I would not have known what to do that day. But the lab was very very carefully planned. All materials were present. I knew the exact procedure. All the children knew the exact procedure. There was 100% success rate in finding the density of both bars of soap. Children were able to write up a lab, an example of which I gave you and which I have here. So it would be impossible to do all that without writing up a lesson plan, but my emphasis was on having the equipment rather than having a piece of paper that I have memorized. You are always welcome to ask for it. I usually have a written lesson plan, but there are times when perhaps I might get caught without the piece of paper, but the lesson is not only planned, I have it memorized in my head.

PRINCIPAL: But as per Chancellor’s memo 666 and the faculty handbook that you received at the beginning of the year, you must have a written plan and you must have the lesson plan available when it is requested. You said just now that you “usually” have a written lesson plan. All teachers must have a planned lesson. A written lesson plan. Please explain to me why you did not follow the faculty handbook, the Chancellor’s Regulations and the Principal’s Memos. You must have a written lesson plan ALL the time.

On march 23, 2007 I was a traveling teacher and I had a small cart with 13 science project boards from 7F the lowest class that I had.

The science projects were:

How does color affect the melting rate of ice?
How does a change in air pressure affect an egg?
How does temperature affect an electromagnet?
How can we use cabbage juice as a pH indicator?
Which substance filters water the best?
What is the effect of soda on the fizz of a soda?
Will seeds grow better in a covered jar or an uncovered jar?
How do we find if a food has starch?
How much bounce will a handball lose if it is dropped from different heights?
Have you ever wondered how clouds form?
How will different amounts of baking soda and vinegar affect how high a film canister will pop?
How does density of a liquid affect how ice floats.
How can we test different liquids for pH?

At that time I was overwhelmed by the number of boards on the cart. We were going to have a science project fair for 7F. Ms X came in and asked for the lesson plan and when she couldn’t find it she turned around and left without looking at the science projects of 7F. Without giving the children the approval that this low level class needed.

PRINCIPAL: Let me repeat my question. Why did you not have a lesson plan?

MORIAH: It was buried under 13 science boards.

What Randi will Suggest at the Oct 30th "Rubber Room" Meeting

TAGNYC is becoming an effective internal lobbying group in the UFT on rubber room, ATR, and U-rated issues. Their demo at the DA on Weds. made a point and may become a regular event at DA's if they feel the UFT does not respond adequately. Read their report of the demo here.

The next day they get a visit from SWAT team member Jim Calahan bearing a list of things Randi will suggest at the RR meeting called for Oct. 30. Most times people bow down and say "Thank you Randi for receiving us. We'll be quiet while you try to work your magic," not realizing she forgot all about them about 10 seconds after the meeting. What I love about the gang in TAGNYC is that they don't take the bull and came up with their own demands. Read them at their blog.

There is no question TAGNYC makes the UFT hierarchy extremely uncomfortable. But they must remain vigilant at any attempts to deflect their militancy with words not backed up by actions. From my experience, that is all they will get: words.

I want to point out at this point that people like Jeff Kaufman, James Eterno and myself (yes, I'll pat myself on the back) kept hammering the UFT leadership on rubber room issues for the past 3 years at Executive Board meetings (giving lie to the New Action rubber stamps who mutter that ICE did nothing on the Executive Board) and asking people from rubber rooms to join us at the meetings to make their voices known. Now they are a regular presence.

TAGNYC is taking things to the next step. The UFT leadership is scared to death at the potential of this group. Yes, the demo was small. But that was intentional as they wanted to make a point. Does anyone doubt that if TAGNYC put out a call far and wide for ATR's, RR's and unfairly U-rated to come to a demo at a UFT Delegate Assembly, they could stop traffic on Broadway. As I've said before, there is often more palpable anger at the UFT than at the DOE, who just act naturally - like swine.

Reports of all too many arrogant, nasty UFT reps who look at people like they are guilty, come in all the time. Maybe it's time to out these people. Randi sees the threat. Thus the SWAT team of Calahan, Combier and Isaac. I may have differences with some of these people, but one thing they can do is talk to people the right way. So for what it's worth, consider them a plus.

ICE's Woodlass (also a member of TAGNYC) spent the entire summer bombarding Weingarten and other UFT officials on the ATR issue, exposing many of their inactions on this blog, and now on her own blog (http://underassault.blogspot.com/). Her relentless pursuit seems to have woken them up. Woodlass demanded they take some action and that are - or making it look like they are.

Randi apologizes at the DA for not giving the RR and ATR issues attention earlier. No one ever said she isn't extremely good at doing this kind of thing. But is it good enough? Now she will hold a meeting of RR people, the first time all of them will be together in the same room.

The UFT modus operendi is to keep people apart so they can't organize, so this meeting is somewhat of an act of desperation and signs of the effectiveness of the activities of people in TAGNYC and other advocates. UFT thinking: Better to get them in your room before they hold their own meeting without you and grow even stronger. I just hope TAGNYC won't be deflected and will continue to organize and grow as this issue will not go away and the UFT will forget about them the minute the pressure is off.

Here is part of TAGNYC's reports on their blog:

TAGNYC mounted a very successful demonstration in front of the UFT headquarters. Posters bearing slogans like "UFT, WHERE ARE YOU", "SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN', "ATRS- DUMPING GROUND FOR TENURED TEACHERS" were on prominent display. Approximately 600 flyers (our position paper) were distributed.

Our message UFT Defend Our Rights was made loudly and clearly. The reason for yesterday's rally can be found on our blog. The statement of reason ends with the sentence:

This is why TAG is marchig knowing full well that Bloomberg-Klein is our enemy but wondering who and where are our friends.

You can read what Randi will "demand" of the DOE at the TAGNYC blog. Maybe she'll get something, not as much due to her demands, but the increasingly sympathetic exposure on the issue in the mainstream press, an embarrassment to Tweed. The question I urge people to raise at the meeting: What is the UFT willing to do to back up it's demands? Demonstrations? Law suits? Press conferences?

Just saying you demand means nothing as people never know the shell game behind the scenes. Just look at the merit pay October surprise sprung on the delegates on Weds. We do know that the UFT will never make a real stand - they might get some concessions, pass on the rest and trumpet it as a great victory.

Untamed Teacher...

Follow the trials and tribulations of a teacher who, after 20 years of teaching gets her first unsatisfactory observation, followed by a U-rating for the year. From a Leadership Academy principal - naturally.

Administrators count on teachers bowing their heads and hiding in shame. And of course the UFT says SHHHHH! File a grievance. Quietly. Don't make a political fight out of it. Shhhhhhhh!!

But this teacher won't go meekly.
"Somewhere else in Bloomberg's New York City Department of Education there is another teacher who has received or is about to receive a negative letter and is heading for an unsatisfactory rating at the end of this year just like I am. But no one will ever hear of it, because it all takes place behind closed doors and in secrecy. As soon as a teacher gets one of these letters, she feels ashamed. She wants to hide it from everyone. She quietly endures one letter after another--until one day she just disappears. "Whatever happened to good old Mary?" People shrug their shoulders and quickly change the subject. "This won't happen to me. I am going to make this a very public shaming, shunning, or what-ever-you-want-to-call-it. This isn't going to happen in some little dark corner of Bloomberg-land. So, if you want to see the step by step destruction of a very long, and, I think, very proud teaching career, then come for visit."

http://untamedteacher.blogspot.com/

U-Rating Hearing Notes from Lafayette HS

Ed Note:
Our correspondent received a UFT transfer into Lafayette in the summer of 2005, one of the last UFT transfers before the onerous contract eliminated them. She came to the school during the summer to meet the principal (who she assumed was the old one) only to find Rohloff. Her first question was, "Don't you think I should pick my own people?" - a typical response from a principal to a UFT transferee, who are all assumed to be questionable no matter what their abilities. By the 2nd week of Sept. the teacher was under attack as Rohloff clearly had made up her mind to not have a UFT transferee in her building and the teacher underwent a year of hell. The teacher had previously had 3 years of successful teaching in special ed in very difficult schools but that counts for nothing in the world of Rohloffdom and BloomKleindom.

AP [X] had been placed in the rubber room for some connection to a teacher changing a score by a point in order to allow a student to graduate. Since then, AP [X] has been demoted to a teacher as an ATR.

AP [X] was noted for following Rohloff's orders and there are reports he gave 4 U ratings last year. In the end, AP [X] got burned on the cross he helped create. But he still has a job. When chapter leader Maria Colon of JFK HS found her bosses changing piles of regent scores it was she who was sent to the rubber room for a year and a half and had her job gone after. (She is clear now and back teaching as an ATR.) Her bosses got off scot free.


Thought I'd give you the details of my hearing. Essentially, the hearing was held to fight the "U" rating I received. The true issue basically is about class management, not my knowledge of content, or my credentials as a teacher.

Hearing was to commence at 9 a.m. 6 people were present, my UFT rep, me, a DOE Chairperson, a Superintendent representative from Region 7, a rep from the Chancellor's office and an impartial (?) observer. I question the impartiality of the observer, simply because she appeared to be on very familiar terms with the representative from the Region 7 office, and exchanged a number of pleasantries that would indicate a friendship with the Superintendent's rep.

Also present (by phone connection) were: Jolanta Rohloff, Principal, Ms. Makintosh (LIS, Region 7), AP [X] ( A.P. Social Studies)

We were to commence the hearing at 9 a.m. This was not so, because there were problems in calling Lafayette ( no one picked up the phone there). The rep. from District 7 offered as a reason that this was so , because today is the first date back from Regents grading, and a new semester, so having a hearing on this particular date ( today) was very poor timing.....As for AP [X], when the question came up about where he was, so that he could be cross examined, again, all concerned ( with the exception of my UFT rep and me) had to scramble to get information on where AP [X] was located, his now exact position, how he could be reached.

We finally connected with Rohloff- when asked by my rep where AP [X] was, Rohloff told my rep that "he ( meaning AP [X]) was no longer at the school". Rohloff went on to say that she had the authority to speak for him. My rep shot that down, another long search went on to connect with AP [X]. When questioned as to his whereabouts, Rohloff continually stated that "he was not at the school." My rep refused to carry on the hearing until AP[X] was located, correctly stating that AP [X] was the one that gave me the ratings, not Rohloff, who was not in the classroom with us at the time the ratings were given. When the panel found out where AP [X] was located, the rep from the Chancellor's office inadvertently blurted out: "He's in the "rubber room"!" The impartial observer and rep from the Region both made comments that the remark was inappropriate. My UFT rep and I said nothing. Finally, a private cell phone number was obtained for AP [X], the connection was made.

The UFT rep then cross examined AP [X], Rohloff, and the LIS on the Log of Assistance, did they model lessons for me, other questions along that line of reasoning. Rohloff blatantly lied about the assistance she offered me, AP [X] did not have the appropriate documents at his disposal, the LIS admitted that she knew that Rohloff had intended to "U" rate me for the year, prior to observing me. My rep brought up the point that if the LIS knew that I was to be "U" rated, would that affect her decision? The LIS said that it did not.

My observations during the hearing- The UFT rep was very much on point - kept all participants on point through his cross examinations. When it was time for Rohloff and the LIS to question me, apparently they asked questions that drew the agreement from the other reps that their questions were not germane to the hearing. One such question from the LIS: "Describe differential learning". I was not required to answer that question, as it relates more to philosophy than the issue at hand, which apparently, was more classroom management. Another question: What outside professional development seminars did I attend, which I answered. The LIS summarized that " since I did not seek professional development on my own, it's an indication of my lack of professionalism and planning". Rohloff concurred. As you know, we attended a number of PD's on a voluntary basis that were assigned to us.

As for my summary, I deferred to the UFT rep. All other present stated:" On the record".

That was it. After the hearing, the UFT rep and I spoke. I'm of the opinion that the hearing went towards my favor, however, the UFT Rep feels that even if we "won" on points, the DOE will still doggedly stand by their initial decision.

So, what was the point? Could there be a "miracle"? Is the DOE capable of retracting a decision that clearly smacks of an injustice? As for AP [X], I'm sure that the DOE Chairman knew of his situation, as well as the Regional rep., yet, this was not brought up, either by them, or the UFT rep. I was biting my tongue to bring up the situation, but the UFT rep feels that no matter how wrong the administration is, the DOE reps at the hearing would not be swayed by bringing such a situation to light.