So through this summer and into September the MORE Caucus was advocating for either; a) 100% remote learning or b) a strike so there would be 100% remote learning or c) anything else as long as MORE was seen in a positive manner. None of what they overtly wished for came true. However, they did take credit for the version of remote learning we have now. But remember this for later in this post how they wanted the buildings closed.

This year has been toughest on the students of New York City. I can only speak from my perspective (I am co-teaching remotely in an elementary school). But I see the students in the students who do not have the proper devices, the students in shelters, the students with no structure nor support at home. It is tough and it sucks. 

I see it with my 19 year old son, coming home in March and having no structure and going to online class in his underwear. His grades were not great. There are also students who are thriving in this remote style learning. The boring and binding shackles of the school day are off and they can finally learn at their own pace. 

But what we can not do is to paint a picture with a broad brush. We do not know every story and we can't say because they are white, or they are of color, or because one is a member of this or that social class that X, Y, or Z will happen. 

That is unless we are talking about MORE and what it has become.

Nice. Aren't we trying to get above this MORE? Oh, please MORE, this is wrong and you know it. Want to say whiny little bitches, people that are out of touch, assholes, go right ahead. But this is not right.

We here at SBSB showed this tweet to one of The Crack Team's honorary members. This is what this member had to say; 

"MORE wants all remote which hurts black kids and parents who need work plus shelter kids. But since higher percentage of black parents keep kids home they play the race card that it’s the  white parent demands influencing de Blasio decisions which is partially true as they fear losing white parents" 

Several things pop into my head and the The Crack Team's response.  

MORE is and will always be opportunistic. It's like group narcissism over there. Whatever will benefit MORE in shining that positive blue light upon them that's what matters. They will say something on a Tuesday and contradict what they said the day before.

MORE also still is of the mind set that all people of color (Blacks and Hispanics) all have the same experiences, the same life stories, and the same wants and needs. Depending on your whether you are Puerto Rican or Domincan, African-American or Jamaican. (I can go on and on) Not every one of DOE's minority populations can be painted with the same brush. MORE, thinks they can do it. And their paint keeps missing the canvass. 

Why does MORE still proverbially continue to step in what the dog left behind? A couple of reasons. They are a top down, cult of personality organization. They have eradicated all democratic norms since the infamy of the Purge of 2018. And too many white, liberal, young teachers who teach at small, good schools. 

These younglings are mostly new and non tenured teachers that are in their 20's thinking they know what is best for boys and girls of color even though most of them have never socialized with people of color until they moved to Brooklyn on mommy and daddy's dime. They think they know the urban culture, they think they are down. They act all hip and down, but they're not. You can't be that way when you are shopping for artisanal mayonnaise. As one SBSB group put it, "Spend time in the BoogiedownBronx, and then you can talk!" 

With tweets like the one above how does MORE intend to sell itself as a viable alternative to a Unity run UFT? Yeah, it must be nice for the MORE upper echelon to feel like Jim Jones at a MORE meeting with the younglings sitting in awe. But that is not a way to build a caucus nor would it be a way to run a union. Do teachers that live in Staten Island wants to know or read such tweets? In Westchester? On Long Island? How is MORE showing any teacher it can lead and more importantly, make the right choices and decisions? 

MORE represents .005% of the rank and file with that tweet. They need to start worrying about the entire rank and file. But not to worry. It will never happen.

A strike would have been financially difficult for me as I am sure it would have been for many others. A strike shouldn't be called for all willy nilly like one caucus keeps on calling
for. People have financial obligations as well as familial obligations. The vast majority of us don't live in a fantasy bubble and/or have mommy and daddy to fall back on to maintain one's hipster Brooklyn lifestyle.

Having said that, I would have voted for a strike and supported a strike. I think the UFT was hasty in calling for a strike. In my opinion, they should have done like Solidarity and sought injunctive relief in the courts first. I don't see how they would have not prevailed in court and in all probability we would have gotten a much better deal.

But a strike would have been difficult for several reasons. And I am not talking about the loss of pay, the loss of dues check off, loss of tenure. Not to mention, possibly the two interpretations (UFT vs DOE) of a strike is allowed due to safety reasons.

How do we picket? Imagine we are on strike. We are on strike due to a concern of getting COVID-19. We don't want to be in crowded and unclean places with a lot of people. Right? Guess what? That's what basically a picket line is. Crowded. Some of the schools that will be picketed the areas are not healthy. How then can we justify picketing if we justify not being in the school buildings? Yes, I understand there is a difference. With picketing everyone will be socially distant, wearing masks, and be outside. But that's reality. People don't care about reality. They care only about perception. But if there is a way to picket remotely, I am all for that.

So say there is no picketing. At least with picketing you can keep tabs on who crosses the line and discourage those that are thinking of it. But picketing or no picketing, what's to keep a one from crossing the line remotely or even know if a someone is crossing the line remotely? The numbers crossing the line could be too great for those on strike to have any impact.

Lastly, and this is most important, the past knowledge of the labor movement in those, (I'm just choosing a random age) under 35 is not there the way it is for those my age and maybe ten to fifteen years younger.

My step mother was a teacher and an AP. All her friends were educators. I heard all the stories of 1968 and 1975. I heard all the time from one of her friends who told me, "You schmucks have given back everything we fought for!"  He was right. But I listened. I learned from her friends. Even as a kid we knew people who were in unions, who fought for their rights. Then, when I started teaching in 1995, there were plenty of teachers left from the sixties and seventies who imparted their experiences. Where are types those today?

But these young ones. These non-tenured fresh teachers, will they sacrifice? Even the teachers that are tenured but have less time in, will they? What about the ass kissers every building seems to have about a good half dozen of? Will they sacrifice?

I do believe those younglings from that other caucus will support a strike. I'll give credit them credit for that. But there will be many who cross ranks that are too new, too ignorant, too scared, and don't have mommy and daddy to fall back on. Plus, that Brooklyn lifestyle is tough to give up. The alternative is moving to Yonkers

If only the gym teacher were a principal. If her was then he could be incompetent, a sexual harasser, insert his tallywhacker into copy machines, put relatives on payroll, steal, commit perjury, force people to attend their own church, recruit teachers for bible study in the library, and do whatever and not lose their jobs. Better, nine times out of ten they get removed to a cushy desk job at Tweed.

But gym teacher Brett Belsky played 20 minutes of Fortnite with two students and he lost his job. All Brett wanted to do was to make a personal connection with a couple of troubled students and give them an incentive to due better in gym. His heart was in the right place. There was nothing nefarious.

Now, is Fortnite social media? The Crack Team reach out to the only person who could answer this question, my 17 year old son. My son when asked if Fortnite is considered social media unequivocally exclaimed, "Fuck no!" He then went back to playing Madden online with his friend who is several miles away.

Facebook is social media. Twitter is. So is what's left of Myspace.

How is playing 20 minutes of Fortnite any different Belsky played catch with the students after school? Or if he saw the students in the corner bodega after school and bought each of them a Coke as reward or incentive to do better in school? Hell, we bribe kids every day with the promise of some prize or tchotchke every day. What Belsky did was no different.

But SCI got involved.They found cause the Belsky did not follow the DOE's own social media guidelines. But not only is there anything in the guidelines pertaining to online gaming, the guidelines only mention social media of which Fortnite is not!!

But for some reason the arbitrator decided that teacher with a spotless record for all of his eight years in the DOE must be terminated. That the way to deal with a mistake. Screw over someone's life.

Belsky did make a mistake. There was no malice and children weren't endangered. His heart and soul were in the right place. In a 3020-a hearing the arbitrator does and must look to see if the teacher's conduct can be changed and if there is remorse. I doubt very much that Belsky contradicted this.

To make matters worse, SCI has come out and...

suggested that the DOE clarify its employee “Social Media Guidelines” to make clear that teacher-student gaming is out of bounds.

So now the guidelines need clarifying? It goes to show that the guidelines were already vague when it comes to gaming. How can someone get fired if his investigators are already agreeing that the "rules" were not clear?

The arbitrator, in this case was arbitrary and capricious. Brett Belsky deserves a fair hearing and his job back.

Here we go around, (round, round, round) Run-run-runaround, yeah! (round, round, round, round) Here we go around, (round, round, round)-Runaround, Van Halen, 1991 from For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.

Yeah, here we go around again, with the ignorant bashing of ATR's (Absent Teacher Reserve), by a bought off parent (more on this later in this post).

Nicole Thomas, a mom at PS 256 in Brooklyn, wrote a scathing op-ed in the Daily News yesterday, becoming the 1,553,234 person to be completely ill-informed about ATR's.

Nicole sayeth....

They land in the ATR — sometimes for a short period, sometimes for a long one — because they are unable or unwilling to find full-time teaching positions after losing their placements.

You know that for a fact Nicole? Who told you this? Have you seen it first hand? If you wish to say unable, have you considered that NO principal will hire a teacher that makes my salary, that has my number of years in the system? Yeah, I went through the ringer. I went through a 3020a. I was labeled a bad boy. Big flag on my personal file. But Nicole, aren't we all allowed a second chance? Have you seen me teach? Or any other ATR teach? I doubt it.

Guess what Nicole? I was a technology staff developer for 3 years, ran the computer room in my school for another three, have a Masters in Educational Technology and guess (not many have all this) just guess, what? I can't even get an interview when I apply on the Open Market.

As for ATR's being unwilling, well, why should they be willing? Why should an ATR want to be in a situation where they are judged on "junk science" and Danielson? Why would an ATR want to be in a dysfunctional school? Why would an ATR want to take the chance with a vengeful principal?

But guess what? 99.99% of the ATR's I know want to be in a school permanently. You think it is easy going from school to school and not knowing anyone? People treating you as if you have some disease? You think it is easy to leave a school after you build relationships with students, and then suddenly - BOOM! - you are whisked away?

Yet you talk about quality teachers. What is a quality teacher Nicole? A brand new teacher that has never taught before? A Teach for America hack that has had only 50 hours of training? Nicole, would you get in a plane with a pilot that has had only 50 hours of training? Would you allow a surgeon to operate on you, or a loved one, with only 50 hours of training? No you wouldn't.

Is it an ATR's fault they they are forced to teach 7th grade ELA and their license is elementary and whilst teaching 7th grade ELA they get zero support from administration?  Or what about the ATR who had a phys ed. license and has made to teach Kindergarten?

Nicole, you are labeling all ATR's with the same broad brush? You know another time this happened? In 1930's Germany, when all Jews heard that they were money grubbers, not real Germans, had big noses, were miserly, and other monstrosities that were said about them. What makes you any different?

But I know where your bread is buttered Nicole. StudentsFirstNY butters it, and butters it well. You want to hang with these people? You think for a moment that StudentsFirst cares about you or your family, or even your community? You are being played like a fiddle and when you outlive your usefulness, see how long, if ever, it takes Jenny Sedlis to return your calls.

But if you want to hang with these people, know that StudentsFirst is the evil spawn of Michelle Rhee. Read this and tell the world how you would feel if Rhee was your child's teacher. These are the type of people you are being a sycophant for.

Stop listening and sucking up the propaganda. Find out for yourself. My email is listed on this blog.

The Crack Team has come across information concerning Francesco Portelos' forays into his attempts to corner the UFT nurses vote that is just so beneath contempt, but worse, could have put patient's lives in danger.

As was reported here on November 5th as well as on the Portelos blog Portelos ventured into a Staten Island hospital trolling for the nurses vote. Remember that one? The one in which Portelos blew the dog whistle in his own hyperbolic manner that he was to be drummed out of the UFT? From Portelos' blog in which he is being denounced at the UFT exec board meeting...

“…AND I AM APPALLED…THAT SOMEONE IN THIS ROOM WOULD DARE CALL OUR NURSES, DURING WORK HOURS TO PUSH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA, WHILE THEY ARE TAKING CARE OF SICK PATIENTS, AND PUTTING THOSE PATIENT’S LIVES AT RISK!”

"…the phone calls to the nurses are monitored and recorded. They violated our contract and could now face disciplinary charges. A cease and desist should be ordered and a full investigation by the board!”

The Crack Team has learned more about that night.

Originally we had assumed that Portelos was either; a) having acquired cell phone numbers called the nurses on their cell phones, or b) called the nurses at their stations on the patient floors. We were wrong. It was worse.

Portelos, as always thinking about himself first, attempted to reach out to nurses by calling the Neo-Natal Unit, the ICU, and the Operating Room. Think about it. Two units where the most vulnerable patients in a hospital are were forced to take a back seat to Portelos' ego.

Think about it. Portelos by his actions put patients lives in jeopardy. Yes, only by the grace of God, there were no emergencies, but what could have happened in the few seconds that a nurse took the time to answer a useless phone call from Portelos if a patient flat lined in ICU? If a baby stopped breathing in Neo-Natal? If a nurse preparing to assist a surgeon on an operation was distracted enough to forget an instrument, an instruction, or some other matter of importance?

It would not matter to Portelos as long has he was the center of attention.

Which of course happened a few weeks later at Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn.

This time Portelos was brave enough to show his face. Walking down the corridors on the patients floors, or as Portelos wrote in this piece a few weeks after the Staten Island affair;

"One of them directed me to the staffing room for the nurses. I assumed it was something similar to a teacher’s lounge. As a went back-and-forth across the lobby of Lutheran Medical Center, to find the staff lounge..."

But is this true? For what was Portelos actually doing on the patient floors? As Portelos shared;

"I went to visit my grandmother who was recuperating at Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn."

The Crack Team has confirmed that there was no grandma at Lutheran that night. Now, grandma might have been across the street at the nursing home, but grandma at Lutheran came from someone's world of make believe.

Walking through patient floors where patients are being cared for put not only the nurses in a vulnerable position but the patients and their loved ones as well. He violated the privacy patients, their families, and their health care providers expect and demand.

But eventually it all came to an end for Portelos;

“Can I help you with something sir? Can we ask your business here?”

“I can’t believe she got security involved. I’m here visiting my grandmother who’s recuperating from hip surgery. I’m also running for president of the United Federation of Teachers. I thought to drop off some flyers since we represent nurses here.” I told them.

“Sir, if we see you here again we’re gonna have to remove you."

See right there you could tell grandma is all fictional.  Two things gave it away. If he was truly there for grandma, security would have asked him to cease and desist and stay with grandma. But there is something more telling. (Seriously, where is the line between fantasy and reality with him?)

Portelos who is so good at sharing every tidbit that he "believes" happened that night at Lutheran never said anything about having to leave grandma that evening. Never added something like, "I couldn't even say goodbye to grandma," or "I asked if I could at least say goodbye to grandma." Quite interesting.

What was the hospital supposed to do? To allow a stranger with no business in the hospital up on the patients floors? Be allowed to walk into private areas of the hospital? There are incidents all the time in hospitals. We live in an age in which hospitals are considered soft targets, baby abductors troll hospitals, crime happens in hospitals. You just can't leisurely walk around a hospital and troll nurses.

Portelos not only put patients lives and health at risk but the careers of nurses as well. The hospital on Staten Island and Lutheran are PRIVATE HOSPITALS and have different work rules ans free speech rules than public hospitals.

Nurses can be disciplined, nurses (As well as the union) can be seen as reckless if there are focusing on the inanity of Portelos instead of their patients.

There is no politicking at private hospital. Patients might be offended if they see a sign, leaflet, etc.., that goes against their belief system. But politicking is not permissible of a private hospital, especially during when nurses are on duty.

Which can make one wonder would Portelos walk into a classroom while a teacher is teaching to spew about himself? Would Portelos call a teacher while that teacher is teaching? Nope and nope.

But, he would call and harangue nurses and staff members to blabber about himself when these people are the ones that are at the front lines of patients lives. Nurses can't be distracted while they are on duty. Their only priority is their patients which of course Portelos fails to realize. 

More and more we see that Portelos has neither the maturity, temperament, nor the skills to be a leader. He chooses to lead by fear and intimidation which are not what anyone wants in a leader.

As you have just read, what is most important his himself and his vendetta against the UFT. Remember this, if Randi got him a gig at the UFT there is no UFT Solidarity.

No matter how it is sliced, Portelos put patients at risk and kept nurses from doing their duty. What more needs to be said. Except..

Portelos > Patients lives.

Principal Deborah Glauner

Oh, we just can't keep making this sh** up now can we?

Sit down, here comes another round of ridiculousness heaped upon a ATR.

But first, a little background.

There are two types of diabetes. Type I in which your pancreas has shut down and no longer produces insulin. You really have to watch what you eat and you need to either inject yourself with insulin several times a day or have a pump attached to you and inserted in you which pumps insulin as needed throughout the day. The most known reason for someone having Type I is that a virus attacks the pancreas and which in turn shuts down the production of insulin.

Then there is Type II. The body does not produce enough insulin. This is caused by heredity, weight, eating habits, etc... I have Type II and have cut out the carbs, the fried foods, the ice cream, etc.. I take Metformin and Glimepiride and have no plans to ever take insulin.

Both types need to have their blood sugar below 150 after meals and their A1c levels at below 6.5 ideally. Mine is currently 7.1 and it is tough. I also need to get my weight down.

But the worse part is testing the blood. Got to carry that darn test kit around all the time and sometimes you have to test when you really need to. So it really boils my britches when I get a story from an ATR who needs to test her blood and gets written up for it.

As the ATR wrote to The Crack Team;

I went to 10 schools as an ATR this year. Just received an S rating and perfect attendance.

Regardless, my efforts at school #9 the (I.A.)principal Deborah Glauner (2002 Teaching Fellow) of (Arts & Media Preparatory Academy in Brooklyn) is placing a disciplinary letter on my file. Reason? For checking my blood glucose in front of one student. She assigned me 6 periods per day: first 3, last 3. I had to walk a mile from a parking spot and walk/run 4 floors up, no elevator. There was no place to test BG (Blood glucose) before first 3 periods. The class roster had 4 students but only one student was present. But she wrote students (plural) big difference. At the same school a student threw a calculator at me hitting my shoulder. And my iPhone 6 was stolen in the last day.

Can this be true? Let's have a looksee (Click to enlarge).

Have you read it? OK, let's get past all the gobbledegook about who said what and where who was and concentrate on the part about blood borne pathogens. Principal Glauner states that the teacher in question placed students...

"at risk of exposure of bodily fluids." 

Dear God, where have we heard of this before? This ATR has stole Principal Glauner's essence .


Risk? Look at this video (At about 1:38 in) see the blood gushing everywhere? Take a reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaal close look. It's a pin prick. The strip soaks up 99% of the blood.

In fact one, and I have been guilty of it, one can use the needle for the next test therefore not having to dispose of the needle.

In fact, by checking the NYCDOE Occupational Safety and Health website on blood borne pathogens there is not one single link to anything to do diabetes testing. It all has to do with HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and basically what to do if someone is hemorrhaging blood.

A member of The Crack Team spoke with someone today at OSAH and asked if checking for diabetes, whether in front of students, adults, or anywhere can be considered a risk. The gentleman, who was quite kind, replied unequivocally, "NO!! Not at that tiny amount." When asked about proper disposal of the testing strip he said, "A testing strip is safe enough to dispose of in the regular trash."

So why then did Principal Glauner (Or if we won't to go with the bodily fluid theme, "Principal Ripper) have to write up this ATR?

Simple. The teacher is an ATR. Principal Glauner is a Interim Acting principal and feels she show she is tough. The ATR knows more than she. The ATR is nicer. There are a littany of reasons.

What would have been the harm in a) giving a counseling memo or just have an informal conversation with the teacher? Or b) Reach out to someone at Tweed and truly find out if the itty bitty bit of blood is dangerous. It is not.

But here is the main problem. Principal Glauner could have taken this moment and turned it into a true teachable moment. Isn't this what education and being an educator is all about?

Sadly, Principal Glauner is too infatuated with her new found power. She does not feel she is capable and must make others feel bad to build herself up in her mind.

As many others were I was appalled and sickened when I picked up the Daily News and read about the deviancy with students that Brooklyn Tech "teacher" Sean Shaynak allegedly committed.

According to the Daily News, Shaynake is accused of;

• Taking a 15-year-old to a nude beach in New Jersey without permission and plying her with vodka, tequila and whisky until she passed out at his home.
• Exchanging some 10,000 text messages with that same girl, in which he asked her to participate in lesbian sex with another student and told her about his experience with a ménage-à-trois and gay sex.
• Giving another student perfect grades “regardless of the fact she did not do any assignments and left tests blank,” said prosecutor Joseph Mancino.
• Forcing himself on that 18-year-old student when she resisted his attempt at intercourse.
• Carrying on a “four-month sexual relationship” with yet another teen, which included a trip to an out-of-state gay-themed sex club where she watched him getting “serviced” by other men.
• Taking that student on what prosecutors described as a “terror ride” from Queens to Brooklyn that ended with her hiding in the bushes and her teacher screaming and banging on his car. “He threatened to tell her parents,” Mancino said.
• Sending full-frontal photos to four students, two of whom were minors.
• Storing an extensive library of pornography in his computer, which included bestiality — sex acts between humans and dogs, horses and goat.

Yes, these all seem pretty damning. If true, it would be hard to disprove the allegations in regards to the full frontal monty shot and the text messages.

But what is this person thinking? He is a teacher, trusted to teach and protect the students he is charged with. Yes, a person who does such acts does not think of others and is selfish. Pedophiles usually are. If he was this hard up for attention and physical release and/or contact there were other ways, safer ways to satisfy his perversions.

But no matter how heinous the accusations are, no matter how angry we are, as parents of the students, as teachers, as human beings, he has every right to due process, full and equal protection under the law and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But according to tomorrow's Daily News, Shaynak was arrested, yet not charged in the beating of an 11 year old in Maryland in 2005, yet the DOE still hired him because he wasn't convicted.

That does not make sense. Yes he wasn't convicted, yet the child he had beaten had a restraining order. Why then did the principal and the DOE hire him? Is not someone at Tweed or Brooklyn Tech culpable for hiring this man? Should this not have been a red flag? ATR's are flagged for much, much, less and don't get hired.

At a time when teachers and tenure are under attack Shaynak is quickly becoming the poster boy of Campbell Brown and Mona Davids as to why teachers should not have tenure, should not have the right to due process, and labeling all teachers and predators.

Worse, Campbell and Mona will beat the drum that even while being held awaiting to be bailed out of jail Shaynak will still be collecting a salary of around $52k. But according to the UFT contract, and something the NYC media won't let anyone know, teacher's accused of sexual misconduct have their pay suspended for 90 days. In fact Mulgrew said in the Daily News;

 “The city has the ability to remove this person from payroll,"

 The in the words of Captain Picard, "Make it so!" The onus is now on the city.

But the city won't. The city doesn't want to. Why? They need a poster boy too. The city needs someone to collect their pay and sit and stew either in jail or a Rubber Room to give fodder to those that want to debase tenure, to cry pervert at every single allegation. Worse, the city and DOE will take the longest time to bring charges to dismiss him just to give the anti-tenure crowd more ammunition.

What to do? Do what they city has done to ATR's, bring an expedited 3020-a hearing. There is no way that this investigation can take over a year. Surely, the NYPD and Brooklyn DA's office can and will share information with the DOE. Again, time for the city and DOE to put it's money where it's mouth is.

We here at SBSB call for Shaynak to do the honorable thing and fall on his sword. We call for him to resign immediately or at the very least take an unpaid leave of absence. Again, we at SBSB are reiterating what was said above. He has the right to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. But accusations such as this call for some action for the greater good to be taken.

We feel for the families of the students affected directly by Shaynak, for the families indirectly affected as well as the entire Brooklyn Tech community.

It seems that MS 61 in Brooklyn is turning into quite the soap opera. A dangerous soap opera.

For those who don't know or need reminding, MS 61 has been in the news lately due to the diligence of retired teacher Jeff Storobinsky and his Facebook group, Money Over Age.

First some background.

A former colleague at MS 61 who in the last six months had suffered a stroke and currently was undergoing chemo treatments, had passed away suddenly and in his grief he posted this on his the MOA page.

We all handle death in different ways. Some mourn privately, some want to mourn with others. Jeff clearly was in mourning. What came next was not part of the mourning process.

Jeff's fiance still is employed at 61 as a para. She has taken a lot of heat for being Jeff's fiance and being close and that is probably par for the course. We here at SBSB have no problem, as we are sure his fiance doesn't, that if yo
u don't want to be her friend, don't want to socialize with her that is fine. Let her do her job, let her work in a safe environment, and just be courteous to her.

This morning, September 24, 2014 Jeff's fiance Marisol found the following attached to her time card;

Take your time reading it and take even more time to put your eyeballs back in their sockets. Yes, even The Crack Team blushed.

Marisol is beside herself. She immediately left the building and headed home to the safe embrace of Jeff where she still remains.

Jeff, a Jew, in all probability will forgo celebrating the 2nd holiest day of the Jewish calendar in order to accompany Marisol tomorrow as they meet with NYPD detectives. Already this deviant has kept Jeff from partaking in the celebrations which will mark the beginning of 5775. Perhaps while at the local NYPD precinct Jeff might be able to seek solace in hearing the distant sounds of the Shofar from Williamsburg.

But where will the solace and safety come from for Marisol? How long will she have to be looking over her shoulder? For how long must she be escorted to and from her car? Will she be safe alone in parts of the school? In the bathroom? Walking out of her house?

Will there be a real investigation or will this be poo-pooed? We here at SBSB call for a independent investigation posthaste. This is not the type of thing that should happen in a school but sadly it is indicative of so many more problems which seem be just swept under the rug.

One thing we do know is that this incident never would have happened if the atmosphere at MS 61 wasn't so toxic.

The Crack Team is pleased to welcome once again guest blogger and retired teacher Jeff Storobinsky to share a few words.

For those who don't recall these pages shared some of Jeff's story back in June.

Jeff is in the process of suing his tormentors with The Crack Team's favorite attorney, Bryan Glass, representing him.

In today's post, Jeff exposes and names his tormentor. Read on!

With all the talk of the lawsuit Campbell Brown and her lackies Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo have brought forth, the reason to explain tenure has never been more important than ever.

This story came into the DTOE newsroom a few weeks ago., and posted on DTOE this past Tuesday. This is one of the most heinous examples of teacher abuse and abuse of power The Crack Team has heard of. In fact, Crack Team member Moose was so upset he was crying like a baby while sucking his thumb and calling for his mother.

This story, told from the teacher involved, has all the markings of what  the problem really lies in education. Not the teachers, but the ones in charge, the ones making the decisions.

The letter to follow (In it's entirety) was originally sent to High Schools Superintendent Donald Conyers. Donald was at the forefront of damage to this teacher (here and here).

Coincidentally, Conyers worked closely with DR Mychael Willon. He of the false PhD and the arrest for sexual deviancy in Wichita KS.

This teacher was a first year teacher, a Fellow and a cancer survivor. If she had tenure, would she, could she, have been discontinued?

Another story is coming soon, even more egregious.

Read on;

Several names have been redacted.
—————-
Donald Conyers
Superintendent
Brooklyn and Queens High School
6565 Flatlands Avenue, Room 104C
Brooklyn, New York 11236

Dear Mr. Conyers:

I am saddened that our first communication is under the given circumstances. However, I am elated by the fact that you have given me an opportunity to express my concerns to you at this time.  This year has been in fact quite challenging but has left me with the knowledge that there is no other field in which I would wish to find myself.  I never would have imagined how much I would have learned while teaching and I am grateful for each moment.

On July 5, 2014 I received a letter from your office stating that I was being reviewed for potential discontinuance. Frankly, given the year that I have faced I was not entirely surprised.  I offer you a chronology of the events in my year so that you can understand my perspective as best as possible.
I am licensed under the Transitional B Certification through the alternative program known as the New York City Teaching Fellows for Special Education for grades 7 through 12.  I was placed at the School for International Studies (i.e. 15k497) for my summer assignment.  During this time I sought employment while teaching summer school to a mixed group of middle school students.  Throughout the subsequent weeks, I made many connections with the students and built rapport.  By the second week I was being asked by the students to seek employment at the school.  In August, I was called in for an interview with the principal, Jillian Juman, and the head of the Special Education Department and Lead Teacher, Nicole Lanzillotto.  When offered the position I excitedly accepted and prepared for the upcoming school year.

On September 3, 2013 I received my rosters, classroom locations, and schedule.  I was told that I would be teaching 7^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 8^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 7^th grade ICT Humanities, and Self-Contained English Language Arts/ Humanities.  When reviewing the rosters for my classes I found that my middle school self-contained class had fifteen students without a classroom paraprofessional (See Exhibit A).  Under the Special Education laws of New York State the class size should be of the following ratio: 12:1:1.  Of my fifteen students included on the roster, three of them were classified as alternate assessment (See Exhibit B) and the class was a conglomerate of sixth, seventh, and eighth graders of varying levels.  Further, I was placed in an AP Statistics classroom in the high school wing to teach self-contained, middle school English.
In October, I found myself struggling to direct the classroom and sought help from my Chapter Leader, Ms. R.  Upon explaining the dynamics of the classroom she informed me that the class should be no more than 12 unless a waiver was filed by the school for 13 and that that was the absolute maximum.  The following day, on my way to sign out, I was approached by both Ms. Juman and Ms. Lanzillotto who said to me, “Ms. R says you are unhappy”.  I explained to them that it was not that I was unhappy but that I felt that the students were not benefitting from the dynamics of the setting and that it was not conducive to a learning environment.  Further, it was illegal and violated Special Education regulations. Ms. Lanzillotto chimed in to state that the classroom dynamic was not in violation of Special Education regulations, despite my research having stated otherwise. Ms. Juman then informed me that she would be “fixing” the situation in time for the new semester when we would be facing program changes as an entire school.  She then asked if I would write a letter stating that I was comfortable with the arrangement of the roster as it stood and in good faith knew that it would only last until January.

Immediately after having completed the aforementioned conversation I sought the advice of Ms. R, who informed me that the conversation and request were inappropriate. After speaking to my mentor, Mr.  P, he reiterated the same sentiments as Ms. R and advised me against writing the letter.
When I realized the roster would not be changing to suit the needs of the students or the classroom environment I sought the help of Ms. Lanzillotto and asked her to visit my classroom.  On October 9, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto sat in my classroom for about ten minutes prior to pulling out a student of mine, Student A.  On October 10, 2013 I received an email from Ms. Lanzillotto stating that Student A’s schedule would be changed effective immediately and that she had undergone a re-evaluation (See Exhibit C).  In this email exchange you will notice that the school’s Speech Language Pathologist questions when the re-evaluation had taken place, which was a question the rest of the department had, as well.  Student A was then placed into my ICT English Language Arts class, and she immediately began expressing her discomfort with the material that was being presented in the ICT setting.  She then asked to meet with me and expressed a request to be returned to a self-contained setting.  I advised her to speak to Ms. Lanzillotto regarding her concerns and encouraged her to advocate for herself.  By October 21, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto informed the staff via email that Student A would in fact remain in Self-Contained Language Arts stating, “[This] is what Student A thinks is good for her right now”.

After I spoke to Ms. R about my concerns for Student A and other students, she approached Ms. Juman and asked why a more seasoned teacher had not been placed in the self-contained setting so that I may learn from my ICT partnerships.  Ms. Juman responded by saying, “[Ms. S] is sickly and cannot handle the pressures of a self-contained setting.” Ms. R then said that I also have health concerns which include Thyroid Cancer which required two surgeries and radiation and Lupus to which Ms. Juman responded, “yes, but, she’s younger”.  Therefore, it was simply assumed that because of my age I was better fit for the task instead of the veteran teacher with 24 years of teaching experience.

Shortly after the incident involving Student A, Ms. R began following up with Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman about the class size.  At this time they told her that they actually obtained a waiver for 13 students.  Ms. R asked to see this waiver and was given an application rather than a waiver which had not been granted. Ms. R reiterated that even with a waiver, 15 students was outside the regulations.  Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman then began asking me daily for my thoughts on which students were ready to be moved into the ICT setting.  Given the students’ reading, writing, and intellectual levels I disagreed that any of the students were ready for the change in setting.  A second concern regarding class size came to light when my roster for 9^th period Intervention was released.

According to Special Education Law my roster size should have consisted of five students. Rather, I was given ten (See Exhibit D). On November 13, 2013 I sent an email to my mentor, Mr. P informing him of this placement being against regulation, to which he did not respond.  That same day I received an email from Mrs. Assante, the principal’s secretary asking that a weekly meeting be set with her (See Exhibit E).  I approached Mrs. Assante and she stated the nature of the meetings were to discuss my lesson plans and for Ms. Juman to collect the week’s worth each Monday.  Around this time I was observed twice a week and had met the minimum of six by November’s end, by January of 2014 I had reached a count of approximately 19.  After consulting with Ms. R she stated that ritualized collection of lesson plans was a violation of our contractual rights and advised me to send an email asking about the nature of these meetings.

My email of November 13, 2013 was ignored and the following day I received another email from Mrs. Assante dated November 14, 2013 requesting that I schedule the time for the meetings (See Exhibit E).  I responded by reiterating my initial concerns.  Later that day I was approached by Ms. Juman who stated to me, “Stacey thinks you are scared to meet with me”.  I explained to her that my feelings should never be inferred and that I merely wanted in writing the nature of these appointments especially given that they were recurring.  The following day I received a schedule for these meetings which would last from November until January.  In January I was told that my lesson plans finally reached the principal’s level of satisfaction (See Exhibit F) and she began to decrease the meetings and collection of lesson plans.  In the end I can say that forcing me to complete these lessons so far in advance and in such detail served to benefit my classroom in that I was planning ahead, however given the varying levels of advancement of the students made it useless and I felt uncomfortable with the manner in which it was done.

I was granted the day off for December 2, 2013 for a doctor appointment (See Exhibit G).  On this same date the Special Education Department met as a whole to discuss which students could potentially be moved out without consulting me.  I was emailed that day by Ms. Lanzillotto (See Exhibit G) asking for my input.  Given the inappropriate nature of this request I did not respond.  When I arrived at work the following day, December 3, 2013 a student, Student B, greeted me in the ICT setting.  Prior to Student B having been moved out of the self-contained setting Student C, a second candidate had been moved out, as well.  The program switch for Student C was in fact based on my recommendation since based on her IEP and according to her mother, she was placed in self-contained based on her emotional disturbance and not based on her intellectual ability.  Upon meeting Student C who came into our school for eighth grade, I determined that the curricula of my Self-Contained Language Arts and Humanities were causing her harm, that it was not challenging enough.  As of December 3, 2013 I had thirteen students on the roster.

Looking at Exhibit H, you will note that my seventh period Self-Contained Language Art’s roster was set at 13 and that by eighth period two students were sent to have Physical Education for the second time in the day so that my class size was at 11 for the end of the day. The executive decisions made by my Administration were not out of the best interest of the students and were in fear that I would file a grievance.  Given the constant observations, ritualized collection of my lesson plans, and lack of tenure I refrained from filing a grievance. Frankly, I was more concerned with meeting my students’ needs more than my own. The above mentioned lack of action on my part was also in good faith that the situation would be rectified.

An incident occurred on November 21, 2013 (See Exhibit I) in connection with my roster being too large in 9^th period Intervention.  Two students attempted to touch me inappropriately and a third student in an attempt to defend me, slammed into my face.  This occurred after I had asked that my class size be readjusted.  In response to this matter, the Assistant Principal, Renato DaSilva instructed me to fill out a written statement with the dean, a Victim’s Report through UFT, and to email the details of the incident to the appropriate staff members.  The principal, Ms. Juman was not in that day and requested a meeting with me the following school day.  Ms. DaSilva approached me on November 22, 2013 during fourth period and asked that I meet with both Administrators for an impromptu meeting.

During this meeting Ms. Juman stated to me that I should have reconsidered teaching given that I am “pretty” and that incidences like the above are bound to happen. She continued to say that I should possibly stop wearing makeup so that I am less attractive.  She also stated, “[you] give students the wrong impression when you close the door of your classroom”.  She then asked what I thought would be an appropriate punishment given that the infraction was “small”.  She then suggested that I meet with the two young men along with Mr. DaSilva to discuss boundaries and that that would be punishment enough.  She then scolded me for filing a report with the Victim’s Unit and asked me why I had done so.  At this point, I made eye contact with Mr. DaSilva and remained silent until he described the actions he had taken the day before.  I was then told to leave so that she could discuss with Mr. DaSilva where he had misled me.  The students were never reprimanded but were supposedly taken out of my intervention.

On December 13, 2013 I received an updated list of the roster for Intervention with no visible changes having been made (See Exhibit J).  I attempted questioning the decision via email as you may note on page two of the email labeled “MS Roster Updates for Enrichment – MS Enrichment ONLY!” (Exhibit I)  My requests were ignored and on December 2, 2013 I received an email labeled Student D (See Exhibit K) where it was stated that Student D, one of the students involved in the November 21, 2013 incident would be moved into my ICT despite the fact that he did not have an IEP.  When I expressed my concern, Mr. P, my mentorresponded as follows, “Unfortunately, this decision was made last week by Administration.  We need to keep Student E and Student D separated for both their successes”.  Although I applaud the fact that my Administration has taken steps towards putting the needs of the students at the forefront, I do question where the support for assaulted teachers comes into consideration. At the end of December I had a discussion with Ms. Juman during which I asked if I could be released should I find another school.  Ms. Juman responded that she was not willing to do so and that she hired me and therefore would help me and attempt to alleviate the burdens I was feeling.  I expressed that I did not feel my job was secure while at this school and she reiterated her stance of hiring me and building me up.

In January, before the program changes occurred, the Special Education Department sat together and members were paid per session to amend all IEPs so that they matched the programs we offered but, did not meet the needs of our students.  I was told I would not be invited to the paid sessions by Ms. Lanzillotto given that, “you haven’t learned how to amend IEPs”.  This contributed to the lowered roster where I found I had eleven students for the new semester and under the new program. In doing the above mentioned, the needs of our students were compromised and ignored in order to be in accordance with the laws governing classroom sizes.

In January of 2014 I was given a classroom to design myself and had 11 students on my roster.  I thought my relationship with the principal had improved and my evaluations increasingly improved, as well (See Exhibit L).  In terms of my pedagogy I was told I had shown the most improvement out of any first year she had witnessed.  To improve my classroom environment I took steps in using research based Positive Behavior Supports (See Exhibit M).  I sought the advice of my professor from St. John’s University and together devised two Positive Behavior Supports.  The first is known as “Secret Student”.  During this time I pull at random the name of a student and follow his or her behavior throughout the class.  At any given time I may say, “I’m looking for my secret student!  I wonder if s/he is on task” and with that the students would all return to task.  At the end, if the student had behaved, I would reward him or her with a homemade scratch off card and a certificate.  If the student did not perform well I would allow it to remain a secret.

The second Positive Behavior Support I utilized in my classroom was “Ca$h it in”, a ticket system.  For every twenty minutes I was able to get through my lesson without interruption I would award the class with twenty tickets that could be redeemed for a class prize.  Individually, students could also win tickets for the possibility of being “Most Valuable Student”.  The class received a pizza party on April 4, 2014.  The great aspect of this particular support was that it allowed me to build a behavioral contract with the students and there was student choice evident in the process and execution. My rapport with my students greatly improved and my overall reputation amongst students was that I was kind, caring, and fun.  I received apologetic letters from students who misbehaved and even notes and cards from grateful parents (See Exhibit N).

In March, I was shocked to have received three disciplinary letters in the same week and found that the allegations stemmed from students who had done poorly in my class.  The first letter stemmed from miscommunication between a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B, and the rest of the class.  On March 25, 2014 a Career Panel was held in the library.  I escorted my Self-Contained class to the library for third period.  At the sound of the bell they were dismissed for lunch and I remained in the library to have lunch with the panelists.  Before the bell was going to ring for the start of fifth period and when my Self-Contained class reconvenes I looked around the library and noted that all of the students had gone to the lunchroom previously.  Upon reaching my classroom I only had three students waiting for me including a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B.  I asked where the rest of the students had gone and Ms. B informed me that she misunderstood the directive and told them to go to the library after they lined up outside my classroom door (i.e. Room 130).

I returned to the library where the principal and the college advisor, Ms. M, were eating with three students.  In the disciplinary letter, the principal counts the three students, who are high school students as adults.  I found the rest of my students without a teacher in the library playing video games and talking in the back on the computers.  I asked them, “What are you guys doing?  Let’s go.”  The students immediately closed out their games, apologized to me and joined me in walking over to the classroom to begin class.  Shortly after, I received notice for a meeting during which the principal claimed I had not done my duty and that I had left the students unaccompanied in the library although they had come in towards the tail-end of lunch, which is also my duty-free lunch.  Once she realized that she had gotten the order of events chronologically wrong she then went on to talk to me about the tone I used.  Tone is subjective and further the feelings of the students should not have been inferred.  If anything, she should have taken statements from the students as well as the college adviser, Ms. Martinez.  Further, as the principal, upon seeing the students were in the library without a teacher she should have directed them to go to class and to close out the games. Shortly after a letter was added to my file for the above described incident Ms. Martinez volunteered to write a letter detailing her recollection of the events (See Exhibit Q). This meeting was immediately followed by a second meetingwhich I shall continue to detail below.

In November, shortly after the assault incident, Ms. Juman approached my student, Student C, who had defended me from the assault and asked her about my “mental stability”.  The following day Student C approached me to tell me about the exchange after the end of third period. I listened to Student C’s recollection of what had transpired.  When she had finished I thanked her for expressing her feelings to me and told her to go to lunch before she missed the deliverance of food.  I coincidentally had a meeting scheduled with Ms. Juman for fourth period during which I asked her about the exchange and she explained to me that she heard I cried after the assault and wanted to know if I were mentally strong enough for the job.  I explained to her that she crossed a boundary in doing so and that I found it completely unprofessional to have approached an emotionally disturbed student, or any student for that matter, to discuss the mental state of a teacher.  She then apologized for having potentially hurt my feelings and undermining me. She went on to say I must understand she was doing her due diligence to ensure that her students were safe.

In March, Student C began skipping my Intervention and when I approached her about the matter she stated she was better off going home early and that was what her parents preferred. I have included a look into Student C’s behavior as Exhibit O. I then advised Student C that she must bring a note from her parents stating what she had told me or that she attempt to make it to class.  After this incident she continued to skip the class and I ultimately failed her.  In my disciplinary meeting on March 27, 2014, Ms. Juman showed me a statement from Student C stating that I have “had it out for her” since [October] following the incident and that I threatened to tell Ms. Juman’s boss about the incident.  Ms. Juman reassured me that she remembered our discussion in November and that she simply was following protocol when a student requests to write a complaint.  In short, I was told that I was safe yet I received a letter with a consequence that did not match the initial allegation.

Further, if I were to have had a damaged relationship with Student C why would I have waited until March to affect her grades (See Exhibit P).  The initial accusation is that I bullied Student C for information but instead received a letter for professional misconduct for stating, “I’m going to tell Ms. Juman’s boss”.  Furthermore, the consensus that Ms. Juman reached on her own is based entirely on a statement written by Victoria, without consideration of what I had to say and did not rely on any other information to reach her conclusion.  There was no proof of Student C having been intimidated by me, because I didn’t, and is based on what is being collected four months after the alleged incident.  Lastly, she mentions that I have to set clear boundaries with students in the letter however, a clear boundary was crossed when she opened a discussion with a student about a teacher’s mental stability.

A few weeks following this meeting, Student C and I were on great terms, again.  Shortly after receiving her new marking period grades she was promptly switched out of my Intervention and the failing grade I had given her was expunged from her record (See Exhibit P).  She excitedly showed me her grades for she had been improving when I noticed the change in grade.  I did not comment on the change.

Shortly after, in April, I found out that I was being investigated for verbal abuse against another student, Student F. This accusation came shortly after I had called home to inform his father that he was misbehaving and that as a representative of all of his teachers this was a recurring theme across his classes.  The day of the meeting his father accused me of mistreating Student F.  After this meeting, Ms. Lanzillotto, a teacher, approached a paraprofessional to write a statement against me.  My understanding is that according to regulation, only a dean or an administrator has the right to request official statements.  According to a subsequent statement written by Ms. B, the paraprofessional, dated April 11, 2014 she was coerced into writing false allegations and was given a series of leading questions (See Exhibit Q).

After Student F made his allegations against me his behavior began to decline further and he was unable to perform the tasks necessary to pass my class.  I tried using Positive Behavior Supports with Student F including a school wide system known as “Jag Bucks” to reinforce adaptive behavior.  Student F was unfortunately unresponsive and ultimately the guidance counselor thought it best to remove him from the classroom.

On May 20, 2014  I received an email from Nicole Lanzillotto stating that a discussion revolving around Student F’s placement would be discussed after a couple of months of speculation that he would benefit from a different environment (See Exhibit R).  During the subsequent meeting it was introduced that he would have to be placed into the sixth grade ICT class.  Ms. S, the veteran Special Educator who co-taught said ICT, who was mentioned earlier in this letter stated, “Over my dead body, that boy will disrupt everything that I have done in that class”.  At this point, I asked for further support in terms of encouraging Student F to complete his work however, my pleas went unnoticed by the Administration and Nicole Lanzillotto, the head of the Special Education Department.
Afterwards, my entire Self-Contained Language Arts class was interrogated regarding my relationship with Student F. I have included my documentation of Student F’s behavior as Exhibit R. 

Student G, an alternate assessment student in my class approached me at the start of 9^th period Intervention stating that he was scared.  He then continued to describe that all of the students of my class had been interviewed by both Administrators and stated, “They asked me if you ever cursed out Student F and he’s trying to get you fired” in front of a room of several other students.  I immediately alerted Mr. DaSilva of this situation given that now the integrity of the investigation has been compromised.  A second accusation arose from this stating that I sent a student to attack Student F Valle.

During the subsequent meeting I was told by Mr. DaSilva that he had interviewed the student who allegedly bullied Student F, Student H.  I was told that Student H had stated he overheard from Student I about the investigation regarding Student F and on his own accord decided to confront Student F.  Mr. DaSilva reiterated that the allegation solely was about Student H and that I would not receive a letter for some other nuanced issue that may have arisen.  Needless to say, I received a fourth letter added to my file dated July 3, 2014 where that promise had not been kept.  Once again, I was, and am, concerned about the inappropriateness of interviewing students with emotional disturbances and with intellectual disabilities.  Further, why is it that I had to deal with the ramifications of the Administrators’ inability to run an investigation that is not compromised?  I had now become the scapegoat for their mismanagement of the investigation process.  In the letter dated July 3, 2014 I noticed quotes from statements that never been shown to me nor my Chapter Leader, Ms. R including, “Ms. V. came to the classroom and started talking about Student F and that he is a liar and that he is not a good kid.”

During my Summative Meeting I requested Ms. R to join me as my chapter leader. Ms Juman spoke of my pedagogy highly and criticized my practices under Domain 4.  At this time she brought up my preference sheet (Exhibit S), which on the top includes my stance of “uncertain” in terms of returning to the school.  I explained that once again I felt that my career was in jeopardy especially given that I received three letters in the matter of a week.  She told me, in front of my union representation that the letters were simply for me to learn from and that, “no one is out to get you, I want you to stay here.  Please, keep me updated if you still decide to go elsewhere”.  Ms. R asked Mr. DaSilva why I had not received a counseling memo instead to which he responded, “The Network says we can no longer give those out.” My chapter leader then voiced that I would continue to search for employment.  After having left this meeting I felt alleviated and trusted Ms. Juman’s word.
Less than a week after I received the Letter of Possible Discontinuance I received an updated package, which now stated my license could possibly be terminated. Because I voiced concern for the needs of my students I am being dealt a difficult card and an ultimatum.  I am alarmed and concerned for my future as an educator.  As I mentioned earlier, this is where I see myself until retirement, in a classroom serving our students and showing them a love for learning.

Please note that as an educator my value was not questioned by the Administration.  I created well differentiated, well developed lesson plans.  The classroom environment was supportive of student learning and accommodating.  Please refer to Exhibit U where I have enclosed an image of my bulletin board with clearly tiered assignment and the outcome for one of my alternate assessment students, Student J. Student J had a very poor attendance rate and could not write a well-constructed paragraph, let alone an essay.  She presented difficulties when expressing the main idea and finding supporting details.  I found that she was highly interested in the topic of bullying and therefore assigned her the topic of bullying and suicide.  She created an argumentative essay based on the topic which I have enclosed (Exhibit T).

Refer to Exhibit N where I have enclosed a letter from a parent speaking of my impact on her son as well as notes from students.  My delivery of lessons allowed for open discussion and personal growth across my students.  Although the Principal had given me a 1 (i.e. ineffective) for Participating in the Community under Domain 4 I worked hard to support my community.  I ran study hall after school for several months.  I tutored students and aided them in completing projects even if they were for courses outside my own.

I also facilitated zero period credit recovery for high school students who were lacking credits.  In September after our staff retreat I aided in recreating the activities for those staff members who were unable to attend and facilitated the activities after school.  I volunteered in October to speak at a school recruitment fair, for which I received a letter dated October 18, 2013 (See Exhibit U).  In May I received a note from Ms. Juman thanking me for helping other staff members with their bulletin boards when I was given two days’ notice that I would be given one to complete (See Exhibit U).  On March 26, 2014 I also led a Special Education Department Meeting, see the attached agenda found in Exhibit U.  On most days I would be found leaving the school around seven after planning, preparing materials for my class, or helping students in study hall.  According to Danielson the above mentioned description of the duties I completed can be described as at least a 3 (effective).

Overall, I have inherited an experience I would not trade. However, I do believe that given my overall rating of Developing; my overall rapport with students; and my drive to come up with innovative methods to increase student engagement, that I should not have my license terminated.  This year has been a trying one but I believe that in the right environment, with the appropriate supports I can grow to become an even better educator.  I view myself as a lifelong learner and hope to grow in this field and master my trade. Throughout my year at School for International Studies I have been consistently given disciplinary notices instead of supports.  Is it not the onus of the Administration to ensure that I succeed? I would much prefer discontinuance rather than a termination of my license, as harsh of a punishment as it may be, so that I may start anew elsewhere and learn from the mistakes I have committed this past year and remain in the classroom.
Sincerely,

Special Educator

There you have it. It's sad.