A Solution That Misses the Mark

The Proposed Solution

The Particulars

Will it Work?

The Clerical Work Issue

This is the one section where I think this essay runs into logical difficulty. I understand that you don't want the falsely accused to have to suffer any more than they already are, but how can the system distinguish between those teachers who really should be disciplined and those who are the victims of evil principals before they have had a hearing? Isn't this the same problem, in kind while certainly not in degree, faced by people who are innocent but must await trial in jail? Clerical work just doesn't sound that bad to me. It sounds a lot better than sitting in a room all day. Maybe the best solution is to limit this "clerical work period" as much as possible by setting a time limit on this period and by making the system as efficient as possible.

Jackie: Great essay. I thought the structure was solid, and your arguments are strong. My edits were mostly stylistic - I focused on changes to language that I thought would bring greater clarity to your argument. I hesitated to edit the clerical work section, as that is the one place where I don't entirely agree with your argument and I didn't want to change the paper's essential thrust. I would consider, when you rewrite, how to address what you perceive as an unfairness to the wrongly accused while giving the rightly accused a productive way to occupy their time (and isn't productive work better than idleness, for both the wrongly and rightly accused?).

I also thought that you had more of an opinion than the original title and some of the topic headings indicated. The title-as-question indicated that you were on the fence, while I think you know exactly how and why the proposed solution fails (or fails to do as much as it pretends). I have tried to include that firmness of stance in my version, but that's something else you could address in your rewrite. Also, you're at 997 words as of now. :).

Purpose of this Paper

Will it Work?

The Clerical Work Issue

Conclusion

It has long been NYC teacher folklore that the reason many educators spend so much time in the rubber room is because there is no real case against them. Now, of course, there are exceptions, and some of the people who are accused of misconduct are guilty and should absolutely be fired. However, it is very easy for a principal to convince a student or parent to make an exaggerated claim or two, and suddenly a teacher is facing serious allegations.

Likewise, as a former teacher I will confirm that, sometimes, trying to change the status quo or challenging school policy is more than enough to convince a principal that a few allegations are necessary to scare a teacher back into her place, if not get her sent away entirely. Will this new system address these significant due process concerns?

The Solution

The proposal to close the rubber rooms makes me imagine another statement Robinson might make, “A real solution is one that takes care of a problem.” The rubber room problem is a result of a system that, among other things, does not process claims quickly enough and is not being held accountable unreasonably long waiting periods. It seems that hiring more people and setting strict deadlines, while not the perfect solution, will get us a lot closer to solving the problem.

Teacher Worries

Rewrite of Rubber Rooms

Described by its contingents as "Kafka-esque," prison-like, and just plain boring, NYC reassignment centers house public-school teachers with alleged contract violations, ranging from incompetency to assault. Some teachers are transferred to these centers without being informed of their alleged infractions. Legally, administrators may delay giving notice to teachers for up to six months, and in practice, some teachers can wait years before being officially charged.

Known as “rubber rooms,” these buildings provide a place for teachers to stay while their salaries continue to be paid, and also ensure that litigation against school districts is kept at a minimum. At the same time, rubber rooms are incredibly wasteful, both of taxpayers’ money and teachers’ lives, particularly those who have no valid case against them. For these reasons, the city’s teacher’s union and the mayor recently reached a compromise wherein rubber rooms will be shut down by December 2010.

The main problems rubber rooms presented to teachers were their punitive nature and the fact that teachers were often given inadequate process to be assigned to these rooms in the first place. For administrators, rubber rooms were costly and a poor means of firing incompetent teachers. Will the compromise of scrapping these rooms and allowing teachers to perform administrative work inside their buildings, while ensuring speedier process, solve these problems?

The rubber rooms themselves are just a powerful symbol of the inadequate process being provided to schoolteachers. One teacher, suspended for several months, complained that, "I have yet to be contacted by a lawyer. So I really don't know when that's going to be. So I'm just sitting here waiting." In the compromise, the city attempts to address this problem by hiring 16 more arbitrators to hopefully weed out the false allegations from the truthful ones.

The Trouble with Firing Teachers

Analysis of the Solution in Light of Budgetary Concerns

"To tell you the truth, it doesn't matter where we wait, it's the process of waiting."

Erica

A Solution That is too Easy?

-- By JacquelynHehir - 17 Apr 2010

Just this week, School Chancellor Joel Klein and United Federation of Teachers union president Michael Mulgrew made an announcement that, I suppose, was meant to be revolutionary.

They are closing the “Rubber Room”.

Background

“Rubber Room” is the colloquial term for the somewhat infamous holding pens populated by New York City teachers and other school workers who have been accused of a range of serious misconduct allegations. Officially the sites are reassignment centers. However, thanks to the both the extended and often uncertain length of time most accused educators spend in the centers and the fact that the time is primarily spent in idleness, those involved have come to view them as similar to the padded cells of an asylum, giving birth to the nickname.

While the approximately 650 educators are in these reassignment centers they continue to be paid their full salary, at a cost that is estimated to be over 30 million dollars a year.

Purpose of this paper

This paper is not to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of the rubber rooms. Programs that cost 30 million dollars a year and make people feel like they are going insane are not effective. I do not need one thousand words to express that point.

Rather, I am using this paper to look at the solution that the parties involved have devised, which appears to involve three main components: 1) The Department of Education (DOE) is going to hire more arbitrators to hear the cases. 2) There will be a strict schedule requiring certain steps of the investigation process to take place in clearly defined lengths of time. 3) Most educators that have been accused of misconduct will perform clerical work in schools while they await their trial; those who have been accused of serious misconduct will be suspended entirely.

Robinson Again.

At this point I am reminded again of Robinson’s quote, “A real lawyer knows how to take care of a legal problem.” This solution centered approach is appealing; I like the idea of defining lawyers by their ability to do what it is they have been trained to do.

The proposal to close the rubber rooms makes me imagine another statement Robinson might make, “A real solution is one that takes cares of a problem.” And since the rubber room problem is a result of a system which, among other things, does not process claims quickly enough and is not being held accountable for subjecting the accused educators to unreasonably long waiting periods, it would appear that hiring more people and setting strict deadlines, while not the perfect solution, will get us a lot closer to solving the problem.

Will it work?

Yet, I am filled with a good amount of doubt. Perhaps the solution is too perfect. Perhaps it is too obvious. The cases are not proceeding through the system quickly enough, so more people will be hired to facilitate the adjudication and a timeline will be imposed. Maybe I am just jaded, but it all seems too easy.

This is not the first time that the Department of Education has tried to solve the rubber room problem. The last time the city and union tried to fix the situation, they reached an agreement to, well, hire more arbitrators. Except, due to budget concerns, only three new positions were created, and it did little to alleviate the workload. Also, the arbitrators are not the only people involved in making these decisions. The cases need to be investigated, and prepared as well. Simply hiring more people who are involved in one aspect of the process may be too little too late. Especially if the investigation and hearing process itself is not changed.

Also, although the timeline is a good idea, will it actually be followed? And if not, what are the mechanisms in place to enforce it?

Teacher Worries

Finally, it has long been NYC teacher folklore that the reason many educators spend so much time in the rubber room is because there is no real case against them. Now, of course, there are exceptions, and some of the people who are accused of misconduct are guilty and should absolutely be fired. However, I have seen first hand how easy it is for a principal to convince a student or parent to make an exaggerated claim or two, and suddenly a teacher is facing serious allegations. Likewise, I will confirm that, sometimes, trying to change the status quo or challenging school policy is more than enough to convince a principal that a few allegations are necessary to scare a teacher back into her place, if not get her sent away entirely.

Under the new system the teacher could not be sent to a special room to do nothing, but rather would be required to do clerical work. This in itself is somewhat problematic, since the wrongly accused teacher is not able to do the job she desires while the allegations are dealt with. Of course, if the cases are actually heard more quickly, and they are decided fairly, then that may be the tradeoff to be sure that there is a check in place against teachers who are actually wrongdoers. But it seems like a fairly band-aid approach to a problem that has roots that go much deeper.

What now?

At this point only time will tell if this actually helps to solve the dual problems of removing teachers who are ineffective or dangerous to students from the classroom, while protecting educators targeted for whistle blowing or related issues. It is a neat looking solution, and Klein and Mulgrew gave it an appropriate amount of pomp and circumstance. So now it remains to be seen, can the most obvious solutions actual solve a problem? Or will it just ignore the subtleties and cover messy wound with a neater looking band-aid?

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JacquelynHehir

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list