Do Not Apply - 1 - Bronx Aerospace June 28, 2008 pm30 10:10 pm
Posted by jd2718 in Bronx, NY, Do Not Apply, New Teachers, New York, New York City, New York City Department of Education, Schools, nyc.Tags: Bronx Aerospace
trackback
This blog has a new feature: a Do Not Apply list of NYC public schools. I will expand this list regularly.
Some schools are great. Some are good. Some are ok. Mediocre. Fair. Poor. All of this matters, but in some places the choice is not wide.
But there’s one category of school you need to know about: Career Enders.
New teachers, be careful not to end up in one of those places.
The Bronx Aerospace Academy HS is a career ender. It has one of the highest staff turnover rates in the city. It has sent teachers to the reassignment center (rubber room). There has been arbitrary discipline taken against staff. In one instance, an administrator collected lessons plans from teachers, and a bit later another came around asking for plans. Since the teachers had none, (already gave them up) they were disciplined. There are bad, arbitrary curricular decisions, and a great likelihood that they fake or ‘massage’ data to earn high marks from the City. There are more stories, and more stories, arbitrary dismissals, and tough stuff on kids. But I need people from Aerospace (or more likely formerly from Aerospace) to e-mail me at “this blog name” at gmail dot com. Any specific incidents you recall would be useful. And please, if anyone can fill in details linking the school to the suicide, please do.
I’ll be adding to this list, but you can help. If you know a school that is a career-ender, e-mail me at “this blog name” at gmail dot com. Explain how the school ends careers, and if possible, share some anecdotes. If you save even one new teacher from ending up at a hell hole, it will have been well worth it.
[...] NY school’s blogger and union activist JD2718 is compiling a list of schools he calls, “career enders.” This blog has a new feature: [...]
NAC Executive Board members have asked that info re the # of requested transfers out of schools be compiled and made public. This
would be a good indicator of schools with non-nurturing administrations.
Teachers being able to vote with their feet is a positive aspect of the open market transfer system, even if it doesn’t outweigh the loss and/or
threats to seniority and a civil service hiring system free from favoritism.
NAC is the New Action Caucus. The rest Paul has said better than I could.
We will continue to ask that this information be collected and published.
I don’t agree that every school is a “career ender.” The effort by this blog to identify such schools is worthwhile and necessary. Consider this also:the campaign New Action Caucus initiated in our union to address schools with abusive administrators should be expanded. Too many fall into this category. That is why we need strong chapters and staff members who are willing to take on these abusers. Let’s add these schools to your list as well.
J.D.-
I am a new blogger and a new teacher (finished year three last week). I’ve enjoyed reading your posts for the last couple of months; it is obvious that you are a knowledgeable and excellent teacher, with a good rapport with the kids. In my experience this is no small feat in NYC.
I came into teaching via TFA, so I likely epitomize some of the traits of Teaching Fellows that you find so abhorrent. A couple of thoughts:
(1) Your posts on TFs and their resistance to the union. I think that this stems from the reasons why people become involved in the TFA/TF programs; they want the best for kids and they want change. I began teaching at a school where children were struggling everywhere in the building; it was a high school where the incoming ninth grade class was comprised of exclusively “ones and twos” in reading and math. What were nearly all of our union meetings about that year? Debating scheduling minutiae. This, when over half the school was in danger of failing out of high school. As I understood it, we, as the educators in the building, had an obligation to serve the students as best we could; I quickly decided that my time at these meetings was a waste. Yes, I drew away from the union. While I have come to understand the importance of having a union, I believe new teachers and the public at large will continue to be skeptical of a union that does not appear to make student achievement a priority.
(2) Your “do not apply” list. Again, I feel the main question arising from new TF/TFA teachers and the public at large is: what is happening to the children in these buildings? If the union, as represented in your posts, wants to recommend that teachers in the union do not work at these schools, who will work there? I believe the answer is: teachers at the very bottom of the barrel that won’t be hired anywhere else. What is the union’s take on the children in these “do not apply” buildings? Do they deserve excellent teachers? If so, under what circumstances? My overall impression is that frequently, the kids suffer while the union has it out with the administration. Again, new, idealistic teachers will, I believe, consistently take issue with this approach.
I apologize if I sound confrontational; I am very interested in hearing and responding to your thoughts. Also, feel free to check out my blog.
Peter, it’s hard to comment on your school without knowing more details.
However, you ask what is happening to the children in these “Do Not Apply” schools.
First, careful. The UFT has made no recommendation about working in those places; I have. I speak for myself. The schools should be shut down, and the children should be able to transfer to other schools. And careful again, I’m not sure what about Fellows you think I find “abhorrent.” I don’t think you’ll find it in my writing, since I am making a completely different point.
Please read about Aerospace, about Eximius, and then come back and ask more. Because when schools like this are allowed to continue to exist, it is a disservice to the teachers who get suckered into the places and the kids who get stuck there.
I notice that you have “an overall impression of the union” based on being in 1 (?) school for 3 (?) years.
Finally, I don’t confuse Teaching Fellows with TFA - neither should you.
I’d rather remain anonymous in terms of my school for now, for personal reasons.
I guess “abhorrent” is a strong word; I did get the impression from your use of terms like “smug”, “disrespectful”, “clueless”, “suck-ups”, and “know-it-alls” to describe Teaching Fellows that you felt some animosity towards these people. Maybe I was wrong. What point are you trying to make? I understand that you believe that convincing them to stay is a good plan; I could not agree more. I feel the same way about my TFA colleagues that left without even considering sticking around. I believe strongly that good, qualified, veteran teachers must work in city schools if education is to improve on a large scale.
My point is that these new teachers are resistant to the union because the union seems to work in opposition to many of the reforms that new, idealistic teachers believe in (such as merit pay and longer hours). I think the union needs to do a better job of framing the interests of its teachers as part of the greater goal of increasing student achievement.
Thank you for the links about Aerospace and Eximius. I understand what it is like to work in such a challenging environment. The point I am trying to make is that these challenging environments are precisely the places that dedicated, excellent, motivated teachers are needed most. While perhaps these schools should be shut down, for now, they are operational; pulling good teachers away from these schools to somehow accelerate the shutting down process seems counterproductive and again, not acting as part of the greater goal of increasing student achievement.
It’s true my experience is limited. Likely, I come off as sounding inexperienced, but I think my impressions are partially representative of the public at large, rather than the teaching community alone.
Interesting that you draw a distinction between TF and TFA. What differences do you see there? I think your Teaching Fellow stereotypes fit TFA teachers dead-on most of the time.
1. You don’t have permission to speak for other teachers.
2. Your writing indicates that you were hostile to unions before you became a teacher. When you imply that your experience teaching led you to oppose unions you are not being candid.
3. “pulling teachers away from these schools” - no one is doing any such thing - except maybe abusive administrators. My goal in warning new teachers against applying is to spare them the awful experience, and perhaps save their careers, not “to somehow accelerate the shutting down process.”
4. I wrote about the stereotypes of Teaching Fellows here. Clearly identified as such. Clearly not my views. But you identify them as such. Deliberately misquoting is unacceptable.
Return when you are ready to engage in responsible discussion.
No one can speak for any of the groups being discussed here. As a former TF, my group of fellow Fellows saw TFAs as dilatants rather than committed to teaching. We heard far too many talk about how they didn’t get into XYZ grad program so this was a good way to buff up their resume and get paid for two years. HOWEVER, I know several former TFAs that stayed, so I’m careful to not paint with too broad a brush.
Similarly, the implication “that new, idealistic teachers” all ” believe in” is far too broad a brush. Out of the 30-odd TF in my group, half were in schools where the longer hours were explicitly coerced, irrespective of the teacher’s personal beliefs. (How coerced? Try, in one case, 6 hours of “volunteer tutoring” every Saturday without pay…and if you didn’t participate OR called in sick more than once, your next observation was a U.) Similarly, WRT “merit” pay, the problem is defining meritorious behaviors. Unfortunately, numerous administrators somehow find ways to reward those who cater to them rather than those that challenge the students. Giving even more ways for such adminstrators to feed their pets is hardly a positive policy.
The key issue here is not the difficulties associated with helping the children, it is the distructiveness of the administrators. Letting someone walk unprepared into a school with struggling students and hell-hole adminstrators is a bad thing. Even worse is the current DoE practice of pushing out veteran teachers and replacing them with new, lower cost, alternatives, then churning the new teachers with more new teachers. One conclusion I’ve drawn from my experiences is that inexperienced but enthusiastic math and science teachers with meaningful content knowledge “lose” at least as many students as any “union protected slacker,” (to quote a principal) and certainly many more than the experienced (and more expensive) veteran teachers DoE wants out of the system.
Given your claimed understanding of how it is to work in such an environment, perhaps you should deliberately transfer to the “worst” of these schools. I, for one, believe others should also be given enough information that they can make such a deliberate choice.
This school is in the habit of destroying good teachers and aiding and abetting bad teachers. So, if you are looking for the type of environment where sellouts and backstabbers get the prize, this is the school for you. If you prefer to kiss ass rather than work hard, you’re the perfect candidate. Successful, intelligent and independent thinkers need not apply.
@Eastwood - thank you. I’m trying to get some background before I run your nominee - feel free to e-mail me at (this blogname) at gmail dot com. Details, anecdotes, numbers who didn’t come back (ie turnover rate) — all good.
@pb, thank you. The TFA poster has already quit NYCDoE, so the suggestion to take a rough job won’t fly. All the same, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone put their jobs in jeopardy just to prove a point.
In one class of pre-service teaching fellows several years ago I had a hard anti-union guy from as tough a right-to-work (right to be fired) state as there is… I couldn’t convince him of very much at all. But he intended to come here to teach, and not just for a year or two. It was his first principal who made him pro-union…
[...] Bronx Aerospace HS (+) (in the Evander building) [...]
Hi there, I am new aspiring teacher, I am currently looking for a teaching position within the NYC area or Yonkers I have applied to the Bronx Aerospace High School, and I have received a call back and scheduled an interview. If offered the position, should I deny it? if so, why? I was thinking at least staying there for a a year and then leaving is that a good idea?
I can’t speak to BAHS, but I went through a hell hole HS experience and all I can say is I wouldn’t wish it on anyone…even the principal who caused it. There is no upside to such an experience outside of the generic “…that which does not kill me makes me stronger.” Surely there are better ways of getting stronger than being a new, untenured teacher at a hell hole school. I would recommend any alternative to that.
As to graceful denying, simply explain you have two more interviews lined up over the next week (make sure one is claimed to be after the upcoming weekend), and that you’ll make your decision at that point. If the administrator doesn’t have enough respect for your interests and commitment to others to allow that much time when they have no power over you, just imagine what their level of respect will be when they do have the power to destroy your career asperations.
Finally, 10 months of mental abuse is a LONG time.
BTW, principals have “overbooked” acceptances then withdraw them (even after the first day of classes) when the actual number of students was somehow below some “expected” number. This is apparently SOP for some of the new small schools. Thus, a principal’s commitment to you can evaporate in an instant with no reprecussions to the principal whatsoever.
So, even if you have to rehearse it in front of a mirror, have a graceful stall prepared to give you time to think about the situation.
Second BTW: Ask about teacher turnover in your department and at the school in general. This question tends to antagonize bad principals (who will generally have a smooth explaination lined up since others with power ask the same question) and give good principals a chance to talk about how they support their teachers, etc.
Watching their body language and reaction to the turnover question can be very informative with all but the most accomplished liars.
pbpcbs:
I think your advice about asking about turnover was excellent–even if as you pointed out, the principal may provide a boilerplate answer. The piece about watching body language was equally good.
I don’t think however that principal can rescind once the contract is signed, is a contract is provided. Can you imagine the lawsuits the school would be opening itself to if someone resigned from one position only to be denied the position he/she thought he would be getting?
It is my understanding that in past years the principal of Aerospace has overhired for September, seemingly with the intent of providing herself with some real choice about who to U-rate or otherwise force out midyear.
Aerospace should be considered the first school on the Do Not Apply list. I would strongly advise you to just keep looking.
WRT overbooking, I was referring specifically to TF and TFA, both of whom sign job agreements (”contracts”) that are, in reality, only binding on the employee (since both technically work for 3rd parties rather than DoE, the principal has greater leeway). I have also “heard” of couple other schools that have employed overbooking then U-rating, but I’ve never talked to a victim of this practice so cannot vouch for the accuracy of such situations.
I don’t think Aerospace is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Yes, they are more off the cuff as opposed to systematic — but they are trying to bridge the gap one child at a time
What do you mean by “off the cuff?”
I find it hard to believe that a 50% turnover rate could be anything but horrendous. Why do you say it is not as bad as people think?
off the cuff = not so organized
And a school with 50% turnover, you think that it might be an ok place to work? Can you explain?
1st do you have data to support your 50% assertion?
Of course I do not have that data - neither the school nor the DoE makes it available. Would you have us believe the number is lower? How much? In a short while we will have some dated numbers, perhaps they will help.
But better than that, let’s agree the number is ‘high,’ whatever ‘high’ means. And you think a school with a high turnover rate is an ok place to work? Why?
Well the question is why are people leaving, if the number is high, as you suggest? And once that is tackled with hardcore facts as opposed to hearsay one can advise teachers not to work at this school. However, I do admire what you are doing here.
The question here is twofold.
Is the number high in comparison to other high schools it’s age?
If so, why are teachers choosing to leave?
Up front, I don’t know what the numbers for the school are. Perhaps, you can look at the school report card. (http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2005-06/ASR_X545.
I am referring specifically to page 3 at the top–Percentage of teachers teaching 2 years at school. I am not sure of the significance of the different colors of the bars. I don’t see a legend anywhere. Maybe someone here knows. I guess there should be a big difference between 2005 and 2006 if turnover was large, unless most teachers with greater than 2 yrs experience stayed. New hirings would skew negatively, however.
When did the school start?
The 2 years at school stat doesn’t tell us much about turnover. The school started, as I recall, in 2002 or 2003.
And yes, the turnover rate seems high compared to other schools of the same age. That is one of the reasons I put it on the Do Not Apply list. Also, a relatively high number of new teachers at Aerospace get U’ed, another reason for putting it on the list.
Each year some teachers are forced out mid-year; she hires too many in September so that she can force them out without consequences to the school.
Discipline is arbitrary. The school is incredibly poorly managed. People who can’t take it leave during the year. Others last a year and transfer out. Others are forced out under the threat of disciplinary action.
is this gossip or fact jd? proof?
I have no ‘proof’ and you are of course free to disbelieve me.
However, I have a track record of honesty on this blog; it generally goes unchallenged.
And I would advise new teachers in particular to be mindful of RPA’s implicit argument - s/he seems to be implying that Aerospace is an okay place to work. Nothing I have heard, speaking to teachers, chapter leaders, union folks, would seem to indicate that this is correct.
At least in my case I have a reputation I try to maintain. What should lead us to believe RPA?
RPA,
The issue you brought up about the turnover numbers is a fair one. But even still, you have to know that these numbers are hard to get.
Should a person concerned about protecting new teachers wait for data that is impossible to obtain before warning these teacher about the real possibility of having their careers destroyed in one of these schools?
If not a preponderance of negative reports, what else would cause JD to list Aerospace as a “DNA” school ?
Does he personally gain anything from this listing?
Since when does the DOE collect data on abusive administrators and make them readily available? Where does one go to get this info?
How else would anyone come to know of abusive school environments unless they experienced it personally or was told about it?
Were you expecting to find this information in the papers? On the radio?
I believe jd posts this information because there was probably enough evidence to believe there might be some truth to was others are saying. Because you may not have experienced it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I think JD has the best of intentions. I just wonder where he is getting his information
RPA,
if you have info to the contrary, lay it on the table. Implying that Aerospace is just dandy, without supporting what you are saying in any way at all, really is not ok.
If you want to read something in black and white, you might start with this Daily News article (linked on this blog, here)
After reading the first hand account on the other thread and further research … I apologize for my previous statements — Aerospace should be bolded on this list
Thank you. I was impatient while you were being cautious, but I can’t blame you for being initially skeptical.
I had heard Sgt. Picone’s story before, but it is far more convincing coming from Mrs. Picone, with details, than a fuzzy version from me.
As someone who was at BAHS, I can tell you that the school loses abot 50% or more of its teachers every year–and many of the new ones leave teaching completely. Admin was never a teacher and has no idea. Good admins don’t U rate a teacher or even a lesson unless it is clearly awful. They may give a satisfactory and then recommend specific things they would like you to do or do differently. This is being a team player and showing respect for your greatest resources, who are the teachers. At BAHS, teachers are not really allowed to think; if you do, if you expect your contract to be enforced, they will go after you.
Now, if you choose to work extra hours in the building every day, that is your choice. It is wrong for the admin to try to force you to do it. We ALL work extra hours at home. Here it is all about looking good and making the numbers look good and they will do whatever it takes, including not allowing the kids to take the exams they are supposed to (and other schools take) if they haven’t passed a sample exam. This makes them look better in comparison with other schools, but hte kids are no better,—and many of their graduates can’t make it in college (and we;re not talking top tier here). So far no one has passed the military officer’s qualifying test. Admin blames it all on the teachers, who are excellent. She does not care how many teachers leave and frequently tells people if they don;t like how she is, they can just leave—which of cuorse is not literally true. People have rent to pay.
You have a contract. If you want to do something that is not part of your contract, that should be your choice, not forced on you by an admin. BAHS teachers were told they couldn;’t make copies on their prep time–they had to come in before their regular hours or stay after to make copies. They were told they couldnt have a teacher center because someone at one point accessed pornography. Prince screams at teachers in front of students and parents, berates anyone who questions her or does something differently than she in her limited experience, thinks should be done. This school is proof why potential admins should have teaching experience and should take psychological tests–and the empowerment schools should be ended. Empowerment schools seem to attract domineering eduNazis who have no respect for anyone else’s intelligence. What needs to happen is for the admins to be gone, then the teachers, who are all excellent, could do what needs to be done for the kids.
Should note the Aero admin is more concerned with dominating and harassing teachers and driving them out than leading and demonstrating—and this is known by other administrators as well. Kids will tell you too—that “all the good teachers leave.” Not totally true because some stay, or are still there until they can find something else. Almost half of the teachers there now are brand new, teachers who have never taught in hs. No teacher has been there tthe whole time.