BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Saul Bruckner, Principal
June 29, 1995
Dr. David Roemer
Dear Dr. Roemer,
On June 28, 1995, along with Mr. William Forster, UFT Chapter Chairperson, we met to discuss your grievance of June 23, 1995. Your grievance cites a violation of Article 22B1 and repeats a series of statements and allegations which have been dealt with in previous grievance hearings. With the exception of the addition of an alleged violation of the contract concerning a letter in your file dated June 22, 1995 all of these allegations have been dismissed because they were directed at the wrong party or were not grieved in a timely manner.
You thus switched the basis for your grievance to Article 2 and claimed that you were being discriminated against because of your membership in the United Federation of Teachers.
You also requested that I change the rating on the Annual Professional Performance Review to Satisfactory and base next year's rating on the Annual Performance Option (Article 8 I2 B).
Mr. Cohen's letter compares the passing percentages and attendance of students who took the Physics Regents examinations in your classes and those of your colleagues. Mr. Forster stated that he had never before in this school seen such a letter comparing the results of student performance in the classes of various teachers. Mr. Cohen wrote the letter since on more than one occasion you have stated that your teaching technique is better than that of your colleagues and could be demonstrated in an objective manner. The fact is that, as Mr. Cohen has stated in his letter, the results of your students on the Regents examination were poorer than those of your colleagues. If this is a measure of the effectiveness of your techniques then they are inferior to those of your colleagues.
You allege this letter constitutes harassment because it is difficult to answer and because it makes you worry about things that you shouldn't have to worry about. What you should worry about is not the letter but your unsatisfactory performance which led to the letter.
You have been evaluated as an unsatisfactory teacher for the 1994-95 school year. In large part this unsatisfactory rating stems from your unwillingness to implement suggestions for instruction which are more effective than those that you use and that you have variously described as "constructivist" and "lecture-demonstration". You will have an opportunity to appeal this rating in a formal hearing.
As a teacher who has been rated unsatisfactory you are not eligible to participate in Component A of the Annual Performance Review. Rather, as an unsatisfactory teacher you will continue to he evaluated according to Component B, the traditional classroom observation process.
Your grievance is denied.
cc: Mr. William Forster, UFT Chapter Chairperson
Mr. Don Roth, Senior Assistant, Office of the Brooklyn Superintendent