Pursuant to Section 3020(a) of Education Law


SPEClFlCATlON 1


DAVlD ROEMER (hereinafter "Respondent") is a tenured teacher of Physics, under File No. 616055, whose last teaching assignment was at Edward R. Murrow High School in the Brooklyn.


During the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent rendered incompetent and inefficient service. Respondent was given notice of his deficiencies and offered remedial assistance. Respondent was insubordinate and failed to improve his performance.


IN PARTICULAR:


A. As referred to in the September 26, 1994 Observation Report of Assistant Principal (Supervision/Science) Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP11 [E band]) class on September 22, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that Respondent failed to properly plan and teach the lesson as follows:


  1. Respondent's lesson was teacher dominated.
  2. Respondent gave students too little feedback.
  3. Respondent's lesson contained no motivation.
  4. Respondent's lesson contained no demonstrations.
  5. The stated Aim of Respondent's lesson, "What is the slope of a graph?" was not the focus of the lesson presented by Respondent.

On or about September 23, 1994, Respondent was given oral and written directives that his performance was unsatisfactory. Respondent was given direction on the aspects of planning and implementing a competent lesson. Respondent was advised not to give a quiz or test containing only one question.


B. As referred to in the September 28, 1994 letter to Respondent's file, on or about September 27, 1994, Assistant Principal Ira Cohen was required to address the fact that eight students had requested to be transferred from Respondent's classes to other teachers because:


  1. Respondent's students complained that they did not understand the work.
  2. Respondent's students complained that Respondent was not explaining material to them.
  3. Respondent's students complained that Respondent had advanced a scheduled quiz without notice to the students; and
  4. Respondent' s quiz consisted of a single question, which violated a supervisory directive given on September 23, 1994.

Assistant Principal Cohen reviewed with Respondent his style of presenting a lesson and directed Respondent to take the following remedial steps to improve his performance:


  1. To assign appropriate reading daily from the text "Conceptual Physics" by Hewitt.
  2. To include in every lesson plan written provisions for demonstrations and practical illustrations of the concepts Respondent was teaching.
  3. To provide additional illustrations of solutions.
  4. To provide students with proper notice of scheduled quizzes and examinations.
  5. To administer quizzes and examinations with more than a single question.

C. As referred to in the October 5, 1994 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who had observed Respondent's (SP11.05 Physics 1) class on or about September 29, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent's presentation of the lesson did not effectively motivate or develop the insights of his students.
  2. Respondent failed to properly organize his lesson.
  3. Respondent failed to give proper direction to his students regarding his homework assignment.
  4. Respondent failed to provide enough materials for the students to properly understand and observe the experiment.
  5. Respondent's presentation of the lesson was poor regarding a statement made to his students that a ball rolling on a table created no friction.
  6. Respondent failed to properly organize and give proper direction to his students regarding group work.
  7. There was no closure, summary or conclusion to Respondent's lesson.

On or about October 3, 1994, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent oral and written notice of his unsatisfactory performance. Respondent was also given suggestions and recommendations on how to improve his performance.


D. As referred to in the October 20, 1994 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP11 [A band 1) class on or about October 13, 1994, Respondent k lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent's Aim did not provide a focus for the students that could be sustained throughout the lesson.
  2. Respondent's presentation of the lesson was confusing and did not allow students time to understand the concept Respondent was trying to build.
  3. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  4. Respondent failed to motivate his students, and stimulate their critical thinking and problem solving behavior.
  5. Respondent 's use of demonstration material was ineffective.
  6. Respondent failed to make reference to the textbook, although he had a reading assignment from it listed on the handout.
  7. Respondent failed to use classroom instruction time effectively.

On or about October 19, 1994, Assistant Principal Ira Cohen gave Respondent oral and written notice of his unsatisfactory performance. Respondent was also given suggestions and recommendations on how to improve his performance and directed to seek remedial assistance.


E. As referred to in the October 25, 1994 letter to Respondent's file written by Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, an error in Respondent's answer key caused all the students' test papers to be graded incorrectly. Rather than give every student credit for the incorrectly scored question, Respondent told the class to discover the error on their own. Several students complained to Assistant Principal Cohen that Respondent would not help them learn the class material. Assistant Principal Cohen informed Respondent of the students' complaint about his conduct and was directed to treat students with respect by responding to students' questions in class. Respondent was also directed to visit the classes of other teachers at least twice each week to view the teaching strategies employed by them.


F. As referred to in the October 31, 1994 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who had observed Respondent's (SP11.05) class on or about October 26, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent delayed the start of the lesson.
  2. Respondent failed to use class instructional time to the maximum. Time was lost by waiting for students to get ready for the lesson. Respondent made no effort to speak to the class and announce that the lesson was starting.
  3. Respondent failed to properly plan the lesson.
  4. Respondent failed to provide a written lesson plan which described the lesson when requested by Principal Bruckner.
  5. Respondent's presentation of the lesson was teacher-dominated.
  6. Respondent's lesson did not have a clearly defined Aim to the lesson.
  7. Respondent's lesson contained no motivation, demonstration, and materials of instruction.

On or about October 28, 1994, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent oral and written notice of his unsatisfactory performance. Respondent was again directed to observe his colleagues in order to improve his performance.


G. As referred to in the November 18, 1994 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who had observed Respondent's (SP11.04, Physics I) class on or about November 7, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent failed to properly involve his students in the lesson.
  2. Respondent did not use class instruction time effectively.
  3. Respondent failed to properly plan the lesson.

On or about November 17, 1994, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent oral and written notice of his unsatisfactory performance. Respondent was directed to meet with Assistant Principal Ira Cohen frequently to obtain assistance in planning lessons in order to improve his performance.


H. [Charge H is identical to Charge D]


I. As referred to in the November 23, 1994 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP 12 [A band]) class on or about November 16, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. The Aim written in the Respondent's handout was inappropriate for the lesson.
  2. Respondent's lesson was teacher-dominated. Respondent failed to appropriately involve his students in the lesson.
  3. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  4. Respondent's lesson contained no summary nor a conclusion.

Respondent had prior notice of these deficiencies. Despite this notice, Respondent failed to improve his performance. On or about November 22, 1994, Assistant Principal Ira Cohen gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to seek remedial assistance.


J. On or about November 16, 1994, at approximately 2: 13 p.m., Assistant Principal Ira Cohen observed that Respondent had dismissed all but seven students from his J Band class. When Assistant Principal Ira Cohen asked Respondent where his students were, Respondent indicated that the students had finished their activity and had no questions. Rather than engage these students in other learning activities, Respondent had dismissed them earlier than the official class time schedule permitted, without authorization from Respondent's supervisors, and in violation of school policy.


K. As referred to in the December 13, 1994 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who observed Respondent's (SP12.04) class on or about December 6, 1994, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent's lesson plan distributed to the students lacked the essential elements of a lesson, such as a motivation, medial or final summaries, and thought-provoking questions.
  2. The lesson Respondent taught did not motivate or introduce the problem; nor did it elicit the Aim of the lesson.
  3. Respondent's demonstrations were poorly executed.
  4. Respondent did not effectively organize group work.
  5. Respondent's lesson was not properly organized and showed a lack of preparation.
  6. Respondent's lesson lacked sufficient student involvement.
  7. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.

Respondent continued to employ the same teaching techniques which were previously noted to be unsatisfactory. On or about December 12, 1994, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to seek remedial assistance.


L. As referred to in the March 28, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP 23 [G Band 1) class on or about March 21, 1995, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. The Aim of Respondent's lesson was too narrow in focus. It could not be answered by a simple definition.
  2. Respondent never achieved the Aim of the lesson.
  3. Respondent did not adequately involve his students in the lesson.
  4. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  5. Respondent's lesson was teacher-dominated.
  6. Respondent did not effectively demonstrate his lesson.
  7. Respondent did not effectively motivate his students. At the close of the lesson, Respondent stated to his students "Is anybody paying attention?"
  8. Respondent failed to use class instruction time effectively.

Despite prior notice, Respondent continued to employ the same teaching techniques which were previously noted to be unsatisfactory. On or about March 27, 1995, Assistant Principal Ira Cohen gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to seek remedial assistance.


M. As referred to in the April 4, 1995 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who observed Respondent's (SP23-03) class on or about March 31, 1995, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent had no written lesson plan for this lesson.
  2. Respondent failed to efficiently manage his class. Rather than pass the day's lesson around to students, Respondent told them to pick up the lesson at his desk as students entered the room. As a result, students clustered around Respondent's desk.
  3. Respondent failed to interact with students in a manner which would encourage their participation in his lesson.
  4. Respondent failed to address his students by their names.
  5. Respondent failed to summarize his lesson or to draw any conclusions.
  6. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  7. Respondent failed to teach science as an observable phenomena, to formulate hypotheses, to test hypotheses or to draw tentative conclusions.
  8. Respondent failed to effectively monitor his students' work at their desks.

Respondent failed to implement supervisory suggestions previously noted. On or about April 3, 1995, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to seek remedial assistance.


N. As referred to in the April 25, 1995 letter to Respondent's file written by Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, on or about April 13, 1995, Respondent met with Assistant Principal Cohen to review the New York State publication entitled "Regents Physics Syllabus." Respondent was directed to apply the skills in its model of teaching Physics. On or about April 24, 1995, Respondent told Assistant Principal Cohen that the State recommendations for the teaching of Physics were incorrect. Assistant Principal Cohen again directed Respondent to follow the State's recommendations for teaching Regents Physics.


O.On or about May 8, 1995, Respondent failed to attend the regularly scheduled Science Department meeting after school.


P. As referred to in the May 15, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP12 [B Band 1) class on or about May 9, 1995, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. The content of Respondent's lesson was inappropriate for the point of the semester in which the lesson was taught.
  2. Respondent failed to effectively involve his students or to allow them to become active participants in the lesson.
  3. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  4. Respondent failed to adequately plan his lesson.
  5. Respondent failed to motivate his students.
  6. The lesson was teacher-dominated.

Respondent failed to implement the previous teaching suggestions of his supervisors. On or about May 10, 1995, Assistant Principal Ira Cohen gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to use the manual supplied to him for this course.


Q. As referred to in the May 30, 1995 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who observed Respondent's (SP24-06) class on or about May 16, 1995, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent had no written lesson plan for this lesson.
  2. Respondent failed to provide a clearly stated Aim or focus to the lesson.
  3. Respondent was not prepared for the class: he did not have the book with him that the students had used for homework.
  4. Respondent failed to motivate his students or encourage their active participation in his lesson.
  5. Respondent failed to address his students by their names.
  6. Respondent's lesson was teacher-dominated.
  7. Respondent did not effectively use the demonstration equipment.
  8. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  9. Respondent's lesson contained no summary.
  10. Respondent did not effectively address his students' questions.

On or about May 26, 1995, Principal Saul Bruckner gave Respondent further oral and written notice of his deficiencies. Respondent was also given further recommendations and suggestions and directed to seek remedial assistance.


R As referred to in the May 19, 1995 Observation Report of Winifred M. Radigan, Director of Instruction, Office of the Superintendent of Brooklyn High Schools, who observed Respondent's (Foundations of Science [B band 1) class on or about May 17, 1995, as the Superintendent's designee, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent had no written lesson plan for this lesson.
  2. Respondent failed to provide meaningful activities or instruction.
  3. Respondent failed to manage and control his class: one student ate a sandwich and drank a bottle of juice; another student appeared to be dozing; another student played with the "gamebody." Students also had conversations among themselves on subjects unrelated to the lesson. Respondent did not address these matters.
  4. Respondent did not use classroom time effectively, since most students completed their work and still had most of the period at his or her disposal.
  5. Respondent's lesson did not follow the curriculum despite the assistance and suggestions provided to Respondent, Respondent failed to deliver a meaningful lesson. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent was informed that an unsatisfactory rating would be supported by the Superintendent's representative.

S. As referred to in the June 13, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP24 [G Band]) class on or about June 9, 1995, Respondent's lesson was unsatisfactory in that:


  1. Respondent's lesson was teacher-dominated.
  2. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
  3. Respondent's lesson had no final summary.
  4. Respondent had no written lesson plan which outlined the essential elements of a lesson. Respondent merely had a page of notes that lacked a medial or final summary, a homework assignment, and an Aim.
  5. Respondent made little effort to involve his students in his lesson.
  6. With the exception of three students, Respondent failed to refer to any student by his or her name during the lesson.
  7. Respondent failed to assign homework.

Respondent failed to implement the prior supervisory suggestions with respect to delivering a meaningful lesson. On or about June 12, 1995, Respondent was informed orally and in writing that his teaching was unsatisfactory.


The foregoing constitutes:


  • Just Cause for charges under Education Law 93020;
  • Insubordination;
  • Neglect of duty;
  • lncompetent and inefficient service;
  • Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position; and
  • Conduct prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of the service.

  • SPEClFlCATlON 2


    DAVlD ROEMER (hereinafter "Respondent") is a tenured teacher of Physics, under File No. 616055, whose last teaching assignment was at Edward R. Murrow High School in the Brooklyn.


    During the 1995-1996 school year, Respondent rendered incompetent and inefficient service. Respondent was given notice of his deficiencies and offered remedial assistance. Respondent was insubordinate and failed to improve his performance.


    IN PARTICULAR:


    A. As referred to in a September 14, 1995 letter to Respondent's file written by Principal Saul Bruckner, Respondent was given recommendations and suggestions to improve his performance and strongly urged to comply with the instructional approaches.


    B. As referred to in the October 6, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP11) class on or about September 21, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. The lesson was teacher dominated.
    2. Respondent failed to use demonstration material effectively.
    3. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the students' understanding of the lesson.
    4. The Aim of the lesson was only stated on the student worksheet.
    5. The Aim of the lesson "What is free fail," was never addressed during the lesson.
    6. Respondent failed to involve or motivate the students.
    7. Respondent had no written lesson plan. Respondent relied inappropriately on the hand-out that he gave to the students.

    At the conclusion of the observation, Assistant Principal Cohen asked Respondent to meet with him for a post-observation conference. Respondent informed Assistant Principal Cohen that he would do so only if another Physics teacher would accompany him. Assistant Principal Cohen advised Respondent that it would be inappropriate for a third party to participate because that party did not observe the lesson. Assistant Principal Cohen then directed Respondent to meet with him on September 25, 1995 at a set time. On or about September 25, 1995, Respondent refused to meet with his supervisor.


    C. On or about September 27, 1995, Principal Saul Bruckner advised Respondent that he was required to meet with Assistant Principal Ira Cohen for a post-observation conference. Respondent refused Principal Bruckner's directive on the grounds that Respondent had filed a grievance on prior observations charging harassment. Principal Saul Bruckner advised Respondent that if he did not meet with his supervisor within three days, Respondent's refusal would be considered an act of insubordination. Despite this warning, Respondent refused to meet with Assistant Principal Cohen for a post observation conference. On or about October 6, 1995, Respondent was given written notice of his unsatisfactory performance of September 21, 1995 and directed to seek remedial assistance.


    D. As referred to in the October 13, 1995 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who observed Respondent's (SP1L-OI) class on or about October 3, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. As a general observation, Respondent failed to implement items 2, 3, and 4 of Principal Bruckner's letter of September 14, 1995, with regard to professional development and satisfactory evaluation.
    2. Respondent arrived to class three minutes after the designated start of the period.
    3. Respondent had no written lesson plan.
    4. Respondent failed to use class instruction time effectively.
    5. Respondent failed to appropriately respond to the students' questions.
    6. Respondent failed to effectively involve the students in discussion or in the demonstration.
    7. The lesson Respondent presented lacked introduction, motivation or a statement of purpose.
    8. Respondent's lesson was teacher dominated.
    9. Respondent misdirected the students by telling them to ignore their observations (a violation of the principle in science), as well as the directions on Respondent's own work sheet.
    10. Respondent discouraged meaningful student participation in the lesson.
    11. Respondent's lesson lacked a focus and a clear sense of direction.

    On or about October 10, 1995, at a post observation conference, Respondent was given oral and written notice of his insubordination in not following Principal Bruckner's prior directives on delivery of a satisfactory lesson, and of his unsatisfactory performance.


    E. As referred to in the October 24, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP11 [A band 1) class on or about October 19, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. The Aim of the lesson "What causes forces?" was vague and caused confusion.
    2. Respondent's lesson was teacher dominated.
    3. Respondent failed to use demonstration materials effectively because he had no strategy for linking the demonstrations.
    4. Respondent failed to effectively monitor the students' understanding of the lesson.
    5. Respondent's presentation of the lesson demonstrated a lack of planning and had no logical development.
    6. Respondent failed to appropriately respond to students' questions.
    7. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
    8. Respondent's board work was confusing and lacked direction.
    9. Respondent was unprepared for class in that he came to class without material and had to leave to look for it.
    10. As a result of being unprepared for class, the start of the lesson was delayed for six minutes.
    11. Respondent failed to use any form of medial or final summary to clinch understanding.
    12. Respondent had no written lesson plan and inappropriately relied only on the student worksheet.

    Respondent continued to demonstrate an unwillingness to improve his teaching methods. At the conclusion of the observation, Assistant Principal Cohen asked Respondent to meet with him for a post-observation conference. Respondent refused to participate in a post-observation conference.


    F. As referred to in the November 13, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP11 [A band 1) class on or about November 8, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. Respondent was not present in the room at the start of class.
    2. The Aim written on the worksheet "Is energy conserved?" was weak and inappropriate.
    3. The lesson was teacher-dominated.
    4. Respondent's questioning techniques were poor.
    5. Respondent failed to use classroom instruction time effectively.
    6. Respondent failed to adequately answer student questions.
    7. Respondent failed to provide a written lesson plan at the request of his supervisor. Respondent had been placed on notice that a written lesson plan would be a requirement for the lesson.

    Although Respondent had been directed by Principal Saul Bruckner and Assistant Principal Ira Cohen to meet for a post-observation conference of the lesson, Respondent refused to do so.


    G. As referred to in the December 12, 1995 Observation Report of Superintendent (Brooklyn High Schools) Joyce R. Coppin, who observed Respondent's (B band) class on or about November 16, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. Respondent did not use class instruction time effectively.
    2. Respondent's routine use of a worksheet was too limited since using one instructional method did not take into consideration all of the students' learning styles or multiple intelligence.
    3. Respondent failed to actively involve his students in the lesson.
    4. Respondent failed to use models to explain the concepts he was teaching.
    5. Respondent failed to appropriately address student confusion.

    At the post observation conference, on or about November 16, 1995, Superintendent Joyce Coppin gave Respondent oral notice to accept suggestions and to cooperate with his supervisors to develop a greater repertoire of teaching strategies. Respondent failed to follow this directive.


    H. As referred to in the December 1, 1995 Observation Report of Principal Saul Bruckner, who observed Respondent's (SP12-02 [B band]) class on or about November 29, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. Respondent failed to involve his students in answering the homework problems.
    2. Respondent's lesson did not grow out of a written lesson plan.
    3. Respondent's lesson demonstrated a lack of preparation.
    4. Respondent did not address his students by their names.
    5. Respondent did not use class instruction time effectively.
    6. Respondent did not provide the students with the appropriate materials for the lesson.
    7. Respondent failed to actively involve his students in the demonstrations.
    8. Respondent did not effectively use the demonstration apparatus which was brought to class.

    Respondent refused Principal Saul Bruckner's directive to meet for a post observation conference to discuss this lesson.


    I. Despite the fact that Respondent received two separate letters from Assistant Principal Ira Cohen requesting Respondent to meet on December 15, 1995, during D band, in room 381, for a pre-observation conference, Respondent failed to appear.


    J. As referred to in the December 22, 1995 Observation Report of Assistant Principal Ira Cohen, who observed Respondent's (SP12 [B Band 1) class on or about December 21, 1995, Respondent's performance was unsatisfactory in that:


    1. Respondent's presentation of the lesson was inappropriate. Respondent continued to use a worksheet which focused on computational skills alone, ignoring the other fifteen skills that are listed in the New York State Department of Education's Regents Physics Syllabus.
    2. Respondent failed to follow the calendar of lessons for cycle 2. (The topic taught was already covered in cycle 1.)
    3. Respondent's questions were poorly phrased, unfocused and vague.
    4. Respondent failed to monitor students' understanding and confusion of the lesson.
    5. Respondent failed to motivate student interest in the lesson.
    6. Respondent's demonstration using the ballistics cart was ineffective.
    7. Respondent did not have a written lesson plan other than the student worksheet that was distributed to the class.
    8. Respondent failed to address student generated questions effectively.

    On or about December 21, 1995, Respondent refused to meet for a post-observation conference with Assistant Principal Cohen.


    The foregoing constitutes:


  • Just Cause for charges under Education Law 93020;
  • Insubordination;
  • Neglect of duty;
  • lncompetent and inefficient service;
  • Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position; and
  • Conduct prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of the service.