1. I am one of the plaintiffs in the above captioned complaint against the New York City, Department of Education to the United States District Court Southern District of New York. I reside at 2007 Surf Avenue, Apt 15D, Brooklyn, New York 11224.in Kings County, New York State, where I have resided since August 1999. 2. I make this affidavit in support of the Action brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 3. I submit this testimony based on my personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the instant proceeding. As to any statement made “upon information and belief”, I believe same to be true based upon my memory and my review of the relevant documents contained in my files, and where available said documents are appended hereto as Exhibits. 4. I came in the United States in 1996 from Russia when I was 58. Now I am 69. In my former country I was a research worker in Applied Statistics and had 25 years of experience in teaching graduate and post-graduate students. I have been employed by the New York City Board of Education, now Department of Education (“DOE”) since September 1999. 5. I have tenure as a New York State permanently certified teacher employed by the City of New York I have degree equivalent to PhD in Mathematics and Physics (Exhibit A). 6. During my years of service in my previous school (Wings Academy in Bronx) I was accorded only Satisfactory ratings, was granted tenure, and received letters of appreciation and endorsement (Exhibits B1 – B6). 7. In September 2003 I requested and was granted seniority transfer in Murry Bergtraum High School (“MBHS”) in Manhattan at 411 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007, which is much closer to my home, especially in commute-time. 8. Since I was foisted upon the school, pursuant to the seniority transfer system, rather than by direct hire, I was an unwelcome arrival and I was harassed and discriminated against since day in MBHS. PRIOR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE 9. I graduated from the Mechanics-Mathematical Department of Moscow State University in 1967. My specialty was Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics. 10. I worked in the Hydro-meteorological Center of Russia since 1960 as a junior and senior research worker and then as head of the group. I have published about 50 research articles. From 1969 to 1995 I taught the course “Application of Statistical Methods in Meteorology” for post-graduate students. 11. In 1998 I enrolled at Brooklyn College (CUNY) and earned 18 credits in Education. In 1998 -1999 I was student-teacher at Abraham Lincoln High School and fulfilled the student teaching course requirement for a teaching certificate. 12. In 2002-2003 I completed 12 additional credits in Education at Lehman College (CUNY). EVENTS IN MURRY BERGTRAUM HIGH SCHOOL 13. On September 02, 2003 (the first day in MBHS) Math Assistant Principal (“AP”) Ms. Tang (“Ms. T”) told me to go back to my previous school and promised to give me unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) before she saw even one of my lessons. 14. The same day Ms. T also asked me whether I was often absent. I answered that I was almost never absent and usually missed no more than 2-3 days per year. She said that it was good. Thus I hoped that, maybe, I would be able to work effectively with Ms. T, but, unfortunately, these hopes did not come true. 15. Five new Math teachers came to MBHS in September 2003. Mr. Campbell (a teacher younger than 50) also came by seniority transfer without bring interviewed by Ms. T. He was not “greeted” in such an unwelcoming way on his first day in MBHS. 16. On November 5, 2003, Ms. T wrote on the black board among rules for the students the rule for me. “Ms. Batyreva should speak slowly and clearly” to the laughter of several of the students. She wrote that in my grade book as well (Exhibit C). 17. In December 2003, Ms. T issued a new rule that all classroom referrals of disruptive students removed from classes should receive her prior approval. She refused to sign my referrals for removal of disruptive students from my classes. This undermined my authority among my students. Referrals of other teachers were signed. I was deprived of my rights to enlist the help of the dean office. 18. In December 2003, Ms. T refused to sign six my referrals and sent me to Ms. Martinez (the dean) for clarification. Ms. T reprimanded me in the presence of a student and complained about me as justification to place a disciplinary letter in my file. An announcement regarding the meeting with the Chapter Leader was issued by Security AP Ms. Lausier before any discussion contained false, derogatory statements about me. After the meeting, all allegations were denied and I was spared a letter in my file. I will present this document later. 19. I developed a good reputation for tutoring. As many as ten to twenty students came to me for tutoring. In her letter, the librarian, Ms. May, confirmed this fact. This fact contradicted Ms. T's assertion that students did not understand my accent. In January 2004, I was forbidden to tutor more than 5 students. As a result, many students could not get help for the final test. Thus, the administration neglected students' needs. Ms. Winston (a teacher younger than 50) could tutor up to 25 students (Exhibit D1-D3). 20. I complained to my union, the UFT. A Vice-President of the UFT Mr. F. Volpicella came to MBHS to investigate my case. His letter confirmed the facts of the first day “greetings” and humiliation in the presence of students (Exhibit E). 21. During the first year I filed Special Complaints. In the decision of Special Complaints the Chancellor's Representatives confirmed the facts of humiliation in the presence of students and colleagues (Exhibit F). 22. Though I could teach any level, I had 3 times the average number of the most problematic “M$A” classes (25 of 35 classes lowest level of the high school math sequence). I was deprived of my right to have fair rotation of the more advanced courses, as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement. In spite of this fact, I did not have serious cases of students' misconduct (fights, injuries, or suspensions). It contradicted to the allegation of “poor classroom management skills” in the decision on the my appeal of my unsatisfactory annual performance rating after my first year at MBHS, my first ever less than satisfactory rating. 23. I believe that being assigned a schedule consisting of an excessive number of the most problematic classes and most problematic students was a part of conscious efforts to create discipline problems and to facilitate my termination for improper reasons. 24. I was treated differently than other teachers; I was deprived of my rights for equal employment conditions. The principal Ms. Esmilla (“Ms. E”) supported, aided and abetted all these actions. SOME TOP DOE OFFICIALS ENCOURAGED CHEATING IN SCORING REGENTS 25. On February 2, 2004 another Math teacher at MBHS, Mr. Gilman, and I informed the principal, Ms. E, of violations regarding a disparity between the printed State Directions for grading Math A Regents Exams in January 2004 and the instructions teachers in our department were verbally given by our supervisor: all department teachers who graded Part I were instructed verbally by the AP to use erasable #2 pencils instead of red pen or red indelible pencil required by the printed State Directions accompanying the exams. Ms. E did not give us any response (Exhibit G1). 26. This allowed answers to be altered and Regents exam answer sheets to be tampered with. In fact, Math scores for MBHS were, on information and belief, artificially inflated (the passing percentage was unusually high - 95%, when compared with similar schools). However, the results of SAT Exams which were graded outside the school were the same as those for similarly situated schools in New York City: average. The New York Post (01/26/2004) had already mentioned MBHS before in connection with alleged cheating. 27. In April 2004, Mr. Gilman and I contacted the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). A case file, # 04-0933, was opened, but then closed by Ms. L. Mei, Senior Instructional Manager of District Academic Assessments. Then I (alone) wrote a letter to the State Board of Regents and received the response from Mr. Katz, Bureau Chief of Office of State Assessment (Exhibits G2-G4).
28. Both officials confirmed the fact that using # 2 pencils by teachers in scoring and signing Regents answer sheets was not according to the printed directions arriving with the exams, but tried to justify this referring to Special Directions, which allow some scores to be in pencil. It was knowingly false statement. Really “Directions for schools in Score Validation Study “ (field test) required using pencil #2 only for students, but not for raters (Exhibit G5). For 2 days all test materials including both students' work and teachers' scores, and also teachers' initials and signatures were in school in erasable #2 pencil that created numerous opportunities for answer sheet tampering by faculty. 29. On 07/01/2005 I addressed a letter to Special Commissioner Richard Condon. The case, No. 2005-1910 was reactivated and transferred to the Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations to Deputy Director Thomas W. Hyland for appropriate action (Exhibit G6). I have not received any written response from him yet, 30 months later. No actions against violators were taken; only actions against me, the “whistle-blower.” 30. There are essential differences between my case and the other cheating scandals. My documents show that not only school administration but also top DOE and SED officials tried to hide and justify the facts of violations in scoring Regents and encouraged cheating. They saw no wrongdoing in using erasable #2 pencils for teachers' scores, initials, and signatures that were in contradiction to all State Directions. 31. DOE officials have harassed me, downgraded my performance, and brought me up on Education Law §3020-a charges requesting my termination; all of their actions have comprised numerous violations of the UFT-DOE Collective Bargaining Agreement (“contract”), as well as of Education and School Laws, and Chancellor's rules and regulations. There have been numerous instances of aggravated harassment, age discrimination, retaliation, malicious defamation, criminal falsification of records and file documents, aiding and abetting neglect of students needs, threats to students' health and safety (students were left without adult supervision for 20 minutes at the administration's directions) inter alia . DOE OFFICIALS TRIED TO DEFAME ME AS A PERSON 32. In a decision dated 04/17/06, my appeal of a “U” rating for the 2004-2005 school year was denied basing the decision, in part, on a false statement that alleged “two substantiated incidents of verbal abuse...as evidenced by file documents and testimony” as one of the reasons of denial of my appeal. I knew nothing about these incidents and nobody had ever charged me with this (Exhibit H1). 33. After I addressed my attorney on this matter, and she called UFT on 05/04/2006 DOE issued the “correction” which only removed the false “verbal abuse” statement but kept the same decision naming the same authorizations. This, I believe, was judicially incorrect. The same people could not make a decision other than their previous one. DOE should at least apologize and schedule a new hearing with other decision makers, but it did not do this. However, DOE confirmed, by its own actions of removal of the statement, that it was false (Exhibit H2). 34. DOE qualifying the false statement concocted against me as a “mistake made without malice or ill will” is outrageous. The DOE version is absolutely incredulous as there is evidence of falsification of file documents and tape records to discredit me, they admit to having concocted them, and the DOE takes no action against the wrongdoing, but upholds my unsatisfactory annual personnel performance rating. DOE tried to “to push toothpaste back in the tube” or present the situation so as if the false document had never existed. But in reality the document existed for 17 days, injured my reputation, and contributed to losing all my responsibilities by being sent to a teacher reassignment center, which is a hostile work environment of professionals who are treated as prisoners, all waiting for their hearings to be judged in an arbitration proceeding, where some will be terminated and almost all will be punished with fines or suspensions. 35. DOE did not explain how this “mistake” had happened, why “correction” was not made immediately after DOE knew about my concerns, why all witnesses who gave testimony and who knew that the statement was false did not refute the “mistake” when offered the document, why I was unable to review complete tape records of all testimony in time, why the principal made false statements during the testimony, why satisfactory observation reports were absent from my file during the testimony. The Principal stated she had no idea about incidents of verbal abuse. The modified derogatory document, without my signature, was placed in my file by the principal more than 2 years after its date (Exhibits H3-H5). The word “file”, my name encircled, and “Ms. Esmilla” on the back side were added to original document. Thus the version of “mistake without malice” can be completely rejected. DOE didn't give any explanations of these “random coincidences”. 36. I would like to investigate these defamatory actions and to receive direct answers to direct questions. How can the DOE be the one to review such “errors”; there is a conflict of interest. There is qualified privilege to a supervisor who in good faith makes an error in evaluating a subordinate whose evaluation it is that supervisor's responsibility to perform. But that qualified privilege is lost when there is intent, malice or bad faith in the erroneous evaluation. The DOE could be liable to me, for a significant sum if the qualified privilege is lost by admission of intent and charges of slander, libel, and character assassination are sustained, so of course the DOE is going to deny wrongdoing. 37. If all these rare events were really random and independent, the probability of their random coincidence in the same case would be equal to the product of their probabilities and would be negligible (less than 1/1,000,000). Besides, DOE version contradicts a 3-year history of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation confirmed by many documents and is entirely not credible. Any action taken against me by my school administration or DOE officials was malicious and was a part of conscious efforts to fire me. 38. This shows that DOE is highly interested in my termination no matter by what reason. DOE used “dirty tricks” such as falsifying file documents and tape records. If I really was a bad teacher, there would be no need to use such “dirty tricks” as falsifying documentation in order to defame me as a person and facilitate rescinding my teaching license. Thus DOE “failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law” and “abused its discretion”. 39. Meanwhile Klein has the gall to make a press release that he has hired a team of attorneys to better assist Principals in terminating “ineffective teachers,” the only thing I am ineffective in is helping the school to falsify student performance on Regents exams so the SED will not know how low student progress really is, and to tolerate without objection when the same administrators fabricate wrongdoing on my part. See. New York Times, November 15, 2007, pp. B1, B6. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF MY UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE 40. Though I have been charged with incompetence under Education Law §3020-a, there is no objective evidence of my unsatisfactory service. On the contrary, for 3 years my students' scores and individual progress were higher than in other classes, there are no disciplinary letters in my file, no students' or parents‘ complaints. Students who repeated the M$A course up to 9 times were able to pass my class when all tests for all teachers were exactly the same. 41. The only evidence of my “incompetence” are unsatisfactory observation reports of my supervisors whom I previously complained about their wrongdoing, and who then harassed and discriminated against me, and therefore are incredible. I have the documents (including an Appreciation Certificate from MBHS and students' letters) confirming my competence and efficiency of my service (Exhibits I1 – I8). 42. Math AP Ms. Tang was not well-versed in Math nor in teaching Math; the department teachers reported that she did not hold even a bachelor degree in Math, her major was Reading. Deficiencies in her implementation of the curriculum as supervisor and 25 mathematical mistakes in her draft curriculum materials distributed to her department were confirmed during Professional Consultation with the Regional Math Specialist in February 2005. 43. Her instructions to teachers to use #2 pencils for scoring the Math A Regents Exams caused her to be forced to retire in March 2005, in the beginning of Spring semester, before she achieved the age of retirement. According to Employment Law (Exhibit J1), unfair evaluations may be a sign of discrimination. 44. I am not the only example of a teacher almost 70, reassigned to the “rubber room” on charges of incompetence who has a Ph.D. in her appointed subject area whose AP was found to be not qualified to continue as AP, and is no longer an AP. Insecure AP's and Principals seem to have a predisposition of going after those teachers whose knowledge and abilities appear to threaten their security in their position. 45. The successor Math AP, Mr. Rubinstein. is now serving a 10 year prison sentence for spreading pornography. He neglected his job duties: most teachers did not have observation reports for the whole year. Yet the evaluations of both of them remain in my file and the DOE attorneys have used them to base disciplinary charges against me that may result in my termination. I await seeing whether the DOE will see fit to insist either or both of them testify against me at my 3020-a arbitration proceeding. 46. My same age co-plaintiff, found that the terminated AP (now a teacher), and the resigned AP (who lasted with that Principal three months before resigning effective the end of the school year, was ousted by the next principal midway through the year as well, and was reassigned to a third school, i.e. three schools in two years), both of whom testified my colleague is highly competent; their complaint was classroom “tone,” and management of student behavior (much harder to refute) and their testimony was accepted! 47. All fully licensed and tenured teachers should have “presumption of competence” (just as suspects in crimes have “presumption of innocence” after all to take away a professionals opportunity to practice their professional virtually anywhere in the U.S. is to take away substantive due process in many cases as much as criminal conviction does). To override the State decision to try them in arbitration, supervisors should present sufficient evidence of teachers' incompetence to a clear and convincing standard, not merely a preponderance of the evidence standard. Even if the lower standard is used the unfair evaluations I received are in violation of the UFT-DOE contract and School Law (Exhibits J2, J3), as all my evaluations excluded all the evidences of my students' learning. 48. All my annual evaluations ignored students' grade-wide test and Regents scores. All my observation reports made by my supervisors ignored the results of my students' work collected during observed lessons and thus, evidence that the aim was achieved, while they faulted me in their subjective, pre-judged and erroneous conclusory statements that the aim was not achieved. Thus supervisory judgments were arbitrary and capricious. Thus, if also accepted by the arbitrator, the arbitration will likewise be destined to have an arbitrary and capricious outcome. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION DID NOT SEEK TO IMPROVE MATH INSTRUCTION 49. M$A and M$B Curriculum Outlines issued by Ms. Tang showed the evidence of her incompetence: Logic was given without Truth Values and Truth Tables, 19 lessons of the State M$B Curriculum which the Regents would include were absent from the text-book selected by Ms. T; her Curriculum Outline did not provide sufficient time for study the most important basic skills of Algebra and contradicted to the recommended text-book. 50. My proposals for improving the Curriculum issued by Ms. T were supported by a consensus of the Math faculty at a Department meeting and by the Regional Math Specialist Ms. Tam who assigned me the head of the group to work on new Curriculum initiatives for MBHS (Exhibits K1,K2). In spring 2006 all M$A teachers began to use new version. But after Mr. Rubinstein left, Ms. Esmilla demanded that all M$A teachers to return back to the old Curriculum. Thus, Ms. E, a former Gym teacher, made the decision on the Math Curriculum which was harmful to Math instruction because it would not prepare the students for the Regents Exam. 51. This year, in Fall 2007, the changes similar to those proposed by me in January 2004 were made. But 3.5 years were lost. If appropriate changes were made in time, now we could have real improvement of true results that could save the school from “No Improvement” status under the No Child Left Behind law and prevent restructuring. Thus Ms. E neglected the needs of 3000 students in order to facilitate the termination of one teacher. 52. The position of the National Commission on Teaching Mathematics (“NCTM”) on using Calculator states that calculator should be used after students learned computational skills and Mental Math. But in order to hide the fact that many students could not count and do not know even the four arithmetic operations, my supervisors Mr. Rubinstein and Mr. Vitolo required using calculators from the very beginning even for numerical problems using small integers, that made no sense at all. I created a computer Math self-tutoring game, which helped students to learn the main computational procedures. My supervisor Mr. Vitolo refused to install this game on school computers though this game is a free download from the Internet (mathontherun.com/kolobok and download.com/kolobok). 53. I invested a great deal of work to improve instruction (different versions of tests and handouts which prevented student cheating and contributed to better learning of basic skills, handouts with clear explanations), but this work was not welcome at MBHS. Thus, the goal appeared to be bringing me up on 3020-a charges leading to my termination and not improving Math instruction (administrators appeared to neglect students' needs and did not invest in quality of teaching) but retaliation against me. 54. After all, an almost 70 year old emigree from somewhere else who spoke with a foreign accent should be retiring to dote on her grandchildren, not making trouble for an AP long loyal to the Principal by pointing out her incompetence, by showing her up by writing a better curriculum endorsed by the Regional Supt's representative (forcing the AP to retire, only to have the Principal select someone who reflected badly on her choice by getting himself convicted of a serious felony), and especially by going outside the DOE to the Commissioner of Special Investigations and the SED to report allegations of misconduct in Regents scoring. No, it is safe to allege that the MBHS administration had higher priorities than investing in improving of Math Instruction; it had to prevent me from bringing the Principal's shortcomings to the attention of anyone or she would have to retire too. Therefore priority number one was to get me out of the building and the only way to do that effectively was by preferring charges against me. 55. No wonder that now I am now reassigned to a Teacher Reassignment Center where all of almost 800 teachers, almost all of 50 and with the number over 60 many times their frequency among the 80,000 working for NYC await their fate of whether they will be terminated. With Chancellor Klein lamenting that only a handful get terminated for incompetence; he has hired lawyer's to help the Principals build their cases so it will be more. 56. So the mortality from incompetence charges is low but the morbidity is 100%. First the teacher is sent to one of seven or eight “Rubber Rooms” where about 800 teachers over all await their fate. The environment is hostile, clerical level employees, make up and enforce rules as if they were jailers. If they put up with this they receive their charges. The charges accuse them of exaggerated and even silly allegations. 57. One and one half years later, on the average, they are told that their case is ready for hearing and their accusers come one after another, as many as they can possibly get, to testify against the teacher. 58. Then if the teacher hasn't succumb to retirement or resignation with a settlement of a neutral recommendation (just dates of employment as a teacher) and agreement never to bring an action against the DOE and to withdraw all current actions, they allow you to put on your case with far less leeway as to what is relevant than the DOE had.\ 59. Almost everyone is sanctioned with a fine of some sort (some as high as $20,000.00) or a suspension which is worse because no teacher can work anywhere else with a sustained disciplinary finding. 60. Some are fired: including all teachers accused of verbal or physical abuse of students and especially any teacher accused of sexual innuendo, improper relationship (which can be as innocent as hearing a student is extremely upset about something and taking them to the corner soda fountain to hear their problem out), and even some merely accused of being incompetent. 61. Then one (if not terminated or suspended) moves from being a reassigned teacher to an absent teacher reserve (“ATR”) if you have reached a certain age or certain non-youthful experience to the reassignment center personnel. Which means you go to a separate Rubber room to await them needing you. Completely exonerated teachers are returned to their school unless they refuse after the injustice that has taken two to three years from their lives (some hearings can last all year); then they too wait and may retire waiting or they may be offered existing jobs, if any, mid-term or mid year. Fewer will ever have the type of position in a school of the level or teaching the program that they taught before, than are fired for incompetence, even in Math and Science where they are desperate for teachers. Harass the oldsters to leave and replace them with recent graduates who earn 43% of the top of scale salary. 62. On 12/19/06 I was removed from classroom teaching and reassigned to the Manhattan Regional Operation Center. On 02/06/07 I received Education Law 3020-a Charges incompetence and inefficiency, neglecting duties, insubordination, and excessive absenteeism. The true number of days I was absent many fewer than allowed by the contract as seen by my attendance record (exhibit L) and that most other teachers at MBHS were absent who were not judged to be “excessively absent.” Thus, this is knowingly false accusation. There are no documents in my file confirming insubordination or neglecting duties. The only evidence of my incompetence were subjective observation reports by persons who harassed and discriminated against me. 63. I belong to several protected classes: whistleblower, age 69, sex, and of foreign national origin. Therefore, the discriminatory actions against me had a nexus to many different causes of animus . It should not matter which was the one or ones engendered the most unfair treatment, only that the treatment was unfair, undeserved, and the inference that it was unlawful animus based on one or more of the protected categories of which I am a member can be therefore drawn more probably than not. 64. The means and mechanisms used by DOE in attempting to promulgate my termination represent discriminatory actions based on characteristics of protected classes. There are insufficient examples of whistle blowers or teachers born in Russia for me to say the DOE treats all whistle blowers or all teachers born in Russia, the way I have been treated. But, I can say with certainty after sharing my experiences with other reassigned teachers, that most of the reassigned teachers are female and over 50. They are brought up on trivial charges alleged to be incompetence. They also had incompetent supervisors threatened by their very presence. 65. One teacher was brought up on charges because a high school senior was quietly drinking from what appeared to the supervisor to be a soda bottle, her “word wall” (vocabulary words) was alleged to have not been updated from the last unit of study (when she actually had two “word walls” and purposely maintained the prior one to remind students of those words after she put up the new one), and her supervisor would not allow her to call a lesson outline that was distributed to students to facilitate their understanding, a “lesson plan” which was required, and faulted her for not having one. 66. Another teacher was cited in her 3020-a charges requesting her termination, for not having sufficient academic rigor, not using the optimal teaching methodology, not having an established routine for how students should sit on the rug, and because she sent home a note to a parent on an index card. This teachers pupils are four-year-olds. 67. A third teacher was fined ten weeks pay (for her about $14,000) because she was cited for, among other things, the misbehavior of her students that would have to be paid in seven months. When she went to court to stay this Draconian penalty of almost two thirds of her take home pay for the rest of the year, leaving her insufficient subsistence to support her special needs pre-adolescent son and herself, as Justice Herman Friedman of New York State Supreme Court leafed through her petition to overturn the arbitrator's decision, he remarked, “[t]hey bring up teachers on charges when their students misbehave”? He granted her the stay. THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN MY AGE AND THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS 68. In the Fall of 2004, I was assigned two consecutive classes on different floors [first and third] and had to negotiate two flights of stairs between classes for 1-2 minutes that was physically difficult even for a younger person. At sixty-six, I was the oldest department member. The elevators were busy delivering students on wheel chairs. Because of the stairs, it was almost impossible for me to begin my lesson on time. Ms. Tang mentioned this in her observation report on October 13, 2004. The lesson was rated unsatisfactory. I was the only teacher in Department who had been singled out for such difficult teaching conditions. Other teachers only taught classes on different floors before or after free periods. I asked the Principal Ms. Esmilla to change this situation, but she refused. These conditions persisted for the entire semester (September 2004 – January 2005) at which time I was diagnosed with hypertension and was prescribed antihypertensive medication. This action is discriminatory towards person of any age, but it was especially unfair to person of 66. In this particular case I was selected as “easy target” for this harassing and discriminatory action because of my age. (Exhibits M1, M2). 69. Before my complaints about Regents Exams, I was selected as an “easy target” for harassment and discrimination both because of my age and because of my national origin. Ms. Tang thought it would be easier for her to rid the department of the old teacher with the foreign accent, occasional inversions of English syntax and frequent omission of definite or indefinite articles where usually placed in American usage (e.g. Europeans “go to hospital” while Americans always “go to the hospital.” Many teachers who have medical problems and are absent at times are also often chosen as “easy targets” for discrimination though this is discrimination as well. Another reason age discrimination is visited on experienced teachers is their higher paychecks. 70. Age discrimination and discrimination on the base of national original don't mean “hate” or negative feelings to these groups as the reasons of discrimination. But these groups could be chosen as “easy target” because it is easier for supervisors to fire such people. 71. Criminals also often choose victims among members of protected classes because they are “easy targets.” The thief who robbed two old ladies (of 101 and 86 years old) chose them as “easy targets” because they could not resist. This makes this crime especially heinous and many people proposed issuing “Granny Law” which would require harsher punishment for crimes against people older than 70. 72. Four young men who attacked the gay men with the goal of robbery also chose him as “easy target” because they did not expected a strong resistance from their stereotype image of someone gay. The gay man was chased, hit by a car and died. This crime was qualified as a hate crime even though one of attackers was also gay. 73. Civil cases where members of protected classes are selected for discriminatory actions as “easy targets,” are also qualified as discrimination on the base of belonging to the protected classes. 74. Age discrimination as DOE policy is evident. DOE prefers to hire more “low salaried” inexperienced teachers than “high salaried” experienced teachers. This year DOE hired 6000 young inexperienced teachers to teach in NYC while many experienced teachers are sent to “rubber rooms” or “excessed” to the reassignment center, while younger teachers are assigned their classes. 75. DOE prefers inexperienced teachers because young teachers are more manageable and submissive to supervisors. However, it would not be unexpected if “test's results” showed that experienced teachers have better outcomes than inexperienced teachers. 76. It is sufficient to look at those who sit in “rubber room” and it will be evident that age discrimination is DOE policy. The percentage of teacher 40 or older in the “rubber room” varies as they come and go but always remains between 80% to 90%, while the percentage in the in the entire NYC teacher population is about 60% This difference is statistically significant. The balance of reassigned teachers who are under 40 have been reassigned for allegations of corporal punishment or verbal abuse, which often turns out to be that the accuser is a student who either so assaulted another student or assaulted the teacher and is following the “best defense is offense” policy; or of an inappropriate relationship, where a student who has accused a young male teacher of improprieties either because he gently spurned her romantic initiatives or in revenge for earning a bad grade; or because the teacher was arrested–it is DOE policy to remove from the classroom all teachers, even those who were issued undeserved desk appearance tickets, and have immediately reported the incident to the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau. 77. Therefore, all teachers removed for alleged incompetence, or alleged insubordination, or alleged minor errors in required paperwork are 40 or over. I doubt it is that younger teachers never are involved with such allegations, but because these allegations never rise to a reason a teacher is brought up on charges and termination sought–but it is the pretext upon which all older teachers are removed. 78. The policy of age discrimination results from the well-known fact that DOE does not care of true quality of teaching. If DOE depended on true results of student knowledge, maybe, they would carry out entirely different policy. 79. DOE has an implemented policy to lower the average teacher's salary, from ~ $70,000.00 per year to $60,000.00 while it is raising the pay scale with every contract renewal. DOE also top loads the pay scale which the biggest increment going to teachers who have completed 22 years of service with the DOE. The current pay scale begins at $43,362. Thus, the Public Relations mantra is that top pay for NYC teachers come May 1, 2008 shall be in excess of $100,000.00 but the actuality is that there is a concerted effort to terminate teachers who are at or close to that salary and replace them with recent graduates who earn 43% as much. 80. The DOE cannot say it is not age, it is salary they must reduce; but anywhere the pay scale is pegged to longevity increases this translates to age and salary being very closely correlated. 81. In fact, a teacher with an earned Ph.D. will earn less than $12,000.00 more than a teacher with not one credit more than she needed for her baccalaureate; while a teacher who has completed 22 years of service with the DOE earns more than $25,000 more than a similarly educated teacher in her first year of teaching. 82. If the DOE cared about the quality of instruction, then it would reverse the incentives and award the more than double the increase for education, courses of study, additional teaching licenses, National Teacher Certification and lower the step increases for longevity. 83. However, it is an easier myth to sell that an older veteran teacher is tired and set in her ways, not able to adapt to new methodologies than a fresh, sprite, with no ingrained habits. It would be an impossible task to promulgate the myth that teacher's without Ph.D.'s are better than teachers who have earned them. Yet the rubber room has a higher %age of Ph.D.'s than the DOE's teaching population at large. 84. Exactly whom does the DOE believe invents the new methodologies? It is the veteran professionals who do, and what happens to them–their supervisors get threatened and cook up some hyperbole on observation reports to get rid of them and they are here with me in the rubber room. 85. This is what happened to me with the Math curriculum, this is what happened to a co-plaintiff who circulated an end of the year “talking paper” to stimulate faculty discussion to generate ways to improve student achievement, comportment and attendance at her school for the following year. 86. There are very few young teachers at the reassignment center; almost all are in their fifties and sixties. Many teachers brought up on excessive absence charges and sent there were absent or late no more times than other teachers in their school but the Principals apparently deemed the younger teachers' personal or family illness “acceptable.” Most of the teachers brought up on charges of excessive absenteeism or lateness, had long records of outstanding attendance, punctuality and pedagogy. Other teachers in their schools had much worse attendance records but were not faulted for it. Still others stand accused of corporal punishment when they had not intentionally touched a student, or the touching was the minimum necessary to prevent the student from continuing to assault another, including the teacher. Many were accused of verbal abuse when the students had purposefully and intentionally provoked the teacher into a measured and usually benigh dressing-down and exhibition of well-deserved ire. I was accused of none of these offenses. Olga Batyreva |