Thursday, December 31, 2015
Subornation of Perjury
Subornation of Perjury
Suborn:
To induce a person to give false testimony.
Perjury:
The willful utterance of a false statement under oath.
Department of Education's
November 22, 2015 Ruling & Rationale
of Education Law 3020a Pedagogy Charges
Filed on September 08, 2014
Against Tenure Science & Mathematics
Middle School Dual Language Educator
Mr. Luis Angel Perez
- Approximately 441 days -
From the day the 3020a Charges were filed,
(September 08, 2014),
to the day the verdict was handed down,
(November 22, 2015).
Only seven (7) 3020a Hearing Dates:
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Friday, May 15, 2015
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Mr. Williams authored the verdict in the form
of
an “OPINION AND AWARD” note.
Said note lists that out of 36 specifications/allegations
made against Educator Perez by DOE Officers,
15 of them, “have not been sustained”, &
21 of them, “have been sustained”.
The First Three (3)
These first three observations were conducted
during the 2012-2013 school year.
Some facts about school year 2012-2013:
1. At the inception of this school year, (as well as toward
the end of the prior school year), Educator Perez was
threatened to be deliberately placed to teach a low grade
that
he knows nothing about, warned that he will make mistakes,
threatened that he will get an unsatisfactory rating, and
threatened that his teaching license will be taken away.
Some facts about 2012-2013 school year:
2. After teaching Middle School Science and Mathematics
for over 6 years, in the 4th floor, Educator Perez was
maliciously reassigned to a different floor, (second floor),
to teach a grade that he never taught before, (first
grade), and reassigned to teach all content areas, which
included subjects that he never taught before, (such as
Social Studies, Reading,
& Writing).
Some facts about school year 2012-2013 :
3. Friday, October 19, 2012,
Educator Perez was directed, by DOE Officer/Principal
Pedraja,
to observe Educator KN teach her first grade class
for the last time this school year.
4. October 22, 2012, Educator Perez was directed to take
over Educator KN's class, by himself, for the
rest of the school year.
The First Three (3)
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer
Richard D. Williams' Ruling & Rationale
of a Formal & an Informal Observation, conducted on
November 19, 2012 & February 04, 2013,
respectively,
by DOE Officer/Principal Miriam Pedraja,
as a Mere Pretext to Suppress Corruption.
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(a),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a November 19, 2012
Formal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Williams writes –
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(b),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a February 04, 2013
Informal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Williams writes –
Regarding Specifications/Allegations 1(a) & 1(b),
Although DOE
Hearing Officer/Arbitrator
Richard D. Williams
ruled that these Specifications/Allegations
were, “not sustained”, ...
...he writes,
“…due to the acknowledgement of receipt,
I will credit and consider
that on December 12, 2012, Respondent was aware
that concern was expressed by his administration about
his classroom management, classroom routines, lesson
planning, lesson execution and use of assessments.”
As you can see,
Mr. Williams writes the same thing
for the informal observation
of February 04, 2013.
However, Hearing
Officer/Arbitrator Williams
conveniently failed to
mention, credit or consider, on the record,
that on February 26, 2013,
several DOE and United Federation of Teachers, (UFT),
Officers were aware, via an email titled,
Rebuttal to your “Formal Observations” and your
pretext “Plan of Action”, ...
... that, concern was expressed by their Educator about,
1. DOE administration threatening to give him
an unsatisfactory rating for the 2012-2013 school year
even prior to the start of this particular school year,
2. that the Action Plan created by administration
was intentionally filled with
unfair and impractical demands, ...
... and
3. that the contents of the observation reports
were completely baseless, deceitful, reckless,
irresponsible, unprofessional, and a clear
manifestation of abuse of power.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer
Richard D. Williams' Ruling & Rationale
of a Formal
Observation, conducted on May 03, 2013,
by DOE Officer/Principal Zoraida Hernandez,
as a Mere Pretext to Suppress Corruption.
Regarding Specification/Allegation 1(c),
"... Respondent failed to properly, adequately, and/or
effectively plan and/or execute separate lessons observed
...",
Pertaining to a May 03, 2013
Formal Observation,
DOE Hearing/Arbitration Officer Richard D. Williams ruled
that, "... Specification 1(c) is sustained.", and
writes –
This here contradicts
what actually happened
&
contradicts the actual document
submitted into evidence by DOE Officers.
For Example -
1. The allegation that, "Respondent refused to sign
for the document on June 17, 2013, ...",
directly contradicts the evidence
submitted & examined by DOE Officers.
Signature is clearly evident
directly below Educator's Comment.
2. The three (3) periods after the opening
quotation mark, also known as an ellipsis,
implies that Mr. Williams left out some of
the original writer's words in the
material that he is quoting here.
However, the evidence
also
proves this to be false.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
Mr. Williams continued to write –
1. Where is the evidence for this alleged
"implication" & "assertion"?
2. The implications and assertions that are actually
neglected & rejected here by Mr. Williams &
other DOE Officers
are the ones pertaining to the formal compaints,
filed by Educator Perez
of abuse of power,
bullying, and harrassment,
suffered in the hands of DOE Officers,
which has a profound
negative impact
on Students, Parents, & Educators.
Mr. Williams continued to write –
Evidence on the record where evaluator unreasonably
denied Educator Perez a more specific date
of observation can be
found on the
pages & sections below:
237: 13-23, 238:
7-11, 238: 23-25 & 239: 2-7.
The School's Practice of Informing Educators of Which
Specific Class Will Be Observed:
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
it was the practice at Amistad that the administrator
would inform the teacher of which class the
administrator was going to specifically observe,
in a formal observation,
(237: 13-23).
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that it
was her practice to specifically tell the Educator what
class she would be coming in to formally observe,
(238: 7-11).
Yet, she
testified that for this observation she
did not provide Educator Perez with a specific day
and a specific time to be observed,
(238: 23-25 & 239: 2-7).
This is a clear cut example of disparate treatment.
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez admittedly deviated
from the normal practice at the Amistad school
as well as her own normal practice
when dealing specifically with Educator Perez.
Assess for yourself.
Discuss & critique with the people around you
&/or
write a reflection in your personal journal.
Additional Fact Findings
Testimony of Attendance of Action Plan Meeting:
Notice that -
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that she was
present at the meeting when
DOE Officer/Principal Pedraja handed
Educator Perez the action plan, (230: 2-5).
&
she testified that the only ones present at this meeting
were
Officer/Principal Pedraja, Educator Perez, & herself,
(230: 6-10).
Actually, administrative secretary, Sherry Lucas,
was also present.
More importantly, according to the UFT
District Representative, Mayra Cruz,
DOE Officers did not follow proper protocol when
meeting and giving Educator Perez
the action plan in the absence of UFT representation.
This is, yet, another example of
disparate treatment by DOE Officers when
dealing specifically with Educator Perez.
Rationale Behind Having to Observe
Specifically Selected Educators:
Notice that DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
she was assigned some responsibilities by
Officer/Principal Pedraja, concerning this action plan;
such as assigning Educator Perez, (assigned to teach 1st
grade),
to do inter-classroom observations of
specific 3rd & 4th grade Educators,
(230: 11- 20).
Yet,
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
she has no idea why
Officer/Principal Pedraja
was specific about these particular Educators,
(236: 4-10).
Actually, these specific 3rd & 4th grade Educators are
known to have close ties with the DOE Officers.
On November 08, 2012, eleven (11) days prior
to Officer/Principal Pedraja’s
formal observation of November 19, 2012,
one of these specifically chosen Educators
maliciously sent an untruthful email to
administration titled, Hallway Etiquette, making bogus
allegations against Educator Perez.
The following is the
complaint made by one of
these specifically chosen Educators
&
Educator Perez’ response
to the Amistad Community about said complaint,
prior to him knowing who was the accuser.
Does Mr. Crown Speak Spanish or Not Testimony:
Mr. Crown
accompanied DOE Officer/Principal during the
observation of this Spanish lesson.
Officer/Principal Hernandez was not truthful about whether
or
not she knew if Mr. Crown speaks Spanish.
At first Officer/Principal Hernandez firmly testified, “No,
he does
not.”, but then recants to, “Well, I - - let me rephrase. I
am not
sure that he does.”, (241: 10-23).
Actually, she knows that he does not speak Spanish
because, during the post observation meeting, I
specifically asked Mr. Crown if he speaks or understands
Spanish. Mr. Crown looked at her and responded, “No”.
I asked Mr. Crown this question in an attempt to get his
feedback right after Officer/Principal Hernandez
asserted that I did not ask students any questions.
"Yoga Interruption"
He Should Have Known v. He Did Not Know Testimony:
DOE
Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that this
mathematics lesson was interrupted by a yoga class and that
Educator Perez should
have known that she was coming to
observe him and thus ask the yoga instructor to come at a
different time, (245: 19-25 & 246: 2-3).
Yet,
DOE Officer/Principal Hernandez testified that
Educator Perez was
not aware of the time
that she would have been coming in,
(245: 4-7).
Despite incessant reporting to higher DOE & UFT
Officers of the malicious intent & inconsistencies
which saturate these three (3) observations,
DOE Officer/Principal Perdraja was allowed to give
Educator Perez an unsatisfactory rating
at the end of school year 2012-2013.
From the day DOE Officer/Principal Miriam Pedraja handed
Educator Perez the forewarned unsatisfactory rating,
(Wednesday, June 26, 2013),
to the day the unsatisfactory rating appeal hearing was
held,
before Chancellor’s Committee Chairperson, Ms. Toby Ratz
&
UFT Advisor, Albert Sarasohn, (October 21, 2013):
Approximately 117 days lapsed.
Despite numerous inquiries made by Educator Perez to
DOE, UFT, & NYSUT Officers,
regarding the deliverance of a verdict;
from the day the unsatisfactory rating appeal hearing was
held,
(October 21, 2013),
to the day that the verdict to this hearing was provided to
Educator Perez, (November 24, 2014),
Approximately 400 days lapsed.
Total time lapsed:
517 days
After Educator Perez learned of the verdict,
he rightfully and repeatedly requested for UFT Officials to
appeal this decision on the grounds of foul play.
He was informed by UFT District Representative, Mayra Cruz,
that the paper work for this hearing-appeal was already
submitted and that it should be scheduled soon.
DOE Officials failed to schedule such appeal hearing.
DOE & UFT Officials repeatedly & deliberately failed
to
ensure justice in our Public Schools;
for our Dual Language, (Spanish/English),
Educators, Children, Families, and Communities.
DOE Officers/Principals needed to create two (2)
Unsatisfactory
Observation Reports in order to
justify creating and delegating an Action Plan.
DOE Officials needed to create one (1) Impractical Action
Plan
and two (2) Unsatisfactory Observation Reports
Saturated with Deception in order to
justify an End-Of-The-Year Unsatisfactory Rating.
What the Observation Reports and the Action Plan actually
contained was never an issue because no one in the DOE
is reading them or no one will admit to have read them.
To learn more
about the abuse of power in our schools,
that effectively sets everyone up to fail, please visit my
blogs
listed below. Best always!
Sincerely, Luis Angel Perez,
Middle School Science & Mathematics,
First Grade, Fourth Grade Educator & Advocate
http://writing4light.blogspot.com/
Love to Learn
Friday, December 25, 2015
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Accountability in the DOE/BOE
“We’ve designed an accountability system that holds those with the most power the least accountable. The governors are not accountable, the state legislature is not accountable… You can’t hold kids and teachers accountable and not hold the people who control in the first place.”
- Pedro
Noguera, Professor of Education, NYU
Co-author,
“Excellence Through Equity”
Third
Rail, August 02, 2015
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Friday, September 4, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
Grade "Fixing" of Educator's Ratings
School Administrators Also Fraudulently & Illegally “Fix”
Grades Given to Educators
In Order to Sabotage Careers & Manipulate Others into Toxic
Conformity
By Luis Angel Perez
The front page of a newspaper is conventionally
reserved for stories that manage to convince professional press executives of
their inherent high-level of importance to the public and their viability to
attract the attention of as many people as possible. One theme occupying an
entire front page of a newspaper speaks volumes about a press company’s level
of commitment to that particular story. Tuesday, August 04, 2015, the New York
Post, used their entire front page to visually scream out to the public what
they have subtitled, “The official scandal in our schools” – referring to the
fraudulent and illegal practice of “Grade Fixing”.
In the past, “Grade Fixing” was essentially
fueled by competition for school budgetary incentives, personal administrative bonuses,
and in order to portray a public image of “effective leadership”.
Unfortunately, today, the fuel is of a
more vicious accelerant, igniting an even greater urgency to commit such
infraction, rapidly engulfing our moral compass, and before you know it,
disintegrating our principles into sheer ash, as we are pushed by, powerful
people, into toxic conformity.
High Ranking Officers in the Department of Education
Support the Fraudulent & Illegal Actions of “Grade-Fixing”
This past school year, (2014-2015), a
colleague was unfairly treated, harassed, and at the end of the school year,
shortly before becoming tenure, terminated from her employment because she
disagreed with, among other things, the Principals’ fraudulent and illegal
actions of “fixing” student grades. District six (6) Superintendent, Manuel
Ramirez, United Federation of Teachers (UFT) District Representative, Mayra
Cruz, and the Office of Special Investigations, were all informed of this serious
violation but the people who violated the law here were not, and most likely
will not be, held accountable because such fraudulent and illegal actions are
condoned and covered-up by higher leaders in the Department of Education.
“Grade-Fixing” to Sabotage Careers &
Manipulate Others into Toxic Conformity
Unfortunately, fixing student grades is
not the only fraudulent and illegal behavior conducted by leaders of our
schools. Department of Education Administrators Also Fraudulently &
Illegally “Fix” Grades Given to Educators In Order to Sabotage Careers &
Manipulate Others into Toxic Conformity.
Educators that slack-off but assist administrators
in their immoral and unethical campaigns, typically receive inflated scores
while conscientious educators that advocate for safety, fairness, and
improvements for schools unfairly receive poor scores.
This type of fraudulent and unlawful
behavior of grade “fixing” is also condoned by higher administrators, (District
Superintendents, Chancellor’s Office Officials, Public Officials, Union
Officers), as evident by their record of negligence toward fairly investigating,
properly addressing, and fairly holding subordinates accountable for abuse of
power and legal infractions. Instead, higher administrators elect to engage in
the incessant concealment of such unethical practices.
The Legal Department’s Role
in Rampant abuse of Power & Ethical Misconduct
Lying Under Oath & Obstruction of Justice
The fraudulent and unlawful behavior of
grade “fixing” and abuse of power is further strengthened by the intimidation
and support provided by the Legal Department of the Department of
Education.
The Three (3) Subcomponent Rating System Explained
During the school year of 2013-2014, I
was responsible to teach a great group of 4th graders. At the end of
this school year, I was evaluated based on the sum of three (3) subcomponent
scores:
1- State Measures and 2- Local
Measures, (both of which consist of
the Measure of Student Learning,
(MOSL), at State and Local Levels).
Essentially, these are ratings
provided based on how students, under my direct
care,
performed on all of the New York State Science Examinations, New York
State Mathematics Examinations, and the English Language Arts Examinations,
State Mathematics Examinations, and the English Language Arts Examinations,
for that particular school year.
- & -
3- the Measure of Teacher
Practice (MOTP), (a score made of points that come
directly from the Principal’s and Assistant Principal’s observations).
directly from the Principal’s and Assistant Principal’s observations).
Ratings Received in Each of the Three (3) Subcomponents
It is prudent to mention here that the
school year of 2013-2014 was the infamous school year when all of the New York
State Standards were abruptly and unfairly raised and when this new teacher
evaluation system was initially rolled out.
At the end of the 2013-2014 school
year, I received the following ratings from the three (3) different
subcomponents:
1. From the State Measures, I received an EFFECTIVE
rating.
2. From the Local Measures, I received an EFFECTIVE
rating.
* Both of which compose the Measure
of Student Learning, (MOSL).
3. From the Measure of Teacher Practice (MOTP), I received
an INEFFECTIVE rating.
an INEFFECTIVE rating.
More Evidence of Persecution by School Officials
It is important to note here that the Measure of Teacher Practice (MOTP), a
score made of points that come directly from the Principal’s and Assistant Principal’s
observation, is the only subcomponent of this entire rating system which allows
school administrators, (in my case, Assistant Principal Olga Ramos and
Principal Zoraida Hernandez), access to freely log into the system to “fix” the
Measure of Teacher Practice (observations) scores in order to manipulate an
educator’s overall annual rating.
All
six (6) evaluations conducted here, by the Assistant Principal and Principal, were
fraudulently and illegally “fixed”. All six (6) evaluations were saturated
and manipulated with untruths and much bias in order to “fix” and thus attain
an overall rating of “ineffective”, which is exactly what administration needed
as a prerequisite to filing 3020a charges against me.
Lying Under Oath & Obstruction of Justice by Legal Counsels
Representing the Department of Education & the Chancellors’
Office
The utter disregard to the rule of law and human rights within the
Department of Education was greatly pronounced during a 3020a hearing held in
April 2015, when Principal Zoraida Hernandez and Department of Education Legal
Counsel, Shareema Abel, both knowingly lied
under oath and on the record about my Measure of Student Learning (MOSL)
scores.
The following are the initial questions
(Q.) that Principal Zoraida Hernandez
was asked, under oath and on the record, and answers (A.) which she provided, during a 3020a hearing cross-examination, concerning
my MOSL scores.
It is important to note here that Principal
Hernandez’ respiration rate notably increased, her face became increasingly flushed-red,
and she became especially fidgety when the topic of my MOSL scores came up.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Q. “Do you recall what Mr.
Perez’s MOSL score was for the 2013-2014 school year?”
A. “I didn’t get it because I
didn’t have access. He wasn’t in the system when those scores came out.”
Q. “Okay. So you never saw
it.”
A. “No.”
Seconds after, legal counsel
representing the Department of Education, Shareema Abel, requested to go off-the-record
for a moment which then transformed into an entire lunch break. When we
returned from the lunch break, Department of Education Legal Counsel vehemently
argued -
(1) her client, (Principal
Hernandez), should not be questioned about the document which contained my MOSL
scores,
(2) nine (9) times that - the
principal had never seen it, had no access to it, and or received it.
(3) she, (herself), never saw
that document before.
It is important to mention here that
despite requests for the production of my MOSL scores during discovery, (discovery:
the pre-hearing procedure where each party can obtain evidence from the other
party), Department of Education Legal Counsel, Abel Shareema, still, even at
this very late period of the hearing, had not provide the scores into evidence and
still vigorously resisted to provide said information into evidence, despite
asserting that, “me being the department
of education issue these” and after the arbitrator/judge ordered her to
produce it as soon as possible. Eventually, she reluctantly provided this
information into evidence.
It is also important to note here that Department
of Education Co-Legal Counsel, Jade Fuller also vigorously shielded assistant Principal
Olga Ramos from testifying about her understanding of the scores that make up a
teacher’s evaluation; the Measure of Teacher Practice (MOTP), and the Measure
of Student Learning (MOSL).
The very foundation of the Department of
Education’s testimony, that they never have seen or received my MOSL Scores for
the school year of 2013-2014, collapses upon itself when they attempt to
justify the reason why they have not seen or received my MOSL Scores.
When the legal counsel representing me
attempted to submit into evidence my MOSL Scores, Department of Education Legal
Counsel, Shareema Abel, testified that that was the first time that she had seen
the document and further argued that “…the
school did not receive it, because once a teacher is removed out of a school,
they don’t have access to this.” Department of Education Legal Counsel also
testified that the principal never seen it nor receive it, “…because the Respondent was charged before this was provided to her or
she had access to it… (“her” being the Principal and “Respondent” being
me). Department of Education Legal Counsel further testified that she and the Principal
of the school never saw my MOSL Scores because this document was issued after I
was charged and consequently taken out of the system.
The problem with this argument is that,
as evident by the documents below, I was actually charged after the MOSL Scores
were issued by the Department of Education and after the MOSL Scores were
received by school administrators. I was charged with the 3020a on Monday,
September 8, 2014, at the end of the school day, (days after setting up the
classroom for the school year and days after interacting with the students
assigned to my care).
The MOSL scores were issued by the
Department of Education prior to September 08, 2014. The MOSL Scores were
actually issued on Tuesday, September 02, 2014; seven (7) days prior to me
being charged with the 3020a and thus while I was still in the system. This is
clear-cut evidence of fraudulent, unethical, and immoral behavior. This is blatant
obstruction of justice.
Additionally, school administrators had
forgotten or conveniently ignored the fact that they had actually placed a hard
copy of my MOSL Scores inside my assigned mailbox in the main office of the
school. School administrators had also forgotten or conveniently ignored the
fact that I then provided this information to United Federation of Teachers
(UFT) Union Officials, whom made copies, electronically scanned, and
electronically forwarded said document, along with many other documents, directly
to the Department of Education in order to prepare for the 3020a charges which
I was formally appealing.
Why are government officials,
that are entrusted with the
safety and education of children and
entrusted with being role models to professionals
and the public,
allowed to repeatedly violate the law and
human rights?
We cannot hope to create effective plan
of corrections as long as we continue to ignore one of the most instrumental
factors to the suppression of effective teaching and learning; abuse of power
by our “leaders”.
Please help Educators facilitate
high standards.
Thank you immensely for your time
and energy. Best wishes to all, always.
Sincerely,
Luis Angel Perez,
Middle School Science & Mathematics,
First Grade, Fourth Grade Educator & Advocate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)