The New York City "rubber room" for teachers who were removed from the classroom amid allegations of misconduct, but whose union contract protects against being fired, continues to get the attention of the New York Post, including from columnist Andrea Peyser (here).

The Post uncovered another sensational case of a teacher seven years in the rubber room who was accused of sexual molestation. There are about 660 teachers in the rubber room awaiting disciplinary hearings.

State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., of the Bronx, expressed outrage at this latest example in today's Post.

Rubber rooms have come under fire from some state legislators - too few, actually. State Senator John DeFrancisco of Syracuse, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, last week questioned NYSUT and the NYC United Federation of Teachers about the rubber rooms. Michael Mulgrew, the UFT president, responded indignantly based on his contention that most of the cases get hearings within a few months; many are settled beforehand; and that policy should not be dictated by sensationalized cases. Mulgrew also asserted that many teachers languish in the rubber room because the City Department of Education never formally charges the teacher of misconduct (but doesn't want them back teaching, either).

Mulgrew promised at last week's legislative budget hearing to say more about this issue, including a new proposal, in the coming weeks. The union has every incentive to want this issue out of the public domain. That will be interesting given the fact that City officials want this perk clamped down upon.

Rubber Rooms in the Union Contract and Embedded in State Ed Law
In effect, rubber rooms are a contractual issue that protects teachers from being summarily fired and designed to assure due process to the accused, which is agreed upon in the collective bargaining contract and reflective of state law (i.e., section 3020-a of the Education Law). Many teachers indeed languish either because the hearings take too long to schedule, or the legal cost is prohibitively expensive to proceed with firing a teacher.

As part of increasing accountability in education for federal Race to the Top funding, the Regents proposed reforms in the 3020-a teacher disciplinary process to streamline and lower the cost of disciplining teachers. Tellingly, this proposal was ignored in the state legislature to the point where no one dared introduce a bill.

A Hot Potato - Expect Nothing to Change
Unless more outrageous stories appear on the rubber room, I would expect nothing to happen legislatively. In addition, watch for the UFT to take the offensive on this and pin the problem back on the City DOE. The last thing the union wants is to be on the defensive about this, with its lack of accountability on display.

Peter Murphy
for The Chalkboard
(see me Twitter @ PeterMurphy26)