Decision # D0 809-W.2/4/ Atty TL File #2 D42)-.24/0 Date Rec'd_@L0\09 ‘STATE OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ‘SCHOOL DISTRICT - EMPLOYER — EMPLOYEE RELATIONS In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceeding of SED File No. 9314 ‘The Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Complainant against: Francis Blake Respondeut ~ Tenured 4 Brought Pursuant to NYS Education Law Section 3020-4, Before Alan Berg ! ‘Appearances: For the Department: ‘Michael Best, Esq. General Counsel ‘New York City Department of Education By: Tae Kim, Esq. Of Counsel For the Respondent: James R. Sandner, Esq. by: Catherine V, Battle, Esq, and Jennifer Hogan, Esq.~ Substantial eause rendering Respondent unfit to perform properly his obligations to the service; = Neglect of duty; and = Just cause for termination, ‘The Department bears the burden of proving the charges by a ‘preponderance of the evidence. tthe hearing, the Department withdrew Specifications 1(0), 28), 2(0), 3G), 3(0), 300), (8), 600, 6(0), 86), 9G) and 9(5).. Background Respondent worked as.a social studies cluster teacher at P.. 157 from 1998 until June 2007. During the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 schéol years, Responclent was observed seven times. Six ofthese were formal observations aid fone was an informal observation. ll seven times he received an unsatisfactory evaluation and be received unsatisfactory annual ratings atthe end of each of these two years. All ofthe students taught by Respondent were inthe lower grades, pre-kindergarten through second grade. The Department now seeks to terminate Respondent's employment based on seven specifications alleging incompetence predicated on these seven observations and for two additional specifications alleging insubordination and neglect of duties, respectively. ‘Ramona Duran has been the Principal of P.S. 157 since tha school year. She testified that she implemented thesWoMMomyadelassesy sapgheccamsste2aaS5™She testified without contradiction that during her timeSPECIFICATION 9: On or about June 14,2007, Respondent's lesson was ‘unsatisfactory as detailed in an observation report prepared by A. P. Andrews in that: a) Respondent was approximately thirteen minutes late to class. ) Respondent had to prepare materials during the instructional time. ©) Students were engaged in off task behavior. 4) Students did not respond to the Respondent's question. ©) Respondent answered his own questions. 4). Respondent failed to address the students’ off task behavior. 8) Students did not follow the Respondent's request to turn to their partners. 1) Respondent did not prearrange the room so that all children could be seated. 1). Respondent did not have enough hand-out sheets forall of the students, {). Students continued to engage in off task behavior. ) Students did not complete the writing assignment. 1D) Students did not immediately follow the Respondent’ directive to return to the reading area, 1m) Respondent's lesson went into the next period, 1) Respondent did not give students the instruction needed to be active participants in the lesson, ©) Respondent did not clearly state the teaching point to the students, ) Respondent did not model the thinking he wanted the students to engage in @ Respondent did not cite a purpose for the wading ofthe text. ») Respondent's questioning strategy was inappropriate throughout the lesson. 8) Respondent failed to follow prior directives ofthe administration. ‘The foregoing constitutes: - dust cause for disciplinary action under Education Law Sec. 3020-a; ~ Conduct unbecoming Respondent's position and conduc prejudicial to te good order, efficiency, and discipline ofthe service; ~ Insubordinstion; = Incompetence;