Union Keeps Its Distance From Farina
by Marcia Chambers | October 26, 2009 1:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
What was the role of the teachers union in the Branford school system’s case against Denise Farina? Did the union help the Mary T. Murphy elementary school teacher or did it not?
This question has been on the minds of many as her public termination hearing unfolds at the Community Center on Church St. This Wednesday is the last day of the hearing, and Farina, 49, is expected to testify. Then a three-member Board of Education panel will make a recommendation to the full board on whether to terminate Farina, a tenured teacher at the Mary T. Murphy Elementary School for the last 27 years.
Farina is fighting to save her job. She says she has been unfairly singled out. She has also filed a federal lawsuit against school officials, an action that triggered this termination process.
There has been no union presence at the hearings until Friday when Peter Anaclerio, former president of the Branford Education Association, took the stand. He had been subpoenaed by Farina’s legal team. (He is currently a Republican candidate for the Representative Town Meeting.)
Anaclerio, who teaches at the Walsh Intermediate School, told an audience of 20 people that the primary grievance the union filed was not on behalf of Farina, but against Schools Superintendent Dr. Kathleen Halligan and the Board of Education for their decision to extend Farina’s teacher improvement plan (TIP) year after year. The union, he said, opposed that.
From the time she began teaching until the 2006 school year, Farina had been a kindergarten teacher. A teacher gets tenure after four years. Farina apparently had satisfactory evaluations all those years until she moved into fourth-grade teaching, a period that coincided with serious medical problems. She had back surgery and cancer and suffered from insomnia.
In recent years Farina was placed on a Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) and an Intense Teacher Improvement Plan. (ITIP) . Anaclerio said Dr. Halligan understood the rules. The clear message was that the union discouraged this sort of leniency.
“The union felt that extending the Teacher Improvement Plan more than one or two times was not a strong precedent to set. If the teacher could not pass after one or two times, then the teacher should be terminated,” he said. Farina went through four TIP plans.
Frank Carrano, the president of the Board of Education, and a former head of the New Haven teachers union himself, seemed to be learning something new about the union’s position.
“Does this mean two strikes and you’re out?” he asked.
Anaclerio responded that one or two TIPS “should be enough time to evaluate the teacher.”
Anaclerio said the union was concerned about children in the classroom. He said teachers should get help to teach them but only up to a point.
“You mean one or two times for a TIP and then terminate?” Carrano asked again.
Anaclerio said yes. “Either terminate or put her back in the classroom.”
Carrano said “We should be advised that the union position is one time for improvement” (“or two,” Anaclerio interjected). “The union does not support continuing support for the teacher after that point.”
Anaclerio said the arbitration panel hearing the union’s complaint is expected to rule in January. When these hearings began Farina’s paralegal, Mica Notz, who is overseeing her case, asked that the public hearing be postponed until after the arbitration panel rules. The arbitrators could rule to terminate her.
But Farina had also asked for a public hearing that had to be completed within 75 days. So the panel hearing her case, Carrano, David Squires and Michael Krause went ahead. William Connon, the Board of Education’s outside counsel, serves as overseer.
Under cross-examination Michael J. Rose, who represents the school administration, asked Anaclerio if he had talked to Farina about her situation.
He said he and Farina “had many discussions over Denise’s future.”
At one point, Anaclerio said, “the union made a recommendation that she resign.”
“We did a risk analysis of Denise’s future. We advised her of what would happen if she were to be terminated rather than if she resigned or retired. We knew there were goals of the TIP process that were not being met…. Given what we have seen in this TIP, fighting this case would be difficult,” he said he told her.
All this came during her several serious illnesses when she often absent from school or late to class.
Farina has a serious lateness problem, known as “tardies” in the school trade. That distressed school officials and Halligan, especially when she was seriously late for a fourth-grade field trip.
Anaclerio also testified that the union filed a grievance on Farina’s behalf after she was docked a day’s pay because her classroom on the first day of school was in disarray.
Anthony Buono, the school principal, said the room was not clean or clear or safe. The grievance was rejected at each step and the union decided against taking it to its final step, an arbitration panel.
Several school consultants also testified. Patrick Flynn, director of professional development with the Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES), (pictured) worked with Farina for four sessions beginning May 26, 2009, shortly before the end of the school year. He assisted her with writing lesson plans.
When Notz asked him if four sessions were sufficient time to improve lesson plan skills, he said it was not. “I would like the full support package being an eight-week period,” Flynn said.
He said Farina showed a willingness and eagerness to succeed, and demonstrated professionalism.
Under cross-examination from Rose, Flynn described the first lesson plan Farina showed him. “It was sub-par … It needed a tremendous amount of work.” When Rose asked Flynn if he saw any improvement over the four weeks, Flynn said he did not.
While Rose was questioning Flynn, Carrano asked Attorney David N. Axelrod, the partner in the law firm, to stop talking with Notz because it was “rude” to the witness and made it difficult to hear the testimony.
“You are annoying all of us,” Carrano said, instructing Axelrod to write notes to Notz instead of talking during testimony. Axelrod became visibly upset and left the room for a few minutes. Axelrod is overseeing Notz and from time to time he suggests questions for her.
During additional questioning by Notz, Flynn agreed it would be a struggle for a teacher to begin writing detailed lesson plans if she had not been required to do so for 27 years. However, when Notz asked him if it would be a difficult transition from teaching kindergarten to teaching fourth grade, Flynn said, “The technical application of teaching remains similar.”
Last week a number of Farina’s former colleagues testified that she was a weak teacher.
Notz also questioned Carl Seeley, an eighth-grade teacher at Walsh Intermediate School who also served as the vice president of the teacher’s union. At Farina’s request, he sat in on weekly meetings that Farina had with administrators during the 2008-09 school year.
“There was some tension in the meetings,” he said, in response to Notz’ questioning. He said the last meeting before Farina’s termination “was very tension-filled.”
Other Witnesses
Several parents and grandparents spoke in Farina’s behalf, each describing her skills as a teacher.
“She was a teacher who was kind and approachable. Academically my children were ready when they entered first grade,” said Renee DeAngelo, whose children are now in college.
A grandmother (whom we won’t identify, to protect student privacy) said her grandson had Farina as a fourth-grade teacher two years ago. She testified that he was having problems academically and socially, and that Farina was able to assist him. “I was grateful for her help,” she said.
Another mother, whose two sons had Farina as a summer school reading teacher in the 1990s, testified that both boys were able to increase their reading skills because of Farina’s “compassion and her experience.”
Marylou Duggan testified that both her children had Farina as a teacher in the early 1980s. “My kids had an amazing experience,” she said, adding that Farina inspired her daughter to become a teacher.
One mother, who moved to town from another state, said her daughter improved her reading skills in Farina’s fourth-grade class two years ago. “She made her feel so comfortable and helped her,” the mother testified, adding that the classroom was always “very neat and friendly.”
Jackie Pullen-Daniels, whose granddaughter had Farina for a second-grade teacher last year, said she and her daughter were involved in the girl’s education and were pleased with Farina. Pullen-Daniels, who is an English instructor at a business school, said she was dismayed when she heard about Farina’s hearing.
“I do know she did the job for my granddaughter, and I’m appreciative of that,” she testified. “I’m saddened someone would question her capabilities.”
Two weeks ago, Farina’s father, Joe Farina, took the stand. Joe Farina was Branford High School’s popular athletic director and a former football coach when his daughter first arrived as a teacher in the school system in 1981. He described her recent serious illnesses and said she did not deserve how she was being treated. Joe Farina asked the board to do the “right thing.”
###
Share this story
Comments
Posted by: What? | October 26, 2009 11:14 PM
I do not understand how the union can take a position to not represent a member. That position is against the law.
Posted by: Mica Notz | October 27, 2009 12:43 PM
The real story for those who are interested was that the Board of Education violated the teacher evaluation process on repeated occasions in violation of State Law, State Guidelines, Board of Education policies and the Union contract. This was a repeated offense by the school board and the union contested it. In regards to this particular grievance, the Board of Education at the conclusion of Ms. Farina�s intensive improvement plan failed to a) terminate; b) extend the plan; or c) return the teacher back to her formative cluster. As of December 22, 2008 Ms. Farina was no longer on an improvement plan, but the Board of Education did not, as they were required to do, return Ms. Farina back to the normal evaluation process. In fact, they choose none of the three options that they were required to choose from. The Union filed a grievance for the school boards violation of failing to return Farina back to the normal evaluation process. The reason the teacher was not terminated I am certain is of interest, but for some reason not mentioned. The School Board did not terminate stating in a written Memo to Ms. Farina that it was due to the fact that she had filed a federal lawsuit and had raised questions of bias by the School Principal Buono and the Assistant Principal Briggs. One may consider that since the school board appeared to feel that a question of bias actually existed (otherwise they would have terminated, right?) it was not in the school boards best interest to terminate Farina at that time. The union however, took the position that regardless of the school boards weak case against the teacher at that time, the school board must follow the specific and specified policies of the evaluation process. Does that mean that the union was not backing Farina as suggested in this article? It may possibly mean that the Union�s position is that a school board should not have the opportunity to build a case against a teacher with repeated improvement plans until it feels it has enough damaging evidence to ensure a win.
The article further does not mention that there are three pending grievances in regards to violations of Ms. Farina�s contractual rights, although only one is mentioned in this article. The other two are against the Board of Education for their violation of Connecticut law in improperly terminating the teacher in violation of the evaluation process because at the time, Ms. Farina was not on an intensive improvement plan and according to state law, board policy and union contract, a teacher can only be terminated at the conclusion of an �intensive� improvement plan and therefore Farina�s rights had been violated and she has been wrongfully terminated. The other grievance pending is against the Commissioner of the Board of Education, Frank Carrano (who also sits as an unbiased panel member in these hearings) for interfering with the teacher�s grievance rights. Commissioner Carrano denied Ms. Farina her right by contract to be heard by the Board of Education (acting solo without Board Vote) in regards to the alleged safety issues and teaching difficulties in the classroom. Carrano adamantly refused to allow this matter to be discussed during the hearing. The union�s position - two strikes and your out - was taken out of content as it was obvious that the real issue was that state laws, rules, policies and a contract exist and it is the union�s position that they must be followed. Not only is it a Union responsibility to ensure that the contract is not being violated, there is also a state law that mandates the union grieve any violations that occur by a School Board in regards to the evaluation process. Is this a negative against Ms. Farina, obviously not, she was just the victim. Is this a negative against the Union, obviously not, they are carrying out their responsibilities to the teacher and the agreed upon contract between the Board of Education and the Association. The real issue here and that which should have been reported was that the Branford Board of Education violated state law, district policies, state evaluation guidelines and the Union Contract.
Of further interest, the article does not mention the five teachers that testified in support of Ms. Farina at the last hearing all who worked with her during the last year or two years, including one which was in her classroom every single day last year who indicated nothing but praise for Farina, pointing out that Farina had a highly difficult class last year, including five special Education students in her classroom. Further stating that one of those students who was placed into Farina's classroom in September of 2008 by administration could not even write his own last name upon his arrival to the class and was continually throughout the school year disruptive with behaviors such as banging on his desk and continually taking other students and Ms. Farina off task. When asked if that student's assessment scores and those of the other four special education students were a part of Ms. Farina's overall student assessment scores for the year, the answer was yes. She went on further to state that Farina's lessons were at grade level curriculum, that Farina addressed student learning at all levels in her classroom and she always was supportive to her students and encouraging to her students. If Farina was already on an improvement plan for student learning in her classroom, why would administration feel it was appropriate to place this child, as well as four other special education students who were struggling in Farina's class? Another teacher stated he was knowledgeable about the harassment Farina was facing. A third teacher indicated that a new way of teaching was being implemented into the school and that all teachers were struggling. Then there were the numerous other parent witnesses, many who had their children in Ms. Farina�s classroom last year and the prior year (the relevant time period), all providing praise and support for a kind, caring, experienced and knowledgeable teacher. Yet for reasons unknown, the highly positive support and testimony that Farina has received during these hearings are never mentioned in these articles. One can only speculate as to why this occurs.
Lastly, but more importantly, let me point the reader to the following website:
This website contains my comments and the actual tape recording of the off the record discussions of the actual events that occurred regarding alleged FERPA violations by myself and Farina which Ms. Chambers has so thoughtfully pointed out in several of her articles. There are many violations being disclosed during these contentious hearings, but those violations were not, and have not, been committed by Ms. Farina or myself.
Editor's Note: The writer is Ms. Farina's advocate at the hearings.
Posted by: Ken Mortland | October 28, 2009 2:04 PM
Despite the common belief that unions protect incompetent teachers and force the system to retain them, this hearing has finally made clear the position of the union. None of the union's actions fit the common belief. This union is taking a strong and responsible position. They don't seem to be getting much credit for that action.
Posted by: Tom Burns | October 30, 2009 12:28 AM
Who came up with the bright idea to make her a 4th grade teacher after so many years in kindergarten?---thats the person who needs to be fired----Who in their right mind would do that unless to set her up for failure--T
Posted by: Lisa W. | November 24, 2009 4:23 PM
Mr Anaclerio and the Teacher's Union should be commended for putting their students first. It's sad that it came to this. Tenure is vital for teachers and for school systems. But common sense dictates the children's right to a quality education should not be sacrificed.
Sections
Neighborhood News
Special Sections
Legal Notices
Some Favorite Sites
- 5 Snacks After 10
- Abram Katz
- African independent
- At Risk for HD
- Back To Basics
- Branford Eagle
- Business NH
- CT Business Litig
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Enviro Headlines
- CT Green Scene
- CT Law Tribune
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CTV
- ChiTown Daily News
- Conn Art Scene
- Cornwall-On-Hudson
- Crosscut
- Design New Haven
- Gotham Gazette
- Josiah Brown
- Karman Turn
- La Voz Hispana
- Laurel Club
- Len's Lens
- Magrisso Forte
- Media Attache
- Media Nation
- Medical Intelligence
- Middletown Eye
- MinnPost
- My Left Nutmeg
- NBC 30
- NH Advocate
- NH Register
- NH Review of Books
- Northampton Media
- OneWorld
- Only In Bridgeport
- Oral History Project
- Pittsburgh Dish
- Reddit NH
- See Click Fix
- Smartpill Design
- SoWhay Sonata
- St. Louis Beacon
- Tom Ficklin
- VT Digger
- Valley Independent Sentinel
- Voice of SD
- WFSB-TV
- WPKN Today
- WTNH
- Yale Daily News
- barista
Government/ Community Links
- ALSO-Cornerstone
- Advocate Calendar
- Ald. Meetings
- All Our Kin
- Alliance Theatre
- Arts & Ideas
- Arts Council
- Artspace
- Bar Assn.
- Beth El Keser Israel
- Bikur Cholim
- Bioregional Group
- Birthright
- BlackinCT
- Boys & Girls Club
- CCA
- CCNE
- CTRIBAT
- Chamber of Commerce
- Children's Museum
- City Point
- City of New Haven
- CitySeed
- Citywide Youth
- Columbus House
- Community Loan Fund
- Community Mediation
- ConnCAN
- DESK
- Dariba Referrals
- Data Haven
- Domestic Violence Srvcs.
- Election Volunteers
- Elm City Cycling
- Elm Shakespeare
- Empower NH
- Ezra Academy
- Fellowship Place
- Food Bank
- Friends of East Rock Park
- GAVA
- Habitat For Humanity
- Halsey Associates
- Hill Health
- Hilltop Brigade
- IRIS
- Info New Haven
- Jewish Federation
- Job Finder
- Junta
- LEAP
- Leeway
- Mary Wade
- Music Haven
- NH Land Trust
- NH Museum
- NH Safe Streets
- NH Scholarship Fund
- NH Youth Soccer
- NH/ Leon Sister City
- NHCAN
- Neighborhood Music School
- New Haven 828
- New Haven Reads
- New Life Corp.
- PAR Newsletter
- Parents Available to Help
- Planned Parenthood
- Police
- Preservation Trust
- Public Allies CT
- Public Library
- Public Schools
- Public Works
- ROOF
- Rail Trains Ecology
- Register Calendar
- Rotary
- SAMA
- STRIVE-New Haven
- Sister Cities
- Social Media Club
- Solar Youth
- Soul-O-Ettes
- South Central Behavioral Health Network
- Squash Haven
- Temple Emanuel
- United Way
- Upper State Street Association
- Urban Design League
- Urban Resources Initiative
- Visiting Nurse Association of South Central Connecticut
- W'ville Synagogue
- W. Square Blockwatch
- WalkBIkeCT
- Westville Chabad
- Westville Renaissance
- Wooster Sq MT
- Workforce Alliance
- Yale Events
- Yeshiva NH Shul
- Yeshiva of NH
- Youth Continuum