Education

Meet the NYC Teacher Who Gets Paid $100K to Ogle 8th Grade Butts & NOT Teach

|

The NY Post introduces the world to 66 year old New York City public school teacher Alan Rosenfeld, the rajah of the city's "rubber room," or holding pen for teachers on full pay who are kept away from the classroom.

In 2001, Rosenfeld was accused (but not convicted) of "ogling eighth-grade girls' butts at IS 347 in Queens" and the typing teacher has been kept away from students as a result. He pulls a salary of $100,049 and can't be fired or forced to retire.

"It's an F-U," a friend of Rosenfeld said of his refusal to quit.

"He's happy about it, and very proud that he beat the system. This is a great show-up-but-don't-do-anything job."…

Rosenfeld and six others whose cases have long been closed are "permanently reassigned." Rosenfeld reports to the Division of School Facilities, which maintains DOE buildings, in a warehouse in Long Island City.

Asked what work he does, Rosenfeld laughingly told his friend, "Oh, I Xeroxed something the other day."

Rosenfeld could have retired four years ago at 62, but his pension grows by $1,700 for each year he stays — even without teaching. If he quit today, his annual pension would total an estimated $85,400.

"Why not make it bigger?" the friend said.

More here.

The rubber room was officially closed in 2010, so the specifics of Rosenfeld's situation won't be repeated in exact detail. But does anybody—certainly anybody with kids in the New York City school system or the taxpayers who fund it—really think that the system has been or will be cleaned up of such atrocious outcomes?

Of course not. And until school systems start over, from the ground up with the kids' interests first and last, you can rest assured that some future monstronsity is busy being born.

In 2006, John Stossel showed how impossible it was for New York to fire incompetent teachers. Check out the incredibly funny-but-crying-on-the-inside-illustrated chart here.

Last week was National School Choice Week, a trans-partisan effort to increase interest in letting kids and parents pick their schools. If you want to avoid the Rosenfelds of the world, that's a good place to start. More info on school choice here.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Advertisement

NEXT: Watching TV Probably Won't Kill You

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The only way to be sure is to nuke it from orbit.

    1. It was a hell of gambol on Mr. Rosenfeld’s part. It appears to have worked out for him.

    2. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  2. very proud that he beat the system.

    He’s an authentic American hero. Was he seated in the First Lady’s box for the SOTU?

    1. Good for him. His employer tried to frame him with some bullshit unprovable PC crime. And now he gets to make six figures for doing nothing. The problem is the NY City Schools not him.

      1. And guess who’s paying his salary

        1. Apathetic voters. Screw them.

          1. I have to agree.

            1. Screw him too.

      2. Getting fired =! prosecuted with a crime
        (although it’s about as hard to fire a teacher as it is to convict him in a court of law)

    2. She may be Sasquatchian but her box couldn’t be that big.

  3. In 2001, Rosenfeld was accused (but not convicted) of “ogling eighth-grade girls’ butts at IS 347 in Queens” and the typing teacher has been kept away from students as a result.

    Isn’t this really the story? First, how is “ogling” even a crime? I don’t see how you can ever prosecute something like that. Who is to say what he was looking at. And beyond that, the guy was never convicted of it. So why the hell isn’t he teaching?

    1. The real story is that the school administrators should be allowed to fire him (for any reason), but they can’t because we have a totally fucked up system.

      1. So that excuses them paying this guy to do nothing on the bases of a bullshit charge that was never proven?

        1. Let me get this straight. Are you not in favor of an employer being able to mitigate their liability by terminating employees?

          1. Sure. But I think employers ought to perhaps fire their people for misconduct that actually occurred. If you can’t prove the guy did it and you can’t fire him, why would you not put him back teaching?

            You guys are like “they should have fired him”. Why? Because someone said something? And if they didn’t fire him, how is that then his fault and not the school’s?

            1. Yeah they should be able to fire him for any reason. And if I were his manager his interpersonal skills and behavior would be very important to me because as a teacher he works in the service industry.

              Just think about it this way – almost all of us agree that public schools are far from ideal and we’d prefer all schools to be privately run. Would you have a problem with a private school firing this guy, considering that his behavior effects their brand?

              1. Whether they should have fired him or not isn’t the question. The issue is why would the school have not put him back teaching after they couldn’t prove he was guilty of anything? If the private school, rather than firing him had paid him to do nothing, that wouldn’t have been his fault, that would have been the school’s fault.

            2. There’s no indication that there wasn’t proof. It didn’t go into too much detail about it. There may have been multiple witnesses and/or incidents.

              “You guys are like “they should have fired him”. Why? Because someone said something?

              Because that’s how it’s done in the private sector, bud. It’s not fair but that’s how it is, and that’s how companies keep their asses out of court.

              And if they didn’t fire him, how is that then his fault and not the school’s?
              What? Who said it’s fault he kept his job?

              1. “Because that’s how it’s done in the private sector, bud. It’s not fair but that’s how it is, and that’s how companies keep their asses out of court.”

                That is not always how it is in the private sector. It depends. People are not fired for every instance of misconduct. Usually it is easier to keep the employee you have rather than risk hiring a worse one.

                It depends on what the facts are, which are unclear in the article. But it is hardly clear that he was guilty. And it is hardly unthinkable that a teacher could be falsely accused by an angry student. So you can’t tell me for sure a private school would have fired him. A private school might have thought he was a good teacher and the evidence against him weak and kept him.

                1. Capital concern-trolling, old chap.

                2. John, that old ‘but we never confirmed that any abuse took place’ excuse is what fueled the Catholic Church’s scandalous behaviour.

                  If it turns out this guy did molest kids after being let back on the job, then you’d be really stupid as an administrator not to see it coming. True, it’s just an unproven charge, but can you face a parent whose kid is abused and say, “but he was never CONVICTED, so I let him back in.”

            3. I don’t think public employers should be able to do so, because without a profit motive to discipline their actions, every kind of injustice can occur.

      2. No, they shouldn’t. Private institutions should be able to, but public institutions should need a valid reason.

      3. That would be a fantastically stupid and short sighted idea because then we’d fire scores of excellent teachers for making too much or gaining too much on their pensions.

      4. You mean any reason except race, gender, sexual orientation, …..

    2. Who is to say what he was looking at.

      I’m sorry, John; look at that photo. That guy was ogling eighth-grade girls’ butts

      1. Bullshit. I don’t know. And even if he was big fucking deal. Are we really going to have a system where any 8th grade girl can get any male teacher fired by saying “he looked at my butt”. Get used to it honey. It is an asset. Best to learn how to use it.

        If he had made some comment, sure. Or if he has assaulted them. But ogling is just too amorphous of a term.

        1. Easy, Big Guy. It was tongue-in-cheek.

        2. the male gaze can be othering

          1. LOL. What a a bunch of PC bullshit.

          2. On the one hand, schools should be able to fire teachers if they want – on the other hand, I can’t really blame this guy for screwing over the system the same way they screwed him over.

        3. I hate PC, too, John. But damn, this is a strange hill to die on. That picture makes me feel pretty violated, and I’m not even an eighth grade girl. Plus I’m almost positive he can’t even really see me. At least, I’m kind of sure he can’t. (Can he…?)

          1. First, you shouldn’t judge people on their looks. Second, fair is fair. If they have a hearing system and this guy won his hearing, he should have been put back in the classroom. How the hell can you acquit a guy at an administrative hearing but punish him any way?

            It is not a strange hill to die on at all. Fair is fair.

            1. Second, fair is fair. If they have a hearing system and this guy won his hearing,

              That only works if the hearing is fair. Which I am reluctant to assume.

              1. Even if the hearing wasn’t fair. Suppose the hearing was stacked in his favor. That says nothing about his guilt or innocence. It is possible to be innocent and also have hearing that is stacked in your favor.

                1. If the hearing wasn’t fair, I don’t see how you can say “Fair is fair, he won his hearing.”

                  What’s fair, BTW, about having him win his hearing and still being barred from teaching?

                  1. What’s fair, BTW, about having him win his hearing and still being barred from teaching?

                    Absolutely nothing RC. That is my whole point. What the hell kind of a hearing system allows them to bar you from teaching even if you win?

            2. “First, you shouldn’t judge people on their looks.”

              Talk about an idiotic PC statement. A person’s looks are the first, and in many cases only, thing we have to judge them with.

              1. So the guy looks kind of old and creep and therefore must be guilty? Yeah, that makes sense because no good looking young guy ever lusted after a teenager.

    3. Well, who knows the truth, but I’m somewhat skeptical that the administration spontaneously did this the first time a student said he did something creepy. It sounds more like the straw that broke the camel’s back. Especially in a place like the NY school system, you don’t take action based on one incident of ogling. And if there wasn’t a pattern, they probably would have called his bluff and stuck him in the worst school in the district if he wanted to keep his job.

      1. If there was a pattern, why couldn’t they win their hearing? Maybe the problem is you can never win a hearing. If a hearing doesn’t end in either the guy being disciplined or returning to class, what the hell kind of a hearing is it? What is the point?

        1. I don’t understand why you’re holding this position. You’re a lawyer, right? If their was another lawyer in your firm that was known to ogle their clients (or jury) would you tolerate their behavior? I’m not even talking about sexual harassment; let’s just say they were generally creepy. Wouldn’t that effect the type of work they would be assigned to do?

          1. If their was another lawyer in your firm that was known to ogle their clients

            How do we know that is true? The guy won is hearing didn’t he?

        2. “If there was a pattern, why couldn’t they win their hearing? Maybe the problem is you can never win a hearing.”

          Coming from a guy who constantly rails against public unions, I find it difficult to believe that you can’t piece this together.

          1. Again though, you assume that he is guilty. Maybe he isn’t. Isn’t it possible that the school system is run by a bunch of PC morons who are paying this guy to do nothing out of “an abundance of caution” rather than any actual evidence he did anything wrong?

            1. “an abundance of caution”

              Not necessarily a bad thing when the alternative could be child molestation.

              Also, aren’t your assumptions that it is a “bullshit” charge just as fraught with uncertainty as assumptions of guilt.

              The system is the problem. If you were the principal or board, would you risk possible molestation with someone who may or may not be guilty of verbal abuse towards middle school girls?

              It the politicians who allow this kind of system in place, pure and simple. Everyone else is just doing what everybody always does, CYA.

              1. The system is the problem. If you were the principal or board, would you risk possible molestation with someone who may or may not be guilty of verbal abuse towards middle school girls?

                That is crazy. Every person in the world may or may not be a molester. You can’t read people’s minds. By that logic, maybe we shouldn’t have teachers at all. I mean why take the risk?

                1. “Every person in the world may or may not be a molester. ”

                  Sure, but not everyone has been accused of “oogling” 8th grade girls. Accusations don’t mean guilt, but surely don’t indicate innocence.

                  I am going to go out on a limb and say that a person with integrity in this situation would resign or retire and get away. If I were falsely accused of sexual advances towards 8th grade girls I was responsible for teaching, I would surely not stick around around and draw payment for a job I wasn’t doing at a place that didn’t want me and was responsible for destroying my reputation.

                  1. Even if you had invested a lot of time and money in getting the necessary credentials, were falsely accused, and could not get any other jobs in the field you had prepared for because of the damage to your reputation?

                    I might just choose to screw over them who screwed over me.

            2. When it comes to the battle between bureaucratic inertia and PC, inertia generally wins.

              Even in workplaces where the boss can fire you because he doesn’t like your taste in shoes, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone get canned over something as ambiguous as one instance of “ogling.” Generally when you get fired over something small, it’s generally because the boss was a hair shy of firing you anyway.

              Basically I’m picturing some administrator breaking into cold sweats because if this dude ever molests one of the kids, his long record of being a creep will come out and the administrator will look like Joe Paterno.

              That’s just me reading between the lines.

              1. Basically I’m picturing some administrator breaking into cold sweats because if this dude ever molests one of the kids, his long record of being a creep will come out and the administrator will look like Joe Paterno.

                Which while I am sure what they were thinking, is complete fucking nonsense. It creates and environment where everyone is innocent until proven guilty (especially men).

                1. I am going to make a leap and say that you or someone close to you has been accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. You vehement defense of a person you do not know and have no details of kind of gives it away. Just remember, that situation has nothing to do with this guy’s guilt or innocence.

                  1. No fuzz let me go out on no limb and tell you are dead wrong. I have never been accused of anything nor has anyone I have ever known. I just have a sense of fair play.

                2. It depends on that dude’s conduct. That’s my point; we don’t know the full story. For all we know he’s been doing lots of other creepy shit. I wouldn’t count on a journalist to tell the whole story for a one off piece.

                3. Agreed – and hasn’t one or two of Sandusky’s accusers already recanted?

                  And of course, a couple of the accusations are bizarre. I’m not convinced that Sandusky is anything other than a man who grew up in the era when men and boys swam naked together at the YMCA (which is to say, as late as the 1960s). Which is to say, he probably saw as completely normal things which are now seen as the depths of perversion, and didn’t even know he was supposed to avoid such situations.

      2. That’s what I’m thinking.

      3. If the complaining little bitch was wounded by ogling, remove her from the school system into a comfortable padded cell.

    4. I had a teacher in 7th grade who was a notorious girl watcher. He was very blatant about it – and the girls I knew were very careful around him.

      The worst part – I was friends with his son. So he was always talking to me.

      1. You and his son ever discuss his behaviour? Was his son even aware of his reputation?

        1. er, no.

          and regarding the 2nd question, I’m not sure since my friend was two grades ahead of me.

    5. It’s not about prosecution. Most people can be fired without cause.

      That said, as far as I’m concerned he’s done nothing wrong. If he has, the bigger problem still lies with the NYC school system. Either they’re paying an innocent guy to do nothing or they’re paying a guilty guy to do nothing.

  4. The problem is the NY City Schools not him.

    Thieving parasite is thieving parasite.

    1. The problem is them. Plural. All of them.

    2. I am sure he would gladly teach if they would let him. It was the school who won’t let him teach on the basis of a bullshit charge not him.

      1. I am sure he would gladly teach if they would let him.

        Based on his comments, I think he’d retire before teaching another class.

        Which suggests an easy way to get rid of him . . . .

        1. Then have him retire. Once again, that is the Board’s fault not his or even the union’s.

    3. Fucking contracts. How do they work?

  5. Meet the NYC Teacher Who Gets Paid $100K to Ogle 8th Grade Butts & NOT Teach

    I would take that job for 50 gees! These guys are overpayin’!

    1. I DO the job for free.

      1. u mean hanging-out in the rubber room or the ogeling?

        1. Re: O3

          u mean hanging-out in the rubber room or the ogeling?

          No, he means the yodeling.

    2. Did you guys miss this bit, the best of all?

      the typing teacher

      1. Well, not everyone’s cut out for the fast paced world of Buggy Whip Instructor.

  6. In 2006, John Stossel showed how impossible it was for New York to fire incompetent teachers.

    It’s been pretty impossible to fire incompetent anybody from the public sector in New York. If it weren’t for the fact that people still get to vote for their reps, you would probably have a self-appointed-for-life senate ruling over all the serfs.

  7. I am sure he would gladly teach if they would let him.

    Of course he would.

    1. Then the problem is the NYC schools. Send his ass back out into the class room. If they couldn’t prove the charge, then that should have ended it. How the fuck can you fire a guy or worse still keep him on the payroll doing nothing when you could never prove he did what he was accused of doing?

      1. Rosenfeld could have retired four years ago at 62, but his pension grows by $1,700 for each year he stays ? even without teaching.

        If he were forced to do his damn job he would probably have retired by now. Allowing him to not do his job and still collect a salary and benefits only serves as a means of bribing him to stay and compounds the raping of the taxpayers’ wallets.

        Sadly, John, no one else here seems to be able to recognize that their misguided efforts to protect the children is actually hurting them because of all of the resources wasted on keeping this teacher in the rubber room instead of the classroom; resources that could be better spent on those very same children. The idiocy of all this is only compounded by the fact that, as a typing teacher at a school for humanities, he position would probably have been forced into early retirement shortly after No Child Left Behind was passed.

  8. That creepy old guy in the park was looking at my butt.

    1. Don’t worry honey. It’s an asset. Learn to use it.

    2. Then don’t go to the park.

    3. Your butt? but you’re under 110 pounds. What kind of self-respecting ogler would look at someone without curves?

      I’m kicking that dude’s ass, but on grounds of poor taste, not because ogling is wrong or even provable.

  9. Here’s my unbelievbly heartless proposal:

    All school employees should be “at will” employees; no union, NO TENURE. Pay them as much as you want, as long as total compensation is cash up front, and make them individually responsible for their taxes, retirement investments, health care, and any other “incidental expenses”.

    1. BUT THATS NOT AMERICAN VALUES

    2. That sounds nice. But you better put it with school choice because such a policy would destroy whatever quality was left in the public schools.

      Your plan would give school administrators power. You really think the brain dead motherfuckers who gave us zero tolerance and strip searches for aspirin could be trusted to wield such power?

      If there was such a policy, I doubt there would be any male teachers who were not coaches left employed within a year. And whatever shreds of competence is left in the system would be completely eradicated.

    3. Tenure’s only point is to preserve independence in research and, I suppose, to a lesser extent, in teaching. That only makes sense in higher education.

      Unions of government employees–is there nothing they can’t mess up?

  10. What was a fucking typing teacher doing making that kind of money in the first place?

    1. It’s New York, where costs are sky high. Cut the number by half to get a comparable salary elsewhere.

  11. I can’t believe they still teach typing in school. They should have fired him because he doesn’t bring any value to the classroom.

  12. If I had a daughter in 8th grade and saw that creep leering at her ass, I’d probably kick him in the nuts.

    1. That’s because you’re a PC loving retard. If you were a good parent, you’d teach your daughter how to use her sexuality to her benefit.

      1. Thinking a bit more about it, I’d probably have her kick him in the nads.

        1. Well, it’s your daughter’s fault for being in school. She should just not go to school if she doesn’t like being oggled by an old man. He can’t help it that he likes young girls. I didn’t realize libertarians were so PC.

    2. That would make him a victim and you a criminal.

    3. Assault is always the best choice.

    4. Your daughter isn’t in eighth grade because she is walking the street.

  13. Your plan would give school administrators power.

    You forgot to change your screen name to “MNG” for that one.

    1. Oh come on Brooks. I agree with you. But you are pissing in the wind if you think that it would fix our schools. The only thing that will fix the schools is competition and the freedom to get your kids out of them.

      What about the track record of public school administrators gives you any reason to believe that they wouldn’t use employment at will as a way to fire anyone who was the least bit competent and made them look bad or in anyway went against the prevailing authority?

  14. Here’s another crazy idea; let the students pick their teachers, instead of assigning them randomly(!) to their classes. A teacher with no students gets dropped from the payroll.

    1. Then the “hard” teachers who push their students to learn will not get picked, while the ones that let them play games and do nothing will.

      1. In that situation, parents would do most of the picking. At least in the early years, before the kid can be trusted.

        1. Better yet, let the parents pick the school. The school that doesn’t get enough students closes.

          1. Personally, I believe in a strict separation of education and state, as the bureaucratic structure imposed by the state undermines its value, but that would be a good start in the right direction.

            1. Yes, bureaucratic structures in education existed in the private market for centuries, but those structures were mostly a natural product of the market; the modern structure is reflective of how the civil services operate and add nothing of functional value to the purpose of education.

  15. I recall a girl while in eighth grade whose incredibly gifted ass and gams were the topic of every guy’s conversations. Let’s just call her Kim because that was her name (looked her up on Facebook a few years back, member of Creative Anachronism and a professor in a biology department). I had her in civics that year, and she sat in the front row. Wore her cheer leading skirt one day, bent over to get some books out from under her desk causing the teacher’s eyes to bug out of her head. Was he a perve? God no. Her ass was incredible. But we did laugh at him and call him one.

    1. his head, jeez. I just knew I corrected that. Damn.

    2. causing the teacher’s eyes to bug out of her head. Was he a perve?

      Que?

    3. But was he creepy looking like the dude in the pic?

      1. He had a porn ‘stache, a bowl cut hairdo like Jimmy Connors, and eyes like Marty Feldman.

        1. so he coulda been looking at you & the wall clock?…rather than leering?

  16. Fucking contracts. How do they work?

    Not very well, when the two “opposing parties” are conspiring to take money from a third party, Diaper Boy.

  17. What about the track record of public school administrators gives you any reason to believe that they wouldn’t use employment at will as a way to fire anyone who was the least bit competent and made them look bad or in anyway went against the prevailing authority?

    And what makes you so sure those competent yet “unfairly” removed teachers couldn’t just go down the road to another school and get snapped up?

    1. Because all public schools are run by the same morons. Again, if you had school choice to go with that, so that there would be private schools to hire these teachers, then sure. But without school choice, it would actually make things worse in many places.

      1. But, but, but with school choice tax dollars would go to religious institutions!

        That, and a private school would never tolerate my little Johnny’s disruptive behavior.

        They’d throw him out.

        You’d have some schools catering to good students and other schools catering to poor ones (division of labor), and that just isn’t fair!

        Not!

        Fair!

        1. There are no bad students sarcasmic. All students can be rocket scientists if we just spend enough money on them.

      2. Seriously though, the problem with school choice is that it would still be tax funded, and with anything of that nature there comes conditions.

        Vouchers and such could force religious institutions to teach about gay sex in the first grade, or other stupid shit like that.

        The end result would likely be the opposite of the intent, with private institutions being forced to lower their standards as a condition of accepting public funds.

        1. That is a good point. But the fact is we will always be funding education. That will never change. So we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. And whatever the risks you talk about are, and they are real, that is still better than a top down public school system.

          1. What’s the point of school choice if as a condition of accepting public funds the private institution must dumb itself down to the level of a top down public school?

            1. You hopefully try to stop that from happening.

          2. Another thing – where do the taxes come from?
            As in are we talking local or state?
            What if you pay taxes into one district, but want to send Johnny to a school in another district?
            That would cause a shitstorm from hell.

            1. Your taxes never go to the school. What happens is, you pay your taxes and get a voucher in return. Then you take that voucher to any school you want. The schools are funded by the vouchers they receive not the taxes of the people who live near them. If they can’t attract students, they don’t get any money.

              1. I like the idea, but I also never underestimate the power of government to fuck up a good thing.

                Since the vouchers come from the government, there will be conditions attached. Before long any school that accepts vouchers, through regulatory compliance, might as well be directly managed by the top down education department.

                It would work for a while, but before long it would result in less choice.

  18. And, if an administrator wants to make room for a better classroom teacher by tossing a poor performer over the side, I have no problem with that.

    And, yes, this system demands that students be able to move freely from one school to another.

  19. The real story here is that typing is still taught in school and that there are typing teachers pulling in six figures.

    1. Re: Thom,

      The real story here is that typing is still taught in school and that there are typing teachers pulling in six figures.

      The real real story is that pundits still peddle the canard that teachers are heroic figures who work long hours for meager wages. I guess teaching kids to type in these times is a heroic endeavor in itself, but I wouldn’t know since I taught myself to type… on a Commodore VIC 20.

  20. I have to agree with John on this one.

    This whole conversation reminds of the “sexual harassment skit on SNL a few years ago. All the girls in the skit instantly called HR to complain when an ugly (“creepy”) guy was even in the same room with them. Then they brought in Tom Brady (yes, the handsome football star) in his underwear and all the girls just fawned and drooled.

    The message: if you are attractive, it is not sexual harassment even if you are dressed in your skivvies.

  21. You’d have some schools catering to good students and other schools catering to poor ones

    Not only that, the curricula in the local/regional school universe would not be homogeneous! And THAT is what really terrifies the Educracy fetishists.

  22. I think the sad thing in this case is that if Rosenfeld were aloud to have stayed in the classroom and were forced to teach, he most likely would have retired long ago. This incident happened in 2001, prior to “No Child Left Behind.” IS 347 is a magnet school for Humanities. What are the chances that they still offer a typing class at that school given the requirements of NCLB and the schools highly focused curriculum? Combine that with the fact that he wasn’t that far from retirement to begin with, he most likely would have been fed up with any number of aspect of his job and left years ago. But by giving him an opportunity to earn full salary and benefits while doing absolutely nothing, NY has given him every reason to stay.

    I agree with John that there Rosenfeld didn’t actually do anything that warranted termination, at least nothing that could be proven. Sure he’s creepy looking, but so are half of the writers at Reason, that doesn’t mean he should be punished for being ugly. If those are the standards we’re willing to set for employment than Nick Gillespie would most likely still be looking for job.

    I’ve tried searching but haven’t been able to determine if IS 347 still offers a typing class. I think determining whether it does or not would go a long way to showing just how stupid NY’s policy really is.

  23. Isn’t $100K a pittance in NYC?

    1. Not if you don’t live in Manhattan.

    2. I have a friend who is an architect living on the island. He makes just over $100k a year and lives in a 1 bedroom, 525 square foot apt. in Chinatown. His rent is more than my mortgage. He says it’s worth it because it only takes him 20 minutes to get to work.

      1. Just remember, those of us in flyover country are drooling morons and rubes.

      2. He says it’s worth it because it only takes him 20 minutes to get to work.

        The insularity of Manhattanites is appalling.

      3. We pay $1200 per month for a 1200sq. feet 3 bedroom in a century-old 20 unit building in Bed-Stuy. We’ve been here several years, new tenants pay $2000 for the same size apartment. Most of this is driven by people like our neighbor who are rent controlled; she’s been in her unit since 1978 and pays only $425 per month.

        The cost of living in NYC is not all that high, except for housing.

  24. This story to me is about PC bullshit and the whole “protect the childrens” mantra. They have a hearing system. If the teacher wins his hearing, that teacher ought to be back teaching end of story. If that system lets Chester the molester back in the classroom, then perhaps people will do something about the system.

    What is happening here is the union hacks who run the school system are wasting tax payer dollars to shield the taxpayer from the consequences of the contracts that the elected officials negotiated. If they started putting these teachers back out in the classroom, people might start objecting to the contracts. And we can’t have that.

  25. […]
    One Queens middle-school girl said he asked her if she had a boyfriend and told her several times that she had “a very sexy body and that [she] should wear a bathing suit to show it off,” according to the report by the office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation.

    Not content to leer at eighth-graders at the former IS 347, Rosenfeld followed older girls at a connecting high school into their classrooms, the probe found.

    He also had to be asked more than once to keep his eyes off their rear ends, according to the report.

    “My shoes are down there, not up here,” one girl told Rosenfeld when he said he was merely eyeing her footwear.

    The report says Rosenfeld was even spotted entering a girls’ bathroom, and that he revoked one eighth-grader’s bathroom privileges after she tried to protect a friend by asking him, “Why are you looking at her butt?”
    […]

    Rubber room ‘perv’ teacher ‘studied’ students

    1. “a very sexy body and that [she] should wear a bathing suit to show it off,”

      Well, it is a typing class. If they’re trying to get into a secretarial pool, bathing attire could be approrpriate.

    2. …revoked her bathroom privileges ?
      WTF ?

  26. Ogling? That’s it? How do you accuse someone of staring too long?

  27. Got into a very heated argument with a friend about school choice and vouchers, etc. He regurgitated the “vouchers are racist’ line. Vouchers “in the south” (code words please) are used to re-segregate schools. Defending the currents schools “system” that is an arm of the NEA, local teachers unions and the Dept. of Education, is inexcusable in my view. Obama, and my friend by the way, send their kids to private schools. But the rest of us peons can’t be trusted to use credits and vouchers to better our child’s chances. We are just racists.

    1. Poor whites must mix with blacks. If they don’t want to, they’re racist.

      Rich whites don’t mix with blacks, because it’s just not sensible.

  28. Rosenfeld could have retired four years ago at 62, but his pension grows by $1,700 for each year he stays ? even without teaching. If he quit today, his annual pension would total an estimated $85,400.

    So this man is wasting away the remaining years of his life sitting around doing nothing just to increase his pension a little bit? That’s pathetic. Talk about a person who has no idea how to enjoy life. Of course, he does get 3 months off every year, and probably works an “eight-and-gate” schedule.

    1. So this man is wasting away the remaining years of his life sitting around doing nothing just to increase his pension a little bit?

      Wasting it? He’s making $100k a year!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.