The following editorial was originally published in the New York Daily New on February 28th, 2000. Though the "names" may be different, our schools have more in common with the tragedy of New York City then anyone in the Three Village Central School District would ever admit:

The 'U' in UFT

True or false?: "The United Federation of Teachers and the Board of Education are committed to attracting and retaining the most competent staff." Hey, that's an easy question, the answer to which is an obvious... FALSE.

Yet those very same words are set down as fact in Article 8J of the teachers' contract, under the title, "Evaluation and Observation System."

A look at that section of the contract shows just how hard the union makes it to weed out bad-apple teachers.

Tenured teachers receive evaluations once a year. To rate them unsatisfactory — for being inept or chronically absent or insubordinate or for whatever reason — a principal must make numerous classroom observations and document the findings in about a dozen formal letters.

Creating such a paper trail is common practice in most businesses. It ensures fairness for all sides. But in the New York City school system, that is just the beginning of the process — and of a pernicious problem. The UFT contract allows the teacher in question to file a grievance about each and every letter in the file, taking his case to as many as four levels of bureaucracy.

The first level of appeal is to the principal. If that fails, it's on to the district superintendent. And the teacher can continue to appeal to the Board of Ed and the schools chancellor. If unsuccessful, the teacher can take the case to arbitration.

At each step in this costly, time-consuming, tortuous process, the teacher can be represented by the UFT. The union's sole mission seems to be to protect its members from getting the boot. No matter how inept they may be and regardless of the effect on school children.

So much for "retaining the most competent staff."

All the while, the teacher is allowed to remain in the classroom, inflicting incompetence on students. Indeed, at any point, the problem teacher can request "peer intervention." That's a contractual time-out in which a UFT specialist counsels the teacher for a minimum of three months, ostensibly trying to correct the problem. During that time, the principal is forbidden — forbidden! — to even enter the classroom to conduct an evaluation.

How can the principal, the CEO of the school, be held accountable for students' progress, or lack thereof, if he is barred from holding his teachers accountable? To make matters worse, at the end of peer intervention, the principal must begin the evaluation process all over again. From ground zero.

As one 26-year veteran principal told this page: "It's amazing that a principal can go through the process and maneuver through the contract and still run a school. The contract becomes more and more constricting. It's sometimes just easier to work around it."

Many principals do just that by secretly negotiating to transfer an offending teacher to another school, even though that is forbidden by the Board of Ed. Teachers facing discipline eagerly embraced this opportunity because, until Acting Chancellor Harold Levy scrapped the rule last week, teacher evaluations were not forwarded from one school to the next. Transferred teachers could start all over again with a clean slate — and a free pass.

Here's Catch-22. If a principal has the fortitude to continue through all this and manages to make a U-rating stick, the teacher is not allowed to transfer to another school for three years. That is to say, for all his perseverance, the principal is rewarded with an incompetent teacher. Why bother?

That is why, out of more than 72,000 teachers, only 600 were rated unsatisfactory last year. That's less than 1%.

Keep in mind that all this red tape is just to rate the teacher unsatisfactory. To fire a tenured teacher, two consecutive Ratings are required. And they are not enough in themselves. Oh, no. Two Ratings simply begin a different rigamarole. This one is governed by the due-process mechanism outlined in section 3020a of the state Education Law.

Under it, the teacher is suspended and pulled from the classroom — but continues to draw full pay. Unless, that is, the teacher has pleaded guilty or been convicted of a felony drug charge or a felony sex charge involving a student. Then the suspension is without pay. Firing is not automatic, even under those extreme circumstances.

With the taking of depositions, hearings, appeals and other legalistic nuttiness, the 3020a process can drag on for as long as three years. And all the time, the UFT is there, defending the indefensible.

So don't be fooled by the union's noble rhetoric. It's working overtime to protect the worst teachers at the expense of the best. And that's hurting kids every step of the way.

If you believe it is any easier for the Three Village District to rid itself of the inept, think again. Then help eradicate tenure.