7-12 COMMENTS FOR NX GRADE; SBO'S; CHANGE UFT BY WINNING OVER YOUR SCHOOL

I completely understand how frustrated many teachers have become as the Department of Education keeps adding on extra administrative work to extra days and there is no compensation nor much pushback from the UFT.

I saw that secondary school teachers must now put in 7-12 comments for any student they want to give an incomplete (NX) grade to. I was never required to put in more than one comment for a non-passing grade. Requiring 7-12 comments is extra paperwork. Why isn't the UFT putting in an operational complaint about extra paperwork for this? If teachers just do the extra work and don't put in formal complaints, then teachers are accepting it. I fully understand that in the middle of a pandemic, this is not the biggest concern but if you don't fight it now, it will then be policy. 

The UFT barely raised the issue when the responsibility for students not passing was shifted from the student to the teacher. In retrospect, this has not helped the cause of public education. Putting additional burdens on teachers when students do not succeed will just further cheapen a high school diploma as pedagogues won't want to be bothered with all of the extra work if a pupil does not pass. It's simpler to just pass everyone, whether they deserve to or not. (I'm talking reasonable standards here, not the rare teachers who think middle school or high school is graduate school. That should be dealt with administratively.)

I am also hearing from multiple schools about School-Based Options. There are teachers who want me to have a look at their SBO's before they vote. The SBO process gives individual schools a chance to bend the contract so it works for their particular needs. Fair enough, but when schools use the SBO process to just give away rights to administration, then the UFT should intervene and put a stop to it.

For example, let's examine the Circular 6 process. In secondary schools, the average teacher has five periods of teaching, a duty-free lunch period, a preparation period, and a professional period in an eight period day. For the professional period, teachers can choose three assignments from a menu on their preference sheet and the administration assigns each teacher one of those three preferences. That activity is that teacher's one, and only one, professional assignment. An arbitrator ruled even after the giveback filled 2005 contract that a professional activity is a singular assignment.  

Here is the actual arbitration language:

The Department erred when it assigned more than one professional activity to certain

teachers. The collective bargaining agreement limits the number of professional activities assigned

to a teacher to a single activity irrespective of the number of periods per week devoted to said

activity. 

This is clear, unambiguous language. Why then are chapters agreeing to do two assignments for each teacher? I have heard of schools agreeing to do three or more. 

Why are chapters giving away the right to choose a professional assignment individually?

Why is the UFT allowing schools to vote to do more than one professional activity?

Okay, now I can understand conceding on this issue if the administration is giving something in return. I have heard of a school where the teachers agree to do more than one C6 assignment but the administration limits the number of professional periods per week to three and the other two periods are open so can essentially be extra prep periods. That is called a deal. You want something, we want something so we work out a compromise in the middle. It's a win-win situation. 

However, if everyone just agrees to have all of the teachers give up their right to a preference to use one or two periods a week for a meeting and then the other days, teachers are stuck doing their original professional assignments, how is that a win? Well, if that is the entire professional development obligation for the week (no extended time PD), then it is a victory but if the staff still has to attend PD after school, then this is a complete loss that should not be acceptable to the UFT, even if the school wants it. Teachers might be being bullied into accepting the modification.

Ask questions and make sure you are getting something in exchange for giving up something. It's fairly simple.

For those who really want to be change agents and have at least a few years left in the system, consider running for Chapter Leader next year. The UFT is very democratic at the school level. It is a fair electoral process and the Chapter Leader has enormous say over many day-to-day building issues. 

Remember when I asked if there were a hundred activists ready to get 60 signatures each from high school teachers to fragment the high school division into a separate bargaining unit? Those teachers then could start a move to decertify the UFT as their collective bargaining representative and start a new union. That didn't move too many people to action.

Now, I will add this: 

If there are a hundred people willing to pledge not to join Unity Caucus (Mulgrew's political party) who are willing to do what it takes to be elected Chapter Leader, then you can combine forces and be a real opposition force within the Union. To do this, you need to win the battles in the schools. It isn't easy but it's doable. 

For now, just ask questions and uphold the contract as best as you can.