Retired Unity Chapter Leader Gene Mann writes a weekly online newsletter called The Organizer. He gives some valuable information and provides some editorial comments usually in favor of the Unity Caucus (majority party in the UFT that Michael Mulgrew and Randi Weingarten belong to) party line. This week I was a little surprised to see Mr. Mann stray from party orthodoxy in explaining why we should all contribute to COPE (union political action). Mann made a very good case on why we have to work against state Senator John Flanagan, who leads the Republican caucus in the state Senate.
Here is what he wrote about Flanagan:
John Flanagan (R-East Northport) successfully got S.3501 passed on March 1, 2011, at a time when Bloomberg was poised to lay off 6,000+ of us. The bill eliminated all seniority protections, including callback after layoff. Essentially, if your principal chose you for excessing, you lost your job.
Our friends in the Assembly (think Sheldon Silver) kept that nightmare in the closet and Bloomberg called off the layoffs since he couldn't do them his way.*
Bravo Gene I couldn't agree with you more. Flanagan is bad news for us. Then why did NYSUT in 2016 contribute $109,600 in COPE funds to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee to help elect Republicans to the state Senate so Flanagan can keep his position as majority leader?
Why did Unity/UFT Political Director Paul Egan justify the expenditure at the Executive Board?
It makes no sense at all.
*It should be noted for the record that after the bill in Albany failed to end seniority layoffs for teachers in NYC, Mayor Michael Bloomberg still threatened layoffs and only backed down when the UFT agreed to weekly rotation for Absent Teacher Reserves and for the 2011-12 school year giving up sabbaticals.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
UNITY DOES NOT ALLOW MORE TO PUT TEETH IN RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NACCP MORATORIUM ON NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS
I often wonder why I worked to get a seat at the Delegate Assembly after being a Chapter Leader or Delegate for two decades but then being off after Jamaica High School was closed in 2014. I kind of got used to not being at meetings in the second half of the 2014-15 school year but UFT addict that I am, I ran for office and was elected Delegate even though I was an ATR-Provisional Teacher at Middle College in 2015. Since being back at the DA for over a year now, I notice not much changes; the majority Unity Caucus members still stifle almost all debate.
For the October DA, leaders of the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) came up with a sensible amendment to a resolution supporting the NAACP's call for a moratorium on opening new charter schools. Here is the original UFT resolution:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE NAACP'S CALL FOR A CHARTER SCHOOL MORATORIUM
WHEREAS, charter schools in New York City do not accept or keep comparable numbers of high-needs students as traditional public schools - whether special education students, homeless children or English language learners, according to Department of Education data; and
WHEREAS, while the New York City charters educate a mere 7 percent of the students, they account for 42 percent of the city's suspensions, according to The Atlantic/CityLab, effectively forcing out students who do not fit in; and
WHEREAS, the national board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Oct. 15 took a strong public stand against the expansion of charter schools until charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools, public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system, charter schools cease expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate, and charter schools cease to perpetuate de facto segregation of the highest-performing children from those whose aspirations may be high but whose talents are not yet as obvious; and
WHEREAS, the NAACP has taken this principled stand in the face of intense pressure from well-funded charter school advocates; and
WHEREAS, the Movement for Black Lives and other civil rights groups have also called for moratorium on charter schools; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the UFT affirm and support the NAACP's position on the grounds that, until charter schools embrace the same challenges that public schools face, the NAACP is right to call for a moratorium on their expansion.
The word challenges was very disturbing to some in MORE who wanted to delete the resolved clause and replace it with this amendment:
RESOLVED, that the UFT affirm and support the NAACP's position on the grounds that charter schools create a two tiered, separate and unequal education system so the NAACP is right to call for a moratorium on their expansion.
They asked me to present the amendment and I agreed to do so.
Here is the rationale I worked on in support of the amendment.
I don't believe the word challenges fits in the resolved clause. It could be interpreted to imply that we consider our public school students to be difficult. Public school teachers who choose to work with special education children, English language learners or work in alternative/transfer schools do so because we passionately believe in what these kids can do. The last thing in the world we should ever do is say we want to send them to Eva Moskowitz.
The third whereas clause in our resolution talks about charters not being transparent and accountable, public funds being diverted to charter schools at the expense of public schools, charter schools expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate and de facto segregation. This is much more than it being a matter of charter schools just meeting the same challenges that public schools have. Charter schools are not labs where schools could experiment free of district rules as they were originally intended to be but instead have become a major cause of the development in this country of a two tiered, separate and unequal education system. Those whereas clauses would be better supported with stronger language in the resolved clause.
I never had a chance to present and motivate the amendment because right after Anthony Harmon motivated the original resolution, retiree David Pecararo (who this post is dedicated to) rose to call for debate to be ended. President Michael Mulgrew then did ask for a speaker against and while I was at this point frantically waving my lonely card, he of course looked the other way and called on someone who said a few things and at that point debate was ended. I felt that same old DA frustration that I have endured for twenty-two years.
I saw David after the meeting and he said he called for an end of debate so quickly because it was adjournment time and he wanted to make sure the resolution was dealt with and not postponed until next month. I found that hard to swallow since in my two decades at the DA, I have never seen an item that was up for discussion dropped in the middle because it was 6:00 pm adjournment time. David stated that has happened and then he did apologize to me.
The actual fault rests with Mulgrew who called on a speaker for and then should have not called on David but should have looked for others who wanted to speak against. The President knows full well that Unity speakers do not speak against Unity resolutions except under very rare circumstances and I don't raise my card normally to glow about something the leadership has brought up (plenty of Unity supporters can do that). I was seated at the same angle from the chair as David (just further back) so if the President saw the two of us raising our cards, he should have called on me. I will concede Mulgrew has evolved a little over the years as he at least did ask for a speaker against after the motion to end debate was offered but it's pretty much the same old lack of debate.
That's it for my little rant about how the DA remains a very undemocratic body where the Unity majority abuses its power. I just hope something changes before I leave for good next time.
For the October DA, leaders of the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) came up with a sensible amendment to a resolution supporting the NAACP's call for a moratorium on opening new charter schools. Here is the original UFT resolution:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE NAACP'S CALL FOR A CHARTER SCHOOL MORATORIUM
WHEREAS, charter schools in New York City do not accept or keep comparable numbers of high-needs students as traditional public schools - whether special education students, homeless children or English language learners, according to Department of Education data; and
WHEREAS, while the New York City charters educate a mere 7 percent of the students, they account for 42 percent of the city's suspensions, according to The Atlantic/CityLab, effectively forcing out students who do not fit in; and
WHEREAS, the national board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Oct. 15 took a strong public stand against the expansion of charter schools until charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability standards as public schools, public funds are not diverted to charter schools at the expense of the public school system, charter schools cease expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate, and charter schools cease to perpetuate de facto segregation of the highest-performing children from those whose aspirations may be high but whose talents are not yet as obvious; and
WHEREAS, the NAACP has taken this principled stand in the face of intense pressure from well-funded charter school advocates; and
WHEREAS, the Movement for Black Lives and other civil rights groups have also called for moratorium on charter schools; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the UFT affirm and support the NAACP's position on the grounds that, until charter schools embrace the same challenges that public schools face, the NAACP is right to call for a moratorium on their expansion.
The word challenges was very disturbing to some in MORE who wanted to delete the resolved clause and replace it with this amendment:
RESOLVED, that the UFT affirm and support the NAACP's position on the grounds that charter schools create a two tiered, separate and unequal education system so the NAACP is right to call for a moratorium on their expansion.
They asked me to present the amendment and I agreed to do so.
Here is the rationale I worked on in support of the amendment.
I don't believe the word challenges fits in the resolved clause. It could be interpreted to imply that we consider our public school students to be difficult. Public school teachers who choose to work with special education children, English language learners or work in alternative/transfer schools do so because we passionately believe in what these kids can do. The last thing in the world we should ever do is say we want to send them to Eva Moskowitz.
The third whereas clause in our resolution talks about charters not being transparent and accountable, public funds being diverted to charter schools at the expense of public schools, charter schools expelling students that public schools have a duty to educate and de facto segregation. This is much more than it being a matter of charter schools just meeting the same challenges that public schools have. Charter schools are not labs where schools could experiment free of district rules as they were originally intended to be but instead have become a major cause of the development in this country of a two tiered, separate and unequal education system. Those whereas clauses would be better supported with stronger language in the resolved clause.
I never had a chance to present and motivate the amendment because right after Anthony Harmon motivated the original resolution, retiree David Pecararo (who this post is dedicated to) rose to call for debate to be ended. President Michael Mulgrew then did ask for a speaker against and while I was at this point frantically waving my lonely card, he of course looked the other way and called on someone who said a few things and at that point debate was ended. I felt that same old DA frustration that I have endured for twenty-two years.
I saw David after the meeting and he said he called for an end of debate so quickly because it was adjournment time and he wanted to make sure the resolution was dealt with and not postponed until next month. I found that hard to swallow since in my two decades at the DA, I have never seen an item that was up for discussion dropped in the middle because it was 6:00 pm adjournment time. David stated that has happened and then he did apologize to me.
The actual fault rests with Mulgrew who called on a speaker for and then should have not called on David but should have looked for others who wanted to speak against. The President knows full well that Unity speakers do not speak against Unity resolutions except under very rare circumstances and I don't raise my card normally to glow about something the leadership has brought up (plenty of Unity supporters can do that). I was seated at the same angle from the chair as David (just further back) so if the President saw the two of us raising our cards, he should have called on me. I will concede Mulgrew has evolved a little over the years as he at least did ask for a speaker against after the motion to end debate was offered but it's pretty much the same old lack of debate.
That's it for my little rant about how the DA remains a very undemocratic body where the Unity majority abuses its power. I just hope something changes before I leave for good next time.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
LIVE BLOGGING FROM THE OCTOBER DELEGATE ASSEMBLY (unabridged)
The first Delegate Assembly of the 2016-17 school year is today. Once again these reports from the DA are from a smartphone so I apologize in advance for any errors.
President's Report
President Michael Mulgrew was talking about fighting charter schools when I arrived a bit late.
State and National
Working on standards to replace Common Core. We want ELL and special ed standards.
People angry in DC about John King putting out regulations that are against the law. We are waiting to see changes coming next year after election
State accountability from federal law is important. We want growth to be part of anything on evalutions.
Chicago and Buffalo teachers have tentative contracts. Must see it in context of municipal situation in each city.
In Chicago the pension is underfunded.
Buffalo in austerity as school system has shrunk.
Hard to negotiate when all agree city does not have money.
Mulgrew thanked Mindy Rosier for walking to Albany for education funding.
UFT legislative priorities in Albany for 2017 are to get more funding, stop a constitutional convention (it could be used to steal our pensions), not lift the charter cap and fixing the teacher evaluation system.
Andrew Cuomo has finally visited some NYC public schools to recognize some good teachers.
Local
First UFT English Language Learner conference is booked solid.
NYC school system doing better than ever. We have caught up to state. Graduation rate higher than ever. We have classrooms in NYC with students who speak multiple languages. Conference to deal with this.
We have a book event in the Bronx. Organizer for breast cancer walk is Service Silva who addressed the Delegates.
DOE
CTLE hours. Many questions on PD hours and no answers from DOE.
Register with state during birth month.
DOE has nothing out.
UFT Teacher Center training can go toward hours. Teacher center is approved PD provider.
We need more from DOE.
Teacher Evaluation (APPR)
No agreement. UFT wants multiple measures of student Learning that is not standardized tests for growth.
650 and then 697 rated ineffective first two years of evaluation. Hoping it is lower this year.
We think we are close to an agreement on evaluations with DOE. NYC will lose $500 million in state aid if no agreement.
Matrix says if student learning is good and principal says you are bad you are good.
If principal says you are good and student learning is bad you are good.
It is a fair system.
Out of state many vacancies. Asking parents to sub.
Paperwork
Resolving issues. Bring them to district committees after you try to work it out at school. Chapter leader can file on behalf of school. Goes to central after district. Use process.
UB
Classroom supplies company giving 25% off for supplies. Great vendor.
Staff Director
Leroy Barr reported chapter leaders and delegates who had 100% attendance are being recognized after the meeting.
Parent conferences and Teacher Union Day coming up. Thanksgiving winter clothing drive ongoing. Next DA is Nov 9, the day after the national election.
Question period
Dan Lupkin: 2014 UFT resolution to boycott Staples. How did we spend $170,000 at Staples last year?
Mulgrew Answer: We are getting out of contracts we can and he contacted CFO to make sure we are not spending at Staples. He will get back when there is more information.
Q What do we tell insurance salesman who want to talk at chapter meeting?
A NO.
Q Paras not getting lunch. Must follow IEP kid. Is it proper?
A No
Q No SAVE rooms
A This is not proper. Call UFT safety department. It is a program to help struggling kids.
Q Functional chapters: How do we make them feel like more of a part of the chapter?
A Talk to them, get a functional rep on chapter committee.
Q Question on election. Trump and and Clinton bad. Is there a way to have discussion and debate on having a worker's party in the US?
A Diverse political views go from ultra left to ultra right within UFT. Put up a resolution on this. It is not up to president.
Q Too many emails?
A Paperwork covers electronic stuff too.
Q Principal has gone psychotic. She is not being collaborative. How do we get principals back on track?
A Use consultation committee. Talk to District Rep.
Q Update on maternity leave? Post new resolutions rather than hand them out?
A Moving in electronic direction.
Maternity: Sub costs less than teacher. Costing is moving in right direction. City calling it child acquisition. No mechanism yet. Trying to get it done.
Motion Period
Motion not to support Trump or Clinton and have a worker's party. It did not pass.
Motion for this month. New teacher induction. It is on back of Unity leaflet. It passed.
Special Orders of Business
Janella Hinds motivated a resolution to make it easier to start Career and Technical schools. It passed easily.
Resolution on integrating arts education into curriculum in every school. It passed.
Resolution to mark the anniversary of the 1960 strike. It passed. Leaders from 1960 received a standing ovation.
Resolution on UFT supporting NAACP call for moratorium on new charter schools.
Dave Pecararo from Unity called the question right after someone motivated it. Mulgrew did ask for a speaker against. I tried to amend the resolution but he called on someone else. Resolution passed. I will have more on this in a later posting.
President's Report
President Michael Mulgrew was talking about fighting charter schools when I arrived a bit late.
State and National
Working on standards to replace Common Core. We want ELL and special ed standards.
People angry in DC about John King putting out regulations that are against the law. We are waiting to see changes coming next year after election
State accountability from federal law is important. We want growth to be part of anything on evalutions.
Chicago and Buffalo teachers have tentative contracts. Must see it in context of municipal situation in each city.
In Chicago the pension is underfunded.
Buffalo in austerity as school system has shrunk.
Hard to negotiate when all agree city does not have money.
Mulgrew thanked Mindy Rosier for walking to Albany for education funding.
UFT legislative priorities in Albany for 2017 are to get more funding, stop a constitutional convention (it could be used to steal our pensions), not lift the charter cap and fixing the teacher evaluation system.
Andrew Cuomo has finally visited some NYC public schools to recognize some good teachers.
Local
First UFT English Language Learner conference is booked solid.
NYC school system doing better than ever. We have caught up to state. Graduation rate higher than ever. We have classrooms in NYC with students who speak multiple languages. Conference to deal with this.
We have a book event in the Bronx. Organizer for breast cancer walk is Service Silva who addressed the Delegates.
DOE
CTLE hours. Many questions on PD hours and no answers from DOE.
Register with state during birth month.
DOE has nothing out.
UFT Teacher Center training can go toward hours. Teacher center is approved PD provider.
We need more from DOE.
Teacher Evaluation (APPR)
No agreement. UFT wants multiple measures of student Learning that is not standardized tests for growth.
650 and then 697 rated ineffective first two years of evaluation. Hoping it is lower this year.
We think we are close to an agreement on evaluations with DOE. NYC will lose $500 million in state aid if no agreement.
Matrix says if student learning is good and principal says you are bad you are good.
If principal says you are good and student learning is bad you are good.
It is a fair system.
Out of state many vacancies. Asking parents to sub.
Paperwork
Resolving issues. Bring them to district committees after you try to work it out at school. Chapter leader can file on behalf of school. Goes to central after district. Use process.
UB
Classroom supplies company giving 25% off for supplies. Great vendor.
Staff Director
Leroy Barr reported chapter leaders and delegates who had 100% attendance are being recognized after the meeting.
Parent conferences and Teacher Union Day coming up. Thanksgiving winter clothing drive ongoing. Next DA is Nov 9, the day after the national election.
Question period
Dan Lupkin: 2014 UFT resolution to boycott Staples. How did we spend $170,000 at Staples last year?
Mulgrew Answer: We are getting out of contracts we can and he contacted CFO to make sure we are not spending at Staples. He will get back when there is more information.
Q What do we tell insurance salesman who want to talk at chapter meeting?
A NO.
Q Paras not getting lunch. Must follow IEP kid. Is it proper?
A No
Q No SAVE rooms
A This is not proper. Call UFT safety department. It is a program to help struggling kids.
Q Functional chapters: How do we make them feel like more of a part of the chapter?
A Talk to them, get a functional rep on chapter committee.
Q Question on election. Trump and and Clinton bad. Is there a way to have discussion and debate on having a worker's party in the US?
A Diverse political views go from ultra left to ultra right within UFT. Put up a resolution on this. It is not up to president.
Q Too many emails?
A Paperwork covers electronic stuff too.
Q Principal has gone psychotic. She is not being collaborative. How do we get principals back on track?
A Use consultation committee. Talk to District Rep.
Q Update on maternity leave? Post new resolutions rather than hand them out?
A Moving in electronic direction.
Maternity: Sub costs less than teacher. Costing is moving in right direction. City calling it child acquisition. No mechanism yet. Trying to get it done.
Motion Period
Motion not to support Trump or Clinton and have a worker's party. It did not pass.
Motion for this month. New teacher induction. It is on back of Unity leaflet. It passed.
Special Orders of Business
Janella Hinds motivated a resolution to make it easier to start Career and Technical schools. It passed easily.
Resolution on integrating arts education into curriculum in every school. It passed.
Resolution to mark the anniversary of the 1960 strike. It passed. Leaders from 1960 received a standing ovation.
Resolution on UFT supporting NAACP call for moratorium on new charter schools.
Dave Pecararo from Unity called the question right after someone motivated it. Mulgrew did ask for a speaker against. I tried to amend the resolution but he called on someone else. Resolution passed. I will have more on this in a later posting.
DOES THE UFT/NYSUT HAVE A STRATEGY TO SUPPORT TEACHERS?
The latest report by NYC Educator from the Executive Board leaves me more than a little bit baffled about what the UFT/NYSUT are doing to move forward a pro-teacher agenda in Albany.
Remember two years ago when defeating the Republicans in the New York State Senate was the most important campaign ever for the Union. The Democrats lost and then in 2015 newly reelected Governor Andrew Cuomo, along with the Republicans majority in the Senate and the feckless Democrats in the Assembly responded with the anti-union, anti-public school Education Transformation Act.
New York State United Teachers is now rewarding the Republican Senate Campaign Committee with over $100,000 in 2016. UFT Political Director Paul Egan on Monday told the Executive Board that 35% of the NYSUT membership are Republicans so I guess they aren't the enemy any longer.
I would like to know what the Republican caucus in Albany has done to help public schools and specifically public school teachers in the last few years so that they deserve our financial support? I concede that the Democrats haven't done much for us either but giving money to the Republican caucus led by Senator John Flanagan strikes me as not being the smartest political move in the world. I would support his opponent Peter Magistrale as the Port Jefferson Teachers Association is doing.
Nothing of any substance is changing at the city or state level and yet we are as complacent a union as I have ever seen. The question is why?
Remember two years ago when defeating the Republicans in the New York State Senate was the most important campaign ever for the Union. The Democrats lost and then in 2015 newly reelected Governor Andrew Cuomo, along with the Republicans majority in the Senate and the feckless Democrats in the Assembly responded with the anti-union, anti-public school Education Transformation Act.
New York State United Teachers is now rewarding the Republican Senate Campaign Committee with over $100,000 in 2016. UFT Political Director Paul Egan on Monday told the Executive Board that 35% of the NYSUT membership are Republicans so I guess they aren't the enemy any longer.
I would like to know what the Republican caucus in Albany has done to help public schools and specifically public school teachers in the last few years so that they deserve our financial support? I concede that the Democrats haven't done much for us either but giving money to the Republican caucus led by Senator John Flanagan strikes me as not being the smartest political move in the world. I would support his opponent Peter Magistrale as the Port Jefferson Teachers Association is doing.
Nothing of any substance is changing at the city or state level and yet we are as complacent a union as I have ever seen. The question is why?
Monday, October 17, 2016
WHY IS NYSUT GIVING $109,600 TO REPUBLICAN SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE?
There is an absolute must read blog piece from Bianca Tanis questioning why NYSUT in 2016 has donated $109,600 to the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee. That is up from a $0 contribution in 2014. These are our voluntary COPE funds that we give for political action.
Bianca cites a litany of anti-teacher-anti public education legislation the Republicans in the state Senate have endorsed that are awful including support for expansion of charter schools, keeping the horrible teacher evaluation system, denying public schools proper funding, an education tax credit for private schools and more. Granted, the Democrats haven't been much help to us either and there are Republicans who support public schools but the Republican caucus in the state Senate led by Senator Flanagan offers us basically nothing. Bianca concludes with this:
Is this the cost of a seat at the table? If so, $109,600 is a large chunk of change to sit at a table where we are being served up.
This blog agrees but still can't figure out what NYSUT political "genius" Andy Pallotta and company were up to here.
Bianca cites a litany of anti-teacher-anti public education legislation the Republicans in the state Senate have endorsed that are awful including support for expansion of charter schools, keeping the horrible teacher evaluation system, denying public schools proper funding, an education tax credit for private schools and more. Granted, the Democrats haven't been much help to us either and there are Republicans who support public schools but the Republican caucus in the state Senate led by Senator Flanagan offers us basically nothing. Bianca concludes with this:
Is this the cost of a seat at the table? If so, $109,600 is a large chunk of change to sit at a table where we are being served up.
This blog agrees but still can't figure out what NYSUT political "genius" Andy Pallotta and company were up to here.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
DON'T FORGET TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE DURING YOUR BIRTHDAY MONTH
One of the many provisions of the infamous Education Transformation Act of 2015 concerns teachers registering with the State Education Department. Here is what the UFT is saying in the weekly Chapter Leader Newsletter:
The new state certification requirements that took effect this year have prompted many questions. Here are the highlights in a nutshell: Permanently certified teachers, professionally certified teachers and Level III certified paraprofessionals are required to register with the State Education Department in the month of their birth. During the five-year period starting on July 1, 2016, professionally certified teachers and Level III certified paraprofessionals are also required to collect a total of 100 PD hours, now called Continuing Teacher and Leader Education (CTLE) hours, by a state-approved provider such as the UFT Teacher Center. Members now have to keep their own records. Encourage members to put documentation of workshops they have attended in a CTLE folder. For more details, read the New York Teacher story about the revised certification requirements and this review of the various types of teaching certificates.
Below it says this:
Certification
The new state certification requirements that took effect this year have prompted many questions. Here are the highlights in a nutshell: Permanently certified teachers, professionally certified teachers and Level III certified paraprofessionals are required to register with the State Education Department in the month of their birth. During the five-year period starting on July 1, 2016, professionally certified teachers and Level III certified paraprofessionals are also required to collect a total of 100 PD hours, now called Continuing Teacher and Leader Education (CTLE) hours, by a state-approved provider such as the UFT Teacher Center. Members now have to keep their own records. Encourage members to put documentation of workshops they have attended in a CTLE folder. For more details, read the New York Teacher story about the revised certification requirements and this review of the various types of teaching certificates.
Below it says this:
Certification
Remind members about new certification requirements : The State Education Department has published two online step-by-step guides to help members navigate the changes on how the state manages certification and tracks professional development hours. Members can consult the TEACH account guide for help creating their accounts and then use the registration requirements guide to complete registration. Although these changes went into effect on July 1, members register during the month of their birth. For information about the new registration process, including who must register and when they should register, and how members will track professional development hours, also known as Continuing Teacher and Leader Education (CTLE) hours, you can read the information on the UFT website and review the chart designed by the UFT certification staff for specific details on how these changes affect your members. To register, teachers and paraprofessionals should go to the login page for TEACH. Members without a TEACH account must create one before logging on to TEACH. Please note: Teachers who hold Initial, Transitional A, Transitional B, Internship or Conditional Initial certificates and paraprofessionals who hold Level I or Level II Teaching Assistant certificates DO NOT need to register. Members with a professional or Level III teaching certificate issued after July 1, 2016 were registered automatically.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
MEMBERS STILL WONDERING WHERE THEIR 2016 RETRO PAYMENT IS
Word has pretty much spread around the city that UFT members are getting paid back nothing this October for the interest free loan we made to the city back in the 2014 contract.
Some people are still asking why we are not getting any money this year and have to wait until the middle of October of 2017 to receive the next 12.5% of what we are owed up to that point for work we did from 2009-2011 and should have been paid for back then. Other municipal union workers received 4%+ 4% increases in salary between 2008 and 2010. Educators had to wait until 2014 to get a contract but for some reason we agreed to defer the payments for thosee first two years.
The reason was the city untruthfully cried poverty and the UFT bought it so teachers and other UFT members made an interest free loan to the city. The city is paying us back in interest free installments in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. In addition, only half of the 8% raise other unions received eight years ago has even been added to our semi-monthly paychecks as of now.
Meanwhile, the city has been doing quite well financially as the UFT set an abysmal pattern in 2014 for the current round of bargaining of 10% salary increases over 7 years that other city workers are stuck with. This is because of pattern bargaining which means when one municipal union settles on a raise with the city, then other unions have to follow that pattern in negotiating their contracts.
Throw in those health care cost savings which are still not done and the bottom line is we were given a lousy deal but three out of four teachers voted for it.
Some people are still asking why we are not getting any money this year and have to wait until the middle of October of 2017 to receive the next 12.5% of what we are owed up to that point for work we did from 2009-2011 and should have been paid for back then. Other municipal union workers received 4%+ 4% increases in salary between 2008 and 2010. Educators had to wait until 2014 to get a contract but for some reason we agreed to defer the payments for thosee first two years.
The reason was the city untruthfully cried poverty and the UFT bought it so teachers and other UFT members made an interest free loan to the city. The city is paying us back in interest free installments in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. In addition, only half of the 8% raise other unions received eight years ago has even been added to our semi-monthly paychecks as of now.
Meanwhile, the city has been doing quite well financially as the UFT set an abysmal pattern in 2014 for the current round of bargaining of 10% salary increases over 7 years that other city workers are stuck with. This is because of pattern bargaining which means when one municipal union settles on a raise with the city, then other unions have to follow that pattern in negotiating their contracts.
Throw in those health care cost savings which are still not done and the bottom line is we were given a lousy deal but three out of four teachers voted for it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
WHY CHICAGO MATTERS
Since the formation of the Caucus of Rank and File Educators in Chicago and their victory in the 2010 Chicago Teachers Union election, Chicago has been center-stage for teacher unions. CORE led the way by creating a more militant kind of teacher unionism that had been all but forgotten in most school districts around the country and certainly does not exist in New York City. The 2012 CTU strike led by CTU President Karen Lewis inspired many of us to believe that with member, parent-community support, public school teachers could regain our dignity.
CORE has been reelected twice in Chicago (in 2013 and without opposition this year) so many of us were watching with strong interest how their current contract battle would end. Many were expecting a long strike but instead there is a tentative agreement. The agreement is very controversial.
For a look at what is going on out there, read this piece from Substance Editor/retired teacher George Schmidt. George is kind of the Norm Scott of Chicago (or maybe Norm is New York's George). However, unlike Norm who has been a part of the opposition to Michael Mulgrew's majority Unity Caucus in NYC for decades, George was one of the founders of CORE who defeated their Unity style machine. It looks like George will be one of the leaders opposing the current tentative agreement.
For a more favorable look at the contract, go to of all places Socialist Worker. Even here, they are not glowing in their praise.
In the end, the city mostly caved on the so-called "pension pickup." Nothing will change for current CTU members or anyone still hired this year. Going forward, new hires will have to cover their pension contributions, as the city demanded of all teachers, but they will be compensated for the full amount with bigger paychecks.
Increases in base pay are meager, adding up to 4.5% in the final years of a four-year contract. But the union preserved the "steps and lanes" system that awards pay increases based on seniority and and educational experience. That's a further defeat for (Mayor Rahm) Emanuel, who has demanded that the union abandon steps and lanes since taking office in 2011.
This sort of reads like the material Unity puts out when they try to sell NYC teachers garbage. You know it kind of goes a little like this (warning satire alert):
Joel Klein wanted public terminations of 100 teachers a day who would be fired at high noon in front of their schools until all tenured teachers were eliminated but the Unity team stopped him. They are only firing 50 at a time and the terminations will only take place once a week. We can hold out until there is a new mayor. What a victory!
Someone sent ICE a copy of the Tentative Agreement from Chicago. The job security clause appears to be a little stronger than in 2012 but it looks as though layoffs are still a possibility. There are some gains on class sizes for the early grades. However, if I was a Chicago teacher, I would probably be screaming NO. As I am an outsider, best for me to leave it to the CTU Delegates and Members to make their decision.
This contract is important to activists around the country as Chicago had given so many of us hope for a new day for teacher unions. At the end of the day, maybe we all just become Unity Caucus, putting up futile resistance against overwhelming political forces aligned to destroy public education and teacher unions. Perhaps token defiance is all that is possible.
I'm still not convinced.
CORE has been reelected twice in Chicago (in 2013 and without opposition this year) so many of us were watching with strong interest how their current contract battle would end. Many were expecting a long strike but instead there is a tentative agreement. The agreement is very controversial.
For a look at what is going on out there, read this piece from Substance Editor/retired teacher George Schmidt. George is kind of the Norm Scott of Chicago (or maybe Norm is New York's George). However, unlike Norm who has been a part of the opposition to Michael Mulgrew's majority Unity Caucus in NYC for decades, George was one of the founders of CORE who defeated their Unity style machine. It looks like George will be one of the leaders opposing the current tentative agreement.
For a more favorable look at the contract, go to of all places Socialist Worker. Even here, they are not glowing in their praise.
In the end, the city mostly caved on the so-called "pension pickup." Nothing will change for current CTU members or anyone still hired this year. Going forward, new hires will have to cover their pension contributions, as the city demanded of all teachers, but they will be compensated for the full amount with bigger paychecks.
Increases in base pay are meager, adding up to 4.5% in the final years of a four-year contract. But the union preserved the "steps and lanes" system that awards pay increases based on seniority and and educational experience. That's a further defeat for (Mayor Rahm) Emanuel, who has demanded that the union abandon steps and lanes since taking office in 2011.
This sort of reads like the material Unity puts out when they try to sell NYC teachers garbage. You know it kind of goes a little like this (warning satire alert):
Joel Klein wanted public terminations of 100 teachers a day who would be fired at high noon in front of their schools until all tenured teachers were eliminated but the Unity team stopped him. They are only firing 50 at a time and the terminations will only take place once a week. We can hold out until there is a new mayor. What a victory!
Someone sent ICE a copy of the Tentative Agreement from Chicago. The job security clause appears to be a little stronger than in 2012 but it looks as though layoffs are still a possibility. There are some gains on class sizes for the early grades. However, if I was a Chicago teacher, I would probably be screaming NO. As I am an outsider, best for me to leave it to the CTU Delegates and Members to make their decision.
This contract is important to activists around the country as Chicago had given so many of us hope for a new day for teacher unions. At the end of the day, maybe we all just become Unity Caucus, putting up futile resistance against overwhelming political forces aligned to destroy public education and teacher unions. Perhaps token defiance is all that is possible.
I'm still not convinced.
Monday, October 10, 2016
GEORGE SCHMIDT OFFERS GREAT ADVICE ON UNIONISM (Updated with Tentative Settlement)
While looking for news on the potential for a Chicago Teachers' strike set to start Tuesday, October 11, 2016, I went over to Substance Chicago and there is a piece by editor George Schmidt describing what real unionism is all about. The article describes how to run a picket line properly and deal with scabs. George sums up with perfect advice that I hope the New York City UFT will take.
It's good that we are returning to the ethics of unions: An injury to one is an injury to all! -- NOT "contact the grievance department and maybe with a lot of approvals we might sort of do a grievance or a ULP maybe sometimes but may not whatever..."
If there is a last minute settlement out in Chicago, we will try to keep ICE readers posted. There are negotiations continuing today with the deadline looming at midnight.
If they don't settle, based on what I'm reading from Chicago, it looks like the union will hold strong. I wish we some day soon will have the "all for one, one for all" union spirit here in NYC. We certainly had it at Jamaica High School for the most part.
UPDATE TUESDAY MORNING
There is a tentative agreement in Chicago. It still needs to be approved by the House of Delegates and members but the Chicago Tribune is reporting that there are gains for teachers. As usual, the details will tell the final story.
I don't think this blog has an ounce of influence on what goes on in Chicago but if they achieved an ironclad no layoff agreement and some real financial improvements, then it is a step in the right direction and the CTU's credible strike threat made a big difference.
It's good that we are returning to the ethics of unions: An injury to one is an injury to all! -- NOT "contact the grievance department and maybe with a lot of approvals we might sort of do a grievance or a ULP maybe sometimes but may not whatever..."
If there is a last minute settlement out in Chicago, we will try to keep ICE readers posted. There are negotiations continuing today with the deadline looming at midnight.
If they don't settle, based on what I'm reading from Chicago, it looks like the union will hold strong. I wish we some day soon will have the "all for one, one for all" union spirit here in NYC. We certainly had it at Jamaica High School for the most part.
UPDATE TUESDAY MORNING
There is a tentative agreement in Chicago. It still needs to be approved by the House of Delegates and members but the Chicago Tribune is reporting that there are gains for teachers. As usual, the details will tell the final story.
I don't think this blog has an ounce of influence on what goes on in Chicago but if they achieved an ironclad no layoff agreement and some real financial improvements, then it is a step in the right direction and the CTU's credible strike threat made a big difference.
Saturday, October 08, 2016
IS THE UFT CURRICULUM CAMPAIGN MORE BUSYWORK FOR THE MEMBERS?
Michael Mulgrew at the September Chapter Leader meeting made a big deal about the UFT fighting against excessive paperwork and making sure teachers in core subjects have curriculum. How real and how winnable is this battle?
I do take the President at his word that they are trying to stop the excessive paperwork and see to it that everyone has curriculum. This post concentrates on curriculum.
Here is what Arthur Goldstein said in his minutes of the September meeting on this issue:
No. one issue for members, from poll, is paperwork. Was problem years ago, is no provision in contract, yet two years later it remains number one issue. There is a disconnect because things members are doing are things they are not supposed to do, as per contract. Much paperwork is tied to curriculum. Who thinks they get curriculum? Much laughter ensues. Should be a list of topics, with scope and sequence, with what students are expected to know, for semester or year: Why are teachers writing this? Why would a principal ask you to write something she is supposed to supply.
We get paperwork complaints in June because of bad rating fears. Important to file complaints more early. We have to change that culture. Mulgrew's issue is we have to figure who has a curriculum, who doesn't, and how we systematically collect it. DOE has a lot of curriculum offered to principals online. Why do they ask us for it?
If administration just tells teachers to go to the Engage NY website, does that constitute providing a curriculum?
What specifically does our Contract say?
Article 7R2 covers curriculum:
2. Curriculum The Board of Education (DOE) agrees to provide teachers with either a year-long or semester long Curriculum that is aligned with State Standards in all Core Subjects. Curriculum is defined as:
a) a list of content and topics;
b) scope and sequence; and
c) a list of what students are expected to know and be able to do after studying each topic.
Core Subjects are defined as follows: Math (including, but not limited to, Algebra and Geometry), Social Studies, English Language Arts, Science (including, but not limited to, General Science, Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry and Physics), Foreign Languages and other subject areas named by the DOE and shared with the UFT. It is understood that the DOE’s obligation to provide curriculum shall extend to Core courses that may be electives.
It is further understood by both parties that there are instances where teachers may want to participate in the development of curriculum. Such instances include, but are not limited to, the creation of new themed schools or programs within a school, or where a teacher or group of teachers wishes to create or help create a set of lessons around a particular theme or subject, where approved by the principal.
Nothing in this agreement is intended to prohibit voluntary collaboration or work by teachers and other school staff on curriculum. However, if there is a specific request by the DOE or a school administrator for a teacher or teachers to write curriculum, then the teacher(s) must be given sufficient time during the work day to do so, in accordance with provisions of the collective bargaining agreement or given sufficient time after school, in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to Per Session.
This provision seems to give the administrators some work in developing curriculum. But what constitutes an adequate curriculum? As is par for the course, the UFT allows language to be inserted in the contract that lets the DOE off the hook. Here is the last paragraph of Article 7R2:
The failure to provide curriculum as defined above shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in Article Twenty-Two of the collective bargaining agreement. However, such grievances shall be strictly limited to whether a curriculum, as defined above, was provided. The sufficiency and quality of the curriculum provided shall not be grievable.
If administrations provides something from a foreign country or another state or just copies the state rubbish and says it is the curriculum, what can we do about it?
Go out and fight for that curriculum folks. However, when you get a pile of garbage that is called curriculum or are directed to some website for it, I hope if teachers try to grieve that the UFT backs them up. This contractual language unfortunately does not give me too much hope that we will all be receiving adequate curriculum at any time in the near or distant future
I do take the President at his word that they are trying to stop the excessive paperwork and see to it that everyone has curriculum. This post concentrates on curriculum.
Here is what Arthur Goldstein said in his minutes of the September meeting on this issue:
No. one issue for members, from poll, is paperwork. Was problem years ago, is no provision in contract, yet two years later it remains number one issue. There is a disconnect because things members are doing are things they are not supposed to do, as per contract. Much paperwork is tied to curriculum. Who thinks they get curriculum? Much laughter ensues. Should be a list of topics, with scope and sequence, with what students are expected to know, for semester or year: Why are teachers writing this? Why would a principal ask you to write something she is supposed to supply.
We get paperwork complaints in June because of bad rating fears. Important to file complaints more early. We have to change that culture. Mulgrew's issue is we have to figure who has a curriculum, who doesn't, and how we systematically collect it. DOE has a lot of curriculum offered to principals online. Why do they ask us for it?
If administration just tells teachers to go to the Engage NY website, does that constitute providing a curriculum?
What specifically does our Contract say?
Article 7R2 covers curriculum:
2. Curriculum The Board of Education (DOE) agrees to provide teachers with either a year-long or semester long Curriculum that is aligned with State Standards in all Core Subjects. Curriculum is defined as:
a) a list of content and topics;
b) scope and sequence; and
c) a list of what students are expected to know and be able to do after studying each topic.
Core Subjects are defined as follows: Math (including, but not limited to, Algebra and Geometry), Social Studies, English Language Arts, Science (including, but not limited to, General Science, Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry and Physics), Foreign Languages and other subject areas named by the DOE and shared with the UFT. It is understood that the DOE’s obligation to provide curriculum shall extend to Core courses that may be electives.
It is further understood by both parties that there are instances where teachers may want to participate in the development of curriculum. Such instances include, but are not limited to, the creation of new themed schools or programs within a school, or where a teacher or group of teachers wishes to create or help create a set of lessons around a particular theme or subject, where approved by the principal.
Nothing in this agreement is intended to prohibit voluntary collaboration or work by teachers and other school staff on curriculum. However, if there is a specific request by the DOE or a school administrator for a teacher or teachers to write curriculum, then the teacher(s) must be given sufficient time during the work day to do so, in accordance with provisions of the collective bargaining agreement or given sufficient time after school, in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to Per Session.
This provision seems to give the administrators some work in developing curriculum. But what constitutes an adequate curriculum? As is par for the course, the UFT allows language to be inserted in the contract that lets the DOE off the hook. Here is the last paragraph of Article 7R2:
The failure to provide curriculum as defined above shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in Article Twenty-Two of the collective bargaining agreement. However, such grievances shall be strictly limited to whether a curriculum, as defined above, was provided. The sufficiency and quality of the curriculum provided shall not be grievable.
If administrations provides something from a foreign country or another state or just copies the state rubbish and says it is the curriculum, what can we do about it?
Go out and fight for that curriculum folks. However, when you get a pile of garbage that is called curriculum or are directed to some website for it, I hope if teachers try to grieve that the UFT backs them up. This contractual language unfortunately does not give me too much hope that we will all be receiving adequate curriculum at any time in the near or distant future
Thursday, October 06, 2016
PRINCIPALS CAN HIRE ATRS FOR FREE FOR THE YEAR
Absent Teacher Reserves have been put on sale again by the Department of Education. If a school hires an ATR permanently, the ATR will be free for this year, half off for next and 25% off for 2018-19. Principals were given an incentive to hire ATRs in 2008 but the DOE stopped offering incentives in 2010.
Actually, teachers are paid from the same pool of city money so making some cheaper than others to schools for hiring purposes is kind of ridiculous.
Hope some people get hired this time around with the subsidies..
This is from the Principal's Weekly.
All schools
Effective October 5, schools in districts 1-32 that hire Centrally-funded excessed teachers on a regular, permanent (not provisional) basis during the 2016–17 school year, will be eligible for an allocation to subsidize the cost of the teacher to the school. For each of the first three years that the teacher remains at the school, the school will receive the following allocations, reflected in the TO in Galaxy:
§ In Year 1 (FY 17), schools will receive funding for 100% of the cost of the teacher;
§ In Year 2 (FY 18), the funding will cover 50% of the cost of the teacher;
§ In Year 3 (FY 19), the funding will cover 25% of the cost of the teacher; and
§ In Year 4, the school is responsible for the full cost of the teacher.
Tuesday, October 04, 2016
A VIEW FROM A FIRST-TIMER ON THE UFT EXECUTIVE BOARD
Mike Schirtzer from MORE writes about his first two meetings as a member of the UFT Executive Boarad representing the high schools. MORE-New Action won the high school seats in the 2016 UFT election. It is the first time since 2007 that non-Unity endorsed voices are being heard.
The next EB meeting will be Monday Oct. 17, two days before the Delegate Assembly. Feel free to join us. If you wish to speak at the pre-meeting 10 minute time call Howard Schoor's office at the UFT 212-777-7500. Let us know if you are coming.
Arthur Goldstein has published minutes on his blog following each session which we have replicated on the MORE site. Arthur, me, and MORE/NA members will continue to report on these meetings and other contacts with the leadership.
Reports of the meetings can be found on MORE's site.
By Mike Schirtzer
My initial reactions after having participated in my first two meetings as an elected high school representative to the UFT Executive Board as a member of the MORE Caucus.
UFT Members have not been informed on what was going on at Executive Board meetings other than cursory minutes. We are trying to change that by posting detailed minutes and analysis on our blog, linking to it in our weekly updates and having a section of our newsletter dedicated to it.
Issues that impact the day to day working conditions of UFT members and learning conditions for our students are not the focus of the agenda from Unity Caucus. The 7 of us from MORE/NA are all classroom teachers and will fight for these issues. MORE/NA is willing to engage in meetings with leadership to address abusive administrators, DOE meeting with chapter leaders on class-size, forcing Unity to discuss ATRs, paid parental leave and school funding are steps in the right direction. This is a 3 year term and we must do everything we can to best represent the working educators of the UFT.
I approach my upcoming 3-year term with the attitude that we are not there to embarrass the leadership, but to challenge and find ways we can work together with the Unity Caucus' UFT officers to address issues of concern to the membership. But if we have to embarrass them to force them to act we will.
One thing we promise is that we will report honestly and openly so we provide the membership with insights on what has generally been a black box of mystery.
Setting the scene
There are 101 members of the UFT EB including the 12 officers. Other than the elected 7 high school MORE/New Action reps, the other 89 are all in Unity Caucus and who adhere to all decisions made by the leadership and vote as a block.
Many members of the UFT Executive Board – if not the majority – are not classroom teachers. There is a large group of retirees and many district reps and other UFT officials. Certainly few are in the classroom full-time. Thus they are not part of the daily routine that goes on in schools they supposedly represent. The 7 of us from MORE/NA are all classroom teachers and come face to face with the issues of concern to UFT members in our schools.
• There is a pre-meeting 10-minute opportunity for the general UFT membership to speak. At the first meeting 4 members of MORE shared the time to speak about working under abusive principals and the general lack of push-back from the union. There was no reaction from the Unity Caucus members.
• UFT Secretary Howard Schoor opens the meeting by reviewing the previous meeting minutes and approving them. Afterwards there’s a question period, followed by Mulgrew’s president report, followed by reports from the districts and then the business part of the meeting which includes discussing proposed resolutions. The official UFT resolutions have been passed by the 12-member AdCom which meets every Friday.
• UFT President Michael Mulgrew doesn’t show until his report and leaves soon after. The Executive Board is supposed to be the one highest bodies of our union, yet the president of our union sees fit leave after his brief report. The questions that Executive Board members ask and the open mic period for rank and file members does not seem to be of any concern for him.
Note: As per past Executive Board representatives from ICE/TJC : (MORE's predecessors) when Randi Weingarten was president she chaired the meeting and stayed the entire time.
• The only report of substance is from UFT Legislative Director Paul Egan who is a great speaker. Agree with him/Unity caucus or not, he brings a thorough report on the presidential election, endorsements, and justification of those endorsements. I only wish school based issues were taken on with as much vigor as Paul tackles politics. Most other reports from the districts, often by district reps, are about organizing for charities or UFT sponsored celebrations, not about the issues going on in the districts.
Thoughts on the 2 meetings I attended so far
• During the question period only the 7 members of MORE/NA have asked questions on the following topics: Abusive Administrators, ATRs, School Funding, Paid Parental Leave, and Class-size are issues, none of which were addressed in the reports by Unity Caucus members.
• At the first meeting, four rank and file speakers and one retiree, all associated with MORE, spoke about their terrible experiences in schools due to abusive administrators. We brought a resolution to Executive Board calling for removal of abusive administrators. I raised it and then MORE/NA Executive Board member Marcus McArthur further motivated by sharing his own experience with a bad principal who openly attacked the chapter leader. It was tabled by Unity Caucus’ leader and Assistant Secretary Leroy Barr, but he agreed to meet with us to work on next steps for addressing this matter. We need to insure that UFT members have the organized defense they need. This meeting should be within the next 2 weeks, updates will follow.
• Class-size: MORE/NA High School Executive board member Arthur Goldstein reported there over-packed classes all over Francis Lewis High School where he is the chapter leader. He also stated there are similar conditions all over Queens high school. UFT leadership agreed to set up a meeting with Arthur, Queens high school chapter leaders, and personnel from DOE to address this issue. Updates to follow.
• ATRs- Former Canarsie High School chapter leader and MORE/NA Ex Bd member Kuljit (KJ) S. Ahluwalia had a first-hand experience of closing school policy and excessing when Canarsie High School was closed down. He has spoken at both meetings about the plight of ATRS. He as asked for data on the teachers currently still in the ATR pool (age, race, license) and what is being done to alleviate the problem. UFT Secretary Howie Shoor, President Mulgrew, and Amy Arundell all gave answers to KJ, not specifics, but generalities such as “ATRs are at the lowest since I been here”, Mulgrew and Arundell reiterated that sentiment.
• Funding- Jonathan Halabi, the only member from MORE/NA that was elected to the previous term, brought up a New Action initiated resolution that passed the Ex Bd a couple of years back calling for UFT to pressure DOE to end the practice of “charging” principals more for experienced teachers. This means that schools that have veteran staff are punished by having less funding for after school programs, less guidance counselors and packed classes. The principal must use those funds to “pay” the staff.
I spoke to this as well, by explaining that this is the situation in my school and it has a negative impact on our chapter. Mulgrew and Schoor both said they would keep pressure on DOE and bring it up at their next consultation meeting with Chancellor Farina. They did say that this is not a contractual bargaining matter, but Mulgrew admitted NYC is one of the few, if not the only school districts in the US that still uses this system. Most school districts assign staff based on number of students, ex. 1 teacher for every 25 students, 1 guidance counselor for every 200 students, etc. I sent my principal’s full budget to Secretary Schoor and we are awaiting his response.
• Paid Family Leave- Ashraya Gupta MORE/NA UFT Ex Bd member brought up that Mulgrew has previously talked about UFT members getting paid parental leave. She spoke of our union being mostly women, many of whom are primary-caregivers and how it is unfair that we do not have this basic human right of paid parental leave yet. She asked what is our union’s position and progress on this matter. Schoor said the city’s non-unionized staff who receive this benefit had to give back money and days off, “the city will give us nothing for free”. Schoor did not articulate what our position is, yet the Delegate Assembly expressed we do not want any give backs.
The next EB meeting will be Monday Oct. 17, two days before the Delegate Assembly. Feel free to join us. If you wish to speak at the pre-meeting 10 minute time call Howard Schoor's office at the UFT 212-777-7500. Let us know if you are coming.
Arthur Goldstein has published minutes on his blog following each session which we have replicated on the MORE site. Arthur, me, and MORE/NA members will continue to report on these meetings and other contacts with the leadership.
Reports of the meetings can be found on MORE's site.
Monday, October 03, 2016
CHICAGO TEACHERS SET OCTOBER 11 STRIKE DATE
For the second time in four years, the teacher in Chicago are being forced to walk off the job by Chicago Public Schools and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
An overwhelming 95% of Chicago Teachers Union members who voted said yes to authorizing a strike. The date set by an almost unanimous House of Delegates is October 11. Members of the CTU are being told to expect a long strike this time around.
Here is the CTU Thunderclap called Fair Contract Now.
It looks like the political climate for the CTU might actually be better this time around as compared to when they last went on strike in 2012. We support them in their struggle.
An overwhelming 95% of Chicago Teachers Union members who voted said yes to authorizing a strike. The date set by an almost unanimous House of Delegates is October 11. Members of the CTU are being told to expect a long strike this time around.
Here is the CTU Thunderclap called Fair Contract Now.
It looks like the political climate for the CTU might actually be better this time around as compared to when they last went on strike in 2012. We support them in their struggle.
 |
| CTU Leaders- Source: Substance Chicago |
Friday, September 30, 2016
UFT WINS ARBITRATION ON PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCES
In a significant victory for Absent Teacher Reserves, Speech Teachers, Pre-K Teachers and other teachers not covered by Advance, an arbitrator has ruled that UFT members are entitled to a lesson specific pre-observation conference before a formal observation.
This is from the NY Teacher with a quote from Grievance Director Ellen Gallin-Procida:
With respect to the principal’s lack of notice, Gallin-Procida said the arbitrator’s ruling “confirms that a formal observation is one where the teacher knows in advance when an administrator is coming.”
There should be no surprise formal observations.
The arbitrator also ruled that post observation and pre-observation conferences are separate meetings according to the NY Teacher.
Teachers are supposed to be rated by formal observations under the old system. Therefore, while informal observations, which should also have a post observation conference, can be placed in teacher files, formal observations are needed for the rating.
This is an important ruling but why wasn't it taken on over two decades ago when this provision was put in the contract for all teachers?
This is from the NY Teacher with a quote from Grievance Director Ellen Gallin-Procida:
With respect to the principal’s lack of notice, Gallin-Procida said the arbitrator’s ruling “confirms that a formal observation is one where the teacher knows in advance when an administrator is coming.”
There should be no surprise formal observations.
The arbitrator also ruled that post observation and pre-observation conferences are separate meetings according to the NY Teacher.
Teachers are supposed to be rated by formal observations under the old system. Therefore, while informal observations, which should also have a post observation conference, can be placed in teacher files, formal observations are needed for the rating.
This is an important ruling but why wasn't it taken on over two decades ago when this provision was put in the contract for all teachers?
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
UFT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE NEW ATR AGREEMENT
Not that much to report out of last nights UFT Executive Board meeting. The big topics, according to Arthur Goldstein's minutes, were an election appeal and the high school reps advocating for their schools and lowering class sizes. The high school reps did not ask for the resolution on abusive supervisors to be taken from the table so it dies. Hopefully, it will be revived in a different form at a future date.
The only surprise from the meeting was to learn that the UFT and Department of Education are in negotiations for a new Absent Teacher Reserve agreement to replace the one that expired last June.
According to President Michael Mulgrew via Arthur's report, "ATR negotiating session did not go well-no agreement."
I have one question: Why don't they ask the rotating ATRs how they feel about negotiating a new ATR agreement? When the union goes to talk with the DOE, we can usually count on our working conditions worsening. I believe that will be the case here as well. I want to be wrong but the union's track record leads me to conclude nothing will improve for ATRs if there is a new ATR agreement.
The only surprise from the meeting was to learn that the UFT and Department of Education are in negotiations for a new Absent Teacher Reserve agreement to replace the one that expired last June.
According to President Michael Mulgrew via Arthur's report, "ATR negotiating session did not go well-no agreement."
I have one question: Why don't they ask the rotating ATRs how they feel about negotiating a new ATR agreement? When the union goes to talk with the DOE, we can usually count on our working conditions worsening. I believe that will be the case here as well. I want to be wrong but the union's track record leads me to conclude nothing will improve for ATRs if there is a new ATR agreement.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL FAMILY DAY AT CITI FIELD
My entire family attended the Mets game as Middle College High School held a staff family day at Citi Field today. I think our school gave the Mets some positive energy as the Mets won 17-0 over the Phillies. It was one of their most lopsided victories in a long time.
Middle College proves over and over again how a dedicated staff with a supportive administration can make all the difference in the world. My family was happy to be a part of this amazing experience today. We had a great time.
Thanks to my social studies colleagues Jay and Jordan for taking and sharing these pictures.
Middle College proves over and over again how a dedicated staff with a supportive administration can make all the difference in the world. My family was happy to be a part of this amazing experience today. We had a great time.
Thanks to my social studies colleagues Jay and Jordan for taking and sharing these pictures.
 |
| The MCHS Crew Takes up Much of the Section. |
 |
| Some of the MCHS Staff along with my Daughter and me. |
 |
| From Left to Right: Camille, Kara, Matthew, James |
Friday, September 23, 2016
LARGE CLASSES CONTINUE IN NYC SCHOOLS
Class size grievance time is upon us. I have worked in a setting since 2014 where oversize classes are frowned upon by the administration. At Middle College High School my class sizes are between 21 and 27. This is manageable at the high school level.
However I am hearing horror stories of the Department of Education packing students in oversize classes. The DOE is once again misusing the half class size exception in the contract to pack academic subject class sizes with over 40 students in them. The DOE does not wish to create new sections of a subject class if the class won't have at least half of that 34 in it. A first grade teacher also told me recently about 33 6 year old kids in the class she was teaching. These stories should never happen.
The DOE agreed to settle the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit in 2007. The goals in the law to be achieved by 2011 was for these to be the average class size numbers in New York City schools.
Grades K-3: 19.9
Grades 4-8: 22.9
Grades 9-12: 24.5
Are you laughing or crying as you read these goals that are in the law?
The UFT contract also mentions the CFE funding in Article 8L where it says:
With regard to the long term recommendations the 2005 Fact Finders made subject to adequate CFE funding, the parties shall establish a Labor Management Committee to discuss the following issues: ...d)a program for the reduction of class size in all grades and divisions.
We have been hearing for about a decade about how the UFT is going to fight for CFE funding to lower class sizes.
Even the class size limits in the contract (K: 25, Grades 1-6: 32, Grades 7-8: 33, Grades 9-12: 34, gym in middle schools and high schools and required music in high schools: 50.
The exceptions to these Article 7M contractual class size limits are wide enough to drive several trucks through. The UFT won't even demand that the loopholes be taken out of the contract even though the law says funding should be provided for significantly lower limits than our contract provides for. The UFT seldom uses the leverage they have. Go figure.
Anybody else want to chime in on class sizes? Chapter leaders should have grieved all oversize classes for teachers after yesterday.
However I am hearing horror stories of the Department of Education packing students in oversize classes. The DOE is once again misusing the half class size exception in the contract to pack academic subject class sizes with over 40 students in them. The DOE does not wish to create new sections of a subject class if the class won't have at least half of that 34 in it. A first grade teacher also told me recently about 33 6 year old kids in the class she was teaching. These stories should never happen.
The DOE agreed to settle the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit in 2007. The goals in the law to be achieved by 2011 was for these to be the average class size numbers in New York City schools.
Grades K-3: 19.9
Grades 4-8: 22.9
Grades 9-12: 24.5
Are you laughing or crying as you read these goals that are in the law?
The UFT contract also mentions the CFE funding in Article 8L where it says:
With regard to the long term recommendations the 2005 Fact Finders made subject to adequate CFE funding, the parties shall establish a Labor Management Committee to discuss the following issues: ...d)a program for the reduction of class size in all grades and divisions.
We have been hearing for about a decade about how the UFT is going to fight for CFE funding to lower class sizes.
Even the class size limits in the contract (K: 25, Grades 1-6: 32, Grades 7-8: 33, Grades 9-12: 34, gym in middle schools and high schools and required music in high schools: 50.
The exceptions to these Article 7M contractual class size limits are wide enough to drive several trucks through. The UFT won't even demand that the loopholes be taken out of the contract even though the law says funding should be provided for significantly lower limits than our contract provides for. The UFT seldom uses the leverage they have. Go figure.
Anybody else want to chime in on class sizes? Chapter leaders should have grieved all oversize classes for teachers after yesterday.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
REORGANIZATION GRIEVANCE PROCESS STILL CAN WORK
One part of the contract that still can work for UFT members is the reorganization grievance process. These are grievances claiming violations of the programming parts of Article 7 of the contract. If a school administration does not follow the contract on honoring preferences, rotation, keeping preparations to a minimum, giving teachers only three classes in a row or four work periods in a row and more, teachers have a legitimate way to address these contractual violations in an expedited manner resulting in their schedules being altered.
Reorganization grievances can succeed because they get to arbitration very quickly. On a regular grievance the administration just denies at the school level and the Chancellor's level (two kangaroo courts) and then it can take years before the union takes the case to an independent arbitrator. Meanwhile, the abuse of the member who filed the grievance continues and other UFT members see that fighting the system is pointless. The regular grievance process is completely broken and has to be restructured to have any chance of giving members any kind of justice.
Only obvious contractual violations get resolved through the regular process. The UFT is completely complicit in allowing the Department of Education to stall. They tell members to grieve and then they just abandon us in many instances after Step II (Chancellor's level).
Reorganization grievances still can be successful because the grievance goes right from the school level to arbitration in an expedited manner. These grievances must be filed within two school days of knowledge of the problem with the program but the Union then schedules many of them directly for arbitration after Step I (Principal's level) which has to be decided within two school days after the grievance is filed. I worked on on a reorganization case this week for someone in another school and we were successful at arbitration.
Teachers should know they have to present their own cases in the reorganization process. Some go to the Superintendent's level while many others go directly to arbitration. I generally write scripts that can basically be read at arbitration and provide talking points for administration's possible rebuttals. UFT does send someone from the Grievance Department to provide support. Principals have Department of Education lawyers to defend them. My experience with the process is that it actually works as long as members are prepared with evidence. It kind of reminds me of small claims court. Smart principals settle these problems in their buildings and don't let them get to arbitration.
We won or resolved so many reorganization grievances in favor of teachers at Jamaica High School that it really made administrators look ridiculous.
Reorganization grievances can succeed because they get to arbitration very quickly. On a regular grievance the administration just denies at the school level and the Chancellor's level (two kangaroo courts) and then it can take years before the union takes the case to an independent arbitrator. Meanwhile, the abuse of the member who filed the grievance continues and other UFT members see that fighting the system is pointless. The regular grievance process is completely broken and has to be restructured to have any chance of giving members any kind of justice.
Only obvious contractual violations get resolved through the regular process. The UFT is completely complicit in allowing the Department of Education to stall. They tell members to grieve and then they just abandon us in many instances after Step II (Chancellor's level).
Reorganization grievances still can be successful because the grievance goes right from the school level to arbitration in an expedited manner. These grievances must be filed within two school days of knowledge of the problem with the program but the Union then schedules many of them directly for arbitration after Step I (Principal's level) which has to be decided within two school days after the grievance is filed. I worked on on a reorganization case this week for someone in another school and we were successful at arbitration.
Teachers should know they have to present their own cases in the reorganization process. Some go to the Superintendent's level while many others go directly to arbitration. I generally write scripts that can basically be read at arbitration and provide talking points for administration's possible rebuttals. UFT does send someone from the Grievance Department to provide support. Principals have Department of Education lawyers to defend them. My experience with the process is that it actually works as long as members are prepared with evidence. It kind of reminds me of small claims court. Smart principals settle these problems in their buildings and don't let them get to arbitration.
We won or resolved so many reorganization grievances in favor of teachers at Jamaica High School that it really made administrators look ridiculous.
Monday, September 19, 2016
WELCOME BACK NON-UNITY ENDORSED REPS ON THE UFT EXECUTIVE BOARD (updated)
For the first time since 2007, tonight's UFT Executive Board meeting will include representatives not endorsed by Michael Mulgrew and Randi Weingarten's Unity Caucus. I am going to the meeting to show support to the seven high school reps from MORE-NEW ACTION.
If there is anything of great significance that is raised, we will certainly report on it but sometimes the most interesting part of the meeting is the food. We can pretty much count on reports from Arthur Goldstein who is now on the Board and Norm Scott.
Report from Meeting
Food was just some wraps. What a letdown.
On a positive note, MORE-NEW ACTION came prepared. Four rank and file members used the open mic to all speak against abusive supervisors (one was primarily there for a Chapter Election complaint but there is a vacancy due to an abusive principal).
All want the union to be more aggressive in going after administrators who get away with treating UFT members horribly.
One of the new high school reps asked about ATRs. Amy Arundel said there were fewer ATRs.
President Michael Mulgrew appeared to give the President's Report. School opening ok. Some schools had to shelter in because of suspicious packages today. No new ATR agreement but fewer ATRs. Negotiating for a new evaluation system. We want authentic assessments in evaluations. Small cities lost a lawsuit. Might make meeting CFE goals tougher on funding. NYC high school graduation rate at 70% for first time ever.
There were some reports from districts on events. Paul Egan gave a legislative report saying the UFT did very well on primary day. He talked about turnout and importance of electing Hillary Clinton.
There was a resolution on streamlining the process to start Career and Technical schools. It passed without opposition.
MORE and NEW ACTION raised a resolution (see below) for the UFT to identify and work to remove from schools abusive administrators. Mike Schirtzer motivated it. He said we have abusive administrators. Some only have two years teaching experience. Principals have incentives to hire junior people through fair student funding. It is a serious issue. Must use any means available to get administrators removed if majority of staff says for two years in a row the administrator is abusive.
Leroy Barr moved to table and then made a speech which is improper. A motion to table is not debatable.
Chair Howie Schoor allowed MORE to respond.
Marcus McArthur from MORE spoke about a principal creating a toxic learning environment when he was a new teacher. Must do what we can to combat administrators in schools like that.
Howie Schoor after Unity voted to table said that principals have a union and collective bargaining rights too.
Resolved, that the UFT will use any means available to pressure the Department of Education to remove from a school any administrator who receives two years of unfavorable ratings from their staff.
If there is anything of great significance that is raised, we will certainly report on it but sometimes the most interesting part of the meeting is the food. We can pretty much count on reports from Arthur Goldstein who is now on the Board and Norm Scott.
Report from Meeting
Food was just some wraps. What a letdown.
On a positive note, MORE-NEW ACTION came prepared. Four rank and file members used the open mic to all speak against abusive supervisors (one was primarily there for a Chapter Election complaint but there is a vacancy due to an abusive principal).
All want the union to be more aggressive in going after administrators who get away with treating UFT members horribly.
One of the new high school reps asked about ATRs. Amy Arundel said there were fewer ATRs.
President Michael Mulgrew appeared to give the President's Report. School opening ok. Some schools had to shelter in because of suspicious packages today. No new ATR agreement but fewer ATRs. Negotiating for a new evaluation system. We want authentic assessments in evaluations. Small cities lost a lawsuit. Might make meeting CFE goals tougher on funding. NYC high school graduation rate at 70% for first time ever.
There were some reports from districts on events. Paul Egan gave a legislative report saying the UFT did very well on primary day. He talked about turnout and importance of electing Hillary Clinton.
There was a resolution on streamlining the process to start Career and Technical schools. It passed without opposition.
MORE and NEW ACTION raised a resolution (see below) for the UFT to identify and work to remove from schools abusive administrators. Mike Schirtzer motivated it. He said we have abusive administrators. Some only have two years teaching experience. Principals have incentives to hire junior people through fair student funding. It is a serious issue. Must use any means available to get administrators removed if majority of staff says for two years in a row the administrator is abusive.
Leroy Barr moved to table and then made a speech which is improper. A motion to table is not debatable.
Chair Howie Schoor allowed MORE to respond.
Marcus McArthur from MORE spoke about a principal creating a toxic learning environment when he was a new teacher. Must do what we can to combat administrators in schools like that.
Howie Schoor after Unity voted to table said that principals have a union and collective bargaining rights too.
Resolution to Use School Survey to Identify and Remove Abusive Administrators
Whereas, UFT members in many chapters are working in fear because of abusive administrators; and
Whereas, too many UFT members are being given unfair adverse ratings by autocratic supervisors; and
Whereas, many administrators have very little experience in the classroom and are provided with a blue-print by superintendents and Department of Education lawyers to remove veteran and new teachers; and
Whereas, our working conditions are our students' learning conditions so when a UFT member is being unfairly treated it has a direct negative impact on students' learning environment; and
Whereas teachers have a limited opportunity to anonymously express their concerns about principals through the New York City School Survey Report, including whether “I feel respected by the principal at this school” and “I trust the principal/school leader at his/her word” and “The principal at this school is an effective manager”;
Resolved, that the UFT will publish the name of any school administrator in email updates, social media, the print and online versions of the New York Teacher and a press release the names of any administrator who receive less than a 50% favorable rating on the NYC School Survey Report from UFT members or when there is a chapter vote of no confidence in that administrator; and be it further
Resolved, that the UFT will use any means available to pressure the Department of Education to remove from a school any administrator who receives two years of unfavorable ratings from their staff.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
UFT NEEDS TO FORCE DOE HAND TO ENFORCE CHANCELLOR'S REGULATION C-33
Most New York City Department of Education employees do not go through their Chancellor's Regulations. UFT members should know these regulations because they are appended to the UFT Contract under Article 20, Matters Not Covered.
Chancellor's Regulation C-33 regulation is called "REMOVAL AND TRANSFER OF PRINCIPALS FOR PERSISTENT EDUCATIONAL FAILURE."
The final standard for removing a principal is this:
Elementary, Middle and High Schools (Including Alternative High Schools and Special Education Schools)
Other Standards: A pattern of failure to adhere to laws and regulations such as SOPMs, Chancellor’s Regulations, circulars, memoranda, local, state and Federal laws and regulations, and collective bargaining agreements.
Chancellor's Regulations are part of our contract. A reason for removing a principal from a school is when he/she does not adhere to collective bargaining agreements. There are probably hundreds of principals that show a pattern of not adhering to any collective bargaining agreements. Why doesn't the UFT go after them en masse using this provision?
It makes sense and it could energize teachers and others to fight back within a school community when there is an abusive principal so it will more than likely never happen with our union leadership.
To be clear, this post is not about about trying to remove from schools average or a little below average principals. We are talking about administrators who consistently abuse their staff. Sadly, they exist and the UFT these days does little or nothing to attempt to compel the DOE to reign them in even when there is language in the Chancellor's Regulations that could be used in our favor.
Chancellor's Regulation C-33 regulation is called "REMOVAL AND TRANSFER OF PRINCIPALS FOR PERSISTENT EDUCATIONAL FAILURE."
The final standard for removing a principal is this:
Elementary, Middle and High Schools (Including Alternative High Schools and Special Education Schools)
Other Standards: A pattern of failure to adhere to laws and regulations such as SOPMs, Chancellor’s Regulations, circulars, memoranda, local, state and Federal laws and regulations, and collective bargaining agreements.
Chancellor's Regulations are part of our contract. A reason for removing a principal from a school is when he/she does not adhere to collective bargaining agreements. There are probably hundreds of principals that show a pattern of not adhering to any collective bargaining agreements. Why doesn't the UFT go after them en masse using this provision?
It makes sense and it could energize teachers and others to fight back within a school community when there is an abusive principal so it will more than likely never happen with our union leadership.
To be clear, this post is not about about trying to remove from schools average or a little below average principals. We are talking about administrators who consistently abuse their staff. Sadly, they exist and the UFT these days does little or nothing to attempt to compel the DOE to reign them in even when there is language in the Chancellor's Regulations that could be used in our favor.
Friday, September 16, 2016
IS EVERYTHING SMOOTH IN THE SCHOOLS?
Arthur Goldstein in his review of Michael Mulgrew's citywide Chapter Leader meeting actually reported that our esteemed UFT President stated that the school opening this year was "smooth." I must work in another system. The reports I get are that the opening was somewhat chaotic in many schools with budgets that have still not recovered from the recession and abusive supervisors running roughshod over UFT members.
In a later posting on the same meeting, Arthur listed poor supervisors, oversize classes, the ridiculous teacher evaluation system, ATRs and other problems as the main concerns of teachers.
People call and email me about grievances sitting around for years waiting to be heard; teachers being brought up on charges and the union doing nothing for them; teachers being rated ineffective and the union sitting around not supporting them and the old standby of oversize classes that the UFT does less and less to lower as the years go by. I also hear constantly from Absent Teacher Reserves who are being targeted by the DOE with nowhere to turn to for help.
So is Mulgrew right that paperwork is the biggest problem in the schools and that there was a wonderful opening this year or are we correct that the system is as bad or maybe even worse than ever as this school year begins? I am seeing low morale and people just holding it together to survive in so many places.
In a later posting on the same meeting, Arthur listed poor supervisors, oversize classes, the ridiculous teacher evaluation system, ATRs and other problems as the main concerns of teachers.
People call and email me about grievances sitting around for years waiting to be heard; teachers being brought up on charges and the union doing nothing for them; teachers being rated ineffective and the union sitting around not supporting them and the old standby of oversize classes that the UFT does less and less to lower as the years go by. I also hear constantly from Absent Teacher Reserves who are being targeted by the DOE with nowhere to turn to for help.
So is Mulgrew right that paperwork is the biggest problem in the schools and that there was a wonderful opening this year or are we correct that the system is as bad or maybe even worse than ever as this school year begins? I am seeing low morale and people just holding it together to survive in so many places.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
LIU LOCKOUT ENDS
Management at Long Island University's Brooklyn campus agreed to end their lockout yesterday so professors will return to work today. Management agreed to extend the current contract through the end of next May while the union agreed not to strike until then. They will be meeting with a mediator now as they try to hammer out a new contract.
The union members will be reimbursed for any health care expenses they incurred while they had their medical benefits taken away from them.
The students held several walkouts during the lockout. They wouldn't agree to be taught by scabs.
The key lesson for teachers is that student/community support is very important during a labor dispute.
The union members will be reimbursed for any health care expenses they incurred while they had their medical benefits taken away from them.
The students held several walkouts during the lockout. They wouldn't agree to be taught by scabs.
The key lesson for teachers is that student/community support is very important during a labor dispute.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
IS YOUR SCHOOL FUNDED FOR AN IEP TEACHER?
Many chapter leaders received an email the other day from longtime UFT Vice President for Special Education Carmen Alvarez (see below). In her email, the VP stated how we should be vigilant in enforcing the recent IEP Teacher posting in schools receiving central funding for this position.
Dear ____________,
Here is my question: In schools where administration is not complying with the posting, are teachers/chapter leaders going to the Union?
I hope so but my guess is in certain schools principals are getting the funding for the IEP Teacher and are out of compliance but nobody is saying a word because some teachers do not think of the UFT as viable option to protect their rights
Dear ____________,
Welcome back! I am writing, as I did last June, because your school has been allocated a centrally-funded IEP teacher position. Under the new posting, which must be used for all centrally-funded IEP teacher positions, IEP teachers will assume a new role as learning specialists. The first few weeks of school will set the course for the rest of the year.
We need your help to ensure that the position is filled as soon as possible and that your IEP teacher’s program meets the requirements in the posting.
Selection of IEP teacher:
- The June 20, 2016 posting about the new IEP teacher position sets out requirements for the role.
- If, prior to the date of that posting, the IEP teacher in your school was selected through the preference process prior to the date of the posting, your principal may keep the selected teacher in the position or use the posting to select a new candidate on an expedited basis.
- Special education teachers who served as education evaluators in your school during the 2002–03 school year have preference for the assignment.
- Schools that choose to continue a previously selected IEP teacher must adhere to the new job description in the posting for the position.
- Issues with selection of the IEP teacher will be addressed through reorganization grievances which must be filed within two days after the employee has knowledge of the decision.
IEP teacher assignment:
- For no fewer than five periods a week, this title serves as the IEP teacher at initial IEP team meetings for newly identified students and provides coverage for special education teachers of students already receiving special education services while they attend IEP team meetings (annual review, three-year review and requested reviews) for their students.
- Up to five periods a week, this position will provide IEP-mandated specially designed instruction, e.g., Special Education Teachers Support Services, part-time Integrated Co-Teaching and part-time special class services to students with disabilities.
- For the balance of the program, this position provides individual or small group reading interventions for special education and at-risk general education students and, after receiving professional development, delivers workshops and provides coaching support to teachers and paraprofessionals on evidence-based reading interventions.
If your IEP teacher’s assignment does not comply with the posting, you should first attempt to resolve the issue with your principal. If you are unsuccessful, seek help from your district representative. Your DR can try to resolve the issue with the district superintendent or DOE Borough Field Support Office. If the issue cannot be resolved, you should file a grievance.
IEP teachers will participate in DOE-provided professional development on their new roles and responsibilities. This PD will take place during the contractual workday at various times during the school year. The first of these sessions will occur in late September and early October.
In the meantime, your IEP teacher should work with the Pupil Personnel Team or other intervention team in your school, become familiar with the reading program and interventions that are currently in place in your school, review available data on students’ reading levels and begin to work with students who need additional support individually or in small groups.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email IEPteacherposting@uft.org.
Sincerely,
Carmen Alvarez
Vice President for Special Education
Vice President for Special Education
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
VOTE ROBERT JACKSON IN WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE STEALTH PRIMARY TODAY
Today is primary election day in New York City with many important races occurring for state Senate and Assembly. Normally I am asked to volunteer to work the phones for UFT candidates. This year I have not received any live phone calls from the UFT on behalf of any endorsed candidate, just a couple of robocalls from political director Paul Egan.
The UFT has endorsed some important candidates including Robert Jackson for State Senate. Some of the UFT endorsements make absolutely no sense but many are solid.
Jackson is running against Micah Lasher for the NY State Senate seat in the 31st Senate District. Jackson was one of the supporters of Jamaica High School when we were battling to stay alive while he was the head of the Education Committee in the City Council. He was one of the leaders in the fight for fair school funding for New York City public schools.
His main opponent is Micah Lasher, one of the most loathsome figures in Mayor Bloomberg's administration. Lasher came to our community on behalf of Bloomberg to sell the Community Board on closing Jamaica High School. He was met with stiff opposition and just ignored the Community Board's concerns and talked right over them. I don't even recall him saying he would take back their views to people at Tweed or City Hall.
Where I live in Queens the UFT has endorsed Clyde Vanel in the 33rd Assembly District. Our voice could actually make a difference in local races as turnout is usually quite low which the UFT acknowledged in the robocall.
If there is a primary in your area today, don't forget to vote. It really does matter particularly in these not so well known races.
The UFT has endorsed some important candidates including Robert Jackson for State Senate. Some of the UFT endorsements make absolutely no sense but many are solid.
Jackson is running against Micah Lasher for the NY State Senate seat in the 31st Senate District. Jackson was one of the supporters of Jamaica High School when we were battling to stay alive while he was the head of the Education Committee in the City Council. He was one of the leaders in the fight for fair school funding for New York City public schools.
His main opponent is Micah Lasher, one of the most loathsome figures in Mayor Bloomberg's administration. Lasher came to our community on behalf of Bloomberg to sell the Community Board on closing Jamaica High School. He was met with stiff opposition and just ignored the Community Board's concerns and talked right over them. I don't even recall him saying he would take back their views to people at Tweed or City Hall.
Where I live in Queens the UFT has endorsed Clyde Vanel in the 33rd Assembly District. Our voice could actually make a difference in local races as turnout is usually quite low which the UFT acknowledged in the robocall.
If there is a primary in your area today, don't forget to vote. It really does matter particularly in these not so well known races.
Friday, September 09, 2016
UFT DUES UP AGAIN (Updated with numbers)
While going through my NY Teacher this afternoon, I noticed that once again union dues are going up for UFT members to $56.65 from $56.10. We are paid semi-monthly so that translates into $1359.60 annually for NYC teachers. Why do dues always increase automtically and why is it the same for every teacher?
Back in 1982 the UFT membership voted to raise dues automatically. This is the structure as amended by the Executive Board in 1999:
As approved by the UFT Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly on Oct. 6, 1999, UFT members dues were reduced to .85 of one percent of the maximum salary of Step 8B plus L20 as defined in the teachers' contract plus the AFT and NYSUT pass-through.
This is a highly regressive structure that I do not support because of the high cost for beginning teachers. It is one of the most regressive taxes one will ever see.
Note that for retirees that dutifully vote for Unity Caucus the rate is only ".4 of one percent based on their retirement allowance." If you make less as a retiree, you pay less. This is not a progressive system but it is not as bad as the active member dues structure.
What does federal labor law say about union dues increases?
Rights regarding dues, initiation fees, and assessments
The rate isn't changing so the UFT is following the law.
Back in 1982 the UFT membership voted to raise dues automatically. This is the structure as amended by the Executive Board in 1999:
As approved by the UFT Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly on Oct. 6, 1999, UFT members dues were reduced to .85 of one percent of the maximum salary of Step 8B plus L20 as defined in the teachers' contract plus the AFT and NYSUT pass-through.
This is a highly regressive structure that I do not support because of the high cost for beginning teachers. It is one of the most regressive taxes one will ever see.
Note that for retirees that dutifully vote for Unity Caucus the rate is only ".4 of one percent based on their retirement allowance." If you make less as a retiree, you pay less. This is not a progressive system but it is not as bad as the active member dues structure.
What does federal labor law say about union dues increases?
Rights regarding dues, initiation fees, and assessments
Increases in the rates of union dues and initiation fees, and the imposition of assessments, are prohibited unless the procedures contained in the Bill of Rights are followed. Briefly, these are—
In local unions, dues and fees may be raised and assessments imposed only by:
In local unions, dues and fees may be raised and assessments imposed only by:
- A majority vote by secret ballot of the members in good standing at a special or regular meeting, after reasonable notice of the proposal has been given; or
- A majority vote of the members in good standing in a secret ballot membership referendum.
Did anyone reading this have a say in that 1982 referendum on dues increases? I guess it lasts forever. Many of today's teachers weren't even born yet in 1982.
The rate isn't changing so the UFT is following the law.
However, challenging the regressive dues structure would be an interesting campaign.
Thursday, September 08, 2016
NO RETROACTIVE MONEY COMING THIS YEAR
Since we returned to school on Tuesday, the question asked of me most often is this:
How much of the money the city owes us from the 2014 contract are we going to get this October?
The answer of course is we aren't getting back anything this year. To put it precisely: $0. We will have to wait until October of 2017 to get the second 12.5% back from what is essentially an interest free loan we made to the city of New York.
We do get a contractual 2.5% increase in May of 2017. In addition, the third of four 2% increases from the 2009-2011 round of collective bargaining that most other city unions received back in those days, and has been in their checks ever since, will be added to our checks beginning next May.
I pointed out to people that asked that the city's "Budget Cushion" aka surplus continues to grow and sits at $9.4 billion. Any which way you slice it, the 2014 deal is a lousy contract.
The number of people who voted no does seem to be rising.
How much of the money the city owes us from the 2014 contract are we going to get this October?
The answer of course is we aren't getting back anything this year. To put it precisely: $0. We will have to wait until October of 2017 to get the second 12.5% back from what is essentially an interest free loan we made to the city of New York.
We do get a contractual 2.5% increase in May of 2017. In addition, the third of four 2% increases from the 2009-2011 round of collective bargaining that most other city unions received back in those days, and has been in their checks ever since, will be added to our checks beginning next May.
I pointed out to people that asked that the city's "Budget Cushion" aka surplus continues to grow and sits at $9.4 billion. Any which way you slice it, the 2014 deal is a lousy contract.
The number of people who voted no does seem to be rising.
Wednesday, September 07, 2016
ICEBLOG STANDS WITH LOCKED OUT LIU TEACHERS
It is quite rare for management to lock out teachers and hire scabs but that is what is occurring as fall classes begin today at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University.
For Professors at Long Island University's Brooklyn campus, Labor Day weekend was anything but a celebration. On Saturday, all 400 members of the faculty union were told that their services were no longer required and that their positions, their health insurance and their campus email accounts were being cut off.
We can't find any prior examples of colleges locking out teachers in a contract dispute.
The LIU faculty union, which is part of NYSUT and the AFT, will be holding a rally this morning at the corner of Dekalb and Flatbush. For any of our retired readers, we hope you can go out and support them.
For Professors at Long Island University's Brooklyn campus, Labor Day weekend was anything but a celebration. On Saturday, all 400 members of the faculty union were told that their services were no longer required and that their positions, their health insurance and their campus email accounts were being cut off.
We can't find any prior examples of colleges locking out teachers in a contract dispute.
The LIU faculty union, which is part of NYSUT and the AFT, will be holding a rally this morning at the corner of Dekalb and Flatbush. For any of our retired readers, we hope you can go out and support them.
Monday, September 05, 2016
TEST SCORES=100% OF RATING FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
For the 2015-16 school year, student test scores were supposed to account for 40% of the annual rating for high school teachers in New York with the other 60% based on observations. Teachers at the elementary and middle school level had the Common Core tests removed from their ratings altogether. However, this little clause in the New York City Department of Education's Advance Overall Ratings Guide means student test grades actually account for 100% of the rating for some teachers:
*NOTE: According to NYCDOE’s New York State Education Department-approved APPR Plan, if a teacher is rated Ineffective for both State and Local MOSLs, s/he will receive an Advance Overall Rating of Ineffective.
I saw this actually happen this year with a teacher who scored more points than needed to avoid an ineffective rating but because of the ridiculous use of a discredited growth model for student test scores on totally unreliable/invalid tests that didn't count for anything for students, the teacher has been rated ineffective overall. How can anyone let this happen?
65-74 total points should equal a developing rating.
75-89 total points should equal an effective rating.
If the teacher only gets 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the state testing part of Measures of Student Learning and only scores 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the local part, the teacher automatically receives an ineffective rating.
Therefore, test scores count for 100% of the rating for some teachers.
A union worth anything would be out on the streets before they would let one person be rated ineffective based on this absurd, highly flawed evaluation system.
I think if the UFT shirks its responsibility to these teachers, it is time for someone on their own to do a follow-up to the Sheri Lederman lawsuit where a judge has already thrown out a ridiculous rating under this awful state law that the UFT supported.
*NOTE: According to NYCDOE’s New York State Education Department-approved APPR Plan, if a teacher is rated Ineffective for both State and Local MOSLs, s/he will receive an Advance Overall Rating of Ineffective.
I saw this actually happen this year with a teacher who scored more points than needed to avoid an ineffective rating but because of the ridiculous use of a discredited growth model for student test scores on totally unreliable/invalid tests that didn't count for anything for students, the teacher has been rated ineffective overall. How can anyone let this happen?
65-74 total points should equal a developing rating.
75-89 total points should equal an effective rating.
If the teacher only gets 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the state testing part of Measures of Student Learning and only scores 12 points out of a possible 20 points on the local part, the teacher automatically receives an ineffective rating.
Therefore, test scores count for 100% of the rating for some teachers.
A union worth anything would be out on the streets before they would let one person be rated ineffective based on this absurd, highly flawed evaluation system.
I think if the UFT shirks its responsibility to these teachers, it is time for someone on their own to do a follow-up to the Sheri Lederman lawsuit where a judge has already thrown out a ridiculous rating under this awful state law that the UFT supported.
Saturday, September 03, 2016
CITY FUNDED PRE-SCHOOL WORKERS REJECT CONTRACT
From DNA Info via Harris Lirtzman:
MANHATTAN — Workers at hundreds of city-funded pre-schools serving low-income New Yorkers have voted down a new union-backed contract — in a surprise upset that forced City Hall to cancel a planned victorious press conference, DNAinfo New York has learned.
A group of 220 union members of the Day Care Local 205 — or about 7 percent of the 3,200 membership — voted "no" to a four-year contract that its parent union, DC 1707, wholeheartedly supported, in an emergency meeting Wednesday night. The contract got 158 votes to ratify, according to a tally from union officials.
The contract would have been the first in the past decade to include a raise for day care workers — many of whom have been toiling at poverty-level wages, including subsisting on food stamps.
So a group of workers barely surviving on subsistence wages who have not had a raise since 2006 are able to say no to the city and their union leaders. I respect their intestinal fortitude.
If only the supposedly much more powerful members of the United Federation of Teachers had acted like the pre-school day care workers and voted against the pathetic 2014 UFT contract negotiated by Michael Mulgrew, then we would have renegotiated when the city was swimming in surplus revenue.
If more teachers showed some courage by standing up to our union bosses, we might not have to wait until 2020 to be paid for work we did back in 2009. Then again, our union has built a formidable machine that it uses to deceive its members when necessary so it's not all on the membership.
MANHATTAN — Workers at hundreds of city-funded pre-schools serving low-income New Yorkers have voted down a new union-backed contract — in a surprise upset that forced City Hall to cancel a planned victorious press conference, DNAinfo New York has learned.
A group of 220 union members of the Day Care Local 205 — or about 7 percent of the 3,200 membership — voted "no" to a four-year contract that its parent union, DC 1707, wholeheartedly supported, in an emergency meeting Wednesday night. The contract got 158 votes to ratify, according to a tally from union officials.
The contract would have been the first in the past decade to include a raise for day care workers — many of whom have been toiling at poverty-level wages, including subsisting on food stamps.
So a group of workers barely surviving on subsistence wages who have not had a raise since 2006 are able to say no to the city and their union leaders. I respect their intestinal fortitude.
If only the supposedly much more powerful members of the United Federation of Teachers had acted like the pre-school day care workers and voted against the pathetic 2014 UFT contract negotiated by Michael Mulgrew, then we would have renegotiated when the city was swimming in surplus revenue.
If more teachers showed some courage by standing up to our union bosses, we might not have to wait until 2020 to be paid for work we did back in 2009. Then again, our union has built a formidable machine that it uses to deceive its members when necessary so it's not all on the membership.
Friday, September 02, 2016
ADVANCE RATINGS IN OUR DOE EMAIL INBOX
For those who worked as regular teachers and were rated in Advance during the 2015-16 school year, our final Advance rating is finally available in our DOE email.
If anyone cares, I am still effective but now I'm highly effective in two out of three categories. I guess I am improving with age.
Well maybe not.
I am not disputing the judgment of the administrators at Middle College High School - where I have worked the last two years - or taking anything away from the fine results on the only Regents exam MCHS kids take. The observations and test results were all thrown into a sausage grinder to make up my rating which went up again this year. However, I don't see myself as any better as a teacher than I was two years ago at Jamaica High School when almost all of the teachers were rated either developing or ineffective in a closing school.
I've altered my style in a progressive school that does not emphasize testing but I'm still basically the same teacher.
Advance to me is a sad joke on all of us and what replaces it will be a bigger one.
If anyone cares, I am still effective but now I'm highly effective in two out of three categories. I guess I am improving with age.
Well maybe not.
I am not disputing the judgment of the administrators at Middle College High School - where I have worked the last two years - or taking anything away from the fine results on the only Regents exam MCHS kids take. The observations and test results were all thrown into a sausage grinder to make up my rating which went up again this year. However, I don't see myself as any better as a teacher than I was two years ago at Jamaica High School when almost all of the teachers were rated either developing or ineffective in a closing school.
I've altered my style in a progressive school that does not emphasize testing but I'm still basically the same teacher.
Advance to me is a sad joke on all of us and what replaces it will be a bigger one.
Thursday, September 01, 2016
NLRB SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
In two rulings last week the National Labor Relations Board decided that charter schools are private corporations whose employees must organize if they want to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act as opposed to state laws for organizing public employees.
These are generally positive decisions. Charter schools are not public schools; they are private schools that the public pays for. Note the 2-1 split on the Board in these NLRB decisions. The two Democrats voted that charters are not public schools while the Republican said they are public schools.
NLRB members are appointed by the President of the United States for five year terms and are confirmed by the Senate.
President Obama's education policy is for the most part worse than we had under President George W Bush. However, a federal bureaucracy including the NLRB run by Republicans presents a major problem for working people, particularly unions.
Read this analysis of labor policy under Bush from Inquires Journal if you don't think it matters to workers which party controls the Department of Labor and the NLRB.
Here is a key line:
This politicization has been widely criticized as having damaged the fairness of decisions rendered by the NLRB. Instead of impartial members making fair decisions, we now see the NLRB disproportionately favoring unions when a Democrat is President, and favoring management when a Republican is President.
Before anyone jumps on me, I am fully aware that the UFT is covered for the most part under the New York State Public Employees Relations Board and not the NLRB but having a Democrat in the White House gives labor a bit more of a chance against our over-funded enemies. The decision that charter schools are private corporations can be used by us to further the cause of real public education.
Overall, the situation for working people under Obama has not improved much in terms of changing labor law. However, under Bush it was worse. Read this example from Inquiries:
One controversial decision made by Bush's NLRB concerned workers' "Weingarten" rights. The name "Weingarten comes from a previous NLRB decision, and refers to the right on an employee to request the presence of a coworker or union official at any investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. The Weingarten representative is present at an interview in order to recall facts that an employee might have forgotten or not been aware of, and to suggest other employees who could have information concerning the case, in order to present a more well-rounded version of what happened in any labor dispute. At the time of Bush's inauguration, non-union workers were able to request the presence of a coworker at such an interview. Bush's NLRB decided to remove this right from all non-union workers which is about 90% of the American workforce. In defense of this decision, the Bush NLRB argued that: coworkers, unlike union representatives, do not represent the interests of the entire workforce; that coworkers do not redress the imbalance of power between employers and employees; that coworkers do not possess the same knowledge base and skill set as a union representative; and that having a coworker present at an investigatory interview could limit the confidentiality of investigatory interviews.
The arguments made by the Bush NLRB in defense of their Weingarten decision do not hold up to much scrutiny, as the National Labor Relations Act is quite clear on this issue. Section 7of the NLRA states that all employees have the right to "engage in...concerted activities for the purpose of...mutual aid or protection." The act does not limit this right to unionized employees, nor does it say that employees may only seek assistance from a representative with certain skills and motives. The confidentiality argument is weak as well, considering that the risk of breach in secrecy is exactly the same with a union representative as with a coworker. However, due to the Chevron decision, no court or governing body is able to evaluate the decision made by this NLRB. This decision limits the Weingarten rights of union employees as well. As was the case with many of their decisions, the Bush NLRB shaped policy in a broad manner, which often did not concern the case at hand. Instead of simply deciding which workers would receive Weingarten rights, the Bush NLRB put more power in the hand of employers who are faced with an employee choosing to exercise his or her Weingarten rights. Following the decision, employers can end the interview at any time, and can choose to refuse any negotiation with the Weingarten representative, Employers can now refuse to discuss certain information, such as medical records, while a Weingarten representative is present. The two labor representatives on the NLRB issued a biting dissent to this decision. They charged that this decision violates Section 7 of the NLRA, by denying American working people the right to seek "mutual aid and Protection," by having a coworker assist them in a meeting that could mean a termination of their employment. The dissenting NLRA members stated, "it is our colleagues who are taking a step backwards... They have over-ruled a sound decision not because they must, and not because they should, but because they can."
(Footnotes were taken out. Please go to Inquires link above for exact citations.)
Control over the federal bureaucracy and judiciary are the main reasons I still usually vote Democrat.
These are generally positive decisions. Charter schools are not public schools; they are private schools that the public pays for. Note the 2-1 split on the Board in these NLRB decisions. The two Democrats voted that charters are not public schools while the Republican said they are public schools.
NLRB members are appointed by the President of the United States for five year terms and are confirmed by the Senate.
President Obama's education policy is for the most part worse than we had under President George W Bush. However, a federal bureaucracy including the NLRB run by Republicans presents a major problem for working people, particularly unions.
Read this analysis of labor policy under Bush from Inquires Journal if you don't think it matters to workers which party controls the Department of Labor and the NLRB.
Here is a key line:
This politicization has been widely criticized as having damaged the fairness of decisions rendered by the NLRB. Instead of impartial members making fair decisions, we now see the NLRB disproportionately favoring unions when a Democrat is President, and favoring management when a Republican is President.
Before anyone jumps on me, I am fully aware that the UFT is covered for the most part under the New York State Public Employees Relations Board and not the NLRB but having a Democrat in the White House gives labor a bit more of a chance against our over-funded enemies. The decision that charter schools are private corporations can be used by us to further the cause of real public education.
Overall, the situation for working people under Obama has not improved much in terms of changing labor law. However, under Bush it was worse. Read this example from Inquiries:
One controversial decision made by Bush's NLRB concerned workers' "Weingarten" rights. The name "Weingarten comes from a previous NLRB decision, and refers to the right on an employee to request the presence of a coworker or union official at any investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. The Weingarten representative is present at an interview in order to recall facts that an employee might have forgotten or not been aware of, and to suggest other employees who could have information concerning the case, in order to present a more well-rounded version of what happened in any labor dispute. At the time of Bush's inauguration, non-union workers were able to request the presence of a coworker at such an interview. Bush's NLRB decided to remove this right from all non-union workers which is about 90% of the American workforce. In defense of this decision, the Bush NLRB argued that: coworkers, unlike union representatives, do not represent the interests of the entire workforce; that coworkers do not redress the imbalance of power between employers and employees; that coworkers do not possess the same knowledge base and skill set as a union representative; and that having a coworker present at an investigatory interview could limit the confidentiality of investigatory interviews.
The arguments made by the Bush NLRB in defense of their Weingarten decision do not hold up to much scrutiny, as the National Labor Relations Act is quite clear on this issue. Section 7of the NLRA states that all employees have the right to "engage in...concerted activities for the purpose of...mutual aid or protection." The act does not limit this right to unionized employees, nor does it say that employees may only seek assistance from a representative with certain skills and motives. The confidentiality argument is weak as well, considering that the risk of breach in secrecy is exactly the same with a union representative as with a coworker. However, due to the Chevron decision, no court or governing body is able to evaluate the decision made by this NLRB. This decision limits the Weingarten rights of union employees as well. As was the case with many of their decisions, the Bush NLRB shaped policy in a broad manner, which often did not concern the case at hand. Instead of simply deciding which workers would receive Weingarten rights, the Bush NLRB put more power in the hand of employers who are faced with an employee choosing to exercise his or her Weingarten rights. Following the decision, employers can end the interview at any time, and can choose to refuse any negotiation with the Weingarten representative, Employers can now refuse to discuss certain information, such as medical records, while a Weingarten representative is present. The two labor representatives on the NLRB issued a biting dissent to this decision. They charged that this decision violates Section 7 of the NLRA, by denying American working people the right to seek "mutual aid and Protection," by having a coworker assist them in a meeting that could mean a termination of their employment. The dissenting NLRA members stated, "it is our colleagues who are taking a step backwards... They have over-ruled a sound decision not because they must, and not because they should, but because they can."
(Footnotes were taken out. Please go to Inquires link above for exact citations.)
Control over the federal bureaucracy and judiciary are the main reasons I still usually vote Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)