The State Assembly passed the bill to change the teacher and principal evaluation system to take out the state exams and leave it up to local districts to work out with unions how to do the Measure of Student Learning (MOSL) portion of our annual ratings.
Do you trust Michael Mulgrew and the descendants of Michael Bloomberg-Joel Klein at the DOE who are still in control at the NYC DOE to do this right?
There is nothing in the bill to slow down the Danielson attacks where teachers in NYC are constantly watching their backs in fear of drive by observations from often unscrupulous administrators. There is also nothing in here to stop administrators who are ethically challenged (we have too many of those in NYC) from manipulating the grading on local assessments.
Close to 1,000 people here think a better solution would be to scrap the entire evaluation system and return to a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory rating system. Let's start over on evaluations and take the student scores on any assessments and Danielson back to the scrapheap of terrible education ideas where they belong.
Some of us have been in contact with legislators about this inadequate bill. I would like to get a piece of ICEUFT literature in the schools so that we can spread the word even further about our petition before this bill goes to the Senate.
Let's not give up the fight. We really need your help.
Thursday, May 03, 2018
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
CUOMO SAYS NYC SURPLUS IS $8 BILLION
Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced that the NYC surplus is now $8 billion. The City denied the figure.
This is from City and State:
At one point during Cuomo’s speech at an Association for a Better New York breakfast, his slideshow read “NYC must pay its legal obligation,” with graphics asserting that New York City has an $8 billion budget surplus while the state has a $4 billion budget deficit.
How did Cuomo come up with the $8 billion number?
This is from City and State:
At one point during Cuomo’s speech at an Association for a Better New York breakfast, his slideshow read “NYC must pay its legal obligation,” with graphics asserting that New York City has an $8 billion budget surplus while the state has a $4 billion budget deficit.
How did Cuomo come up with the $8 billion number?
Asked to clarify the governor’s $8 billion figure, state budget division spokesman Morris Peters said it includes the $2.6 billion surplus for fiscal year 2018, a $4.25 billion surplus in the Retiree Health Benefit Trust Fund, $1 billion in general reserves in this year’s budget, and $250 million in the Capital Stabilization Reserve.
Peters pointed to a 2017 report from the New York City comptroller’s office that adds these same sources together to describe the city’s “budget cushion.”
“It doesn’t matter how many pockets they put it in, they’re still sitting on $8 billion,” Peters said. “We should all be so broke.”
The city in their April FY 2019 Executive Budget buried on slide 36 this little gem:
FY 2018 Prepayment of FY 2019 Expenses ($2.6B to $3.7B).
I'm no CPA but to me prepayment looks like a fancy way of saying it is a surplus rolled over into next year's budget. That makes the surplus a cool $1.1 billion higher for this year than Cuomo said. Some of that money could have been used for reasonable raises for city workers. Since municipal labor contracts are due, the city will soon be crying extreme poverty. That is one thing we can bank on. I just thought they would do it sooner.
Mayor de Blasio wants NYC to be known as the "fairest big city in America." He certainly does not include the city workforce when he makes that claim. 10% salary increases over 7 years is what he gave city workers for his first round of labor settlements. UFT members are waiting until 2020 to get money we worked for from 2009-2011. He can afford to easily give us all the money now. The $1/2 billion cost would not put a dent in the budget.
The city has all of this money in its coffers as the city economy is doing better than ever, yet the Mayor offers city workers nothing.
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
ICE SUSPENDS SUPPORT FOR MORE
We raised the following resolution at Friday's ICE meeting about suspending ICEUFT support for MORE.
Whereas, a group within the Steering Committee in the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) has suspended two Steering Committee members who are associated with the Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) without any due process or authority to suspend people; and
Whereas, due process is a fundamental human right and a basic principle of democracy that cannot be compromised; and
The resolution carried on Friday with only three dissenting votes in ICEUFT.
On Saturday at the MORE meeting, a majority of those in attendance upheld a one month suspension from its Steering Committee of two members who are also associated with ICEUFT without any due process. Their position is unacceptable to ICEUFT.
If there are issues where we can work together with MORE, we most certainly will but now is a time for ICEUFT to move ahead, as we stated in our resolution, to continue advocating for UFT members and for public education.
Whereas, a group within the Steering Committee in the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) has suspended two Steering Committee members who are associated with the Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) without any due process or authority to suspend people; and
Whereas, due process is a fundamental human right and a basic principle of democracy that cannot be compromised; and
Whereas, the Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) on principle will not have anything to do with an organization that denies its members basic democratic rights; be it therefore
Resolved, that the Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) suspends all support for the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) until further notice; and be it further
Resolved, that the Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) will continue its work to advocate for the members of the United Federation of Teachers and for public education.The resolution carried on Friday with only three dissenting votes in ICEUFT.
On Saturday at the MORE meeting, a majority of those in attendance upheld a one month suspension from its Steering Committee of two members who are also associated with ICEUFT without any due process. Their position is unacceptable to ICEUFT.
If there are issues where we can work together with MORE, we most certainly will but now is a time for ICEUFT to move ahead, as we stated in our resolution, to continue advocating for UFT members and for public education.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
MAYOR STICKS FOOT IN HIS MOUTH ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AT DOE WHILE PRINCIPAL SUSPENDS AIDE FOR YAWNING
I don't know whether to be more outraged by the Mayor's comments about the "hyper-complaint dynamic" for "the wrong reasons" at the Department of Education or the principal who suspended a teacher's aide for inappropriate yawning.
Here is the mayor's full comment on why so few sexual harassment complaints are substantiated at the Department of Education as reported by Politico:
“Any sincere reporting, whether it’s about sexual harassment or, you know, cheating on tests or anything, we take very, very seriously,” de Blasio said during an unrelated press conference on Wednesday. “But it is a known fact that unfortunately there’s been a bit of a hyper-complaint dynamic sometimes for the wrong reasons. So I think that has inflated their numbers. We need to address that cultural reality within the DOE."
Who is this guy kidding? He even doubled down on his dumb comment in explaining himself.
“Some are absolutely sincere — many, I’m sure, are absolutely sincere. We take them very seriously, we have to investigate everything. We treat everything with equality when it comes to investigating,” de Blasio said. “But I’m also trying to be honest about something that’s different at DOE than at a lot of other places, and it’s a pretty well-known thing in the education world. Some people inappropriately make complaints for other reasons, not just — I’m not even sure it’s ever about sexual harassment. But it is unfortunately part of the culture.”
This blog has said for years that DOE employees are not taken seriously when they use the Department of Education's internal review procedures, including oftentimes the UFT grievance procedure, for any complaints.
On sexual harassment, the actual numbers show that only seven out of 471 sexual harassment complaints were substantiated over the last four years. That's less than 1.5%. 98.5% of us are inappropriately making complaints "for other reasons" according to the mayor.
There are 135,000 DOE full time workers according to Politico. Seven substantiated sexual harassment complaints in four years with over 135,000 employees? In case you are wondering, the average substantiation rate across all city agencies for sexual harassment is 17% according the Politico. Something is very wrong at the DOE. For Mayor de Blasio to claim that they take our complaints "very seriously" is totally not borne out by the numbers.
Meanwhile Sue Edelman from the NY Post continues her excellent reporting exposing the DOE's nonsense. Her latest piece concerns a principal who suspended a teacher's aide because she yawned.
Marie Desforges, the head of PS 328 in Brooklyn, suspended a teacher’s aide for five days without pay last week for “professional misconduct” — yawning.
The scariest part for me is that nobody who works in the schools will be in the least bit surprised by either one of these two articles. These should be shocking stories.
More likely, people will yawn and say, so what else is new? For which they could be reprimanded by another principal from hell.
DOE management, with many notable exceptions, stinks from the top on down. Everyone who works in a NYC public school is aware of how there is almost no recourse when there is a violation of the rules unless you know someone. It is corrupt to the core and our unions offer little, if any, help.
Here is the mayor's full comment on why so few sexual harassment complaints are substantiated at the Department of Education as reported by Politico:
“Any sincere reporting, whether it’s about sexual harassment or, you know, cheating on tests or anything, we take very, very seriously,” de Blasio said during an unrelated press conference on Wednesday. “But it is a known fact that unfortunately there’s been a bit of a hyper-complaint dynamic sometimes for the wrong reasons. So I think that has inflated their numbers. We need to address that cultural reality within the DOE."
Who is this guy kidding? He even doubled down on his dumb comment in explaining himself.
“Some are absolutely sincere — many, I’m sure, are absolutely sincere. We take them very seriously, we have to investigate everything. We treat everything with equality when it comes to investigating,” de Blasio said. “But I’m also trying to be honest about something that’s different at DOE than at a lot of other places, and it’s a pretty well-known thing in the education world. Some people inappropriately make complaints for other reasons, not just — I’m not even sure it’s ever about sexual harassment. But it is unfortunately part of the culture.”
This blog has said for years that DOE employees are not taken seriously when they use the Department of Education's internal review procedures, including oftentimes the UFT grievance procedure, for any complaints.
On sexual harassment, the actual numbers show that only seven out of 471 sexual harassment complaints were substantiated over the last four years. That's less than 1.5%. 98.5% of us are inappropriately making complaints "for other reasons" according to the mayor.
There are 135,000 DOE full time workers according to Politico. Seven substantiated sexual harassment complaints in four years with over 135,000 employees? In case you are wondering, the average substantiation rate across all city agencies for sexual harassment is 17% according the Politico. Something is very wrong at the DOE. For Mayor de Blasio to claim that they take our complaints "very seriously" is totally not borne out by the numbers.
Meanwhile Sue Edelman from the NY Post continues her excellent reporting exposing the DOE's nonsense. Her latest piece concerns a principal who suspended a teacher's aide because she yawned.
Marie Desforges, the head of PS 328 in Brooklyn, suspended a teacher’s aide for five days without pay last week for “professional misconduct” — yawning.
In a disciplinary letter, Desforges told Edsheda Brown, “You yawned loud enough for me to hear you while I was walking down the hallway” outside a staff meeting.
What’s more, Desforges accused the aide of insubordination over the yawn.
When the principal told the aide the yawn was “inappropriate,” “you stated to me, ‘What, that is how I yawn,’” the letter says.
Teachers said Brown, aghast, asked the principal, “Are you trying to reprimand me for yawning? It’s a bodily function.”
Faculty at the East New York elementary school have felt under siege by Desforges since she took charge last September in her first days as a city principal.
Yet another principal from hell in New York City schools.The scariest part for me is that nobody who works in the schools will be in the least bit surprised by either one of these two articles. These should be shocking stories.
More likely, people will yawn and say, so what else is new? For which they could be reprimanded by another principal from hell.
Friday, April 27, 2018
DON'T UNCORK ANY CHAMPAGNE CORKS ON ASSEMBLY TEACHER EVALUATION BILL
I have read and posted the new teacher evaluation bill introduced in the State Assembly and I am not at all impressed upon first glance. I am not a lawyer and maybe I missed something but right now I don't think this helps us out in NYC much and I hope Democratic candidate for Governor Cynthia Nixon and Professor Diane Ravitch aren't enthusiastic either.
Nixon came out for a repeal of the teacher evaluation law. That is a major step forward. Teacher evaluation is at least on the table for this legislative session in Albany. However, this is no time to be celebrating. It's a time to push for much, much more.
We learn from Chalkbeat through Michael Mulgrew that the State Assembly has been working on changing the teacher evaluation law for months. Here is Mulgrew's quote on Nixon's support for repealing the evaluation law:
“We are happy to hear of any and all support for a measure to limit the problems of standardized tests. But let the record be clear: we have been working with legislators and the executive branch for months to reform New York State’s obsession with and misuse of standardized tests,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “Ms. Nixon’s 11th hour public statement on the bill – while it may score political points – won’t help it get enacted.”
Isn't it funny how the actual bill was introduced on the same day as Nixon came out for repeal of the evaluation law?
I do not think this bill goes nearly far enough toward restoring teacher dignity in NYS, especially in NYC because we are still rated based on assessments that were never designed to rate teachers or principals and nothing changes on observations.
This is from the Albany Times Union on the bill:
Meanwhile, multiple Danielson observations and some other state, city or locally created exams or student growth portfolios (subject to grading by God knows who in NYC) remain in our evaluations.
If the grading is controlled locally, this could be a step backwards for NYC. I saw how an assistant principal manipulated grading to sink someone's rating. The potential for abuse in NYC is huge.
This is a bill that looks like it is more for public relations than fixing the system. It may be an attempt to end the opt out from testing movement and also silence Cynthia Nixon's campaign on the teacher evaluation issue. Hopefully, people will see through what appears at first look to be just a slightly changed version of an awful evaluation system.
For example, unless I missed something, anyone rated ineffective twice still carries the burden of proof in a termination hearing. No tenured teacher carried that burden under the old Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory system. The bill looks like it was created by, you guessed it, UFT President Michael Mulgrew.
Please, please, please continue to get people to sign our petition to repeal the entire teacher and principal evaluation laws and return it to the old Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory system.
Nixon came out for a repeal of the teacher evaluation law. That is a major step forward. Teacher evaluation is at least on the table for this legislative session in Albany. However, this is no time to be celebrating. It's a time to push for much, much more.
We learn from Chalkbeat through Michael Mulgrew that the State Assembly has been working on changing the teacher evaluation law for months. Here is Mulgrew's quote on Nixon's support for repealing the evaluation law:
“We are happy to hear of any and all support for a measure to limit the problems of standardized tests. But let the record be clear: we have been working with legislators and the executive branch for months to reform New York State’s obsession with and misuse of standardized tests,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “Ms. Nixon’s 11th hour public statement on the bill – while it may score political points – won’t help it get enacted.”
Isn't it funny how the actual bill was introduced on the same day as Nixon came out for repeal of the evaluation law?
I do not think this bill goes nearly far enough toward restoring teacher dignity in NYS, especially in NYC because we are still rated based on assessments that were never designed to rate teachers or principals and nothing changes on observations.
This is from the Albany Times Union on the bill:
COLONIE — As members of the New York state’s major teachers’ union are gathering for their annual convention, Assembly Democrats have proposed a bill that would end mandatory test-based teacher evaluations.
The measure, sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan, who chairs the education committee, says that state-created tests “shall not be required to be utilized in any manner to determine a teacher or principal evaluation.”
“It has become increasingly clear that standardized tests do not fully account for the diversity of our student populations,” Assembly Democratic Majority Speaker Carl Heastie said Thursday in a statement about the bill.
If I understand the bill correctly, we get the state exams taken out of our evaluations although we may still use them if we want to. No big win.Meanwhile, multiple Danielson observations and some other state, city or locally created exams or student growth portfolios (subject to grading by God knows who in NYC) remain in our evaluations.
If the grading is controlled locally, this could be a step backwards for NYC. I saw how an assistant principal manipulated grading to sink someone's rating. The potential for abuse in NYC is huge.
This is a bill that looks like it is more for public relations than fixing the system. It may be an attempt to end the opt out from testing movement and also silence Cynthia Nixon's campaign on the teacher evaluation issue. Hopefully, people will see through what appears at first look to be just a slightly changed version of an awful evaluation system.
For example, unless I missed something, anyone rated ineffective twice still carries the burden of proof in a termination hearing. No tenured teacher carried that burden under the old Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory system. The bill looks like it was created by, you guessed it, UFT President Michael Mulgrew.
Please, please, please continue to get people to sign our petition to repeal the entire teacher and principal evaluation laws and return it to the old Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory system.
ASSEMBLY BILL A10475 ON TEACHER EVALUATIONS
Here is the actual Assembly Bill A10475 on teacher evaluations. Read it for yourself.
Analysis will follow but upon first look this does not get the testing out of our evaluations, just certain tests.
Analysis will follow but upon first look this does not get the testing out of our evaluations, just certain tests.
STATE OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________________________________ 10475 IN ASSEMBLY April 26, 2018 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. NOLAN, HEASTIE, MORELLE, PELLEGRINO, JAFFEE -- read once and referred to the Committee on Education AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to state assessments and teacher evaluations; and to amend chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, amending the education law relating to providing that standardized test scores shall not be included on a student's permanent record, in relation to making certain provisions permanent The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Section 3012-d of the education law is amended by adding a 2 new subdivision 16 to read as follows: 3 16. a. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation 4 to the contrary, the grades three through eight English language arts 5 and mathematics state assessments and all other state-created or admin- 6 istered tests shall not be required to be utilized in any manner to 7 determine a teacher or principal evaluation required by this section. 8 b. The commissioner shall promulgate rules and regulations providing 9 alternative assessments that may be used in grades three through eight 10 instead of all other state-created or administered tests, which shall 11 include all of the assessments that have been approved by the commis- 12 sioner for use in determining transition scores and ratings. 13 c. The selection and use of an assessment in a teacher or principal's 14 evaluation pursuant to paragraphs a and b of this subdivision and subdi- 15 vision four of this section shall be subject to collective bargaining 16 pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law. 17 d. Notwithstanding any provision of subdivision twelve of this section 18 to the contrary, nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate 19 any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in 20 effect on the date this subdivision takes effect and until the entry 21 into a successor collective bargaining agreement, provided that notwith- 22 standing any other provision of law to the contrary, upon expiration of 23 such term and the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement 24 the provisions of this subdivision shall apply; and, provided further, 25 however, that any assessments used in determining transition scores and EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [] is old law to be omitted. LBD15596-02-8A. 10475 2 1 ratings shall be used in determining scores and ratings pursuant to this 2 section instead of the grades three through eight English language arts 3 and mathematics state assessments until the entry into a successor 4 collective bargaining agreement. 5 § 2. Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph a of subdivision 4 of section 6 3012-d of the education law, subparagraph 1 as amended by section 3 of 7 subpart C of part B of chapter 20 of the laws of 2015 and subparagraph 2 8 as added by section 2 of subpart E of part EE of chapter 56 of the laws 9 of 2015, are amended to read as follows: 10 (1) For the first subcomponent, [(A) for a teacher whose course ends11in a state-created or administered test for which there is a state-pro-12vided growth model, such teacher shall have a state-provided growth13score based on such model, which shall take into consideration certain14student characteristics, as determined by the commissioner, including15but not limited to students with disabilities, poverty, English language16learner status and prior academic history and which shall identify17educators whose students' growth is well above or well below average18compared to similar students for a teacher's or principal's students19after the certain student characteristics above are taken into account;20and (B) for a teacher whose course does not end in a state-created or21administered test such teacher] a teacher shall have a student learning 22 objective (SLO) consistent with a goal-setting process determined or 23 developed by the commissioner, that results in a student growth score; 24 provided that, for any teacher whose course ends in a state-created or 25 administered assessment [for which there is no state-provided growth26model], such assessment [must] may be used as the underlying assessment 27 for such SLO; 28 (2) For the optional second subcomponent, a district may locally 29 select a second measure in accordance with this subparagraph. Such 30 second measure shall apply in a consistent manner, to the extent practi- 31 cable, across the district and be either: (A) [a second state-provided32growth score] based on a state-created or administered test [under33clause (A) of subparagraph one of this paragraph], or (B) [a growth34score] based on a state-designed supplemental assessment[, calculated35using a state-provided or approved growth model]. The optional second 36 subcomponent shall provide options for multiple assessment measures that 37 are aligned to existing classroom and school best practices and take 38 into consideration the recommendations in the testing reduction report 39 as required by section one of subpart F of [the chapter] part EE of 40 chapter fifty-six of the laws of two thousand fifteen which added this 41 section regarding the reduction of unnecessary additional testing. 42 § 3. Subdivision 5 of section 3012-d of the education law, as added by 43 section 2 of subpart E of part EE of chapter 56 of the laws of 2015, is 44 amended to read as follows: 45 5. Rating determination. The overall rating determination shall be 46 determined [according to a methodology] as follows: 47 a. [The following rules shall apply: a teacher or principal who is (1)48rated using two subcomponents in the student performance category and49receives a rating of ineffective in such category shall be rated inef-50fective overall; provided, however, that if the measure used in the51second subcomponent is a state-provided growth score on a state-created52or administered test pursuant to clause (A) of subparagraph one of para-53graph a of subdivision four of this section, a teacher or principal who54receives a rating of ineffective in such category shall not be eligible55to receive a rating of effective or highly effective overall; (2) rated56using only the state measure subcomponent in the student performanceA. 10475 3 1category and receives a rating of ineffective in such category shall not2be eligible to receive a rating of effective or highly effective over-3all; and (3) rated ineffective in the teacher observations category4shall not be eligible to receive a rating of effective or highly effec-5tive overall.6b. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph a of this subdivision, a7teacher's composite score shall be determined as follows:8(1)] If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation category, 9 and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's composite 10 score shall be H; 11 [(2)] b. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego- 12 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 13 ite score shall be H; 14 [(3)] c. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego- 15 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite 16 score shall be E; 17 [(4)] d. If a teacher receives an H in the teacher observation catego- 18 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 19 ite score shall be D; 20 [(5)] e. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego- 21 ry, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 22 ite score shall be H; 23 [(6)] f. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego- 24 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 25 ite score shall be E; 26 [(7)] g. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego- 27 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite 28 score shall be E; 29 [(8)] h. If a teacher receives an E in the teacher observation catego- 30 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 31 ite score shall be D; 32 [(9)] i. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego- 33 ry, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 34 ite score shall be E; 35 [(10)] j. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego- 36 ry, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 37 ite score shall be E; 38 [(11)] k. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego- 39 ry, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's composite 40 score shall be D; 41 [(12)] l. If a teacher receives a D in the teacher observation catego- 42 ry, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 43 ite score shall be I; 44 [(13)] m. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate- 45 gory, and an H in the student performance category, the teacher's 46 composite score shall be D; 47 [(14)] n. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate- 48 gory, and an E in the student performance category, the teacher's 49 composite score shall be D; 50 [(15)] o. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate- 51 gory, and a D in the student performance category, the teacher's compos- 52 ite score shall be I; 53 [(16)] p. If a teacher receives an I in the teacher observation cate- 54 gory, and an I in the student performance category, the teacher's 55 composite score shall be I.A. 10475 4 1 § 4. Subdivision 7 of section 3012-d of the education law, as added by 2 section 2 of subpart E of part EE of chapter 56 of the laws of 2015, is 3 amended to read as follows: 4 7. The commissioner shall ensure that the process by which weights and 5 scoring ranges are assigned to subcomponents and categories is transpar- 6 ent and available to those being rated before the beginning of each 7 school year. Such process must ensure that it is possible for a teacher 8 or principal to obtain any number of points in the applicable scoring 9 ranges, including zero, in each subcomponent. The superintendent, 10 district superintendent or chancellor and the representative of the 11 collective bargaining unit (where one exists) shall certify in the 12 district's plan that the evaluation process shall use the standards for 13 the scoring ranges provided by the commissioner. [Provided, however,14that in any event, the following rules shall apply: a teacher or princi-15pal who is:16a. rated using two subcomponents in the student performance category17and receives a rating of ineffective in such category shall be rated18ineffective overall, except that if the measure used in the second19subcomponent is a second state-provided growth score on a state-adminis-20tered or sponsored test pursuant to clause (A) of subparagraph one of21paragraph a of subdivision four of this section, a teacher or principal22that receives a rating of ineffective in such category shall not be23eligible to receive a rating of effective or highly effective overall;24b. rated using only the state measure subcomponent in the student25performance category and receives a rating of ineffective in such cate-26gory shall not be eligible to receive a rating of effective or highly27effective overall; and28c. rated ineffective in the observations category shall not be eligi-29ble to receive a rating of effective or highly effective overall.] 30 § 5. Subdivision 10 of section 3012-d of the education law, as added 31 by section 2 of subpart E of part EE of chapter 56 of the laws of 2015, 32 is amended to read as follows: 33 10. The local collective bargaining representative shall negotiate 34 with the district: 35 a. whether to use a second measure, and, in the event that a second 36 measure is used, which measure to use, pursuant to subparagraph two of 37 paragraph a of subdivision four of this section [and]; 38 b. how to implement the provisions of paragraph b of subdivision four 39 of this section, and associated regulations as established by the 40 commissioner, in accordance with article fourteen of the civil service 41 law; and 42 c. the selection and use of an assessment in a teacher or principal's 43 evaluation pursuant to subdivision four of this section and paragraphs a 44 and b of subdivision sixteen of this section. 45 § 6. Section 2 of subpart B of part AA of chapter 56 of the laws of 46 2014 amending the education law relating to providing that standardized 47 test scores shall not be included on a student's permanent record, as 48 amended by section 35 of part CCC of chapter 59 of the laws of 2018, is 49 amended to read as follows: 50 § 2. This act shall take effect immediately [and shall expire and be51deemed repealed on December 31, 2019]. 52 § 7. This act shall take effect immediately.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
ICEUFT MEETING FRIDAY AFTERNOON IN MANHATTAN WILL DISCUSS PROPOSAL TO SUSPEND ICE SUPPORT FOR MORE
The Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) will be holding a meeting tomorrow (Friday) in Manhattan at 4:00 P.M.
It is no big secret that the relationship between ICEUFT and the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) has been frayed at times and lately it has kind of exploded. I have written the following resolution that I will bring up tomorrow. It kind of speaks for itself.
This is Norm Scott's agenda for the ICEUFT meeting:
Members of the Independent Community of Educators (ICE), founded in 2003, original organizers of the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) and one of the founding caucuses of MORE, will be meeting to discuss a range of issues, including a discussion of the red state teacher revolts and the status of its ongoing relationship with MORE, on Friday, April 27 at 4PM
I hope some of the commenters who I don't really know can take the time to make it to the ICE meeting.
It is no big secret that the relationship between ICEUFT and the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) has been frayed at times and lately it has kind of exploded. I have written the following resolution that I will bring up tomorrow. It kind of speaks for itself.
Whereas, a group within the
Steering Committee in the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) has
suspended two Steering Committee members who are associated with the
Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) without any due process or
authority to suspend people; and
Whereas, due process is a fundamental human right and a basic principle of democracy that cannot be compromised; and
Whereas, due process is a fundamental human right and a basic principle of democracy that cannot be compromised; and
Whereas, the Independent
Community of Educators (ICEUFT) on principle will not have anything to do with
an organization that denies its members basic democratic rights; be it
therefore
Resolved, that the
Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) suspends all support for the
Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) until further notice; and be it
further
Resolved, that the
Independent Community of Educators (ICEUFT) will continue its work to advocate
for the members of the United Federation of Teachers and for public education.This is Norm Scott's agenda for the ICEUFT meeting:
Members of the Independent Community of Educators (ICE), founded in 2003, original organizers of the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) and one of the founding caucuses of MORE, will be meeting to discuss a range of issues, including a discussion of the red state teacher revolts and the status of its ongoing relationship with MORE, on Friday, April 27 at 4PM
I hope some of the commenters who I don't really know can take the time to make it to the ICE meeting.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
INDEPENDENT BUDGET OFFICE BREAKS DOWN WHERE CITY RETIREES (INCLUDING TEACHERS) LIVE
Harris Lirtzman sent me this information from the Independent Budget Office that shows where NYC government employees retire to. It is fascinating reading. Looking at the data, it shows that New York City retired government employees, including teachers. live all over the country and some even outside the country.
Here is a part of the IBO Report:
If we are honest, there is no possible way anyone campaigning for UFT office who isn't Michael Mulgrew could get themselves known to all of these retirees living all around the country. Ergo, it is impossible for an insurgent group to win a UFT election when all we have to become known is an ad in the NY Teacher once every three years. Retirees are a huge chuck of the UFT electorate who should vote for their own VP and their own issues but should have no say in who negotiates for active teachers. It's hard enough to become known in the schools.
After looking at this report, it's even more amazing that dissidents have won the high schools so many times in UFT elections. All of us who have worked so hard to get some kind of voice on the Executive Board can take some credit.
Here is a part of the IBO Report:
- All 50 states and the District of Columbia have New York City pensioners residing within their borders, from 5 in North Dakota to the 35,410 Floridians who were paid $1.3 billion in pension benefits in 2017. The 1,601 beneficiaries living in Puerto Rico received $42 million in benefits, while an additional $24.4 million was paid to 866 retirees living outside the United States and its territories.
- After New York and Florida, the eight other states with the most New York City government retirees are New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, California, and Connecticut.
If we are honest, there is no possible way anyone campaigning for UFT office who isn't Michael Mulgrew could get themselves known to all of these retirees living all around the country. Ergo, it is impossible for an insurgent group to win a UFT election when all we have to become known is an ad in the NY Teacher once every three years. Retirees are a huge chuck of the UFT electorate who should vote for their own VP and their own issues but should have no say in who negotiates for active teachers. It's hard enough to become known in the schools.
After looking at this report, it's even more amazing that dissidents have won the high schools so many times in UFT elections. All of us who have worked so hard to get some kind of voice on the Executive Board can take some credit.
Monday, April 23, 2018
ROSEANNE MCCOSH URGES US TO KEEP ON NUDGING AND NAGGING PEOPLE TO SIGN EVALUATION PETITION
Roseanne McCosh is the teacher who co-wrote with me the petition to repeal the NYS teacher evaluation laws (see right side of the page). Most of us in NYS are rated based on insane criteria including student scores on assessments that were never designed to rate educators and observations that in NYC are based on the Danielson Framework which has been weaponized by too many administrators to make teacher lives miserable and stressful.
The petition was inspired by the comments from the ICEUFTBLOG. Some of our readers were surprised that so few teachers signed it initially as almost everyone hates the evaluation system. I thought it might take some time for the petition to gather steam but I also believe that as more people hear about the petition, more will sign it. Remember, ICEUFT is not a huge caucus. We have this blog and we meet a few times a year. "The little caucus that could" and our friends now has over 900 signatures on our petition in just a few week's time. We are pushing a goal of 1,000 where it starts to matter.
Roseanne has some very sound advice that she put in a comment and it is worth paying attention to:
58 UFT members in my school have signed the petition. Approximately 15 additional signatures from friends/family of our staff. My school started with a handful of signatures. We still keep reminding people to sign...in person and in emails. It's easy to get angry with teachers who don't take the time to do it but it's just as easy to give them frequent reminders to do it so it actually gets done.
At least 6 of the signatures from my school came from people who are not rated under Danielson/test scores. We asked them to sign as a show of support for those who are under it. Our delegate stood in the lobby one morning and handed out the info. Our Chapter Leader held a union meeting where we talked it up. I've sent email updates on the number of signatures.
People will step up---some just need nudging or nagging to get there. So let's all continue to nudge and nag. Roseanne McCosh
Keep up the fight dear readers. Our colleagues are very busy people who sometimes need to be reminded to act in their own interest. We can make a difference, particularly if we all help spread the word in schools that do not know about the petition or ICEUFT and keep nudging and nagging in our own schools.
The petition was inspired by the comments from the ICEUFTBLOG. Some of our readers were surprised that so few teachers signed it initially as almost everyone hates the evaluation system. I thought it might take some time for the petition to gather steam but I also believe that as more people hear about the petition, more will sign it. Remember, ICEUFT is not a huge caucus. We have this blog and we meet a few times a year. "The little caucus that could" and our friends now has over 900 signatures on our petition in just a few week's time. We are pushing a goal of 1,000 where it starts to matter.
Roseanne has some very sound advice that she put in a comment and it is worth paying attention to:
58 UFT members in my school have signed the petition. Approximately 15 additional signatures from friends/family of our staff. My school started with a handful of signatures. We still keep reminding people to sign...in person and in emails. It's easy to get angry with teachers who don't take the time to do it but it's just as easy to give them frequent reminders to do it so it actually gets done.
At least 6 of the signatures from my school came from people who are not rated under Danielson/test scores. We asked them to sign as a show of support for those who are under it. Our delegate stood in the lobby one morning and handed out the info. Our Chapter Leader held a union meeting where we talked it up. I've sent email updates on the number of signatures.
People will step up---some just need nudging or nagging to get there. So let's all continue to nudge and nag. Roseanne McCosh
Keep up the fight dear readers. Our colleagues are very busy people who sometimes need to be reminded to act in their own interest. We can make a difference, particularly if we all help spread the word in schools that do not know about the petition or ICEUFT and keep nudging and nagging in our own schools.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
NYSUT AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS PROBLEMS WITH STATE TESTS WHILE UFT JUST WANTS BETTER IMPLEMENTATION
For the second straight week, NYSUT featured problems with state tests in the Weekly NYSUT Leader Briefing.
April
20
Tell
SED, Regents about YOUR experience with ELA testing
Whether it was the paper/pencil exams or the computer-based tests, we've been flooded with troubling reports on the state's ELA tests. Now's the time to share your experiences with the SED Commissioner and the Regents. NYSUT has set up an email action center to contact them now.
Meanwhile, testing company Questar's problems continued this week, with reports of a cyberattack affecting student tests in seven states — including a small number in New York. NYSUT EVP DiBrango said New York State computer-based testing must stop until SED figures out what's going on. "Student data privacy must be protected," she said.
On the other hand, the UFT was silent on the testing in the weekly Chapter Leader Update. Michael Mulgrew did say they would present a resolution on computerized testing at the NYSUT Representative Assembly.
This is from Jonathan Halabi's notes of the President's Report from the Delegate Assembly posted at NYC Educator:
The state tests have started. “Untimed testing” has meant some kids are sitting forever. We are going to the Board of Regents with this one. Outside of the City there have been huge problems with computerized testing. We are having conversations with NYSUT – the State is doing it all wrong. We will ask for a statewide committee for guidelines before we start computerized testing (and the UFT delegation will propose this at the NYSUT Representative Assembly in Buffalo next week).
Just what we need: another committee on testing. Note that the UFT nowhere says that they oppose the state tests. The UFT just wants them implemented in a better way.
So called progressive NYC is now as far as I can tell the last stronghold in NYS, and maybe nationally too, of assess (I won't say test) and punish education with the full support of the UFT.
Remember also that teachers are rated on some assessment or another that was not designed to rate teachers. I ask again for people to spread the petition at the right of this blog to get student assessments out of teacher ratings and return it to the local districts. Here is the link to the petition which is slowly but surely building momentum. We are within striking distance of 1,000 signatures. Teachers have to know about it so we need everyone to get the word out. Hopefully, the testing issue and UFT support for tests will come up at the NYSUT RA next week.
April
20
Tell
SED, Regents about YOUR experience with ELA testingWhether it was the paper/pencil exams or the computer-based tests, we've been flooded with troubling reports on the state's ELA tests. Now's the time to share your experiences with the SED Commissioner and the Regents. NYSUT has set up an email action center to contact them now.
Meanwhile, testing company Questar's problems continued this week, with reports of a cyberattack affecting student tests in seven states — including a small number in New York. NYSUT EVP DiBrango said New York State computer-based testing must stop until SED figures out what's going on. "Student data privacy must be protected," she said.
On the other hand, the UFT was silent on the testing in the weekly Chapter Leader Update. Michael Mulgrew did say they would present a resolution on computerized testing at the NYSUT Representative Assembly.
This is from Jonathan Halabi's notes of the President's Report from the Delegate Assembly posted at NYC Educator:
The state tests have started. “Untimed testing” has meant some kids are sitting forever. We are going to the Board of Regents with this one. Outside of the City there have been huge problems with computerized testing. We are having conversations with NYSUT – the State is doing it all wrong. We will ask for a statewide committee for guidelines before we start computerized testing (and the UFT delegation will propose this at the NYSUT Representative Assembly in Buffalo next week).
Just what we need: another committee on testing. Note that the UFT nowhere says that they oppose the state tests. The UFT just wants them implemented in a better way.
So called progressive NYC is now as far as I can tell the last stronghold in NYS, and maybe nationally too, of assess (I won't say test) and punish education with the full support of the UFT.
Remember also that teachers are rated on some assessment or another that was not designed to rate teachers. I ask again for people to spread the petition at the right of this blog to get student assessments out of teacher ratings and return it to the local districts. Here is the link to the petition which is slowly but surely building momentum. We are within striking distance of 1,000 signatures. Teachers have to know about it so we need everyone to get the word out. Hopefully, the testing issue and UFT support for tests will come up at the NYSUT RA next week.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
APRIL DA REPORT WHERE MULGREW ANSWERS LONGER DAY QUESTION
Thanks to Jonathan Halabi for filling in for Arthur and giving a full report on the April Delegate Assembly.
You can read it at NYC Educator in its entirety.
Here are some parts that interested me.
President Michael Mulgrew is soon to be about to start crying poverty as contract time nears as this excerpt from the question period shows.
MM: NYS is still bleeding money, but does that mean we should never negotiate because something bad might happen? No, but if something bad does happen, we will help. (I wrote down words, but they don’t make much sense. The flow was sort of – the state might be in financial trouble down the road, but that’s not a reason for us not to push for the money we need now. Later, if we need to pitch in, we will)
This blog makes a not very bold prediction we will be asked to pitch in right around the time our contract is up.
As for the longer school day that comments here feared, we had a question on that too.
You can read it at NYC Educator in its entirety.
Here are some parts that interested me.
President Michael Mulgrew is soon to be about to start crying poverty as contract time nears as this excerpt from the question period shows.
Sean Ahern, East River Academy (D79)
Trump and DeVos did not get the cuts they wanted. And we have a supposedly progressive mayor. Do we need a blue state revolt? We went through years with Bloomberg and Giuliani. What do we have to do?
This blog makes a not very bold prediction we will be asked to pitch in right around the time our contract is up.
As for the longer school day that comments here feared, we had a question on that too.
Giraldo Maldonado, Chapter Leader Manhattan Comprehensive Day and Night
Caranza’s visiting schools. Our AP says he wants to extend the school day.
MM: Extended Day usually refers to after-school activities. There will be no extra work without extra pay. I believe that’s what the new chancellor is talking about. (then a long tangent on snow days)
On the new state law protecting unions, we have this:
Thomas, International HS at Union Square
What are the specifics of the new state law? Even my membership team members may not want to pay dues.
MM: We are currently reviewing the services, to see what will the effect will be. We are not ready yet. (Pension consult – no. Representation inside of the contract – yes. Representation beyond the contract – no.) Every local around the state is reviewing it. By the way, Cuomo signed the law here (motioning to the stage).
Much of the rest of the meeting was about our fine new UFT App.
Should I be sorry or glad I missed the DA?
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
WHAT IS THE NEXT LEVEL MAYOR DE BLASIO WANTS CHANCELLOR CARRANZA TO TAKE SCHOOLS TO?
Politico has an article on new Chancellor Richard Carranza. Mayor Bill de Blasio wants the new Chancellor to take "New York's schools to the next level." Nobody knows what that means.
Michael Fiorillo provides one possible answer:
That sounds like the plan.
Does anyone have another interpretation?
Michael Fiorillo provides one possible answer:
Well,
for high schools I assume it means that, since we’re already passing any kid
who can fog a mirror, we’ll have to start passing the one’s who’ve died.
That sounds like the plan.
Does anyone have another interpretation?
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
2018-19 SCHOOL CALENDAR
I copied and pasted below the 2018-19 school year calendar for the NYC schools. Note that teachers return to work September 4, 2018 and kids go back the next day. What happened to the two days to set up that were in the UFT contract? They were given away back in 2009 when the UFT agreed to lower the fixed rate on the TDA for UFT members from 8.25% to 7% in exchange for not having to report to work the last two weekdays before Labor Day.. We agreed at that time that the day after Labor Day could be an instructional day. The city has been generous by giving us that day as a professional development day.
The contract now says, "All teachers shall report to their schools to begin work on the Tuesday following
Labor Day, and will have a professional day on Brooklyn-Queens Day. The Tuesday
following Labor Day may be an instructional day." Article 6C.
I almost forgot that the the agreement in 2009 also raised the contribution rate for UFT members for their pension up to 4.85% for their entire careers and upped the years teachers must work from 10 to 15 to qualify for retiree health benefits. We got nothing in return for contributing more to our pensions. The rationale was the Great Recession which has now long since passed. This was only a prelude for the vastly inferior Tier VI pension system which our "friend" Governor Cuomo signed in 2012. We still haven't received anything back for that either.
2018-19 SCHOOL YEAR CALENDAR
April 10, 2018
The School Year Calendar mandates that school sessions begin for all students on Wednesday, September 5, 2018 and ends on Wednesday, June 26, 2019. The calendar must be adhered to without exception, unless notifications of subsequent changes are received pursuant to collective bargaining agreements or for other reasons, provided these other reasons are not inconsistent with collective bargaining or legal obligations.
2018 August 27 Monday The following staff report: Assistant Principals and schoolbased intermediate supervisors not designated to work an increased work year.
September 3 Monday Labor Day (schools closed)
September 4 Tuesday Teachers report (see section 5 below). Students will not be in attendance.
September 5 Wednesday School Session Begins For All Students. Early dismissal for non-District 75 kindergarten students only. Partial school time for pre-kindergarten public school students.
September 6 Thursday First full day for non-District 75 kindergarten students. Partial school time for pre-kindergarten public school students.
September 10 11 Monday & Tuesday Rosh Hashanah (schools closed)
September 13 Thursday Elementary School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
September 19 Wednesday Yom Kippur (schools closed)
September 20 Thursday Middle School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
September 26 Wednesday High School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
October 8 Monday Columbus Day Observed (schools closed)
November 6 Tuesday Election Day. Chancellor’s Conference Day for staff development. Students will not be in attendance.
November 12 Monday Veterans Day Observed (schools closed)
November 14 15 Wednesday & Thursday Elementary School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/14/18. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/15/18; early dismissal for elementary school students.
November 19 20 Monday & Tuesday District 75 Schools: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/19/18. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/20/18; early dismissal for D75 students.
November 22 23 Thursday & Friday Thanksgiving Recess (schools closed)
November 27 28 Tuesday & Wednesday Middle School: Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/27/18; early dismissal for middle school students. Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/28/18. November 29 30
Thursday & Friday High Schools: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/29/18. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 11/30/18 - early dismissal for high school students.
December January 24 – 1 Monday – Tuesday Winter Recess (schools closed)
2019
January 2 Wednesday School resumes
January 21 Monday Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day (schools closed)
January 28 Monday Chancellor’s Conference Day for staff development in high schools. Non-D75 high school students will not be in attendance. All other students will be in attendance. (See section 10 below for details on high school student attendance on January 28.)
January 29 Tuesday Spring term begins for high school students.
February 5 Tuesday Lunar New Year (schools closed)
February 18 – 22 Monday – Friday Midwinter Recess (includes Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday, observed) (schools closed)
March 4 5 Monday & Tuesday District 75 Schools: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/4/19. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/5/19; early dismissal for D75 students.
March 7 8 Thursday & Friday High School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/7/19. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/8/19; early dismissal for high school students.
March 13 14 Wednesday & Thursday Elementary School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/13/19. Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/14/19; early dismissal for elementary school students.
March 26 27 Tuesday & Wednesday Middle School: Afternoon Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/26/19; early dismissal for middle school students. Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences 3/27/19.
April 19 – 26 Friday – Friday Spring Recess (including Good Friday and Passover) (schools closed)
May 9 Thursday High School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
May 15 Wednesday Elementary School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
May 16 Thursday Middle School: Evening Parent-Teacher Conferences (see section 8)
May 27 Monday Memorial Day (schools closed)
June 4 Tuesday Eid al-Fitr (schools closed)
June 6 Thursday Anniversary Day. Chancellor’s Conference Day for staff development. Students will not be in attendance.
June 11 Tuesday June Clerical Day for students in elementary school, middle school and D75 school programs. These students will not be in attendance (see section 13 below).
June 26 Wednesday LAST DAY FOR ALL STUDENTS. An early dismissal of these students is to be scheduled on Wednesday June 26 under the guidelines outlined in Section 14 below. Last day for all Classroom Teachers, Bilingual Teachers in School and Community Relations, Attendance Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, Laboratory Specialists and Technicians and last day for Paraprofessionals.
June 27 28 Thursday & Friday All other staff report except Classroom Teachers, Bilingual Teachers in School and Community Relations, Attendance Teachers, Nurses, Therapists, Laboratory Specialists and Technicians, and Paraprofessionals.
Monday, April 16, 2018
NYSUT CRITICIZES FAULTY STATE TESTS AS UFT IS SILENT ON STATE TESTING AND NOT EXACTLY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT OKLAHOMA TEACHER STRIKE
I read through last Friday's UFT Weekly Update for Chapter Leaders and the NYSUT Leader Update that came out the same day.
The UFT Update reads like the Oklahoma teacher strikers didn't fare that well. The headline about the end of the Oklahoma strike was: "Oklahoma teacher walkout ends in mixed results."
On the other hand, here is what the Wall Street Journal said about the end of the strike:
Those are some pretty decent mixed results UFT.
On the state tests given last week, the UFT says absolutely nothing, not a word, in the weekly update.
As for NYSUT, they featured the problems with the state exams as the lead story in last Friday's NYSUT Leader Update.
State's foray into computer-based grade 3-8 tests is disastrous
While SED initially tried to call it a "glitch," NYSUT called this week's rush to computer-based testing nothing short of disaster. NYSUT's strong criticism -- and accounts of a wide range of technological problems -- were widely reported in news and social media posts around the state. In many of the nearly 300 schools test-driving the new system, students were unable to log in, lost work or had to repeat entire tests. Late Friday afternoon, SED finally acknowledged what it called "an unacceptable failure."
The problems went far beyond technical breakdowns. Educators raised numerous concerns with the traditional pencil and paper tests, too. Our Twitter feed is filled with heartbreaking anecdotes from members who described student frustration, exhaustion and tears. This week's developments only added fuel to condemnation of the state's testing system. On Monday, the day before testing began, NYSUT launched an online Thunderclap calling for the state to fix the unfair benchmarks that set proficiency rates for the standardized tests. Here are NYSUT's fact sheets outlining opt out rights for parents.
The UFT has been a joke of a union for a long time now. At least NYSUT is doing the right thing on testing and on teacher evaluation for that matter where they are calling for teacher evaluation to be returned to local districts free of state mandates.
Don't forget our petition. We need to spread that word as we are now close to 800 signatures to get rid of the Danielson-Junk Science teacher evaluations. The original goal in my head was to get to 1,000 which is certainly within striking distance. We are just a little caucus and need everyone to help us out so that more teachers and concerned citizens know about the petition.
The UFT Update reads like the Oklahoma teacher strikers didn't fare that well. The headline about the end of the Oklahoma strike was: "Oklahoma teacher walkout ends in mixed results."
On the other hand, here is what the Wall Street Journal said about the end of the strike:
Most Oklahoma teachers will return to school on Friday, putting an end to a nine-day strike that resulted in pay raises and boosted state funding for education.
The demonstrations, which sent teachers by the tens of thousands to the state Capitol each day schools were closed, represented the strongest labor action the conservative state has seen in several decades.
The threat of a strike initially prompted legislators to give the teachers a $6,000 average raise this year and add nearly $500 million in education funding. During the subsequent walkout, the legislature passed several other revenue increases to benefit education, including a new tax on online sales and an expansion of the types of games permitted at casinos.
On the state tests given last week, the UFT says absolutely nothing, not a word, in the weekly update.
As for NYSUT, they featured the problems with the state exams as the lead story in last Friday's NYSUT Leader Update.
State's foray into computer-based grade 3-8 tests is disastrous
While SED initially tried to call it a "glitch," NYSUT called this week's rush to computer-based testing nothing short of disaster. NYSUT's strong criticism -- and accounts of a wide range of technological problems -- were widely reported in news and social media posts around the state. In many of the nearly 300 schools test-driving the new system, students were unable to log in, lost work or had to repeat entire tests. Late Friday afternoon, SED finally acknowledged what it called "an unacceptable failure."
The problems went far beyond technical breakdowns. Educators raised numerous concerns with the traditional pencil and paper tests, too. Our Twitter feed is filled with heartbreaking anecdotes from members who described student frustration, exhaustion and tears. This week's developments only added fuel to condemnation of the state's testing system. On Monday, the day before testing began, NYSUT launched an online Thunderclap calling for the state to fix the unfair benchmarks that set proficiency rates for the standardized tests. Here are NYSUT's fact sheets outlining opt out rights for parents.
The UFT has been a joke of a union for a long time now. At least NYSUT is doing the right thing on testing and on teacher evaluation for that matter where they are calling for teacher evaluation to be returned to local districts free of state mandates.
Don't forget our petition. We need to spread that word as we are now close to 800 signatures to get rid of the Danielson-Junk Science teacher evaluations. The original goal in my head was to get to 1,000 which is certainly within striking distance. We are just a little caucus and need everyone to help us out so that more teachers and concerned citizens know about the petition.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
DETAILS ON THE NEW STATE LAW PROTECTING UNIONS
We have copied below the entire new New York State law protecting unions. Thanks to Bennett Fischer for sending us the law.
There are a couple of parts that stand out for me:
No provision of this article
15 shall be construed to require an employee organization to provide repre-
16 sentation to a non-member (i) during questioning by the employer, (ii)
17 in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or
18 regulatory rights, or (iii) in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or
19 other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a
20 public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the
21 employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate. Nor
22 shall any provision of this article prohibit an employee organization
23 from providing legal, economic or job-related services or benefits
24 beyond those provided in the agreement with a public employer only to
25 its members.
The non-member as I understand this is now able to be represented by his or her own advocate. Does that mean we are no longer beholden to the UFT Grievance Department and/or borough offices but only if we leave the UFT? For many who have dealt with some of the advocates in the UFT, that just might be a huge incentive to quit the union. Someone with a legal mind please read this for us non-lawyers.
To this non legal eye, it kind of looks like the state is inadvertently giving workers the green light to form competing employee advocacy organizations to defend themselves. It appears the intent of the law is to scare employees into staying in the union by saying that if you aren't in the union, you don't get union representation when you are in trouble. However, do the state lawmakers and governor have any idea how there are occasions when UFT advocacy leaves a little or sometimes a whole lot to be desired? Again, I am not a lawyer and require legal assistance to figure this out.
(b) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of a signed authori-
11 zation shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
12 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such determination shall not
13 affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of such signed authorization
14 but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
15 graph, or part of the signed authorization directly involved in the
16 controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
I think the state is saying we all don't have to opt back in if the Supreme Court rules, as we all expect them to, that agency fees are unconstitutional.
Attorneys please help us here too.
Here is the UFT interpretation of the new law from the Weekly Chapter Leader Update:
The actual text of the new law:
8 Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 208 of the civil service law, as
9 amended by chapter 503 of the laws of 1971, is amended and two new
10 subdivisions 4 and 5 are added to read as follows:
11 1. A public employer shall extend to an employee organization certi-
12 fied or recognized pursuant to this article the following rights:
13 (a) to represent the employees in negotiations notwithstanding the
14 existence of an agreement with an employee organization that is no long-
15 er certified or recognized, and in the settlement of grievances; and
16 (b) to membership dues deduction, upon presentation of dues deduction
17 authorization cards signed by individual employees. A public employer
18 shall commence making such deductions as soon as practicable, but in no
19 case later than thirty days after receiving proof of a signed dues
20 deduction authorization card; and such dues shall be transmitted to the
21 certified or recognized employee organization within thirty days of the
22 deduction. A public employer shall accept a signed authorization to
23 deduct from the salary of a public employee an amount for the payment of
24 his or her dues in any format permitted by article three of the state
25 technology law. The right to such membership dues deduction shall remain
26 in full force and effect until:
27 (i) an individual employee revokes membership in the employee organ-
28 ization in writing in accordance with the terms of the signed authori-
29 zation; or
30 (ii) the individual employee is no longer employed by the public
31 employer, provided that if such employee is, within a period of one
32 year, employed by the same public employer in a position represented by
33 the same employee organization, the right to such dues deduction shall
34 be automatically reinstated.
35 (c) Should the individual employee who has signed a dues deduction
36 authorization card either be removed from a public employer's payroll or
37 otherwise placed on any type of involuntary or voluntary leave of
38 absence, whether paid or unpaid, such public employee's membership in an
39 employee organization shall be continued upon that public employee's
40 return to the payroll or restoration to active duty from such a leave of
41 absence.
42 4. (a) Within thirty days of a public employee first being employed or
43 reemployed by a public employer, or within thirty days of being promoted
44 or transferred to a new bargaining unit, the public employer shall noti-
45 fy the employee organization, if any, that represents that bargaining
46 unit of the employee's name, address, job title, employing agency,
47 department or other operating unit, and work location; and
48 (b) Within thirty days of providing the notice in paragraph a of this
49 subdivision, a public employer shall allow a duly appointed represen-
50 tative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit
51 to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time during his or
52 her work time without charge to leave credits, unless otherwise speci-
53 fied within an agreement bargained collectively under article fourteen
54 of the civil service law, provided however that arrangements for such
S. 7509--C 192 A. 9509--C
1 meeting must be scheduled in consultation with a designated represen-
2 tative of the public employer.
3 5. (a) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or subdivision of this
4 section shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
5 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
6 impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its
7 operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or subdivision of this
8 section directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment
9 shall have been rendered.
10 (b) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of a signed authori-
11 zation shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
12 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such determination shall not
13 affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of such signed authorization
14 but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
15 graph, or part of the signed authorization directly involved in the
16 controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
17 § 2. Subdivision 1 of section 93-b of the general municipal law, as
18 amended by chapter 632 of the laws of 1964, is amended to read as
19 follows:
20 1. The fiscal or disbursing officer of every municipal corporation or
21 other civil division or political subdivision of the state is hereby
22 authorized to deduct from the wage or salary of any employee of such
23 municipal corporation or civil division or political subdivision of the
24 state such amount that such employee may specify in writing filed with
25 such fiscal or disbursing officer for the payment of dues in a duly
26 organized association or organization of civil service employees and to
27 transmit the sum so deducted to the said association or organization.
28 Any such written authorization [may be withdrawn by such employee or
29 member at any time by filing written notice of such withdrawal with the
30 fiscal or disbursing officer] shall remain in effect in accordance with
31 subdivision one of section two hundred eight of the civil service law.
32 § 3. Subdivision 2 of section 201 of the state finance law, as amended
33 by chapter 233 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as follows:
34 2. The comptroller is hereby authorized to deduct from the salary of
35 any employee of the state such amount as such employee may specify in
36 writing filed in a manner determined by the comptroller for the payment
37 of membership dues in a duly organized association or organization of
38 civil service employees or faculty members of the state university and
39 to transmit the sums so deducted to the said association or organiza-
40 tion. Any such written authorization [may be withdrawn by such employee
41 at any time upon filing written notice of such withdrawal in a manner
42 determined by the comptroller] shall remain in effect in accordance with
43 subdivision one of section two hundred eight of the civil service law.
44 The foregoing notwithstanding, and subject to the provisions of article
45 fourteen of the civil service law, such deductions and transmittals
46 shall be terminated as to one or more such associations or organizations
47 in accordance with the written directions of the director of employee
48 relations, not more than thirty days after receipt by the comptroller of
49 such directions. The deductions and transmittals which were the subject
50 of such directions shall not thereafter be resumed without the written
51 approval of such director.
52 § 4. Subdivision 2 of section 209-a of the civil service law, as
53 amended by chapter 467 of the laws of 1990, is amended to read as
54 follows:
55 2. Improper employee organization practices. It shall be an improper
56 practice for an employee organization or its agents deliberately (a) to S. 7509--C 193 A. 9509--C
1 interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of
2 the rights granted in section two hundred two, or to cause, or attempt
3 to cause, a public employer to do so provided, however, that an employee
4 organization does not interfere with, restrain or coerce public employ-
5 ees when it limits its services to and representation of non-members in
6 accordance with this subdivision; (b) to refuse to negotiate collective-
7 ly in good faith with a public employer, provided it is the duly recog-
8 nized or certified representative of the employees of such employer; or
9 (c) to breach its duty of fair representation to public employees under
10 this article. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contra-
11 ry, an employee organization's duty of fair representation to a public
12 employee it represents but who is not a member of the employee organiza-
13 tion shall be limited to the negotiation or enforcement of the terms of
14 an agreement with the public employer.
No provision of this article
15 shall be construed to require an employee organization to provide repre- 16 sentation to a non-member (i) during questioning by the employer, (ii)
17 in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or
18 regulatory rights, or (iii) in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or
19 other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a
20 public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the
21 employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate. Nor
22 shall any provision of this article prohibit an employee organization
23 from providing legal, economic or job-related services or benefits
24 beyond those provided in the agreement with a public employer only to
25 its members.
26 § 5. Nothing in this act shall be construed to impede, infringe or
27 diminish the rights and benefits which accrue to an employee organiza-
28 tion through a bonafide collective bargaining agreement.
29 § 6. This act shall take effect immediately.
There are a couple of parts that stand out for me:
No provision of this article
15 shall be construed to require an employee organization to provide repre-
16 sentation to a non-member (i) during questioning by the employer, (ii)
17 in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or
18 regulatory rights, or (iii) in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or
19 other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a
20 public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the
21 employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate. Nor
22 shall any provision of this article prohibit an employee organization
23 from providing legal, economic or job-related services or benefits
24 beyond those provided in the agreement with a public employer only to
25 its members.
The non-member as I understand this is now able to be represented by his or her own advocate. Does that mean we are no longer beholden to the UFT Grievance Department and/or borough offices but only if we leave the UFT? For many who have dealt with some of the advocates in the UFT, that just might be a huge incentive to quit the union. Someone with a legal mind please read this for us non-lawyers.
To this non legal eye, it kind of looks like the state is inadvertently giving workers the green light to form competing employee advocacy organizations to defend themselves. It appears the intent of the law is to scare employees into staying in the union by saying that if you aren't in the union, you don't get union representation when you are in trouble. However, do the state lawmakers and governor have any idea how there are occasions when UFT advocacy leaves a little or sometimes a whole lot to be desired? Again, I am not a lawyer and require legal assistance to figure this out.
(b) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of a signed authori-
11 zation shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
12 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such determination shall not
13 affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of such signed authorization
14 but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
15 graph, or part of the signed authorization directly involved in the
16 controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
I think the state is saying we all don't have to opt back in if the Supreme Court rules, as we all expect them to, that agency fees are unconstitutional.
Attorneys please help us here too.
Here is the UFT interpretation of the new law from the Weekly Chapter Leader Update:
New law gives boost to unions facing Janus threat
Before a packed house of labor leaders and union members at UFT headquarters, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation on April 12 that helps New York’s public-employee unions recruit and retain members and reduces the number of services these unions, including the UFT, are obligated to provide to workers who do not pay to support those services. The new protection comes as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the Janus v. AFSCME case — a right-wing lawsuit aiming to bar unions from collecting fair-share fees from workers who benefit from a union’s collective bargaining but choose not to belong to the union. The court is expected to issue a ruling in the case in May or June. “This is what we need to do in every state,” UFT President Michael Mulgrew told the 500-plus elected officials, labor leaders and union members. The law, which was hammered out as part of this year’s state budget talks, also makes it easier for unions in New York to sign up public-sector workers by requiring a public employer to notify the union within 30 days after a worker is hired and to hand over their name, home address, and work location. Under the law, the public employer must begin dues deductions within 30 days of receiving authorization. Gov. Cuomo warned that the Janus lawsuit was “the tip of the iceberg” in terms of the attack on working people and the labor movement. “They are coming at the union movement piece by piece,” he said to the assembled union leaders and members, because of labor’s political clout and “because you built and protect the middle class.” He called it the “first step of the resistance.” You can read the full story on the UFT website.
The actual text of the new law:
PART RRR
8 Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 208 of the civil service law, as
9 amended by chapter 503 of the laws of 1971, is amended and two new
10 subdivisions 4 and 5 are added to read as follows:
11 1. A public employer shall extend to an employee organization certi-
12 fied or recognized pursuant to this article the following rights:
13 (a) to represent the employees in negotiations notwithstanding the
14 existence of an agreement with an employee organization that is no long-
15 er certified or recognized, and in the settlement of grievances; and
16 (b) to membership dues deduction, upon presentation of dues deduction
17 authorization cards signed by individual employees. A public employer
18 shall commence making such deductions as soon as practicable, but in no
19 case later than thirty days after receiving proof of a signed dues
20 deduction authorization card; and such dues shall be transmitted to the
21 certified or recognized employee organization within thirty days of the
22 deduction. A public employer shall accept a signed authorization to
23 deduct from the salary of a public employee an amount for the payment of
24 his or her dues in any format permitted by article three of the state
25 technology law. The right to such membership dues deduction shall remain
26 in full force and effect until:
27 (i) an individual employee revokes membership in the employee organ-
28 ization in writing in accordance with the terms of the signed authori-
29 zation; or
30 (ii) the individual employee is no longer employed by the public
31 employer, provided that if such employee is, within a period of one
32 year, employed by the same public employer in a position represented by
33 the same employee organization, the right to such dues deduction shall
34 be automatically reinstated.
35 (c) Should the individual employee who has signed a dues deduction
36 authorization card either be removed from a public employer's payroll or
37 otherwise placed on any type of involuntary or voluntary leave of
38 absence, whether paid or unpaid, such public employee's membership in an
39 employee organization shall be continued upon that public employee's
40 return to the payroll or restoration to active duty from such a leave of
41 absence.
42 4. (a) Within thirty days of a public employee first being employed or
43 reemployed by a public employer, or within thirty days of being promoted
44 or transferred to a new bargaining unit, the public employer shall noti-
45 fy the employee organization, if any, that represents that bargaining
46 unit of the employee's name, address, job title, employing agency,
47 department or other operating unit, and work location; and
48 (b) Within thirty days of providing the notice in paragraph a of this
49 subdivision, a public employer shall allow a duly appointed represen-
50 tative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit
51 to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time during his or
52 her work time without charge to leave credits, unless otherwise speci-
53 fied within an agreement bargained collectively under article fourteen
54 of the civil service law, provided however that arrangements for such
S. 7509--C 192 A. 9509--C
1 meeting must be scheduled in consultation with a designated represen-
2 tative of the public employer.
3 5. (a) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or subdivision of this
4 section shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
5 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such judgment shall not affect,
6 impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its
7 operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or subdivision of this
8 section directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment
9 shall have been rendered.
10 (b) If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of a signed authori-
11 zation shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
12 unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such determination shall not
13 affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of such signed authorization
14 but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, para-
15 graph, or part of the signed authorization directly involved in the
16 controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
17 § 2. Subdivision 1 of section 93-b of the general municipal law, as
18 amended by chapter 632 of the laws of 1964, is amended to read as
19 follows:
20 1. The fiscal or disbursing officer of every municipal corporation or
21 other civil division or political subdivision of the state is hereby
22 authorized to deduct from the wage or salary of any employee of such
23 municipal corporation or civil division or political subdivision of the
24 state such amount that such employee may specify in writing filed with
25 such fiscal or disbursing officer for the payment of dues in a duly
26 organized association or organization of civil service employees and to
27 transmit the sum so deducted to the said association or organization.
28 Any such written authorization [may be withdrawn by such employee or
29 member at any time by filing written notice of such withdrawal with the
30 fiscal or disbursing officer] shall remain in effect in accordance with
31 subdivision one of section two hundred eight of the civil service law.
32 § 3. Subdivision 2 of section 201 of the state finance law, as amended
33 by chapter 233 of the laws of 1992, is amended to read as follows:
34 2. The comptroller is hereby authorized to deduct from the salary of
35 any employee of the state such amount as such employee may specify in
36 writing filed in a manner determined by the comptroller for the payment
37 of membership dues in a duly organized association or organization of
38 civil service employees or faculty members of the state university and
39 to transmit the sums so deducted to the said association or organiza-
40 tion. Any such written authorization [may be withdrawn by such employee
41 at any time upon filing written notice of such withdrawal in a manner
42 determined by the comptroller] shall remain in effect in accordance with
43 subdivision one of section two hundred eight of the civil service law.
44 The foregoing notwithstanding, and subject to the provisions of article
45 fourteen of the civil service law, such deductions and transmittals
46 shall be terminated as to one or more such associations or organizations
47 in accordance with the written directions of the director of employee
48 relations, not more than thirty days after receipt by the comptroller of
49 such directions. The deductions and transmittals which were the subject
50 of such directions shall not thereafter be resumed without the written
51 approval of such director.
52 § 4. Subdivision 2 of section 209-a of the civil service law, as
53 amended by chapter 467 of the laws of 1990, is amended to read as
54 follows:
55 2. Improper employee organization practices. It shall be an improper
56 practice for an employee organization or its agents deliberately (a) to S. 7509--C 193 A. 9509--C
1 interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of
2 the rights granted in section two hundred two, or to cause, or attempt
3 to cause, a public employer to do so provided, however, that an employee
4 organization does not interfere with, restrain or coerce public employ-
5 ees when it limits its services to and representation of non-members in
6 accordance with this subdivision; (b) to refuse to negotiate collective-
7 ly in good faith with a public employer, provided it is the duly recog-
8 nized or certified representative of the employees of such employer; or
9 (c) to breach its duty of fair representation to public employees under
10 this article. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contra-
11 ry, an employee organization's duty of fair representation to a public
12 employee it represents but who is not a member of the employee organiza-
13 tion shall be limited to the negotiation or enforcement of the terms of
14 an agreement with the public employer.
No provision of this article
15 shall be construed to require an employee organization to provide repre- 16 sentation to a non-member (i) during questioning by the employer, (ii)
17 in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or
18 regulatory rights, or (iii) in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or
19 other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a
20 public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the
21 employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate. Nor
22 shall any provision of this article prohibit an employee organization
23 from providing legal, economic or job-related services or benefits
24 beyond those provided in the agreement with a public employer only to
25 its members.
26 § 5. Nothing in this act shall be construed to impede, infringe or
27 diminish the rights and benefits which accrue to an employee organiza-
28 tion through a bonafide collective bargaining agreement.
29 § 6. This act shall take effect immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)