Pension Deal & Merit Pay Plan Breakdown: The Good, The Bad and the Utterly Insulting

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader Jamaica High School

(The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent pension advice. We recommend that for pension advice members should call a qualified pension consultant. )

There has been a great deal of discussion on the blogs and in schools about the pension deal and the merit pay plan. Before we begin please note that currently Tier IV members need to have 30 years of service and be at least 55 to retire without penalty or they have to be 62 years old and meet other criteria.

It is also important to note that the proposed 55/25 will provide a pension without a penalty. If someone retires at 55 with 25 years of service, the final pension you receive will be 10% less than if you retired with 30 years. Obviously, the more years you work, the greater the pension.

Listed below is the actual 2005 Contractual language for pension legislation along with much of a letter from city Labor Commissioner James Hanley to Randi Weingarten. Hopefully, after reading this piece UFT members will have some factual information for when the parade of Unity representatives come to the schools to try to sell yet another questionable deal, even though we won't even get to vote on this one because we already approved most of this in the 2005 Contract.

Article 4C from the 2005 Contract called Pension Legislation:

1. A Labor-Management Pension Committee will be established to investigate legislation allowing all current and future members of the TRS Tier II, III and IV to retire without a reduction of benefits due to early retirement upon age 55 with at least 25 years of service, as well as other relevant pension issues.

2. The Committee will analyze the actual costs and additional contribution rates required to provide this benefit (including any additional health insurance benefit costs) without any cost to the City.

3. Upon mutual acceptance of the Committee's recommendations, including plan design and costs, the parties agree to jointly support the legislation necessary to implement the benefit changes.

The Four main provisions of the pension agreement that were written in a letter from city labor commissioner to UFT President Randi Weingarten last week that goes now to Albany for approval.

(1) An "opt-in period" of six months in which any incumbent employee who wishes to participate in this optional program must affirmatively submit a written election to participate.

(2) Additional Member Contributions (AMC) - in addition to all currently required statutory contributions, an Additional Member Contribution (AMC) of 1.85% shall be paid by those employees electing to participate in this optional program as well as by all newly-hired employees participating in the TRS and newly-hired UFT-represented above listed members participating in BERS retirement systems. These additional member contributions shall become effective on the first business day after the enactment of the enabling legislation.

(3) Current incumbent employees including those on leave who elect to participate in this optional program and who pay the requisite AMC shall be eligible to retire at age 55 with 25 years of credited service with immediate payability of pension benefits without any reduction. Assuming the legislation is effectuated in 2007-08 school year, those who elect this pension will be eligible to retire 6/30/08 or later.

(4) Employees hired after enactment of this enabling legislation shall be eligible to retire at age 55 with 27 years of service and receive immediate payability of pension benefits without any reduction. This will not be construed to change the eligibility for retiree health insurance benefits (i.e., ten years of credited service and pension payability) as determined by the City and the Municipal Labor Committee and in accordance with the Administrative Code.

So Who Wins and Loses?

The Pension Agreement

The Winners

1. Generally, UFT members who started in the system (or another system but got city TRS pension credit for it) between the ages of 26 and 36 should consider opting in on 55/25 even though they will have to pay 1.85% of their salary for the rest of their career into their pension. They will be able to retire when they complete at least 25 years of service as long as they are at least 55 years old without the substantial percentage reduction in pension income that exists now. (If someone opts in and changes their mind and decides to stay the full 30 years or until age 62, I doubt they will get a refund of those additional contributions so if you opt in, you will probably need to retire as soon as you can to stay a winner.)

2. Anyone who started in the retirement system younger than age 26 but took substantial time off on un-credited, unpaid leave (child care, restoration of health without pay) which means they won't have the required 30 years of service that is needed to retire at age 55 without opting in to 55/25 . Anyone in this category also should consider opting in if they want to retire at age 55 with at least 25 years of service without a reduction. Remember, however, you will have to pay 1.85% of salary into the retirement system for the rest of your career if you opt in.

3. People who cover classes gain as coverages will be counted as income when figuring out the Final Average Salary that pension payments are based upon.

4. The City of New York- The NY Times reported last Thursday that Bloomberg expects the city will gain tens of millions of dollars over the long term from this agreement. For more on how the city gains, read on.

The No Gainers

1. Anyone who started before age 26 (and will work straight through until retirement) cannot retire a day earlier because of this agreement as far as we can tell. They will still need to work at least 30 years to collect a full pension upon retirement.

2. Anyone who started at age 37 or later cannot retire a day earlier because of this agreement as far as we can tell because they won't have the years of service that are necessary to take advantage of the new program. At age 62, their retirement won't be subject to a reduction in benefits.

3. Tier I members

Note that all of the no gainers could gain from coverages being pensionable.

The Big Losers

Teachers not yet hired-

Right now UFT members have to pay 3% of their salary into the pension for the first ten years of service and then nothing for the rest of their career. Under the new system they will have to pay 4.85% for the first ten years and 1.85% thereafter but they will not be permitted to retire at 55 with 25 years of service as was agreed to in Article 4C1 of the Contract. Instead, the new agreement says they have to complete 27 years and be at least 55. In addition, a teacher hired right out of college at age 22 will have to work 33 years to be able to retire and unlike those teaching now, they will have to make pension contributions for their entire career, not just the first ten years of service. That is why we are calling this provision a de-facto Tier V and this is how the city wins.

We would like everyone who reads this blog who would like to question a Unity representative to ask why Randi gave up so many of our rights in the 2005 Contract but she couldn't get what the city agreed to in the Contract: "legislation allowing all current and future members of the TRS Tier II, III and IV to retire without a reduction of benefits due to early retirement upon age 55 with at least 25 years of service?" Emphasis on future members added by us. 55/27 for yet to be hired teachers is not 55/25 and pension contributions for new teachers for their entire careers is a step backwards.

Merit Pay

The little ugly merit pay provision was snuck into the last Contract in an Article 8L which you won't find much about in those glossy "fact sheets" and special NY Teacher editions selling the punitive giveback laden Contract that among other indignities forced us back to hall patrols and gave us work in August. The school-wide bonuses for improved student performance are there also. Article 8L says:

Labor/Management Committee On Long Term Reforms

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: a)bonuses, including housing bonuses, for shortage license areas; b) a pilot project for school-wide based performance bonuses for sustained growth in student achievement c) salary differentials at the MA-5 through MA-7 levels; and d) a program for the reduction of class sizes in all grades and divisions. If the parties agree on the terms of any or all of these issues, they may be implemented by the Board using whatever funds may be identified.

You see ladies and gentlemen we voted for merit pay when we voted for the 2005 Contract.

Is anyone holding their breath waiting for the class size reduction program in Article 8L to be implemented?

The Winners

Nobody

The Grand Losers

New York City educators, parents, students and anyone nationally who attempts to follow NYC and implement such a dumb merit pay plan. We will see millions of dollars that could go to worthy projects such as lowering class sizes, adding more guidance counselors, social workers or paras, or starting up more after school programs that instead will be raised for a completely useless merit pay plan whose underlying assumption is that if the city dangles a possible $3,000 in front of a school staff, then teachers will work harder than they are working now and veteran teachers will run to transfer to difficult schools for that potential 3 grand. This merit pay plan is a combination boondoggle-slap in our faces.

DA SAYS YEA TO MERIT PAY

We often say that teaching and learning conditions cannot possibly get any worse in the New York City Public Schools and we are constantly proven wrong by the Chancellor and the UFT leadership. UFT President Randi Weingarten went in with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein and made the lives of educators she is supposed to represent even more unbearable by agreeing to school-wide merit pay. The deal was announced at the first UFT Delegate Assembly meeting on Wednesday and approved by the delegates. While Randi has been urging us to write faxes to Washington opposing individual merit pay, she was negotiating a deal with Bloomberg that will give us school-wide merit pay for student achievement gains in up to 200 low performing schools this school year and 400 next year. This is supposed to be a pilot project with 55% of UFT staff in each pilot school having to vote to opt in the program and the Principal has to agree to be a part of it as well.

Also, if a school agrees to be in the merit pay program, then it could be a positive factor in determining whether the "Participant School" is to be phased out or given a year's moratorium on a possible phase-out. The DOE in consultation with the UFT will set the criteria for awarding funds to schools. The amount will be $3,000 per member in a school. How that money will be divided will be decided by a committee made up of the principal, an assistant principal and two UFT members who are elected. This group must reach a consensus on how to distribute the bonuses or the school will receive nothing.

Clause twelve of the Memorandum of Agreement states: "Among the topics each Participant School compensation committee may decide to consider, after receiving guidance from the DOE and UFT, are whether to make equal individual awards to all eligible UFT staff, equal awards to all those in the same title (teachers paras, secretaries, counselors, etc...), or whether to make differential awards." As we read this, there is nothing that would stop a compensation committee from awarding various members nothing or they could give teachers more than counselors, or any combination that the committee wants. If a simple majority of the UFT Chapter votes to accept what the committee comes up with, then that's the award. Therefore if a school has fifty UFT members and the school's compensation committee decides to give 26 of them $6,000 and everyone else gets nothing and the twenty six agree to this, then everyone else would get nothing. That of course is an extreme example but we know it is not out of the realm of the possible. In addition, a vindictive principal could block consensus to spite a staff and give them nothing. There is an appeal process but all administration would have to do is prove they were not acting in an arbitrary and capricious way.

Merit pay could prove to be very divisive. For example what if there is a teacher who has tougher grading standards, there will be major pressure on that teacher and all teachers to pass everyone. The potential for cheating on tests and marking or playing with attendance numbers will be enormous.
What is most insulting about the merit pay program is the assumption by Randi and the city that the only reason any of us will be motivated to do our best in the classroom is so we can get an extra $3,000.

A DE-FACTO TIER V PENSION FOR UNBORN

The other big news from the DA was that the promised 55 years of age and 25 years working in the system retirement program should become a reality now that the city and the UFT have agreed to its final cost. The only step left is to get the Legislature and Governor to sign off which should not be a major hurdle since the city and UFT are now working together. When we looked very closely at the details of the letter that City Labor Commissioner James Hanley sent to Randi, it became obvious that this isn't a pension improvement for most UFT members but rather it is a new retirement tier, a De-facto Tier V for teachers yet to be hired.

For those currently in the system, there will be an "opt-in period" of six months to decide whether to participate. Weingarten told the DA that 36,000 members out of 100,000 active members would potentially be eligible. A member would have to make Additional Member Contributions of 1.85% for the rest of their career to be eligible to retire at age 55 with 25 years of service without the penalty that exists under current law.

For members not yet hired the situation is not at all positive. Anyone hired after this legislation is enacted would have to pay 4.85% of salary toward the pension for their first ten years of service and then new hires would have to pay 1.85% of their salary as contributions to the pension for the rest of their career. However, the new employees would not be eligible to retire with 25 years of service but instead they would have to be 55 and have finished 27 years of service.

Someone who starts teaching right out of college at age 22 is totally abused by the new system as they would have to pay pension contributions (4.85% for ten years and then 1.85% for the rest of their career) for 33 years before being eligible to retire without penalty. Right now the same college graduate who started in the system this year only has to make a 3% pension contribution for their first ten years of service. This is why we are calling this system a de-facto Tier V. It is another disincentive to teach in New York City for a young college graduate. ICE would also like to point out that once again we were right when we said the following on this blog last November when the Contract was proposed: "Let's remember that we have still not gotten the 25-55 year retirement that was supposed to have been won in our last contract. Will the 7% raise turn out to be much less?" For a teacher hired after the new law is passed, much of that 7% is gone for their entire career. Young teachers would be better off in yet another way working in a system in New York State outside of New York City or starting in the city, gaining experience and then going to a suburban district.

Both the De-facto Tier V and the merit pay scheme were overwhelmingly approved by the delegates but there was an enthusiastic opposition. Hopefully, word will get out in the schools about how future teachers will be hurt by the UFT pension scheme and we now have merit pay which we have opposed for years.

MORE BAD NEWS ON MERIT PAY & EXCESSED TEACHERS

In other Delegate Assembly news the delegates rejected a proposal by Peter Lamphere from Teachers for a Just Contract that called for the UFT to lead an AFT fight that would culminate in a rally in Washington opposing of all things, merit pay. The delegates also rejected two ICE amendments to a resolution asking for a moratorium on hiring new educators until all Absent Teacher Reserves (UFT members in excess) are placed. ICE believes that the resolution has little or no chance of being accepted by the Chancellor because there are no union actions that would support it. Randi at the September 25 Chapter leaders meeting said that it would be difficult to get the Chancellor to agree to the moratorium on hiring until ATR's are placed. We believe it will be impossible if the Union does not back the resolution with a full scale mobilization of UFT resources.

Jeff Kaufman motivated the amendments by telling Randi that she was in effect telling the ATR's "to go to hell," because she will not put the full weight and force of the Union behind the resolution to help them. ICE also believes that one of the biggest causes of the ATR problem is the closing of schools where again the Union needed to mobilize its members to get a moratorium on closing schools until we can have studies done assessing the effectiveness of closing schools on the educational process. Randi said we lost that battle in a court case years ago. The UFT won't even consider a real fight to keep its chapters together. When it comes to working for its members, this union once again proved it knows only one word:

Retreat!

When will the people who work in the schools say, "Enough already?"

UFT BARKS ON RUBBER ROOMS…BUT NO BITE

In a recent New York Sun article UFT newly hired "Rubber Room" guru Betsy Combier is reported to have joined forces with two New York Teacher journalists and dubbed themselves the "SWAT Team of the Reassignment Center." As previously stated on this blog the three person team is Randi's answer to the increasing pressure to do something about the burgeoning rubber room. But, alas, more of the same.

The real issue in this fiasco is the lack of union leadership in dealing with the DOE's increased use of the rubber rooms as a place to dump, what it considers, troublemakers, questioning staff and others it does not like. The fact that the UFT has totally failed in representing these accused members zealously is lost in the shuffle.

When a principal gets the o.k. (which is freely given in this age of principal autocracy) a member is ordered to report to a rubber room. Many times these members have little or no inkling as to what they have done to deserve the removal from their school and students. The union's reaction to such removal is basically nothing.

There is no investigation. There is no consultation with a labor attorney. There is no explanation of rights. In most cases the Union doesn't even know a person has been removed.

As the case against the member gets old the DOE has fully investigated the allegations and has spent months (and even years) preparing for a hearing to terminate the member. The Union's response…until charges are served there is no investigation. After charges are served the matter is referred to a NYSUT attorney where the "investigation" begins…by the same NYSUT attorney. There are no paralegals, investigators or anyone with knowledge about employment law, the DOE or anything else that will be involved in the case.

NYSUT attorneys do not issue subpoenas (too much work to go to court) or FOIL requests or interview witnesses other than those supplied by the member and at this point the issues are stale and memories have faded.

But we now have the SWAT team who will come to the rescue. And they threaten a lawsuit. A lawsuit for what? How do you sue for better representation?

Randi Reports Smooth School Opening at Citywide Chapter Leader Meeting in Brooklyn

by James Eterno Jamaica High School Chapter Leader

UFT President Randi Weingarten told us Tuesday at a Citywide Chapter Leader meeting at the Brooklyn Marriot Hotel that there was a smooth opening to the school year. She added that it was the smoothest opening she had seen in years. She went on to say that there were only 4,000 class size grievances filed compared to 6,000 to 17,000 in years past. Randi also stated that the open market transfer plan has led to 3,400 people transferring and members at all seniority levels were taking advantage of the open market in greater numbers than under the old seniority plan.

Randi continued by saying that there were two problem areas that the UFT was focusing on: Absent Teacher Reserves and people in Rubber Rooms. She noted that there were about 500 Absent Teacher Reserves who were funded centrally and that the UFT was seeking a Board of Education moratorium on hiring until all of the ATR's who want a position are placed. She added that people from closed or redesigned schools should have preferences for available jobs. She also noted that members can't be laid off unless there is a city fiscal crisis. For people with unsatisfactory ratings, Randi said that justice delayed is justice denied and that she is pushing Joel Klein, who she noted cannot fire tenured teachers, to move forward cases that by law will be heard by independent arbitrators even though she understood that some of our members are so traumatized that they don't want their cases to be pushed. She said she put a three person team together to work with people in the rubber rooms.

Randi also told the Chapter Leaders Teachers' Choice allocation has been increased. Finally, she reported on some good news and bad news. The bad news was that reauthorization of No Child Left Behind might include a mandate for individual merit pay based on student test scores so she wanted all of the Chapter Leaders to sign letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their local Congressperson objecting. She also said that 55 years old and 25 years in the system retirement plan proposed as part of the last Contract is still being negotiated with the City but talks may have been slowed down because of the United Auto Workers strike. Other topics touched upon were helping a school library in New Orleans, the organizing drive for the home day care workers and an update on grievances.

Since the UFT leadership gave a relatively upbeat assessment on the start of the school year, it leads to a few questions that we would enjoy hearing answers to from our readers:

Is the opening of this school year as smooth as Randi portrayed?

Is 2,000 fewer oversized classes a cause for celebration or disgust considering how the city's school's budget has increased over the last few years? Is the money really going to the classroom if there are still 4,000 oversize classes?

Is the open market transfer plan a true improvement over the old seniority and SBO plans?

It seems that whenever the UFT leadership compares the situation today with the process that existed before the punitive 2005 Contract, they only compare seniority transfers with open market transfers. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Before the 2005 Contract, approximately half of the schools were using the SBO Transfer and Staffing plan where hiring committees (not Principals alone) selected staff while the seniority plan was limited by its nature since only half of each school's vacancies had to be posted. In addition, in the new system people who are excessed who find a job on the open market are counted as transferring. The point is if we add all of the seniority transfers, SBO transfers, people who were excessed and then placed in a different school, members who used the integration transfer plan, hardship transfers as well as administrative transfers under the old system, then we would have a little more of an apples to apples comparison of the new and old plans. The UFT spin is obviously tilted toward the open market plan which we maintain has turned school staffing into a patronage mill for principals.

Why not push every UFT member to sign a letter to Pelosi and their local congressperson opposing the current reauthorization of No Child Left Behind? Couldn't this be a great organizing tool in the schools?

Please comment as we want to know what members who follow this blog think about the state of the schools today.

Rubber Room Redux

In an incredible reversal of Union policy, Randi and the New York Teacher are using the term “Rubber Room” to refer to the those staff that have been removed from their schools, most without knowledge of the reason for their removal and almost all without formal charges. In the past we were told to only use the DOE term "Temporary Reassignment Center."

While the terms have reverted the Union’s handling of this issue has not changed.

The New York Teacher article, September 20, 2007 at page 7, reveals the true low priority that our reassigned teachers receive from our Union. While quoting the Sixth Amendment and the right to a speedy trial and witness confrontation Randi would have us believe that the Union is an effective advocate for our teachers. Her solution to burgeoning numbers of teachers sent to the rubber room; get three more Union over-paid reps to act as a team to “help” the borough reps.

Help them do what?

Last year ICE warned that with newly gained power over our members, principals would remove our us from schools at an ever increasing rate. Well we are here. The numbers in the Rubber Rooms are exploding. At one site, 25 Chapel Street in Brooklyn, the numbers have nearly doubled from just 2 years ago.

The opposition on the Executive Board moved to have true representation of our members. We sought paralegals, investigators and a true legal defense team to aggressively defend our members.

When a teacher or para is removed from their school they are entitled to know the reason. A basic tenet of speedy and fair trials is notice….the principals and the DOE know why a Union member is removed, why don’t we?

We encourage a policy to empty the rubber rooms but Randi would have it done by ill-prepared NYSUT attorneys who don’t get your case until the DOE decides and then months have gone by without out any real investigation being done on behalf of the member.

The Three Stooges will not be investigators, paralegals nor will they have any incentive to aggressively defend our members.

As Dostoevsky once said, “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." The effectiveness of the UFT as a true Union and advocate for its members can be judged by entering the Rubber Rooms.

Jamaica Chapter Thanks Randi

by James Eterno UFT Chapter Leader Jamaica High School

We criticize the UFT leaders when we believe they are wrong but we should also applaud them when they do right by us as they did today. There is no doubt at all that UFT President Randi Weingarten was 100% supportive today with regard to events happening at Jamaica High School.

Jamaica was in the news because of a leaked memo from last spring that directed deans not to call 911. Unfortunately, a girl suffered a stroke after this memo was put out and there was a delay in her receiving help because of the ridiculous directive.

We fought the directive and it was soon thereafter reversed with the help of the UFT.

Now that the issue has hit the news in full force, the UFT leadership has been in our corner at Jamaica. Randi spoke to me twice this afternoon and she also had Chris Policano and Ron Davis from the UFT communication's department talk to me. In addition, they were very encouraging when I was talking to the media.

Even though I ended up on the cutting room floor at CNN, I felt completely supported by the UFT leadership as well as ICE as Jeff Kaufman provided valuable advice too. The statement from the UFT President is printed below.

Statement by United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten:

"What happened at Jamaica High School is a horrible consequence of the pressure many school communities, particularly principals, feel to not report serious incidents in their schools or to minimize their significance in order to avoid schools being labeled as ineffective or persistently dangerous. For a school administrator to forbid calls to 911 shows how far one can stray from common sense and basic decency when the system is set up to discourage the reporting of incidents in schools.

"Accountability systems -- school report cards, for example -- must give credit for complete reporting of incidents, not penalize it. We must reverse the "Catch-22" that now exists, in which schools that step up and report incidents are punished. The system needs real incentives that make it possible for administrators to be open and honest about what is going on so that their schools can get the help and resources they need and parents can make informed decisions regarding their children's well-being."

Teachers, Parents, Students to Lose Power on School Leadership Teams if Chancellor's Regulation A655 is Changed

UFT Opposition to Changes so far Quite Low Key

by James Eterno UFT Chapter Leader Jamaica High School

The school year is under way and all appears wonderful on the outside.  Last Tuesday on the first day of classes for students, UFT President Randi Weingarten , Council of Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan, and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn were with Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Chancellor Joel Klein and Governor Elliot Spitzer in a show of unity for the start of the year. Some of you may have heard the latest optimistic UFT radio commercial.  This is the ad that is running on major radio stations where a male voice is requesting that it is time for the city to work with its teachers to create a  learning environment in the schools where teachers are partners with administration and share in decision making.  Then, Randi comes on and says that the message is brought to you by the UFT.  The timing to release this commercial calling for a collegial school environment is ironic to say the least as currently the Department of Education is attempting to strip parents, teachers and students of decision making authority on School Leadership Teams. 

School Leadership Teams are supposed to exist in every school.  They consist of parents, teachers (including the chapter leader), administrators in all schools and students are involved at the high school level.  The SLT's are responsible for making up each school's Comprehensive Education Plan and to develop a budget and staffing plan aligned with the CEP.  Decisions are supposed to be made by consensus between all constituencies on the SLT.  State law calls for shared decision making between parents, teachers and administrators.

At our first District Chapter Leader Meeting, UFT Queens High School District Representative James Vascuez handed us a packet and buried inside was a flyer asking us to "Take Action Now" because the Chancellor is attempting to weaken School Leadership Teams.  Under the proposed change to Chancellors Regulation A655 which covers School Leadership Teams, the teams would go from being collaborative to working under the principal.  A draft of a new A655 says, "...the principal makes the final determination on the CEP and the budget allocation."  Since SLT's are responsible for developing a schools' Comprehensive Education Plan, giving the Principal final say on the Leadership Team renders the SLT powerless and gives the principals even more dictatorial authority over schools.  This flies in the face of  part 100.11 of state education regulations which mandates shared decision making among parents, teachers and administrators.  The UFT is quite correct to oppose the change to Chancellor's Regulation A655.  The question is why is the UFT publicly talking about teachers sharing decision making with administration while Chancellor Klein is rewriting a regulation to strip away the authority parents, students and teachers have in schools? 

Perhaps the UFT's leadership believes that the only way to win favor with Bloomberg and Klein is to privately push to stop the changes in the SLT regulation and not mention it in public.  The Mayor constantly tells people not to yell and scream if they want something.  This may be the case however there is a public comment period until September 16, 2007 on the proposed changes to Chancellor's Regulation A655.  Why isn't the UFT at least informing its chapter leaders though multiple special emails and the weekly email newsletter or better still sending emails to all of our members who have email accounts and our parent allies about yet another attack on teacher, parent and student rights? 

We should be mobilizing to bombard the DOE with emails to A655comments@schools.nyc.gov opposing any change to A655 that would weaken shared decision making.    Wasn't the revitalization of the School Leadership Teams, not their weakening, one of the gains we supposedly made in negotiations to "postpone" the big rally last spring with the teachers, parents and students?  It looks like the UFT is waging an extremely low key opposition to yet another attack on us.

This is not the time for the UFT to  join along with the Bloomberg-Klein happy talk about the schools.  We need to lead the battle now to enhance teacher, parent and student shared decision making authority on School Leadership Teams.  ICE urges everyone to send an email to A655comments@schools.nyc.gov before September 16 opposing the weakening of the School Leadership Teams and send Randi a copy if you would like to also. It's not too late to make this a real campaign.

NEW PATTERN FOR OUR NEXT CONTRACT POSSIBLE ALREADY

LET'S WORK TO GET BACK OUR DIGNITY!

by James Eterno UFT Chapter Leader Jamaica High School

Those of us who work for the City of New York are well acquainted with pattern bargaining. One municipal union settles on a contract with the city that has a certain percentage salary increase, and other unions are then basically certain to receive the same percentage salary increase for the length of that particular round of collective bargaining. DC 37 set the pattern for the UFT's current Agreement when they agreed to a contract in 2006 and we took similar terms so this year we will get a 2% increase on October 13 and a 5% increase on May 19, 2008. Our Contract will expire October 31, 2009.

Two city unions have already extended past 2009. The NYPD sergeants' union and later the NYPD captains' union agreed to set what we think should be a new pattern that extends for roughly two more years through 2011. The annual increases for the sergeants and captains in those two new years are 4%. Since they are uniformed services who traditionally often get a slightly higher increase than civilian unions like the UFT, we cannot guarantee increases of 4% and 4% for 2010 and 2011, but there is no reason why we shouldn't get close. DC 37 is in salary negotiations now. They could set a civilian pattern possibly sooner rather than later. (The PBA [New York City police officers' union] is attempting to obliterate pattern bargaining in arbitration but it's debatable as to whether they can succeed.)

With the financial pattern for city workers probably established for 2010 and 2011 by other unions long before the UFT even starts to negotiate, we recommend a strategy of emphasizing non economic matters when the UFT goes back to the bargaining table. We need to start by winning back what we gave away in the punitive 2005 Contract.

The UFT should be out there emphasizing how these two days of school in August before Labor Day are generally a waste of time. Administrators should use this time to properly reorganize so school openings won't be so hectic every year. The UFT should not be touting the open market transfer plan, but instead we should inform the public about how much teaching talent is being wasted out there as Absent Teacher Reserves because of the current system for excessed personnel that no longer guarantees placement in a school. We should talk about how not having a grievance process for objecting to file letters and negative observation reports has lowered morale (other grievances remain in the Contract). We should find out how much taxpayer money is wasted because of insane charges against teachers. We should also demand an end to hall and cafeteria duty citywide. It is demeaning to get a masters degree to walk hallways.

In addition to getting back what was lost in 2005, we should push for real class size reductions and real caseload limits for guidance counselors and other UFT titles; no more loopholes for the Board of Ed. We are well aware that the city will say these are economic issues but they can use the money from the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit settlement. In summary, we need to insist upon professional treatment for all UFT titles.

The nation as a whole is coping with high teacher turnover according to the Monday, August 27, 2007 edition of the NY Times. We should make the next contract about improving our professionalism so quality teachers will want to stay in teaching as a career. We need to show the world the value of veteran educators who have been degraded in recent times.

Finally, the law that permitted unilateral Mayoral control of the NYC public schools in 2002 will expire in 2009 and will have to be renewed by the state legislature where we have some friends, so we should have some real leverage in the next few years. Teachers must be empowered in any system that is developed for school governance as well as in the next Contract.

What do you think? Please let us know.

UFT To Members: Seniority is No Longer An Issue Because We Eviscerated It

When I was in college I studied labor history. We studied the development of unionism as an agency for change and protection in the workplace and then as a strong political force in both local and national politics. As unions developed in the various sectors of society certain fundamental concepts of unionism developed.

It is axiomatic that unions represent the best interests of their membership. When they don't they no longer have the legitimacy to be exclusive bargaining representatives. One of the concepts that has developed to protect all union members is seniority.

Seniority, simply put, provides special benefit to union members who have been members the longest. It provides a mechanism to protect members by ensuring that employer decisions are made in a fair, non-discriminatory way and without regard to union activity.

So important is seniority in organized labor that union officials are often given "super-seniority" to protect the union and the unit from arbitrary and discriminatory action by the employer.

Seniority works in a variety a ways. The most important is layoff seniority. Here, employees are laid-off in a way which prevents an employer from discriminating against individual workers. The UFT has not had a teacher layoff since my college days but there have been layoffs for paras and other titles much more recently.

In 2003, in a feeble effort to destroy the para title, the DOE decided to layoff large numbers of paras when the UFT allowed a no layoff provision to sunset. I can remember a meeting of almost 30 paras in the Rikers chapel in which the principal explained that there was nothing he could do but hope that the DOE would reverse its decision. Speaking on behalf of the UFT as the Chapter Leader I advised all the paras in my Chapter that the "no lay-off provision" was no longer in effect. I assured them that the layoff would be by seniority order and that any rehiring would also be done that way.

I had some difficulty getting a district-wide para seniority list but eventually obtained one. I made sure all of the layoffs were done properly and that paras were listed correctly.

To my surprise, when we returned at the start of the next school year, all of the paras were back to work in my school. The principal told me proudly that he had worked out a deal that allowed their return even though paras with higher seniority in other schools were not called back.

I was in an awful bind. How could I fight against the principal's deal when my Chapter clearly benefited from this discrimination? How could the Union approve the clear violation of seniority rules?

I did not have to live with the dilemma for long as within a couple of weeks the DOE reconsidered and hired back all of the laid off paras. I found out later there was no "deal." Rather the Union had decided not to do anything about it at that time. They were just happy that some of the paras were called back and were not willing to risk political capital on asserting a seniority right.

In hindsight it is now abundantly clear that the UFT has no concern for seniority because it has stopped acting like a Union for some time.

While layoffs, in this economy, seem unlikely (at least for teachers) seniority also plays an important part in most organized sectors in work assignment. The UFT, since its inception, jealously guarded seniority in work assignments including mounting a strike to protect it.

The seniority transfer system became an institutional mechanism to protect this right and while never perfectly implemented it clearly allowed some protection for senior teachers. The DOE developed ways around the seniority transfer system such as not listing all vacancies or working deals with the Union when new schools opened but on the whole the system provided a safety valve based on non-discriminatory criteria for teachers, who needed to move to another school for any reason or no reason at all.

Then along came our new contract and the eradication of seniority transfer and in its place the "open market." The "open market" couldn't fly in the face of historical and fundamental union values any more. It permits the wholesale discrimination against senior and other disliked teachers, Chapter Leaders or anyone else. No longer do teachers have a union-protected work assignment right on transfer.

At the time that the contract was ratified Randi and her union-paid supporters heralded the loss of the seniority transfer system as a great victory for the union. "No longer would less senior teachers be bumped" and "now all vacancies would be listed" were some of the arguments they made.

After a short time it became clear that not only was the "open market" a fraud but an underclass of absent teacher reservists would give the DOE what it wanted…unfettered discretion in teacher work assignments. Teachers could be moved around the system at the whim of administrators.

Whole districts reorganized, Bronx and Brooklyn High Schools closed and principals mostly fill vacancies with untenured Fellows. Where's the Union?

In a recent article published in Washington DC's CityPaper
our Union's spokesperson is quoted about the loss of the seniority transfer system, something they are contemplating in DC. The article ends, aptly:

Ron Davis, a spokesperson for the New York teachers' union, declined to say how happy his group has been with the new system but says the union has indeed moved on. "I'd have to say we have other concerns [now]," he says. "It would not be an ongoing bone of contention for the membership."

PR Duplicity: UFT Sells Out Members Rights and Fights For Them in the Press

Today's Post bashes OSI investigated DOE employees, once again, by citing how they are paid while investigations continue and that the system is too slow to fire these charged employees.

While the argument is old and expected the response that makes most sense, if you are a Union that really cares about its members, is that being charged does not mean you are guilty and due process requires a full hearing before dismissal. In fact the article admits that a small percentage of employees are actually dismissed and that the DOE actually disagrees with OSI's findings at times.

What is most disturbing, however, is the quote from UFT spokesperson, Ron Davis. In response to the failure of the DOE to unilaterally remove charged employees from the payroll without a hearing he states,

"If a teacher does something that merits dismissal, then they should be removed from the classroom," Davis said. "But not before they have due process."

Yo Ron. Due process! Don't you remember our famous contract….we gave that right up. Surely you are not suggesting we are really entitled to due process when our contract already allows the DOE to remove us from not only the classroom but also from payroll upon mere allegations.

Unless, like "just cause" we are reinventing the term "due process." Watch out tenure!

Executive Board Approves District 79 Reorganization as Hundreds of Staff Still Don’t Know Where to Go

In what was hailed as a "breakthrough" in negotiations the Executive Board approved, after an impact bargaining session, an agreement which alters the contractually mandated manner in how excessed teachers are treated.

On May 24, 2007 the Superintendent of Alternative Schools, Cami Anderson, announced widespread changes to District 79. Most notable were the closing of a number of schools, the movement of schools out of the district and the creation of special GED schools. While most of the personnel in the District knew that things were going to change no one expected that Anderson would overhaul the District in this manner.

In typical DOE fashion no consultation about the changes was ever entered into with our Union. Also questioned was whether the reorganization was basically a rouse to move personnel, a violation of our contract.

Armed with clear violations of the Contract and the knowledge that the DOE wanted to complete this reorganization due the extraordinary expenditures and alleged failures of the District's programs the Union demanded and won some protections in the reorganization.

Among some of the protections won include the ability of those excessed to apply for the new programs (basically GED programs) in the GED Plus, Restart and ACCESS schools. Personnel will be chosen by a joint UFT/DOE committee. Anyone left out who remains in excess will have the opportunity to be placed as an excessed teacher in one of 5 high schools or a borough, based on seniority.

The schools affected are ASHS, CEC, OES , VTC, New Beginnings, and School for Pregnant Teens.

Second Opportunity Schools and Offsite Suspension will be closed effective August 29, 2007 but have a separate agreement. SOS and Offsite teachers who opted in will be placed in a "New Suspension School" that will have a regular school schedule (summer pay will be kept). Excessed teachers from these schools will follow the previous agreement and will be placed in District 79 schools in their borough. Although not part of the written agreement it is believed that these teachers will be given the same choice as excessed teachers from the other closing schools are given (i.e. 5 school and borough pick).

After all is said and done the agreement does seem fair although it is unclear what would have happened if we fought the reorganization. In any case, the bottom line has not changed; very few of the over 700 excessed teachers have a clue as to where they will be on August 30^th or what lies ahead for them since many will remain ATRs throughout the system.

Placement in a school of your choice, based on seniority, is a great concept which should be applied to other reorganizations but placement does not guarantee you appointment. If the principal wants you out you are out. As an ATR you have no rights to the position. In fact as an ATR you have no right to a teaching program preference. You will not be receiving the best programs.

It is clear there will be mass confusion at the start of school. How this helps students in need of special education services that alternative education provided only time will tell.

Connecting the Green Dots

By Norm Scott

Why Weingarten's deal with Green Dot dovetails with the general attack on public education

Following up on her appearance at the Brooklyn Cyclones game where she was supposed to toss out the ball - Teachers who have become ATR's, older, higher salaried teachers, younger and older teachers left without contractual protections, teachers doing lunch duty and potty patrol have no doubt she threw a Screw Ball -

Randi Weingarten has taken the screwing metaphor to a new level in today's announced deal with Green Dot charters. It is not just teachers the deal screws, but with all other the news today about Charter schools, her actions aid and abet the screwing of public education.

First we have a link to the LA Times version of the story where LA teacher's union president AJ Duffy rejected a deal with Green Dot. But not Randi. Watch the Leo Casey and crew at Edwize justify this one. As the NY Times version says "but their contract would be simpler than the citywide contract." Let's see how simple: "Rather than dictating the number of hours and minutes teachers must spend at the schools, it would just call for a "professional workday," they said. The contract could also eliminate tenure, but would set guidelines for when a teacher can be dismissed."

Heard of fuzzy math? Child play compared to fuzzy contracts.
NYC Educator goes into much greater detail on the contract so let's focus on other aspects. I won't even go into the issue of union democracy, where if the UFT weren't run like the Roman Empire under Augustus, there would actually be a serious discussion taking place. But the mandate given Weingarten by the 78% of working teachers who did not vote will have a long-lasting impact. By the way, has anyone seen a word mentioned about class size in this contract?

"We have never been against increasing charters, but we were against the anti-union animus in some charter schools," Ms. Weingarten said. The Times says, "Green Dot is heavily financed by the billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad."

If one looks at Broad's agenda in San Diego (and many other places) where Anthony Alvarado got to do his magic, which was almost totally replicated in NYC by Bloomberg and Klein, which Weingarten was supposedly so critical of - and you understand why I see her as such a duplicitous collaborator whose interests dovetail more with the BloomKleins, Broads, Gates, etc. When she criticizes them it is mere rhetoric. Always follow the mantra uncle Normie lays down: Watch what Weingarten does, not what she says.

Pay attention to the very relevant David Herzenhorn piece
"Patrons' Sway Leads to Friction in Charter School," also running in today's Times.

This article points to the pitfalls of the benefactor model of charter schools. While the rich Reiches gave a lot of money to Beginnings With Children school, Pfizer (across the street) donated the building. But I bet most money still comes from the public sector. Should the Reiches have such total control? What about parent and teacher roles?

Herzenhorn writes:

"The clash has exposed fault lines of wealth and class that are perhaps inevitable as philanthropists, in New York and nationwide, increasingly invest in public education, providing new schools to children in poor neighborhoods while making communities dependent on their generosity.

"And for those lucky to have such benefactors, the situation raises core questions: Who ultimately controls charter schools, which are financed by taxpayers but often rely heavily on charitable donations? Do the schools, which operate outside the control of the local school district, answer to parents, or to their wealthy founders?

"At Beginning With Children, many parents and teachers say that the Reiches' main interest is to burnish their reputation as advocates for charter schools, and that the school's original purpose, of catering to each child's individual needs, is now secondary to drilling for exams in an effort to elevate scores and the Reichs' credibility. "The Reichs said the problem was that the board was "constituency-based"...... Among those told to quit were five parent and faculty representatives."

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. We no want constituency-based input. Sound familiar?

I have a little background with the school, which is located in District 14 in Williamsburg and was once a public school but not under control of the district (a good thing). But it did function under the UFT contract. The chapter leader used to attend the district CL meetings.

I visited a couple of times and was impressed. They were adding a grade a year and had a very progressive model of education.

But the Reich's have the same agenda as so many other"benefactors" like Broad – to take public schools away from the public – and the school became a charter school. In order to further their political agenda the school moves away from the progressive model and towards test prep.

Note in the Herzenhorn piece how quietly we find out that the Courtney Sales Ross' charter school relocated at Tweed after they failed to force their way into the NEST school and has had 4 principals in a year. In the belly of the beast with all the Tweedles running around. We don't get any Tweed press releases telling us about that. Hey, I have an idea. Instead of running around the city telling everyone how to run schools, let Klein or Chris Cerf become the principal of the school and show how it should be done. Deck chairs on the Titanic, indeed.

If we connect the Green Dots to Weingarten's deal with Steve Barr, she is treading in dangerous territory with the future of public education. When a major union spokesperson basically accepts the philanthropic model (Broad gave the UFT $1 million,) it seriously weakens the case calling for full funding of public education and gives enormous power and sway to people with a narrow agenda that goes beyond the interests of the kids.

"If you really actually believe in kids and believe in their success, those of us in education, we really shouldn't be in the sandbox fighting with each other. We should be … trying to figure out how to work together," Weingarten said.

Does she really believe this stuff? People behind Green Dot have had so many negative effects (witness the DOE/Tweedles) and she wants to sit down in the sandbox with them? I'm sure that if she taught just a bit longer than 6 months she would have a slightly different perspective. Are they sitting down in the sandbox in Long Island schools or Scarsdale, where there are no charters but schools are fully funded, as NYC Educator has pointed out numerous times about the suburban school system his daughter attends?

That Weingarten will soon be spouting this stuff nationally as AFT President is a scary prospect indeed for the future of public education. Luckily, at this point, the NEA has taken a stronger stand and this issue may pop up in merger talks when Weingarten will hope to one day lead the entire national teacher movement into oblivion. Though AFT member AJ Duffy in LA took a politically correct stand when commenting on Weingarten's deal with Green Dot, the hope is that the LA Teachers Union will lead some kind of national resistance to Weingarten's turning the AFT into a shill for the attack on public schools by wealthy benefactors with narrow agendas.

As one of the first people in the UFT to advocate for Charters as a way for teachers to take over and run schools, I had conversations with Weingarten almost 10 years ago (Tom Pappas told me "You lost 50% of your support because you favor charters.") At one point in the conversation when I was pushing the idea from the point of view of teacher power, Weingarten made a rare, but revealing, slip, saying something like, "How can we trust these people" – meaning the teachers. Realizing what she said, she shut up and said no more. But it was a rare slip, my first inkling as to which side Weingarten is really on.

“Reckless Reform:” 700 Teachers and Staff Face “Excessing” in Region 79

Press Release

 

G.E. D. Students at Risk

 

Some seven hundred teachers, para-professionals and school secretaries are facing "excessing" from our G.E.D. programs on June 28, the last day of school. We are educators who teach in District 79 (the "Alternative Superintency"). "No Child Left Behind"? Our students are all kids who were left behind. We teach the students who have dropped-out and are now motivated to return to get their G.E.D. They are ESL students, students looking for a "second chance", newly arrived students who never had the chance to learn to read and write in their native countries. We are dedicated professionals and we are worried about the effect on hundreds and thousands of young black, Latino and Asian students who may likely get "lost" in the chaotic reorganization process.

 

On May 24, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein called a press conference and announced the closing of four GED programs, which would be "reorganized" under a new name.. He also stated the multi-site Program for Pregnant Teens would be closed and another program for at-risk students. He stated all changes would be in place by September. Seven hundred staff members will be effected. Only four hundred will be able to be placed in the reorganization process.

 

Under the "reorganization" and the creation of a new school, all current teachers in the program will be "excessed" (dismissed from their schools), and need to "reapply" to jobs they have held for many years. One-half of the jobs are to be eliminated, and of those, only those teachers "approved" by the new principal would be allowed back.

The press conference, held in our school, was done without prior knowledge of the teachers. Our union, the United Federation of Teachers, was given one day's notice of this plan.

 

The four closed G.E.D. programs are the Auxiliary Services for High School (ASHS), Off-Site Educational Services, Vocational Educational Services, and Career Educational Services. The New Beginnings program will also be closed. The new "reorganized" program is to be called "GED-Plus" and a literacy Restart Program is to be opened.

 

The DOE also announced the closing of the Program for Pregnant Teens, a multi-site program that is dedicated to helping these young women stay in school despite their difficult situation. The UFT is seeking to keep these crucial services and programs open.

 

It is outrageous that the Department of Education is excessing GED teachers when the need for them is more urgent that ever. Every year an estimated 20,000 students drop out of NYC schools (reported in Newsday, February 21, 2007). The drop out rate for black and Hispanic students is the highest of any city in the country. As of June 2005, the schools estimated that 138,000 NYC youth, ages 16-21, have dropped out or were significantly off track (Education Week, 15 November 2006). Over 40 percent of English Language Learners drop out of high school before finishing their education. The stress of continual "high stakes testing," mandatory regents, and new small schools which use a two-year option and refuse to enroll ELLs and Special Education students, are only some of the factors pushing kids out of school.

 

We welcome change and any real measures which help kids, teachers and the community. But this is the third "reorganization" in three years and can only be described as "reckless reform." ASHS has already been drastically cut back from 50+ sites to 5, even though the demand for G.E.D. is bigger than ever. Each time these closings came in July or later in the year, resulting in loss of many teachers and with terrible disruption to students. In September last year, students were told to transfer to a new site, and several hundred students were lost in the abrupt chaotic transfer process.

 

Now, thousands of students who participate in these programs do not know where they will go in September. Teachers do not know whether they will have positions in September. What centers will provide ESL services, which centers will provide Special Education? Where will Basic Education students go? What about Pre-GED students? What about students transitioning back from incarceration and desperately needing the training and support our schools provide? When will we be allowed to "reapply" for jobs we have held for years? These "unanswered" questions are part of the state of chaos now evident in our schools.

 

--Teachers, Paraprofessionals and Staff at Auxiliary Services for High Schools

June 15, 2007

More information: 917-545-5671

Memo to Unity Caucus:

THE UFT ELECTION ENDED

By James Eterno UFT Chapter Leader Jamaica High School

For the last two months, we have arrived at Delegate Assembly meetings and received Unity Caucus literature attacking ICE. What's going on here? The election results were counted in March. Why the non stop smear campaign?

Yesterday's Unity attack on ICE was totally unnecessary. Unity is so obsessed with ICE that they feel the need to react to everything we say to anyone. In Monday's NY Sun there was an article entitled: "End of the UFT is Talk, After A Parley in L.A." The piece was about Green Dot Charter Schools. According to the Sun, Green Dot School teachers lack "privileges for senior teachers." Randi visited Green Dot in California last month because apparently they have empowered teachers in some ways.

In NYC we already gave up many of our seniority rights. All that senior teachers have when their schools are closed is the right to be an absent teacher reserve somewhere. Everything else such as seniority transfers, preferred placement if a school closes, and guaranteed placement if excessed were given away in the 2005 Contract. Yesterday's Unity leaflet quotes ICE's Jeff Kaufman in the Sun article saying, "This is the end of the Union." Unity neglected to mention Jeff's next line where he says referring to Randi: "She's going to leave in her wake now a real change in terms of what teachers unions are." Jeff has a point and for proof just refer to the 2005 Contract which ceded so many of our professional rights to management and certainly did change the nature of teacher unions. However, my point in writing is not to keep re-fighting the Contract or 2007 election battles again and again. We want to turn this around.

Instead of continuing in full 24/7 election campaign mode bragging about themselves, Randi, Jeff Zahler and their Unity Caucus should do what Randi said she would do on April 10, the first Executive Board meeting after the election. At that meeting Randi stated that she would work together with other groups and that she was reaching out to people. These sounded like positive steps. However, yesterday's Unity piece reverts to boasts about Randi's election victory saying how Unity's election victory was a "tremendous vote of support from all our UFT members." All of them? What about the almost 78% of teachers who didn't bother to vote? In Chicago recently, close to 2/3 of their teachers voted in their union election. I brought this fact up at the last Executive Board meeting. The UFT is a weak irrelevancy in numerous schools in NYC . The Contract doesn't matter in too many places. Countless teachers who I know feel tremendous burn out as this interminable school year finally winds down. We need to work to build a strong union if we are to have any chance of restoring our professional dignity.

Since the UFT leadership is so fascinated with reading blogs and obsessing over what we say, I have some free advice:

The UFT election is over; you won; now Get Over it!

Move on & fight to rebuild our union!

Staff Shake-Up at UFT Gives Strong Signal of Randi’s Departure

Executive Board Report….

Randi Weingarten, President of the UFT, in a "surprise" announcement at the May 21^st Executive Board meeting, appointed Michael Mendel, the current Secretary of the Union and Staff Director, as Executive Assistant to the President. The new title recognized, as Weingarten put it, the fact the "I am not bionic."

According to Weingarten, Mendel will learn the ropes of negotiation and "all of the things I have not delegated in the past."

Weingarten did not say whether she was appointing Mendel to his duties because of any plan to leave her post but there has been wide spread speculation that she would abandon her day to day UFT responsibilities for Washington, D.C.

In related development Jeff Zahler, former Special Assistant to Randi and head of Unity caucus was appointed as Staff Director to permit Mendel more time in his new position.

We wish Michael well in his new position and can only hope he is able to win back all of the concessions we lost in the last contracts.

While salary enhancements were not announced the smiles on both Mendel and Zahler's faces after the announcement spoke thousands.

Randi decided to use her time reporting to the Executive Board to answer the "blog activity" about her recent trip to Los Angeles to visit Green Dot Charter Schools. She defended her attempts to partner with this company and tried to quell questions about the reported Green Dot's position against teacher tenure.

"Green Dot is a pro-union Charter School," she proclaimed. She argued that the loss of tenure was actually good for the teachers in this Charter School as the standard for teacher dismissal, "just cause" was "actually better."

We can only hope this does not signal a softening of the Union's position on tenure.

The Top 10 Reasons to Hold a Rally to Oppose the DOE Reorganization

Number Ten: Privatization –

The reorganization moves us towards the privatization of public education by allowing outside companies to increasingly manage and provide resources to our schools.

Number Nine: Schools continue to be measured by high stakes tests instead of a wide range of criteria and there will be more testing than ever –

Interim assessments (more tests) every 6-8 weeks will take away teachers' ability to assess their students' needs, instead allowing private companies to decide what each student should be working on. Design Your Own (DYO) schools will not receive additional funding giving little incentive for schools to design their own assessments. Testing every 6 weeks that will take up even more instructional time and cost enormous sums while teachers will be bogged down in accumulating data that will be 95% useless in terms of really assisting children.

Number Eight: Continues one-way accountability –

No accountability at the top for massive errors at Tweed as everyone is assessed but themselves.

Grading system of accountability dumps the buck on principals. The accountability will likely force many principals to make decisions based on not getting a D or F rather than what is best for children's education. Principals' jobs will be based on test scores (85%) and only a little on graduation rates (and fake ones at that). This will give even more incentive to principals to punish teachers who they feel are not testing to the max and suspend, discharge, transfer, and get rid of low-performing students any way they can to bring up their grades and save their jobs (and get a nice bonus too boot.) None of those outcomes – and none of the missing students – will be measured anywhere on the school report cards.

Number Seven: Reorganization without evaluating effects of previous reorganizations –

The 3^rd reorganization since Bloomberg/Klein took over the schools with no assessment of previous reforms will lead to another round of disruption. Instead of lowering class size and instituting programs that will improve conditions in the classroom, money will continue to be diverted into the hands of privateers lining up to feed at the public trough. From districts to regions and back to districts – U-turns – but this time with the twist that each school is an island that will be judged (harshly) based on a narrow range of data accumulated in a heartless and inhumane way by an $80 million boondoggle contract given to IBM for the Aramis system that even computer experts denigrate. As parent leader Tim Johnson and historian Diane Ravitch have said recently, when you make constant U-turns you end up going around in circles.

Number Six: Small schools push at expense of large schools –

Small schools will still not be equipped to handle the most at-risk students – causing overcrowding in the large schools and their subsequent closings. While creating small schools is not a bad thing, no matter how many small schools are opened there can never be enough to make a dent on the massive numbers of students in NYC. Solutions to problems in large schools must be found, which involves making an investment in hiring enough teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, etc to create a small school atmosphere in the context of a large school.

Number Five: Special education needs continue to be ignored –

Who will be responsible for making sure students are provided with services? Where do parents go to get assistance?

Number Four: The reorganization actually expands the bureaucracy –

Does anyone believe bureaucracy is being cut to put money into classrooms? Check the number of superintendents and deputies and other bureaucrats under this reorganization and it is clear that when added to the enormous cost of their multiple experiments and unproven schemes, these claims are no more than outright lies. As are the claims that schools will not be micromanaged.

Number Three: Parent/teacher surveys distributed without mention of class size, high stakes testing, and other crucial issues – and will be minimally taken into account.

Number Two: Funding formula even as modified harms higher salaried teachers –

There is no advantage for schools to hire teachers other than those at the low end of the salary scale. Full impact of Fair Funding Plan is only postponed. Even the modification of the fair student funding formula is a big loss for teachers with mid-high salaries as well as teachers at the top salary levels. A 6th year teacher contacted us with the following question: He doesn't want to leave his school just yet, but might one day. He has all his credits and is making around 60K. Beginning to understand the implications of the revisions in the budget and the UFT basic agreement to accept the Tweed plan (the school keeps the money if a senior teacher leaves but the principal can hire a new teacher and can use the difference to buy a 50 inch plasma TV for his office) he realizes that as his salary goes much higher, he is in danger of being stuck at his school for eternity. Or until a new administration comes in and decides to harass high salaried teachers no matter how good they are. Or if his school closes. With the UFT-touted Open Market System and all its flaws, the teacher is in a quandary. "Do you think I should make my move now even though I don't want to?" he asks. "What worries me is when I am in the salary range where they can get 2 new teachers to replace me." Answer: He should be worried. Very worried.

And the Number ONE reason to hold a rally to oppose the DOE reorganization –

MAYORAL CONTROL MUST BE FOUGHT AND HOLDING A RALLY AT THIS TIME WILL SEND A POWERFUL MESSAGE TO THE 3 P'S – PUBLIC, PRESS, AND POLITICIANS.

What do we gain from holding a rally?

The Mayor got what he wanted: to kill the momentum building toward the May 9^th rally – a rally that would have exposed the Bloomberg/Klein "reforms" as a sham to the entire nation with little support among parents and teachers just as Bloomberg is gearing up to run for president on the backs of the educational community. For the first time we could have wrung real concessions and killed or severely maimed most of the schemes to turn the public schools into a playground for privateers. The Mayor put some crumbs on the table and unfortunately, they were snapped up.

Educators, Parents, Community Activists, and Concerned Friends of Public Education will have a chance to demonstrate the deep-seated opposition to the Bloomberg/Klein destructive overhaul of the system. It will build momentum towards an end of mayoral control. An opportunity was lost when May 9^th was cancelled. Can we still reverse the reorganization? We have nothing to lose.

Reorganization + Co-optation DOES NOT EQUAL

Education

ICE SUPPORTS MANHATTAN HIGH SCHOOLS’ CHAPTER LEADERS

On Wednesday, May 9 a demonstration is planned in front of 52 Broadway to protest the UFT's decision to abandon its fight to stop the reorganization. The Manhattan High Schools' Chapter Leaders voted 18-1 to support a resolution to reverse our Union's appeasement with the Mayor and hold a rally in the near the future.

We need to demonstrate that the deal Randi Weingarten struck with Klein is not in our members' interest.

See you at the rally.

A unique opportunity has been missed

by Norman Scott



The May 9th demo scared the hell out of Bloomberg and would have made a national splash and focused attention on so many of the awful policies as a result of his control of the school system.

In addition, it looks like the back of the coalition forming to stand up to him may have been broken. Divide and conquer, used to perfection. With the cooperation of the UFT.



But the major parties involved are only interested in short-term solutions. Bloomberg hopes he's heading for Washington and so does Weingarten. Probably Klein too.



Andy Wolfe's analysis makes some good points:

"The mayor is intent on neutralizing his opposition and may now have succeeded. Political aides to the mayor fear that the education issue could undermine his nascent presidential bid.

The turmoil over the mayor's education initiatives also has led to serious questions being raised by key leaders in the city's business and philanthropic communities, up to now the mayor's strongest supporters..... In trying to sell the agreement to the uncomfortable parent groups, speaking on a conference call, Ms. Weingarten termed officials of the Department of Education as "absolute and complete assholes" who "can't be trusted."



Just the usual Weingarten rhetoric, words without substance. In the last 10 years I've had the occasion to use this expression so many times: Et tu, Randi?



Wolfe's point is right on:

"many parent leaders believed "we've got them where we want them," wanting no concessions, and preferred holding out for the state Legislature to modify — or eliminate — mayoral control. To them the mission was not to protect the interests of senior teachers looking to retain their ability to move about the system, but to "put the public back in the public schools."



One can't say this enough times. A unique opportunity has been missed.



The NYTimes today says this on the funding plan "compromise":

"The change means that when a veteran teacher paid nearly $100,000 a year retires, a principal can hire a similar teacher or hire a rookie for about $50,000 and use the remaining $50,000 for other expenses."



If this is true, will a principal chose a senior teacher or take the 50 grand? This seems like little change in reality.



The agreement still affects teachers who want to transfer, as that issue is still in grievance, and if you look at the rate of grievance victories (low single digits) that has little chance. With so many teachers already forced into retirement, the transfer issue is just as important. To have left this to the grievance process is a capitulation. People will say, "well in negotiations, there is give and take."



There has never been any give from Tweed, only take. That they sat down at all is a sign of weakness. Instead of negotiations, there should have been take it or leave it demands. The May 9 demo was long overdue.



The basic idiocy of the reorganiztion  plan is still in place (ok, gang, everyone compete, total power in the hands of principals (all too many power hungry and pathological) - except they need permission of the district Superintendents).



The fact that the continued idiocies that will result from mayoral control seem guaranteed to continue in perpetuity. Nothing has changed for the people in the school community who have suffered over the past  the past 5 years.



On class size, I don't care what they say or what committees they form. They do not believe that reducing class size will have the same impact spending money on professional development will. That is their mantra, inherited from Anthony Alvarado. They will say one thing and do another. To put any trust in Tweed given their record is a mistake.



It is funny that Tweed can say they are going to do A,B,C,D horrible things and when they modify D, everyone cheers like it's a victory.



From the very beginning, the focus on the reorganization rather than the entire package of control of the schools by big city mayors and its impact on the schools has made a deal like this likely. And when the leader, the UFT, is always looking to make a deal, the entire movement seemed doomed from the beginning. The groups left out of the process were used and will be very reluctant to get involved in the future. An historic opportunity to bring forces together to become an educational force has been lost. But long-time observers of how the UFT operates are not surprised.



From day one of BloomKlein, the UFT wanted a seat at the table and seems to have gotten it. They also are and will continue to support mayoral control. Their candidate Spitzer confirmed it today.



The strength of any coalition is in the numbers they can bring to the table.



As pointed out, "CEJ is one of the many Community Involvement organizations financed by the Annenberg Institute of Social Reform at Brown University,  headed up by Norm Fruchter, formerly of NYU."



How do they get to be considered representative of local parent groups while groups actually elected (and which had passed resolutions against the reorganizations, no small reason why they weren't at the table) are left out? Who does Fruchter, who has supported much of what Tweed has done, represent?



Where was the "transparency" in these negotiations so many people on this list have been calling on the DOE to show?



The proper way to go about the process would have been to get reps together of all groups to decide on a strategy. But the UFT is always looking to make a deal even at the expense of some of its allies.



A unique opportunity has been missed.



Or has it?



There still is a need to hold a demo at Tweed. People opposed to this agreement should go to Tweed on the afternoon of May 9th and hold a silent vigil.



For more, check my blog: http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/

Comments on UFT High Stakes Testing Task Force

 

 

The members of the Task Force have done an excellent job of explaining the problems caused by high stakes tests. Speak-outs were held in each borough so that teachers, parents, and community members could voice their opinions on this issue. This was a great way for UFT members to be heard. ICE supports most of the recommendations, in particular the concept that the major purpose of standardized tests is that teachers should use them as a guide to make educational judgments about individual children. However, we do have a few reservations.

 

Unfortunately, the report does not call for an end to sanctions for schools that are deemed in need of improvement. This should be a priority. Schools don't improve by punishment; they improve with support and resources. The only legitimate function of NCLB is to identify areas of need and provide help.

 

The UFT must emphasize the role high stakes tests have in lowering rather than raising standards. By eliminating curriculum that doesn't appear on tests, "dumbing down" the actual exams, emphasizing tricks to get the right answer instead of mastering skills and knowledge, stifling creativity, fostering a cynical attitude toward learning, high stakes tests have the effect of providing an inferior education in both the short and the long run.

 

Expanding the role of the nationally based NAEP (the proficiency levels are set very high for the political purposes of bashing schools) as a random assessment can be mis-used by those calling for a nationally based high stakes test.

 

UFT members must know they will be supported by the UFT for speaking out against the over-use and, at times, abuse of testing in our schools. Teachers need whistle blower protection.

 

NOW we need a call to action. If NCLB is not changed, our schools will face more sanctions and will increasingly be turned into test prep factories. The Task Force report calls for forums for educators and meetings with the DOE, State Education Department, and the AFT. That is excellent. But now is also the time to activate UFT, AFT, and NEA members around the country to organize and let the politicians know that teachers do NOT support the reauthorization of NCLB in its present form. Ted Kennedy is Chair of the Committee that will reauthorize NCLB. At this time he does not support changing the high staking testing provisions in the Act. Senator Kennedy says he is a friend of our union and he spoke at last year's national AFT convention. Let's make sure he hears from us.

 

Issues to ponder: Will administrators continue getting bonuses for test scores? Will whistle blowers continue to be harassed and persecuted? Will the UFT refrain from political uses of the numbers game (i.e. trumpeting gains on tests to validate salary increases)? Will teachers who refuse to teach to the test face insubordination charges?

 

If you want to read and become more involved locally and nationally on these issues, here are a few resources.

ICE has set up a blog for the posting of articles and comments of interest at: http://highstakesonice.blogspot.com/

 

Time Out From Testing: NYC group against high stakes testing: http://www.timeoutfromtesting.org/

Fair Test, the national center for fair and open testing: http://www.fairtest.org/FEA_Home.html

Rethinking Schools: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/

Susan Ohanian
http://www.susanohanian.org/. Susan is organizing a national teacher protest at the Educator Roundtable: http://www.educatorroundtable.org/. Join almost 30,000 teachers who have already signed the petition.