I recently received the following email from the excessed pupil accounting secretary at Jamaica High School, Juliana Cody. Over a year ago, the UFT won an arbitration saying school aides should not be doing secretarial work. We provided numerous documents showing that aides were doing secretarial duties at Jamaica High School and nothing has changed since then except more of our members are being placed in excess. What follows is the email secretary Cody sent to the UFT grievance department and their reply. As the DOE just continues to laugh at the grievance process and our Contract, our members suffer.
How would an ICE/TJC union run differently? If the DOE did not comply with an arbitration award, we would have every school that was not abiding by the decision publicly exposed repeatedly in any way we could. We would not tell people to just wait.
From: Cody Julianna
To: Michelle Daniels
As of this date, myself and two other secretaries at Jamaica High School have been in excess at our jobs and illegally replaced with school aides. For more than a year now we and our union representative have been emailing, telephoning, and faxing pages and pages of required and requested documentation to the UFT to uphold the legal decision that prohibits school aides from doing secretarial work. After all of this, the only answer now given is that the decision is in court waiting to be upheld - a second time.
While I prepare for a new job in a new school, I can't help thinking how ridiculously unsatisfactory this answer is. For the life of me I don't know how you can stand by and let jobs be given away because a school administrator lied about being in compliance with a legal decision. I am being forced out of my job, but not before I say how disgusted I am in how this is being handled.
I have no faith in you as UFT representatives. You all talk the talk but you can't walk the walk, as the saying goes. You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this to get so out of hand. I know my UFT representative, James Eterno, has worked tirelessly to get this decision applied to Jamaica High School. We have complied with every request yet your only response is that we must wait it out in court. We won the arbitration over a year ago! Administration is lying about being in compliance and no one cares to follow through on what has already been determined to be illegal.
So, thanks for nothing and for wasting my time and that of many others as well. I now know how much I can not count on your support in the future.
Juliann Cody no longer Pupil Accounting Secretary at Jamaica High School
Reply
To: Julianna Cody Pupil Accounting Secretary Jamaica High School
From: Michelle Daniels
Cc: Howard Solomon
Subject: RE: Secretaries Arbitration
Ms. Cody,
I understand your frustration, and in fact, share it. However, the matter IS in the courts, specifically because the Union sought to have the Arbitration Award confirmed by the courts so that the DoE is ordered into compliance in the matter. As such, I do not believe that the Union is just standing by and doing nothing.
My colleagues and I have worked very hard in order to effectively argue this case and be successful at winning this case at arbitration. I do not believe we have any reason to be ashamed of ourselves.
I will notify you as soon as a court decision is rendered. Hopefully it will positively affect your current reassignment.
Fraternally yours,
Michelle Daniels Michelle Daniels
UFT Special Representative Grievance/Arbitration Department
Thursday, July 30, 2009
DOE Uses Immigration Law to Fire Tenured Teacher Who Won Disciplinary Hearing
O.K., say you're an immigrant from Jamaica attracted by a teaching opportunity in New York City where you are promised DOE sponsorship for a visa and ultimate legal residency. Now you teach for several years, acquire tenure, and you are brought up on disciplinary charges. You have your hearing and the arbitrator suspends you for three months and orders that you get some sensitivity training before you go back to teaching. Just when you are getting your life back together the DOE terminates you because they withdrew the immigration sponsorship application and claim you are now an undocumented alien, no longer entitled to be in the United States much less teach.
That is exactly what happened to Nurchett Brown.
Brown had no recourse with immigration since the DOE withdrew its petition but she believed that her dismissal was in violation of Education Law which clearly states that tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a full hearing. So she appealed to New York County Supreme Court.
The matter was referred to Justice Eileen Rakower who affirmed the dismissal. Brown v. Board of Education, New York County Supreme Court, Index No. 102678/2009, decision dated July 22, 2009.
Rakower was unmoved by Brown's situation and found that the DOE did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in dismissing her since, while suspended, technically she did not meet the requirements of the immigration law and that DOE "had no choice" but to withdraw its sponsorship.
That is exactly what happened to Nurchett Brown.
Brown had no recourse with immigration since the DOE withdrew its petition but she believed that her dismissal was in violation of Education Law which clearly states that tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a full hearing. So she appealed to New York County Supreme Court.
The matter was referred to Justice Eileen Rakower who affirmed the dismissal. Brown v. Board of Education, New York County Supreme Court, Index No. 102678/2009, decision dated July 22, 2009.
Rakower was unmoved by Brown's situation and found that the DOE did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in dismissing her since, while suspended, technically she did not meet the requirements of the immigration law and that DOE "had no choice" but to withdraw its sponsorship.
Friday, July 24, 2009
FIRED PARA IS TOTALLY ABANDONED BY UFT
When Pedro Payano, a para assigned to P.S. 205 in the Bronx was fired from his position by Principal Maria Pietrosanti he must have thought that at least the Union would be there to protect his rights.
Boy, was he wrong. Payano's case illustrates just how our Union treats paraprofessionals as second-class citizens.
In order to terminate a tenured teacher most of us know that the Board must serve written charges and, if the teacher so requests, an arbitration is held pursuant to Education Law 3020-a. The hearing offers the teacher an opportunity to cross-examine witness against him and while difficult to appeal, due process is afforded.
Paraprofessionals do not come under the provisions of 3020-a. As non-competitive civil servants the rights against unjust termination are contained in their contract. The para contract provides "the discharge of an employee should be based on good and sufficient reason and that such action should be taken by the supervisor having such authority only after he/she has given due consideration to the matter." Article 23.
Any challenge to a firing must go through the grievance procedure…, step 1, principal; step 2, chancellor; step 3 arbitration. Article 22.
Payano was charged with abandoning a special needs child. He challenged the termination at step 1 and step 2, which was denied. He sought to appeal to step 3, arbitration but the Union denied taking the matter further. Payano was left without any real remedy.
Para terminations are not treated properly by our Union. Unlike 3020-a's when a teacher is represented by a lawyer paras get a teacher. The teachers selected to represent paras at these hearings have little formal training (a couple of weekends at a hotel) and no formal legal background. For the most part they read from scripts prepared by "more experienced" teachers. The hearings can take place long after the para has been fired. In short, totally inadequate representation is provided for these dues paying members.
Payano didn't even get this sham representation which would have cost the Union next to nothing and would have demonstrated that we stand by our members.
We can assure you this would not happen under an Eterno lead UFT.
Friday, July 10, 2009
MULGREW CORONATION: MEET THE NEW BOSS SAME AS THE OLD BOSS
Yesterday's UFT events show how little will change with a different person in the presidency. Falling back on over twenty years of undemocratic tradition, the UFT Executive Board nominated only one person, Vocational Vice President Michael Mulgrew, to succeed Randi Weingarten. Friends at ICE considered nominating yours truly for the position as I have declared that I will run in 2010, but were not allowed to speak.
This is how this process works. UFT presidents plan their exit. Going back to Al Shanker, the UFT President at some point takes both the presidency of the UFT and the national union, American Federation of Teachers, at the same time. The UFT is by far the largest AFT local. The last three UFT presidents, Al Shanker, Sandy Feldman and Randi Weingarten, have simultaneously held the AFT and UFT presidencies. When they are ready to go full time to the AFT, they resign the UFT presidency in the middle of their term. The UFT Constitution allows the Executive Board, not the membership, to pick a successor.
It says in Article V, Section 17: "A vacancy occurring in the Executive Board or in an elective office shall be filled by the Executive Board. Nominations shall be made at one meeting and elections held at the subsequent meeting." The Executive Board is elected mostly at large so even though a group like ICE-TJC received 36% of the high school teacher vote in the last UFT election, we get no representation on the Board. Therefore, the group of ICERs who went to yesterday's Executive Board meeting was muzzled. They could not even nominate a presidential candidate even if they wanted to.
This is not that big a deal as caucus obligations require Unity Caucus people to vote as their caucus tells them so we are under no illusions that we could have won an Executive Board election for president. The point is that the UFT runs like a corporation and not as a democratic labor union. Do you think the membership knows how the process for picking a new president is rigged?
This procedure allows each new president of the UFT to go around to schools for a year as president, promoted by the union's propaganda newspaper, New York Teacher, and then run as an incumbent with a huge advantage over any opposition candidate in the ensuing general UFT election. This is completely undemocratic but it was used when Shanker left in the eighties, Feldman in the nineties and now with Weingarten. UFT leaders are so predictable.
What has changed is the nature of the opposition. New Action (NAC), the long time opposition party which made deals to not oppose Weingarten in 2004 and 2007, now has eight Executive Board seats even though they received fewer votes than ICE TJC in the last UFT Election. In the eighties and nineties NAC opposed Feldman and Weingarten with their own candidate. Now, they support Weingarten's replacement: Mulgrew.
The ultimate irony here is how the Constitution is twisted by Unity. Ed Notes reported that NAC's Michael Shulman said that there was no need for an election as Mulgrew was the only candidate, but UFT Secretary Michael Mendel called for a second special Executive Board meeting and an actual election for later in the month. He wanted to do it by the book.
If he really wants to go by the letter of the Constitution, then Mulgrew cannot be a candidate for President at this time, nor can any other UFT officer. Article IV, Section 9 of the UFT Constitution states, "No person in any elective position may be a candidate for any other elective position during the term of office, unless a resignation is submitted effective as of July 1 of that year." I very much doubt Mulgrew has resigned his Vice Presidential position as of July 1 because if he did, there would have had to have been nominations for that position too.
The reality is the Constitution to UFT officials is just like the Contract. It is selectively enforced by the UFT Unity leadership. Since the Executive Board is the body in charge of UFT elections, it makes very little sense to spend any energy appealing. After all, they all come from the Unity Caucus where they signed what we call the Unity loyalty oath and the rest are from New Action which is no longer a real opposition group.
The only way to change any of this is for people in the schools to become educated educators and realize that no matter who the UFT President is, as long as he/she comes from Unity Caucus, his/her main responsibility will be to protect the caucus.
Our first promise as a presidential candidate is that if elected, nobody will ever have to sign a piece of paper saying that they will support decisions that ICE-TJC come up with. We take the word independent in Independent Community of Educators very seriously.
More on yesterday's proceedings later.
This is how this process works. UFT presidents plan their exit. Going back to Al Shanker, the UFT President at some point takes both the presidency of the UFT and the national union, American Federation of Teachers, at the same time. The UFT is by far the largest AFT local. The last three UFT presidents, Al Shanker, Sandy Feldman and Randi Weingarten, have simultaneously held the AFT and UFT presidencies. When they are ready to go full time to the AFT, they resign the UFT presidency in the middle of their term. The UFT Constitution allows the Executive Board, not the membership, to pick a successor.
It says in Article V, Section 17: "A vacancy occurring in the Executive Board or in an elective office shall be filled by the Executive Board. Nominations shall be made at one meeting and elections held at the subsequent meeting." The Executive Board is elected mostly at large so even though a group like ICE-TJC received 36% of the high school teacher vote in the last UFT election, we get no representation on the Board. Therefore, the group of ICERs who went to yesterday's Executive Board meeting was muzzled. They could not even nominate a presidential candidate even if they wanted to.
This is not that big a deal as caucus obligations require Unity Caucus people to vote as their caucus tells them so we are under no illusions that we could have won an Executive Board election for president. The point is that the UFT runs like a corporation and not as a democratic labor union. Do you think the membership knows how the process for picking a new president is rigged?
This procedure allows each new president of the UFT to go around to schools for a year as president, promoted by the union's propaganda newspaper, New York Teacher, and then run as an incumbent with a huge advantage over any opposition candidate in the ensuing general UFT election. This is completely undemocratic but it was used when Shanker left in the eighties, Feldman in the nineties and now with Weingarten. UFT leaders are so predictable.
What has changed is the nature of the opposition. New Action (NAC), the long time opposition party which made deals to not oppose Weingarten in 2004 and 2007, now has eight Executive Board seats even though they received fewer votes than ICE TJC in the last UFT Election. In the eighties and nineties NAC opposed Feldman and Weingarten with their own candidate. Now, they support Weingarten's replacement: Mulgrew.
The ultimate irony here is how the Constitution is twisted by Unity. Ed Notes reported that NAC's Michael Shulman said that there was no need for an election as Mulgrew was the only candidate, but UFT Secretary Michael Mendel called for a second special Executive Board meeting and an actual election for later in the month. He wanted to do it by the book.
If he really wants to go by the letter of the Constitution, then Mulgrew cannot be a candidate for President at this time, nor can any other UFT officer. Article IV, Section 9 of the UFT Constitution states, "No person in any elective position may be a candidate for any other elective position during the term of office, unless a resignation is submitted effective as of July 1 of that year." I very much doubt Mulgrew has resigned his Vice Presidential position as of July 1 because if he did, there would have had to have been nominations for that position too.
The reality is the Constitution to UFT officials is just like the Contract. It is selectively enforced by the UFT Unity leadership. Since the Executive Board is the body in charge of UFT elections, it makes very little sense to spend any energy appealing. After all, they all come from the Unity Caucus where they signed what we call the Unity loyalty oath and the rest are from New Action which is no longer a real opposition group.
The only way to change any of this is for people in the schools to become educated educators and realize that no matter who the UFT President is, as long as he/she comes from Unity Caucus, his/her main responsibility will be to protect the caucus.
Our first promise as a presidential candidate is that if elected, nobody will ever have to sign a piece of paper saying that they will support decisions that ICE-TJC come up with. We take the word independent in Independent Community of Educators very seriously.
More on yesterday's proceedings later.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Thursday, July 02, 2009
MAYORAL CONTROL LIVES ON
While this space is no fan of the mayor, you have to hand it to Mayor Bloomberg on school governance. He was ready to put the Borough Presidents in line immediately when the law giving him control of the schools expired after June 30. Therefore, mayoral control continues unabated.
As for the BP's, once they were empowered to appoint a majority of the Board of Education, they caved in to the mayor so fast that one has to wonder if they received anything in return for their acquiescence. Queens BP Helen Marshall, went so far as to appoint Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott as the Queens representative. Only Bronx BP Reuben Diaz showed any hint of independence in his actions.
The biggest surprise is Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer who had appointed Patrick Sullivan to the now defunct Panel for Educational Policy where the mayor had a majority of the appointments. Patrick was a sane voice of reason who earned accolades for his integrity. Why was Patrick not appointed to the revived Board of Education?
We can only speculate as to what is going on behind the scenes. We can predict that no matter what happens in terms of school governance in Albany or New York City, there will not be much improvement in conditions in the schools.
We need to organize more now than ever.
As for the BP's, once they were empowered to appoint a majority of the Board of Education, they caved in to the mayor so fast that one has to wonder if they received anything in return for their acquiescence. Queens BP Helen Marshall, went so far as to appoint Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott as the Queens representative. Only Bronx BP Reuben Diaz showed any hint of independence in his actions.
The biggest surprise is Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer who had appointed Patrick Sullivan to the now defunct Panel for Educational Policy where the mayor had a majority of the appointments. Patrick was a sane voice of reason who earned accolades for his integrity. Why was Patrick not appointed to the revived Board of Education?
We can only speculate as to what is going on behind the scenes. We can predict that no matter what happens in terms of school governance in Albany or New York City, there will not be much improvement in conditions in the schools.
We need to organize more now than ever.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
JUNE DA REPORT: FAREWELL RANDI, TIER V AND POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS
The last Delegate Assembly basically had just three items. The first was the new pension deal where we get two days added to our summer vacation in exchange for billions in givebacks. The second was endorsing politicians as well as a contingency endorsement and then there was UFT President Randi Weingarten’s farewell speech and election as President Emeritus.
The first hour of the final Delegate Assembly of the school year was spent hearing about the deal between the UFT and the city. In the agreement which we have previously written about in this space, the two weekdays before Labor Day will be returned to our summer vacation in exchange for lowering the interest rate on the fixed TDA from 8.25% to 7% and other givebacks that will cost us $2 billion according to the Mayor’s office.
Randi motivated the deal by saying that the two days before Labor Day were something that many members asked for and she continued by noting that state revenues are dropping fast and our pension funds lost between 30-40% in assets. She added that the current situation would end up like the seventies with things done to us but instead we kept control of our destiny by agreeing to a deal that preserved the age 55 retirement for most members and also having the city agree with us to lobby jointly for more funding for the schools. She didn’t mention the TDA interest rate being reduced from 8.25% to 7% until it came up in discussion and she also didn’t see fit to refer to the fact that we are paying for the other half of our two recovered days of vacation by using funds set aside our next Contract.
The discussion that followed her report, as usual, was dominated by seven Unity people praising the deal and only two speakers were allowed to voice dissent.
The first speaker against talked about how it was fundamentally wrong to set up a new pension tier for yet to be hired teachers. The other opposition voice, Peter Lamphere from Bronx HS of Science, said that this pension deal should be voted on by the entire membership, not merely the DA, as it is a fundamental change in our Contract . Randi replied that there wasn’t time but we would have a say on it as part of the next Contract ratification. The pension deal overwhelmingly was approved by the DA but if people knew the true cost to all of us, not just yet to be hired teachers, I wonder if they would be so enthusiastic.
Political endorsements followed and the best speaker here was Marilyn Beckford from Hillcrest High School who pointed out that by endorsing city council members who voted to extend term limits for themselves and the mayor, we were giving a tacit endorsement of the mayor.
Randi cut short this segment to invite the press in to announce her resignation as UFT president effective July 31, 2009. She then gave a farewell speech about her accomplishments that included much higher salaries for teachers and getting more resources to the schools. She also listed the Chancellor’s District, adding tens of thousands of new UFT members, the 300 person negotiating committee and more. (You can read about how a delegate elect took Randi to task at Ed Notes.) Then, Leo Casey pulled out a resolution to make her President Emeritus of the UFT. The Unity faithful stood and cheered and Randi left the chair to Secretary Michael Mendel. The resolution carried unanimously.
Mendel continued the endorsement segment and most of the DA voted for the endorsements. Finally, there was a contingency resolution to let the Executive Board endorse candidates over the summer when the DA would not be in session.
I noticed that the office of Mayor was on this list of positions that the Executive Board could approve without getting back to the Delegates. Michael quickly asked if anyone wanted to speak and I raised my card but apparently he didn’t see it and he closed discussion. I then raised a point of order as I have every right to speak and he recognized me. I noted that to leave a Mayoral endorsement to the Executive Board was insulting to the Delegates. He and future President Michael Mulgrew both assured me that they would not endorse a mayoral candidate without first bringing in the Delegate Assembly but they did not change the resolution to reflect what they said. The contingency endorsement resolution passed but I think I made the point.
Have a great summer everyone.
If mayoral control sunsets tonight, this blog will not be shedding any tears.
The first hour of the final Delegate Assembly of the school year was spent hearing about the deal between the UFT and the city. In the agreement which we have previously written about in this space, the two weekdays before Labor Day will be returned to our summer vacation in exchange for lowering the interest rate on the fixed TDA from 8.25% to 7% and other givebacks that will cost us $2 billion according to the Mayor’s office.
Randi motivated the deal by saying that the two days before Labor Day were something that many members asked for and she continued by noting that state revenues are dropping fast and our pension funds lost between 30-40% in assets. She added that the current situation would end up like the seventies with things done to us but instead we kept control of our destiny by agreeing to a deal that preserved the age 55 retirement for most members and also having the city agree with us to lobby jointly for more funding for the schools. She didn’t mention the TDA interest rate being reduced from 8.25% to 7% until it came up in discussion and she also didn’t see fit to refer to the fact that we are paying for the other half of our two recovered days of vacation by using funds set aside our next Contract.
The discussion that followed her report, as usual, was dominated by seven Unity people praising the deal and only two speakers were allowed to voice dissent.
The first speaker against talked about how it was fundamentally wrong to set up a new pension tier for yet to be hired teachers. The other opposition voice, Peter Lamphere from Bronx HS of Science, said that this pension deal should be voted on by the entire membership, not merely the DA, as it is a fundamental change in our Contract . Randi replied that there wasn’t time but we would have a say on it as part of the next Contract ratification. The pension deal overwhelmingly was approved by the DA but if people knew the true cost to all of us, not just yet to be hired teachers, I wonder if they would be so enthusiastic.
Political endorsements followed and the best speaker here was Marilyn Beckford from Hillcrest High School who pointed out that by endorsing city council members who voted to extend term limits for themselves and the mayor, we were giving a tacit endorsement of the mayor.
Randi cut short this segment to invite the press in to announce her resignation as UFT president effective July 31, 2009. She then gave a farewell speech about her accomplishments that included much higher salaries for teachers and getting more resources to the schools. She also listed the Chancellor’s District, adding tens of thousands of new UFT members, the 300 person negotiating committee and more. (You can read about how a delegate elect took Randi to task at Ed Notes.) Then, Leo Casey pulled out a resolution to make her President Emeritus of the UFT. The Unity faithful stood and cheered and Randi left the chair to Secretary Michael Mendel. The resolution carried unanimously.
Mendel continued the endorsement segment and most of the DA voted for the endorsements. Finally, there was a contingency resolution to let the Executive Board endorse candidates over the summer when the DA would not be in session.
I noticed that the office of Mayor was on this list of positions that the Executive Board could approve without getting back to the Delegates. Michael quickly asked if anyone wanted to speak and I raised my card but apparently he didn’t see it and he closed discussion. I then raised a point of order as I have every right to speak and he recognized me. I noted that to leave a Mayoral endorsement to the Executive Board was insulting to the Delegates. He and future President Michael Mulgrew both assured me that they would not endorse a mayoral candidate without first bringing in the Delegate Assembly but they did not change the resolution to reflect what they said. The contingency endorsement resolution passed but I think I made the point.
Have a great summer everyone.
If mayoral control sunsets tonight, this blog will not be shedding any tears.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
DAY WE RETURN TO SCHOOL WILL NOT BE A TEACHING DAY BUT JUNE 28, 2010 WILL BE FOR INSTRUCTION
In part 2 of the deal where we get two days added to summer in exchange for over two billion dollars in givebacks, the city has agreed to change the school calendar for next year so that the day we return to work, September 8, 2009, will be a day when the students will not be in attendance. However, Monday, June 28, 2010 will be an instructional half day, instead of the originally scheduled professional development day.
Part of the agreement between City Labor Commissioner James Hanley and Randi Weingarten states that our first day will be “first and foremost for preparation of the classroom and for the arrival of students.”
Part of the agreement between City Labor Commissioner James Hanley and Randi Weingarten states that our first day will be “first and foremost for preparation of the classroom and for the arrival of students.”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
BILLION DOLLAR DAYS OFF
Close analysis of the agreement between the city and the UFT creating a new pension tier shows that the city has once again taken the UFT to the cleaners. While this is nothing new, it is still depressing when it happens over and over again.
The sad details show that we are giving the city back $2 billion over twenty years. My source for this is the Mayor's office. On top of this, add the health care savings that the Municipal Labor Committee just gave back that amounted to $550 million over the next few years. What do we win in exchange for billions in savings for the city? The two weekdays before Labor Day will be added to summer vacation.
These professional development days were useless and it's fine to get them added back to our summer break. The agreement also says we may return to work in September the same day that the kids come back which is ridiculous. By working it in this way, the city can correctly say we haven't shortened the school year. However, this potentially absurd situation is not the worst part of this deal.
The two added vacation days won't cost the city a dime as they are not giving us any additional money. However, in yet another indignity, we will be forced to pay for our two days off at a rate of 1.08% in additional funding according to the agreement. .5% will come from lowering the interest rate on the fixed TDA from 8.25% to 7% and raising the amount of years future teachers must work before they can retire with health benefits from ten to fifteen. The other .58%, according to the agreement, will "be addressed in the upcoming round of collective bargaining for the successor agreement to the current agreement which expires October 31, 2009." Translation, our raise will be lowered. What about the new pension tier savings? Won't that money be applied to pay for the added vacation days? The answer is no.
The new Tier V, where yet to be hired teachers will have to pay 4.85% in pension contributions for 27 years, is a free gift to the city from the UFT that we get nothing back for accepting.
When you are enjoying those extra days off on September 3 and 4, just call them the billion dollar days. That's roughly the amount that each day will end up costing us in the long run. For that kind of gift, couldn't we get back just a little bit more of our professional dignity?
The sad details show that we are giving the city back $2 billion over twenty years. My source for this is the Mayor's office. On top of this, add the health care savings that the Municipal Labor Committee just gave back that amounted to $550 million over the next few years. What do we win in exchange for billions in savings for the city? The two weekdays before Labor Day will be added to summer vacation.
These professional development days were useless and it's fine to get them added back to our summer break. The agreement also says we may return to work in September the same day that the kids come back which is ridiculous. By working it in this way, the city can correctly say we haven't shortened the school year. However, this potentially absurd situation is not the worst part of this deal.
The two added vacation days won't cost the city a dime as they are not giving us any additional money. However, in yet another indignity, we will be forced to pay for our two days off at a rate of 1.08% in additional funding according to the agreement. .5% will come from lowering the interest rate on the fixed TDA from 8.25% to 7% and raising the amount of years future teachers must work before they can retire with health benefits from ten to fifteen. The other .58%, according to the agreement, will "be addressed in the upcoming round of collective bargaining for the successor agreement to the current agreement which expires October 31, 2009." Translation, our raise will be lowered. What about the new pension tier savings? Won't that money be applied to pay for the added vacation days? The answer is no.
The new Tier V, where yet to be hired teachers will have to pay 4.85% in pension contributions for 27 years, is a free gift to the city from the UFT that we get nothing back for accepting.
When you are enjoying those extra days off on September 3 and 4, just call them the billion dollar days. That's roughly the amount that each day will end up costing us in the long run. For that kind of gift, couldn't we get back just a little bit more of our professional dignity?
Monday, June 22, 2009
FLIP-FLOP: RANDI OPPOSED TIER V ON JUNE 5th & NOW SHE WANTS IT
We just heard about the new agreement that the city and UFT negotiated which calls for state legislation to start a new Tier V pension for people yet to be hired. It is interesting to note that on June 5th, only seventeen days ago, Randi Weingarten signed onto a press release which said in part: "The municipal unions of New York City (the MLC), including the UFT, and our state union NYSUT, are firmly opposed to a Tier V for our members." Randi couldn't even stand her ground for a month.
The press release goes on to say, "New York City's municipal unions have already taken steps to address the city's budgetary issues. Just this week, the MLC concluded an agreement with the mayor to save the City $200 million this year, $400 million over two years and an additional $150 million in the following years." In their letter to legislative leaders, MLC co-chairs Harry Nespoli and Weingarten said that the health benefit savings "provides substantially more savings than Tier V during this fiscal crisis."
That was then and this is now. Seventeen days later we have added to the health care givebacks by starting a new pension tier that two weeks back we opposed vehemently. It must be a good time to sell out teachers who have not yet been hired.
The details include teachers having to work five more years (ten total) to vest, a lower rate of return (7%) for all of us on the fixed TDA, 4.85% pension contributions for 27 years for new hires instead of 3% for ten years that most of us pay now, fifteen years on the job before someone can qualify for retiree health benefits. In exchange, we get two days back before Labor Day added to our summer vacation.
Those two useless professional development days, while important to get back, cost the city nothing basically. We have now made this unbearable job even more onerous for new people in exchange for next to nothing.
The press release goes on to say, "New York City's municipal unions have already taken steps to address the city's budgetary issues. Just this week, the MLC concluded an agreement with the mayor to save the City $200 million this year, $400 million over two years and an additional $150 million in the following years." In their letter to legislative leaders, MLC co-chairs Harry Nespoli and Weingarten said that the health benefit savings "provides substantially more savings than Tier V during this fiscal crisis."
That was then and this is now. Seventeen days later we have added to the health care givebacks by starting a new pension tier that two weeks back we opposed vehemently. It must be a good time to sell out teachers who have not yet been hired.
The details include teachers having to work five more years (ten total) to vest, a lower rate of return (7%) for all of us on the fixed TDA, 4.85% pension contributions for 27 years for new hires instead of 3% for ten years that most of us pay now, fifteen years on the job before someone can qualify for retiree health benefits. In exchange, we get two days back before Labor Day added to our summer vacation.
Those two useless professional development days, while important to get back, cost the city nothing basically. We have now made this unbearable job even more onerous for new people in exchange for next to nothing.
What Else Did She Give Away?
We have just heard that the Executive Board has approved a significant pension giveback in exchange for doing away with the early return before Labor Day. The pension giveback ensures that new hires will be placed in a new tier with significantly less benefits; reductions in TDA interest rates, mandatory lifetime contributions, reduced retiree health benefits and a significant reduction in vesting for retirement benefits.
What did we get for selling out our young? It appears we got back two days of non-instruction...generally used as two days of preparing for classes or nonsensical professional development. There are, however, hints of the settlement of our contract.
What has become abundantly clear over the last few days is that our fearless leader and super-negotiator has already agreed in principle to much of the financial provisions of our next contract in anticipation of her departure to Washington leaving the heir apparent to claim victory over a wonderful contract.
Was it that important that the upcoming two days be erased to give away all of these benefits to future colleagues? It is clear that had she waited until "negotiations" after contract expiration we would have had to start the 2009-10 year on September 3rd. Now we can start on September 8th with no time to set up our classrooms or prepare for classes on DOE time.
And remember we are scheduled to end next year on an non-instrutional Monday, June 28th!
Shame on you. Are our future colleagues that worthless that they can be sold for these two days?
What did we get for selling out our young? It appears we got back two days of non-instruction...generally used as two days of preparing for classes or nonsensical professional development. There are, however, hints of the settlement of our contract.
What has become abundantly clear over the last few days is that our fearless leader and super-negotiator has already agreed in principle to much of the financial provisions of our next contract in anticipation of her departure to Washington leaving the heir apparent to claim victory over a wonderful contract.
Was it that important that the upcoming two days be erased to give away all of these benefits to future colleagues? It is clear that had she waited until "negotiations" after contract expiration we would have had to start the 2009-10 year on September 3rd. Now we can start on September 8th with no time to set up our classrooms or prepare for classes on DOE time.
And remember we are scheduled to end next year on an non-instrutional Monday, June 28th!
Shame on you. Are our future colleagues that worthless that they can be sold for these two days?
Friday, June 19, 2009
One Last Chance to Have a Voice on Mayoral Control
The Assembly has passed a less than adequate school governance bill that essentially keeps the Mayor in charge of the schools. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says he is open to negotiations on some aspects of mayoral control since his bill still has not cleared the deadlocked state Senate. This could be our opening to have one final opportunity to kill the six year abomination that is mayoral control. Below is a letter we could use to email to senators to demonstrate that teachers are not happy with the current system. Feel free to edit.
Here is a link to the state senators.
Say NO to Mayoral Dictatorship of the Schools
Mayoral control has been a disaster for working NYC teachers. Most of our schools are overcrowded beyond capacity; class sizes are rising and made their biggest leap in ten years, despite a state mandate to lower them. Scores of schools have been closed, renamed, walled up, and converted into academies or charter schools.
A 2008 UFT survey revealed that 85% of NYC public school teachers believe that Chancellor Klein and the DOE have failed to provide them with resources and support they needed to succeed. Similarly 85% said that the chancellor’s emphasis on testing had failed to improve education in their schools.
The overemphasis of test scores has led to our schools becoming test prep factories, instead of places where real teaching and learning predominates. The test scores themselves are increasingly meaningless – the result, in many cases, of excessive preparation, rote learning, and even cheating.
Mayor Bloomberg has reneged on his promise to rid the city of its ubiquitous trailers by 2012, depriving acceptable facilities to yet another generation of children. Instead of honestly admitting pervasive school overcrowding, the mayor pretends it does not exist – cutting the budget for new school construction by 60%.
Hundreds of teachers sit in the absent teacher reserve, hoping that this reorganization, unlike the last one or the one before that, might finally give them a chance to go back to work. Hundreds more teachers sit in the rubber room, accused of some unnamed crime but never brought to trial.
Perhaps none of this is surprising – given the fact that there are only two educators out of the top twenty executives at
Tweed. They simply do not understand what teachers – and their students – need to succeed.
We are convinced that the current system of dictatorial one-man control has deprived us of adequate teaching conditions, and NYC children of the equitable conditions they need to learn.
Our legislators should take note and replace this governance system with a better one, in which no one person, however rich and powerful, can decide on his own how more than one million children should be educated, especially one who has never sent his own children to a public school.
Here is a link to the state senators.
Say NO to Mayoral Dictatorship of the Schools
Mayoral control has been a disaster for working NYC teachers. Most of our schools are overcrowded beyond capacity; class sizes are rising and made their biggest leap in ten years, despite a state mandate to lower them. Scores of schools have been closed, renamed, walled up, and converted into academies or charter schools.
A 2008 UFT survey revealed that 85% of NYC public school teachers believe that Chancellor Klein and the DOE have failed to provide them with resources and support they needed to succeed. Similarly 85% said that the chancellor’s emphasis on testing had failed to improve education in their schools.
The overemphasis of test scores has led to our schools becoming test prep factories, instead of places where real teaching and learning predominates. The test scores themselves are increasingly meaningless – the result, in many cases, of excessive preparation, rote learning, and even cheating.
Mayor Bloomberg has reneged on his promise to rid the city of its ubiquitous trailers by 2012, depriving acceptable facilities to yet another generation of children. Instead of honestly admitting pervasive school overcrowding, the mayor pretends it does not exist – cutting the budget for new school construction by 60%.
Hundreds of teachers sit in the absent teacher reserve, hoping that this reorganization, unlike the last one or the one before that, might finally give them a chance to go back to work. Hundreds more teachers sit in the rubber room, accused of some unnamed crime but never brought to trial.
Perhaps none of this is surprising – given the fact that there are only two educators out of the top twenty executives at
Tweed. They simply do not understand what teachers – and their students – need to succeed.
We are convinced that the current system of dictatorial one-man control has deprived us of adequate teaching conditions, and NYC children of the equitable conditions they need to learn.
Our legislators should take note and replace this governance system with a better one, in which no one person, however rich and powerful, can decide on his own how more than one million children should be educated, especially one who has never sent his own children to a public school.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
ANYONE INTERESTED IN LEAFLETING IN SILVER'S DISTRICT?
As ICE. and very likely most UFT members, are opposed to the continuation of Mayoral dictatorship over our schools, now is our last chance to do something about it. The law giving the mayor control over NYC schools expires June 30 and must be renewed by the Legislature.
While most believe the fix is in to renew the current system with some minor tweaks, ICER Sean Ahearn sent the following letter to the ICE list. Is anyone interested in leafleting? Everyone should be calling and/or emailing their assembly person or state senator expressing their opposition to mayoral control.
Sheldon Silver's 64 Assembly District on the lower east side encompasses most of District 1 and parts of District 2. Is there anyone interested in some leafleting or setting up of tables in his district urging folks to pressure him to change his support for Mayoral Control? There are a number of teachers who live here myself included. Though most were historically supportive of the Shanker faction, some senior and newer teachers may be straying from the usual party line given the closings and constant reorganizations under mayoral control. There is also a history of community activism around education going back to the 1960's that continues.
Peace,
Sean Ahern
While most believe the fix is in to renew the current system with some minor tweaks, ICER Sean Ahearn sent the following letter to the ICE list. Is anyone interested in leafleting? Everyone should be calling and/or emailing their assembly person or state senator expressing their opposition to mayoral control.
Sheldon Silver's 64 Assembly District on the lower east side encompasses most of District 1 and parts of District 2. Is there anyone interested in some leafleting or setting up of tables in his district urging folks to pressure him to change his support for Mayoral Control? There are a number of teachers who live here myself included. Though most were historically supportive of the Shanker faction, some senior and newer teachers may be straying from the usual party line given the closings and constant reorganizations under mayoral control. There is also a history of community activism around education going back to the 1960's that continues.
Peace,
Sean Ahern
Diane Ravitch Calls for Killing Bush Era No Child Left Behind
Here's a very good piece from the Huffington Post by Professor Diane Ravitch on ending the Bush era No Child Left Behind Law. On education, we have learned that George W Bush and Barack Obama have basically identical positions.
NORM ON THE RADIO
If you haven't yet done so, take a listen to Norm Scott on the radio. He was on WBAI on a program called Education at the Crossroads from June 11. http://archive.wbai.org/
Norm and two other teacher activists discuss teaching today, the Rubber Rooms, the UFT, abusive administration, democratic administration, Mayoral Control and more. It's an enoyable and informative program.
Norm and two other teacher activists discuss teaching today, the Rubber Rooms, the UFT, abusive administration, democratic administration, Mayoral Control and more. It's an enoyable and informative program.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
City Unions Reach Tentative Deal to Stop Layoffs for Three Months; Once Again Members Have No Say
City labor leaders announced today that they were willing to have their members receive less medical benefits in order to prevent Mayor Mike’s threatened layoffs for three months. While the reductions appear to be permanent the layoff threat is not and will undoubtedly resurface after the “three month” agreement.
ICE has repeatedly asked why members are not consulted about their health benefits and since these benefits are part of the compensation package members rely upon why we are excluded from a vote.
We are certain that our members would not want any city employees laid off but where will it end? Is there any other way we could avoid layoffs without reducing medical benefits?
ICE has repeatedly asked why members are not consulted about their health benefits and since these benefits are part of the compensation package members rely upon why we are excluded from a vote.
We are certain that our members would not want any city employees laid off but where will it end? Is there any other way we could avoid layoffs without reducing medical benefits?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
High School Numbers Exposed
My colleague, Marc Epstein, exposes the suspect promotion and graduation numbers in New York City high schools in today's Daily News.
There's credit recovery so students need not pass a test or do homework all year and they can still get course credit. There's watered down summer school. There are annualized courses so if a pupil fails in the fall, don't worry, he/she just passes in June and receives credit for the whole year. In addition, part of a Chancellors' Regulation that requires 90% attendance to graduate is apparently being ignored. The high school diploma is being rendered meaningless.
At Jamaica High School, we often joke that each school is soon going to have a "drive through window" so anyone who drives by will get a diploma. From what we have heard, Jamaica is playing catch up with other schools that are ahead of us in the credit recovery and annualization games.
Since school grades and principal as well as teacher bonuses are now based on student standardized test scores, promotion and graduation rates, it has ironically led to a new era of social promotion.
Is this the system the state legislature really wants to continue?
We are not saying that there are never extenuating circumstances when a student needs some extra assistance to get through. Unfortunately, with high stakes decisions about a school being made based upon student statistics, it looks as though adults are doing what they have to do with the numbers to protect and advance their positions. We're given a scary choice to either push students through or push them out so school statistics look good. How about offering lower class sizes in every class and reasonable guidance caseloads as an alternative?
If something isn't done, we will be causing incalculable damage to a generation of young people by calling them high school graduates and handing them meaningless pieces of paper. We also risk devaluing the hard earned diplomas of the many pupils who actually attend class and work hard to graduate from high school without being pushed through.
There has to be a better way than this to educate our next generation.
There's credit recovery so students need not pass a test or do homework all year and they can still get course credit. There's watered down summer school. There are annualized courses so if a pupil fails in the fall, don't worry, he/she just passes in June and receives credit for the whole year. In addition, part of a Chancellors' Regulation that requires 90% attendance to graduate is apparently being ignored. The high school diploma is being rendered meaningless.
At Jamaica High School, we often joke that each school is soon going to have a "drive through window" so anyone who drives by will get a diploma. From what we have heard, Jamaica is playing catch up with other schools that are ahead of us in the credit recovery and annualization games.
Since school grades and principal as well as teacher bonuses are now based on student standardized test scores, promotion and graduation rates, it has ironically led to a new era of social promotion.
Is this the system the state legislature really wants to continue?
We are not saying that there are never extenuating circumstances when a student needs some extra assistance to get through. Unfortunately, with high stakes decisions about a school being made based upon student statistics, it looks as though adults are doing what they have to do with the numbers to protect and advance their positions. We're given a scary choice to either push students through or push them out so school statistics look good. How about offering lower class sizes in every class and reasonable guidance caseloads as an alternative?
If something isn't done, we will be causing incalculable damage to a generation of young people by calling them high school graduates and handing them meaningless pieces of paper. We also risk devaluing the hard earned diplomas of the many pupils who actually attend class and work hard to graduate from high school without being pushed through.
There has to be a better way than this to educate our next generation.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Guidance Counselor Wins Major Victory; Where is Our Union?
We read with great interest the recent New York Times story about Glenn Storman, a guidance counselor at P.S.212 who won a major victory in New York County Supreme Court when a judge ordered his "U"- rating reversed. While Javier Hernandez did an excellent job describing the frustration that Storman has endured we were left with more questions about the story than we had answers.
In the article Storman is quoted that the ordeal has been very costly to him. In his petition to the court to overrule his "u"-rating he asked for $100,000 in damages due to the DOE's denial of per session activities, including summer school and its affect on his pension benefits. This was denied by the court.
Additionally, where was the UFT in all of this? The reporter describes the appeals and two court actions, including a trip to the Appellate Division, in this tragedy but no where does he describe any involvement by our union.
Storman, according to his lawsuit, was not represented in court by union lawyers. It appears that he had to go to personal expense and hire his own lawyer, no doubt adding to his unreimbursed damages.
We applaud Storman in his fight but we are left wondering….what about the rest of us?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Randi Says Yes to Mayoral Control in the Post While a High School Teacher says No in the Daily News
by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School
UFT President Randi Weingarten and Francis Lewis High School Teacher Arthur Goldstein have written contrasting pieces in the last few days on mayoral control of the schools.
Weingarten's op-ed was in last Thursday's NY Post. MAYORAL CONTROL 2.0
Not surprisingly, Weingarten has already backed off of her moderate proposal to slightly alter the school governance structure .
The original proposal was in a Governance Task Force report issued by the UFT earlier in the year and would have denied the Mayor a majority of the appointments on the Board of education but still allowed him to pick the Chancellor and keep operational control of the schools.
Randi's new vision has only four minor modifications to the current dictatorial system we now live under. As we see it, not much would change for teachers, parents and students under Randi's new proposal. These are Randi's ideas:
1. Appointees on the PEP (Board of Education) would serve for fixed terms instead of at the pleasure of the Mayor.
2. The panel would be required to hold hearings on the school system's expense and capital budgets.
3. Policy proposals would be made in public in advance of panel meetings, complete with a list of pros and cons about the issues being voted on.
4. Meetings would be structured to allow for more public discussion and they would be broadcast and archived online.
That's all folks. Some new hearings and fixed terms for people that can easily be worked around when it comes to the day-to-day operations of the schools. Fundamentally, Randi is now supporting a continued mayoral dictatorship over us.
Her strategy in staking out the UFT's position with the state legislature on school governance is similar to her Contract negotiating strategy. Back in 2003 she asked for a few gains while the City and Chancellor demanded to obliterate our Contract. The city, by making unreasonable demands, totally changed the center of gravity to suit their needs so when the compromises took place in 2005, it came from their positions. See the major givebacks from 2005 for proof.
Contrast Randi's view on mayoral control to Arthur Goldstein, a teacher at Francis Lewis High School in Queens. Goldstein wrote a piece in Sunday's Daily News.
He tells the public that mayoral dictatorship has been a disaster for the schools. He describes teaching "in a crumbling trailer, with no technology and often no heat in winter."
That's the reality in most schools as far as we can tell. Goldstein ends his piece with this statement: "Four more years of this system guarantees the privatization and destruction of public education in New York City. That's a prospect we should all oppose."
We agree that four more years of the mayor running the schools should be opposed. What will it take to convince our Union's leadership and the State Legislature that we need to do more than tweak the current system?
All are welcome to look at the ICE Minority Report on school governance for some excellent ideas on how the school system could work with democracy and real checks and balances.
If the UFT followed our model, we would ask for what we think is an ideal system rather than a compromise proposal right from the start. Then, we could work from a totally different center of gravity and maybe actually make some gains.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
GRIEVANCE DIRECTOR PAINTS ROSY PICTURE ON LETTERS TO THE FILE COMPARED TO THE PAST; DA REPORT PART III
Howard Solomon is the Director of the UFT Grievance Department. He is an intelligent person whose work I generally respect. For this reason, I cannot understand why he presented a Power Point piece at the May 13 Delegate Assembly that basically said teachers never had it so good when it comes to combating letters to our files.
Let’s take apart the Power Point slides he showed us piece by piece. First, Solomon displayed a totally deceptive comparison of grievances on letters in the file from before and after the 2005 giveback laden Contract. Solomon claimed that before the 2005 Contract, the UFT lost 95-98% of letter in the file grievances in arbitration. This is called selective, misleading use of data.
The base year that Solomon used to prove his point was 2004-05. What he neglected to mention was that it was in the 2002 Contract that the UFT started their “Givebacks R Us” strategy when they initially modified the letters in the file provision. Let’s look at Contractual Article 21A5 before 2002 and then compare it with the 2002 version.
1995-2000 Contract Article 21A5
Material will be removed from the files when a teacher’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained.
2000-2003 Contract Article 21A5 approved in 2002
Material will be removed from the files when a teacher’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained. However, effective September, 2002, material that a teacher claims is inaccurate or unfair may be rewritten so as to be accurate and/or fair only by agreement of the parties or upon the order of the arbitrator mutually agreed upon to hear grievances arising under this provision, pursuant to Article 22C.
You see ladies and gentlemen the UFT began modifying our Contract to our detriment earlier than is widely believed. That is why Solomon’s Power Point presentation last week used the 2004-05 school year to make the case that before 2005 we lost most of the arbitrations on letters in the file. We lost them because the Unity negotiating team weakened Article 21A5 back in 2002. In 2005 and 2006 they merely finished us off and left us almost totally at the mercy of administration.
The current Contract Article 21A5
Members may not grieve material in file, except that if accusations of corporal punishment or verbal abuse against a UFT-represented employee are found to be unsubstantiated, all references to the allegations will be removed from the employee’s personnel file.
However, the teacher shall have the right to append a response to any letter. If disciplinary charges do not follow, the letter and response shall be removed from the file three years from the date the original material is placed in the file.
This provision is totally useless. Teachers don’t get a letter for the file if corporal punishment charges are unsubstantiated. In addition, who cares if someone can remove a letter after three years if there are no disciplinary charges? After three years, material is not normally admissible in 3020A hearings (the process to terminate a tenured pedagogue) unless something is criminal. For untenured teachers, after three years, someone can already be terminated in a million different ways. Why do you think so few teachers are clearing out older material from their files? It’s a waste of time basically.
The new 21A5 leaves us almost completely vulnerable as we must fight letters based on other Contractual articles which means we can only battle file letters in a much more limited procedural way.
To elucidate the argument that before 2002 Article 21A5 carried some weight, we must return to 1997-98, the second year I was Chapter Leader at Jamaica High School. That was the year Circular 6 was implemented for the first time.
At the time the principal of Jamaica High School decided that she was going to show how tough she was by making the new C6 professional assignments rigorous. She had the assistant principals call in every teacher to go over the expectations for their professional activity period and then she had the AP’s put letters in every teacher’s file based on their C6 expectations. We immediately cried foul. This is not what the self directed professional period or teacher files were for.
21 teachers filed grievances and the District Representative at the time, Danny Foceri, said that we should handle each grievance separately as they were distinct letters. I’ll never forget scheduling 21 Step I conferences. We lost each grievance at Step I but before they went to Step II, UFT Special Representative Howard Solomon, yes the same Howard Solomon who now runs the Grievance Department, was called and intervened on our behalf.
We won all 21 cases soon thereafter. In addition, the principal was ordered to remove the letters from the files of the other 68 teachers who did not grieve. Why did we win? The established standards of fairness said that teacher files were not to be used to set someone up on expectations for anything including a self directed professional assignment. Grievance precedent said that files were to criticize or commend a teacher.
Under the 2002 rules, the arbitrator could rewrite the letters. Under current rules, that principal could have easily filled up the files with anything she wanted as there is no rule in another Contractual article that forbids the principal from filling teacher files with expectations about professional activities. To put it another way, all of those arbitration precedents on what the standard for unfairness meant are now gone from the grievance process.
In 1999, a year after the C6 letter grievances, the same Howard Solomon was assigned to Jamaica High School as part of a settlement between the Board of Ed and the UFT, worked out when we took the principal to the Public Employees Relations Board for anti union activities. Howard did a good job back in 1999 by coming to Jamaica on a regular basis to help us reach settlements of some labor-management issues.
One of the issues was that a coordinator was writing observation reports without the principal also observing. This was obviously unfair. Howard worked out an agreement where all of the letters this coordinator wrote were removed from the files because they were unfair. Without the unfair or inaccurate standard, there might not be a way to remove those observations now and if it were untenured teachers, they would be in jeopardy of being terminated.
In those days, at least there was a chance to get something before an independent arbitrator when we could grieve letters and observations. The only changes that could be made in letters were parts could be stricken or the whole letter was removed. If we were successful in clearing out some of the file through the grievance process, then the person had a chance in their review.
Many of us knew of occasions where administrators would back off after going through the grievance process and being worn out or losing. Now untenured people are called “at will employees” by a Board administrator in one of those web-casts for principals on how to attack teachers. “At will” is the term for employees who can be fired for almost anything by management. What is the purpose of having a union and paying dues if our untenured colleagues can be terminated at will?
To further make this point, look at the evidence on how many teachers are now being denied tenure or compelled to extend their probation. DOE figures show huge increases in the number of teachers being denied tenure since the 2005 Contract was implemented. We’ve made it so easy for them to get us.
Randi Weingarten claimed a big victory last year because the State Legislature passed a law saying we can’t be denied tenure based on student test scores. If ever there was a hollow win, this was it. The DOE does not need to judge us on student test scores; they can fire non tenured teachers now based on one lousy observation report according to their web-cast. The UFT has made our members easy targets with the givebacks in recent Contracts. If you want even more evidence, look at how the rubber rooms have filled up in the last few years.
At last week’s presentation, Howard Solomon also told us about how we can no longer be disciplined for bulletin boards, classroom furniture and the exact duration of lesson units. Principals can easily work around this provision and the Office of Labor Relations tells them how to do it in their 2007 Q&A.
Another Power Point slide told us to use Contract Article 1 to ask to speak to a principal with our concerns. This is another exercise in futility because there is no leverage behind a teacher meeting with the principal. In the past, the threat of multiple grievances was one way to keep a principal from getting out of control.
The counterargument the Unity faithful will give is that the incidents at Jamaica that I referred to happened back in the nineties when we had a friendly Chancellor, Rudy Crew, and we wouldn’t win them now under Joel Klein. We knew what Klein’s agenda was by 2005. That is why Randi should have listened to ICE back then and not given an inch in Contract negotiations. Selling off our rights was a mistake. Telling us now how wonderful things are is just as foolish as it provides members with a completely false sense of security.
You’ve heard my evidence. What about your schools? We really would like to know what is going on everywhere. Is Howard Solomon’s rosy scenario reality?
To see the entire power point presentation go to Under Assault.
Let’s take apart the Power Point slides he showed us piece by piece. First, Solomon displayed a totally deceptive comparison of grievances on letters in the file from before and after the 2005 giveback laden Contract. Solomon claimed that before the 2005 Contract, the UFT lost 95-98% of letter in the file grievances in arbitration. This is called selective, misleading use of data.
The base year that Solomon used to prove his point was 2004-05. What he neglected to mention was that it was in the 2002 Contract that the UFT started their “Givebacks R Us” strategy when they initially modified the letters in the file provision. Let’s look at Contractual Article 21A5 before 2002 and then compare it with the 2002 version.
1995-2000 Contract Article 21A5
Material will be removed from the files when a teacher’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained.
2000-2003 Contract Article 21A5 approved in 2002
Material will be removed from the files when a teacher’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained. However, effective September, 2002, material that a teacher claims is inaccurate or unfair may be rewritten so as to be accurate and/or fair only by agreement of the parties or upon the order of the arbitrator mutually agreed upon to hear grievances arising under this provision, pursuant to Article 22C.
You see ladies and gentlemen the UFT began modifying our Contract to our detriment earlier than is widely believed. That is why Solomon’s Power Point presentation last week used the 2004-05 school year to make the case that before 2005 we lost most of the arbitrations on letters in the file. We lost them because the Unity negotiating team weakened Article 21A5 back in 2002. In 2005 and 2006 they merely finished us off and left us almost totally at the mercy of administration.
The current Contract Article 21A5
Members may not grieve material in file, except that if accusations of corporal punishment or verbal abuse against a UFT-represented employee are found to be unsubstantiated, all references to the allegations will be removed from the employee’s personnel file.
However, the teacher shall have the right to append a response to any letter. If disciplinary charges do not follow, the letter and response shall be removed from the file three years from the date the original material is placed in the file.
This provision is totally useless. Teachers don’t get a letter for the file if corporal punishment charges are unsubstantiated. In addition, who cares if someone can remove a letter after three years if there are no disciplinary charges? After three years, material is not normally admissible in 3020A hearings (the process to terminate a tenured pedagogue) unless something is criminal. For untenured teachers, after three years, someone can already be terminated in a million different ways. Why do you think so few teachers are clearing out older material from their files? It’s a waste of time basically.
The new 21A5 leaves us almost completely vulnerable as we must fight letters based on other Contractual articles which means we can only battle file letters in a much more limited procedural way.
To elucidate the argument that before 2002 Article 21A5 carried some weight, we must return to 1997-98, the second year I was Chapter Leader at Jamaica High School. That was the year Circular 6 was implemented for the first time.
At the time the principal of Jamaica High School decided that she was going to show how tough she was by making the new C6 professional assignments rigorous. She had the assistant principals call in every teacher to go over the expectations for their professional activity period and then she had the AP’s put letters in every teacher’s file based on their C6 expectations. We immediately cried foul. This is not what the self directed professional period or teacher files were for.
21 teachers filed grievances and the District Representative at the time, Danny Foceri, said that we should handle each grievance separately as they were distinct letters. I’ll never forget scheduling 21 Step I conferences. We lost each grievance at Step I but before they went to Step II, UFT Special Representative Howard Solomon, yes the same Howard Solomon who now runs the Grievance Department, was called and intervened on our behalf.
We won all 21 cases soon thereafter. In addition, the principal was ordered to remove the letters from the files of the other 68 teachers who did not grieve. Why did we win? The established standards of fairness said that teacher files were not to be used to set someone up on expectations for anything including a self directed professional assignment. Grievance precedent said that files were to criticize or commend a teacher.
Under the 2002 rules, the arbitrator could rewrite the letters. Under current rules, that principal could have easily filled up the files with anything she wanted as there is no rule in another Contractual article that forbids the principal from filling teacher files with expectations about professional activities. To put it another way, all of those arbitration precedents on what the standard for unfairness meant are now gone from the grievance process.
In 1999, a year after the C6 letter grievances, the same Howard Solomon was assigned to Jamaica High School as part of a settlement between the Board of Ed and the UFT, worked out when we took the principal to the Public Employees Relations Board for anti union activities. Howard did a good job back in 1999 by coming to Jamaica on a regular basis to help us reach settlements of some labor-management issues.
One of the issues was that a coordinator was writing observation reports without the principal also observing. This was obviously unfair. Howard worked out an agreement where all of the letters this coordinator wrote were removed from the files because they were unfair. Without the unfair or inaccurate standard, there might not be a way to remove those observations now and if it were untenured teachers, they would be in jeopardy of being terminated.
In those days, at least there was a chance to get something before an independent arbitrator when we could grieve letters and observations. The only changes that could be made in letters were parts could be stricken or the whole letter was removed. If we were successful in clearing out some of the file through the grievance process, then the person had a chance in their review.
Many of us knew of occasions where administrators would back off after going through the grievance process and being worn out or losing. Now untenured people are called “at will employees” by a Board administrator in one of those web-casts for principals on how to attack teachers. “At will” is the term for employees who can be fired for almost anything by management. What is the purpose of having a union and paying dues if our untenured colleagues can be terminated at will?
To further make this point, look at the evidence on how many teachers are now being denied tenure or compelled to extend their probation. DOE figures show huge increases in the number of teachers being denied tenure since the 2005 Contract was implemented. We’ve made it so easy for them to get us.
Randi Weingarten claimed a big victory last year because the State Legislature passed a law saying we can’t be denied tenure based on student test scores. If ever there was a hollow win, this was it. The DOE does not need to judge us on student test scores; they can fire non tenured teachers now based on one lousy observation report according to their web-cast. The UFT has made our members easy targets with the givebacks in recent Contracts. If you want even more evidence, look at how the rubber rooms have filled up in the last few years.
At last week’s presentation, Howard Solomon also told us about how we can no longer be disciplined for bulletin boards, classroom furniture and the exact duration of lesson units. Principals can easily work around this provision and the Office of Labor Relations tells them how to do it in their 2007 Q&A.
Another Power Point slide told us to use Contract Article 1 to ask to speak to a principal with our concerns. This is another exercise in futility because there is no leverage behind a teacher meeting with the principal. In the past, the threat of multiple grievances was one way to keep a principal from getting out of control.
The counterargument the Unity faithful will give is that the incidents at Jamaica that I referred to happened back in the nineties when we had a friendly Chancellor, Rudy Crew, and we wouldn’t win them now under Joel Klein. We knew what Klein’s agenda was by 2005. That is why Randi should have listened to ICE back then and not given an inch in Contract negotiations. Selling off our rights was a mistake. Telling us now how wonderful things are is just as foolish as it provides members with a completely false sense of security.
You’ve heard my evidence. What about your schools? We really would like to know what is going on everywhere. Is Howard Solomon’s rosy scenario reality?
To see the entire power point presentation go to Under Assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)