April 20, 2007

Coalition Agreement With New York City, DOE

Filed under: NYC DOE by Leo Casey @ 11:11 am

On Thursday, April 19 an agreement was reached between New York City, the Department of Education and member organizations of the Coalition to Put The Public Back In Public Education – the UFT, ACORN, the Coalition for Educational Justice, the New York Immigration Coalition, the Working Families Party, and the Urban Youth Collaborative. Other groups, including NYers for Smaller Classes, CPAC and Time Out from Testing, were consulted.

This agreement, while not everything we wanted, yielded major changes in the planned reorganization of New York City public schools. This vital progress was made possible by the tireless advocacy of thousands of educators, parents and students from the Coalition member organizations.

Here are the agreement’s key components:

CHANGES IN FUNDING FORMULAS

* No school will have its budget cut as a result of the new funding formulas for the next two school years [2007-08, 2008-09]. Schools with large numbers of high needs students will receive additional funding, without a reduction of funding to other schools.

* A “hold harmless” protection in the hiring of teaching staff. Schools can hire new teachers with the same experience and salary level as teachers who leave, at no extra cost.

* Extra funding for English Language Learners, special education students, and low income students, in order to provide them with the supports they need to succeed in school.

* The UFT reserves the right to pursue its grievance against the inclusion of teacher salaries in the ‘open market’ transfer system.

* A task force including the UFT, the NY Immigrant Coalition, and the Annenberg Institute at Brown University to evaluate the impact of Fair Student Funding and to recommend refinements.

CLASS SIZE

The DOE must now consult the UFT, NYers for Smaller Class Size and other stakeholders in the implementation of the new law on class size reduction. The UFT and NYers for Smaller Class Size can still fight for the best possible State Education Department regulations governing the law’s implementation.

TENURE

The DOE commits that existing tenure criteria will remain in effect for 2007-2008. Any changes beyond 2007-2008 will conform to the new state law. The UFT will participate in the process of developing any changes.

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

The DOE has committed to a Middle School initiative, working with the City Council Task Force on Middle Schools and the Coalition for Educational Justice, to overhaul instruction in the middle schools. A pilot project to implement new strategies in at least 50 schools will start in the 2007-08 school year.

PARENT ENGAGEMENT

The DOE will establish a parent engagement committee, with representation from appropriate stakeholders, to develop systems and processes for improving parent engagement and ensuring that every school has a well-functioning School Leadership Team.

STUDENT SUCCESS

A commitment to work with the Urban Youth Collaborative on improving college and career preparedness, graduation rates and college admissions among high school students.

Areas of disagreement remain between the city and coalition member organizations. At the announcement of the agreement, UFT President Randi Weingarten expressed ongoing concerns about the reorganization. But this agreement is an important first step in Putting The Public Back In Public Education, as a result of the campaign waged since January by the Coalition and by elected officials. The voices of educators, parents and students are finally being heard.

 

25 Comments »

Comments are open for registered users and do not reflect the views of the UFT. Please read our general rules for commenters.

  • Sounds to me like we’re making the same mistake we always make. We agree to support someone who has our worst interests at heart, who has zero clue what can and cannot succeed in the classrooms of NYC, in exchange for short term quasi-status quo, nebulous promises, and no clear cut long term plan. What we appear to have put off is a clear cut decision on whether veteran teachers with higher salaries will be prohibited from transferring to more desirable schools beyond the next year or two which basically means that the system now has to recruit teachers while simultaneously telling them that they’ll forever work not only where they’re told but with no regard to their personal preferences.

    Now admittedly that is Bloomberg’s plan with or without our support but I ask again why support anything he has to offer. Would it not make more sense to remain obstinate, let him force these changes on the system, so when this reorganization fails between now and the next Mayoral election, we can say with a clear conscience “we told you so?”

    This just seems to be more of the same misguided willingness to compromise with someone who is both an unwilling partner and a lame duck. I wish the DOE good luck in their further recruiting and retention efforts. They’ll need it.

    Comment by paulrubin — April 20, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

  • I think that to approve this would be a big mistake. What will happen two years from now with the school funding formula? Will BloomKlein implement what thay really want now, continuing to destroy our schools and profession?

    There is no guarantee of a REAL parents voice, just an engagement committee made of representation from “appropriate” stakeholders, whatever that means.

    Can we count on a future mayor being better towards us than Bloomberg? Remember, we thought that nothing could be worse than Giuliani.

    I will vote “no” on this at the DA. We have seen what has happened to us in past dealings with this sneaky, deceptive mayor.
    I believe that we shouldn’t “settle.”

    Comment by R. Skibins — April 20, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

  • While we reserve the right to pursue our grievance against the inclusion of teacher salaries in the ‘open market’ transfer system,
    1. Will we grieve this?
    2. Have we given up our right to pursue this as age discrimination?
    3. Have we just given our ok to the transfer season opening up with salary info on the transfer forms?

    Seeing the full language of the agreement would help.

    Jonathan

    Comment by jd2718 — April 21, 2007 @ 10:34 am

  • Bloomberg and Klein had already abandoned any effort to impose the funding changes on teacher salaries for the coming school year. This “agreement” adds only one year to that reality. Addtionally this agreement gives principals an affirmative reason to deny transfers to senior teachers. Before the threat was they would have to scramble for funding. Now they will receive real dollars to be spent as they wish. If I retire today my boss gets my salary guaranteed for next year. If she hires a rookie at half my pay she gets the difference to place in her budget. If continued this would go on until the salary of the newly hired teacher matches my present salary.

    A principal would have to be institutionalized if she hired a fifteen year teacher to replace me, rather than a rookie.That would be economic insanity. Four such situations would give a school more money than going Empowerment.I would think the Open Market, whenever it does open, will find few success stories among senior staff this year.

    As to a federal age discrimination suit? I think an objective magistrate may inquire if the UFT had not already accepted such discrimination by agreeing to this proposal.

    Comment by xkaydet65 — April 21, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

  • It never sees to amaze me how the same guys snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time. It is predictible as the clock chiming on the hour.

    We go from a planned funding formula where a school has an economic disincentive to hire senior teachers to one which is budgetary neutral, since the school continues to receive the funding of the leaving teachers. And you are working overtime to find something wrong with that.

    The New York Times says that this will completely undo the Chancellor’s fnding plans — but the same folks sing the same song here, no matter what the moment calls for.

    Comment by SOC ST TEACHER — April 21, 2007 @ 6:11 pm

  • Jonathan:

    We are already grieving the use of teacher salaries in the transfer system. It was reported at the last DA. All this does is be explicit that we are not giving up that right to grieve, The same is true of age discrimination.

    Comment by Leo Casey — April 21, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

  • It’s budgetary neutral but it doesn’t address the problem which is that principals would have incentive to hire new teachers over veteran ones and pocket the difference. That’s not to say a principal is going to hire 100% first year teachers. That’s insanity. But why would a principal not hire a mix of teachers with under 10 years experience rather than a teacher making $100,000? I hate the be the bearer of bad tidings but the mathematical reality of what I’m looking at is that princpals would be hard pressed to ever hire veteran teachers to replace veteran teachers who leave. They can fill the same positions (or hire more cheaper teachers and reduce class size) or hire cheaper teachers and spend the rest on furniture, equipment, supplies, etc. That’s precisely what I’d do and I know the value of a veteran staff.

    In this scenario, the ONLY long time veteran teachers who will be able to transfer are those with a fairly specialized skill set (shortage areas, high technology skills) or those with close ties to the principal (friends of friends owed favors, friends of those in positions of authority over the principal, etc.)

    The only thing this agreement does is make a half hearted attempt to preserve existing school budgets, something that is somewhat beneficial to perhaps 25% of the schools in NYC.

    I ask the same question I’ve always asked. Why are we supporting changes that penalize some segments of our membership on the one hand while not supporting others (differential pay for shortage areas for example) that are far less consequential.

    Comment by paulrubin — April 21, 2007 @ 7:46 pm

  • “It never sees to amaze me how the same guys snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time. It is predictible as the clock chiming on the hour.”

    With all due respect, SOC ST TEACHER, those who have “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory” have been proven right again and again. This simply is not a good deal. Once again, Bloomberg is throwing us a bone. It’s time that we start thinking not of the now, but of the later. How will this affect us down the road? Negatively.

    If we settle, the parents lose, as all they have is an empty promise. How will settling without a victory affect future coalitions? Who would want to ally themselves with the UFT if we continually settle without victory? How is it that whenever the UFT reaches a compromise WE lose REAL things, while the mayor and chancellor never lose anything but a proposal that they have made?

    With the coalition, we have the mayor against the ropes. Don’t settle. We can achieve real victory if we all stand together. Reject this, and I’ll see you at city hall on the 9th.

    Comment by R. Skibins — April 22, 2007 @ 10:48 am

  • Paul:

    You wouldn’t happen to be a Math teacher?

    Comment by SOC ST TEACHER — April 22, 2007 @ 12:57 pm

  • This is beginning to feel like a nightmare. I get an email from the union telling me the mayor has backed off from his plan to make me less employable as I gain experience. I’m delighted with this, I skip the delegate assembly due to childcare issues. My chapter leader tells me Randi gets heckled, and I can’t imagine why. Now I log on a bit late to a discussion of the issue and it seems the union just agreed to a plan where principals will save money by hiring newer teachers. If anyone is still reading this thread, please tell me I’m misunderstanding this. This sounds like a nightmare - far worse than the givebacks of the last contract. Basically, the older I get, the more I have to keep my mouth shut and suck up to the principal, not to mention hearing about interesting positions and knowing I’d never have a chance of getting hired. Leo, please explain your post, I didn’t understand it. Will principals now be able to save money by hiring the lesser-paid of two applicants - or not? Please respond. I’m in a panic over this.

    Comment by MichaelB — April 26, 2007 @ 8:38 pm

  • Michael

    Principals will be able to use money they are given for salary for other items. If I retire, my 90K salary will remain on my schools books, but the prin can hire a much less experienced teacher and keep the salary difference for the school’s general fund. The only question I have is how long this will go on. Does it continue for as long as that new teacher’s salary has not reached the level of mine? Tht I do not know.

    Either way, it pays a prin. not to hire a senior teacher to replace a retiring one.

    Comment by xkaydet65 — April 27, 2007 @ 9:15 am

  • I’m still not hearing why our union officials agreeds to this “compromise” which tosses its senior teachers under a bus when there was no incentive to do anything. It’s not like we were negotiating a contract. We could have remained intractible, let Bloomberg and Klein do whatever they wanted which appears to be what they’ve done anyway, and at least been able to bitch about it. Now we have to sit on our hands and let some of our members steam.

    Now yes I see where it gives some schools who might have gotten badly hurt quickly a bit of a reprieve in terms of total budget but it still turns veteran teachers looking for positions into pariahs. Now obviously a principal is taking a risk by staffing his or all building with all minimum salaried teachers and those newer teachers will ultimately find their salaries rise but as that happens over time, I’m not going to sit here and try to predict things since this is all happening simultaneously with schools receiving more funding from the state and city. But I fail to see why a principal would hire a $93,000 22 year veteran when they can hire a $73,000 10 year veteran and pocket the difference for supplies, equipment, furniture, books, technology, etc. Forget about two brand new teachers for the same price who will be completely subservient and pliable. This just seems like the UFT negotiated a deal on behalf of the CSA and the parents instead of for the teachers they represent and who pay their salaries. I must have missed all the many nonexistent meetings where the union asked the staff for their opinions on this.

    Now sure, there are some teachers in the system that may have such glowing resumes and specialized skill sets that their price tags won’t impede them much, but for the vast majority of more typical teachers just trying to do a good job and improve their individual career situations, this deal puts the UFT’s stamp on something truly incidious unless someone can explain it without the doublespeak.

    Comment by paulrubin — April 27, 2007 @ 7:00 pm

  • As I understand it, then, the compromise is even worse than Klein’s original proposal in one important sense: Now, principals will save even more by getting rid of senior teachers. Under the mayor’s first proposal, by getting rid of a senior teacher, the school would only pocket the difference between the new teacher’s salary and the average citywide salary, right? So, if a teacher earning $100,000 retired and was replaced by a teacher making average salary (around $65,000?) then the school saved nothing. Under the “compromise”, the school gains an extra $35,000. Hire a rookie and you’re talking serious money. Big incentive to get rid of the oldtimers.

    So, through no fault of his/her own, the senior teacher is now a target for administrators looking to find extra money. An unscrupulous principal could harass the teacher who, unfortunately, will be unemployable in all but the most hard-to-staff schools. Nice way to end a distinguished career.

    Clearly, this is a huge, huge, loss for us. And clearly we were outmaneuvered by Klein, who tricked Randi and (some of) us into signing away our seniority transfer rights paving the way for him to make this type of unilateral change.

    Ultimately, I have no idea what the best strategy was and whether or not this was the best deal we could get under the circumstances. It does seem clear, however, that people like SOC ST. TEACHER are feeding us a line of bull by using terms like “budgetarily neutral”.

    We were beaten. Badly!

    Comment by MichaelB — April 27, 2007 @ 8:04 pm

  • Klein’s budget system which was being implemented was far worse and the hold harmless clause carries schools through Klein’s horrid tenure. The agreement which we talked about at the DA removed the funding system which essentially said any position would be funded at a new teacher salary.

    Comment by southbxda — April 28, 2007 @ 10:32 am

  • Southbxda: True. We’ve protected some schools.

    But Michael is right that both versions give principals incentive not to take transferring senior teachers.

    We have an ongoing grievance (see Leo’s answer to me, above). Now, what else?

    Telling the truth, clearly, would be a start.

    Jonathan

    Comment by jd2718 — April 28, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

  • Not quite Robespierre…

    NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein’s foolishness has now reached the point where Diane Ravitch described it simply as a sorry situation in NYC. The description is accurate with four years of revolving reorganizations and mandates….

    Trackback by Sherman Dorn — April 29, 2007 @ 6:08 pm

  • The truth would be that the Delegate Assembly expressed overwhelming support for the agreement, and that the heckling was entirely the work of the small group of permenant oppositionists who would oppose Mothers Day if it were supported by Randi.

    Some commenters here need to simply think through the premises of their own questions. There was absolutely no need for the UFT and other Coalition partners to enter into this agreement if it did not substantially improve the situation for schools, teachers and kids. Anyone without a political agenda — or without a desire for the UFT to negotiate special salary differentials for Math and Science teachers at the expense of other teachers — understands that. This agreement protects successful schools through the remaining years of Bloomberg-Klein, and eliminates the incentives to replace senior teachers with novices. The convoluted arguments presented here assume that principals have no interest in finding and keeping quality teachers for their schools, and so will use salary neutral systems to force out senior teachers.

    The absurdity of it all appears in the claim that it was better to have the original Klein proposal, where a school did not keep the salary of retiring and leaving teachers, than the changes which make it possible for the school to hire a teacher of similar salary and experience.

    Comment by SOC ST TEACHER — April 29, 2007 @ 6:39 pm

  • We didn’t protect senior teachers’ right to transfer. Those at phasing out schools are really stuck. No principal is going to pick up an $85K salary.

    Instead of blaming people for pointing this out, why don’t you talk about how we are going to help those teachers?

    We could start by being honest about what the DoE is trying to do to them. We will continue our grievance, and we should be public about it. We could consider an age-discrimination law suit. And we should think of other strategies if these don’t work.

    We have an obligation to help our most vulnerable members. More effort, more public effort, would be welcome.

    Jonathan

    Comment by jd2718 — April 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm

  • SOC ST TEACHER, I wish you would be more specific about whose comments you are criticizing, but I’ll assume you’re referring to my post. I’ve never booed Randi at a delagate assembly, but I’m beginning to understand the frustration of those who do.

    More to the point, I never suggested that Klein’s original proposal was better - I said as far as I could understand, one aspect of the compromise was worse than the original. I even went as far as to say that the deal might be the best we could get under the circumstances.

    Is my understanding - that principals will “pocket” more money by hiring new teachers under the compromise than under the original plan - incorrect? If so, please explain in detail. I’d like to know exactly what was originally proposed and what was finally agreed to.

    Also, I can’t understand why you use a phrase like “eliminates the incentives”. Are you saying that principals will NOT save money by hiring less experienced teachers?

    Why is Leo absent from this discussion? What are our strategies going forward?

    Comment by MichaelB — April 30, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

  • Let us not forget what happened in September:

    Klein sent an email to all principals telling them not to hire ATRs or excessed teachers. I do not recall any outrage by our union in the media.

    I warned back in 05 how giving up excessing rights would lead to bigger problems. If I could figure that out, the union had to know that too. Instead we were told what a great opportunity the open market was. Now the application includes current salary. That’s a caveat right there.
    Yet we needed permission to continue a grievance.

    The open market was a very creative way to end seniority rights.

    Comment by Schoolgal — April 30, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

  • Don’t use a tongue in cheek response to a comment as an argument. This has nothing to do with salary differentials by subject. That argument was simply about how it’s apparently ok to punish senior teachers (and I see senior teachers in this scenario as those above 10 years of service) by agreeing with Bloomberg’s fundamental idea which is to use actual salaries when staffing buildings. Any argument made that justifies it is coming off as pathetic. The bottom line is that we’re impeding the transfer process for those who’ve earned the right to transfer. I personally have no desire to transfer but it was nice to know that I could have before.

    Now sure this may be the way it’s done in private industry but that doesn’t make it right and last I heard the NYC public school system was still a public entity, not a private one. If I wanted to work at garbage wages for Walmart I would have. It’s a short sighted policy that will only serve to chase teachers out of the system at all levels.

    Comment by paulrubin — April 30, 2007 @ 9:14 pm

  • So, is thread going to end without someone (Leo) explaining the difference between the proposed and actual school funding forumulas and answering the question (yes or no) as to whether or not principals save money by hiring newer teachers?

    Comment by MichaelB — May 1, 2007 @ 8:08 pm

  • Now that this thread in on the 2nd page, you might just get an answer that others will never see. That’s how much Edwize has changed sine 05.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 2, 2007 @ 5:52 am

  • I posted a partial response on another thread. It’s below.

    –

    Funding is held steady for two years. The re-organization which Klein was originally implementing (The UFT has no official say over funding,) would have funded positions at starting teacher salary. That was changed. Those were among the changes made by the coalition agreement. For the next two school years there’s schools will be held harmless. With CFE funding budgets could increase (dramatically) for schools. The UFT is grieving the inclusion of salary in transfer application.

    We’re also monitoring the transfer situation very closely this
    spring to see if there are any instances of abuse. If you are aware of any notify your DR immediately.

    The UFT will vigorously pursue correcting any mishandling of the funding situation.

    Comment by Kombiz Lavasany — May 2, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

  • [...] two serious discussions about the modifications to the Bloomberg Department of Ed reorganization, first about the agreement and then about teachers [...]

    Pingback by This week in blogging, here « JD2718 — May 11, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.