-- Health care and pensions: These are usually big contract topics. But this time, the UFT has made concessions already. In 2009, the UFT joined with other municipal unions in agreeing to $400 million in health care concessions by New York City public employees unions and accepted an inferior pension scheme for incoming teachers, disguised as a victory by winning after 25 years and 55 years of age (at little cost to the city) for the in-service membership.
-- Evaluations: The UFT and New York state agreed--as part of negotiations around the state's Race to the Top application last May--to an evaluation scheme that based up to 40 percent of teacher evaluations on test scores, including 20 percent value added on state tests and 20 percent to be negotiated by districts, with 60 percent on a rubric based on principal evaluations and other documentation. This is to be combined with a four-step evaluation scale. Teachers with two consecutive years on the bottom rung will face automatic proceedings for firing.
The UFT trumpeted the fact that nothing could move forward on evaluations until the details were worked out between the district and the union, a process mandated by state law. However, such a deal could be a major side agreement to a contract deal, and might not be able to be voted on by the membership, because the evaluation process is legally required. Given the union's pathetic response around the city's attempt to publish teacher data reports--a lawsuit, but no action--the UFT appears prepared to cave on the test-based evaluation issue.
-- Seniority: The city made a large public campaign last spring of trying to get rid of state laws requiring that teachers be excessed in order of seniority. The legislative effort was defeated, but served a useful PR purpose in the fight over potential layoffs.
But the elimination of this provision would quickly destroy any remaining shreds of shop-floor organization left in the UFT, as a principal could simply remove an active union member from the school on any pretext. Worryingly, the UFT has not made any promises to hold the line on this issue.
-- Job security The centerpiece demand by the city has been the right to lay off excessed personnel (numbering 1,800 at last count) after four months outside of a job at a school. Such a concession would dramatically accelerate the school-closing onslaught and give principals an incentive to trim costs by excessing teachers (currently, teachers who are excessed stay on the school budget).
The union has vehemently and consistently said that it would not cave on this particular issue. But given the AFT's retreat on this issue in other cities, a concession is quite possible.
-- Wages The union's demands are for 4 percent raises for each of two consecutive years, which is exactly the pattern awarded to the biggest municipal union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 (DC 37), in a deal negotiated before the financial crisis hit, in exchange for DC 37's quiescence and an endorsement of Bloomberg in the last mayoral election.
Since then, Mayor Bloomberg has scaled back the money allocated for raises from 4 parcent to 2 percent to 0 percent--supposedly to compensate for canceling layoffs in November 2009 and June 2010. However, the $200 million in federal education jobs money allocated to New York City could be used to pay for these raises. Getting that money will take a fight, however. More state budget cuts are guaranteed when Andrew Cuomo takes office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHAT KIND of deal for the UFT might emerge in this environment?
There is potential for an agreement in which Bloomberg comes up with cash to pay a substantial raise--say 3-4 percent--in exchange for some of the major concessions that the city is after. The UFT would dress this up as a victory (as they did with the evaluation deal), and say that it is the best that they could get.
And Leo Casey will write over at Edwize that the above concessions are a "noteworthy victory" given "these times and under these conditions" or some such jive like that.
Or maybe he'll just repost the blather from this apologia for the hideous '05 contract.
Either way, we'll hear that whatever cave-ins the UFT agrees to are the bestest thing since butter and bread.
Check out who C.Christie nominates for Ed. Commissioner...Cerf, head of Edison Schools...!Can ANYTHING be more indicative of where these deformers want to take us and public ed...? Education reform (otherwise known as burning inner city public school teachers at the stake) brought to you by the people who also brought you The New Economy-casino capitalism that has us teetering into The New Depression...billions for the very few on the CEO side....the rest will be eating bread and water...if they're lucky...
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Comments after the linked article below to get a snapshot of the ongoing legal saga of this pimp Cerf and his Edison Co...it leaves behind a trail of lawsuits, corruption, and fraud...
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/christies_nomination_of_democr.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/28/AR2008062801637.html
ReplyDeleteWonder if C.Christie cares that Edison schools was an abysmal falure in Philadelphia...?
"They had an unprecedented opportunity to turn things around in Philadelphia . . . and they failed miserably overall," added Gym, a former public school teacher. "If you're really trying to turn around public schools in your city and do it right, you should not even spend a minute looking at privatization."
Of the six schools being de-privatized, four are run by the New York-based for-profit school management firm Edison Schools, which operates in 19 states and the District, as well as in London. Edison was founded in 1992 by a group of educators, scholars and business executives, including former Yale University president Benno C. Schmidt.
Edison also has management contracts for 12 other Philadelphia schools that have been effectively put on a one-year probation to show significant improvement.
Ed deformers don't care if privatized or charters are failures since education is not on the table but the shifting of public ed monies into the hands of privatizers is the issue. They use "choice" and "competition" and "incentives" as buzzwords for now but when they own the entire system they will no longer need to bother.
ReplyDelete