The city is closing in on a multiyear contract with the teachers union that could include significant retroactive raises, sources said.
One deal being discussed with the United Federation of Teachers would give them retroactive raises for most of the five years the contract has been expired at a rate of 4%, 4%, 0%, 1% and 2% — although it is unclear how the payout would be distributed to ease the punch to the city’s pocketbook.
Teachers would then get raises of 2% and 2%, the source said.
Those numbers could still change before a final deal is struck, with the sides continuing heated negotiations. The deal under consideration would put the teachers about on par with most other city workers, who got two 4% raises that the UFT didn’t get.
The union and city negotiators met Sunday afternoon to begin all-night talks, another source said.
The new contract is expected to make some changes in employee placement and work rules, in addition to adding time to teachers’ schedules for professional development.
The city is pursuing savings through unspecified “educational reforms.”
I must be honest here - the money looks good, but I'll be surprised if it's actually as good as the News says.
But I don't want any time added to my schedule for "professional development".
The crap they pass off as "professional development" is the most soul-sucking, useless drivel you can imagine, dog-and-pony shows meant to make it look like something is being done to "improve teaching" when nothing is really being done except signing some checks for the providers of the useless PD.
That's my feeling about that.
What say you?
Up for more PD?
Up for a longer work day so they can add that PD?
The smartest thing they could do is eliminate the useless 37.5 minutes and use it for PD. They would probably do something like make it 2 days of PD (or common planning), running for an hour and 15 minutes twice a week, letting everyone go home at the dismissal time we used to have before 37.5.
ReplyDeletePersonally, this contract, as rumored, would be pretty sweet all around. Teachers get their money finally, BdB sets a pattern for the rest of the unions that limits the retro he'd have to pay, and he settles all union contracts until at least 2016.
Do you think that's how it will shake out? Many schools added the extra time to classes. For those schools, that would mean shortening class time for PD. I foresee a PR problem for BdB and the UFT if they do it that way.
DeleteI agree, the plan you lay out isn't bad, but I'm skeptical that's the one they'll go with. I suspect it will mean additional time added to our work week for (shudder, shudder) PD..
But as always, hope I'm wrong!
Tweeted to Ben Chapman this morning about the PD time and he said this afternoon the details are fuzzy, but what you've brought up here w/ the 37.5 minutes could be the deal they're talking about, although a little extra time could be in the mix too.
DeleteI think that's the smartest thing they could do, considering how worthless the 37.5 is, but as we all know, the smartest thing isn't always that the UFT agrees to.
DeleteIn my school, the time was added to classes, so undoing it will mean some real re-arranging of the schedule. But if it means not adding more time, happy to go with it!
DeleteI any news about giving extra years of service? I so want to get out of this mess as soon as possible. More PD Ugh!
ReplyDeleteI agree. No more PD. Enough already. Leave us alone to work with students, grade, do the jobs we're supposed to do. This PD and the compliance mandates take so much out of you, there's less energy and brainpower for doing the work we really need to do.
DeleteThree other ideas: 1) How about getting rid of Circular 6 duties and allow PD during that time? 2) How about ensuring high school teachers do NOT teach a 6th per and allow PD during that time. 3) How about hiring subs to cover for one full day of PD every other month. (On a rotational basis for grade levels/departments) We all need to remember that the rank and file gets to vote on whatever tentative contract the UFT throws at us. Teachers with kids of their own will not be too keen on agreeing to want to stay in school one minute longer for PD. (Come to think of it neither do I and I don't have kids)
ReplyDeleteMy sense is, unless contract is really, really egregious, most people will vote yes on it. Let's hope AT is right in his thoughts on the subject.
DeleteI like the idea of extending the workday because it means more money above the pattern. I won't mind staying for PD (even if It's bad PD) after hours. Soul sucking drivel? Eh. I'd like some common planning time and a real change to look at student work and, since I jump at the chance of teaching a six period, is like to do this after hours.
ReplyDeleteSo bring on the 8 work day!! Just pay me
Let's examine your proposal, UrbanEd:
DeleteThe first 8% comes from the earlier contract pattern, so that wouldn't be part of the compensation for working extra time. So it's the other 7% that we're talking about that would be linked to potential extra time. This is 7% over 5 years, btw, so it's not exactly keeping up with inflation.
We already work 6 hours and 50 minutes now. You say you're willing to work 8 hours. That adds 1 hour and 10 minutes a day, for a total of 5 hours and 50 minutes more a week. That's what you would be willing to do in order to get the 7% over 5 years.
I would vote against that.
The 7% is the NEW pattern, not more money above the old pattern, so it's not like it's extra money being given above and beyond the old pattern for the extra time you would be willing to do (though even if it were I would still be against it.)
I dunno about other teachers out there, but that's not anywhere enough money to get me to work an extra 5 hours and 50 minutes a week.
And I doubt that time would be used for teachers to grade student work in any case. They never add time to the schedule that doesn't come with new mandates for that time. So teachers will still be taking work home with them after the 8 hour day you are signing on for.
I doubt that's the deal that's being discussed between the UFT and BdB. But if it is, I would vote against in and campaign against it.
In any case, what I heard today makes me think Accountable Talk is closer to what they're thinking of doing w/ the PD time, so hopefully this whole discussion is moot!
I do not want to work one more minute. We were all scammed back in 2005 when they said we got a "raise". We ended up working more time for more money. (37 minutes) That is NOT a raise. That is working more hours for more money.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. When you have to do stuff to get the money, it's not a raise, it's compensation for work, that's all. Much of what Weingarten got in '02 and '05 was just that - parts of the contract, including the extra time, sold off for money.
DeleteWhy would anyone want to work any longer than we already do? This is a way of getting rid of teachers since they would get burned out faster than ever. I am not ever recommending anyone to become a teacher anymore since we seem to be going backwards in time rather than forward. They just want more and more out of us.
DeleteMulgrew already accepted concessions on our behalf - RttT, APPR, Danielson - upfront, while we continued working without a raise for almost five years.
ReplyDeleteUnity Caucus, get us our money, and no extra time, especially no brain -deadening PD.
I completely agree, Michael. They already got their concessions - RttT, APPR, Danielson. No more concessions.
DeleteYears of service instead of the retro would be fantastic! Is there any way to get this option discussed seriously?
ReplyDeleteI suppose you could email Mulgrew about it. Can't hurt, in any case.
DeleteYears of service or some sort of buyout. It would be interesting to see a breakdown if members by years of service and try to project who would opt for what if given a choice. I would take the years.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure a good segment of vets would take service. But I dunno how many of those are actually left in system. It's getting younger and younger by the year. My entire dept. has turned over since 2006, except for my self and one other teacher. Since 2001, I've seen like 23 teachers either retire or leave the field from my dept. Doubtful many of the replacements would take service over cash.
DeleteI would have preferred if we would have been given some time that could have added years to my service. It could also alleviate the ATR situation as a lot of them who are at the maximum would prefer to retire. The same could also be said of a lot of senior teachers who find themselves being labeled as Persona Non Grata in their schools.
ReplyDeleteI think they think they can get rid of some of these senior teachers without having to give them years added to service. That's what Danielson was all about.
DeleteThis new contract does not include better working conditions and better treatment to teachers by the administrators in our schools. Teachers in my school have to type up long extensive lesson plans on a daily basis. Data binders are also time consuming to work on. What paper work will they eliminate? We were entitled to the two years of 4% raises. I feel our union did not get enough for their teachers. They claim that we will receive an 18% total raise. How many years is this contract? Does the raise go with inflation? This contract also hurts our ATR teachers as well. They can easily be fired now by a corrupt principal.
ReplyDelete