Details are not final, but three sources briefed on the contract outlined significant changes to work rules and new projects in the city schools that could be covered in the contract, including:
-- The city could open dozens of new schools free of some teachers union contract rules and city regulations to help foster innovation. Parent-teacher conference periods could be extended.
-- Teachers could receive a $5,000 bonus to work in underserved neighborhoods.
-- High performing teachers could be eligible for bonuses ranging from $7,500 to $20,000.
-- Teacher evaluations could be streamlined to include fewer criteria.
-- The definition of sexual misconduct could be expanded to streamline the termination of accused educators.
-- Teachers without permanent assignment could be given tryout periods at public schools. If principals at those schools don’t approve of their performance, the teachers could face an expedited termination hearing.
-- Cost controls on health care could save city the $1 billion. If all city unions agree to the cost savings, the city could save $3.4 billion.
Okay, starting to see some concerning leaks regarding contract details.
In particular, that ATR stipulation looks concerning to me if it's true.
Also, the stipulation that allows the city to open up "dozens of new schools free of some teachers union contract rules and city regulations," is troublesome if true.
Dunno about you, but I cannot understand why the UFT would agree to "dozens of new schools" free from the union contract when there are already so many charters in those same circumstances.
Isn't the UFT leadership sowing the seeds of the eventual demise of the union by giving the city the right to open up dozens of new city schools free from contractual regulations?
Seriously, what do we need a union for if many of the schools that get opened from now on are free from the UFT contract?
Will teachers who work at those contract-free schools still have to pay UFT dues?
Aren't these contract-free schools essentially charter schools without actually being named charter schools?
And that ATR deal, with ATR's subject to "expedited termination hearings" if the placement try-out doesn't work, well, that sounds like a sell-out of the ATR's to me by the UFT leadership.
Again, these are leaks, so until we see the details, it's all hypothetical.
But I have a hard time seeing how I vote yes for a contract that allows the city to "open dozens" of city schools sans much of the UFT contract regulations or subjects ATR's to expedited termination hearings if a placement doesn't work out.
Devil is in the details, but I'm starting to not like what I'm hearing.