Michelle Rhee Says The UFT Contract Fails The Reform Test

Could be a head fake out of the Great Broomster, but Michelle Rhee says she's not too impressed with the new UFT contract agreement:

The camaraderie among the mayor, senior administration officials and UFT leadership was evident at Thursday's big announcement. Praise flew every which way; UFT boss Michael Mulgrew and Chancellor Fariña hugged.

What was not so clear was what, exactly, they had agreed to. Inexplicably, the city focused on the pomp and circumstance of the agreement but has not released its language. This much we know: Mayor de Blasio gave in to the union's demands for sizable raises but got very little in return - no premium sharing of health-care costs, no higher co-pays, no guaranteed dismissals for ineffective teachers who don't even teach full time, no changes to the rigid seniority-based salary schedule, nothing.

For all the talk of a fair deal for students, the union did not make a single meaningful concession.

Make no mistake: I support the generous raises in the new contract agreement. Teachers deserve to be paid like the professionals they are. But rather than use substantial salary increases to drive groundbreaking reform, the de Blasio administration tinkered around the edges, by and large preserving the status quo.

If the mayor had been willing to cause some friction with his union friends, he could have used the new contract to drive reforms that would have enhanced the quality of teaching and had real impact for kids. Yes, it's difficult to stand up to powerful and wealthy special interests, but across the country there are mayors and superintendents showing precisely this type of courage.

For example, in Harrison County, Colo., school officials worked with their teachers union to put in place an "effectiveness and results" pay plan that uses educators' classroom performance - rather than simply their seniority - to make school placement decisions and salary increase determinations.

In Cleveland, Oh., public school leaders did away with the outmoded salary scale that gives raises based on only on tenure and college coursework and replaced it with a more modern system that gives raises based on performance and specialized qualifications. The Cleveland contract also changes how layoffs and recalls are handled, with performance and qualifications taking precedence over seniority.

In Washington, D.C., where I was chancellor, IMPACT teacher evaluations are among the strongest in the country and have helped that school district go from the worst urban district in the country to the one making the biggest gains in student achievement.

In Newark and Hillsborough, N.J., teachers receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "needs improvement" rating will not be eligible for salary increases for the next school year or for any pay raise until they receive an overall satisfactory evaluation.

San Jose also chose to deny automatic raises to unsatisfactory performers.

The contract governing educators in a group of schools run by Green Dot, in Los Angeles, calls for teachers to devote the necessary time and effort to fulfill their professional obligations. Though high-performing teachers typically work long, unpredictable hours, traditional teacher contracts both set strict limits on hours and are extremely prescriptive about what responsibilities can be assigned within those limited work days.

This civil-service approach leads to significant negative outcomes, from parents having two-minute conferences with teachers, to new teachers being told not to work late because it will make veterans look bad. Green Dot's simple language has helped transform the culture of teaching at these schools.

Each of these gains in the contract happened with unions and districts working collaboratively.

These are just some of the ideas that could have been replicated in New York City to benefit students. And a nine-year agreement with generous salary increases would have been the exact right mechanism to do it.

Bob McManus of the Post also hammered the deal today, calling it "catastrophic" for the city, though he was focused more on the cost and the little in "health care savings" that he wanted out of it.

While I think there is much to dislike about the agreement, this much is true:

Salary steps are preserved and continued, unlike in some teachers contracts around the country in the last few years.

In fact, had Christine Quinn won the election, you can bet she would have pushed for a contract that eliminated automatic salary step increases and promoted so-called "performance pay" as the primary mechanism for raises.

Same goes for Anthony Weiner - who also said he would push for city employees to be part of a universal city health care system and force teachers to pay "at least 10% of their health care premiums."

The UFT even put out a trial balloon last year about what a contract without automatic step increases might look like through Unity caucus member and Ed in the Apple blogger, Peter Goodman, something I posted about in March 2013. 

While this de Blasio contract has a merit pay proposal in it, it doesn't replace steps as the primary mechanism for salary increases and while it does call for some fuzzy notion of health care savings, both the city and the UFT claim that teachers will not be paying part of their salary toward health care.

I've seen some criticism around the Internet that claims this is the worst deal ever, Bloomberg's wet dream, etc., but the truth is, it's not even the kind of deal that Quinn or Weiner would have sought, let alone Bloomberg or Rhee.

By all means, scrutinize and criticize the deal, point out the problems with the delayed compensation, the "retro pay" that isn't really retro pay at all, the merit pay stipulation, the ATR changes and the 200 schools that can dispense with parts of the contract if 65% of their staffs agree to it.

But don't overdo it because this UFT/de Blasio deal is nowhere near as bad as some deals we've seen around the country recently (like the one Rhee lists), nor is it anywhere near as bad as what you might have seen had Quinn or Weiner been elected.

That doesn't mean I think it's a good deal - I think there are major problems with it and I know why people are pissed about it.

But make no mistake, it could have been a lot worse than it is, as Rhee points out in her Daily News piece, and I think it's important to take that into account as you talk to your colleagues about it.

Bloomberg Worried Quinn's Successor Will Give Out Retroactive Pay Increases

From the Daily News:

Mayor Bloomberg is worried that the City Council will give in to demands for retroactive pay increases for city workers once he is out of office – especially since Christine Quinn will no longer be the speaker.

Speaking of the possibility of back pay for city unions on expired contracts, Bloomberg said on his weekly appearance on the John Gambling radio show that it could come down the next speaker.
“Somebody yesterday said to me, well you know the city council is very liberal and who knows who the speaker is going to be,” he said.

He praised the Council’s current speaker Quinn, a mayoral hopeful he’s at odds with over several issues, including her support of the creation of an NYPD inspector general.

“Chris Quinn has done a very good job as speaker … The city has been very well served by her,” he said.

Apparently the mayor thinks only the people on his staff deserve salary increases.

Because he handed out up to $18,000 in raises to his staff right during the middle of the recession while he was looking to lay off other city workers.

It seems fiscal prudence for Bloomberg means screwing the little people so that the connected people can make more money.

Post Attacks Teacher Salary

The Post criticizes salary step hikes and longevity increases.

The gist of the article, planted by Bloomberg's people, is that teachers should not get salary step or longevity increases because the contract has expired - even though the city is required to pay these increases through law.

Apparently contracts are only sacrosanct for Murdoch and Bloomberg on the rich person's end of it.

I got my last salary step increase in 2008.

I will go until February 2012 until I get my next one.

So no matter what the Post says, teachers are NOT getting increases every year.

But facts, schmacts - this is about laying the ground work to go after salary step increases and longevity since the mayor is not going to get the changes to LIFO he wants.

The UFT had better take note that salary step and longevity increases are NOT places to compromise with the mayor to reduce the specter of layoffs.

The place to compromise with Bloomberg is to force him to cut outside consultants and tech contracts.

The UFT can do that by going on a coordinated campaign to show how much money Bloomberg wastes on these things.

Next Year - Salary Step/Longevity Freezes

Reading this NY Times article about the mayor's move to "cancel" teacher raises, I was struck by two things:

First, the union intends to do nothing about this. Union leadership is happy that there will be no layoffs and they didn't have to cave on the seniority issue - yet (remember, for a UFT concession on an issue of principle, it is always just a matter of time.)

The Times story notes how Mulgrew "softened his tone" throughout the day talking about the salaries and said he was happy that the mayor is going to go to Albany and Washington to lobby for more education funds.

That's really standing up for the principal of collective bargaining, isn't it?

The mayor decides to no longer negotiate a contract in good faith, gives 0% for two years outside of contract parameters and gives nothing back to employees in return for the 0% and the union says "Great! Let's take an Amtrak trip to D.C.!"

Next, I read this particular comment attributed to Klein:

Mr. Klein, in a news conference, said he expected the budget for 2011-12 to be even worse than this year’s, because the city will not have federal stimulus money.

What I read in that line is, next year the mayor and the chancellor are going to cry poverty and threaten layoffs again, and then at the last minute declare step and longevity freezes as a way to avert the layoffs (and of course the op-ed writers across the city will hail the decision as "fair" and "full of common sense"), forcing the union to fight the move in court.

And the UFT, which seems to exist for no other reason than to provide the leadership with benefits and limos, will do nothing.

Oh, they'll talk a good game, but in the end, accomplish squat.

I hope I am wrong about that, but I don't think I will be.

Because the funding issue isn't going to get any easier for the state or the city and Wall Street will remain volatile until the sovereign debt issue gets worked out (and maybe a lot longer than that) so I don't see the extra money rolling into the government coffers any time soon.

The irony here is that we are going to be asked to do so much more in the coming years now that the teacher evaluation changes have been approved and Obama's RttT and NCLB Jr. guidelines are driving policy on school turnarounds.

Some low performing schools will have longer hours and perhaps even Saturday school.

And teachers will be doing much of this (if not all of it) for little to no additional compensation.

The powers that be will say, "If you don't like it, quit."

And they will have thousands of applicants ready to take the job at a much cheaper salary and pension package.

So they know they have got teachers and they are using the hammer again and again and again on us.

And teachers are taking it.

The union is taking it.

As for me, I have one year and nine months to go for my next longevity increase.

During that time, my rent will increase, food will go up, medical expenses will go up, travel expenses will increase.

The money I receive in interest in my savings account won't go up much, however. Obama and Bernanke have made sure of that by keeping the Fed Funds rate at 0%.

And the compensation I receive at work won't go up - no raises for two years, little per session available, the college program I used to work has been canceled.

And then there could come the step/longevity freeze next year.

So I will have to make due with what I have and the powers that be will say "Be grateful you have a job!"

And I think to myself "Is this the change we can all believe in?"

It's For The Good Of The Kids

The salary and benefit cuts, I mean:

BRIDGEWATER -- The 1,360-member Bridgewater Raritan Education Association voted to approve $1.4 million in concessions today, a move that will save 16-full time teaching positions and help soften the blow created by millions of dollars in state-aid cuts to the Bridgewater-Raritan School District.

The BREA did not specify how the give-backs will affect teachers' salaries for the coming school year, but said the teachers and maintenance union agreed to waive $403,000 for tuition reimbursement. Teachers will also pay 1.5 percent of their salaries toward the cost of health benefits next year.

BREA President Steve Beatty said the move was necessary to preserve the quality of education in the district, but blasted Gov. Chris Christie for criticizing the union last week when it appeared contract talks had stalled.

“Our members care about our students and our community,” said Beatty. “It’s unfortunate that the governor’s cuts are requiring the people who work in public schools to make even more concessions than they already have in order to preserve as best we can our excellent public schools.”

“We reject the governor’s attempts to deflect blame for his devastating cuts onto our members,” said Beatty. “He could restore districts' funding just by reinstating the tax on millionaires and dedicating those funds to our public schools.”

Governor Christie can't restore the millionaire's tax - that would hurt the kids, specifically the kids of millionaires as well their wealthy parents.

But teachers have to take salary and benefit cuts or be scapegoated as "hurting the kids..."

This story is from Jersey, but it's coming to a school near you in New York State too once the fall-out from Paterson's budget cuts and failure to pay the districts their state aid hits home.

You can be sure UFT members will be asked to pay for health benefits, take salary cuts or 0% "raises," okay the firing of the ATR's and make other concessions to the city and the state or be scapegoated as selfish, mean-spirited grinches who are "hurting the kids."

You'll note that all of this is happening to schools and school staffs even as Bloomberg hands out $700 million dollar no-bid contracts to crooks and bonuses to city managers while the City Council staff get 4% raises.

Not to mention the billion dollar bonuses Wall Street is handing out with either TARP money or money made from the 0% interest loans Uncle Ben Bernanke and President Accountability have made available through the Federal Reserve ATM machine for Too Big To Fail Institutions like Goldman and Chase.

But we have to give out all these bonuses and no-bid contracts and salary increases to politicians and their staffs while cutting school budgets, cutting school staff, and forcing the ones still around take salary and benefit cuts.

Otherwise the terrorists win. Or something like that.

And most importantly, it's for the good of the kids.

No Raises For You!!!

Today the Daily News hammers Uncle Joel Klein for cutting the 4% pay raises that Mayor Bloomberg gave to city managers this year to 2% for NYCDOE educrats.

The News says that, given the current state of city finances and the money Bloomberg ordered schools to cut from their budgets, Klein should have made the raises 0%.

They note that UFT head Michael Mulgrew defended Klein because UFT members are hoping for 4% raises as well, so I'm sure that if teachers get even a 1% increase (and of course that will only come with givebacks to the city on ATR's and tenure), they'll be hammering us too.

I understand that times are very tough, believe me. But I also understand that people deserve salary increases and 2% is not a "huge raise," no matter what Mort Zuckerman or his minions at the Daily News editorial board think.

Over the last 12 months, the consumer price index is up 1.8%, which means people need to pay more for the stuff they need to buy, like food and rent and gas and medicine. A 2% raise, minus the 1.8% increase in prices, leaves DOE educrats with .02% when all is said and done. That's not even a raise, let alone a "huge raise."

And the rationale that city and state finances are bad so no raises for anybody working for either government is jive too.

The Daily News and the Post have been hemorrhaging readers and losing millions of dollars for years now.

The Daily News used to be profitable but has struggled recently while the New York Post has never turned a profit under Rupert Murdoch. Times have been so tough that last year the Post and News talked about combining some business operations to save money (though that never came to pass.)

Yet I never see editorials in either paper decrying the amount of money the journalists at those papers make, or the editors for that matter.

And I bet neither the journalists nor the editors offer to give back salary increases when they get them, despite the shitty financial standing of both papers and newspaper journalism in general.

So while I completely understand the incongruity of DOE educrats getting a raise when principals are being forced to cut their budgets, I also understand that the journalists and editorial staffs at the cash-challenged News and Post are, until they take pay cuts to help their papers survive in these challenging times, full of shit.