Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
game changer
January 13, 2009
Citing high turnover, Brooklyn KIPP teachers are unionizing
The logo from KIPP AMP's web site.
If I hadn’t spent the last several hours in a meeting, I would have conveyed this dramatic news sooner: Teachers at one of the country’s most prominent charter school networks, KIPP, have decided to buck their board members‘ skeptical attitudes towards teachers unions — and organize.
Fifteen of 20 teachers at KIPP AMP in Brooklyn, a middle school, today sent a letter to the school’s board of trustees declaring their intention to form a union with the United Federation of Teachers. The president of the union, Randi Weingarten, signed the letter.
In letters to fellow city teachers, the KIPP AMP teachers explain that they want to “create a more sustainable culture so that we can better serve our students and reduce teacher turnover.” They said they’re asking for a “basic contract” that sounds, in their short description, kind of like the slim, tenure-less Green Dot contract: Administrators would have to prove “just cause” before firing a teacher, and discipline would follow a graduate scale, including measures to support struggling teachers.
The union also announced today that teachers at a second KIPP charter school, KIPP Infinity, would like to enter collective bargaining talks. KIPP Infinity’s teachers were already represented by the union, in an agreement that guaranteed them health insurance and other benefits, but now want to negotiate a job contract. In a letter released today, UFT official Michael Mendel asked KIPP Infinity’s board for detailed information on the school’s employees and their salary and benefits details.
The two moves represents a dramatic victory for the UFT, which has been campaigning to bring charter school teachers into its fold for at least the last year. If other charter school teachers in New York City follow suit, the unionization effort could also mark a significant turning point for the charter school movement, which has often scorned unions.
Here’s how the KIPP AMP teachers explained their decision in a letter to the school’s two principals, arguing that their demands will help the school improve:
Teachers and professionals must have a voice in the creation and implementation of school policy. We must have our concerns as professionals recognized and addressed. We must be evaluated in a clear and transparent manner and given support when we need it. We must feel secure in our employment so that concerns as well as ideas can be voiced in a trusting environment.
KIPP AMP opened in 2005 and got a low A on its progress report.
I called KIPP co-founder Dave Levin but haven’t heard back from him yet today. I’ll keep updating this story today and tomorrow.
-
January 13th, 2009 7:01 pm
Wow! Do you have a link to the complete letter?
Ken
-
January 13th, 2009 7:53 pm
Thank you for the scoop. What a fascinating turn of events, sure to be picked up by all the major news reporting agencies. This is a very, very bold step for the KIPP teachers. They should be saluted for their gumption.
-
January 13th, 2009 9:37 pm
This is a huge step in the wrong direction for KIPP and Charter Schools. KIPP NYC is strong because it has the freedom to be competitive with incredibly high standards for both its teachers as well as their students. From my personal experiences, teacher unions come in with grand visions of creating sustainability and a positive culture for teachers but they end up creating an excuse making culture that ultimately inhibits growth by protecting schools’ weak links. Unions are NOT productive. They create complacency towards issues which then brings in mediocre results which then creates an atmosphere similar to that of most failing and miserable public schools. Keep the unions out of KIPP and let’s all create awareness around the fact that Unions have failed several generations of our students from all across the nation while “protecting” teachers at the expense of our students!!!! KIPP AMP is clearly the weakest of all the KIPP NYC schools which is no wonder why they are now turning to the Unions as a last measure. I have no doubt in my mind that this situation will be contained to just KIPP AMP if AMP even last the rest of the year.
-
January 15th, 2009 12:04 pm
Ridiculous, your post sounds as if you’ve never taught in an urban public school system. Most of us are highly aware of the pros and cons of our union. Our contract has prevented many of my talented colleagues from being totally screwed over by some arbitrary administrative or budgetary decision. I’ve also seen ineffective teachers turn around and get their act together because an admin realized that it was more productive to help the teacher than to replace him. Also, I’ve never seen an admin who was incapable of getting rid of a bad teacher. I currently teach at a public school with very high standards staffed by UFT teachers. Our 4 year grad rate would blow away any charter school.
-
January 15th, 2009 3:54 pm
Hey Loren,
Why do you think KIPP seems so concerned with maintaining flexibility to hire and fire teachers as they fit? I am always interested in hearing the perspective of teachers with a lot of experience in the system.
Ken
-
January 15th, 2009 4:51 pm
[...] Elizabeth Green at Gotham Schools [...]
-
January 16th, 2009 9:21 am
Ken,
From what I’ve been reading on these pages everybody seems to think that if KIPP schools unionize they will automatically be forced to follow the DOE-UFT contract. KIPP will negotiate on their own terms. If they have something like tenure, they’ll probably make certain that it’s more difficult to get tenure, and easier to dismiss teachers during their probationary period. If their administrators do their job right, they’ll still have flexibility.
Non-DOE writers in the general public never seem to get this fact: It takes at least 3 years to get tenure in the NYCDOE. If a bad teacher gets tenure, it’s the principal’s fault. If the principal did his/her job, those bad teachers wouldn’ fulfill their probationary period, and would be dismissed. Beyond that, I have seen tenured teachers dismissed or made so miserable that they quit. If we have bad teachers in NYC schools, it’s because we don’t have a large enough pool of qualified teachers to make the best choices. -
January 18th, 2009 6:23 am
It fits, perfectly, that the poster titled “Ridiculous” would choose such an identifying screen name, as that person is, indeed, “ridiculous’. “Ridiculous” is a sockpuppeteer for the typical greedy, selfish, anti-union educrat who is in the business for corporate gain, not for the best interest of children.
Children need stability, they need to be able to relate to the same teachers, year after year, as they benefit from the progressive nurturing and positive relationships that these teachers contribute to their development.
Teachers- real, true, caring, certified and competent teachers are NOT, I repeat, NOT an experiment for unseasoned, uncertified, or mean-spirited administrators and board members to play volley ball with. Such teachers are the backbone of a school and are on the front lines every single day, and deserve the same, the exact same protections and benefits afforded to the public school teachers.
When will blockheads like “Ridiculous” admit that the way teachers are treated trickles immediately down to the way children are educated in the classroom! It is a manifestation of the normal, human condition to become “distracted” in front of your class, not performing at your best, because you have some unethical board members or clueless school administrators threatening your job security- for petty and “ridiculous” reasons.
You see, I chose the word “admit” because “Ridiculous” knows this already, but is playing as if he or she is not aware of this element of the picture. Typical anti-union animus by someone who is probably not even certified to lace their own sneakers and is living off of some old-money trust fund. Or, worse, one of those “non-profit” crooks who have found a way to become an approved City vendor on the taxpayer’s dime, and places children’s needs in the back seat as they drive all the way to the bank while committing one unfair labor practice after another. Disgusting, I say. “Ridiculous”, change your name to “Disgusting”.
And, to answer Ken’s question about “maintaining flexibility to hire and fire teachers as they fit”….well, the operative word here is “fit”. Certain board members and administrators actually WANT to hire and retain unqualified, uncertified, and unfit teachers within their corporation because they know, full well, that such teachers are “indentured” to them and can not get work anywhere else. The well-decorated, seasoned veteran pedagogue is, of course, offended by this, and will most likely speak out against educational practices that harm children. Such brave teachers will be immediately “forced out” because they don’t “fit”. Yes, folks, it happens, all at the expense and peril of a quality education for needy and under-represented children!
I’ve seen this scenario played out before, and it’s “thumbs up” to these KIPP teachers. They are leading a cause that will result in a more even playing field for teachers who deserve civilized respect, competitive compensation, reasonable working conditions, and a reassuring sense of job security- as they make your “corporation” what it is!
-
January 19th, 2009 9:46 am
Disgusted, your tirade is laced with your own inappropriate judgments. How can you leap to such conclusions about these people who are posting? I tend to agree that bringing in the union is going to change things at KIPP, and so I feel like you’re talking about me. But I gave my heart and soul teaching for five years in one of the poorest districts in the city, I’m not laughing at anything on the way to my bank.
I think Loren has it right; there are still not enough qualified teachers to go around. Let me relate three anecdotes from my first two years of teaching.
1) In my first year, I taught science in a large elementary school. The professional development expert sent by the district provided me with the only preservice orientation I received by handing me a copy of Stella Luna and saying, “This is a good story about bats. It’s science. The kids will like it,” and, “Just make sure that no one gets hurt, the kids are ready for their teacher when she comes back at the end of your lesson, and if you can weave a little science in their once in a while, that’s great.”
2) One of the teachers with whom I shared an office with that year spent the year waiting to hear back from a suburban school district on whether she yet had enough experience to transfer to that higher-paying, “easier” job. She asked me, “Where do you want to teach?” When I answered, still incredulous, “Here,” she laughed and said, “You’ll learn.”
3) In my second year, when I taught third grade, the Academic Intervention Support teacher gave me a piece of unsolicited advice. “The way you teach, you should be in Long Island. The kids there can learn! They just can’t learn here.” Mind you, this is the woman who had been sent by the principal/Targeted Assistance Plan Consolidated Application to my classroom at the start of the year to ask for the five students who were struggling the most in reading so she could help them move up. She spent the year yelling at them. Why not? They can’t learn anyway, I’m sure she reasoned.
Having spoken at length to Klein and many of his administrators about these kinds of issues, I’m convinced that one of the chief aims of their reforms is to eradicate this behavior and these beliefs. Until these stories - which are only 10 years old - are ancient history, all this union/anti-union talk is bunk because the UFT will still be in a position of defending those adults who are stealing our tax money that is supposed to support children, because they should have no right to be in front of our children all day. -
January 19th, 2009 10:58 am
So, let’s see, you base Klein’s slapdash reforms on the attitudes of a professional development expert, one teacher you shared an office with, and an Academic Intervention Support Teacher…three people. Kitchen Sink, there are crappy doctors with poor attitudes, too, but we do not call for major, unproven, poorly planned reforms because of that small percentage. The majority of teachers are hard-working, underpaid, conscientious people who you choose to ignore in your comments. Having spoken at length to Klein and his administrators? Teachers stealing our tax money? KitchenSink, you’re full of it.
-
January 19th, 2009 1:34 pm
I’m not out to demonize teachers, and I agree with you about most teachers, but as long as there’s one teacher who acts this way defended by the union, then something’s got to change with the union.
Unfortunately, in the worst off communities, these teachers are everywhere. These three anecdotes are symptomatic of systemic problems this one person has observed working in four schools and observing dozens of others. I have hundreds more anecdotes, I promise you.
Ultimately, do you honestly want to argue that there is a sufficient supply of dedicated, competent teachers for inner city classrooms? Phone Wendy Kopp - her services aren’t need anymore and we can stop placing unprepared smart alecks in classrooms, because the teacher gap is solved. And take down those Teaching Fellows ads while you’re at it.
-
January 19th, 2009 1:55 pm
Yes, take them down. And, yes, phone Wendy Kopp and telll her we have hundreds of dedicated ATR teachers waiting to be put back to work, so her TFA’ers will have to wait until there are true teacher openings. And true, we all have anecdotal stories about teachers’ moaning and complaints, but action always speaks louder than words. Thus, I side with the thousands of teachers who work thanklessly, and put in the energy and work and love to the students of New York City, who Bloomberg, Klein, Gates, Broad, Kopp, Rhee, and all the other “elite” scum who are trying to profit off of these urban kids.
-
January 19th, 2009 2:29 pm
Kitchen Sink:
You stated “something’s got to change with the union”. Your use of the word “got” demonstrates incorrect English. Now, within the context of that grammatically incorrect phrase, you exhibit “anti-union animus”, as your true colors come shining through.
You give bogus examples of three teachers because you “taught for five years” , and this makes you a qualified critic? It makes you an arrogant, un-American, corporate minded insult to the traditionally trained teaching force who happen to prefer being unionized, which is their RIGHT to do! Get over it!
You use all of the educrat buzzwords in your “rants”, but you fail to realize that your tune has been over-played, is out-of-date, and is quite transparent. I have no idea of the intimate details about the Brooklyn KIPP, including the board, the administrators, or the teachers. I was speaking from over fifteen years of experience in the business, where I have seen anti-union animus rear its ugly head and ruin countless numbers of teaching careers and compromised the dignity of the free and appropriate education that students are supposed to receive.
It has been my experience, which has resulted in my own valid opinion, which I have every right to assert, that those who are overly concerned with unionization of their shop are not as concerned with the outcome of their product as they should be. Children need to be their focus, not teachers who want a contract that compels fair and equitable treatment.
Why are you so concerned with KIPP teachers wanting to unionize? Why are you so concerned with fairness and dignity being afforded to them contractually? What really bothers you about that? Profit- perhaps? If profit is your motive, please log off this web site and discontinue your “interest” in education. You’re in it for the wrong reasons, at the expense of the future of our children. As a true educator, and on behalf of other true educators, and inner-city children whom we serve, I am offended by your entire stance on the issue.
-
January 19th, 2009 2:33 pm
Does being an ATR mean that no principal wants to hire one? (I actually don’t know how this process works, please educate me.) If that’s the case, then your question is answered. If not, your friends do indeed need to find a way to get them jobs where jobs are needed. I can assure you, there are vacancies.
And Pogue, thanks for reminding us how much Gates and Bloomberg et alia need the money they are “profiting off of these urban kids.”
-
January 19th, 2009 2:43 pm
And dear Disgusted,
I’ll never disagree with your right to express your valid opinion, or anyone’s right to unionize. And I claim to be no expert, just one person with an opinion like everyone else who logs on to this website.
If you read my “rants” carefully, you’ll see that I actually don’t have a problem with unionizing per se. Things are going to change at KIPP AMP, but if the leadership is up for the challenge I believe it absolutely can be productive. And if the leadership was fair and appopriate from the start, the teachers likely would not have felt the need to reach out to Randi.
I recognize that if not for the UFT, I never would have become an educator; the negotation of the salary and benefits made life livable when I moved back to NYC after college. It’s the unwritten policy of putting the needs of the least qualified teachers ahead of ANY children’s needs that turns my stomach.
Something’s got to change? Come on, Disgusted, I thought I was being colloquial to prove a point. If you’re that defensive, I shall be glad to speak the Queen’s English instead.
-
January 19th, 2009 3:06 pm
Dear Kitchen sink:
Your faucet is leaking, rapidly, in your 2:33 pm post.
You state that you are clueless about the plight of the ATR’s, an issue that has been on the front burners for quite some time. But, yet, you have the audacity to criticize their union.Please become more in touch with the real issues affecting traditionally educated teachers that have mortgaged off their entire lives for their careers before you continue to opine on matters which you lack the basic knowledge to engage in.
Now, regarding your response delivered at 2:43 pm, I am much more disarmed as you have shown some genuine good will towards teachers and their union in THAT post. That particular post was stated in a much more sensible fashion and didn’t unfairly criticize anyone, except for me, but that’s o.k.
You were fair enough to admit that there may have been a good reason for these teachers to want to unionize, and that statement alone mends some fences. You also give the UFT their due credit for what they contributed to your own career, and for that, you have shown good faith. However, I am confused about your assertion regarding placing the needs of the least qualified teachers ahead of the needs of the children, as I honestly do not see that happening. What I do see happening is the veteran teachers being placed into ATR positions that is an affront to not only their dignity, but to the integrity of the entire teaching profession.
Aside from the basic content of this discussion, Kitchen sink, which is unionization of a charter school, please understand that people can be very passionate about these subjects, and that the term “defensive” does not accurately apply to one who defends a noble profession that is progressively exploited and under attack.
Thank you for your latest post, and I apologize if I misunderstood some of your assertions.
-
January 19th, 2009 3:32 pm
I’m all for mending fences, Disgusted, and thank you for taking the step you did toward a handshake. Kindly point me toward a website that informs or explains your perspective on the ATR controversy and I’d be glad to learn more.
-
January 19th, 2009 4:30 pm
Dear Kitchen sink:
Thank you for your continued interest in the plight of the ATRs, teachers placed in the “Absent Teacher Reserve” system. Below I have cited an introductory piece that ultimately leads to a PDF document citing to a complete analysis, all courtesy of http://www.uft.org
I hope that it answers any questions that you may have.
Title of Article:
“UFT’s detailed analysis finds bias and distortions in ATR findings by DOE-connected firm” written
Jun 9, 2008 5:50 PMA new analysis by the UFT thoroughly debunks a recent much publicized report, by an organization that has contracts with the Department of Education, that complained about the financial burden posed by excessed teachers serving in the Absent Teacher Reserve and characterized many ATRs as unable or unwilling to find permanent jobs.
The original report, by The New Teacher Project, attempts to shift responsibility for the failure of some ATRs to find permanent positions to the unassigned teachers themselves and to the union. “It is a highly-biased position paper, not a research report,” the union analysis concluded. The UFT notes that the recommendation the report makes to put ATRs who haven’t found jobs on unpaid leave “is notably similar to a proposal that the DOE made in the last contract round.” That idea was completely dismissed at the time by the fact-finding panel of independent arbitrators.
The complete report can be found at:
-
January 20th, 2009 3:03 pm
Thank you. I will read it carefully - I hope it is filled with facts because I have seen nothing but opinions (from all sides) when it comes to ATRs and not a whole lot on which to measure them!
-
January 20th, 2009 6:14 pm
Greetings Kitchen sink,
Yes, what I referred to you is based on study, which I believe concludes in fact.
However, please don’t disregard opinions and feelings that may seem to be based solely on emotional reactions. People who have lost their “permanent” teaching positions and have been placed into the ATR pool are truly living in limbo, which provokes havoc on emotional and financial stability. As in any other trade, this is bound to result in legitimate cries for validation, which needs to be both understood and acknowledged.
-
January 20th, 2009 11:17 pm
Joining this a little late. Kitchen Sink, in your 1/19 post, you seem to imply that the UFT is “defending” the people whose actions you found objectionable. I don’t see where the union fits in to your argument.
-
January 24th, 2009 7:52 am
Smith,
Welcome to this conversation. Disgusted will be further disgusted by my point, because it’s based on anecdotal evidence, but I have seen teachers who should have been fired years ago successfully contest a “U” rating, draining time and energy from the school, and continuing to teach ineffectively.
Granted, this is probably about ineffective leadership as well because stronger documentation should have worked…but that’s precisely my point–even one example proves that the line between “not enough documentation” and “excessive attention and energy needed to fire even one ineffective teacher” has moved way too far in favor of the ineffective teacher. Ask any principal in the system–and I mean any. And don’t tell me, “Principals are just looking for power and their vested interest, which includes firing teachers.” Are those things all true of every principal? Remember, all, or almost all, were teachers, and UFT members, once.
And Disgusted, I read the factual report about ATRs carefully. Thank you for providing it and I was heartened by the UFT’s effort to support ATRs in the news this week.
We have at least one fundamental disagreement: the purportedly factual article begins with an assumption (supported by one and only one study), the assumption being that supporting and training ineffective employees is superior to replacing them with more effective ones.
I disagree. I would like to see further study. Maybe (although I am a career educator and/or non-profit employee) I am poisoned by the tyranny of greed supposedly ruining the for-profit sector, but I have been relying on Jim Collins’ formula in Good to Great: Get the right people on the bus, and then figure out which seats in which to fit them. Good to Great is a fascinating study of businesses that is seen as a sort of manifesto for sustainable and successful organizational management. And yes, many successful charter schools religiously follow its prescriptions. Collins even issued a monograph specifically for non-profits because of the attention it was receiving in this way.
I don’t think Collins is anti-union and I don’t think unions are bad. It’s just bad organizational management and goes against what we know about human nature to essentially say to people, “You can keep this job no matter what” and expect them to be successful in 100% of the cases.
-
January 24th, 2009 12:29 pm
Kitchen Sink,
You’re not being honest, as you’re playing with words here. No one said that “ineffective teachers should keep their jobs, no matter what.” Furthermore, I have seen dishonest, uncertified, unqualified, ineffective, vindictive, and useless school administrators use the exact same line that you used in the beginning of your latest narrative: the line about “excessive attention and energy needed to fire even one ineffective teacher”, to silence good teachers.
Those who scapegoat good teachers for calling the administrators and board members on their incompetence, and practices that cause educational harm to children, use this rationale all the time. And, worse yet, they have more than their share of anti-labor, blood-sucking, double-dipping attorneys who will echo that same nonsense during a bogus tribunal that is always slanted in favor of management from the beginning.
The ATR issue, as I’ve tried to enlighten you about, is really not the nucleus subject of this particular blog, although I think it’s great that you want as much information as you can to form an opinion on the matter. I just want to be careful to not deviate from the focus here.
This blog is about unionizing a non-unionized school, and why, in Heaven’s name, would any ethical, fair, and honest employer feel the least bit threatened by that? Why? After all, if an employer is guided by fair and acceptable rules of practice, there is no threat, no conflict, and no harm in their shop becoming unionized. Period.
-
January 25th, 2009 4:57 pm
To answer your last question, becuase of the UFT’s politics. Period.
-
January 26th, 2009 6:00 pm
Kitchen SUNK:
oh, ok, glad to see you dropped the “act”, and your true politcs and agenda shined through.
You’re an anti-union hack who lives to enact anti-union animus where ever you go, whatever you do, and with whom ever you meet.
Gotchya! Period!
-
January 26th, 2009 6:42 pm
DWA-UA,
Why all the name-calling? Can’t folks just disagree? I’m not anti-union in general, though I think the nyc uft has sometimes sold teachers out in its agreements, and that it often fights for things that as a teacher, I didn’t want, while not fighting for things that I thought were necessary.That said, I am interested to see what will happen in this scenario, and I think there’s a real argument for charter schools to unionize. Of course, the schools vary greatly, but many charter schools have their teachers working far longer hours than uft schools could ask of teachers. Sometimes for more pay (yay!) and sometimes not. Often for the short term benefit of students, but often with the result of high turnover and a consistent staff of young, energetic but inexperienced teachers.
One final note: I worked at a small, new school with a committed and energetic faculty. There were times when the whole staff–every single teacher–agreed they wanted to do something and they were told by the UFT outside of the school that they could not because it was against contract. That’s frustrating.
-
January 27th, 2009 7:14 pm
Tillie,
Thanks for your input. The name calling, although unpleasant, comes for a certain person posturing one way, twisting facts, and then showing true colors which are not very flattering. If the person admitted he was anti-union form the beginning, a lot of time would not have been wasted in responing to him. Please remember that when a topic covers peoples careers, and the very threat of those careers, things can get heated.
No, the UFT has not been able to satisfy everyone, and that’s unfortunate. But, at least, there IS a union in the DOE which has done some great work, and the teacher’s are represented- as chances for exploting them are more limited. KIPP teacher’s deserve the same protections.
-
April 7th, 2009 11:18 pm
As the parent of a student who switched two years ago from a terrible public school in the Bronx to a really great charter school in the same neighborhood, I frankly could not care less about the arguments for and against unionization. What I do care about is that my 11-year old son is now in a safe school where teachers care about him and work very hard to make sure he does well every day. Am I missing something? Is there something that’s more important than that?
-
April 8th, 2009 5:30 am
What’s wrong is the phrase, “terrible public school”. Bloomberg and Klein have had six years to fix this problem. They have spent money and deflected resources elsewhere. They have failed you and the parents not as lucky as you.
-
April 8th, 2009 7:28 am
Tillie, I’m wondering what kinds of things you and your fellow teachers wanted to do. I work in a middle school and we used to do a lot of things that were not contractual. We did them because we knew that we were helping the school run better. No one ever complained and the thought of *asking* the union if it was OK seemed silly at the time, and still does. We simply did what we thought would work. Granted, not everyone was on board but they were left alone by administration.
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
30 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack