On the other hand, you should be realistic about what the union can and cannot deliver. You won’t walk into the standard DOE contract, you’ll walk into a negotiation. Good luck!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 PM

A 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:

http://www.uft.org/news/atrs_tntpl.pdf

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.