Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
the scoop
May 15, 2009
Highly anticipated UFT, Green Dot contract is on the way
The highly anticipated teachers’ contract for the Green Dot charter school in the South Bronx, which has been heralded as an innovative collaboration between a Los Angeles-based charter school operator and the union president Randi Weingarten, is expected to be finalized as soon as today.
The contract is being closely watched for signs of just how flexibly Weingarten is willing to negotiate a teachers’ contract — eagerly by supporters of looser protections for teachers, and with gritted teeth by veterans who believe strong job security is crucial. The original Green Dot charter schools in Los Angeles raised many veterans’ eyebrows here because the schools’ contracts do not include the concept of “tenure” for more senior teachers. The contracts do guarantee teachers protections against unfair dismissal.
Steve Barr, the charismatic leader who founded Green Dot, told me Wednesday that he expects a contract by the end of the week. “It should be finalized this week; I would be very surprised if it’s not,” Barr said. Barr has said in the past that he expects the New York contract to be similar to the one negotiated in Los Angeles.
I put in a call to the union’s charter school office just now for a comment — and was told that the head of the charter school unit, Jonathan Gyurko, is in the middle of negotiations.
The final product of the negotiations could have repercussions for citywide contract negotiations, which could begin as soon as the summer, given that the current contract expires in October. It could also influence the national debate about whether there’s a way to raise the bar on who can be a teacher with support from teachers’ unions.
Union president Randi Weingarten has used her willingness to negotiate contracts with charter schools as an example of how unions can be a part of school reform efforts. She has recently been saying that charter schools should be seen as laboratories for new kinds of labor-management relationships, as well as laboratories for academic innovations.
The teachers’ union has negotiated one contract with a city charter school, Amber, but other charter schools whose teachers the union now represents have not yet finalized contracts.
In his conversation with me Wednesday, Barr listed some aspects of the Green Dot teachers’ contract that he said are crucial. “No tenure, no minutes and hours, but a professional workday, hiring and firing is a site-based decision, and there’s accountability,” he said. Another crucial component, he said, is to protect teachers and treat them as professionals. “We want teachers to be involved in almost every aspect of the school,” he said. The contract is also a slim 30 pages, a fraction of the 165-page New York City contract.
-
May 16th, 2009 10:54 am
Elizabeth,
Is shorter necessarily better?
One of the good reasons why lawyers write the way they do and at the length they do is to avoid abiguity. While lawyer language is not necessarily clear to laymen, the great strength is that when it is used properly, both sides have a common understanding of exactly what it means.
In poetry, bevity can lead to a wonderful ambiguity. This can make pieces work on multiple levels at the same time, speaking to different people in different ways. It can even allow works to remain relevent for longer, as the flexibility of interpretation extends theirs lifespans.
If the contract is shorter, is that necessarily a good thing? I know that people complain about the length of teacher union contracts all the time, sure, and most could use a heavy editor to remove the parts that no one is insterested in keeping. But what is the *real* problem with a longer contract? Is 30 pages better than 60? Is 60 better than 104?
I don’t think that length of a contract is anything to brag or complain about. Different parties what different things to be in a contract, or not be in a contact. If it has what they want, and doesn’t have what they don’t want, they’ll be happy — regardless of length!
-
May 16th, 2009 11:02 am
Another question would be, is 30 pages really short? Just because it’s shorter than the egregious 150-page contract doesn’t mean it’s not also egregious. The union has done a great job of convincing the world that oppressive work rules should be the norm if we’re calling a 30-page contract “slim.”
Ceolaf is right that the number of pages is less important than the content therein, but I’ll go one better on the contract-length issue: I don’t see why we need contracts. Many professionals don’t have them, why would teaching be different?
-
May 16th, 2009 11:56 am
I wouldn’t argue that longer is necessarily worse. The point that those who admire Green Dot’s LA contract make is that it’s better to give principals and teachers some flexibility to address issues as they come, rather than trying to think of all possible problems in advance.
For instance, the length of the work day. Steve Barr as I reported says that the more professional way to do it is not to set precise hours, and the contract doesn’t — though it does say that teachers are expected to come to school for the entire time students are there plus extra time to do prep work. Seems reasonable to me.
The other thing going on here is concern about a principal’s ability to hire the best teachers — and to get rid of teachers she/he doesn’t think are working out. (And, on the other side, concern about teachers’ ability to be treated fairly and not be subject to a crazy principal’s unfair whims.)
Here’s a link to the LA contract: http://www.edwize.org/the-green-dot-los-angeles-contract
-
May 16th, 2009 12:04 pm
Socrates,
I don’t think that you are “go[ing] one better on the contact length issue.” I think that you are talking about a different — though related issue.
Also, I’m entirely unclear as to what “oppressive work rules” you are referring to. Can you point to an example from a green dot contract? Heck, can you point to one in the NYC DOE-AFT contract? These contracts are available online, so it shouldn’t be hard to find whatever you are looking for.
****************
Trying to get to your issue, however…
You ask why teachers should be different than “many [other] professionals.” You might as well ask why professionals — not a well defined term, by the way — should be different than other workers.
Unions and collective bargaining are quite common among public employees. Why should teachers be different from them?
Unions and collective bargaining are quite common in very large organizations with thousands of employees with the same job. Why should teacher be any different than that?
The idea of unions is that they give workers — collectively — sufficient standing to effectively negotiate with employers. There is something inherently unequal in the power dynamic between employers and employees. Unions and collective bargaining are intended to mitigate that. (Of course, some think that employers *should* have MUCH more power than employers. But that is not the only possible view.)
Should employees anywhere have unions and collective bargaining? Should professionals? These are fair questions. But I don’t think it is appropriate to have a starting point that assumes that professionals are not unionized, when some are.
-
May 16th, 2009 12:31 pm
Celoaf, I don’t see you giving an example of a “professional” profession that has collective-bargaining, besides public sector employees. Maybe it would help our discussion if we had a more concrete example. Usually I see people refer to professional *associations* like doctors and lawyers have. But those associations don’t have collective bargaining (that I know of).
-
May 16th, 2009 12:33 pm
Elizabeth,
I think you might be missing the purpose of a contract. Contracts are *agreements* between parties. They don’t inherently limit flexibility, but rather they set in writing agreements that are binding for a specified period of time. They can include out-clauses, if the parties agree that that is important to them. Even without out-clauses (says by attorney wife over my shoulder), people write flexibility into contracts all the time.
I understand that when one is talking about a large system with many many schools that a common centralized contract can hamper flexibility at the school level — but only when the central power in the system decides to do that, and the union signs on. Without a contract, the central power can just was easily limit flexibility at the local school level — simply by their own procedures and rules.
There’s this false idea out there that contracts are imposed on schools and district, and they are written by unions. That’s just false. Contracts are almost always agreed upon, and are jointly written by districts and unions. Unions do *not* limit districts’ or schools’ flexibility with contracts. Rather, they are party to an agreements with schools/districts.
In this case, however, we are talking about a single school agreeing to a contract with a union. There is no central district authority placing limits on a local school’s flexibility in this case. Moreover, no contract tries to a “trying to think of all possible problems in advance.” Rather, they lay out agreed upon ways of dealing with some anticipatable issues, and agreed upon frameworks for dealing with most others.
The *real* point however, is that anyone who has actually worked for a length of time in school subject to a union contract and then read the contract knows that contracts rule very little of what goes on in schools. Many (most?) issues anticipated in the contract are not dealt with as specified in the contract, and many things that credited to the contract cannot be found anywhere therein.
*************************
I understand that you, Elizabeth, believe you are sharing others’ arguments and points. But repeating bad arguments from just one perspective without explaining their problems or acknowledging that there are counter arguments comes across as tacit endorsement of those arguments.
This forum (i.e. allowing comments) gives some room for the counter-arguments to appear. However, I think that you come across as more anti-union than you intend to.
-
May 16th, 2009 12:52 pm
Understood that contracts are agreements between two parties. Also I think it’s definitely worth finding examples of ways in which the current citywide contract restricts schools and innovation before repeating arguments that it is restrictive. Good points. Thanks for making them and holding me accountable.
It’s not that people don’t articulate restrictions, though. The one I discussed with someone most recently has to do with the way tenured teachers can be fired, and the arbitration process. This person’s sense was that actual language in the process encourages arbitrators to be inappropriately skeptical of principals’ desires to fire teachers. The person argued that the best way to make it easier for incompetent/non-excellent teachers to be fired was to rewrite the contract language so that DOE attorneys and principals can more easily persuade arbitrators to dismiss teachers.
Maybe other critics of the current contract could unearth some specific language they find restrictive?
In the meantime, I’m trying to think of a better way to describe the disagreement and what the Green Dot contract could mean nationally. How’s this? “While some are pushing for contracts that give principals and school districts more flexibility to to fire teachers, others are concerned that teachers need protection against principals who might not be making a fair decision.”
-
May 16th, 2009 1:40 pm
Ceolaf, your attempts to persuade Elizabeth to take your side, or stop giving credence to the views of the other side, are transparent and disappointing. I could just as easily say, “Elizabeth, why would you call a 30-page document ’slim’ - that betrays your pro-union-contract bias. If you continue to do that, I will label you a pro-union hack until your credibility is destroyed.” I may be taking your implied threat a bit farther than you did, but only because I’m saying it out loud.
Also, your assertion that “there’s this false idea out there that contracts are imposed on schools and district, and they are written by unions” is utterly laughable. The contracts are, in effect, written by unions. Of course there are two parties involved, but the difference is a semantic one. The unions insert, demand, or ask very nicely (but get) stipulations in the contracts that restrict principals and other forms of management in ways that limit flexibility and accountability. The union further enforces these contracts in ways that protect terrible teachers as well as good ones.
I suspect you know all this, which is why you’ve chosen to nitpick word choice. If your assertion is more substantive - something along the lines of “the district negotiators are weak for giving into union demands” - then I’ll hear that and agree with it. But that doesn’t let the union off the hook for curtailing flexibility and accountability.
Elizabeth, describe unions however you want, and ignore the bullying, however nicely phrased. I personally don’t think you come off as anti-union; if anything, I think you’re too generous with those whose self-interest dictates their position regardless of its implications for their students.
-
May 16th, 2009 2:17 pm
OK, so I can’t please everybody! Why not go back to the substantive question here, though, and look at particular examples of restrictions in the contract as it is now written? Socrates, have you looked at the Green Dot contract? What do you make of it?
-
May 16th, 2009 10:44 pm
Elizabeth,
1) It’s not clear to my why you want to ignore other public employees. If other public employee professionals are unionized, why shouldn’t that be precedent for teachers? Heck, even if they aren’t professionals, why should so-called professional status be more important — for these purposes — than status as public employees.
2) Nurses and airline pilots both tend to unionized, and are professionals.
3) Many private sector professional employees also have contracts — though individually bargained. Have you ever spoken to a doctor who works for another doctor in his/her practice? They often detail pay, hours, terms and conditions of both employment and termination. Heck, even partners in a medical practice can have contracts with the legal entity that is the practice regarding any number of issues — including hours.
I’ve long thought about writing an article about the myriad ways that teachers and their critics both misunderstand how people in other professions work, and therefore bad baseless analogies as they try to support their preferred solutions.
-
May 16th, 2009 11:04 pm
Socrates,
I’ve never spoken to a teacher who thought anything like “Wow, we really kicked their ass in the last contract negotiation.” Invariably, the teachers I have spoken with have complained about results.
Is that because the union has poor negotiators, Socrates? Or is it because contracts usually represent compromises that leave both sides unhappy?
What is your basis for saying, “The contracts are, in effect, written by unions.” Have you ever been in the room? Have you ever spoken with anyone who was in the room? Have you ever done any research — formal or informal — into how clauses or sections got into a contract or got changed?
Well I’ve been lucky enough to have those opportunities. I have spoken with numerous superintendents, union leaders, negotiators and attorneys from both sides. I spoken with them individually and with both sides in the room. I’ve done so in groups, and privately. In no case did any of them claim that either side dominated or controlled the negotiations or was solely responsible for changes. They neither blamed the other for a contract they didn’t like nor took sole credit for the ones they did like.
They *did*, at times, take credit or place blame for particular clauses or sections. Always, however, in the context of it being a deal for something else. (e.g. “The only way we could get x was if we agreed to y.”)
If you’ve had other experiences, I’ve love to read about them.
-
May 16th, 2009 11:39 pm
I think that is important to differentiate different aspects of the alleged contractual limitations on schools.
1) Issues of hiring.
2) Work rules.
3) Granting of tenure.
4) Removing tenured teachers.
Each of these areas is worthy of discussion, and they should not be lumped together as though they are all the same.
**************
There are two other issues that one needs to keep in mind.
1) While charter schools might hire teachers themselves, traditional public schools do not. Teachers, administrators and others who work in schools are invariably employees of the district, not of individual schools. Thinking about schools as independent entities and all the things that might follow from that will quite often lead to mistaken conclusions. (Perhaps some would use this as an argument in favor of charter schools, but that doesn’t change the facts of what is currently going on in the overwhelming majority of public schools.)
2) We are talking about public employees here. Legally, there are all kinds of things that are different for public employees than private employees. Public employees act for the state and their employer *is* the state. That makes the relationship different than what between two private entities (e.g. a private school and a teacher).
-
May 17th, 2009 9:14 am
In answer to your question for Elizabeth, I imagine the reason she discounted the experiences of other public employees is that you never hear teachers saying “Why can’t we get treated like municipal employees or nurses? Why can’t we get paid like MTA workers?” What you do hear is “why can’t we get treated like professionals or paid like doctors and lawyers?” Note that when Michelle Rhee proposed to get the pay scale closer to what doctors and lawyers make, it was the union that objected.
You’re right that some professions are unionized and/or have contracts. Even high-paid ones (like major league baseball). However, if you did a scatter plot of all the professions along a degree-of-unionization axis and a pay-and-prestige axis, there’d be a downward sloping trendline for sure.
Your assertion that teachers complain about not getting everything they want is absolutely true. And that would be the case no matter what we got, by the way. Of course compromise is involved. What I’m saying is that the contract stipulations that lend themselves to district-wide dysfunction are always provided by the union. The existence of the contract itself is the union’s doing.
I think the real point isn’t that we need more charters but that, in hiring anyway, district schools should operate like charters. Principals should hire those who they manage.
-
May 17th, 2009 10:12 am
I’m confused. Teachers are bad, right? Who the hell is hiring them, then? And, who the hell are the people hiring the people who hire them? Gracious! This scandal could go all the way to the top! Please. And , I support anyone who identifies and avoids “bait and switch” schemes, just like Michelle Rhee’s.
-
May 17th, 2009 2:16 pm
Socrates,
A few things.
First, let me entirely discount most complaints about not being treated like other professions. Again, both teachers and their critics try to make these comparisons, without understanding how other professions work. By and large, they receive far better training and support in their early years than teachers do — to say nothing of their more extensive educations — and have far less autonomy from their employers than most people think. There is seemingly no end to the misunderstanding that is out there about how the professions actually work.
Second, the thinking we might put into answering the the question of the appropriateness of teacher unionization is not dependent upon who teachers do or would like to compare themselves to. Teachers *are* public employees — at the ones that we are talking about are — and therefore those are valid comparisons. The fact the teachers would like to be paid like doctors neither means that it is going to happen nor that doctors are the only valid comparison. The fact that teachers don’t ask to be paid like transit workers doesn’t mean that those comparisons cannot be informative. To the extent that teachers are like transit workers, those comparisons can be enlightening. To the extent that they are like doctors, *those* comparisons can be enlightening, too.
Third, while the existence of the collectively bargained contract itself is — in part — the union’s doing, the existence of contracts generally is not. Employees in many professions have contracts. Private school teachers have contracts, as to individual teachers in states that do not allow teachers to bargain collectively. What particular clauses do you have a problem with. Let me repeat, the UFT-DOE contract and the Green Dot contracts are online. Can you point to the parts that you have such a problem with?
Forth, which of the following are you claiming?
1) All unions suggested clauses are systemically bad.
2) All of the systemically bad clauses were suggested by unions?
Can you cite the clauses and sections that you are thinking of in the current contract that have led to such “district-wide dysfunction.” -
May 17th, 2009 10:36 pm
[...] contract” here and a discussion of the Boston Pilot School contract here here and here. GothamSchools reports that the New York-based Green Dot Charter School is approaching the conclusion of their contract [...]
-
May 18th, 2009 8:47 am
By the way, I’m a little late in answering this, but I didn’t mean to dismiss public employees. I only meant that it would be more helpful to name a *specific* public employee worker as an example. I also couldn’t come up with one off the top of my head who would seem to be an aspirational comparison for teachers. (Transit workers? Parent coordinators? )
But I see your point, Ceolaf, that it’s also relevant that all public employees are paid with taxpayer dollars.
One more thing: What about everyone’s favorite Finnish example? I’m pretty sure that a trade union represents Finnish teachers, who are also well-paid and well-trained.
-
May 18th, 2009 11:40 am
Elizabeth,
DC37 is “New York City’s Largest Public Employee Union.” It has a “Professional Division,” with 65,000 members, just in New York City.
Who does that include?
Well, DC37’s list says, “physicists, engineers, public health nurses, case workers, community assistants, supv. 1 (social work), hospital care investigators, architects, therapists, dental hygienists, public health sanitarians, public health advisors, physicians’ assistants, librarians, accountants, social workers, artists, real estate managers, rent examiners, consumer affairs inspectors, city assessors and appraisers, attorneys, college office assistants, computer programmers, psychologists, recreation directors, chaplains, claims examiners, human rights specialists, EMS technicians and paramedics, EMS lieutenants and captains and juvenile counselors.”
I’m not sure that everyone would include all of those as professions. But scientist, engineers, attorneys and psychologists certainly are professionals.
This is not just an NYC thing, either. I did a quick google search for unionized attorneys and found that lawyers at Oregon’s Department of Justice are represented by AFSCME Local 1085, the Oregon Association of Justice Attorneys. Of course, I found others, too.
SEUI has a division (or something) for salaried doctors, which it says are 48% of doctors nationwide, and currently has at least 15,000 members. (I believe that the AMA supported its creation, which was just ten years ago.) That doesn’t mean that these are the only unionized doctors, but that it is likely the union that best specializes in representing doctors.
**************************
So, what do we know?
We know that public employees are often unionized, even if they are members of a profession.
We know that some professions are often unionized, even when they are not public employees. There are other professions whose members are less often unionized, even when public employees. But there doesn’t appear to be any profession whose members are never unionized.
We know that teachers tend to be unionized, particularly when they are public employees, though rarely when they are not.
Can we drop the “professionals are not members of unions” argument, now? If there are good arguments against teacher unions, this is certainly not one of them.
-
May 18th, 2009 12:10 pm
Socrates,
Some linked question for you:
Imagine that there’s a good school whose long-time (i.e. 10+ years) principal has retired.
Should the new principal be able to clean house before the new year begins?
Should s/he be able to clean house in October?
Should s/he be able to fire a teacher whom the previous principal gave good reviews for 5+ years without observing him/her? Would one observation be enough?
And what about the following situation: Imagine a teacher goes out on maternity/paternity leave in April. Should the new teacher be able to fail students based on their work the last two months of the year? What if the new teacher doesn’t start until mid-May? How many tests, exams or other opportunities to demonstrate their accomplishments should the teacher give his/her students before failing them?
In other words, how much information should someone have to gather before take such a drastic action?
-
May 18th, 2009 6:36 pm
With the stipulation that in most cases a principal would not want to do these things, yes, I believe that a new principal should be allowed to clean house whenever housecleaning is needed and fire a teacher who was previously deemed to be good. I also believe that a principal should be rigorously evaluated and quickly exited if she or he does something that stupid (shake up a good school like that) and it turns out not to work. So I don’t think it would happen very often, without darn good reason. But if what we need to prevent the protection of bad or mediocre teachers is a system in which any teacher can be fired, and sometimes that will lead to unfair firings, so be it. The harm to kids done by bad/mediocre teachers is much greater than the likelihood that wanton firing of good teachers would happen in an at-will employment structure.
To your last questions, I believe students should be treated differently from the teachers, because schools are for students, not teachers.
-
May 18th, 2009 6:59 pm
All staff members, from principal to teacher to support staff should be afforded due process … the California Green Dot union contract is mostly about the teacher evaluation process.
-
May 18th, 2009 9:06 pm
Ceolaf, you want teachers to have basic democratic rights. Socrates, who does not want this, is either a political extremist or someone who doesn’t understand what rights are (i.e., we don’t demand them based on whether or not we think those in power would “want” to deny them in “most cases”). In either case, it’s pointless to argue with him.
-
May 18th, 2009 9:17 pm
I do want us to have democratic rights. I don’t want our rights as teachers to trump the rights of the kids. It’s not extremist to suggest that teachers should be subject to the same work rules as lots of other professionals - most other professionals, in fact.
-
May 18th, 2009 9:22 pm
Unionized professionals? OPEIU has lots of them. But what about the obvious ones - airline pilots? The Sullenberger guy was an instructor for his union. And how about this from the UAPD website: “The Union of American Physicians and Dentists can negotiate improvements in doctors’ salaries, fringe benefits, job security, and working conditions, and it can help doctors regain control over the quality of the medical care that they deliver. ” [note the last part] And this: “What Unionized Doctors Have Gained
Higher Wages — UAPD has negotiated major salary increases for its members in every bargaining unit that it represents.
More Job Security – The contracts that UAPD negotiates with employers give added security to represented physicians. Doctors have a right to bring unresolved grievances before a neutral third-party arbitrator.
Shorter Workweeks – UAPD has negotiated an average workweek of 40 hours for the physicians it represents. Physicians under these contracts can work more than 40 hours, but they receive extra pay or hour-for-hour time off.
Excellent Benefit Packages — UAPD has negotiated improvements on pension plans, health and dental insurance, educational leave, malpractice coverage, and other benefits for thousands of physicians.
More Control – Because regaining control over the quality of care is a top priority for doctors, UAPD has negotiated contracts that give ultimate authority to medical staff.”
-
May 18th, 2009 11:44 pm
Socrates,
I understand that you do not want teachers’ rights to “trump” the rights of kids.
It’s not clear to me, however, whether you think teachers’ rights as employees should ever be considered at all. Well, honestly, it seems like you think that students’ rights should always trump teachers’ rights as employees. Is that right? If so, I have a couple more questions for you.
1) Can you say a little more about these students rights? What rights are you speaking, specifically. I mean, we know which teacher rights we are talking about.
2) Who else’s rights — and which ones — do you think that students’ rights should trump?
3) Are the other issues or policies — beyond merely some people’s rights — should students’ rights trump?
4) Do you believe that the problems with education can be fixed simply by eliminating teachers’ rights as employees?
5) If the other things that you believe that students’ rights should trump do not get trumped, why should teachers’ right bear the whole burden?
*********************
I’ll try to put this another way: If you cannot accomplish your goal simply on the backs of teachers anyway, why make them bear the whole burden?
Clearly, something has to be done about removing bad teachers. Clearly, something has to be done about giving bad teachers tenure. But denying teachers any rights as employees — which never happens in any other profession — hardly seems the answer. It certainly is not going to help to attract and retain talented teachers if their working conditions get even worse. Long term, that won’t make our schools any better.
And last, at least for now, given the experiences that I have had with school principals, we certainly need to do something about principal quality before give them the power remove teachers on a whim. A system that employs principals who tell teachers *not* to teach critical and analytical thinking should not have the kind of power. I think that you presuppose that principals are far better able to judge teachers than many (most? Certainly, in my experience, most) they actually are.
-
May 18th, 2009 11:51 pm
Smith,
It is a worthy endeavor to try to understand the point of view of one’s opponents, and to try to help them to understand one’s own.
Heck, when I was teaching, that was one of the most fundamental lessons I wanted my students to learn.
If you think that you opponent is crazy, evil or ill-intentioned, you probably are wrong. Try to understand their view, and only once that impression is confirmed should you give up.
For example, on another thread I was discussion something with someone and s/he finally just conceded that s/he did not care about other kids’ schools, and that they needed their own parents — if they even had them — to speak on their behalf. With that admission, there was not much more for me to say.
But I am not yet at that point with Socrates. He may say some things that I disagree with strongly, but I am not sure that his basic goals and/or thinking are incompatible with mine. Perhaps he is not following a thought through far enough (see my questions above) or perhaps has has a point or aspect of the problem in mind that I have not considered.
But if we are unwilling to reasonably discuss things with those with whom we disagree, how are we going to learn anything? How are they going to learn anything? How does anything get done?
-
May 19th, 2009 8:40 am
I didn’t say to deny teachers any rights whatsoever. I said that we should be at-will employees. That is not uncommon in other industries. And no, that alone won’t fix the schools. Teachers should not bear the entire burden for fixing schools, we should bear our part of the burden.
Though I believe at-will contracts would be best, I could envision a scenario in which a not-too-onerous level of due process was appropriate. Right now it’s way too difficult to fire teachers. Whether that’s because of the contract itself or the way the union defends the teachers is probably something you know better than I do.
And I agree with you 100% on improving principal quality first. 100%. Most principals, including mine, are completely incompetent. Everything I said about removing teachers presupposes that some work has been done to improve principals, while recognizing that a) we might have to fix a lot of systems in parallel since I don’t think our kids can afford for us to fix the principals before we work on the teachers, and 2) we’ll never get to a point where principals are making 100% great moves. And when we’re at a point when they’re making 90% good moves (or whatever), they need to be able to fire teachers pretty easily. If the cost of a system in which mostly-good principals can fire teachers is one where 10% of firings are unjust, that’s OK to me since the net good for kids would be so high.
-
May 19th, 2009 9:00 am
I’m curious.
Do those who believe teachers should have long contracts with complex, formal protections against any possibly misjudgment by principals….
….also believe that students should have complex, formal protections against any possible misjudgment by teachers who gives them failing grades?
I.e., should kids get the equivalent rights as teachers?
Seems like the equivalent to current union contracts would be to put the burden of proof on teachers to show that, in fact, the teacher put the student in the best possible position to learn; that the tests and quizzes and participation and homework that constituted the grade were all legitimate metrics; that parents were notified - not just that a quarterly report card was issued, but that it was received, that the parent understood both the failing grades each quarter, that the student had several opportunities to correct the deficient work, etc.
-
May 19th, 2009 9:24 am
Elizabeth: you asked for a specific limitation of the UFT teachers’ contract. How ’bout this one: “The development of lesson plans by and for the use of the teacher is a professional
responsibility vital to effective teaching. The organization, format, notation and other
physical aspects of the lesson plan are appropriately within the discretion of each teacher.
A principal or supervisor may suggest, but not require, a particular format or
organization, except as part of a program to improve deficiencies of teachers who receive
U-ratings or formal warnings.” As a middle school principal I found this extremelly frustrating when I tried to develop a coherent curriculum and my teachers told me I couldn’t ask for a common lesson plan format aligned to the curriculum we were developing. Rather than collaborate and take ownership of a school-wide curriculum, they felt it was their right to teach what they wanted within their own classrooms.
As for the debate about unions and professions, I think it’s important to recognize that professions are distinguished by the ability to regulate themselves, something teachers are unable to do. Doctors and lawyers generally run their own schools to train their own members, have their own exams and certification systems (medical boards and bar exams), and hold their own members accountable (e.g. ethics boards and disbarment). Teacher training and certification is generally dictated by the state, and teachers do not hold their peers accountable for malpractice. The day teachers come together and agree on a common knowledge and skill base, set their own standards for effective teachers, and hold themselves to those standards is the day teaching becomes a profession.
Finally, regarding who “imposes” contracts, while it is true that it’s an agreement between parties, there are limitations for both sides to what they can control. Given that teachers make nothing near what other “professionals” make, it’s clear they are not controlling negotiations when it comes to salaries, though you might argue that for public employees they get a pretty good deal (e.g., 10 months of work). So if labor can’t demand higher salaries, they turn to working conditions, which is where minutes per day, assignments and tenure, dismissal procedures, etc. come into play. -
May 19th, 2009 10:48 am
Socrates,
I think that you would find a lot more people agreeing with you if you said that we need to do something about principal quality so that we can then give them more far authority to remove teachers quickly.
Pair them together when you talk about the need to give individual schools the ability to remove teachers, and you won’t sound so partisan or alienating.
There is another aspect of this issue, however. Public schools are part of the government, and the Constitution — the ultimate contract in this country — limits what the government can do to people. I believe that it is legally a bit harder for the government to take away someone’s job than it is for private entities.
-
May 19th, 2009 11:16 am
GGW,
First, in answer the heart of your question, rather than the form, “Yes.”
We are concerned about making sure that students are not judged with a single test. We are concerned that students are given appropriate opportunities to succeed and even opportunities to learn. Many of us of favored “opportunity to learn” standards in law suits. New York City has a grading system that allows students who have failed in one grading period to recover and pass for the semester if they get just a C in the second grading period, regardless of how poorly they did in the first grading period. Teachers are required to keep records of student grades (e.g. grade books).
We are concerned with giving students every chance to succeed, even though I — at least — do not think that these are equivalent relationships.
Second, in answer to the form of your question, I think that you misrepresent my and others’ position. I don’t know anyone who is favor of long contracts for their length. I certainly don’t want complex protections for teachers, and I don’t expect that protection against any possible misjudgment by principals. I want simple systems in place. Yes, I want them to be formal, as they should be standard policies. And I want principals to be appropriately selected, prepared and supported so that they do this part of their jobs well. The system has failed in that responsibility (e.g. selection, preparation and support of principals), and it is inappropriate to expect principals to well do that which they have not been prepared for.
There are great principals out there, no question. But there are far too many mediocre and poor principals — many of whom could be much much better if given proper training and support.
Heck, the issue is crappy teachers with tenure. They only got tenure in the first place because principals wrongly gave them good evaluations for multiple years. If the problem was primarily created in the first place by poorly done teacher evaluations, that’s reason enough to distrust principals’ teacher evaluations later in the process.
-
May 19th, 2009 11:43 am
Ceolaf,
You read my mind on your last paragraph.
-
May 19th, 2009 12:10 pm
Gideon, That is a super-interesting example. Thank you! And an interesting point about what makes a professional. Do you think the UFT’s teacher centers are a step in the professionalism direction?
-
May 19th, 2009 12:15 pm
Gideon,
It was me who first asked for specific problematic work rules from the contract.
I think that you’ve conflated two different issues in your example. On the one hand, the format for the lesson plan. On the other hand, the content of the lesson plan.
Format of the lesson plan has nothing to do with “tak[ing] ownership of a school-wide curriculum.” Teaching what they want to teach is about content, not about lesson plan format. Alignment with school-wide curriculum can be done with varied lesson plan formats, and a common lesson plan format does nothing to ensure that teachers are teaching what you would like them to teach.
I’m afraid that your example does not support your point. Perhaps you can make some progress by arguing that a common lesson plan format would aid collaboration, but from what you are saying it sounds like your teachers weren’t willing to change their content. That would preclude the kind of collaboration I think that you are alluding to, regardless of lesson plan format(s).
*************
There are historical reasons why lawyers and doctors are self-regulated professions and teachers are not. This stems primarily from teaching having been female dominated, whereas most other professions have been male dominated. And so the AMA, the ABA and state associations were given all kinds of authority.
However, despite the fact that they have been given the authority to police their own, it is not at all clear that they do a good job of it. Do you know what it takes for a lawyer to be disbarred without his/her consent? I mean, that’s the comparison you want to make, right? Have the state bar associations done a good job?
Of course, doctors and lawyers are just two professions. There are others, too. Journalists, airline pilots, nurses, architects for example. And others, too. Just because two professions have such boards and authority over licensing does not mean that all professions do, or that it is a requirement to be a profession. Given the existence of state licensing and exams for beginning teachers, there is not room for teachers to regulate their own on the way in — and therefore no authority to revoke those licenses. However, the NBPTS has created a set of professional standards intended to match what the medical profession has for specialists (i.e. “board certified”). Lawyers do not have any such thing. Does this prevent them from being a profession?
Let me say again that most people who make comparisons to the professions do so very poorly. They often mean just doctors and lawyers, as though there are not other professions, and they rarely demonstrate an understanding of how the professions really work — including law and medicine! I speak both of those who say that teachers ought to be treated better, because they are a profession and those who say that teachers are not living up to their responsibilities was a (wannabe) profession.
-
May 19th, 2009 12:35 pm
Elizabeth,
I’ve got to disagree with you about the quality of that example. The contract only protects teachers right to have their own preferred lesson plan formats. It says nothing about protecting their right to teach whatever they want or protecting them from collaboration.
If Gideon has had trouble getting teachers to align their lessons with a school-wide curriculum, it is not because of the *format* (e.g. margins, headings, explicitness, included sections, etc.) for their lesson plans.
In fact, Gideon even lays out the real problem. “They felt it was their right to teach what they wanted within their own classrooms.” That’s not the contract or lesson plan format at work. That’s the culture of our schools, quite a different problem.
-
May 19th, 2009 1:20 pm
Re the tangential topic of “professions”:
Professional ENGINEERS are regulated and licensed by the various states, though the requirements vary considerably by state.
I know. I are one.
I can’t speak to how many registered professional engineers sit on the various states’ licensing boards, but I’d like to think the answer is many — simply to ensure the standard-setters know of what they speak.
The key concept is that it should not be any profession’s INDUSTRY TRADE GROUP or ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION doing the self-regulating.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are many unlicensed teachers who are terrific teachers. Not sure I’d say the same for unlicensed neurosurgeons.
-
May 19th, 2009 1:24 pm
All this against a backdrop of the Chancellor wanting LESS input by Principals, let alone District Superintendents, over teach evaluation… in favor of formulaic implications of the kids’ standardized high-stakes test results.
See prior GothamSchools essays on “value added” models, etc.
-
May 19th, 2009 1:40 pm
Almost half of the LA Green Dot contract deals w/ teacher evaluation … in NYC the model is a top down CEO model that discourages collaboration, the “contract” becomes the impediment (from the principla’s point of view) and the protector (from the teacher’s point of view) … in a true collaborative model hiring, firing, currucula are the responsibility of the school community … that model exists in a handful of schools … interestingly it exists in the International High School Network, NYC public schools w/ all ELL students, and among the highest achieving schools in the city .. that operate under the teacher contract, albeit within a different culture …
-
May 19th, 2009 1:41 pm
I was fortunate enough to sit in on the meetings of another state’s committee to redo its ed leadership standards — obviously tied to an effort to redo its ed leadership licensure.
Superintendents, state DOE folks, ed school folks and people from a mostly independent reform group. Oh, yeah, a token appearance by the state superintendent (i.e. 15 minutes, once). No practicing school admins were invited. No practicing teachers were invited. No members of the NEA or professional association were invited.
The committee would come up with stuff, and then DOE folks would work it over for the next meeting a couple of months later. And then the same process, again. The state DOE folks got what they wanted in the beginning, despite what others in the room kept pushing for, because they had the regulatory power in the first place and they controlled the documents’ revision processes.
If that is the dynamic — and its the only one I know about, not having been able to find insider accounts of how it has worked in other states or for teacher licensure — how can teachers or school administrators wrest control of licensure from the states, if that is what you want?
-
May 19th, 2009 1:47 pm
Peter,
You might want to look into the SBO for Transfer & Hiring that used to be part of the NYC teacher contract. It make hiring a collaborative responsibility of the whole school community, and principals liked it, too. (I’ve not been able to find a principal who didn’t like it or who found it an impediment to getting the people they wanted into their schools.)
Bloomberg/Klein insisted on its removal a few years ago. Insisted.
Yes, there was a model for collaboration right there in the contract. Hundreds of schools used it — in large part because it allowed teachers and admins to work together to prevent the crappy seniority-based transfers from messing with their schools.
Bloomberg/Klein insisted on its removal a few years ago. Insisted.
Unfortunately, the folks in charge are not interested in collaboration and they appear to be absolving themselves from responsibility for supporting leaders growth and development through their careers.
-
May 19th, 2009 1:57 pm
ceolaf
The SBO Staffing and Transfer plan began in the ealry nineties in International HS at LaGuardia … eventually negotiated into the contract … totally agree … the plan made the entire school community responsible for hiring … it built communty … Klein is committed to the William Ouchi (”Schools That Work”) “Principal as CEO” model … based upon the theory that one person, the principal must be the core of school accountability … and ultimately the guy at the top, the mayor, is responsible … Ouchi argues that collabortive models hold no single person accountable ant lead to the absence of leadership and gridlock.
-
May 19th, 2009 3:19 pm
We live in a complex society where it is impossible to master all of the skills necessary to survive. The concept of a profession is the recognition that some trades require specialization in areas the general public is not equipped to evaluate, and thus we delegate to members of the profession responsibility for defining its knowledge base, training new members in it, evaluating their skill levels, and monitoring their performance. Professions are defined by their ability to exclude members. So you could argue that any job that requires a test to perform is a profession, but that ignores the idea of society delegating authority to the profession to regulate itself. The reason I think this is germane to this conversation is because we are looking at contracts that spell out all sorts of requirements for what teachers can or cannot do, and are negotiated by labor and management. I don’t see society delegating to educators the responsibility for defining teaching standards or regulating their members’ performance. In fact, this split between administrators and teachers minimizes educators’ ability to transform themselves into a profession. It’s my understanding that the NEA was once a professional organization for all types of educators–teachers, principals, superintendents–but the latter split off into their own organizations. I’m a little off track here, but my point is that it’s hard to see the professionalism in teacher contracts that specify things like minutes per day and prevent common lesson plan formats.
Regarding the lesson plan issue, the contract states “The development of lesson plans by and for the use of the teacher is a professional responsibility vital to effective teaching.” I agree that there is a difference between format and content, but can you imagine as a principal having 50 teachers each turn in a lesson plan of their own devising, deciding how to organize it and what to include. Can you imagine trying to build an aligned curriculum and provide useful feedback to teachers in that scenerio. I think it is a professional responsibility to participate in a collaborative learning community, aka school, where using common language, tools and systems is critical to success. I believe teachers have a right to adequate working conditions, but preventing principals for getting lesson plans in a school-wide format is a good example of contracts run amok.
-
May 19th, 2009 3:51 pm
Gideon,
1) Guilds are defined by their ability to exclude potential members, not professions. The existence of state bar associations do not may the law a profession. I don’t have a firm definition of profession, but if I did it would be based upon that.
2) The NEA was once entirely dominated by administrators. Now, it is dominated by teachers. At no time was it a professional organization *for* teachers and other educators in appropriate proportion.
3) Doctors all over this country have contracts that specify the hours they must work and the only hours they may be required to work. So do airline pilots. Does this keep those from being professions, or just the individuals subject to those contracts — collectively bargained or otherwise — from being professionals?
4) Why would a principal want to review every teachers’ lesson plans every week? That’s crazy. Aren’t you busy enough with other things? Your goal, stated above, was collaboration and alignment with a school wide curriculum. Monitoring lesson plans does not promote that.
You seem to adopting the NCLB mechanism for change: if we monitor it — even if we monitor it poorly– it will get better.
You want collaboration? Set up teams and give them common planning periods. You want to know how it is going? Drop in on some of those meetings. You want to know what they are teaching, and know the material well enough to judge it? Drop in classes for 5-15 minutes. (Ken Marshall writes about this all the time.)
It sounds to me like you want things in a lesson plan that an able teacher would not need in order to do a good job — because they know what real goals, objectives and methods of their pedagogy are without writing them down. Sure, some like to put it down anyway, but not every teacher needs that. You want them to do more work, and do it your way, so that your job is easier. Not so that their teaching is better, but so that your job is easier.
You can’t effectively monitor and coach 50 teachers, anyway. That’s why you have APs, coaches, chairs and grade level leaders in some combination or other. You’ve got to prepare, empower and support your lieutenants, work with your cabinet/leadership team and get past the idea that if you are not directly involved that it is not being done well.
If there was actually a real need for principals to review every teachers’ lesson plans every week, then it might make sense for the DOE to insist that principals have the right to insist on a common lesson plan format. But in a school your size (i.e. ~50 teachers), such a need does not exist.
5) It is not at all clear that kindergarten teachers and 5th grade teachers should have the same format for their lesson plans, given how different their pedagogy and lessons must be. It is similarly unclear why ELA teachers and math teachers should have the same lesson plan format. Or 9th grade ELA and AP literature.
Why would you want to do anything that hampers a teacher’s ability to plan the best way for his/her subject, students and content? Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach hardly seems supportive of their work.
-
May 19th, 2009 5:35 pm
Ceolaf, I admire your patience, persistence, and intellect. But given that we live in a 21st century democracy, I think that a starting point for all political discussions should be a mutual respect for individual rights.
-
May 19th, 2009 5:52 pm
Smith,
I asked Socrates which particular rights of students he was worried about teachers trumping. (I’d still like an answer, by the way.)
Can I turn the same question on you? What particular rights of teachers are you concerned about? Surely you don’t believe that teachers should have a right to keep their jobs regardless of what they do, and Socrates is surely not saying that teachers should not have the right to vote or a living wage.
Students have some sort of right to an education — at least by most state laws/constitutions. Beyond that, I am not sure what Socrates is arguing. There’s not right to an excellent teacher. I’m not even sure that there’s a right to a decent teacher — though I sincerely hope we can someday give every student at least a decent teacher every year.
I don’t think that Socrates is arguing against the existence of unions — which get to freedom of speech and assembly. He seems to be arguing against bad contracts. (Personally, I think that he is arguing against past practices, which is why I am confident that he won’t find support for his position in the contracts.) So, what individual do you think he does not support?
And perhaps more fundamentally, must the “starting point for all political discussions” be a mutual respect for the *same* individual rights? What if someone is concerned with different (but overlapping) set of individual rights? Can you have a discussion with them, then?
-
May 22nd, 2009 12:52 pm
[...] now for an update: According to Gotham Schools, as of last Friday, Randi Weingarten and Steve Barr were close to finalizing the teachers’ [...]
-
May 22nd, 2009 1:34 pm
Obviously, I have not seen the UFT-Green Dot contract, but I have read the LA contract, and it’s likely importation into NYC is going to whipsaw teachers here. Some points:
1. There is no tenure, and the contract provides no effective vehicle for defending teachers accused of professional incompetence. It’s ripe for abuse by principals.
2. There’s no seniority, institutionalizing the high turnover that is one of the raison d’etres of charter schools; teachers are fungible, and teaching is no longer a career. How does that serve the interests of children?
3. There’s no grievance procedure worthy of the name, with arbitration that can establish precedents, so that battles must be fought over and over again, a sure route to demoralization and weakness of the staff.
3. The work day is effectively infinite, and will thus be set by the most sycophantic teachers, not allowing for a staff with lives outside of school - which, believe it not, actually makes for better teaching - and families.As for Randi and others’ talk of charters as “laboratories,” let’s stop for a moment and examine the logic of that metaphor. I take it to mean that if these school are laboratories, the kids are not only lab rats, but that, as in many experiments, there is a high liklihood of failure. But doesn’t this direectly contradict the sanctimonious rhetoric of ed deformers, always harping about how “the children can’t wait?” I guess if you’ve privatized the system and turned it over to the “magic of the market,” then maybe they can. After all, the corporate malanthropists had no objections while they earned their billions and stood by for decades as the public schools were underfunded. Only when the legitimacy of privatizing the public schools reached a certain critical mass did they voice their concern for “our kids.” Of course, “their” kids never went to public school. That’s just for other people’s children.
Elizabeth, I appreciate the information and reportage that this site provides, but I’d strongly urge you to reflect on your uncritical use of the word “innovation” when describing what’s happening to public education. I seem to recall that there was a lot of PR about the benefits that “financial innovation” would provide us - not coincidently, by some of the same Wall Street players who are lurking behind the curtain of so-called education reform - and we’ve all seen how that turned out.
-
May 22nd, 2009 3:39 pm
Michael,
1) If there is no grievance or arbitration procedure, then it will end up in the courts. That will take longer and likely cost more money.
2) This does flip the presumption, certainly. Some teachers will be wrongly fired, no doubt. This will make the deficiencies of overworked, under-prepared and under-supported principals all the more clear. The shortage of truly great principals will even greater effects. Independent schools, like new small businesses, will have a great range of success — and failure.
3) No contract has ever set maximum working out for teachers. Rather, they’ve set maximum required hours. You know as well as I that many teachers work late at school and many work late — and on weekends — at home. I don’t think that this would change much. Of course, a problem could pop up if schools demands teachers work longer at school, and fill the additional school hours without leaving time for their preparation for classes, grading, communication with parents and meeting with students.
4) I think your best point — and I first heard it from Richard Rothstein — is that the more we treat schools like experiments or small businesses, the more failures we should expect. Most experiments fail. Most small businesses fail. Yes, you can get some fabulous successes, but you’ll get failures, too. The minimum quality that regulation ensures won’t be the floor, anymore.
-
May 22nd, 2009 4:01 pm
Ceolaf: au contraire …the LA Green Dot CBA has a five step grievance procedure ending in binding arbitration .. and the pages 32-63 of the Contract deal w/ the Teacher Evaluation System … it is lengthy, detailed, with substantial responsibilities for the principal and the teacher. is it “better” and “worsr” than the NYC/NYS protections? can’t make that determination based on the evidence available … in NYC probationary teachers are in essence “at will” employees … the LA Green Dot schools will be subject of great scrutiny … will be interesting … take a look at the “thin contract” in LA and Boston … public school models embedding many charter school elements
-
May 22nd, 2009 6:28 pm
Michael,
I can’t believe you actually said this out loud: “The work day is effectively infinite, and will thus be set by the most sycophantic teachers…”. Wow. So let me get this straight: teachers who work hard are sycophants trying to bring down the profession or at least make it so you can’t get home to the family, and should be stopped by a contract that prohibits such hard work.
If anyone has any questions about why I don’t support union contracts, please see the above quote. Even when (as Ceolaf points out) the contracts don’t put a maximum amount of time you can spend at school, people like Michael are there to sneer at and threaten those who dare to work beyond the minimum. Lest anyone think I’m jumping to conclusions, I’m not; I’ve had many a union rep insist that I stop the unpaid after-school tutoring. Usually, people aren’t willing to so clearly state what their objection is to hard work, though. I always assumed that the teachers who complained about the hard workers were in fact afraid they’d look bad, but they never actually said it. Even the most jaded and laziest teachers generally are reluctant to accuse the harder workers of sycophancy. Kudos to Michael for not beating around the bush.
-
May 22nd, 2009 6:41 pm
Socrates,
Again, I don’t think think your argument supports your conclusion.
We agree that Michael’s point is a poor one, that contracts do not set maximum hours. So, how can you use it as an explanation for why you don’t support union contracts? You mean that it proves that some people don’t want to work hard, or don’t want to work lots of hours? That’s a reason not to support union contracts?
Can you explain your reasoning a bit more completely? What does his comment have to do with not supporting unions contracts?
-
May 23rd, 2009 10:30 am
My point is that Michael’s opinion betrays a common (mis)application of the specified-schedule in the union contract. Though the contract prescribes minimums, they are often interpreted as maximums by the teachers and the union reps. That has been my experience in my school, and that’s what Michael is showing us. I understand that this might not be the fault of the contract, per se, but it definitely is the fault of - or preventable by - the union. The union could easily instruct their reps to encourage hard work and doing what’s best for kids, but neither I nor any of my friends in other schools have ever experienced anything other than union reps and fellow teachers using the contract as if it prescribes the maximum amount of time they can be expected to work. They denigrate teachers who work hard (sycophants) or who take on additional responsibilities without asking for money for it. Michael not only shows us what that mentality looks like on the surface, but what’s behind that line of thinking.
-
May 23rd, 2009 7:48 pm
Teachers work seven hour days where we plan, teach, go to meetings, help kids socially, set events up, search online for info to help our lessons, make phone calls home, write letters, grade work, teach five classes, and assist other teachers. Then, some of us go home to help and be with our own families, volunteer in our communities, coach little league, work at our synagogue, help the parish, and do myriad things that help others outide of our schools. Then, at home, we also grade work, plan lessons, create tests, and search online to motivate our students. If there are teachers who want to put in extra time and hours at school and not be paid for it, I’m okay with it…But, do not hold it against anyone who cannot or even will not. Stop trying to get blood out of a stone, without proper compensation, and stop trying to constantly make teachers look bad. Knowing what the majority of teachers do, work-wise, no real teacher would ever be as nefariously critical as those who “claim” to be a teacher.
-
June 12th, 2009 1:24 pm
Pogue,
I find your assertion that if I disagree with your notion of what a “teacher” is and is not then I am not a “real teacher” to be very insulting. Also, I would have to say it is inaccurate. Our profession is clearly constituted by individuals that hold your belief system…we are also represented (probably in growing numbers) by many individuals that do not believe their union represents what is good for kids or for teachers. This discourse is essential and to say your colleagues are lesser professional because they disagree with you only perpetuates an argument grounded in defenses as opposed to ideas.
Respectfully,
Teacher -
June 12th, 2009 7:55 pm
Not sure what your point is. I say teachers do a lot, in-school and out. What are you saying?
-
June 22nd, 2009 8:35 pm
[...] magazine. Barr’s schools are different from a lot charter schools for two reasons: they are unionized, and in a couple of cases Green Dot has taken over entire public schools, with all of their [...]
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
56 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack