Movement of Rank and File Educators

In Support of Tenure

morecaucusnyc — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:34:29 +0000

The attacks on tenure today have nothing to do with improving teaching and learning. They are designed to undermine teachers’ unions with the goal of silencing educators’ voices. We firmly believe that in order for public education to succeed, teachers must have tenure, a protection that allows educators to stand with parents, for children.

Tenure is nothing more than due process, fair hearings with an independent arbitrator where evidence can be presented in order to protect oneself from false accusations. This ensures experienced educators have job security and encourages academic freedom. These are protections all workers should have. Tenure not only empowers teachers to advocate for children and public education, but also prevents educators from becoming “at will” employees and therefore positively impacts retention of experienced educators, which research shows is a significant factor for improving student achievement and adult outcomes. Tenure also unapologetically protects teachers not only from arbitrary firing, but from being replaced by less experienced and therefore less expensive teachers as well as potential cronyism.

We must only look to history for compelling examples of the importance of tenure. Tenure was first established for city teachers back in 1917 to stop political patronage. Reform mayor John P Mitchell wanted to stop Tammany Hall from giving city-paid jobs to supporters who helped get politicians elected. This ended the political machine cronyism that was rampant. It was later extended to teachers across the state as a way of attracting qualified professionals to the profession. There was a historic teacher shortage in 1945, brought on by the war, when governor Thomas E. Dewey and the 165th New York State Legislature decided to extend the opportunity for tenure to teachers all across the state.

At the heart of the attacks on tenure is an attempt to silence educators from speaking out against so called “reform” policies that more often privilege data and profits rather than children. Far too many public education decisions are made in corporate boardrooms and political backrooms, without the input of public school stakeholders. We, along with countless others, have worked to expose and change these policies and have become pro-union and pro-public education activists in the process. Our efforts are possible because of tenure. Any erosion of tenure will silence a great many of our voices. This will surely quicken the damage that is being done to our public schools.

Attacks on tenure are cloaked in civil rights language and claim to defend children from incompetent educators. The reality is there is no evidence tenure harms children and in fact while states that afford teachers tenure have some of the highest student achievement levels in the country, states without tenure have the lowest.

The Movement of Rank and File Educators, the social justice caucus of UFT, a group of working public educators and parents, stands firmly for tenure and independently arbitrated due process rights, including seniority rights, for all educators.

Tenure allows teachers:

to remain in this profession, despite making substantially less money than professionals in the private sector.
to work without fear of being fired simply because they are older or earn more than less experienced educators. In districts or schools without tenure administrators are incentivised to fire experienced educators whose retirement plans and benefits cost more than those of less experienced educators.
to be protected from unfair or arbitrary attacks by administrators simply because they disagree with them or advocate for children’s and/or worker’ rights.
to advocate for the academic freedom to meet and see all children where they are, for who they are rather than follow narrow, scripted curriculum and ‘check box rubrics’.

For activists, tenure secures the basic right of free speech and allows us to speak truth to power, within our schools, our union, and more broadly without fear of retribution from those in positions of power who may disagree with us. Tenure allows us to:

speak out against high stakes testing, test based evaluation schemes, and developmentally inappropriate common core standards, all of which deprive our children of a good education.
take to the streets, courts, internet, and the airwaves to advocate for social justice, economic, racial, and social equality in our schools and society, without fear of reprisals.
blow the whistle on violations that harm our children including those committed against children with special needs who have been deprived of proper services.

Tenure allowed eight city teachers, including Sandra Adickles, to go down south on a voluntary transfer and teach at a ‘freedom school’ during the Civil Rights Movement. Ms. Adickles’ bravery later led to a US Supreme Court decision making it more difficult for southerners to deny rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Her trip, which was financed by the United Federation of Teachers, helped make America a more equitable and better nation -and it was made possible because Ms. Adickles enjoyed the protection of tenure which guaranteed that she would not be arbitrarily fired while she was gone.

Tenure is essential in protecting the best of our profession: advocacy and basic freedoms, both of which benefit not only teachers but children as well. Critics who claim, ‘tenure is a job for life’ or ‘tenure protects incompetent teachers’ are misrepresenting the facts:

It takes several years to earn tenure in New York State
It provides only two job protections: 1) The school district must have cause for terminating a teacher and 2) an independent agent ultimately decides whether or not the teacher is fired.
Every single teacher in this state who has tenure earned it by having it approved by a site supervisor with the agreement of the school district.

Tenure has been under attack nationally and in New York City in recent years. The number of teachers successfully completing probation has dropped to only 53%, with many having their probationary period extended to 4, 5 or even 6 years. Our union leadership has done little to oppose this shift. We in fact do not have a “tenure problem”, but we do have a teacher retention problem. In 2013, 43% of teachers with 6-15 years of experience left NYC schools, in no small part due to the tidal wave of attacks on our profession, our children and our schools. real reforms we know will benefit our children including the need to advocate for solutions that strengthen the teaching profession and seek to support and retain experienced educators. Abolishing or weakening tenure will serve to do the opposite.

The % of teachers denied tenure each year, 2006-2013 (chalkbeatny.org)

James Baldwin once said “The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to fight it – at no matter what risk.” We agree, but we also acknowledge that tenure, more than anything else, allows us to work for that change.

Disconnected Union Leadership

morecaucusnyc — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:51:00 +0000

By Mike Schirtzer

Teacher and UFT Delegate: Leon M. Goldstein High School

Like most classroom teachers, I didn’t attend last weekend’s AFT convention. In fact, few working teachers knew it was going on, or had reason to care. Our delegates represented none of what we believe in and nothing that happened there will make any difference in our classroom. There was no call for Arne Duncan’s resignation, no resolution for a repeal of the Common Core Standards, and no new strategies for increasing union mobilization or supporting our students. Actually nothing of consequence was achieved. Members will go back to their respective locals and continue the same methods: Chicago Teachers Unions (CTU) will the lead the fight against so called reform that hurts our children and profession, while the AFT/UFT leadership will go back to a style of unionism that ensures that none of my friends become any more engaged in union activities.

Our union leaders, who spoke about Common Core, teachers’ evaluations and other “reform” (or what we call “deform”) policies, have not been in the classroom since I attended elementary school. They haven’t had to implement developmentally inappropriate standards or endlessly test prep rather than teach. They have not had to deal with one failed policy after another, none of which were developed by classroom educators. Instead the DOE and corporate interests that seek to profit from our children developed these policies, blessed by our union leaders. The problem is none of the teachers I know were ever asked their thoughts on what positions our union should have. Why are so many of the people unaffected by these policies so vocal to defend them? It’s time for new leadership and new union strategies.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with Beth Dimino a few months back. She is the President of Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association, the AFT/NYSUT local in Long Island, New York. She told me anything she negotiates for her members has a direct impact on her and the students she teaches every day. That’s when it hit me: Common Core Standards, Danielson rubrics, value added measures, high stakes testing, and everything else we have had to face over the last few years is what she faces every day, not only as a union leader, but as a classroom teacher. That is why she speaks so passionately for her students and members; that’s why she fights so hard and my union leadership does not. She is a classroom teacher — they are not!

Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew have not been classroom teachers for a very long time. When they speak about standards or evaluations they do not do so from first-hand experience. They don’t know what it is like to have to follow failed policies, which you know harm your pedagogy. They haven’t been offended by having their craft reduced to a checklist rubric. It is difficult to speak out against poverty, unless you have seen the reality of inequality in the eyes of your students on a daily basis. Anything that hurts our students hurts us.

At the AFT convention there was a panel on “Social Movement and Social Justice Unionism,” The new leader of Los Angeles teachers’ union (UTLA) Alex Caputo-Pearl explained social justice unionism: “ It’s explicit in fighting for racial and social justice. It’s explicit in fighting against privatization. It’s explicit in taking people on who need to be taken on, including a lot of Democrats. It’s a unionism that is willing to strike. It’s a unionism that is willing to build to a strike and strike if that’s what we need to do.” It was sad that Michael Mulgrew was also a panelist while he stands against everything that defines it. He never uttered the word strike and never did anything at all to mobilize for a real contract fight during the recent negotiations. While privatizers exploit our public schools by instituting data driven curriculum, high stakes testing, and close our schools so they can open up their charters, our union stands idly by. On this same panel Karen Lewis, President of CTU, described it as “member driven, member driven, member driven” (yes, she said it three times). In fact, while Mulgrew loudly defended Common Core, he never engaged the membership in an open debate to support or oppose it, that is not member driven unionism.

If the AFT really wanted a UFT member to speak out about social justice unionism, they would have invited union members and classroom teachers from the MORE caucus. We have teachers who have boycotted administering high stakes tests and tests only made to evaluate us. We have members who teach in specialized schools and fight for more inclusive entrance policies. Many of our teachers expose the lack of racial diversity within our workforce and work to change that. We work with parent groups such as Change the Stakes to protect our children from privatization. Teachers from MORE support undocumented students by raising money for college scholarships. We have open meetings where all are welcome and healthy debate is encouraged. We work to mobilize UFT members to become engaged in our union. This is our vision, and it is far from that of Michael Mulgrew, Randi Weingarten, and the Unity caucus. The proof is in the pudding — our union does not hold actions in support of our communities. Less than 75% of active members voted in the recent UFT election, which is not exactly evidence that the UFT is “member driven”. The UFT holds union meetings, or “Delegate Assemblies,” only for Chapter Leaders and Delegates, at which the agenda is pre-planned, Mulgrew speaks for an hour, members speak for a few minutes, most of those who vote on resolutions are bound by their Unity caucus to follow the party line, and none of it has an impact on the daily lives of working educators. This is not social justice unionism. This is why there is a disconnect between rank and file and our leadership.

We urge you to read Julie Cavanagh’s article on her view of social justice unionism, which speaks for many of us. She believes, as do I, that it has three components: “First, maintain the best of traditional unionism or professional unionism. Second, recognize that students, parents, community and other union members are our natural allies and we must stand in solidarity together and fight for systemic change across the lines of social, racial and economic justice. Third, build rank-and-file led, democratic unions that are member-driven.” This was not the case at the AFT 2014 Conference. The Common Core debate lasted all of 45 minutes, while people who have never been in a classroom or do not even have children in public schools, were given an hour to speak. The type of unionism we believe in would help the teachers I know become more involved in our UFT. If someone would have consulted them on what was negotiated in the new contract, our positions on Common Core, evaluations, testing or anything else, my friends might actually care that there was a union convention this past weekend. This is how we can make our union stronger.

It’s time for a new union strategies and new leadership. The current leaders of AFT and UFT are too far removed from the classroom and their disconnect is shown by the positions they take. MORE will win, we will change our union, we will mobilize the membership, and we will become leaders like Dimino, Caputo-Pearl, and Lewis, who fight for our students and our members!

The New MORE Steering Committee Nominees

morecaucusnyc — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:53:21 +0000

Congratulations for those who have accepted nominations for the new MORE Steering Committee which takes office for a 6 month term starting on August 1.

The current steering committee has proposed, that rather than having an election to choose 9 out of these 11 (or 10?) qualified candidates, that we simply accept all of them as new member of the steering committee. This decision will be ratified at the MORE Retreat this coming week on Thursday, July 17 (11am-5pm, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 5th Ave. @ 34th st., 6 to 33rd, D,F,M,N,R to Herald Square).

Megan Behrent has taught English at Franklin D. Roosevelt High School in Brooklyn for 15 years. She has been a UFT delegate for FDR since 2007. In the Delegate Assembly, she has raised resolutions to support the rights of ATRs, to fight school closings/turnarounds, and to show solidarity with other unions. She is a founding member of MORE and active in the National Network of Social Justice Educators. As an education activist, she has appeared on the Melissa Harris Parry show on MSNBC and written for diverse publications including Socialist Worker, New Politics, Labor Notes and the Harvard Education Review.
Lauren Cohen entered teaching through the NYC Teaching Fellows in 2005 as a mid-year replacement for a K-2 self-contained special education teacher at a high-needs school in Harlem. She taught there for two more full school years. She spent the next 5 years at a Title 1 school in the East Village where she gained a reputation among her colleagues for speaking out against administrative mandates that were detrimental to student learning (such as canceling extended day enrichment programs in favor of test prep aligned to faulty and inaccurate Acuity results). She currently teaches at P.S. 321 in Park Slope, where the privileges available to her current students have only strengthened her resolve to fight for a more equitable system on behalf of the students she left behind. For the past two years, Lauren has worked with parents, teachers, and others in Change the Stakes, fighting against the use of standardized tests to punish schools, teachers, and students. She attended her first MORE meeting in the spring of 2012 and was thrilled to meet so many like-minded educators. She ran on the MORE slate for Elementary Executive Board in the UFT election, and she now serves as the chapter delegate for P.S. 321.
Francesca Gomes is an 8th Grade Humanities (ELA and Social Studies) Teacher at New Voices MS 443 in District 15. She has been a member of the UFT for 13 years, and the only UFT Delegate for her school for the last five years. She led the “Vote No” campaign at her school beginning on the first day after the 2014 contract proposal was announced. Originally a member of Teachers for a Just Contract, she then became a member of the Independent Caucus of Educators, and is proud to have been a member of MORE since its early days.

Janice Manning is currently a fifth grade Special Education Teacher in an Integrated Co-Teaching Classroom at P.S. 503 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. This is her 10th year teaching in New York City Public Schools. She started her teaching career as a fourth grade teacher in Fort Worth, Texas. After teaching in Fort Worth for a year, she taught English as a foreign language in Znamenka, Ukraine as a Peace Corps Volunteer. She began attending MORE meetings in January of this year and is passionate about working with other educators to organize ways to improve education for ALL students.
Megan Moskop is a current member of the steering committee. She is a Special Education teacher and UFT delegate at M.S. 324 in Washington Heights, where she began teaching in 2009 through Teach for America. Megan was raised by educators in North Carolina, and her first “real” teaching job was in Malta as a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant. In addition to her work MORE, she serves as Learning Labs Director for the Manhattan Young Democrats, and she is a member of Teachers Unite. Deeply thankful for and inspired by her own teachers and students, Megan is committed to the improvement of learning and working conditions in schools everywhere, starting here.
Francesco Portelos is an engineer turned middle school STEM teacher. Over the last two years he has become a very strong advocate for educators and students. His advocacy did not come without sacrifice. After speaking up, he became a target and was removed from his teaching position. This did not stop Francesco. He ran and won the UFT Chapter Leader position in his school even though he is forbidden from entering the building. He has been successfully mobilizing and supporting his chapter and many other educators who read about his fight and seek his guidance from around the city and around the country. His objective is use his knowledge, leadership skills and out-of-the-box thinking to bring MORE to a point where they are successfully filling the great void left by our UFT Leaders. Read more at www.educatorfightsback.org Follow on Twitter: @MrPortelos
Kevin Prosen is chapter leader at I.S. 230 in Jackson Heights, Queens. He campaigned as part of MORE’s slate for the executive board in last year’s elections, and has organized mass grievance campaigns at his school involving up to 35 members of his chapter. He has been active in the MORE chapter organizing committee this year and has been organizing outreach to other chapter leaders in the city. His writings on UFT issues have appeared inJacobin andSocialist Worker.
Mindy Rosier is a native New Yorker who graduated from Marymount Manhattan College with a B.A. in Psychology and Elementary Education and Fordham University with an M.S. Ed in Early Childhood Special Education. She has been a teacher for 17 years, including 3 years at the NY Foundling Hospital and currently 8 years with the Department of Education in a District 75 school.After seeing the hardships that her school has endured and after researching the education system itself, she became active to promote an improvement in the quality of education for all children.
Mike Schirtzer is a lifelong Brooklynite, graduate of the NYC public schools and CUNY, teacher and UFT Delegate. Teaching has always been and still is his lifelong dream and his work here in MORE is just a continuation of fulfilling the goal of being the best teacher he can be! He has planned and mobilized several events, forums, and ran for UFT & NYSUT office as MORE. He was on the original planning committee, first steering committee, and organized MORE’s social media, press, contract campaign, and South Brooklyn groups.
Patrick Walsh a three-time elected UFT chapter who believes that the only force that can save our profession from the predators is our union and the only force that can save our union from itself is us.

Who Runs The UFT? Why Are There Alternatives?

morecaucusnyc — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:53:31 +0000

On Wednesday July 16th 2014 we are hosting a summer series panel and open discussion on the history of groups that have competed for power and influence within the UFT. We will also examine the implications for MORE. More event Information here

Below are readings and video lectures from union/UFT historians on the background of the founding of UFT and Unity caucus, the ruling party of our union.

Suggested Readings

Democracy & Politics in the UFT, 1976 Edition

Democracy and Politics in the UFT is being reprinted in its original with no changes in order to provide a snapshot of the state of the UFT and education circa 1976 and how one opposition group approached these issues.Thanks to Vera Pavone, Ira Goldfine and Norm Scott for creating an online version of the pamphlet they produced almost 40 years ago.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/233191682/Democracy-Politics-in-the-UFT-1976-Ed

UFT/Unity Caucus Early History from “City Unions”

This chapter on the founding of the UFT and how Shanker consolidated power from the book “City Unions”. There is a lot of insight into how Unity has controlled the UFT since its inception.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/158371024/City-Unions-chapter-8

Here we have a series of videos about the history of our union, it’s founding, some discussions on past caucuses and dissident groups, and the relationship between non-Unity activists and the union leadership.

Historical roots of the UFT presented by Michael Fiorillo and Peter Lamphere at the State of the Union conference (Feb. 4. 2012).

Michael: Teacher unions up to 1968 (22 minutes): https://vimeo.com/45094559

Peter: Post 1968 (15 minutes): https://vimeo.com/45094560

Both videos plus the Q&A (1 hour): https://vimeo.com/45094713

UFT Friend or Foe- from 2013 Summer Series- How non-Unity Chapter leaders and activists relate to UFT leadership

Norm Scott: http://morecaucusnyc.org/2013/07/27/uft-friend-or-foe-event/

Vera Pavone http://morecaucusnyc.org/2013/08/14/uftaft-leadership-friend-or-foe-series-vera-pavone/

Ira Goldfine http://morecaucusnyc.org/2013/08/14/uftaft-leadership-friend-or-foe-series-ira-goldfine/

Peter Lamphere http://morecaucusnyc.org/2013/08/14/uftaft-leadership-friend-or-foe-series-peter-lamphere/

MORE Summer Series 2012- UFT Caucus History Since 1968

Norm Scott http://vimeo.com/45705700

Michael Fiorillo http://vimeo.com/45698849

Join the Movement of Rank-and-File Educators (MORE) for Summer Series 2014. Discussions exploring the past, present and future of teacher unionism. All are welcome!

Wednesdays 4:00pm-7:00pm
The Dark Horse
17 Murray St. NYC
Near City Hall, Chambers St, WTC

July 16th
Who Runs the UFT? Why Are There Alternatives? A Historical Perspective 1960-2014

The UFT formed in 1960 as a merger of several organizations. By 1964 the Unity caucus emerged as the ruling party of the UFT, which they remain to this day. Throughout the union’s history various dissident groups and caucuses have contested this dominance. At different times these groups merged, ran joint slates, or disbanded. We will discuss why these groups formed and their differing visions and strategies. How is MORE related to this history? What can we learn from it?

Other Summer Series Events

July 30th
Life Under the New UFT Contract

August 13th
Lessons from the Chicago Teachers’ Union- Featuring Guest Speakers from Chicago

August 20th
UFT 101: Why Does Our Teachers’ Union Matter?

twitter.com/morecaucusnyc
morecaucusnyc.org
more@morecaucusnyc.org
press inquiries media@morecaucusnyc.org

PD over Parents and Students

morecaucusnyc — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:00:02 +0000

By Norm Scott and Mike Schirtzer

The calls have been coming in from parents and childcare-takers all over the city who are beginning to realize how the new contract will change their lives as the school day gets readjusted in many schools.

They tell us there is growing outrage as word spreads. And since parents are being told that teachers are supposed to vote on School Based Options (SBO’s) in the schools, some parents are placing the blame squarely on the teachers and the UFT – even more so than on the DOE and the principals, who often just plain lie to the parents, saying that teachers voted that way. The truth is Chancellor Farina has mandated 80 minutes of Professional Development (PD) a week or 100 minutes should a school choose to deviate from the default schedule. Teachers and administration have no choice of offering any extended time (what was called tutoring, student mentoring, 37.5, or Academic Intervention Services depending on your school). The new built in Parent Engagement time can not be used for tutoring either.
In one case, the UFT district represnattive told parents the entire district was using the default model of 8AM start time and 2:20 end time so the teachers can get their PD in by 4PM. Parents do not care about PD, neither do most teachers. There wasn’t a teacher anywhere begging for more PD in a new contract. Most PDs will be focused on Common Core, Danielson, MOSL, or other failed initiatives. PD’s throughout the city very rarely focus on good pedagogical practices nor are they led by experienced teachers. Thanks to the Bloomberg/Klein era most new administrators who are leading these PDs have less than 5 years class-room experience, how can we expect them to lead effective PD’s? Instead teachers will be forced to write curriculum and units based on the untested, unproven, developmentally inappropriate standards. Other PDs will be focused on aligning lessons with the check box rubrics created by Charleotte Danielson and her 6 months of teaching. None of this will have a positive impact on the students we teach

Let me say this as I have been and will continue to do: When the UFT goes along with the Farina (and most ed deformers) mantra that the key to improving education is Professional Development, they accept the “teacher blame” argument. Of course everyone can improve — and the best PD is watching others teach — but blanket PD is like expecting a gourmet meal at McDonalds.

Then there are stories where the chapter leader didn’t even offer teachers the option of an SBO and just did what the principal wanted. So the teachers feel betrayed too — but it is really their fault — maybe a lesson for those who have their heads in the sand.

At the June 11, 2014 Delegate Assembly, Mulgrew spoke about the Vergara decision. How important it was to work with parents and how proud he was of the work the UFT was doing with parents. If the Unity/UFT leadership didn’t have a tin ear they would have figured out a way to get some parent leaders, at the very least, involved in proposed negotiations. But they didn’t even get regular teachers involved, so this is the spillover of closed door contract negotiations. Parents accustomed to extended days will now being paying for childcare out of their pockets. Students and their parents who can not afford to pay for extra help or small group instruction are now being left out in the cold. This is clearly not a way of winning over parents to be on the side of the UFT.

Parents feel they have been totally shut out of the process. I wonder where they’ll stand when we see Vergara, coming soon, to New York?

Summer Series: Discuss, Debate, Educate!

morecaucusnyc — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:19:34 +0000

MORE’s 3rd Annual Summer Series: Discuss, Debate, Educate!

Join the Movement of Rank-and-File Educators (MORE) for discussions exploring the past, present and future of teacher unionism. All are welcome!

Wednesdays 4:00pm-7:00pm

The Dark Horse
17 Murray St. NYC
Near City Hall, Chambers St, WTC

$5 Drafts & Well Drinks

July 16th

Who Runs the UFT? Why Are There Alternatives? A Historical Perspective 1960-2014

RSVP Here and Share our Facebook event
The UFT formed in 1960 as a merger of several organizations. By 1964 the Unity caucus emerged as the ruling party of the UFT, which they remain to this day. Throughout the union’s history various dissident groups and caucuses have contested this dominance. At different times these groups merged, ran joint slates, or disbanded. We will discuss why these groups formed and their differing visions and strategies. How is MORE related to this history? What can we learn from it?

July 30th

Life Under the New Contract
RSVP Here and Share our Facebook event

This fall we will be returning to a radically changed work environment, which educators are approaching with a mix of hope and anxiety. How can school workers use the new contract to advocate for themselves and their students? How can we activate new people, strengthen our union chapters, and empower ourselves at work? Which members are more vulnerable under the new contract, and how can we support them? MORE wants to campaign this year around tenure, paperwork reduction, ATR rights and chapter leader elections, and we need your ideas and energy!

August 13th

Lessons from the Chicago Teachers’ Union Featuring Guest Speakers from Chicago

RSVP Here and Share our Facebook event
In 2010, activists in the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE) took over their union – successful displacing a conservative leadership with a team of organizers headed by dynamo Karen Lewis. This group would lead the CTU on its strike against Rahm Emmanuel that mobilized teachers and school communities. The strike electrified the labor movement, however Chicago is very different than New York City. What lessons can we learn from Chicago? Can we adapt the model of CORE to the conditions of New York City?

August 20th
UFT 101: Why Does Our Teachers’ Union Matter?
RSVP Here and Share our Facebook event

Are you entering the teaching profession or new to NYC schools? Are you wondering what the teacher union is all about and what it means to you and your students? Is it something you should be active in? Do educators, parents and students share common interests? Can unions be vehicles for social justice? Meet with new and veteran teachers to discuss these questions and more in this introduction to teacher unionism

Here is the flyer for distribution MORE summer 14 Announce-1

Like All Americans, Teachers Deserve Tenure

morecaucusnyc — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:17:41 +0000

by John Giambalvo

Judge Rolf M. Treu’s decision in the case of Vergara vs. California is, by most accounts, the decision that shocked the education world. This week, the judge rendered illegal three sections of California education law.

Taken together, those sections afforded some public school teachers of that state the courtesy of due process before being terminated. Each of the sections, the one governing the procedures for granting tenure (here), dismissing tenured teachers and laying them off from their jobs (both here), had exempted teachers with tenure from California’s law of firing employees “at-will”. With regard to teacher tenure, the judge ruled that the two year time frame the law gave for teachers to earn tenure was much too short. The judge went on to say that California’s “Dismissal Sections” were “tortuous” and granted “uber due process” procedures to teachers -protections that other state employees did not enjoy. “LIFO”, decided the judge, prevented the “junior gifted [teacher]” from keeping his job during times of layoffs while the “grossly ineffective one” remained in the classroom. That, said the judge, violated the state constitution’s “Equal Protection” clause as well and it had to go.

If allowed to stand, the results from this lawsuit, which is sure to be replicated in states across the nation, will expose any teacher in California to be fired in much the same way as “at-will” employees are: With no chance for an impartial hearing (unless the teacher decides to sue in court) and with little to no notice at all (here).

Treu’s conclusion, that teachers have too many workplace protections, is ironic. This is because he is not exactly an “at-will” employee himself. Judges in California enjoy some of the most stringent job protections of any employee in the nation. Superior Court Judges are elected to six year terms. Treu was elected in 2001 (here) and has been reelected twice since. Unless faced with an actual opponent, he will be automatically reelected at the end of every term without his name even appearing on a ballot (here and here). Given that the judge’s wife is a donor and former staffer of Republican Congressman Gary Miller (read his “Thank You” to her on the official Congressional Record here), I doubt that anyone will be challenging him anytime soon. And, being as only three judges in the entire state have lost reelection since the Great Depression (here), I doubt that his chances of losing that election would ever be a concern.

You will be happy to know the judge’s job is also well protected if he ever finds himself in hot water. In the state of California, judges can only be removed through their own “tortuous” process called a recall vote (see here). If someone ever wants him fired, they must first collect vast amount of signatures from concerned citizens all across his district. They must then win a general vote. As of 2008, no California judge had ever been recalled (here again). These protections are in full force whether the judge is highly effective or ‘grossly ineffective’.

Talk about uber due process!

Of course, anywhere from 1%-3% of any professional from any profession may be ‘grossly ineffective’ at what they do. This is true for my profession as it is for his. In his decision, the judge briefly examined the damage that ‘grossly ineffective’ teachers may cause if left in the classroom. Let’s briefly examine the damage that ‘grossly ineffective’ justices from his state may cause if allowed to stay on the bench. There are 2,287 judges in California (here), the extrapolated number of ‘grossly ineffective’ judges may range from 23 to 68. Now there are 38 million people who live in California. That’s one judge for approximately every 16,615 people. You may be surprised to learn that just 23 bad judges from California have the potential of adversely effecting the lives of 382,145 people. 68 bad judges can negatively effect the lives of 1,129,820! If we’re only considering how bad judges may adversely effect the lives of school children, (California has 9,240,219 school aged children (here) or one judge for every 4,040 children), then 23 ‘grossly ineffective’ judges can hurt 92,920 students in that state and 68 ‘grossly ineffective’ judges can hurt a whopping 274,720! I don’t think too many people could refute an assertion that this large amount of bad judges may have, to paraphrase judge Treu, “a direct, real, appreciable, and negative impact on a significant number of California students, now and well into the future for as long as said [judges] hold their positions…”. And yet the judge continues to enjoy stringent workplace protections.

In fact, everyone who was involved in the presentation and decision of the Vergara case had some type of job protection above and beyond the “at-will” status that the rest of Californians have.

The Lawyers who argued the case have their protections. They are only prevented from practicing their craft if they are disbarred. California has it’s own special court, called the State Bar Court of California, just for making these decisions (here). That court boasts that attorneys who practice in California do so in “the only state in the nation with independent professional judges dedicated to ruling on attorney discipline cases”. That’s a nice protection!

The court reporter and clerk, as well as the officers who ensured the safety and security for all involved in the Vergara case, have special job protections too. They are considered “court employees” and their due process includes “a system of progressive discipline and termination “for cause” rather than “at will” employment” (here).

A progressive discipline process is something that tenured teachers in California do not have. Neither do they have their own ‘special court’ to determine whether or not they should be removed.

The fact that anywhere between 1% and 3% of any of these professionals may be ‘grossly ineffective’ at what they do has not stopped the entire state judicial system from insulating its employees from an “at will” termination process. They offer these protections knowing full well that the ‘grossly ineffective’ professional may adversely effect a large number of the many people who come in contact their profession each day. I am not sure why this is the case, but I suspect the reasoning has something to do with protecting the other 97%-99% of these dedicated public servants from unfair dismissals. One thing is for sure. They do not feel that their state’s “at will” termination process for employees is fair to them.

I actually feel the same way! Not only is the work they do important to our society, but it is also important to them, as people. Those job protections allow the men and women in that system to provide for themselves and for their families with security as they pursue their own version of the American Dream. That, in itself, is an important right. FDR felt exactly the same way. “We have come to a clear realization” he said way back 1944, “that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence” (see here and read carefully!).

One way to ensure the economic security and independence of Americans is to afford them the simple workplace protection of due process.

Due process itself is as American as Apple Pie. It is enshrined in the US Constitution as a basic political right. FDR made the observation that “As our nation has grown in size and stature … political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness”. In other words, he said political rights were no longer enough.

“At will” employment laws create the potential for Americans to have that equality taken from them simply because another person feels like doing it. The laws expose people to capricious, even ‘grossly ineffective’ supervisors and place employees on a less even playing field with employers than they already are. The US is the only wealthy nation on Earth that still subscribes to the “Employment At Will Doctrine (here)” (here) and many nations, like Germany (cited only because it is the richest nation in Europe (here)), have laws that specifically spell out the type of due process every employee should have when faced with possible termination (here).

That’s why, instead of taking due process rights away from teachers, the better thing to do is to just give them to everyone else. Let’s not make judge Treu and his colleagues, nor me and my colleagues, the exception. Instead, let’s work to make that standard -that no person can have their job taken from him or her simply because another person “wills” it- the rule. Let’s not make this a rule just for teachers or just for judges, but for every person in California and beyond.

Our job as teachers, however, is incredibly important. No less than the future of an entire generation of Americans depends on the work we do in our classrooms each and every day. So let’s resolve to not leave ourselves in a position where we have to win an entire election just to remove one person who isn’t very good at what he does. By all means, let’s go after the 1% to 3% of ‘grossly ineffective’ workers -everywhere. But let’s allow a person who has been accused of not being effective the simple courtesy, the dignity, of defending him or herself before someone else decides he or she should be terminated.

And, once that standard has been established, let’s start with Judge Rolf M. Treu

DA Report: Tenure, Contract, and More Interruptions

morecaucusnyc — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:43:29 +0000

by James Eterno, Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

[The following is a compilation of two different reports, originally posted at the ICE blog, about Wednesday's DA]

President’s Report

California

President Michael Mulgrew opened the June Delegate Assembly by talking about California. He said the decision of the judge to get rid of tenure and seniority rights because they violate the California Constitution is very troubling but we are confident about the appeal. We knew once the case was assigned to this particular judge that it would be difficult to win.

The premise of school reform is that public education is failing but this isn’t true. Judge said students were having their civil rights violated because of bad teachers. The judge is wrong because the problem is poverty and teacher retention and not subpar teachers. We expect copycat lawsuits in New York State from front groups like Students’ First.

We also anticipate a deluge against us from the so called reformers who own the media outlets. Tenure does not hurt children. We have no tolerance as a union for people who can’t do the job. All tenure means in New York State is that we get due process and can’t be fired at will. That’s it.

Albany

The President updated Delegates on the situation in Albany. In the State Senate, we believe one party should all sit with each other. The Governor has revitalized talks on teacher evaluations tied to testing. Five days are left in the session. We are not sure what the results will be.

On specialized high schools, we have legislation on opening admissions to multiple measures and not just a test. Schools like Harvard do this.

New York City-Contract

President Mulgrew said this was a good school year. We have a new Mayor, a new Chancellor and a new contract. (Was it a good school year? Do you feel any different inside the schools compared to last year? Please let us know.)

We set a record with 90,459 people voting on the contract. 77% voted to ratify it. We now have a great deal of work to do. Mulgrew asked if everyone set up Professional Development Committees. (Some had and some had not.) Central Functional Chapter (non-teaching) Committees have met.

Many UFT members want to talk about horrible things done to us in the past. We have to shift into talking about what we actually want. The alternative is to hire more consultants for $100,000 to do Professional Development. The UFT has asked Chapter Leaders to submit names of people on the Professional Development Committees.

We believe educators inside school buildings provide the best professional development. Central union needs to know if principals reject valid idea for professional development. Chancellor Carmen Farina has told principals that they need to collaborate.

Teacher leadership positions have been posted. They will be in 120 schools.

We need to form more committees.

Even though the deadline is passed, we are still accepting School Based Options. There have been 530 SBO’s so far. 236 were on changing the time. That means 1,564 schools will go to the default time schedule or they are multi-session or District 75 or 79.

Hiring restrictions have been lifted. There never was a real hiring freeze. Central Department of Education must approve all excesses. The hiring restrictions prevented paraprofessionals from moving up to teacher positions and teachers from going to guidance positions. This has stopped.

We took on a very dangerous arbitration by taking the lesson plan grievance to arbitration. If we lost, lesson plans could’ve been dictated by administrators. UFT completely won on the lesson plan arbitration. Administrators cannot grade a lesson plan on its own. It must be graded in the context of the lesson. Teachers decide on the format. We own the lesson plans. Principals can look at lesson plans; they always had that right. Mulgrew thanked the people involved in the case including Ellen Procida who heads the Grievance Department. A group of teachers took on the DOE lawyers and we prevailed.

Mulgrew maintains his “Most Likely to Interrupt” status at the DA

As soon as there was the slightest hint of controversy at the June Delegate Assembly, UFT President Michael Mulgrew gave up any hint of required chairperson impartiality. Instead, as usual, he treated someone who disagreed with him in an unfair and inappropriate way. This month’s target was the Movement of Rank and File Educator’s (MORE) Megan Moskop.

The issue up for discussion was democracy, a subject our President is not too well acquainted with at DA meetings. During the ten minute new motion period, Joan Heymont from the Progressive Labor Party had introduced a resolution saying the following: “Resolved that we, as educators will join our class brothers and sisters at a rally sponsored by Congregations for Justice and Peace calling for welfare benefits and food stamps adequate for workers to live.”

Since the resolution was for this month’s agenda, no debate was allowed and 2/3 of the Delegates needed to vote to add the resolution to the agenda. After Joan read the resolution, which had been properly disseminated before the meeting, there was a vote. It looked from where I was sitting that most people didn’t vote but that a significant number of people who voted wanted to add the resolution to the agenda. It did not look like it was the 2/3 necessary but someone could have reasonably made a motion to divide the house (ask for an actual count).

Ms. Moskop rose and stated that the vote on the last resolution looked awfully close. Mr. Mulgrew, instead of being an impartial chair, said the vote wasn’t close and then added, “You’re out of order.” Megan responded, “You’re interrupting me.” To which Mulgrew replied, “I can interrupt you because you’re out of order.” She never had the chance to make a motion for a count. Democracy at its finest again as a Delegate who was seeking clarification on what looked like a close vote was instead put down by our chair. But wait, it gets worse.

Later in the meeting, there was a resolution on political endorsements that the leadership forgot to put on the agenda so they had political director Paul Egan ask the Delegates to add it during the new motion period. Here is the language: “Resolved, that the United Federation of Teachers’ Delegate Assembly authorizes the Executive Board to consider, make or modify endorsements that will be recommended to NYSUT during the summer in order to have a timely impact on any such campaigns.”

NYSUT does make our recommendations for state offices but there is no reason why the UFT can’t have our picks ready for endorsements by June for most State Assembly and State Senate seats in NYC. Instead, our political team just expects the Delegates to defer to the much smaller, mostly elected at large, Executive Board. Megan objected to this resolution as an affront to democracy.

She made a passionate plea that the Delegates should not cede their authority to make endorsements to the Executive Board. She wondered aloud why this resolution was added at the last minute and thought maybe this was done so people wouldn’t have time to think about it.

Rather than being an impartial chair and just listening, once again Mulgrew interrupted the speaker to say that Paul Egan made an error (in not bringing this resolution up sooner) and was a “bad boy” but he also cut in because Megan made a remark about how we are making back room deals exchanging money for support (routine stuff in Albany’s pay to play culture although we do it in a more sophisticated way). Mulgrew responded by acting as if he was shocked by such an assertion. He should have kept his mouth closed and just let Megan finish. He has no right to circumvent Robert’s Rules like this. Megan declared that we should be discussing endorsements out in the open. She called for a special DA in the summer on endorsements or electronic voting (very possible in 2014).

The head of Unity Caucus, Leroy Barr, followed Megan and said something about how this is what democracy looks like. UFT democracy maybe, but not a real one. The resolution was rubber stamped by the Unity Caucus majority but a minority including me voted no. Megan made some very valid points.

It was troubling seeing how she was treated but heartening to watch her persevere in spite of the difficult time given to her by the Chair for just having an opinion different from his. At least he is asking for speakers against each motion but his new method of killing debate is to just interrupt anyone when they say anything he does not like (read the May DA report for further details). A sad ending to the school year at the DA. I will have a more thorough report on the routine items later.

Staff Director’s Report

Leroy Barr reported on the UFT giving out 410,000 books on May 31 and the Secretary Luncheon on that same day. He also thanked Anthony Harmon for Monday’s Albert Shanker Scholarship Award ceremony. The UFT will be giving out $1 million in scholarships again this year. (Congratulations to all the recipients including Adriana Vega from Jamaica High School!)

Question Period

Question: How do we bring collaboration to fruition especially in large chapters?

Mulgrew Answer: If principals are not interested in collaborating, we need to use outside intervention. We also want to have borough based Principal-Chapter Leader meetings.

Question: District 64 non-public schools down from 27-7 support staff. How do schools get back what we need?

Mulgrew Answer: It is very difficult to do what is needed in non-public schools. Every school needs at least one mental health professional. It is by far the greatest need in the schools.

Question: Principals in many schools know nothing about committees in the new contract. What should we do?

Mulgrew Answer: Contact us and we will contact deputy chancellors who are understaffed right now.

Question: How can we get a fair distribution of parking permits system in place?

Will student test scores be used to evaluate us this year?

Mulgrew Answer: People are being told they are ineffective but that is premature because we don’t have the student test score results in that are part of our ratings. Albany could change how student performance is impacted in our ratings.

Parking is up to the Department of Transportation. Legally, only they can issue parking permits. The old DOE issued parking permits were illegal. We are looking to negotiate for more spaces.

Special Order of Business

Four uncontroversial resolutions were passed. One called for a $15 per hour minimum wage; another called for retirement security like we have for every working person; a third was on expanding parking for UFT members and a fourth was on boycotting Staples because they hire non-union people to do work that US Postal Service Workers do.

All of the resolutions carried and after the meeting there was a raffle. Irony of all ironies was when I was told the raffle papers were printed on Staples paper.

That’s all from the DA for this year. Will I miss this after I am no longer a Chapter Leader? Proof that I am completely insane is that the answer to some extent is yes.

Disappointment

morecaucusnyc — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:56:44 +0000

For the first time in almost five years, UFT members finally have a contract. But almost one quarter of the membership (23%) voted against the deal. Most of the members with whom we spoke who approved this contract only did so because they felt it was the best our union could do. We disagree, this contract does not provide the same pay raises that other municipal labor unions received in 2009 and some of those unions are already stating they will reject these terms if offered. We believe our union can and should do much better than this.

Under this new contract, teachers who were excessed from their schools because they were closed will have weaker due process than those whose schools survived. Different titles of teachers, with different pay and different expectations, will now be created and over ten percent of our schools will operate outside of UFT contractual rules and DOE regulations. This creates a union membership increasingly divided against itself and members who will have even less of a reason to stand together in solidarity.

This contract, which was negotiated in secret and approved by the union’s Negotiating Committee and Executive Board without seeing it in writing, represents a leadership that is out of touch with the union membership and students we serve. Educators everywhere want an end to high stakes testing and the seemingly non-stop test preparation that goes along with it, a decrease in class sizes and caseloads for guidance counselors and an increase in services for the children we serve. Instead, we have a contract that codifies the testing regime, ignores class size and caseload limits and makes it easy to terminate some of our colleagues.

Many educators voted against the contract for the simple reason that the raises negotiated, averaging to 2% annually over the 9 years of the deal, do not keep up with inflation. Cost of living in New York City is increasing by at least that much and expected to rise even faster in future years, resulting in an effective pay cut. Furthermore, while other city unions received 4% raises in 2009 and 2010, teachers will have to wait until 2018 to see those raises fully incorporated into their salaries, and will not receive all the money they are owed until 2020. This is two years after the contract expires, leaving open the possibility of having to renegotiate with a different Mayor. Much of this weak economic package was financed by a set of health care changes that remain unclear. Reforms could range from innocuous, such as making sure dependents covered by the health care are valid, to the disastrous, perhaps forcing teachers to sacrifice 2% of wages to pay for premiums, wiping out some of the already paltry wage gains this contract has to offer.

Occupational and Physical Therapists provide services that are essential to the success of our children most in need, but still receive wages far below other professionals in the DOE. Paraprofessionals are still receiving salaries that make it difficult to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Secretaries who retire are being replaced with part time workers. The funding formulas for school budgets are not fair, because they favor hiring inexperienced educators at the expense of those who have been in the classroom for many years. The lack of diversity within our workforce was never even discussed. With a lack of Black and Latino educators we have removed the most consistent advocates for a historically accurate, culturally relevant and inclusive curriculum. This contract is a lost opportunity to address these inequalities.

Last year, fewer rank and file educators voted to endorse Michael Mulgrew’s Unity Caucus’ style of unionism than ever had before. This year, instead of involving the entire membership in the contract negotiation and organizing with our parents and students, Mulgrew negotiated behind closed doors. This strategy caps off a full decade of growing frustration with UFT leadership’s old way of doing things. MORE has a new vision and will continue to work with parents, students, and community members to achieve the public schools all our children deserve. In the spring of 2016, MORE will proudly field its second full slate of candidates to run against Unity for leadership of our UFT.

What next after the UFT contract ratification vote?

morecaucusnyc — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:00:28 +0000

by Megan Behrent – Delegate, FDR High School, Brooklyn

As ballots wait to be counted at the American Arbitration Association, much of the media as well as the union leadership anticipate the vast majority of UFT members will vote “yes” to ratify the contract proposal. If that is the case, Mulgrew and the Unity caucus will be quick to declare victory for their “historic” contract.

But regardless of the final count, we need to look beneath the surface of the vote to understand what it reveals about the state of our union. Over the past few weeks, MORE has been part of a groundswell “Vote No” campaign, but rank and file anger was much broader and deeper than those active in any caucus.

Educators understood that to delay pay parity with other city workers was an insult to teachers and that raises which fail to keep up with cost of living increases was an attack on all city unions. Teachers opposed this contract because they know that the teacher evaluation system is disastrous for education, and that a separate, “expedited” process for terminating ATRs is an attack on our job security and on the basic idea of union solidarity.

In the vast majority of schools where we were able to speak to teachers, these were not arguments that were hard to make. Where teachers were given the full information about this contract (as fuzzy as much of that information still is), they understood that this was a bad deal—bad for teachers, bad for our schools, and bad for the communities we serve.

All over the city, UFT members came to meetings and happy hours organized by MORE members to find out more information. Far from an apathetic membership, we found union members hungry for information, discussion and mobilization. The same has been true on social media where members—long denied a voice in the official union venues where democracy is a farce and dissent is crushed— have turned to express their anger and opposition. Whatever the outcome of the contract vote, teachers becoming more vocal is in and of itself is a victory—for, an informed, active membership is the key to any future organizing.

At the same time, we have seen a massive misinformation campaign to scare people into a “yes” vote. In schools where real debate and discussion was encouraged, such fear mongering was challenged if not dispelled. Nonetheless, we are painfully aware that in the majority of schools in this city, there is no independent voice and often little union presence at all. With no confidence in our union leadership’s ability to lead a real fight, it is no wonder that many of our members might believe that contract represents the best we could do.

In this context, any significant opposition vote is important. If a sizable minority of our membership were to vote no on this contract, it would send a powerful message to our union leadership, to Tweed and City Hall, that our members see through the lies and are not prepared to roll over and acquiesce. It would show there is potential to engage more people in ongoing organizing to reclaim our union and our schools.

Ultimately, the key question is how do we build a movement that can draw lessons from our ‘Vote No’ campaign, and encourage a new group of activated members to join MORE in the struggle for union democracy and reform.

Demoralization is one possible response to the ratification of this lousy contract; but organization is far more powerful.

Whatever the final results on the contract turn out to be, the key question remains. How do we save our union and revive a tradition of rank and file activism that puts the struggle for our schools at its center?

We know that if this contract is ratified, in 2018 we will be faced with more of the same, as we will once again be told that there is no money– especially since the majority of retro payments occur in 2019/2020 AFTER the proposed contract expires. The more important question is where will MORE be? Who will be running our union? Our schools? What kind of rank and file base will have? Will we have greater reach and more capacity to fight for the contract we deserve?

We are at an important historical juncture in the battle for our schools: there is a growing national movement for union reform, against standardized testing and against the education deformers. It is this movement that has inspired a growing opt out movement among parents opposed to testing, inspired teachers to boycott administering soul sucking standardized tests, and inspired a growing number of educators to demand more from our union and more from our schools. It is the same movement that has given confidence to people to vote no on this contract. This is a potentially powerful movement that can transform our unions and our schools.

On June 3rd, the results of the contract vote will be announced. But the fight does not stop there. Whatever the ultimate result, MORE’s monthly membership meeting on June 7th will be an important place for us to assess the results and discuss next steps in the fight to take back our schools and our union.