Your hostile finger-pointing at Randi is, yet again, missplaced and its basis refuted by the facts which you expediently suppress. 25,000 UFT members ( yes, I wrote out the figure as a number to make it more dramatic as it implicitly is) this summer served notice to the union that they felt that the best approach would be through CFE. Parents overwhelmingly agreed. The 300 member Negotiating Committee concurred as well. The 3000 member UFT Delegate Assembly embraced this approach too. Class size is a huge, compelling, and intractable issue, as it should be, to teachers and parents. Rather than indulge your "get-Randi" obsession, maybe you ought to be preoccupied with securing what we all concede is in our common interest.
Redhog,
or Harold Spinner,
or Jellyfish,
or whatever you're calling yourself today:
Your mind-reading abilities, I'm afraid, are poor. It is not I who suppresses facts, it is not I who pretends to be other people, and your comments, as usual, are easily refuted.
1. The only thing that has kept the class size as low as it is a 30+ year old clause in the UFT contract.
2. It makes little difference who agreed to this approach. It has failed in the past because Mayor Bloomberg can unilaterally veto referendums.
3. The survey you mention was blatantly biased.
It offered the members a choice between salary increases and class size reductions. It's preposterous to spread the assumption that UFT members are somehow responsible for class size reductions, and even worse when the assumption comes from the head of the union.
The fact is DC37 settled, and the UFT took what DC37 got, with little real negotiation.
4. Your statement "parents overwhelmingly agreed" is completely unsubstantiated. How many parents were surveyed? How many were aware of the biased wording of the UFT survey?
And while we're at it, on a recent visit, you said:
there is NO 6th period class.
However, there’s another point of view..
Actually, teachers have emailed me and also commented on these pages that they disagreed with you. Furthermore, those of us in oversize schools, like me, spend the extra time teaching not small groups, but full classes.
You also wrote the following:
There is no foundation to the cardboard edifice of any of your other arguments either.
Looking back, I believe I made several other arguments:
1. Teachers are subject to 90-day unpaid suspension based on unsubstantiated allegations.
2. New Action purports to be independent, though its leaders all have UFT jobs (and received them precisely at the same time they determined they would no longer compete with Unity in elections).
3. We have permanent building assignments.
4. Randi Weingarten failed to make class size part of contract negotiations, and not for the first time, either.
5. Teachers are no longer placed in schools, but into an Absent Teacher Reserve.
6. We no longer have the right to transfer without approval from principals.
Kindly explain, point by point, the flaws in these assertions. I eagerly await your response. Doubtless you forgot to do so last time and the time before that. I've no doubt the facts are right at your fingertips.
And perhaps I was mistaken when I said you retired at the end of the first year of the giveback-laden contract you purported to love so. Perhaps I was mistaken when I said you got a job working for the union afterward.
Please enlighten me. If I was wrong, I'd be glad to apologize.
As always, thank you for reading NYC Educator.
Thanks for appreciating my reading of your blog. The graphics are vivid but the spin is flagrant.
How about a substantive response? Can you not defend your actions or statements at all?
So Jellyfish has another NEW name?
I would just like to point out that once Unity agreed to this current contract, do not think a Democratic mayor will be our salvation. Once pols see bleeding, they will not apply a tourniquet. We showed weakness during an election year, and that is never a good thing.
On another note. When we look for someone to blame can we no longer point our collective fingers to the right of the political spectrum, not that Pataki and Bloomie reside there. But Eliot Spitzer is the quintisentiall modern liberal Democrat. Yet his performance yesterday reeked of Rod Paige and the cathechism of high stakes testing. Only Spitzer wants it tied to tenure and money and supervisory jobs. Hey he even wants to use testing to overturn public elections for schoolboards.
I am sure that the conservatives in DC smiled at Spitzer's performance, but I am equally certain that the Social Democrat types who inhabit the offices of the National Center for Education and Economy, America's Choice's birthplace, did a few high fives as they sung a few bars of Internationale when Spitzer's speech crossed the wire.
I'm not Redhog but let me try.
"1. The only thing that has kept the class size as low as it is a 30+ year old clause in the UFT contract."
"4. Randi Weingarten failed to make class size part of contract negotiations, and not for the first time, either."
So why do we have to make it part of our contract negotiations now? After this mayor tried to layoff and go after so many more of our rights, don't you think this businessman mayor would demand a dollar amount for each student less in class? Let's try a different route.
Randi didn't "decide" not to make it part of negotiations, the 25,000 surveys and the 300 person negotiating committee decided and was supported by the DA. Not randi.
"2. It makes little difference who agreed to this approach. It has failed in the past because Mayor Bloomberg can unilaterally veto referendums."
The new UFT class size campaign is not with the mayor but witht the state legislators to make it tied to CFE funds. The mayor can't "veto" the state legislature. Never before have we had a governor who said he wanted to lower class size. Why not try Albany instead?
"3. The survey you mention was blatantly biased. "
Approved by the 300 person negotiating committee.
"The fact is DC37 settled, and the UFT took what DC37 got, with little real negotiation."
I hope you were part of the negotiations to see that.
"Furthermore, those of us in oversize schools, like me, spend the extra time teaching not small groups, but full classes."
If you school is really overcrowded like mine, than your minutes are rolled into the day and are not teaching a "full class" or 6th period. Hence, there is NO 6th period class.
"1. Teachers are subject to 90-day unpaid suspension based on unsubstantiated allegations."
How many teachers have been affected by this? Do you know?
"3. We have permanent building assignments."
Most good chapter leaders I know were able to negotiate this in a way that it really wasn't an issue.
"5. Teachers are no longer placed in schools, but into an Absent Teacher Reserve."
But with full pay and benefits and a "no layoff" clause which applies to everyone. Something we didn't have before.
"6. We no longer have the right to transfer without approval from principals."
What are you talking about? The Open Market system allows for transfers to occur WITHOUT your principal's approval. Also something new.
We got precisely what DC37 did, though it was stretched 4 months longer. Despite Bloomie's billions, we didn't even get cost of living.
As for class size, it's history--the only thing that's kept class size as low as it is is the contract, and we've tried the "different route" before. The result was a referendum on the ballot vetoed by Mayor Mike.
I know of at least two teachers falsely accused and suspended under this 90 day clause. If you're paying a mortgage in NYC, that's no joke.
I don't know about "most chapter leaders" and I doubt you do either. The ones you know may be fine, but I've been on hall patrol since September and will be till June. This has halved my prep time. I get email from many teachers that does not reflect your vague assurances at all.
As for the sixth period class, I said many of my colleagues taught it. The defense of the UFT was that it wasn't teaching. But I do, in fact, spend the time the UFT negotiated teaching full classes. They assured us the extra time would not be used for that, repeatedly You're free to pretend not to understand that. You're also free to pretend that "small group tutoring" is not teaching, if it comforts you.
I often teach college classes of fewer than ten, and I know better.
The net effect is an increased workload, and with three preps, and classes up to 50 minutes, the decreased prep time doesn't help at all. I used to get a C6 that gave me time for my third prep.
As I said before, the survey was biased. It presented class size in lieu of money. The committee was undoubtedly full of rubber-stamp Unity-New Action faithful, and in any case, it does not really matter who approved it. Biased is biased.
I would be very depressed going to work every day as a sub, the ATR teachers who have contacted me are not at all happy, and would certainly be better off if they were placed. I've heard from Teaching Fellows who've been fired and expelled from school as a result of this plan. What we had before, in fact, was guaranteed placement based on seniority.
And while a thousand teachers sat in ATR, Klein hired 275 new ones.
When I was a new teacher, I was excessed three times. The Board was no help, and neither was the UFT. They told me, "You'll be glad about this when you're a senior teacher."
Well, they were wrong. And you are also wrong about the open market plan. While you don't need your current principal's OK to apply, you don't get the job without the approval of the principal in the school you wish to work.
Under the UFT transfer plan, you could escape abusive administrators if you had, I think, 7 years in a building. You could pick where you wanted to go, and go there.
It's always easier for principals to hire young malleable teachers. But now, when Bloomberg wants finances to follow kids rather than teachers, it's going to be very unattractive for principals to hire senior teachers.
There was an article in the Post the other day about how new small schools overwhelmingly hire new teachers.
I don't know how long you've been teaching, but many of the things we gave away were won in exchange for zero percent increases. We gave them all away, in a big bundle, for less than cost of living.
I met with my state senator last week. She said teachers from our district had just been to see her in Albany with one message: lower class size. But the governor is not listening. He merely says class sizes are a good idea, something that goes on a "menu" of choices along with a longer school day, which got more attention in his recent speech. If the governor and mayor don't care about class size, it's going to be hard to make it happen by lobbying the legislature.
Not Redhog said that our current agreement has better no layoff language than we had before. That's not true. We had an ironclad no layoff agreement in the 1995 Contract and then again in the 2000-2003 Contract. You can look it up: it was Article 17F. It's funny how that provision was removed in the 2005 contract but someone is trying to tell us it's still there and wasn't there before.
NYC Educator – are you serious? You wanted class size negotiations tangled up in the contract?
What planet are you from?
Well, I know that answer: a planet that believes CFE was coming from Santa (I am referring to your dead-Santa picture), just like you believe we negotiate our contracts with Santa – unilateral largess on the part of the giver -- - a nice childhood fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.
The union’s survey wasn’t biased. It was honest. And since most of our members do not believe in Santa, it would have been an insult to their intelligence to pole them on false promises rather than acknowledging what they already know: that Klein cares so little about our classrooms and so much about winning, that he would never concede class size for the good of those children if it meant the UFT would get the glory and all he’d get was the bill. It wouldn’t have happened. Weingarten and the union people didn’t make Klein what he is, and they didn’t make the climate, either .What they do is deal with it. So, why posture at the table? Why lie to teachers like me, back in the class?
What the UFT has done is smart, and you know it. It spearheaded two enormous petition drives that were battle-wins for our schools – on the ballot or not, they forced the mayor to show his cards – exactly where he stood on class size (which was, nowhere). But even more important, those petitions brought this issue front and center in the minds of people who matter – the people who send their children to our schools everyday. And it turned the heads of city hall. It let the whole city know that when it comes to our children, the teachers and their union know what’s good for children, even if Klein doesn’t.
And it made everyone aware (in a way no ‘subject of bargaining’ can) that class size is not a teacher-benefit issue. It’s a children issue.
That’s enormous. That’s great. No failure, that. A battle only, not the war – but teachers took it forward and they won.
As for the suggestion that the contract is the only thing that protects class size – you’ve got it wrong. The state puts about 140 million into class size reduction – if you’d start working for the teachers instead of against them, maybe you’d take the time to look that up—that’s money that brings class size nicely under the class size contractual size limits in K-3 – it happens, it’s enforced – look at the budgets.
And there is federal money, too.
The class size fight is a fight in everyone’s interest, and to fight it at the contract table should be the fight of last resort. If the UFT can’t get that done through legislation, then who knows, maybe our members will want to throw ourselves on the fire, get it contractually, and have it come out of their salary. That’s the way teachers are. The city fails the kids and we’re still there.
So, yeah, I could see the teachers doing that. But I am surprised though that you – who does nothing but complain about the lack of militancy in our union leadership -- would not understand the incredible militancy it takes to force the window open on class size – (without the UFT’s campaign, would it have made it into Spitzer’s speech?) and have a shot at getting something done.
That's "poll them on false promises," not "pole" -- but perhaps both are apt.
Thank you, Sam, for your gratuitous planetary remarks. On the planet I come from, the only thing whatsoever that restrains class size is the UFT contract.
On the planet I'm from, there is something called "irony." It's unfortunate that this concept, as relating to the pictures contained here, eludes you. It's unfortunate that you've failed to read the entire post and focused only on the part mentioning the UFT, or perhaps you'd understand better. I've been following this story very closely for years, well before the UFT leadership lost me, and even back when I used to write for NY Teacher.
In fact, the survey let the city know that salary increases were more important to teachers than class sizes. Your assertion that teachers may prefer class size to salary is baseless and preposterous. It's proven so because the survey specifically asked teachers to choose one or the other. On this planet, I'm well aware of the results.
And please, Sam, do not tell me what I know. Your mind-reading abilities, fond of them as you may be, are distinctly sub-par.
I do many things besides complain, Sam. I also write about many things other than UFT politics.
Your presumption to know everything I do is ridiculous. Your insinuations are uncalled for. In fact, Sam, I've never seen you write anything other than defenses of the UFT status quo. I'd have a lot more basis to label you than you me. I will not.
Perhaps you see it as incredible militancy that the UFT has taken up class size after having accomplished nothing whatsoever on that front for almost forty years. I do not, and I do not see the UFT leadership as militant in any way whatsoever.
Furthermore, it does not appear that the governor will compel Mayor Bloomberg to enforce class size. It's you who's ignoring the history, even the very recent history, of this battle, and I don't blame you.
The CFE lawsuit was issued with no oversight of Mayor Bloomberg. Governor Spitzer, after promising smaller class sizes (and publicly promising to compel Mayor Bloomberg to contribute heavily toward them) during the campaign, has now issued a vague menu including class size, longer days, and longer school years.
This mayor needs to be compelled. Even now, he routinely violates class size directives. He claims to have reduced class size when he has not. Read Class Size Matters. Get on the mailing list.
If you want someone to jump up and down and make happy faces, watch Barney the Dinosaur. You're way out of line coming here and presuming to tell me what I think.
The Amazing Kreskin you are not.
Class size is an issue beyond 2nd grade too, you know!
Well, NYC Educator, I just skimmed my comments, and ’m not sure where I told you what to think, though I do know I told you what I thought . Of course, I did suggest that you believe in Santa Clause (it’s the attitude, not the picture, that did it)
– but wait, here I see a line from my comment: “What the UFT did [petitioning to get class size on the ballot] was smart, and you know it.”
Okay, I take it back. You didn’t know it.
As far as the survey letting “the city know that salary increases were more important to teachers than class sizes” -- well, the intent of the survey (not to be confused with the petitions) was to let the union know what the members wanted. Would you have preferred to design a survey of the members for the sake of a PR campaign with the city, instead of actually getting their true preferences? Besides, was the city really unaware that, given a hard but real choice between smaller classes and higher pay, teachers would have to choose pay? Teachers do believe their students need smaller classes, but when class size becomes a contractual benefit, it means teachers themselves are funding it, no way around that, and I see no reason why teachers should choose to foot that bill.
Finally, if my comments sounded too rah, rah for you, consider it a reaction. Your post, quite frankly – and perhaps this is unjust – your post disgusted me. I’ve been around a while too. The union has been Campaigning for Fiscal Equity for years. Suggesting Weingarten killed that campaign is like suggesting that Al Gore killed Kyoto.
In fact, suggesting that CFE is dead is itself, to me, a little odd.
School Gal, you are absolutely right, it’s just the little guys in K-2. We are a long way from Eden, as is obvious to anyone who has ever stepped into a period 8 middle school class loaded up to 33. But K-2 legislation shows us it is possible to get class size through legislation, and that’s my point. Not easy, but I think it is always easier to measure the distance than to actually walk it.
I accused Educator of believing in Santa, but the fact is that it is I am the one who is an optimist. I still think just maybe we can bring home good gifts (smaller classes) for our schools even when the fellow in red across the table is not Santa and has cloven hooves and a long forked tail.
For someone who disliked “It’s a Wonderful Life,” I’m really a very corny person, I am.
Nicely said Sam.
When I read the survey, the first thing I wanted to check off was getting back our August days, but that choice wasn't listed. Then I looked for elimination of extended day. Not there either. LIF grievances? Nope, couldn't find that one.
However a special rep who came to our school told us that smaller class size was the one issue that the majority of teachers wanted when they filled out the survey. And we didn't get that either. As for K-3 smaller class sizes, there are teachers sitting with 27 1st graders in their classes. So why ask it on a survey if it's not going to be part of the negotiated contract?
Yes we can point the finger at the DoE (mayoral control approved by Randi). We pay our dues, yet all we get are statements of outrage by our union leaders in the press, or some multi-million dollar ad campagin that's suppose to make us feel warm and fuzzy.
Those of us in the trenches are not feeling that way and haven't been for the longest time. We are still not paid as well as teachers on Long Island, and our students deserve not to be treated like sardines. And you argue our salary will suffer? $16 million can go to some firm that tells the DoE to slash bus service, and $10 million so the British can fly over the Atlantic to evaluate us?
I meet teachers from all over the region and city when I attend professional meetings, and I have yet to hear any positive comments about Randi. What many of us find disgusting is that we are now working under the worst contract ever.
I don't know how long you have been reading this blog, but NYCEd has been the biggest supporter of the CFE lawsuit. He has also posted on other matters (non-union) that concern educators. Yet you only comment when Randi is not praised.
Sorry Sam,
You're entitled to think what you like, but your arguments are preposterous.
well, the intent of the survey (not to be confused with the petitions) was to let the union know what the members wanted.
That's odd, because when you present an option in lieu of a pay raise, the response is more or less a foregone conclusion.
And the survey does not appear to have readily offered the options Schoolgal wanted, which I'd have strongly supported.
Would you have preferred to design a survey of the members for the sake of a PR campaign with the city, instead of actually getting their true preferences?
Oddly enough, the decision to present the option of class sizes in lieu of pay raises resulted in the current PR campaign about class sizes. No, I would have preferred genuine change.
Besides, was the city really unaware that, given a hard but real choice between smaller classes and higher pay, teachers would have to choose pay?
I believe you were the one waxing poetic about how one day teachers would perhaps choose class size in lieu of pay. That's patently ridiculous, of course, but if I recall correctly, it was I who said we shouldn't have to make that choice.
Teachers do believe their students need smaller classes, but when class size becomes a contractual benefit, it means teachers themselves are funding it, no way around that, and I see no reason why teachers should choose to foot that bill.
Nor do I. That's why the question shouldn't have been on the survey. The fact is the UFT contract is the only thing that limits class size, past campaigns have failed, and this mayor routinely lies about class size. His lies are then plastered all over the sleepy media as "reforms."
The implication that we're funding the class size of 34, of course, is ridiculous. The implication that current UFT leadership can't negotiate class size and pay, unfortunately, may be entirely correct. They do, after all, have a patronage mill to run, conventions to attend, and clearly can't be bothered with prolonged or complex negotiations.
Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with a union leadership that watches what DC37 got and says, "Me too." Characterizing such leadership as "militant" is absurd.
I regret you fail to see the implications of no oversight for this mayor in the CFE lawsuit, which promised quality teachers, smaller classes, and decent facilities for NYC's 1.1 public schoolchildren. That's possible only if you ignore his well-established pattern of behavior.
I regret you choose to ignore the long history of this lawsuit, not to mention the entirety of this post, which I see no evidence you've even read.
I regret the obvious implications of Governor Spitzer's speech have eluded you.
And the 2005 contract disgusted me Sam, as do its hordes of disingenuous self-serving patronage-employee defenders. The decision to submit the contract to PERB, which had endorsed pattern bargaining, knowing the pattern was 4% for three years, was indefensible.
If you really think that survey was not designed specifically to get UFT negotiators off the hook for class sizes, I have a bridge to sell you.
I promise not to prolong negotiations.
Why were teachers only given the salary vs. class size choice on the survey but not in any other area? The survey could have asked "Would you trade your preps for salary?" Or how about long-time benefits in health for pay? Or how about this deal: Would you take a pay raise in exhcange for the DOE not buying certain supplies, etc.?
Of all the items in the contract, the one most likely to get the support of the public is a fight for class size. Imagine of the UFT made that a major issue in contract negotiations.
If the UFT had posed that question to members when class size reductions were first negotiated where would things stand today?
Commenting by HaloScan
