That is how Sol Stern described aspects of the New York City teachers' union contract in 2009. Yesterday's agreement between Governor Cuomo and the teachers unions might be characterized the same way. According to the New York Times, Cuomo "stole the spotlight" from Mayor Bloomberg, who had reached an impasse in negotiations with the UFT. But a little background shows the mayor deserves a little more credit.
The New York City has long been exhibit A of a dysfunctional urban school district. Mayors Dinkins and Giulinani both sought mayoral control of the schools to address the situation. But the UFT, arguably the most powerful teachers local in the country, was opposed. Upon his election, however, Bloomberg managed to win mayoral control. The price was a very fat new contract with the union. Bloomberg made education reform his signature issue. That meant that sooner or later he was going to tangle with the UFT. And tangle they have. In every instance, however, the UFT has had inertia on its side. It had expansive protections of teachers and other work rules written into previous contracts. The burden for changing these rules has always been on the mayor. Many of the things he has tried to institute, such as bonus pay for outstanding teachers have been watered-down to the point of nearly meaningless.
Nonetheless, Bloomberg has doggedly sought to end seniority rules in hiring and transfers, institute bonus pay for performance and for math and science teachers, and increase managerial flexibility in assignments and dismissals (remember the rubber rooms!). He's had help, especially when councilwoman Eva Moskowitz decided to hold open hearing on the teachers union contract in 2003. To make any headway with these reform ideas, however, the mayor has had to agree to very generous contracts, as the UFT has opposed the changes at every step. To give up its privileges, the UFT basically said the mayor would have to pay handsomely.
To get yesterday's deal, Bloomberg had the help of President Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, whose Race to the Top program provides incentives for states to adopt greater accountability measures. He's also got a governor who has taken up his cause. All that just shows how much political firepower has to be marshaled to adopt modest means of teacher evaluations without huge financial concessions to the unions. In sum, it shows just how powerful the UFT really is and what the mayor has been up against.
Indeed, what has been agreed to is only a first step. Under the new scheme, 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on standardized tests; 20 percent of that on growth from year to year and the other 20 percent a very flexible test metric to be decided by the districts. The other 60 percent will be determined by two class observations by principals (one unannounced). The sticking point between the mayor and the UFT was the extent to which these evaluations were tied to discipline and dismissal. Because it it their job to protect all teachers, the UFT wanted it to be hard to discipline or dismiss teachers on the basis of these evaluations. They wanted a drawn out appeals process. Evaluating was alright, but don't use the results to do anything to teachers, the unions essentially said.
Yesterday's deal allows the union to appeal only 13 percent of first-time unsatisfactory ratings, which should force it to focus on cases where the principal has it out for the teacher in question. The teacher's appeal will be heard by a panel made up of a school official, a union representative and an arbitrator. The is no appeal for the second rating, at which point the teacher would be considered incompetent. But whether in reality they can be dismissed at that point remains to be seen. Again, a small victory for sanity.
Nonetheless, Bloomberg has doggedly sought to end seniority rules in hiring and transfers, institute bonus pay for performance and for math and science teachers, and increase managerial flexibility in assignments and dismissals (remember the rubber rooms!). He's had help, especially when councilwoman Eva Moskowitz decided to hold open hearing on the teachers union contract in 2003. To make any headway with these reform ideas, however, the mayor has had to agree to very generous contracts, as the UFT has opposed the changes at every step. To give up its privileges, the UFT basically said the mayor would have to pay handsomely.
To get yesterday's deal, Bloomberg had the help of President Obama and his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, whose Race to the Top program provides incentives for states to adopt greater accountability measures. He's also got a governor who has taken up his cause. All that just shows how much political firepower has to be marshaled to adopt modest means of teacher evaluations without huge financial concessions to the unions. In sum, it shows just how powerful the UFT really is and what the mayor has been up against.
Indeed, what has been agreed to is only a first step. Under the new scheme, 40 percent of a teacher's evaluation will be based on standardized tests; 20 percent of that on growth from year to year and the other 20 percent a very flexible test metric to be decided by the districts. The other 60 percent will be determined by two class observations by principals (one unannounced). The sticking point between the mayor and the UFT was the extent to which these evaluations were tied to discipline and dismissal. Because it it their job to protect all teachers, the UFT wanted it to be hard to discipline or dismiss teachers on the basis of these evaluations. They wanted a drawn out appeals process. Evaluating was alright, but don't use the results to do anything to teachers, the unions essentially said.
Yesterday's deal allows the union to appeal only 13 percent of first-time unsatisfactory ratings, which should force it to focus on cases where the principal has it out for the teacher in question. The teacher's appeal will be heard by a panel made up of a school official, a union representative and an arbitrator. The is no appeal for the second rating, at which point the teacher would be considered incompetent. But whether in reality they can be dismissed at that point remains to be seen. Again, a small victory for sanity.
Join the conversation