Current Events:

New York City Council Education Committee held meetings in November, 2003, on the Teacher's contract, the Supervisors' contract and the school custodians' contract. Each group is blaming Chairwoman Eva Moskowitz for exposing work rules which are, the Unions say, supposed to be only for the collective bargaining table.
Meanwhile, the New York City DOE and the Chancellor has refused to come to the table, and therefore none of the groups have contracts.
Below are the testimonies of Council of Supervisors and Administrators' President Jill Levy, UFT President Randi Weingarten, , Chancellor Joel Klein, DOE Personnel Director Dan Weisberg, and School Custodian Union spokesman K

TESTIMONY OF THE COUNCIL OF SCHOOL SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

JILL LEVY, PRESIDENT

BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2003


Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Education Committee.

Before I begin my formal testimony, I would like to take this opportunity to
share with the committee and the public exactly who the members of CSA are
and how they function above and beyond any contractual limitations on a
daily basis.

Let us remember September 11th, 2001 and be thankful that we did not lose
one child in that disaster. In that extreme crisis, Principals, Assistant
Principals and school Supervisors led their courageous teachers and other
staff members in a mass exodus of children and faculty to safety. I remember
the story told by a teacher who said that she was totally immobilized until
her principal came by and gave her instructions. "I knew that everything was
going to be okay, then," she said. And there was the brand new principal of
a special education school who, late in the evening, caller her
superintendent to say, "The children are still here and safe, but we've run
out of medication." Our administrators in district offices got information,
supplies and services to parents and schools under those extraordinary and
painful conditions.

This September, with all of the chaos of the reorganization, lack of
information, staff and supplies, it was CSA members who opened schools
safely for children and proceeded to provide instructional services from day
one. They have done this work year after year.

Now for my formal testimony...

I appreciate the opportunity to bring before you for discussion matters that
are obstacles to the efficient and effective functioning of our schools from
the perspective of school principals, assistant principals, education
administrators and supervisors and CSE chairpersons. These CSA members work
directly in our schools, lend support to the schools and function in our new
Regional Offices and at Tweed.

In conversations with the Chairwoman I indicated that it was not appropriate
for me to comment about union contracts other than that of CSA. This is a
matter of inter-union ethics and Taylor law requirements. I am also
concerned that the word on the street is that union contracts are the
impediments to the functioning of our schools. We should be concentrating on
matters that are within the purview of this committee in which the Council's
Education Committee could actually involve itself and serve to improve. The
City Council has no jurisdiction in the collective bargaining process or in
the outcomes of negotiations.

I have divided my testimony into three portions. First, I will respond to
the document that you promulgated and sent out to the public and the media
entitled, Council Notes: Principals' Contract, the Abridged Version of the
Principals' Contract.

Second, I will attempt to address some of the practical day-to-day obstacles
that face CSA members in the execution of their duties.

Finally, I will make some observations about the collective bargaining
process and its impact upon the system's professional workforce.

PART I
Council Notes

The document you sent out to the public is filled with misinformation,
misinterpretations, misrepresentations and misplaced conclusions. For
starters, our contract is not the "Principals' Contract", but the contract
for all CSA members. Out of respect for my members, it should have been so
entitled.

An objective reading of the Council Notes leads us to the conclusion that
there was nothing objective about the analysis of the CSA contract. The
Council Notes read less like a neutral rendering of the CSA contract and
more like an editorial.

The changes in the language of the contract that were made by your office
are misleading to the public. It is no secret that we have challenged
portions of the reorganization and have a stipulated agreement that belies
your interpretation and change of language.
You took editorial license that you didn't have.

Some of the most glaring errors are:

On page 2, when referring to grievances, you conclude that if one CSA member
grieves his/her supervisor who happens to also be a CSA member, CSA
represents both parties. That is incorrect. CSA represents the grievant who
is arguing that the contract has been violated and the Board of Education
represents the other party who claims it has not been violated.
The notes refer to the fact that CSA membership includes employees who are
subordinate to one another as though there was an inherent conflict in that.
Had you checked with the Public Employees Relations Board you would learn
that mixed units of supervisors are the norm in New York State and there is
not a conflict of interest under the Taylor Law.


Contrary to your conclusion, the salary schedules in the CSA contract do
reflect the market in comparable and regional districts and were negotiated
in keeping with the collective bargaining patterns in the City.


Additionally, in the 1999 contract, the CSA and the City agreed to
differentials that were intended to assist in the functioning of the system.
Specifically, the contract provides for differentials to attract principals
to larger schools, to entice principals and other administrators to low
performing schools and to reward principals and administrators in high
achieving schools for sharing their success with others. Much of this is
within the discretion of the Chancellor. Clearly, he has discretion under
the contract to tailor compensation.


To set the record straight on the issue of cash bonuses of $25,000 for
principals transferring to low performing schools, when the Chancellor
learned that the proposal would have added pension costs, it was the Board
of Education that withdrew the proposal -not CSA.


As for conclusions related to hiring, let us be very clear. The Chancellor
promulgates the hiring processes for CSA members in accordance with the
requirements of state education law and not our contract. And, it is the
Community Superintendent, not the Local Instructional Superintendent who has
the statutory authority to hire the principal in elementary and middle
schools.


The notes seem to be critical of the requirement that parents and
representatives of unions participate in the selection process. This
requirement, as well as other parts of the process, is mandated by New York
State Education Law. Of course, both the CSA and the Chancellor are bound by
law.


The statement that CSA has challenged the policy to allow principals to hire
their assistant principals is absolutely incorrect. We have demanded that
principals be trained in the legal aspects of interviewing and hiring and be
represented by the Board of Education in legal matters arising from such
procedures. In reality, the principal is not the hiring authority since
under the Chancellor's regulations the LIS can disapprove the selection. Of
course under law it is the Community Superintendent who is the actual
appointing authority in elementary and middle schools.


Contrary to the statement in the Notes regarding working conditions, the
portion of our contract which provides relief from non-supervisory duties in
schools, refers specifically to intermediate supervisors-not to principals.


The characterization that those principals and assistant principals who work
the full calendar year get "additional annual leave and other benefits as
compared to their school-year counterparts" is erroneous. In fact, they get
additional pay and two additional sick days per year, but have a
much-reduced annual leave and receive no additional benefits.


As to principal evaluations, they are conducted through a mutually agreed
upon process and document. This work was initiated by McKinsey and Company,
the same consulting group spearheading the reorganization, and was completed
in 1996. The Principals' Performance Review is not only contained in our
contract, but is referenced in State Education law. When used properly, the
PPR serves not only as an effective tool to assess school leaders, but can
be used to improve every aspect of their performance as school leaders.


The claim that an assistant principal and principal have different rights
when they are terminated for poor performance is incorrect. It is the
By-laws of the Board of Education and our contract that provides all
supervisors with the right to revert to their last appointed position. It is
very misleading to claim that termination of a principal sets off a round of
"bumping"; there are always assistant principal vacancies into which a
terminated principal can be placed.


In regard to transfers, the Notes mischaracterize the eligibility
requirements for application for a job in another district. A supervisor is
eligible to apply for a transfer whenever she wants, regardless of
experience. Specifically, the Council asserts that for a supervisor to be
eligible to apply for a transfer, the supervisor must have completed 5+
years of continuous service. In fact, the 5 year requirement only makes a
supervisor eligible for an automatic interview.


Contrary to the Notes on page 6, when the Board of Education cuts the # of
supervisors in the system, it is state education law that requires that
layoffs be done based upon seniority. CSA's contract defers to state
education law when layoffs are required.
I am sorry I had to devote so much time to addressing the misinformation and
erroneous conclusions contained in the Council's Notes/Abridged Version of
the Principals' contract but, as I stated previously, if we were given the
opportunity, we would have assisted the Council in preparing an accurate and
fair document worthy of bearing the City Council's imprimatur.

It is now time to turn our attention to what I believe was the original
intention of these hearings - the obstacles to effective and efficient
operations of schools.



PART II
Reorganization Impediments


As many of you know, we at CSA feel that this system-wide reorganization
seems to be more about the organization itself, rather than helping to
better educate children. Aspects of this plan raise new hurdles everyday,
and prevent CSA members from effectively doing their jobs.

In the next few minutes, I'll highlight several areas that are key concerns
to our union. Among them:

The new so-called streamlined bureaucracy has instead become an unnavigable
monster, with new additional layers of micromanagement. Administrative
support is no longer in proximity to instructional support, and schools are
struggling to get the answers and assistance they need.


Principals were promised more autonomy and authority, as well as a reduction
in their administrative workload, but that has not come to fruition.


Students are being lost in the shuffle. Special Education students, for
example, lost critical advocacy from the recently laid-off Supervisors of
Special Education, leaving them short-changed - or worse.


Some aspects of the reorganization were not well-thought out and as a result
have created additional problems for school leaders. Coaches, for example,
are not selected by the principal and do not report to the principal, but
evaluate and instruct teachers - in violation of contracts and state law.


The Board of Education is not utilizing basic aspects of our contract such
as the Principal Performance Review (PPR), excellent tools already at its
disposal for strengthening schools.
As I begin to walk you through these issues, it's important for me to
reiterate CSA's long-standing support for reform within the school system.
To that end, our union has always and will always beat the drum for better
ways to run the bureaucracy, and most importantly, to finally put more
resources where they belong -- in the schools, helping our city's children.
Let me give you a few examples:

CSA sits on the Board of New Visions for Public Schools and was very active
in the creation of the New Century High School Initiative. More than forty
(40) of these new schools are now in operation around the five boroughs,
offering thousands of students another educational option.


CSA proposed that each Principal be given a School Operations Officer,
similar to the A.P. for Administration in the high schools, to handle the
budgetary and business aspects of the job. Freed of administrative
obligations that chain them to their desks for hours each day, Principals
could instead focus on the children and staff, and be the Instructional
Leaders we all want them to be. The Chancellor even promised he would make
this happen, but sadly the city's half-hearted effort came too little, too
late. It was only after school budgets were completed that the city decided
to let Principals utilize their strained school budgets to hire an
underqualified, underpaid staffer to do basic administrative tasks.


CSA was instrumental in the development of the Principals' Performance
Review (PPR).


We were well out in front, demanding appropriate professional development
for school leaders in State Legislation. The Professional Development Center
(PDC) has not been funded since Chancellor Crew. We have had to fund our
award winning Supervisory Support Program because the Board of Education has
refused to provide funding. Long before the Leadership Academy in which Joel
Klein takes such pride, the CSA established the Executive Leadership Academy
and the Leadership Institute for Educators, two not-for-profit organizations
dedicated to the training and professional support for school leadership.
The City Council has been extraordinarily generous in supporting borough
based Leadership Centers in which CSA, in partnership with the Council,
other service Providers, universities and the Board of Education provide
cutting edge professional opportunities.


Our contract reflects our willingness to streamline and professionalize
working conditions, salary structure and due process matters.
It's also important to note that CSA, while cautious, had initially
supported Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein as they embarked on this
journey of theirs. We saw an opportunity for the development of fresh ideas
and perspectives. Only after they repeatedly violated and ignored our
contract and the law did we lose faith.

In our discussions with Chancellors Crew, Levy and Klein, we expressed our
concern that the system was not utilizing its personnel appropriately. Good
teachers are constantly pulled out of the classroom to assist principals in
non-teaching duties, while supervisors are asked to undertake
non-supervisory responsibilities.



Bureaucracy


When a Principal needed to get something done under the old system, knowing
who to talk to was the least of his or her problems. No matter what the
issue, you went to your Superintendent or your Director of Operations for
assistance.

Under the new system, there are separate centers for instruction, operations
and support services, two new levels of Superintendents and various new
Directors. The lines of communication and authority have blurred, and
Principals are understandably confused as to where they should bring their
concerns.

We warned the Board they were heading for trouble. We told them they were
putting far too much pressure on far too few people. We all know about the
busy signals, unanswered phones and full voicemail boxes when we call the
Regional Operation Centers. And when we do get through, we're often told
that they can't help us.

Also a major factor for principals: they are being micromanaged like never
before, taking them away from their primary task as an Instructional Leader.
Dozens of duplicative emails, checklists, forms and other paperwork flood
their offices each day, taking up valuable time. To cite just one example,
take the 'Principals' Weekly', put out by the Chancellor and his people each
week. The last few have ranged from 8 to 17 pages in length. These are no
doubt filled with important issues that need to be addressed, but understand
it takes time to go through these documents and take action where needed.

Bureaucracy has also given us horrible overcrowding problems this year, and
our people are left dealing with the fallout. The responsibility for student
enrollment has been split between the different operational and
instructional centers, and there are very few people left who have
experience with the whole admissions process. For schools that are already
dealing with limited resources, coping with overcrowding has meant a great
deal of improvisation.

Empowerment and Autonomy

Under the Children First agenda, Principals were supposed to have:

Increased control over school budgets
Ability to select new Assistant Principals
Reduced administrative burden
The reality is quite the opposite. Once teachers, curriculum and dozens of
other factors are weighed in, Principals have little control over their
budgets at all. In fact, daily changes in school budgets take place without
notification to or input from Principals. Furthermore, the small amount they
do control must be reviewed and approved by their Local Instructional
Superintendent. That's not control. That's pandering.

As for Assistant Principals, they've been left out of the Board's
literature, so we're still trying to get a handle on that situation. Since
I've already discussed AP's, we'll move on for now and revisit the issue
when we talk about Coaches.

We've already discussed some of the administrative burdens, and we'll touch
on them a little later as well.



Special Education

Let's turn to the often neglected and potentially dangerous situation in
Special Education. More than two months into the school year, Medical
Records and Individual Education Plans (IEP's) for Special Ed students are
still not at the schools they attend.

How is anyone to know exactly how a particular student is supposed to be
educated and cared for? Normally, a Principal could ask his or her
Supervisor of Special Education. After all, they worked in the schools
everyday to make sure every student received the help they needed. But as
you know, all 351 of them were laid off, and their thousands of years of
experience are gone. Schools must now rely on 200 individuals who are not
school-based, and who have much higher case loads and other
responsibilities.

So now the job falls squarely on the Principal, but despite their best
intentions, most do not have the expertise to evaluate a student and make
sure that student is receiving the proper attention. A few classes over the
summer do not make a Principal or an Assistant Principal an expert in
Special Education instruction.

So what happens when something goes wrong? Then what? What do we tell the
Principal who was attacked by a student whose records had not made it to the
school? What do we say to the parent whose child requires a feeding tube and
was not fed for a full day?

The Chancellor will tell you there are bumps in the road. These are not
bumps. These are serious and dangerous incidents that have happened. More
will, unless the BOE finally steps up, admits its shortcomings and corrects
them.

Let's go back to the IEPs. Our Principals are now being told by the Regional
Operations Centers that they have no clerical staff to copy these files and
get them to the school. Instead, they suggest that schools send over an
Educational Paraprofessional. Sounds easy enough, but Paraprofessionals are
few and far between in this reorganization. There is no money in any budget
to hire them for Special Education. And don't even think about finding money
for a substitute Paraprofessional. It doesn't exist. The only way a
Principal can get money for a new Paraprofessional is if the students IEP
demands it.

This brings us another problem. Principals tell us they can't even get a new
file number from the Regional Committees on Special Education to put new
students into the system. IEPs are not being written for children who need
special education services.

When those students are finally added to the Special Education rolls, there
is no money to open a new class for them. Classes across the city are
overcrowded. That problem has not gone away, but when Special Education
classes are overcrowded it is a violation of city, state and federal laws
and the city is doing nothing to fix the problem. The aforementioned
Supervisors of Special Education were there to advocate for these children,
but they are gone.

Another problem lies in the city's attempt to solve the IEP dilemma. They
have created a new IEP position, but many of these new workers do not have
access to the system that tracks Special Education students or they do not
know how to use the computer system and cannot update IEPs.

Let's move to District 75, schools designed specifically for Special
Education students. Are you aware that children are being kept out of
inclusion classes? They were already rejected by their regional schools and
are now being told there is no room for them in District 75. These children
are sitting at home instead of being educated. Why hasn't this problem been
fixed?

There is a cascading chain of broken links all the way up and down the
current Special Education system. These children must not be forgotten.




Coaches

In many schools, Assistant Principals are assigned the task of implementing
the curriculum and making sure teachers are effectively instructing their
students. Now we have coaches, who are all being trained in the brand new
curriculum and are supposed to make sure teachers are instructing their
students. This quandary leads to teachers getting two sets of instructions,
from coaches who answer to managers OUTSIDE the school and from Assistant
Principals who are their supervisors INSIDE the school. Not very efficient
or well thought-out design and a violation of our contract.

Further, many Principals tell us coaches are showing up only 1 or 2 days a
week at best. The Regions where we've had the most problems are 1, 5, 9 and
10. Since coaches are not selected by Principals and do not report to the
Principal, it's a difficult problem to address.

There are many schools throughout the system who, in place of Coaches, were
supposed to be provided with an AUSSIE, which is the name of the Australian
company overseeing the coaches training. They're not in schools now.

In High Schools the problem takes on a new level of frustration. Assistant
Principals have been assigned the jobs of English and Math coaches. So in
addition to their regular jobs, they are performing a new role. They are
constantly being pulled out their schools for workshops and retreats. How
are they supposed to perform their duties as Assistant Principals?

Principal Performance Review (PPR)

If the Chancellor truly wants 1,200 excellent Principals running 1,200
excellent schools, as he has said numerous times in the past, he should make
much better use of the Principal Performance Review (PPR).




PART III
Observations & Recommendations


Finally, I would like to turn my attention to the issue of leadership
morale, responsibility without authority, and the problems of sustaining a
leadership work force in this current environment.

Although the Principal's Performance Review is a contractual agreement and
referenced in State Education law, the Board of Education has never utilized
it in the manner in which it was intended. Test scores, attendance and
suspension data, and a variety of issues not at the heart of the document
have upstaged the observable performance continuum. Based upon national
standards of performance, the PPR was designed specifically to bring the
community superintendent into the school and to be engaged in the leadership
development of principals. Instead it has been used as a head battering club
rather than the collaborative, instructive and professional document that
was intended. Some regional superintendents have tried to change the content
and process and this serves to confuse everyone involved in the matter.

People have a right to know the criteria upon which they will be judged.
They also have a right to the appropriate resources to enable them to
perform adequately. Without having those basic needs met, your school
leaders undoubtedly feel insecure and unsupported. The reorganization has
only served to exacerbate this problem. Instead of being perceived as
supportive, the LIS's who seem to have been illegally cloaked in community
superintendents' garb, have proceeded to micromanage, oversee, supervise and
evaluate principals. This does not seem to be giving authority back to the
principals as once suggested by the Chancellor.

In highly effective organizations, there are adequate supervisory ratios. In
the case of the Board of Education, apparently, the ratio is one LIS to
ten-twelve schools. Doesn't it make sense to have a similar ratio within our
schools? One supervisor for every ten teachers, would certainly answer the
morale issue of too much to do and too few people to do it. Such a ratio
also mitigates against having to pull teachers out of the classroom to
undertake tasks other than teaching responsibilities.

Isn't email wonderful? It is wonderful if it is used properly. Right now,
principals are being emailed duplicative information, additional demands
from their region, and a variety of information that used to be sent to the
secretaries for distribution. The amount of time it takes a principal to
forward, download, read and respond to emails is counterproductive. With the
increased use of technology, one needs to determine whether technology will
aid or destroy us.

Schools are social institutions trying to build learning communities. They
are not corporate entities that have the capacity to change their products,
services and raw materials without public input.

Micromanagement, disrespect and outright arrogance have no place in our
schools. Such behavior serves to destroy- not build, depress- not elevate
and destabilize our schools and the professionals who commit to service.

Children First? No! The new reorganization, not CSA's contract, puts
organization first - form before substance.

http://www.csa-nyc.org/levytestimony111403b.html

Randi Weingarten - UFT President Testimony nov. 19

The New Knapp Commission

Likening herself to the lawyer who headed the 1970 Knapp Commission's
hearings on police corruption at which whistleblower Frank Serpico risked
his life by testifying, the head of the City Council Education Committee,
Eva Moskowitz, is holding hearings on the school labor contracts: ours, the
principals' and the custodians'. (Perhaps the McCarthy hearings would have
been a more apt comparison.) Complete with static-filled audiotapes of
anonymous principals (made necessary, Moskowitz charged, because of witness
intimidation, by whom she would never say), and a so-called Cliffs Notes
abridged version of the contract that was replete with errors and
misrepresentations, the hearings were clearly a set-up to give Moskowitz a
platform and to appeal to parents at the expense of custodians, teachers and
even principals.
Public hearings on contracts while negotiations are proceeding are
unprecedented. They make the parties much more rigid in their positions and
diminish the prospect of a successor agreement. Once I prevailed on the
Council to give parents, teachers and the public the last word, rather than
the chancellor as Moskowitz had planned, I thought it was important to set
the record straight. Here are excerpts from my testimony.


Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of our
100,000 active members and the children they educate -despite what you may
have read.

I was shocked to see the chair's reference to Frank Serpico in the paper,
and it prompted me to look again at Peter Maas's book about that brave
whistleblower. Although you apologized for the remark to me privately, I
think it is important that the public understand that you did not mean to
imply that we have ever, or would ever, threaten our members - or anyone
else -for blowing the whistle on the problems in our city's schools.

Because, Madam Chair, we are the whistleblowers.

And we have been blowing our whistles clearly and loudly for some time - on
class size, on the rise in safety incidents and the lack of supplies, on
overcrowding and on the lack of respect for teachers' professionalism, among
many other serious issues that confront our schools today. That's what
20,000 of my members were doing here on Oct. 21.

That has not made us popular at Tweed and at City Hall. I suspect the more
we do that, the more we will be demonized. But let me be clear: When we see
problems with the way our schools are being run, problems that impact on
children's learning, we will say so. Our members will not be intimidated.

What they are afraid of is what's going on in their schools - what's
happening to them and what's happening to their ability to educate their
students. Because all too often, fear and intimidation are the dominant
management tools in our schools today. Every minute of the day and every
inch of the classroom is dictated. The arrangement of desks, the format of
bulletin boards, the position in which teachers should stand (never sit,
except in a rocking chair when reading aloud!) are not only regimented, but
spelled out in brusque, autocratic memos that warn - and I quote - "this is
non-negotiable, and failure to comply will result in disciplinary action."
Teachers are demeaned, stripped of their professionalism, and expected to
behave like robots incapable of independent thought. They feel neither
valued nor respected.

Highly qualified teachers bristle at demands for blind obedience to dumb
directives. They want to diagnose their students' needs and teach to their
strengths.

They want to engage, to question - and that means everyone, by the way,
including their union. I invite you to come with me to a school meeting and
hear the level of questioning and concern. My members are not shy to tell me
if I've done something they disagree with. That's why I love representing
them. I also love that under the most difficult conditions they are willing
to work hard every day to make a difference in the lives of children.

So, in the spirit of a hearing, let me ask the first question: If the
UFT/DOE contract gives teachers so much power, as the chair and editorial
writers suggest, why do they no longer have any control or professional
latitude in their classrooms?

No doubt you will hear about all of this at next Thursday's hearing, as I do
at every school I visit. But one thing you won't hear, contrary to the myths
promulgated by the chancellor and some editorialists and by this document
(the so-called abridged contract, which by the way, was printed in a
non-union shop) is how great the contract is for teachers. Just ask
yourself:

If the contract really delivered the nirvana for teachers that some think it
does, why aren't teachers knocking down our doors to get in?
If teaching under this contract is such a cushy job, why do one in four new
teachers leave within a year, 40 percent within three years?
And if the contract made teachers so invulnerable, why are teachers feeling
so pressured and so demoralized?
The answer is clear. The contract is not the management straitjacket some
claim it to be. It is being used as a scapegoat by those who wish to explain
away their own managerial failures.

Both Chancellor Klein and the committee chair should know better than to
perpetuate these misconceptions about the UFT/DOE contract. We will rebut
the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this supposed summary in a
separate document. But in the meantime, a couple of items must be countered
because they are outrageously unfair to teachers, belittling their hard work
and their commitment to their students and their profession.

A teacher's hours: Anyone who's been a teacher or knows one realizes what it
takes. Saying that a teacher's workday is 3.75 hours is demeaning and
insulting to teachers and shows absolutely no understanding of their work.
It totally ignores the countless hours spent preparing lessons, reviewing
student work, completing reports and other paperwork, finding appropriate
materials, contacting parents, making copies and myriad other tasks related
to teaching. Not counting that time is as ridiculous as saying a football
player works only two hours a week, the time of an official game, or a
lawyer works only when she stands in a courtroom. Aside from that, it
ignores half of the school system - the elementary school teachers who work
a different schedule; it ignores non-teaching professional activities that
teachers are involved in during the day; and it ignores time between classes
when teachers ready the room, prepare materials for distribution and get
students seated and ready to work.

Circular 6: This provision that removed teachers from most non-professional
duties was in response to the very argument that teachers were spending too
much time on administrative tasks. Initially our proposal was targeted at
limiting out-of-classroom assignments and exchanging assignments such as
cafeteria duty and toilet patrol, which teachers found particularly onerous
and unprofessional, for more professional responsibilities. Rudy Giuliani
seized on it, equating it with civilianization of the police department and
seeing it as a way to hire perhaps thousands of new school aides for his
close ally, Charles Hughes, then head of the school workers local of DC 37.
This swap of time and what it would entail was one of the reasons my members
rejected the 1995 contract. When we sought changes, then-Mayor Giuliani was
adamant about retaining it. When we realized how much money it would cost to
implement it well, I (as Sandy Feldman's chief negotiator) asked for salary
instead, which the city also rejected. Now the city blames us.

Chancellor Klein, too, throws around a lot of outdated myths when he cites
the contract as the root of all that ails our schools. Let's look
specifically at what he calls the three pillars of the contract and what,
long before this administration, the UFT did or offered to do in each area.
Since negotiations are not an evidence-free zone, let's look at the facts.

Tenure which of course is state law and long pre-dates collective
bargaining, is a favorite target. The chancellor says it's too hard to
discipline or remove a teacher.

Fact: Three times in as many contracts this union and the Legislature have
streamlined and expedited the teacher disciplinary process. What the
chancellor says takes years, last year under the new rules, took on average,
65.5 days.
Fact: In a member survey a few years ago, more than 80 percent of our
members said they did not want to teach beside incompetent teachers, and we
have for years struggled to find a fair and constructive solution. So we
designed and continue to operate the Peer Intervention Program, an
award-winning and much-copied program for tenured teachers who are at risk
of unsatisfactory ratings, to help them improve or counsel them out of the
profession.
Seniority-based assignments: The chancellor promotes the myth that seniority
keeps the most experienced teachers from the schools where he believes they
are most needed and forces new teachers into the most difficult settings.

Fact: Seniority transfers account for less than 10 percent of all vacancies
filled each year. Last year, principals hired nearly 9,000 new teachers to
fill vacancies, and seniority transfers filled about 600.
Fact: A contractual provision urged by the union allows all schools that
choose to do so to establish personnel committees, including the principal,
to fill all vacancies by developing their own required qualifications and
choosing among applicants. It is working in almost 400 schools. You'd think
this was just what the chancellor would want to promote, [yet he has not].
Fact: The ETS agreement suggests a model for attracting senior teachers to
more challenging schools with incentives instead of forced transfers. Not
only did those schools attract a full contingent of certified teachers, but
those teachers stayed. Last year, for example, there were only five
seniority transfers from the 36 ETS schools.
Fact: The UFT has suggested an induction model for new teachers that
includes a lighter teaching load, mentoring by a senior teacher and more
opportunity for in-class professional development.
Single pay schedule: The chancellor wants to be able to pay more to teachers
in shortage areas and in harder-to-staff schools.

Fact: In 1999 after a year-long study the union proposed a new system of
teacher evaluation, advancement and pay that enabled teachers who
demonstrated special skills and knowledge to earn more and assume different
responsibilities.
Fact: In 2000 the union included in its contract proposals additional pay
for teachers who earned additional certification in specified shortage areas
and, since 1983, we have provided that teachers in shortage areas can earn
additional pay by teaching an additional class.
So the issue here for us is not differentiated pay; the issue is first
having a competitive base salary and then looking at what kind of differing
pay works. That is what the chancellor and the mayor refuse to discuss.

To conclude, we want to work with the chancellor and mayor and they say they
want to work with us. So what's the problem? That's a question I hope you'll
ask the chancellor. Here are some more questions: If the chancellor and the
mayor want change so much, why aren't they sitting down with us to negotiate
these things? Why have they never presented to us at the bargaining table
any of the demands and desires they are so eager to express in the media?
Why have they never responded to our contract aims presented to them at the
brief September negotiating session - which the chancellor didn't even
bother to attend?

Perhaps they don't really want to resolve the issues they carp about so
much. Perhaps they'd rather take all the credit if they succeed and be able
to blame us if they fail. Perhaps they'd rather have a scapegoat than
negotiate.

Why have they never presented to us at the bargaining table any of the
demands and desires they are so eager to express in the media?


Since it's been impossible to get them to the table, I'd like to use this
forum to put forth our own three pillars of an agreement. They're the new 3
Rs: retention, resources and respect. When you put them all together, you'll
get results for kids. [After discussing the first two of these, I continued
. ]

Finally, and maybe most important, is the issue of respect. It underlies
everything else. Adequate resources and decent working conditions show
respect. Consultation and professional discretion show respect. A safe
environment and enforcement of a serious student discipline code show
respect. If there were true mutual respect among all staff, parents and
students, there would be no need for a contract of more than a few pages,
assuring little more than collaboration and due process. The rest would come
naturally.

We agree with Chancellor Klein that we need a new approach to
labor-management relations. And that approach, just like the approach we
advocate for schools, should be based on trust and respect. On that
foundation, change is not a problem, it is a challenge. It is not feared, it
is embraced. It is not a battle, it is a mutual quest.

However, change is made far more difficult when one side is unfairly
demonized.

I have noticed a disturbing trend in recent weeks and months. Confronted by
the chaos they have created and faced with their own failure to bring
positive change to our schools, the Bloomberg/Klein administration has
decided not to change its course but instead to demonize teachers. That is a
mistake. We will not make progress in our schools by demonizing teachers -
and I will not stand for it.

We share Chancellor Klein's sentiment that we should work together "to
create a set of labor-management rules that respect our teachers while
providing all of our students the quality of teaching they need and
deserve."

We couldn't have said it better ourselves. So, for my final point, one that
we teach kids all the time: Actions speak louder than words. If the DOE
wants to work with teachers, why have they failed to listen to the voices of
teachers? And why are they raising concerns here that they have not raised
at the bargaining table? True reform in our schools depends on our working
together in the best interest of children. It's time to stop demonizing and
start working together.


http://www.uft.org/?fid=198

Testimony of Dan Weisberg
Executive Director for Labor Policy
New York City Department of Education

Before the New York City Council
Committee on Education

November 14, 2003


Thank you Chairwoman Moskowitz and members of the Education Committee for
inviting us to answer questions about the operation of our schools. My name
is Dan Weisberg and I am Executive Director for Labor Policy for the New
York City Department of Education, and I am joined by Dr. Joyce Coppin, the
Chief Executive of our Division of Human Resources and Bernard Gassaway,
Senior Superintendent of Alternative, Adult and Continuing Education Schools
and Programs.

Today's hearing is about work rules set forth in our contract with the
Council of School Supervisors and Administrators affecting Principals,
Assistant Principals and other school supervisors.

I think we can all agree that good schools have one thing in common -
effective leadership. As the Chancellor has said many times, principals are
the key change agents in our system and they play a critical role in
carrying out our reforms and bringing our children the dramatic improvement
in the quality of education they deserve. A major theme of the Chancellor's
reform efforts is to give principals the authority and discretion to
effectively lead their schools.

For the first time, we have given principals authority over their school
budgets so they can allocate resources according to the priorities they set
for their schools. In addition, though tis change was opposed by CSA, we
have given principals the power to select their assistant principals,
subject to seniority-based bumping and retention rules, so they can better
shape their own leadership teams.

We need to do more to empower principals. Assistant principals are governed
by the same de facto lifetime tenure rules as teachers. As a result, for
example, principals taking over failing schools can be hamstrung as they may
inherit sub-standard assistant principals who do not share their goals or
priorities. There is little that we can do in these situations. We have no
ability to involuntarily transfer such assistant principals to other sites
where they might be a better fit, and the tenure rules make it next to
impossible to discharge an assistant principal for anything less than
serious misconduct.

The seniority-based "excessing" system also has a negative impact on
schools. For example, a principal who recruits a promising new assistant
principal and invests the time to train him or her can have the assistant
principal "bumped" out of his or her position at any time by a more senior
assistant principal displaced from another school. This "bumping" takes
place without regard to merit, or to whether the principal involved approves
of it.

The CSA contract also constrains us in our ability to assign principals to
schools where they are needed most. For example, we have no ability to offer
experienced principals cash incentives to voluntarily take over difficult
and challenging schools for a limited period. As a result, experienced
principals are often reluctant to take on such an assignment, leading all
too often to a "revolving door" of inexperienced principals overwhelmed by
the challenge.

If we not only had the tools to induce experienced principals to take on
difficult schools but such principals were also able to freely choose their
assistant principals we would then have the opportunity to install entire
"turn-around" teams of principals and assistant principals in chronically
failing schools. This would be a powerful tool for our superintendents,
allowing them to achieve quick results for those children who have suffered
in the worst school situations.

We look forward to addressing these issues and others with CSA during the
collective bargaining process.

http://www.csa-nyc.org/weisberg111403.html

Testimony of Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein

Before the City Council Education Committee

Monday, November 17, 2003



Chairwoman Moskowitz and Members of the Education Committee: I would like
to start by thanking you for holding these hearings on this very important
subject.



Over the past year, under Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the New York City
schools have begun an historic process of reform -- a process of fundamental
change in all aspects of our schools, from changing the curricula, to
empowering principals, to placing literacy and math coaches in our schools,
to hiring a parent coordinator for each of our schools, to cutting enormous
waste from the bureaucracy. All of these reforms have but one objective: to
give all of our children a first-class education.



The existing labor contracts frustrate that objective. They are
dysfunctional in that they make it more difficult for the many excellent
teachers and principals in our system to teach our children, and they result
in our schools being less clean, less safe, and less pleasant places in
which to work and learn. Changing these contracts -- so that teachers can
teach, and principals can run their schools -- is an essential step if we
are to have the first-class schools that New Yorkers want and that New
Yorkers deserve.



I would like to make clear to everyone that, in criticizing these contracts,
I intend no criticism of the thousands of committed teachers, principals,
assistant principals, custodians and other staff who work hard every day in
challenging conditions to teach and support our children. By and large, our
employees are enormously devoted and caring people. Many perform heroic
acts for our kids, and their good work too often goes unnoticed and
unappreciated.



I believe that these employees want what we want: to work in schools that
do right by our kids. Far too often, that is not happening now and hasn't
happened for many, many years. One of the reasons -- though of course not
the only reason -- is that the work rules in the existing contracts make
success considerably more difficult. Our teachers and principals know that;
indeed, many of them have told me precisely that.



I also want to make clear that I fully support and appreciate the importance
of unions and of collective bargaining in protecting the interests of
working men and women. My father was a member of the postal carriers' union
for more than a quarter of a century, and I spent many, many years
representing labor unions and working side-by-side with them to protect the
rights and interests of working people.



But I strongly believe that the existing labor contracts disserve the goals
of the very people they are intended to help -- the hard-working and
dedicated people who are employed in our schools.

The meddlesome, wasteful rules in the existing contracts protect the
incompetent while shackling the hands of the many skillful teachers and
principals in our system. These work rules squander precious resources,
resources that could be used to enhance educational opportunities and to
hire and retain excellent teachers and staff. I have little doubt that the
savings that can be achieved from eliminating these burdensome work rules
can benefit both the City's taxpayers as well as our teachers and other
school-based staff.



Take, for example, the work rules known in our system as "Circular 6" that
bar teachers from being in hallways between classes, or conducting home
rooms for our kids, or being in lunch rooms. Does anyone think that's a
good idea? As a matter of safety and discipline, what signal does it send
to the kids when the teachers aren't out in the halls between classes? How
many relationships have each of you formed when you were students by talking
with teachers during lunch period? And home rooms: it's the time when you
pull things together, when you start the day, feeling at home.



And who would defend the arbitrary limitations in the custodians' contract:
restrictions on the number of floor tiles that can be replaced, or a 10-foot
rule for painting, or a prohibition on doing window trim? Or, for that
matter, why should we have a custodial-budgeting rule that doesn't take into
account the age and condition of a building or the number of students who
attend? It makes no sense.



Then there is the fact that it takes more than two years to navigate the
process even to attempt to rid the system of incompetent teachers, all the
while these teachers get to remain in the very school that is trying to
remove them. Who thinks that's a good idea? As a practical matter, all too
often the result of this incredibly cumbersome process is that these
teachers and their principals end up agreeing that the teacher will leave,
invoke his or her seniority rights, and simply move on to another school.
Who gets hurt? The staff and the kids at the new school.



And does anyone think that it makes sense to force principals to take
assistant principals on the basis of seniority and then have to undergo a
multi-year process before they can terminate them? Just as Members of the
Council are able to choose and remove their staff, so too should principals
have that ability.



Or take the provision that requires lock-step pay, based on anything but
need and merit. Each year, try as we might, we cannot, for example, get
enough certified math teachers or teachers who teach our English Language
Learners. There is a national shortage in these areas, and everyone knows
that the way to solve it is through the use of pay differentials, just as
universities pay math professors more than English professors. But the
contracts won't let us do that. In the absence of that option, we continue
to rely on uncertified teachers and, given the way the seniority rules work,
those teachers typically end up in our most challenging schools. In other
words, the kids who need good teachers the most are getting shortchanged the
most. This problem permeates our system.



In closing, Madame Chairwoman, let me again convey my thanks to you for
conducting these hearings. The schools belong to everyone in this City, and
all of us have a right to know what is in these very important labor
agreements. As Justice Brandeis said seventy years ago, "A little sunlight
is the best disinfectant."



It is my hope that by shedding some light on these burdensome and
inefficient contracts, we can develop a new and better partnership among all
of us who are committed to New York City and its schools, a partnership that
will result in better schools for all of the children of the City of New
York.



I am ready, willing and committed to achieving that end, and I call upon all
of the many committed principals, assistant principals, teachers, custodians
and others who work in our schools to join me in that effort.



I would be happy to respond to your questions.