Contract Demands from our High School Executive Board Members

February 27, 2018 — 3 Comments

UFT Executive Board members elected from High School Division, who are members of the MORE and New Action caucuses, met to discuss the following contract demands

Please help us formulate a complete set of demands that addresses all levels and titles in the UFT, by attending the MORE Contract Forum on March 14th at the CUNY Graduate Center – Bring your coworkers!

1. Real Raises: Set a pattern or follow a city pattern with raises that are equal to uniformed/sanitation workers.

2. Do away with C-6/professional assignments so high school teachers can have two full preps to prepare, especially those that are in ICT/ESL co-teaching situations. If C-6 cant be totally done away with then they should be limited to pedagogical related assignments only (no lunchroom duty).  This also addresses the proliferation of teacher teams.

3. Class size violations: with the proliferation of oversized classes we need some type of accountability for DOE/principals for every day that a class sizes are over contractual limts.

4. Unit pricing: Stop the so called “fair student funding” formula, which “charges” principals more for veteran teachers.

5. Regents grading should be done back in the home schools

6. Transfer system: Return to the seniority and SBO transfer plans.

7. Two observations for tenured teachers, like the rest of New York State.

8. Teacher diversity and school integration: Can we collectively bargain actions to address this? See the Teacher Diversity Committee’s report here The Disappearance of Black and Latino Teachers in New York City – Toward and agenda for action

9. DOE PD’S that occur in schools will be accredited towards CTLE hours

10. Immigrant liaison: UFT passed a resolution on this. Can we collectively bargain training for UFT members as well as adding this to comp-time menu and/or C-6?

11. C-30 process, education leadership and iron-clad contract enforcement: The C-30 panel should have the final determination of any administrative hiring. We must demand that administrators’ behaviors are consistent with promoting a respectful working/learning environment. Any administrator that is found to be routinely violating the contract at their school shall be automatically removed and face charges for permanent removal.

12. Due Process for UFT members under investigation or exonerated: A small adjustment for the type of outside complaints described would be for a parent to have to sign a complaint in writing that was made by a student. Those things don’t currently happen and would filter out a fair amount of capricious complaints. Another small adjustment would be to require the investigation process to consider the intent as part of its process. This would compel all parties to consider context of any action in their decision. Investigators’ final report should have to state the apparent intent behind the act in writing in their final report.  This would absolutely lighten the burden for those who go through the process. It’s a small shift but it has powerful consequences on all levels. The DoE is the only district in the state with a bureaucracy to support investigations like what we have. The local CBA (our contract) needs reflect that uniqueness with fairness protections (many of which that haven’t yet been though of yet) that do absolutely account for that.

A larger shift would be to advocate for a written schedule of fines or punishments for infractions reflective of progressive discipline and for that schedule of fines/punishments to be made public. In general, significant efforts should be made to make the discipline process more fair and more predictable. This would take that process out of the hands of a vindictive administrator and protect teachers and students.

 

 

Advertisements

3 responses to Contract Demands from our High School Executive Board Members

  1. 

    I’m very disappointed that MORE is not pushing for smaller class size caps that haven’t changed in the UFT contract for over 50 years. Assuming that the cap of 34 students per class remains for HS, and teachers can have up to five classes, that means 170 students each. Do MORE members really think this is acceptable?

    • 

      Class size is very high on our list of priorities! This is a draft set of demands that doesn’t reflect the input of our entire caucus – we are holding a Contract Forum (mentioned above) in a couple of weeks that will result in a more complete list. Hopefully you can attend! Demand number 3 will also help reduce the number of oversize classes.

  2. 

    Not sure if my earlier comment made it in or not. I’m very disappointed that MORE is not pushing for smaller class size caps in the contract, which haven’t changed in over 50 years. Given that HS teachers generally teach five classes with a cap of 34 students each, that means a teaching load of 170 students. Do you really think that this is acceptable, and that students can learn and teachers can teach under these conditions?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s