Over the past few weeks I have been mired in schoolwork - preparing for end-of-year exams and presentations; making sure students are still coming to class so that they can pass their math classes; and getting ready for my own busy summer of travel, reading, learning, and more. For the second time in my career, I will actually be returning to the same school. I look forward to a summer of non-transition. 

In the meantime, the School District of Philadelphia has been overwhelmed by issues. Two student deaths this year and their relation to the lack of proper nursing staff in buildings across the city. For the first time in years I never have to tell my students that "the nurse is not in the building today" since we have full-time staff at my current school. It is unfortunate that schools in Philadelphia have come to this yet I am not surprised in the slightest. 

And, today, perhaps a strong step forward by the School Reform Commission (SRC) - they will not approve the Doomsday II budget for next year, citing the lack of resources as not enough to properly have a school system in the city. In the meantime, the last remnants of the Recovery District in New Orleans has petered out (not all public schools are closed - six still remain). Some, like Dr. James Lytle, are pondering the similarities of what is happening in Philadelphia. Will I have to watch as my first school district falls to pieces, only to be chopped up by the large charter networks? I certainly hope not.

It is truly unfortunate when public systems are underfunded for years and then blamed for their own poor performance. I hope the School Reform Commission finally teams up with the local Union leadership and Administration to lobby the state government for a fair funding formula.

This piece appears on the Chalkbeat news source on May 13, 2014. It is the continuation of my foray into the New York media.

---------------

At the end of January, high school students are usually up in arms about their grades. There’s a good reason: transcripts have a lot of power to validate students’ work throughout the semester or become a self-fulling prophecy of failure.

If I hadn’t taught in Philadelphia for four years before moving to Brooklyn this year, I wouldn’t have given any thought to the fact that students at most high schools here, including mine, earn credits for their classes each semester. Coming from a system where students earn credit for a course only at the end of June, I’ve noticed that this seemingly small difference has a significant effect on students’ emotions and motivation throughout the school year.

In Philadelphia, my students simply kept track of the mid-year grades on their report card, but they knew those grades were not yet official. Students who weren’t happy with their grades could aim higher over the next five months in the hopes of earning full credit for the course at the end of the year.

As a teacher at the Brooklyn School for Collaborative Studies, I watched students who didn’t receive passing grades respond with disappointment and, in some cases, anger at their teachers when grades came out in January. I realized that here, failure at the end of first semester signifies the loss of a credit, one that, in most cases, students can’t make up by working harder during the second half of the year. Instead, they have to make up the credit by repeating the class, attending summer school, or participating in another credit recovery program.

There are merits to each system, and I’m not sure which makes more sense in the long term.

On the one hand, students in Philadelphia have more time to transition into a class before receiving a definitive grade, and students who struggle during first semester know their performance during the second half of the year can have a real effect. Stress around grades only peaks once rather than twice per year.

On the other hand, at my school in New York, the possibility of losing a credit first semester means that students prone to procrastination–as many are–have an incentive to make up missed work toward the end of first semester. A student here who fails a class gets a fresh start second semester, whereas a student in a similar position in Philadelphia might not have the drive to dig himself out of that hole. I’ve also noticed that when students’ fall semester grades have already cost them a credit, they approach mid-year conferences more seriously than their counterparts in Philadelphia, whose poor behavior or performance haven’t yet formally affected their credits.

It seems unlikely that this policy will ever make it to the top of the policy-making agenda in New York City, but it should be part of the conversation. Like many seemingly small decisions, when students receive credits has a real impact on their learning.

My first teaching placement was at West Philadelphia High School in September 2009. That year saw a tremendous change in the Philadelphia Federation of Teacher (PFT) contract under which I worked at the school. As a new teacher I was blissfully unaware of its implications on me until in January 2010 I was informed that my school was labeled as consistently underperforming and was becoming a "turnaround" school under the Renaissance School program implemented with the new contract. I was later informed that the vote to enact that new contract allowing the program to come forth was fairly undemocratic and unfair. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, my coworkers and I were pushed out and the school has been in a slump ever  since.

Fast forward to 2014 where I am in New York City and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is negotiating a new contract for the membership. This time around I am trying to pay more attention, notice, and point out when potentially undemocratic actions are occurring and try to put a stop to them so that many people really understand what the new contract might mean for our members in the future.

Last night the Delegates Assembly (DA) voted to accept the Memorandum of Agreement but had very little time to truly understand the 47 page document. According to a blogger who attended the DA meeting, very little discussion was allowed and dissent was almost totally squelched. There was less than 15 minutes of time left to discuss before a mandatory end time of 6:15pm and the vote passed through. It is quite amazing to me how a labor organization can display such lack of democratic values.

I am noticing a pattern between the two cities and having serious qualms concerning the new contract and I think those thoughts should be voiced in a public forum where people may want to hear them. I would also like to hear from those who believe it should be passed. But I do not want to feel like opinions are not being heard in an effort to push through something that could be detrimental to me (as was in Philadelphia years ago). 

I hope for more in the UFT and its membership.

The UFT has published more information regarding the upcoming contract and its content before a potential vote by the membership. This week the Delegate's Assembly (chapter leaders) will be voting on it as well. 

From what I can tell this timeline is suggesting that the retroactive raises are not going to come as soon as people would have hoped. In order to earn all of the money due to you a teacher would have to stay in the system until the last paycheck in 2020. 

According to the Movement of Rank-and-file Education (MORE), a caucus within the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), this contract is not on par with what the other public sector unions received and - more problematic - does not even provide raises on par with inflation and cost-of-living increases. Meanwhile, the UFT is touting its success in negotiations and is happy to share the news that health care costs will remain stable but there will somehow be $1 billion in savings realized over the course of the new contract. I wonder how that will play out.

I have been hearing some teachers say they are interested in voting NO on this new contract, but that the elementary school teachers and the retirees might out-vote them. We will see what happens soon enough.

Unless you are living under a rock in the education world by now you know that the UFT has successfully negotiated a new contract for its 115,000 members and a lot of the details have come out. There are obviously still more questions and local organizations are beginning to stake their claim on what is "good" and "bad" in the contract, but it is a win for the teachers that there even has been a new contract as the last one was from 2009. 

One of the most important points is how salaries have not been raised since that time. One of the best breakdowns to help understand it comes from Chaz's School Daze blog:

While the salary schedule gets bump over the course of the upcoming years, the retroactive raises (i.e. lump sum payments of owed money) will not come in its majority until 2018-2020. For people like me who just joined the system, this is not the worst thing in the world. However, for those who have been teaching for years and could be owed $10,000+, having to wait to receive it for 4-6 years is pretty annoying.



Teacher evaluation is another sticky issue brought up in the new contract. According to the Union's proposed contract site:

According to this ICE-UFT blog post from June 2013, however, it is also considered better to have all 22 categories considered.

Which am I to believe? That UFT President Mulgrew wants more or fewer categories to have for our evaluation? It seems disingenuous to rally behind both possibilities.

I will likely share more of my thoughts concerning the contract but I wanted to get the first nuts and bolts out there.