Archive for the 'New Action' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Resolution on encouraging broad discussion

Published December 17, 2013 New Action , UFT , UFT Executive Board 1 Comment
Tags:

Resolution on encouraging broad discussion

(presented at the 12/16/13UFT Exec Board. Tabled. This resolution would change the rules of the Delegate Assembly so that if the question was called before there had been a speaker against, the chair would ask for a speaker against before preceding to a vote.)

Whereas, the United Federation of Teachers is a democratically run organization, and

Whereas, the UFT’s governing body is the Delegate Assembly, where policy is introduced, discussed, debated, and decided, and

Whereas, the Delegate Assembly is generally governed by Roberts Rules, with several specific changes, as the UFT has chosen, and

Whereas, on occasion, after a resolution has been motivated, the question has been called and voted upon without the nay side of the issue having been heard, and

Whereas, allowing one speaker opposed would not impose an undue burden on the body, and might enrich the discussion before the vote,

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the rules of order of the United Federation of Teachers Delegate Assembly are amended by the addition of: “6. CALLING A QUESTION – Before entertaining a motion to ‘call the question’ on any matter, if there has not been a speaker opposed to the question, the chair will ask for a speaker opposed.”

 Introduced to the December 16 UFT Exec Board. Signed by Jonathan Halabi, Michael Shulman, Kate Martin-Bridge, Francisco Peña, Keith Fessell, Doug Haynes. Motivated by Jonathan Halabi. Tabled.

Good Riddance Bloomberg – Good Riddance to Working without a Contract

Published December 16, 2013 Contract , New Action , New York CIty Department of Education , UFT 1 Comment
Tags:

(from the New Action leaflet distributed at the December 2013 Delegate Assembly).
For a printable version click: December 2013 Leaflet

Good Riddance Bloomberg – Good Riddance to Working without a Contract

Members are rightfully disgusted with the NY Times editorial (12-2-13). The Times echoed Bloomberg’s call for a wage freeze for three years followed by two years of 1.25% each. The rest of the editorial covering seniority, ATRs, firing teachers, and “flexible schedules” was outrageous and right out of the corporate reformers’ playbook.

Money: UFT members are owed a 4%, 4% raise from 2009 to 2011, as the other unions already received (increases after 2011 still need to be negotiated with Mayor de Blasio.)

Retroactive Pay: Retro negotiations must cover all who worked during the years covered.

Givebacks:  Since no other union was asked for givebacks, that is the pattern. Period.

SHOULD TEACHERS’ RATINGS BE BASED ON STUDENTS’ TEST SCORES?

Published December 9, 2013 New Action , Teacher Evaluation , Uncategorized Closed
Tags:

(from the New Action leaflet distributed at the November 2013 Delegate Assembly).
For a printable version click: November 2013 Leaflet

The Teacher Evaluation Train Wreck is Unfolding Before Us

SHOULD TEACHERS’ RATINGS BE BASED ON STUDENTS’ TEST SCORES?

From Requirements of Education Law Section 3012-c:

“Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall. Teachers who are developing or ineffective will get assistance and support to improve performance. Teachers who remain ineffective can be removed from classrooms.”

This means that a teacher rated “ineffective” on both State tests and Local Measures must be rated “ineffective,” even if the principal finds them exceptional in the classroom.

New Action has opposed the Teacher Evaluation System since its inception.

Rating teachers based on using some form of the Danielson model is one thing. To tie our evaluation to student test scores is unacceptable. To have in State Law that a teacher’s rating can be based entirely on test scores is outrageous.

On Oct. 21, 2013, the 10 New Action members of the UFT Executive Board proposed:

Resolved the UFT will make it a legislative priority to remove from NY State Law any provision that makes it possible to rate a teacher ineffective entirely on test scores.

Resolved that the UFT will discuss this priority with the Mayor-Elect, in order that we might jointly lobby the New York State Legislature to effect this change.

The UFT Should Address State Education Law, 3012-c

This reasonable position was tabled by the rest of the union leadership. Their substitute resolution calls for expanding MOSL to include student work, including projects and portfolios, calls for a review process for teachers who get “Ineffectives” on local and state measures to see if the local measures were “appropriate,” “fair” and “reliable,” and calls for a moratorium on “high-stakes consequences” for state tests.

This does not go far enough. While these proposals, if negotiated with the DOE, would bring some relief from this evaluation system, they do not address the real problem: ANY EVALUATION BASED ON STUDENT TEST SCORES will not improve teaching. It will not improve our schools. It will not improve the education of our students.

The biggest difference between the New Action resolution (tabled) and the substitute resolution?  The substitute does not address necessary changes to the State Law that established this evaluation system. The legislation itself must be changed.

Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 402,673 hits