Archive Page 20

Summer Vacation is also Discontinuance Season in the UFT

While many of us are enjoying our summers, other UFT members are in a state of panic as they receive—or expect to receive—notices of discontinuance.

Discontinuances are one of the oddest and cruelest fixtures of the DOE’s employment structure. With the stroke of a pen, a single principal can destroy a young teacher’s career for ‘any and no reason.’ And those unlucky enough to be in this situation have little recourse. (Indeed, the best solutions are usually preventative – convincing a principal to let one go onto OpenMarket before a discontinuance is issued, a method that will be useless for teachers already receiving surprise notices in July and August).

The root of the problem lies in New York State tenure law. Through the process of discontinuance, districts in the empire state can remove a teacher from further consideration of tenure—i.e. fire and blacklist them within the school district of record—for any and no reason. But in Albany, Utica, Elmira, and Buffalo, teachers discontinued from one district can easily commute on over to the next one, resuming their careers without much difficulty. New York City, however, is often the only commutable work location for teachers who live here. That means a discontinuance in Manhattan or Brooklyn leaves many teachers with the unenviable choice of either getting out of teaching or getting out of Dodge.

The problem is doubly bad for High School teachers, who are counted by the City as working under one single district for tenure purposes. Whether the discontinued teacher had been working in St. George or Coop City, their career—as, say, an NYC high school Spanish teacher—is over. For them, being discontinued means they can either try their luck in middle schools or apply to work under a different license, assuming they have one. Elementary teachers, on the other hand, are only discontinued in the geographic district they work in, which means that—unless they had worked in the single-districted Staten Island—they can resume their careers within even the same borough, assuming they can find a school willing to hire them. The High School Executive Board put forward a resolution, which passed at the DA, to make the high school experience comparable to the elementary one, but even if we succeed, that won’t be nearly good enough.

That’s because, even for elementary school teachers, being discontinued means getting a city-wide black mark—a red flag—that makes principals who could hire you in the limited aforementioned contexts think twice before doing so. It’s why, while single-licensed high school physics teachers are de jure discontinued from working in all of New York City after being denied tenure, elementary school teachers are often de facto discontinued from working in the rest of the city as well, unless they have a particularly hard-to-staff license and/or are willing to work in a hard-to-staff district.

Why do we have a system by which in order to free up a position at a NYC school, a principal has to destroy the career of the teacher they want to replace? There are absolutely teachers who may show they are unfit to work in any school at all, but why do we submit those teachers to the same ‘firing finality’ as a first year teacher who would probably be fine with a little more work? Or the teacher doing a stellar job but who is in the way of hiring the principal’s neighbor’s newly certified niece?

It’s a question we need to ask. Teaching in New York City is not like other careers in New York City. Getting fired from a law firm means you lose your job at the law firm, not at all law firms in the city. But, because there is effectively only one employer for teachers in New York, losing your job as a teacher at one school means effectively losing your entire career.

Today, the 2023 contract ballot count is taking place. Discontinued teachers will never work under that contract, should it pass. But, probationary teachers set to work in September will. And they’ll find not a single line in that contract offering them enhanced due process for discontinuance. They’ll find no language offering reduced consequences for being discontinued for different reasons. It’s a glaring omission—and one of many things that must be fixed should we get a chance to go back to the bargaining table.

Teachers deserve better than the possibility of losing their careers as educators in New York City due to the whims of an errant or abusive principal. We can and must rectify the situation.

2023-2024 Calendar ‘Fixed’ – Regardless of How You Vote on the Contract

It’s just about time for vacation. And teachers and students no longer need to dread an arbitrarily extended school year when they return. That’s because, today, sources from the DOE and UFT announced positive changes to the 2023-2024 calendar. Not to mention, in an unprecedented move, the City also released more tentative calendar drafts for the next two school years – allowing NYC families the opportunity to potentially book trips years in advance.

This is a good thing, particularly because until today, the 2023-2024 calendar was brutal. Teachers and students would have been expected to work about a week of school days beyond the 180-day minimum, including two days of Passover, Easter Monday, and Eid al-Adha. The extra days of labor were especially vexing because of NYC’s newfound policy of having ‘remote’ days in the event of inclement weather. Without the need for snow days, there was no reason to add any extra instructional days beyond the 180-day legal mandate.

UFT leadership initially expressed ire over the former calendar, but more over the DOE’s implicit adaptation of the Pilot Work Day without Mulgrew’s go-ahead (not because of the added days of labor). It wasn’t until teachers started voicing their discontent that UFT leadership began giving lip service to the latter issue. On June 12th, a seemingly symbolic resolution appeared at the executive board, resolving to fight to add the missing Passover days and Easter Monday. UFC added Eid. The resolution never made it to the DA though, as the following day we unexpectedly were presented with a PowerPoint on the Tentative Agreement, which understandably took up the majority of the agenda.   

Today, however, in the middle of a contract ratification vote, and in the wake of much bad press over a catastrophic DOE data leak, we were presented with the news of an improved calendar. Interestingly, all reports suggested that the DOE had acted on its own behalf – not even mentioning the UFT. The one union-affiliated action mentioned by Chalkbeat, for instance, was Melissa Williams’s widely successful petition over Passover. Folks may remember that UFT leadership declined to support that petition.

So, why, in the middle of a contract ratification vote, did members receive a communication from ‘Rachel from UFT’ claiming: “As part of our negotiations on the tentative contract agreement, the DOE agreed to revise the 2023-24 school year calendar to add four more holidays?” Why, also did UFT employees turn to social media to say the quiet part out loud – that if members didn’t vote in the contract, we wouldn’t get those four days? After all, readers of the MOA know there’s no new language about four extra days off (which we should have had off in the first place). Anyone with a grasp of logic also knows that if the extra days were conditional on contract negotiations, the contract would first have to be approved before they could be announced. But, voting isn’t even closed yet, and the City has already announced the new holidays.

Clearly, the four extra days are not conditional on a yes vote. Clearly, UFT leadership is mischaracterizing the new holidays as a carrot and stick to add a little extra ‘yes vote infrastructure’ in the last few days of ratification just as it did with SBO threats.

So, when you vote on the contract, if you’ve still yet to do so, vote based on the actual language of the MOA. It’s on the basis of that language, and not on the basis of Unity’s propaganda and misrepresentations, that New Action Caucus has opted to recommend voting ‘no’ on this contract.

A Different Kind of ‘Pay cut:’ When Student/Employee Data is Compromised

On Friday, reports surfaced that the data of thousands of NYCDOE students and employees was compromised, after a breach that also affected several companies and governmental agencies. In some cases, the information hacked included sensitive identifiers like social security numbers. We don’t know who was affected yet or even the specific date when we will.

UFT headquarters was slow to communicate with members about the issue, but finally sent out an email on Sunday night. (CSA had done so by Friday). In that email, we learned that: “The DOE is in the process of determining precisely which staff and students were affected and which confidential information was compromised in each instance. The DOE plans to notify affected staff and caregivers and offer them access to an identity-monitoring service. In the meantime, all of us should be extra vigilant and be on the lookout for any unusual online activity or communications.” We also learned that “The union will continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure the DOE and the city expeditiously take the appropriate steps to protect us and the families we serve. We are advocating that the DOE provide credit fraud protection to any UFT member whose confidential information was compromised in this breach.”

It’s indicative that the response is vague. UFT appears to be advocating for the DOE to do what it already planned to do, which is to offer access to an “identity-monitoring service,” unless they distinguish that from “credit fraud protection.” There’s also no information about how much protection UFT members might be afforded, and how much they themselves might be on the hook for if their identity is stolen and unauthorized accounts or major purchases are made. There’s also precious little information about how long this unspecified protection would be given to UFT members. When a similar situation occurred to postal workers in 2014, for instance, employees were only offered a single year of protection. If cybercriminals wait 366 days before using the compromised data of UFT members to cause financial or other harm, will we be on our own?

In the age of big data, where employer-stored data that could be used to destroy the lives of members is at a hacker’s finger tips, our union needs to be proactive. Our new would-be contract ups the amount that the Board can reimburse teachers for damaged personal property from $100 to $500. That’s an improvement, but the data breach and our union’s delayed and lackluster response exposes that the bigger risk to members’ finances may be our cyber-vulnerability.

Vague and reactive procedures aren’t enough. The UFT must ensure that no member is at risk of employer-caused identity theft and the catastrophic financial consequences that this act can engender. Period.


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
September 2026
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 414,791 hits