Posts Tagged 'New York City'

Be It Resolved… That the UFT Delegate Assembly Vote on More Resolutions

The Delegate Assembly (DA) holds monthly meetings (October-June) in which elected chapter leaders and delegates throughout the city discuss union issues. The DA is often referred to as the highest decision-making body in the UFT. At the end of each meeting, the DA votes on resolutions that usually directly impact our union. These resolutions are proposals that often center around topics such as our working conditions, political endorsements, legislative priorities, supporting social issues and other unions, and healthcare, just to name a few. The resolution period is, for all intents and purposes, when the work of the DA is supposed to get done. If the DA votes to support a resolution, that resolution is supposed to become the official stance and policy of the UFT.

The DA hit the ground running this year, voting on eight resolutions in October (one of which was deemed moot) and an additional five in November. Over the next seven months, we voted on a total of ten resolutions, only voting on one most of the time. The number of resolutions voted on by month this school year is as follows:

October – 8 (1 moot)

November – 5

December – 2

January – 2

February – 1

March – 1

April – 1

May – 1

June – 2

The massive dip since November is problematic. Many vital resolutions have been left to languish since the DA only voted on ten since December. One proposed resolution that we were unable to vote on calls for the DOE to respond to low survey scores, implement improvement plans, and enforce ethical administration of our annual school surveys. Year after year, school staff fill out these surveys, yet nothing happens to help struggling schools and chapters with subpar leadership. Imagine if our union was able to successfully convince the DOE to get involved and mediate or otherwise try to mend problems within our schools based on the annual school survey results. Members would not only feel more empowered since their voices would be heard, but perhaps some of those seemingly impossible-to-solve issues would be remedied, or at least negotiated to the point where they become tolerable.

A different resolution sought to urge the DOE and school construction to prioritize and allocate resources to schools in need of adequate Wi-Fi bandwidth, an issue many of us grapple with on a regular basis.

Another resolution proposed an adjustment to staffing in 3K and Pre-K classrooms, advocating for there to be at least two adults in every 3K and Pre-K classroom, which would greatly benefit early childhood educators and students.

There’s a resolution currently sitting ninth in the queue (not kidding) demanding a more legitimate role for educators and families who serve on C-30 committees. As we all know, the C-30 process is a complete farce and waste of time. The principal (or superintendent) hires whoever they want, regardless of the input given by the rest of the committee. The C-30 process badly needs a remodel. At this pace, we’ll never have the opportunity to push this proposal forward.

A resolution seeking human oversight and accountability regarding AI in schools – an issue that becomes more important by the second – is currently last in a long line of its lingering siblings. Alas, we wait.

There’s more, but you get the point. Thirteen resolutions untouched and ignored. Many have been sitting there for months. It’s not just about the resolutions that have been left hanging, either. Think about the ones that are never even brought up during the motion period because people are dissuaded from proposing a resolution to the following month’s agenda when they see there are a dozen others ahead of theirs.

We need to vote on more resolutions moving forward. Allotting a specific amount of time to tackle resolutions every month might help. Occasionally holding a bonus DA meeting when resolutions get badly backlogged may be another possible solution. Someone once suggested decoupling the resolution period from the President’s Report and holding multiple meetings each month, allowing us more time to vote. Whatever the solution(s) may be, we need to prioritize voting on as many resolutions as possible in the future.

Diversity and Teach for America

by Jonathan Halabi
(documents from Seattle battle with TfA are at the bottom, below the fold)

Last Monday I tried to amend an Exec Board resolution about increasing diversity in the workplace. I was concerned about how the resolution handled Teach for America.  I’ll explain:

For the last 10 years, as alternate certification through the New York City Teaching Fellows and Teach for America has gone up, the number of new Black and Hispanic educators has gone down. Decades of progress has been undone. New Action helped get the Economic and Social Justice Committee working on this. A report was generated; a resolution crafted. The final statement read:

Be It Further Resolved that the UFT through its own efforts and in conjunction with the Department of Education persuade the Teach for America program to expand its pool of potential teachers to include more teachers of diverse backgrounds and advocate that both Teach for America and the NYC Teaching Fellows actively recruit more African-American and Latino teachers.

Now, the rest of the resolution says that we will “demand” of the DoE or use “all of [our] resources to compel…” But here we were going to make nice with them, and persuade TfA? Just an objection to tone, right?

More seriously, the resolution misunderstands what Teach for America is.  TfA is an ideologically-driven, anti-union club. It draws, mostly, from elite colleges and universities. Its recruits in the majority teach only for two years, not because they can’t hack it, but by design. They move on to education policy, education administration, charter schools, foundations, etc, etc, by design.  With a two-year career, they also model burnout-pace test-prep, sometimes boosting scores, always adding instability, often cheating real learning.

AND THEY DISPLACE LOCAL RECRUITS, far more likely to make long-term commitments to our students and their schools, and far more likely to be Black or Hispanic. Teach for America whitens the teaching force by design. We have numbers in New York City that support this point. In 1990 new teacher recruitment was under 30% Black and Hispanic. From 1994 – 2001 it was up over 40%. But under Klein it fell immediately back down to 1 in 4. This coincides with TfA coming to NYC, persuasively.

Teach for America was part of a discussion about teacher shortage. Districts, including NYC, pay a bounty of thousands of dollars for each TfA (temporary) teacher. But TfA has been muscling into districts with no shortage of teacher. Sacramento just turned them down, good on them. But the latest is Seattle, where a very public debate occurred before the district agreed to pay Michelle Rhee’s corps $4 thousand per teacher to reduce minority hiring.

My amendment (to remove the above-quoted resolved) was defeated. There may have been some confusion with the Teaching Fellows, my fault. We may have some leaders who mistakenly want to engage TfA. But the problem remains in front of us: We should not be discussing with Teach for America how to recruit better, we should be planning how to keep them out of New York. Our commitment to our schools, to our students, and to diversity demands that of us.

A few Seattle documents, the union reaction, a teacher’s reaction, a parent’s reaction, and a link to a long discussion, are below the fold: Continue reading ‘Diversity and Teach for America’


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
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 411,960 hits