THE BELL TOLLS FOR WE: COULD THE VIRTUAL LEARNING CLAUSE IN OUR NEW CONTRACT BE A DEATH KNELL FOR OUR STUDENTS AND OUR PROFESSION? – By David Ginsberg

The odds of virtual learning destroying the teaching profession are not nearly as remote as you may think, thanks to a provision in our new contract. Buried in pages 14-18 of the Memorandum of Agreement (link: https://files.uft.org/contract2023/DOE-MOA.pdf), a legitimate threat to our profession and to our students’ academic and psychological well-being, sits snuggly nestled like a carefully placed landmine waiting to explode 

Proponents of the new contract cite our one-time $3,000 signing bonuses, yearly retention payments, decrease in weekly PD time, and flexible parental outreach as reasons to be excited for the next five years. Those who oppose the contract focus on the sub-inflation salary increases, disrespectful pay structure for paraprofessionals, the continued forfeiture of the Taylor Law, and the impending changes to our healthcare as key points of contention. Both sides are overlooking the wolf in sheep’s clothing – virtual learning.

The first goal of virtual learning, according to the contract, explains that New York City will become “the first major public-school system to develop, implement and expand high-quality virtual learning programs for instruction and related services, for all students who choose this option.” Two troubling things jump out right off the bat. Firstly, virtual learning will be offered to all students. Educators have already witnessed how harmful remote learning is to our students. Several studies have revealed that students have been on an academic, psychological, social, and behavioral decline ever since returning from their nearly two-year hiatus from in-person learning. Offering virtual learning to all students will irreparably damage their academic and social development. This can end in nothing but disaster. 

The other alarming aspect of this goal is that we are setting a precedent. As the “first major public-school system to develop, implement, and expand virtual learning programs,” New York City, Michael Mulgrew, and Mayor Adams have now opened the floodgates for the rest of the country to follow suit. This has the potential to not only adversely affect the nearly one-million students in our great city, but also the tens of millions throughout the rest of the country. Now that we have paved the way for all school systems – big and small – all of our students are at risk. Virtual learning was a last ditch response to the pandemic. There was no other option. It had disastrous results on our students across the board. We are three years returned from quarantine. Virtual learning should no longer be an option for each and every student. We have already seen the calamitous impact it has had on our youth.

The scheduled release for the virtual learning option is not a slow rollout. 25% of high schools have the option to implement it this school year. 50% of high schools will have the option for the 2024-2025 school year. 75% of high schools and 25% of middle schools may choose to offer virtual learning in 2025-2026. By 2026-2027, all New York City high schools and 50% of middle schools will be able to enroll willing students in this program. Think about how tempted you would be as a teenager to jump at this opportunity not realizing how catastrophic it could be to your development. Our students don’t know any better. You know who does? Michael Mulgrew, Mayor Adams, and the City of New York. We work in a profession that touts college and career readiness as one of its tenets, yet Adams, Mulgrew, and New York City are seemingly doing everything in their power to stunt our students’ growth. Similarly, this program has the potential to shatter the lives of teachers, as well.

Despite all the details that ARE included in the MOA regarding virtual learning, two vital important pieces of information are missing. For one, there is no mention of class sizes. During the pandemic, unbeknownst to some, the class size maximum doubled. Although many schools did not implement this, they did have the option of assigning up to 64-68 students per class. Nowhere in the MOA does it mention that class sizes will be capped at our current in-person maximum levels. What does it mean for teachers if more and more students convert to remote learning and we revert to pandemic class size limits? There is no language in the MOA to prevent this from happening. This can lead to substantial downsizing. 

Secondly, these courses will be offered online. There is nothing in the contract that explicitly states that only New York City educators will be eligible to teach these classes. A colleague of mine proposed the idea that they would “farm these jobs out to someone in the Midwest for a fraction of our salary.” A scary thought, yet entirely plausible. Just imagine the savings for the city if they are able to hire outsourced teachers for half our salary to teach double the amount of students. Who cares if students receive a worse education, skate by doing the bare minimum, miss out on learning social, and behavioral norms, and are exempt from any sort of responsibility and accountability? As long as the graduation and Regents passing rates look alright, that’s all that matters. Money is the ultimate cure-all, especially for the current administration.

Virtual learning is not an immediate threat to teachers and students, but it is just around the corner. As the years go on, more and more students will enroll. Everyone will suffer. Mulgrew will assign blame to someone else. Adams will be gone. Other cities will follow suit as they jump at the opportunity to save money. Nobody will be held accountable. Grave danger awaits teachers and students in the very near future. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for we.

David Ginsberg is a pro-union advocate who believes UFT members deserve better.