Why The 5K Differential May Be a Game Changer (What I like About the Contract)

While I'm upset to learn that teachers don't expect anything more from their union than a raise worth just a few percent, there are certain parts of the new UFT contract that I actually like and am looking forward to seeing once it is (probably) ratified today. These are qualified acknowledgements, and I'll try to qualify each one of them the best way I can, but they're acknowledgements nonetheless. Today, I'll take a look at the $5,000 differential for working in hard-to-staff schools

That differential, which pays $5,000 to teachers who continue to work in "hard to staff schools" addresses a problem that has been a part of NYC schools for a very long time. It is a fact of NYC education that young teachers, who have not yet learned their craft, start out in "difficult" schools and, as they learn, move on to 'easier' schools (I remember being a bit startled when Podair mentioned it as a problem way back in the 1960s). This leaves the "difficult" schools in a perpetual state of instability as they staff their classrooms. Teachers are the backbone of any school and if that backbone is constantly changing and in a continued state of 'not yet ready for prime time' (as many young teachers are), any hope for the stability of the school evaporates.

The solution to this over the past decade has been to recruit "microwave teachers" from TFA or the Teaching Fellows program. That these folks stick around for a year or two, then leave, has actually made the problem much much worse as it has institutionalized the instability instead of taking it away.

The sad thing is that these schools typically serve some of the students with the highest potential for success that our city has.  Some of them may require greater academic attention than others, but that academic attention will never occur if these students proceed through twelve years of public schooling in a perpetual state of learning from brand new teachers. This dilemma of staffing schools will not overcome the effects of poverty or of governmental policies that ignore it. But when the issue is satirized in the Onion with such headlines as, "Can We Please, Just Once, Have A Real Teacher?", any sane person should see that the problem of bringing experienced teachers to students of hard to staff schools must be addressed.

Just to be clear: must-be-addressed.

This stipend for $5,000 is not nearly enough of a differential to fix this enormous issue that our students face. It isn't, for example, enough money for one experienced "super teacher" to go into an environment that, at first, may not possess the most ideal teaching conditions. It may, however, be enough for teachers who currently teach in these schools, teachers who would otherwise be moving on when their skills develop (and who currently are)  to do something they've never done before: Not leave. That process alone -not leaving- might be enough for a core group of young teachers to grow in that environment and give the school the chance it needs.  As they mature and develop the stability that more experienced teachers have, the school culture will grow and mature with them. And being part of a school culture that knows how to create a positive environment for children is of great benefit to them.

Bottom line: The $5,000 differential, which pays some teachers more money to work in some schools, is not a solution. But it does, finally, address a problem and may, in fact, be a game changer.

Many Teachers Have No Stake Fighting For Retroactive Pay

Michael Mulgrew was on the Brian Lehrer Show yesterday and the topic of retroactive pay came up. According to this Schoolbook.org piece, Mulgrew admitted that backpay was a 'big issue' for New York City teachers.

The Schoolbook piece went on to feature the thoughts of "Nate" -a teacher who called in to say that retroactive pay was not as big of a deal for him as the reduction in paperwork and the ability to loosen the grip of the work rules. Nate's thoughts were a significant part of the rest of the post.

A commenter (I love comment sections) named "Allan" made a point which I found very interesting:

I'm curious as to whethewr those teachers who would forego retro would be eligible for it. After all, you have to have been working since 2009 to be entitled to full back pay.

The point Allan makes is well worth thinking over. Conventional wisdom states that over half of new New York City teachers quit within the first five years. It also states that senior teachers are retiring just as soon as they are able. If that's true, then it stands to reason a great many of our colleagues, being newer that we, don't have a direct financial interest in any fight for retroactive pay as we do.

To a new teacher, any amount of backpay may seem "paltry" (a commenter's use of the word. Not mine) in exchange for less demanding work rules. This is because for them, a check with retro pay would be exactly that -paltry. It's easy to give up next to nothing in exchange for something that matters to you.

I don't blame younger teachers for thinking this way. If you were a less senior teacher, which would be more attractive to you: a reduction in the insane amount of paperwork you have to do? Or an extra check for $1,500? If I were a young teacher, I'd pick the reduction in paperwork.

Of course, I'm not. I'm a more senior teacher. I have a house and a family and I'm living the dream and the lack of those raises has taken it's toll on my wardrobe, personal life and my debt to earnings ratio. Whatsmore, I stand to gain over $30,000 in back pay if the city stays within 1) the bargaining pattern for '09-'11 and 2) their own recent pattern of coughing up the money it owes for retroactive pay (and that's just for the '09-'11 contract alone). For someone like me, hearing 'eh screw the retro pay. Let's focus on work rules' is like nails drawing across a chalkboard (I can literally see the dollars fly out of my bank account).

And that's just it. There is a real deep divide among teachers over this issue. Older teachers have a large financial stake in fighting for retropay. Younger teachers do not. They simply don't have as much money to gain from retro.  That's probably why many are willing to give it up as a bargaining chip during negotiations (ah, the Gawker Generation: They sure do know how to play negotiator with our money. Don't they? ;) ).

Thing is, there are a lot more younger teachers in our union than used to be.


Written by,
Ed (who, despite managing his finances well, racked up $20,000 in debt during the recession when he normally wouldn't have ... and sure would like to pay off the credit cards).