Memo To The Chancellor, Why Fair Student Funding Is Bad For Student Academic Achievement.

One of the more despicable education policies under the Bloomberg Administration was the introduction of the "fair student funding" (fsf)  formula for the NYC public schools.  The "fsf" forced principals to consider their tight budgets when hiring staff and the student's academic needs became secondary to the school budget.

For decades the school staff salaries were paid by DOE Central, which was based upon the student population at the school and were given a set number of staff members.  When it came to teachers, the schools did not have to take salary into consideration and many principals would hire highly experienced educators for their schools.  However, after the infamous 2005 contract, the school funding formula was changed and the DOE decided to empower the schools by giving the principals control of their budget.  Unfortunately, the majority of schools have found themselves funding programs and consultants out of their own budget as the average school budget shrank by 14% over the last seven years.  A bad bargain indeed.The worst was the "fsf" which forced schools to hire the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.  Additionally, principals had to pay for services that were once paid for by DOE Central and another significant chunk of money was used to pay for the useless and money-sucking "Children First Network" that the school was forced to join with.

The ""fsf"  policies added to the closing down of 163 schools under Michael Bloomberg's tenure has resulted in a 2,000+ ATR pool, primarily composed of older and highly experienced quality teachers.that principals couldn't or wouldn't hire  Therefore, the influx of inexpensive "newbie" teachers, some not even certified to teach in the classroom and the "Leadership Academy " principals the run the schools is simply a recipe for failure and shows up in the poor student academic achievement scores over the last half of a decade.  Moreover, the income/racial/ academic achievement gap has actually widened which shows the failure of using the "fsf".

If Chancellor Carmen Farina actually wants to improve student academic achievement and .narrow the income/racial achievement gap, here is what she must do:

• Eliminate the "fair student funding" policy.
• Clean house at Tweed and the DOE.
• Reduce class sizes, the largest in the State.
• No more "sixth periods" to encourage teacher hiring.
• Remove principals that can't or won't collaborate with staff.
• Stop using uncertified teachers who teach out of license.

If the NYC schools are to see real student academic achievement and start to reduce the already too wide income/racial achievement gap, the Chancellor must eliminate the "fsf" and require principals to hire from the ATR pool for those quality teachers that their schools lack.  So far Chancellor Carmen Farina's tenure has been, to say the least, very disappointing as she is more of the problem and not the solution when it comes to improving the schools.

My Interview With A Uniformed Union Official About The Proposed Teacher Contract.

I spoke with a union official from one of the uniformed services and asked him what was his opinion about the proposed teachers contract with the City?  Predictably, he was not too happy with the terms of the contract and believes the City got off lucky in getting the teachers union to agree to the contract out to 2018.

Bloomberg Legacy:
He started off by blaming the contract woes on Mayor Bloomberg and his refusal to give the teachers union the "City pattern" that almost all other unions received back in 2009-10.  Moreover, he told me the Mayor deliberately defunded the Labor Reserve Fund to make sure the new Mayor could not use any money from the fund for retroactive raises.  The union official also brought out the over the years when the Mayor claimed the City was running a deficit.  Magically, by the time the budget was passed, there was a surplus.  Of course, Mayor Bloomberg used the City's surplus to spent billions of dollars for high priced consultants and programs that never seemed to benefit the public.  Even now this uniformed union official was told by many financial people that the City has large hidden surpluses and that their statements that the City doesn't have the money for significant raises as well as retroactivity rings hollow.

Pay Raises:
He belittled Michael Mulgrew's statement that the City doesn't have the money for everything.  He believes that the proposed teachers contract is inadequate and unacceptable to the uniformed unions of New York City.  The very idea of receiving 10% for seven years (1.43% annually) is insulting.  This union official believes the arbitrators would have awarded the teachers union their two 4% raises and the retroactivity that goes with it.  Especially, since the City's economy has improved markedly over the last few years.  Finally, none of the uniformed unions will accept "zeros" as the UFT did in the two year 2011-12 period.  Instead, it will be more like the TWU contract that has at least a 1% raise annually from 2012 and with full retroactivity.

Two Tier System:
He was very dismissive of the teachers union acceptance of the reduced rights for the ATRs.  He said a union should never have different rules for the same job title.  Its not good for union solidarity in the long term.  According to him, there is no similar two-tiered system in any of the Municipal unions that is being accepted by the UFT.

Retroactive Pay:
He understands that the retroactive pay was the major reason for the union to agree to the inadequate raises and the deferrals.  However, he doesn't understand how the union could agree to allowing the City not to pay members who worked in the 2009-10 school year their retroactive pay if they resign, get terminated, or die in service?  He thinks that's terrible and that somebody will be filling a lawsuit to get that money they earned.

News Media:
Interestingly, the news media supported the proposed contract but of late has changed their minds.  This union official believes that its simply a ploy to have the other unions agree to this contract as a "City pattern".

Conclusion: 
This uniformed union official said that the proposed teachers contract will not be the new "City pattern" and that the raises will reflect the improved economic condition of the City which can support more substantial raises and full retroactivity.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Of The Proposed Contract.

It's no secret that many of the members are dissatisfied with the proposed UFT contract with the City but should they vote for it next week?  Of course my answer is NO!  However, lets look at the various aspects of the contract.

The Good:
The contract eventually gives us the retroactive pay for the 2009-10 years when Michael Bloomberg failed to follow the "City pattern".  The money owed to its members is significant.  For recent  retirees and members who retires before June 30, 2014 will get all their retroactive pay in one lump sum and have their pensions adjusted for the retroactive raises. All per session and coverage pay will be adjusted as well for the last two years.

The Bad:
All the retroactive raises are deferred and payments will start only in May of 2015 and end in October 2020.  Moreover, the two 4% raises that the union claims they are receiving is really two 3% raises.  See Steve Hiller's  analysis.  Additionally, the loan that we gave the City in not getting the "City pattern" does not include any interest as previously was done.  Further, the union agreed to a "0 raise" for eighteen months and a toatl raise less than the inflation rate. Moreover, the per session pay is only paid for the last two years.   Finally, the teacher evaluation system that requires termination for two "ineffective ratings" remain unchanged as well as no commitment to reduce class sizes.

:The Ugly:
Where do I start?  First, the UFT has agreed to a member "caste system" with diminished due process rights for ATRs and no "mutual consent".  Worse, are the 25% of the ATRs who were charged under 3020-a and found innocent of these termination charges.  The DOE has decided that they don't have to offer these "untouchables" an interview of "provisional appointment".  Shockingly, the union actually approved this attempt to punish the ATRs again.  Second, teachers who resign or are terminated will not get the retroactive raises or payments even when they worked in those years.  Finally, there is no change in the "fair student funding" that has resulted in principals hiring the "cheapest" and not the "best teachers" for their students.

VOTE NO!

 

Note:  Here is the updated version of Steve Hiller's analysis 

To see the table,  click the table picture and use view to make it even larger.

Vote No On Monday For Our Self Respect.

The UFT members in the schools will be voting yes or no for the proposed contract.  By voting no you will be telling the UFT leadership that we refuse to throw the "ATRs under the bus", allowing for a DOE imposed "caste system",  a miniscule raise that is less than the inflation rate, deferred payments as far away as 2020, and a new "City pattern" that has made the other unions angry at us. 

Did the DOE commit to reduce class size?  No!  Did they eliminate the "fair student funding" ?  No! Has the DOE agreed to reduce the amount of observations? No!  Has there really been a change of tone at the DOE?  No! The answer to all these questions is no!   Please read the following blogs and see why this contract is dangerous for our members to approve.

• nyc educator.
• ICEUFT blog
• MORE blog
• ATR NYC 

VOTE NO!!!!!!!

Can Retiring ATRs Get Both The Lump Sum Retroactivity And Severance? - No!

I was asked a question from an ATR who plans to retire at the end of the school year could he get both the lump sum retroactive raises along with the immediate pension boost by retiring before June 30th, 2014 and the severance package?  The answer is no!   He can either take the ATR severance package and retire in July or take the lump sum retroactivity by retiring by June 30th, but he can't have both.

The reason he can't take both options is that the MOA states that for ATRs a severance package (20% of a person's salary) is only available between 30 and 60 days after the contract is ratified by the members.  The earliest the contract can be ratified is June 3, 2014.  Therefore, the first day the severance can be offered is July 3rd, 2014.  Consequently, if the ATR waited to take the severance package, he would then get the retroactive raises and the pension enhancements at the same time as active in-service members.

The question then becomes which option should he take?  The severance package and retire in July or the lump sum retroactive raises and pension boost and retire by June 30th?  The answer depended on that individual's situation and the tax considerations.  However, it does seem to me that taking the severance and retiring in July is the preferred approach since the ATR retiree will eventually get his retroactive raises and pension enhancements, while getting an up to an extra $20,000 severance as well.  Moreover, by retiring in July, he is covered for August by his health insurance and wouldn't have to pay $110 a month for retiree health insurance.  Finally, his tax situation for this year would eat up some of his retroactive pay because of the large lump sum payment.

Another point to consider, by taking the severance package, the ATR retiree can look forward to having annual raises in his pension and additional paychecks in the first five years of retirement when his pension is not eligible for a cost of living adjustment.  That's a nice little present going forward.  While this may not be the proper choice for everybody, it would appear to be the choice I would make given my present circumstances.

The DOE Continues To Punish ATRs Who Won Their 3020-a Hearings And That's Unfair.

 
























One of the most disturbing part of the proposed UFT/DOE contract is the "caste system" that is being established by the DOE for the ATRs with diminished "due process rights" ,  lack of a "mutual consent" requirement, and worst of all the punishing of ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings and that's unfair.

According to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) the union has agreed to allow the DOE to continue to punish those ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings by agreeing that the DOE did not have to offer these ATRs an interview or a "provisional placement", no matter how long ago their 3020-a hearings happened.  These ATRs who survived their discipline process are now known as the "untouchables" and are being placed in a separate, or lowest category of the union approved DOE "caste system".

Approximately 25% of the ATRs are now classified as "untouchable" and they include any member that received a fine of $2,000 or more, a 30 day suspension or longer, and who agreed to a stipulation.  Moreover, there is no time limit, looking back.  That means that a member who won their 3020-a termination hearing in the last century could be included as an "untouchable".  The lowest DOE caste.

These "untouchables" include many quality educators who did nothing more than being targeted by a vindictive or biased Principal, or challenged an administrator about violating their or their students rights (IEP for one) that resulted in the bogus or frivolous 3020-a charges.  Because of how the New York City 3020-a arbitration works, the arbitrator usually gives something to the DOE and a $2,000 award is simply a slap on the wrist.  Therefore, almost all teachers who went through the 3020-a process is included in the lowest DOE caste, the "untouchables". Therefore, no matter how long ago an educator was subject to the 3020-a process and no matter how many satisfactory observations and ratings they received since, they are now "untouchable" according to the DOE. 

How can our union have agreed to this travesty of justice in allowing the DOE to punish the ATRs who won their 3020-a termination hearings by placing them in the lowest caste and treating them as "untouchables".  Shame on the DOE who developed this "caste system", shame on the union leadership who agreed to it, and shame on the members who vote yes for this unjust contract that treats its members differently.

VOTE NO!

According To One Math Teacher We Are Not Getting Our Full Retroactive Raises.

One of the major selling points of the proposed contract is that we are getting the "full retroactive raises" despite the length of years to actually receive it.  In a contract that is giving its members a 1.43% annual raise for the seven years, less than the 2.2% inflation rate for the last three years.  Failure to give us the 11.3% raise in our upcoming September checks (instead its 2.1%).  A " zero raise" for eighteen months with most of these raises and "retroactive raises" deferred and back-loaded to the end of the contract and "throwing the ATRs under the bus".  It now appears we are being shortchanged on our "retroactive pay". 


Esteemed high school Math teacher Steve Hiller of the Bronx has taken the time to fully analyze the math involved and believes the City and the UFT used some questionable accounting tricks to claim the teachers will be made whole by October 2020.  Without going into detail here is the email Mr. Hiller sent me.  Decide for yourself.

UFT CONTRACT: Consequences of no interest on deferred payments

The following is a brief examination of the math behind the deferred payments in the proposed contract. The claim made on numerous occasions by Mulgrew that UFT members will receive “100 percent of the money they are entitled to, back to Nov. 1, 2009, by 2020” is at best a reductionist simplification of the true nature of the payments, and at worst a willful attempt at manipulation of the membership. New York City is the financial capital of the world. It is simply impossible to accept that the framers of this contract simply forgot about the role of compound interest when payments are deferred over time.

I must admit up front that I am by no means an accountant, and have little knowledge of the formulas used in that world. I have approached this problem purely mathematically, and it is conceivable that I have neglected some factor. That said, given the elegance of the result, both intuition and experience tell me that this is highly likely to be the correct solution. If anyone has the relevant financial knowledge, I would love to hear from you.

The interest calculations here are complex. On the one hand, the city is apportioning raises in a piecemeal fashion over many years. Each of these individual amounts grow for different lengths of time. On the other, the city is making several discrete payments to us at many different points in time, each decreasing the total amount that will grow with interest. To the extent of my understanding of the contract, the equation below tells the value of the aggregate monies owed to us in 2020 if they were invested at a rate r from the time they were earned (where an interest rate of 4% corresponds to r = 1.04).

       

Below in the table on the left you will find the 2020 value of the retroactive payments at top salary compounded for various interest rates. Note the 0% rate is what the contract proposes. (For the life of me I cannot figure out why the UFT claims the total payments for top salary is $54,000 – even at 0% interest, my current understanding of the contract insists that this should be $56,000.) To find your loss from not getting any interest, pick a percentage rate and subtract $54,000 from the value.

The table on the right is the big takeaway. It shows how many months at your current salary the contract is deficient for various interest rates. This table should be roughly independent of what that salary actually is. This can be viewed as how many months the contract expects you to work for free.

Again, this is a very complex problem and I am not an accountant. But it is clear to me that very pertinent information has been withheld from the discourse, and this is something that both the city and the UFT are almost certainly aware of. I speculate that this was a way to claim we are being given the 4% + 4% as per pattern bargaining, without having to actually pay it to us. To wit, if we were instead given 3% + 3% with five and a half percent interest, we would be receiving almost identical payouts.

As someone who knows the math, I will say that this very much feels like an attempt to manipulate those who do not, and this intellectual dishonesty rankles me considerably. I fear that many UFT members are unaware of the implications of the proposed 0% compounded interest, and my hope is to ensure that you have all relevant information before you cast your vote. If you would like to know the derivation of the equation I have used, feel free to contact me.

tl;dr – contract not as sweet as purported, and wasn’t all that sweet to begin with.

- Hiller

 

Mr Hiller's email address is ixtapalapaquett@gmail.com