Educational Innovation And Teacher Union Contracts

The exchange between Eduwonk’s Andy Rotherham and ourselves [the original Eduwonk post, our response, Eduwonk's rejoinder] is worth a careful read because it highlights what is wrong with much of the inside-the-beltway education think tank take on teacher union contracts.

There is a common prejudice in these circles — that contracts are inflexible collections of out-dated work rules that do not permit educational innovation — which simply does not reflect the on the ground reality. In the optics of this world view, the educational vision and educational work of teacher unions is the “invisible man.” Little attention is paid to what we have negotiated into our contracts to allow and even encourage educational innovation, often with the most minimal cooperation on the management side. Then when someone bumps into an actual example of that innovation, as Rotherham did, they don’t rethink the prejudice, but decide that the innovation must be taking place outside of the terms of the contract.

The UFT started our two charter schools, and committed ourselves to running them according to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with the NYC DoE, precisely to demonstrate that educational innovation and the best educational practices can be accomplished within the terms of that agreement. Even a cursory reading of Article 8 of our contract, Education Reform, will demonstrate that there are ample opportunities to engage in all manner of educational innovation within the terms of the agreement. There are many progressive schools in New York City that employ that article to implement non-traditional and experimental school schedules and programs.

The simple reality here is that there is nothing the two UFT charter schools are doing, with their extended days or in other features of their program and schedule, that a New York City DoE school could not do tomorrow. Take our extended day, which Rotherham has convinced himself must take place outside of the terms of our agreement. In our secondary school, we run the extended day program by putting teachers are overlapping schedules, one early and one late, so the teachers work a regular work day, but the school day runs longer for the students. The fact is that many high schools in New York City have overlapping schedules for the staff and students, as a triage method of serving an overcrowded school building where all of the students simply can not be accommodated on a single schedule. As a technical matter, all that we did was use that configuration for staff alone, thus lengthening the student day. The important lesson of our schedule — and what differentiates us from most charter schools that have an extended day, such as those of Eva Moskowitz [who has incorrectly claimed that an extended day is not possible within the terms of the UFT-DoE contract] — is that a longer day can be constructed without it being at the expense of teachers who are already giving their all.

The real issue that inside-the-beltway education think tanks have is not that teacher union contracts prevent educational innovation, but that they put limits on management rights and management authority. Union critics seek unfettered management power, such as the power to fire without any due process, and arguments about educational innovation are only stage props for achieving that objective. Yet in the real world of schools, unfettered management power does not equate to educational innovation. Real educational change takes place under a rather different set of circumstances, when teachers are full, active partners in the process. When you read Article 8 of our contract, it becomes clear that the vision of educational change which led the UFT to negotiate these clauses is one which is done with teachers, not to them or at them expense. It requires the active participation and active consent of teachers.

 Print