UFT

United Federation of Teachers

A Union of Professionals

January 3, 2013

Mr. Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Teacher Evaluation Improper Practice Charge Dear Mr. Walcott: The United Federation of Teachers ("UFT") writes in connection with the Board of Education's ("DOE") recently filed Improper Practice charge relating to the ongoing teacher evaluation negotiations. The allegations and argument contained in the Charge reflect a serious misunderstanding of both the actions of the UFT and the relevant law. The UFT wants to negotiate a new teacher evaluation system by the January 17 deadline for unions and districts to agree on a State Education Department-approved evaluation system in order to receive an increase in State aid, as such an agreement would be better for the children of New York and for the school system as a whole. Indeed, it was the UFT that lobbied in Albany and Washington for the passage of this law and has been negotiating with the DOE, often multiple times per week, in order to reach an agreement. The UFT has not, as the DOE asserts in the charge, "terminat[ed] all negotiations regarding teacher evaluations." Rather, the UFT desires to continue the negotiation process by discussing the implementation and enforcement aspects of the evaluation process since an agreement on these issues will better inform the UFT's position on other substantive elements of the process where there has been little or no agreement between the parties. Specifically, the UFT has requested that the parties meet to discuss "the planning and roll-out process" for the teacher evaluation system. The UFT can more intelligently take positions on certain of the key components of the evaluation system in dispute if we are assured that there will be uniform implementation of any agreement and that teachers will have meaningful recourse if the process is improperly implemented. Seeking to develop an enforcement mechanism is not a demand that the parties reach agreement on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining, as you allege. To the contrary, the creation of a contract enforcement process is a mandatory subject, as is the negotiation of a grievance process.

52 Broadway, New York, NY 1000d 212.777.7500 www.uft.org

Officers: Michael Mulgrew President, Michael Mendel Secretary, Mel Aaronson Treasurer Robert Astrowsky Assistant Secretary, Mona Remain Assistant Treasurer Vice Presidents: Karen Afford, Carmen Alvarez, Richard Farkas, Catalina Fortino, Janella Hinds, Sterling Roberson

Further, the UFT believes that a discussion of teachers' workload (e.g., "the reduction of paperwork for teachers") should be part and parcel of any discussion regarding a new evaluation system. In order for a new evaluation system to function properly, teachers will need time to, among other things, conference with principals. There also may be additional tasks required with respect to domains one and four of the "Danielson" rubric. None of this work can occur during current preparation periods (or any extended time or professional period) as teachers are already using all of that time for lesson planning and to comply with the DOE's often redundant, foolish or improper demands for data analysis, curriculum development and recordkeeping. Teacher workload is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and the UFT's desire to steer negotiations in the direction of impact on workload is not the same as "demanding agreement on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining." In any event, even if these demands were considered nonmandatory, as neither the UFT nor the DOE has sought to have PERB declare an impasse, there is no reason the UFT cannot ask the DOE to consider proposals with respect to nonmandatory subjects. Nor is there anything improper about bargaining a package of demands. Moreover, contrary to your assertions, Education Law 3012-c requires that any "successor collective bargaining agreement," entered into after July 1, 2010, include the statutorily mandated components of a teacher evaluation system. Until such time as a new agreement is entered into, "any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement" then in effect shall remain in effect. As you are aware, the UFT and the DOE unfortunately have not been able to enter into a successor collective bargaining agreement since July 1, 2010. Accordingly, while the UFT, as stated above, desires a teacher evaluation agreement by January 17, 2013, the UFT is under no legal obligation to negotiate such an agreement with the DOE separate from or before a new collective bargaining agreement. Finally, the DOE should not be pursuing policies during this period that create a climate of distrust and, therefore, negatively impact the negotiation process. This is yet another reason why the UFT has continued to express its opposition to the DOE campaign to close neighborhood schools. By forcing a failed political, rather than pedagogical, agenda, the DOE undermines the trust so essential to reaching a fair evaluation system. To this end, I request that the DOE withdraw its meritless charge so that discussions between the parties may continue unfettered with the hope that agreement can be reached by the January 17 deadline. Very truly yours,

Michael ulgrew President United Federation of Teachers