(From The New York Times, October 29, 2009)
By JENNIFER MEDINA
With two days left on the New York City teachers’ contract, it would be reasonable to expect a thunder-and-lightning storm of fists pounding on tables and accusations flying in the press.
But this is no ordinary year for the United Federation of Teachers, the city’s teachers’ union, or for City Hall.
Instead, there is near silence. While the union and city officials are indeed negotiating, few expect any agreement before Tuesday, which is Election Day. The union is all but certain to stay neutral in the mayoral race — a boon for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been widely criticized among the rank and file. And despite nearly constant calls for changes by the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, observers are doubtful that the new contract will contain radical changes in the way teachers are employed and paid.
Almost since the day he took over the school system in 2002, Mr. Klein has railed against what he calls the three roadblocks to creating a meritocracy among schoolteachers: seniority rights, tenure and stringent pay scales.
“These are not rational rules,” he said recently. “It is no way to govern a school system.”
The fundamental question facing the winner of Tuesday’s election will be how much change is possible. The next mayor will face a potentially crippling budget situation, the state has announced billions of dollars in midyear cuts, and the city is expected to face a $5 billion budget gap.
But teachers’ union officials are certain to push for two consecutive 4 percent annual raises, which other municipal unions have received. Given the size of the city’s teaching force — nearly 85,000 teachers — those raises would cost roughly $344 million, including pensions and benefits, in the first year, according to city officials.
Many observers believe the raise was agreed to months ago, when Randi Weingarten, then the president of the union, agreed to back Mr. Bloomberg’s efforts in Albany for renewed control of the school system. Ms. Weingarten has since become the president of the American Federation of Teachers, a national union. Her successor at the United Federation, Michael Mulgrew, has been critical of the Bloomberg administration’s reliance on standardized tests, but has done little to antagonize the mayor directly.
Much like Mr. Klein, other critics of the union have lobbied for tying teacher pay to student performance, as well as eliminating extensive work rules and making it easier to fire teachers. But some acknowledge that those kinds of changes may be far more difficult to get without additional money to sweeten the deal for the teachers’ union.
For the last two years, the city has distributed bonuses to teachers in the poorest schools if the students posted significant gains on state tests. Because test scores improved significantly last year, the city distributed nearly $30 million in bonuses to more than 90 percent of the teachers who were eligible.
Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, which has pushed for several changes in the teachers’ contract, said the mayor was trying to portray himself as a reformer and yet keep the union happy. “Why should the union agree to any changes if the mayor is not demanding them?” he said. “At some point he has got to decide that this is the only way we can get to where we want to be.”
Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., the Democratic candidate for mayor, said last week that the city could not afford 4 percent raises for teachers. But his statement, made to the editorial board of The Daily News, elicited no response from the Bloomberg campaign.
City Hall and union officials declined to comment on the contract, saying they would not negotiate in the news media. But with Mr. Thompson lagging far behind in the polls, the union would stand to gain little by endorsing him. A few union leaders believe an endorsement of Mr. Thompson would freeze contract negotiations.
Perhaps the most pressing concern for the city and the union is the expanding pool of teachers without permanent positions, officially called the absent teacher reserve. These are teachers who lose their positions but remain on the payroll after their schools are shut down, student enrollment shrinks or the budget is cut.
During his two terms, Mr. Bloomberg has increased teacher pay by 43 percent, and one of the few significant changes he was able to extract during negotiations was the right for principals to make their own hiring decisions. But that change has expanded the teacher reserve pool, as principals passed over those teachers in favor of younger, cheaper ones.
Mr. Klein tried to negotiate for time limits on keeping teachers on the payroll without permanent positions, but that demand was rejected by a state labor board.
Now, with the city spending as much as $200 million a year for teachers in the reserve pool, there could be more urgency from both sides to reach a compromise. Some leaders have privately spoken of offering a buyout to teachers who cannot find permanent positions, but others have said that would provide only a short-term solution and the pool would quickly swell again, as the Education Department continues to shut down low-performing schools.
“All roads seem to be leading to no savings in how much we spend on these teachers without jobs and no flexibility,” said Dan Weisberg, the former head of labor relations for Mr. Klein, who is now at the New Teacher Project, a group that recruits and trains rookie teachers. “The stakes are quite high, and the impact of more budget cuts on the schools will be major.”
<NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM>