Klein letter to principals

A good letter from Joel Klein the the NYC principals.  I especially liked this:

In conversations and e-mails, many of you have told me that you look forward to the day when the new UFT rules on transfers and excessing are put into place.  In the past, many of you have been saddled with teachers who weren’t wanted elsewhere.  This made it impossible for you to have the power to choose the educators best for your children. But as we look forward to the implementation of this essential change, we must remember that if getting stuck with an unwanted math or English teacher is bad, winding up with an unwanted assistant principal is even worse.  Many of you have told me horror stories about having a cabinet member who you never would have selected imposed on your school.

I strongly believe that no assistant principal -- or any other employee, for that matter -- should be imposed on a school.  I also believe that excessed assistant principals who cannot find a supervisory position after a reasonable length of time should revert to their prior positions as teachers rather than being carried by the system indefinitely.

-----------------------------

Dear Colleagues,

Yesterday, I thanked you for all of your help in implementing changes to the teachers’ contract.  Today, as we continue to work together to put into place these changes that give our principals more power over their own classrooms, hallways, and schoolyards, I want to address another matter — negotiations with the CSA.

I have heard from a few of you about your thoughts on these ongoing negotiations in recent weeks, and I know that you have been waiting a long time for an agreement.  No one would like to see this matter settled more than I would.  In my mind, you are at the forefront of our Children First reforms and you deserve to be rewarded for the hard work you do every day.

My staff has been working hard with the City’s labor team to try to bring negotiations to a close, but contract negotiations are never simple, and this round is no exception.  This year has been particularly difficult, as we have run up against some obstacles that are making reaching a settlement especially challenging.

First on our list of challenges is agreeing to economic terms consistent with the pattern set by the city for this round of bargaining.  The cornerstone of that pattern is productivity increases in return for wage increases, and all agreements with city employees must comply.  I believe you deserve and can receive substantial raises, but as with other contract settlements, those raises are dependent upon CSA and the City/DOE agreeing on productivity increases.

Second, there are critical issues of work-rule reform.  Work-rule changes formed the backbone of our agreement with the teachers, and I believe they must also be a central element to our agreement with school leaders.

In conversations and e-mails, many of you have told me that you look forward to the day when the new UFT rules on transfers and excessing are put into place.  In the past, many of you have been saddled with teachers who weren’t wanted elsewhere.  This made it impossible for you to have the power to choose the educators best for your children. But as we look forward to the implementation of this essential change, we must remember that if getting stuck with an unwanted math or English teacher is bad, winding up with an unwanted assistant principal is even worse.  Many of you have told me horror stories about having a cabinet member who you never would have selected imposed on your school.

I strongly believe that no assistant principal -- or any other employee, for that matter -- should be imposed on a school.  I also believe that excessed assistant principals who cannot find a supervisory position after a reasonable length of time should revert to their prior positions as teachers rather than being carried by the system indefinitely.

On a similar note, I know how pleased many of you are about the fact that once the new UFT contract is fully implemented you will no longer have to comply with a prolonged three-step grievance process and arbitration every time you have to issue a letter to a teacher’s file for unsatisfactory performance or for misconduct.  I agree that this is a time-saving and critical reform.  But I don’t think we should stop by eliminating only one pile of paperwork. 

Due process rights should, of course, remain in place.  But the disciplinary process for supervisors should not be so burdensome that it becomes a deterrent to principals or superintendents taking legitimate action to correct poor performance. 

In closing, I want to assure you that I will continue to work diligently to resolve these and other issues so that we can bring negotiations to a conclusion.

Joel Klein