Archives for category: Unions

Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News writes today that President Obama has been terrific on education reform issues: he has challenged teachers’ unions, pushed for merit pay, encouraged the expansion of charter schools, and used billions of dollars in stimulus funds (via Race to the Top) to promote an agenda that either President Bush would envy. In its editorials, the Daily News has stridently defended charters, testing, and accountability, and has led the charge against the teachers’ union. The billionaire owner of the Daily News, Mort Zuckerman, is on the board of the Broad Foundation, which avidly promotes school closings and privatization.

So imagine Josh’s disappointment that the President is now kowtowing to those teachers unions and saying that more money will solve the problems. He writes, “So count me disappointed that Obama is campaigning for reelection with education rhetoric that is ripped right out of a dusty old Democratic Party playbook.” Wow. A Democratic President actually sounding like a Democrat on education.

Josh wonders why the President doesn’t stick up for his strong testing-and-accountabiilty and school choice agenda. Why doesn’t he boldly admit that his program is not all that different from Romney’s? (There are two big issues where they differ: Romney supports vouchers, Obama doesn’t; Obama wants to help students with their crushing student loans, Romney doesn’t.) UPDATE: (One other major difference: Romney thinks anyone should be allowed to teach, without any certification or standards, and you can bet that he will continue the Republican assault on teachers’ unions.)

Josh implies that the President is reaching out to teachers and their unions and supporters of public education because–guess what?–it is an election year. With a few more eloquent speeches, maybe he can persuade them that his agenda has some resemblance to the traditional Democratic view that schools should have adequate resources, that teachers have a right to bargain collectively, that the federal government has a responsibility to promote equity (not competition), and that school choice is the rightwing plan to privatize the public schools.

Well, it is good to hear the rhetoric. That’s a change. We can always hope that he means it. But that, of course, would mean ditching Race to the Top and all that absurd rightwing rhetoric about how schools can fix poverty, all by themselves.

LG responds to another reader who suggested that eliminating unions and tenure was “part of the solution” to reinventing education:

“I can tell you that eliminating teacher unions is part of the solution, not THE solution. Self-interest groups have to lay down their swords. There are so many structural changes we need to make to our public education system. Lifetime tenure and ‘last-in, first out’ policies are only pieces of the puzzle.”

You still have not responded to the request made in another post for just what exactly the unions are doing that is bad for public education. Instead, you are spewing the same “unions are bad” stuff with no evidence of how.

Let’s shed a little light on the misinformation in your comments.

Lifetime tenure does not mean “lifetime job.” School districts have the power to bring tenure charges up on ANY tenured teacher and prove such charges are with merit. At that point, districts can and do terminate tenured teachers’ contracts. The power is with the school districts–if they do not prove that their charges are valid, then that is on them, not the unions.

The unions only protect the tenured employee’s right to a hearing on the matter. This is actually a good thing for the schools because it gives teachers a chance to speak up for themselves without fear of being fired for frivolous reasons. It provides some validity to termination instead of allowing districts to terminate teachers’ contracts for political reasons.

Tenure also grants a teacher academic freedom: “…the freedom of teachers…to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure. Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate.” (Fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/2591/academic-freedom)

Tenure is good for the schools because it encourages a dedicated staff of individuals to stay in a particular district. In the private sector, the instances of “job-hopping” (at least in a decent economy) are much greater as employees are always trying to get better-paying positions. You are aware that teachers cannot transfer tenure rights from district to district in order to get better compensation packages, right? Some districts will grant a new hire a few years against the salary schedule for “some” experience, but tenure has to be re-earned every time a teacher switches to a new district. It does not behoove teachers to go “job-hopping” since they always have to earn tenure again and again.

Non-tenured teachers live in fear that they will be fired because the principal doesn’t like their personalities or the way they part their hair. Tenured teachers have more incentive to stay with their districts. Therefore, you get a staff of teachers who invest in the school district and community. They have a vested interest in the district since they are teaching in it over the long haul.

“Last in, first out” is not a perfect system, but without it, public schools would be filled with novice teachers since districts will seek to cut expenses by firing those at the top of the salary guide.  Districts notoriously hire private contractors to do large work projects on their public buildings using a practice known as “going with the lowest bidder.” For those who believe that cutting expenses in a teaching staff is a good thing, it is important to know that the most experienced teachers are the ones who mentor the novices and even those in the middle of their careers. Experienced teachers know the community and have a stake in the success of the community.

Anyone who knows anything about seniority in the private sector knows that those with the most experience in the company tend to be the people who have the most vested interest in the company. They have the most to gain and the most to lose if the company does or does not do well. Education is not exactly the same, but if you strip LIFO from the public schools, what would behoove teachers to take these jobs in the first place or to engage in professional development that brings them to a better understanding of the jobs they continually do?

Without LIFO, the experienced professionals will just move on thus making a very transient teaching staff with very little vested interest in the community. Eventually you will no longer have an experienced staff since experienced teachers would just be “terminated like expired food” in order to bring in a “fresher” and cheaper workforce. That is what stripping away LIFO will do. How is that better for the schools? If districts do not have a requirement for keeping experienced staff members first, the districts will invariably take the lowest bidder in education staff. Do you seriously want to leave public education to novice teachers?

Tenure protects a community from a transient and completely novice teaching staff. If the community invests in its teachers, the teachers will invest in the community. When people are valued, they are more likely to do their best work compared to when they do not feel valued.

What you are proposing devalues teachers, and that is never good for public education.

This teacher (from the west) agrees with a previous post that the real goal of the reform movement is to do away with unions. That would leave them clear sailing to cut budgets even more, lay off teachers, increase class size, encourage for-profit ventures, and privatize at will, with no one powerful enough to stop them. What is sometimes called the “neoliberal” agenda is actually the old rightwing agenda, and it starts with union-busting and concludes with privatization.

I’ve often thought this mess boils down to busting the unions. Once that’s done, it’s smooth sailing for the “reformers.”From where I stand, the union appears to be silent. What gives? I thumbed through a recent national magazine from the NEA. Nothing on what’s currently transpiring. Our local representation is always “looking into that,” yet provides no answers when asked about the union’s stance on privatization. I thought the front page of the NEA website would be bursting with anti-privatization articles. Instead I found all kinds of back-to-school tips for teachers.Anyone here a union rep? In the know? What is going on?

I have often been struck by the uneven playing field that policymakers and legislators establish for charter schools and public schools. The public schools are increasingly strangled by regulations and by high-stakes testing and punitive evaluations, at the same time that the charter schools are exempt from most of the strangulation. I have heard many times from principals who say that they want to turn their public school into a charter so they can escape the tentacles of regulation that are wrapped tight around their school. And I have wondered whether the purpose of “reform” was to make public schools fail while the deregulated charter schools increase and thrive.

Here is another take on the current corporate reform movement, inspired by an earlier post about stagnant ACT scores:

The more conversations I have about the entire “reform” movement, the more convinced I am that it’s really about disbanding teacher unions so that the majority of education programs will eventually be part of a private industry thus paving the way for the privatizing of all public systems.

The evidence just keeps mounting to show that standardized testing is a flawed way to judge the efficacy of the public schools, and the mere fact that charters and private/parochial schools do not have the same “rigorous” standards as public schools points to the idea that “standards” are not really important at all to the reformers who push for these kinds of alternate schools.

Utilizing standardized tests that the reformers know are flawed is a tactic to devalue the people who teach in public schools so that they can be fired and a private interest can take over.

It’s as if these policy-makers have found a way to rig the game: Create new rules that make for impossible goals and then watch a good system that serves the public fail under these new rules. They have set up the game so that the players will fail no matter what–IF you believe the rules are sound.

It’s pretty evident that the main goal is to disband two of the largest public unions in the country using children as pawns. Once the AFT and the NEA are toppled, so they must think, the rest will follow, and the privatization of public systems in America will ensue.

I would not put it past our policy-makers to be trying to sell the public a bill of goods by pretending they care about the children at all, when in reality, they care about getting rid of union teachers and privatizing education so their buddies can “invest” and continually get rich.

This isn’t about parent choice (unless legal segregation is what they’re after), this isn’t about success, and this isn’t about getting rid of “bad” teachers. It’s about getting rid of unions and privatizing. To me, the evidence points to these intentions no matter how anyone else wants to spin it.

I am not going to write anything substantive about the movie celebrating the so-called “parent trigger” until I have seen it.

But the stories about it continue to miss the point about  why parents and teachers think it is a corporate-conceived and corporate-driven idea, for the benefit of corporate charter chains. Why not mention the Florida parents’ fight to stop this so-called “parent empowerment”? If it really empowered parents, why did parents oppose it?

Here is the latest example. Frank Bruni, usually a thoughtful writer, has an article in today’s New York Times. He sees the movie as part of the ongoing (and at least partially justified) critique of teachers unions. He never mentions that the two states that enthusiastically endorsed parent trigger laws (after California did it first, during the Schwarzenegger years), are right-to-work states, Texas and Mississippi. Nor did he mention the role of the rightwing group ALEC in promoting the trigger idea as a way to hasten the privatization of public education.

Instead he sees it as a righteous plea for better schools (the cloak that reformers always wear as they set out to privatize your schools). That’s exactly what the producers are hoping for, to pull the wool over people’s eyes to their privatization agenda with a soap opera set in a public school.

The tipoff is the ending quote, which is from Joe Williams, the executive director of the falsely named Democrats for Education Reform. DFER is the organization of the Wall Street hedge fund managers. Joe, a nice guy, was formerly a beat reporter for the New York Daily News.

Larry Ferlazzo, a prolific blogger and Sacramento teacher, calls Williams on his line about finding and rewarding the best teachers.

Why did Bruni end up parroting DFER? The hedge fund mangers are not education experts; they are not teachers or principals. They send their children to Andover, Exeter, Lakeside Academy, Trinity, St. Bernard’s, Deerfield Academy and Sidwell Friends. These schools don’t evaluate their teachers by standardized test scores. Why does the parent trigger lead us right back to all the other bad ideas propounded by these out of touch reformers?

 

A reader asks a reasonable question about the concert in Los Angeles tonight celebrating a film that disparages teachers, public schools, and unions:

Here’s another thought.  You could also contact the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the American Federation of Musicians to express your opinion about this situation.  It does seem a little odd that professionals in these unions would take part in a production that is sponsored and promoted by private parties intent on disparaging professionals in a different union.  Just saying.

I received the following description of the appearance of Michelle Rhee and her husband at the University of Hawaii, where they lectured on “Ethics and Education.”

Rhee paused briefly from her national campaign to raise $1 billion to remove teachers’ collective bargaining rights, to strip them of tenure and seniority, and to promote vouchers and charters, to share her wisdom about American education.

One may assume that the issue of the cheating scandals in the District of Columbia was not covered in this lecture. Nor did she likely mention that she is being sued in federal court for firing a whistleblower who wanted to reveal the cheating in his school.

The report says she was asked how to replicate her “successes” in D.C.  She probably did not mention that D.C. still has the largest achievement gaps (black-white, Hispanic-white) of any city tested by the federal government.

Read on.

On August 7, 2012 Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson spoke at a University of Hawaii event co-sponsored by the William S. Richardson School of Law, and the Shidler College of Business on the topic of “Ethics in Education”.We were as shocked as you are at the title of this event, which approaches a level of surreality that might have caused Andre Breton to do a double, or triple take. Although the event was not billed as a partisan promotion of a specific ideology there were no other presenters or perspectives. The only perspectives on educational ethics the audience of about 200 heard were those of Rhee and her husband, Sacramento Mayor and and former NBA athlete Kevin Johnson.As we entered the venue, there were notecards and pens for people to write questions on. We suspected immediately, and correctly, that this was a way to weed out questions the moderator did not want Rhee and Johnson to have to deal with. Sure enough, every single question asked at the end of the evening was either framed in a pro-Rhee way, or an anti-union way. For example: “How can one teacher make a difference in a system protected by the union?” And then there was: ” How can we do in Hawaii what was done in Washington D.C.?” The latter sent a shudder down our spines, but their answers even more so.

Rhee and Johnson noted that in Hawaii, there is only one school district for all public schools, which makes the political structure more conducive to “aggressive” reforms. They stated that since Hawaii is “at the back-end of reforms” one way to move to the front end would be for Hawaii’s Governor to invite Rhee’s “Students First” organization (as other states’ Republican Governors have done) to push through reforms.

Johnson noted that Hawaii has a strong presence of Teach For America (TFA) teachers, (big round of applause) which should translate into TFA school board members, principles, and political candidates at “every key position” where they could shape policy. TFA’s concentrated efforts in districts with high drop out rates have only exacerbated the teacher attrition rate in those struggling districts’ schools. TFA programs and their accompanying accelerated teacher preparation programs have received tremendous financial backing from anti-union foundations in Hawai’i. The majority of TFA candidates are not from Hawai’i but have a genuine desire to help the poor.

Imagine the political climate that manipulates their goal to add TFA experience to their resume, their genuine altruistic notion (and youthful naiveté) that a two year commitment in a poor community benefits a struggling school, and their willingness to undermine labor gains made by traditionally licensed teachers. This scenario positions TFA candidates as unknowing union-busters within a neoliberal framework. The Hawaii DOE has guaranteed 80 teaching jobs to TFA candidates, in addition to 32 more Special Education teaching jobs over the next two years. Local teacher candidates who are paying tuition and taking additional education courses in traditional teacher preparation programs at the University of Hawaii, Chaminade University, Brigham Young, Hawaii Pacific University have not been guaranteed jobs within the DOE system, and will be competing for the remaining positions.

Both Johnson and Rhee promoted the anti-union film “Waiting For Superman.” When Johnson asked how many in the audience had seen the film, only about 20 of 200 raised their hands. Rhee told the stories of children in the film trying to get into better schools, and how their parents struggled with this, to make the point that vouchers would have paid the needed tuition. This concern over parents’ powerlessness over their children’s educational options led to a promotion for another upcoming film, this one funded by the Walden Foundation (Walmart), called “Won’t Back Down.” This film deals with the “parent trigger” in which parents can step in to privatize a failing school (by NCLB standards) have the faculty fired and reapply for their positions en masse, or create some other type of charter. No mention was made of the fact that in Los Angeles, it could in reality end with the closure of the community school, nor that chain charter schools actively recruited parents to do this.

Sadly missing was any reference to the research that has determined that, although great teachers can make a difference in students lives, the “teacher effect” is a relatively small part of student achievement, rendering efforts to blame and punish teachers as the singular or main cause of low student achievement dubious at best, and transparently political at worst. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ptsrdyxBE&fb_source=message) Rhee gave several examples of a “parent trigger” scenario. One was in Los Angeles, in which the parents were threatened with deportation, although she did not indicate how the teachers or unions would have been behind the threat.

In Sacramento, Johnson said there had been a 161 point gap in student achievement between Latino and Black versus White students. He said once the school was chartered the gap vanished, due largely to students, teachers, and parents signing a contract to turn a school around. We were not able to find the documentation of this incredible sounding turn around, but are open to seeing it. Johnson pointed to several factors for the success of his charter. Teachers could be called at 8 or 9pm to help with homework, and that every party was committed to helping students in any way possible. No one in the audience chafed at the idea of a teacher being on call during any and all of their waking hours, and many were nodding in approval at this idea.

Rhee also promoted the idea of teachers being assessed by how many extra-curricular unpaid “community contribution” hours they put in, for example, math tutoring after school, coaching a sports team, or other unpaid service after school hours. This would be combined with value added assessments utilizing standardized scores to determine how “effective” teachers are. Rhee explained that they had corrected for economic, social, and other aspects that could be factors in why some students did better than others, in order to leave these value added assessments as purely reflective of the effectiveness of teachers. It was never explained how this works, what research backs up their model, or what institutions or studies support their methods.

The moderator, Will Weinstein, who created the “ethics” series of which this presentation was a part, fawned over Rhee and Johnson all night long. His sarcasm was apparent whenever he asked a “tough” question of the couple. They obviously charmed him and the audience, made up seemingly of law and business students and faculty. This was apparent, when, after about an hour of their promoting union busting, attacks on collective bargaining, and their marveling and wonder at why Republican politicians seem so much more supportive and knowledgeable about their progressive school reforms, Weinstein jokingly asked them why they were “such right-wing conservatives” eliciting a ripple of knowing chuckles throughout the audience. They responded that they had been given a bum rap, with Michelle playing the victim of political Democrats who were in bed with unions.

This was a major theme of the evening, the obstruction that unions present to meaningful reform. Johnson gave a powerful telling of his work to convert Sacramento High from a public school a charter. He stated that the unions stepped in to oppose this, spending vast sums of money to fight against it. No context was given as to why, leaving the audience to assume it was because they opposed poor and minority children receiving a quality education. The flip side of the demonization of unions throughout the night was the way in which the actual results of Rhee’s programs were blatantly whitewashed, or barely addressed. No mention of a D.C. test cheating scandal, of the lackluster performances of charter schools, of the billionaires that back up Rhee’s attacks on teacher unions, of the lack of effective teacher training for TFA graduates (who are assumed to be better than the “bad” experienced public school teachers), and no mention of the corporate funding of the anti-union films they were promoting.

Rhee also promoted the corporate model of merit pay for the “best” (according to flawed assessment models) teachers, and punishment for the bottom-performing percentile. This corporate model known as “stack ranking” or “rank and yank” is a perfect example of how Rhee sees schools as indistinguishable from businesses. She and her husband both portrayed themselves as progressive liberals stating that charter schools needed to be heavily regulated and that failing charters needed to be closed. This qualification was obviously too little too late to establish any semblance of “balance” in their ideology.

For all their talk of accountability, no one thought to ask them who holds them accountable to prove their claims of miracles, turn-arounds, or the selfish agenda of kid hating unions whose one desire is lifetime tenure. If anyone wrote that question for them, it was not asked.

The night ended with one final anti-union joke when Johnson asked if they were out of time. Weinstein smugly responded that the Moderators Union had called and they had to wrap it up, audience applause.

The authors of this report-back are among the founders of a new annual event called LaborFest Hawaii, a celebration and examination of working class and labor history and current events, and a place where working people can assess present conditions to better organize. Our first event will focus on education with a screening of the Grassroots Education Movement made documentary “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman.” This film is a counter-argument to Davis Guggenheim’s “Waiting for Superman” which targeted teacher unions and pushed privatization, charter schools, and the business model of education. Guggenheim advocates the same austerity-based, anti-union, anti-teacher, and ultimately anti-student reform regime championed by Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, and others.

A reader suggests the real purpose of the Christie “school reform” plan. Or could it be to introduce private markets to public education, with profits for some, losses for others?

Chris Christie, like many Republicans, main goal is to break the teacher union; it has nothing to do with education. He has no real interest in helping underperforming schools or struggling students.

A story in the Los Angeles Times says that the United Teachers of Los Angeles has agreed to permit test scores to be part of teachers’ evaluations.

This is in response to a lawsuit brought by EdVoice on behalf of anonymous parents. EdVoice is one of those organizations funded by the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation and other members of the billionaire boys’ club who will never leave teachers alone until they teach to the test.

I hope this is not true. As we have seen again and again, judging teachers by the test scores of their students is harmful to the quality of education as it places too much emphasis on testing. It incentives narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test, cheating, gaming the system, score inflation.

Value-added modeling, which would be used here, is junk science.

Even Eric Hanushek, the favorite economist of the VAM crowd, says that teachers account for only 7 1/2-15 percent of the variation in students’ test scores.

What about the 60 percent that is usually attributed to the influence of family, especially family income?

If Los Angeles goes down this path, it may well fire the wrong teachers (Houston fired one of its teachers of the year based on VAM data).

Surely there is a better, more constructive way to evaluate teachers than to rely on unstable and inaccurate measures.

As you may recall, Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago has demanded that teachers teach a longer school day without additional compensation.

For that and other reasons (including rising class size), the Chicago Teachers Union took a strong stand in opposition. It took a strike vote, and 98% of those voting gave their approval, which was unexpected and unprecedented. The CTU held a rally, and 10,000 members turned out.

Mayor Emanuel accepted a deal that met the CTU’s demands. Its members will not have to work longer hours without pay. The school day will be extended, as he wants, and the teachers who provide the extra time will be selected from the pool of veteran teachers who were laid off.

This was a stunning victory for the CTU. It shows what happens when a union is resolute and united, and its demands are just.

Here is the CTU press release, which is the only information available at this time:

CPS STEPS BACK FROM LONGEST SCHOOL DAY; A VICTORY FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
INTERIM AGREEMENT MINIMIZES LONGER TEACHER WORK DAY,  STAFFS LONGER STUDENT DAY THROUGH NEW HIRES,                                 GUARANTEES NEW JOBS TO DISPLACED TEACHERS
CHICAGO – The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) bargaining committee today accepted an interim agreement that many thought impossible:  The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has finally backed off the unworkable seven-hour 40 minute teacher work day and instead will make only modest increases in the length of teacher work days.  CPS thus reverses its publicly-announced policy that the CTU has consistently criticized as bad for both students and teachers.  CPS will staff the longer student day by hiring nearly 500 new teaching positions, and it has finally agreed to recall rights for teachers.  Tenured teachers displaced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 will constitute the pool from which principals must hire the new teachers.
“This is movement in the right direction, but this does not settle the outstanding and mandatory issues in the contract,” said Lewis. “It is too bad this solution—which was actually presented months ago—was rejected out of hand.  It has taken a march of nearly 10,000 educators, a strike authorization vote and a fact-finder’s report to get CPS to move on this issue. This is yet another example of the CTU’s determination and dedication to fighting for solutions that will strengthen our schools.”
Length of the School and Work Day is a permissive subject of bargaining under the Educational Labor Relations Act, and CPS previously announced that it was increasing the length of both elementary and high school work days to seven hours and 40 minutes without bargaining with the Union.  But CTU unity and determination has cause CPS to rethink its position, and the new agreement scales these times back significantly, while restoring work opportunities to displaced teachers.
The new schedules will be implemented with the start of the Track E school year, so that no disruption will occur to students or teachers as a result of ongoing contract negotiations.  It is expected that the new hiring will include many recently-neglected areas of instruction, including art, language, library science and physical education, thus achieving a CTU goal of a better school day, not just a longer school day.
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Under the agreement, teacher work days will be 420 minutes (7 hours), which will include a 45-minute duty-free lunch during the day, which is the same length of day for schools that currently have an open campus.  Instructional minutes will be capped at 296 per day, which is no more than was allowed under the expired contract.  Average daily preparation time will be increased from 62 minutes to 64 minutes.  Student days will also be 420 minutes.
Since the student day will be longer CPS has also agreed to hire about 750 new teachers to cover the extra periods, including 477.5 new positions that will be filled under the Interim Agreement.  CPS has finally agreed that any tenured teacher displaced in 2010 or after can apply for an open position, and as long as at least 3 qualified applicants apply for a position the principal must hire a displaced teacher and cannot hire off the street.  Similar to the current process under Appendix H, the principal may elect not to retain the teacher after the semester is completed, but if so, the principal must hire the replacement out of the same pool of displaced teachers.  Any teacher retained beyond the semester becomes a permanent appointment.
A summary of the old school day (open campus), CPS announced Full School Day, and the settled day are shown below:
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Components of Teacher Day
Current Default
(open campus)
Announced
Full School Day
Interim
Agreement
Instructional Minutes
296
315
296
Morning Preparation
30
25
0
Midday Preparation
32
60
64
Duty-Free Lunch
45
45
45
Supervision
17
15
15
Total On Site
Work Time
420
460
420
 
HIGH SCHOOLS
Under the Interim Agreement, high school teacher work days will be increased 14 minutes, from 421 minutes to 435, but instructional minutes will be increased by no more than 7 minutes, from 244 to a maximum of 251.  Average daily preparation time will be increased up to 10 minutes, to a maximum of 102 minutes, depending on class length.  Critically, CPS has also agreed that no teacher will be required to teach a sixth class, as many teachers would have been compelled to do under the original CPS plan, unless that teacher receives additional compensation as required under the expired contract.  Student days will be 435 minutes on average per week.
A summary of the old school day, CPS announced Full School Day, and the settled day are shown below:
HIGH SCHOOLS
Components of Teacher Day
Current Schedule
 
Announced
Full School Day
(regular day)
Interim
Agreement
Instructional Minutes
244
Up to 276
248 to 251
 
Morning Preparation
0
10
0
Midday Preparation
92
92
92 to 102
Duty-Free Lunch
46
46
46 to 51
Passing Periods
38
36
up to 36
Total On Site
Work Time
421
460
435
 
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE
Though this Interim Agreement is significant, it does not settle many important issues that remain the subject of ongoing negotiations and discussions.  
For example, the Agreement does not settle the length of the school year, and it does not settle teacher compensation.  The Chicago Teachers Union and the Board of Education remain far apart on compensation issues, and this agreement does not change the timeline for CTU to exercise its full rights in contract negotiations.
“This Interim Agreement would not have been possible had we not shown our discipline and determination to be treated with respect,” said Lewis. “We are making real progress but we must keep up the pressure for a fair contract.”
###
 
The Chicago Teachers Union represents 30,000 teachers and educational support personnel working in the Chicago Public Schools, and by extension, the more than 400,000 students and families they serve.  The CTU is an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Federation of Teachers and is the third largest teachers local in the United States and the largest local union in Illinois.  For more information please visit CTU’s website at www.ctunet.com