Meet the Teachers’ Union Contract of the Future

This post has been updated and corrected with more details on the contract, provided by the UFT

On Friday Geoff Decker of GothamSchools reported on the renegotiated contract between New York's United Federation of Teachers and Green Dot, the California-based charter school operator whose schools are all unionized. Two years after the first Green Dot/UFT agreement was drafted, the union agreed once again to a contract that lacks both traditional tenure and seniority-based layoffs. The new contract also pays veteran Green Dot teachers a $2,000 bonus as a reward for raising test scores, and a base salary 20 percent higher than their traditional school counterparts.

New York state exempts charter schools from tenure law, so one of the union's goals in a contract negotiation like this one is to build back in some job security. In the case of Green Dot, teachers actually have a shorter probationary period than in a traditional public schools–just one year, compared to three–but they also agree to a system in which administrators have more say over layoffs of non-probationary teachers. Instead of seniority-based layoffs, as in the traditional school contract, the union and administration will meet at the bargaining table in the event of layoffs to determine what "equitable criteria" should be used. 

Green Dot teachers will be evaluated according to the principles enshrined in New York State's Race to the Top application: 20 percent of the evaluation score will be based on student standardized test scores for grades and subjects in which they are available, 20 percent on other "local" measures of student academic growth, and 60 percent on classroom observation. 

When a teacher is ineffective, Green Dot administrators must prove "just cause" before firing him or her, the same standard practiced within many non-unionized companies in order to avoid wrongful termination lawsuits–and the same standard called for to remove a tenured teacher in the traditional school contract. The difference is that at Green Dot, there is a streamlined, approximately 90-day grievance and arbitration process in which the union can appeal a dismissal, which negotiators expect to be less cumbersome and less likely to involve attorneys than the traditional Department of Education process. 

After their first-year in the school, teachers grieve a discipline or dismissal decision to an indepdendent arbitrator. First-year teachers have no job security protections whatsoever The grievances of first-year teachers are ruled upon not by the arbitrator, but by the school's board of trustees. 

 The teachers' union contracts of the future may look a lot like this one–if we start making much-needed improvements in teacher preparation and allow teachers to get more actively involved in the administration of their schools. (Big "ifs," I know.) When I had lunch with AFT President Randi Weingarten in August, we discussed the future of tenure, and she told me she could absolutely envision an entire urban district organized around the same principles as the Green Dot contract–in other words, without teacher "seniority" as we know it today. "The question," she said, "is how do you create an environment that is mission-driven and has a culture of fairness to it?" 

Indeed, the Green Dot model calls for teams of teachers to be actively involved in hiring their peers; this is a highly-vetted workforce operating in an environment that emphasizes collegiality and professionalism. Without such healthy school environments, unions and teachers will have a hard time giving up the protections they've won because of a very real history of adminstrative overreach. 

One thought on “Meet the Teachers’ Union Contract of the Future

  1. Robert D. Skeels

    What a wonderful Public Relations piece for a lucrative CMO! Those of us that follow Green Dot Corporation in Los Angeles can shed a little light on the yellow unionism that Green Dot holds up as a model for the future. AsociaciĆ³n de Maestros Unidos (AMU) has never had single case of successfully defending a teacher against termination by Green Dot Corporation’s capricious unelected board of trustees.

    Moreover, AMU’s CTA/NEA affiliation notwithstanding, tell us of a single “right” AMU has in their contract that isn’t superseded by the power of their unelected corporate board. Anyone who has actually read the corporate contract knows the answer to this since they’re familiar with article 4.1 which states:

    “It is understood and agreed that the Board retains all of its powers and authority to direct, manage and control to the full extent of the law. While input from the staff will be considered and decisions will be derived in a collaborative model; final decisions will rest with the Board.”

    link to

    That’s some real collective bargaining! That’s why the pernicious former hedge fund manager, Marco Petruzzi, CEO of Green Dot Corporation was able to close Animo Justice by fiat, and neither the school community, parents, students, nor the supposedly “unionized” teachers were able to do a thing about it. Some “culture of fairness.”

    Let’s hope that this isn’t the “contract of the future,” since all it does is further consolidate power into the hands of those that are the least knowledgeable of making decisions about pedagogy. Their only concern? The bottom line and the bloated salaries of their executive staff.

    Rest assured that Eli Broad, Bill Gates, the Walton fortune heirs, and all the other funders of the corporate Green Dot model to educate impoverished children on the cheap really appreciate your article though. We know how much those plutocrats care about kids.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>