Saturday, July 17, 2010

Union and City reach agreement on new schools

From the NY Times:

The Department of Education and the city teachers’ union announced a solution on Wednesday to a math equation that had been plaguing them since this spring: how to fit 16 new and expanding schools into space occupied by 19 existing schools.

Those 19 schools had been slated to close because of poor performance, but a successful lawsuit from the United Federation of Teachers and the N.A.A.C.P. last March gave them a reprieve, at least for another year. The problem was that the city had already promised space in the closing schools’ buildings to the new schools, which were left in a kind of limbo.

Under the terms of the agreement, 9 of the 16 schools will open in the promised locations, alongside some of the saved schools. In exchange, the union pledged to not sue the city for placing new schools in the closing schools’ buildings, a matter that was left undecided in the lawsuit that could have been challenged.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can someone PLEASE give me a Cliffs' Notes version of WTF the NAACP has to do with any of this? Why on earth are NYC schools their business?

Queens Teacher said...

They are forcing the old schools to share a space with the new schools: colocations.

The old schools are going to die a slow and painful death. The charters/small schools will slowly suck the life out of the old high school by taking classrooms, gym, lunchroom. labs etc; senior teachers; resources; until it has to close down. And Mulgrew agrees with this??

Once again a big thank you to the UFT. Always looking out for its teachers.
:/

Queens Teacher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The midget Mayor wants the middle class to be gone.

He has bought out every interest group, even the teachers union.

He wants New York to be like his beloved Bermuda, small minority of super rich plus huge majority of servant class.

He is getting his way.

Anonymous said...

Question: How can an agreement be legal if it is an agreement to violate the law?