New York Teacher

A win for special ed students

Mar 17, 2005 11:50 AM

Court rebuffs DOE, upholds UFT in Collaborative Team Teachers case

Once again, the UFT won a major victory over Department of Education stonewalling. Unfortunately it will not stop Tweed’s obstinacy on this issue. Earlier this month, a state Supreme Court judge dismissed the department’s attempt to vacate the decision in a case involving Collaborative Team Teachers that the union had won in arbitration.

Justice Rolando T. Acosta found that the DOE had no basis to take the arbitration decision to court.

The arbitrator had ruled last May that school administrators must provide coverage for teachers in CTT classrooms when they have prep periods if full-time special ed teachers are mandated by the Individualized Education Programs (IEP) of the participating students. CTT classrooms include general education and special education students and teachers.

The UFT filed the original grievance several years ago when school administrators claimed that they were not required to provide coverage when either teacher had a prep period as long as there were two teachers in the classroom for most of the day.

The grievance went to arbitration last spring.

The DOE took the case to court, arguing that the arbitrator’s ruling was not binding because the issue involved the IEPs of special education students, which are governed by federal and state regulations. Therefore, the DOE said, the arbitrator had exceeded his authority.

The UFT maintained that the issue affects working conditions of UFT members, which are covered in the contract, according to Howard Solomon, director of the union’s grievance department.

The union further argued that DOE’s own rules for CTT classes state that they must provide full-time teachers of both general and special education for children whose IEPs require it. The DOE contended that “full-time” didn’t mean “throughout the day.”

In dismissing the case, Justice Acosta noted that the Court of Appeals has said there are limited reasons for the court to hear a case that has been decided by arbitration and the DOE’s case did not qualify. He noted, “A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be a better one.”

He added, “… the better part of valor is for this court to cut to the chase and give this petition its proper burial.”

The DOE has announced that it will do exactly the opposite of what the court recommended, and is instead appealing the decision.

The chancellor’s Principal’s Weekly bulletin told school administrators that since it will take several months before the appellate division will render a decision, in the meantime “it is not necessary for you to provide two teachers to CTT classes during the regularly assigned teachers’ prep periods.”

“The DOE is simply delaying to avoid using resources to give these special education students the appropriate services,” Solomon said.