UFT Agrees to Let School Aides Paid By Parents Return

MICHAEL MULGREW: Could evolve into model program.

The United Federation of Teachers Aug. 25 relented on its objection to the hiring of non-union school aides with money provided by parents' groups, ending a ban of the practice enacted in July.

The union's agreement with the Department of Education is only temporary, with further negotiations planned to properly address the role of the school aides.

'A One-Year Solution'

"This is something that we've committed ourselves to working on with the UFT," said DOE spokeswoman Ann Forte in a phone interview. "This is a one-year solution for the '09-10 school year. The goal would be to have something permanent by the time the '10-11 school year rolls around."

The aides, most often hired in schools with higher-income constituents in Manhattan, perform tasks ranging from supervision of children at recess to more-complicated education work on the level of substitute Teachers or Paraprofessionals.

In July, the city said the practice of parent association hiring could not continue unless the aides were given official DOE budget status, because the workers hired by parents were doing the work of Teachers and were thus entitled to union protection. That decision was prompted by a UFT grievance filed in 2008.

Official DOE employees performing the same work make as much as $23 per hour as well as benefits; this was the status the DOE asked schools to extend to parent-hired aides, who make between $12 and $15 per hour, after the UFT grievance was upheld in July.

Given current budget restraints, Principals in schools had made it clear that making parent aides official hires was impossible, prompting pushback against the ban from parent groups and meetings between UFT President Michael Mulgrew, Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and parents to resolve the issue.

'Make This An Internship'

In an interview, Mr. Mulgrew said that he wanted to sit down with parents and the DOE again over the coming year to try and make the system of hiring aides more official.

"The issue is, how do we work the system? Because the people by and large tend to be college students who are in education programs," he said. "We're trying to turn this somehow into an internship program, which could strengthen teaching.

"To me, any time I see an opportunity when we can do something to help in that inception period, we need to do it, because we're still losing 42 percent of everybody who enters this system. That's just unacceptable," he continued. "This is a very small issue in terms of numbers. . . but if it works, this could be a model we could take other places."

Although it was the UFT that first grieved the hiring of aides, Mr. Mulgrew said he understood why parents were intervening. "They're dealing with some pretty big class sizes in those young grades, and they're just trying to supplement some of the services," he said. "They're dealing with a very frustrating situation because of their class sizes."

The neighborhood with the highest concentration of school aides is the Upper East Side, because of a combination of overstuffed elementary schools and wealthy parents. Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, who represents parts of the neighborhood, said he had been involved in reconciling the UFT, DOE and parent groups.

"It is important that we allow parent teacher associations the flexibility to make the best decisions for their children, while being respectful of existing agreements," he said in a statement. "This agreement is a good first step towards finding a long-term solution to this problem."

Before the agreement was made, one compromise reportedly proposed by Mr. Klein would have made the aides Substitute School Aides, a District Council 37 title that would allow them to work under union rules but still make only $12 per hour, with no medical benefits or pension.

"That was one suggestion that came out of a meeting," Ms. Forte confirmed. "One of the possible ways to move forward was to have them working under Substitute School Aide titles. . . but it's not the way we decided to go forward."

When contacted, a DC 37 spokeswoman declined to comment on its involvement in negotiations and reaction to the end of the ban.