Hola, it’s me again!
I know I said Part 2 of my series about our next contract was coming next. Well… we'll have to pause that conversation for a minute, because we need to talk about another group of paraprofessionals first. Substitute paraprofessionals.
After reading our union's latest update about the paraprofessional shortage, I had to weigh in. I read that email about 15 times, and every time, I kept saying the same thing, Wait…What? Make it make sense.
Our union leadership is reporting that there are approximately 8,000 paraprofessional vacancies. That's a lot. The UFT has been very clear that the paraprofessional shortage is one of the reasons we fought for the RESPECT Check. The union has argued that low pay makes it difficult to recruit and retain enough paraprofessionals, leaving students without the services they need. That’s true. Students are being affected, but is the shortage real? I mean, it has to be, with 8,000 vacancies, right?
They are telling us to continue reporting known vacancies to the district representatives so we can prove "our" shortage, and that's where I stopped. Our shortage? Why would they be taking ownership of this ‘shortage’?
It's definitely hurting kids. It's hurting paraprofessionals who are working in schools, and it's hurting substitute paraprofessionals who are looking for a permanent job. So maybe we need to ask some different questions. What about the subs?
Substitute paraprofessionals don't have it easy. We all know that. We may see them today. Then we don't. Some schools use SubCentral regularly, and some don't seem to use it much at all. Instead, schools may have their own informal list of substitutes they know, trust, or like to call. I understand why a school might do that, but here's the part I don't understand, if a school keeps calling the same substitute paraprofessional, why can't that person also be considered for a permanent vacancy?
I've heard from people who have been substitute paraprofessionals for three, four, even five years. Now, before someone says, ‘Well, maybe they want to be substitutes. They like the flexibility.’ Sure. Some probably do, but most? I don't know, and I don't think we should assume. We should ask them. So let me ask a very simple question:
If we have thousands of vacant paraprofessional positions and, from what I hear, approximately 14,000 substitute paraprofessionals in the system, why aren't we doing everything we can to connect those two things? Seriously. Make it make sense.
Are We Asking the Right Questions? Are we expected to believe that thousands of those substitutes don't want permanent jobs? Maybe some don't, but thousands? I don't know about that. Are we expected to believe that thousands haven't worked the 25 days required to move toward a full-time appointment? Maybe some haven't, but thousands? I don't know about that either. Are we expected to believe that thousands don't have the required state certification? You see where I’m going here? Are they being asked?
We keep talking about the shortage. We keep talking about vacancies. Are we actually talking to the people who are already sitting in the substitute pool, because if you need 8,000 of something and you have 14,000 of that something available to you…why wouldn't you try to figure out how to fill that need?
I'm not saying every substitute can automatically get a permanent job. I'm saying we should be asking, what is stopping them? Then we should be trying to remove those barriers.
Here's where it gets interesting. I've been doing some digging and asking some questions about the history of substitute paraprofessionals. Back in the day, subs were offered permanent positions as vacancies occurred in a district based on the number of days they had actually worked as a sub. The more you worked, the more seniority you built.
At some point, full-time paraprofessionals gained citywide seniority through collective bargaining, and the process for substitute paraprofessionals changed. Now, the contract says that substitute paraprofessionals with at least three months in the registry or at least 25 days actually worked have priority over the hiring of new employees for certain paraprofessional vacancies. This gives principals all the power to hire someone who has only worked 25 days over someone who may have been working 3 years, even if they both have all the requirements to be hired. Does your head hurt as much as mine right now?
Was that trade-off what is considered a giveback? Here's another one that feels like a giveback. The Career Training Program has been a major part of the paraprofessional contract for decades. It was created as part of the first DOE-UFT contract in 1970 and provides tuition assistance to eligible full-time paraprofessionals pursuing a bachelor's degree. Substitute paraprofessionals are not currently eligible. That wasn't always the case. The Career Training Program provided substitute paraprofessionals with tuition reimbursement for their first six college credits before they became full-time paras.
In 2016, the union and the DOE negotiated some changes to CTP, and the payment for those six credits for substitute paraprofessionals was eliminated. Again, was that a giveback? Did we make a conscious decision that helping full-time paraprofessionals was more important than maintaining that benefit for substitutes?
Ok, last one. The contract article covering sub paras says substitute paraprofessionals are to be used to provide coverage for mandated special education paraprofessional services, and their release time. How often are substitute paraprofessionals actually being used to provide coverage for paraprofessional release time? I've never seen a substitute paraprofessional come into a school to cover a paraprofessional's release time. Have you?
Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't, but if the contract says one thing and schools are doing something else, and we haven’t tried to enforce it, we need to know why. If we're struggling with compliance, maybe we should be looking at every tool we have.
We can't keep saying there is a shortage while simultaneously failing to fully use the people who are already in the system. Substitute paraprofessionals are not some random group of people who happen to walk into our schools. They are part of our workforce.
So what are substitute paras saying? I've been listening, and some of the things substitute paraprofessionals are saying they want are pretty straightforward. They want a higher daily rate. Duh! Of course they want better pay. They also want some kind of long-term assignment differential. If a substitute is working in the same assignment for weeks or months, there should be additional compensation.
They also need benefits. Substitute paraprofessionals have said they want access to things like sick days, dental benefits, prescriptions, and other basic employment protections. That's not unreasonable.
Maybe most importantly, they want a formal, contractual pathway for substitute paraprofessionals to become permanent paraprofessionals. Not, wait until a principal likes you, keep calling schools and hope somebody has a vacancy, keep working day-to-day and maybe eventually something opens up, or my favorite, we don’t have the budget to hire you. They want a real pathway.
Clear requirements. Clear timelines. Clear rights. Clear opportunities. That's what I'm hearing, and I shouldn’t be the only one listening. I have some ideas of my own, and I'll share those in another post, because this conversation shouldn't stop here.
It feels like our union always needs to have a fight and needs to identify who is standing in the way. They spend so much time explaining why everyone else is the problem. It's always somebody else's fault. Adrienne Adams. Mamdani. The DOE. The City. The system. The list goes on and on. There may be legitimate issues with all of those players, but I'm interested in something else. What can we do? What can we negotiate? What can we change? What can we enforce? What can we build, and most importantly, are we leaving anyone behind?
Substitute paraprofessionals are UFT members too. They show up in our schools. They work with our students. They cover vacancies. They fill gaps. They are the people who keep a classroom functioning when someone is absent, and I’m sure many of them are trying to become permanent paraprofessionals.
So when you see a substitute in your school, don't just see the person covering a class for the day. See a colleague. See someone who may have been doing this work for years. See someone who deserves a full-time job. See someone who deserves a voice.
If the DOE really has 14,000 substitute paraprofessionals, that's not an insignificant number. 14,000 is a lot of workers. That's a lot of voices and a lot of people who should have a seat at the table. If we're serious about building a stronger paraprofessional chapter, we can't only talk about the people who already have permanent appointments. We have to talk about the people trying to get there.
Here's what I keep coming back to: Why aren't we doing everything possible to help the people already here become the paraprofessionals we say we desperately need? That is a conversation worth having. The UFT says the RESPECT Check can begin closing the pay gap while we work toward a permanent, pensionable solution in our next contract. We have to do better. Our union has to do better, and I hope more of us start speaking up, especially for the people who feel like they don't have a voice. Collective bargaining is supposed to be about all of us. Not just some of us. Make it make sense!
Until next time, Adiós!
This makes a lot of sense. One thing I'd add is the gap between what's expected of paras and how they're treated. Paras are expected to work so closely with teachers that no one walking into the room can tell who's who, yet the pay and per session rates look completely different. And for a para without a college degree, a sub's daily rate can actually be higher, which may be part of why some subs aren't rushing into permanent positions.
I've known a lot of sub paras who wanted permanent positions. There'd be a freeze, and they'd have to wait. The school wasn't hiring, and they'd have to wait. This, that and the other. You're right. It's ridiculous. Another thing that's ridiculous is the fact that Mulgrew had enough money to grant paras a significant pensionable raise of 10K or more and opted to grant bonuses instead.