On Jan. 5, United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew stood before a small crowd of reporters to announce that his union would be suing the city Department of Education (DOE) for allegedly misusing state funds that were intended for class size reduction.

 

“It is an example of gross mismanagement,” Mulgrew said. “And that is the easiest and nicest way to put it.”

Ten days later, the union’s contract negotiations with the city ground to a screeching halt, requiring the intervention of a state panel to revive the stalled talks.

The experience of those two weeks at the start of 2010 signal the difficulty of Mulgrew’s path as he tries to stake out an identity distinct from his high-profile predecessor, Randi Weingarten, and wades deep into debates over education that are roiling the city.

“It certainly does make it more exciting,” Mulgrew said, reflecting on his first six months as UFT head in an interview a few days after the lawsuit announcement.

Mulgrew insists that there is no connection between the lawsuit and the contract negotiations. But the heightened tensions between the union and the city, both with regard to the lawsuit and the vicious debate over charter schools, have complicated Mulgrew’s position.

Mulgrew said that he was hoping to avoid a breakdown in talks with the city, but added that he had no choice, given the administration’s insistence over tying teacher evaluations to test data and eliminating the charter school cap.

“We’re at the end of a round of bargaining,” Mulgrew said. “We were hoping we could do this in a very professional way, but, quite honestly, the more they went out into the media about issues, asking the State Legislature to change collectively bargained issues, we just got to the point where we said, ‘Okay, this is not going to work.’” The UFT’s most recent contract expired in October, but a statute allows teachers to continue working under the expired contract until a new one can be finalized. Whatever the outcome of contract negotiations, Mulgrew said he wanted to see a timely completion of the lawsuit against the DOE.

“Money for the classroom is for the classroom,” Mulgrew said.

At issue is an estimated $760 million in state funds sent to the DOE over the last three years for the purposes of lowering class size. The union charges in its lawsuit that the city “sought to evade its statutory responsibilities” by distributing the money to the city’s principals—and the principals, they say, spent the money on administrative costs or as a way to defray budget cuts, instead of using it to hire more teachers and decrease the number of students assigned to each class.

“The charges are without merit,” said DOE spokesperson Ann Forte of the lawsuit.

The city declined comment on the ongoing contract negotiations.

Some education experts have questioned the timing of Mulgrew’s lawsuit, given the economic recession and successive waves of budget cuts, both at the city and state levels.

“For me, it’s a bit of a sideshow,” said Michael Rebell, a professor at Columbia Teachers College who was one of the original plaintiffs in the 15-year Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit.

One of the provisions of the CFE agreement required the city use the increased flow of state education aid to lower class sizes. But Rebell said he thinks the union is being too rigid in its expectations.

“Until we can get a sufficient number of truly qualified teachers into high-needs schools, I don’t think the concentration should be on lowering class size by 0.5 [percent], or some statistical measure, which is what the UFT seems to be pushing here,” he said. “I think we have larger fish to fry under our current situation.”

Others disagreed, saying Mulgrew was correct to bring the lawsuit now, especially if the UFT’s allegations that the money had been improperly spent proves true. Geri Palast, the executive director of the not-for-profit that arose out of the CFE lawsuit, said the DOE’s lack of transparency has forced Mulgrew and the union to take action.

“Let’s call a buck what a buck is,” Palast said. “Let’s document. Let’s say ‘Okay, we don’t have enough money.’ Let’s say, if we’re using it for another purpose, let’s really say that we are. And let’s get an IOU here.”

Either way, Mulgrew is earning rave reviews for his aggressive tactics from some corners of the education advocacy world, especially as he has distinguished his style from that of Weingarten, who left New York last summer to become president of the national teachers union.

Weingarten’s position on many of the reforms being pushed by Bloomberg and others has shifted over the last year. Projecting more accommodation, Weingarten has called for new methods in teacher evaluation, saying she would be receptive to using standardized test score data in the process as well. Mulgrew has consistently warned against using test data in teacher evaluations, saying such methods would require a “climate of collaboration” with the DOE that currently does not exist.

Some advocates say privately that where Weingarten was eager to burnish her national credentials by cozying up to Bloomberg and Klein, seen especially in her late-stage support for the renewal of mayoral control, Mulgrew has brought a different, more no-nonsense style to the union.

“Let’s put it this way,” said one education advocate. “I don’t think [Mulgrew] wants to hang out in the Hamptons and fly in the mayor’s plane.”

But in suing the DOE over class size, Mulgrew said he believes that he is keeping up in his predecessor’s spirit. As recently as last March, Weingarten sued the DOE over three schools that were closed and replaced by charter schools.

Asked if he thought Weingarten would approve of his decisions as UFT president thus far, Mulgrew said simply, “I’m sure she does.”