GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

A more important group that is in jeopardy are students who have spent the past year in a master’s program or all of their undergrad years in “traditional” paths to certification who are now in jeopardy of not being hired. These are folks who have student taught, had significant time in the classroom and are ready for their first year of teaching.

I smell a rat here. Trade support on mayoral control for putting rejected teachers back to work (not that I assume that all of those folks are not strong in the classroom). They put too many trout in the stream with the fellows and TFA – their loyalty should be with programs that prepare students BEFORE they place them in the classroom. Not that I don’t know and admire many strong fellows, I do. But that program was put in place because of a crisis. Clearly the crisis is over.

Before we get all worked up about the inability of outside teachers to get hired by the DOE due to the hiring freeze lets use some common sense. First lets dispell the myth that the teachers in the excess pool are not worthy of a new appointment.. Most are in there through no fault of their own. Staff reductions are done by seniority in the system not competence. They are not being rehired because of the way Klein & co are making schools count teacher saleries. The way it is currently structerd it makes sense not to hire a teacher in excess with 7 years of service and a masters making 70,000 when you can hire a new teacher at 42,000. Now for the REAL common sense.. The 70,000 teacher and the 42,000 teacher both get paid by the DOE not p.s 189 or Thomas Jefferson HS. That being said tell me how it should make any difference to the school if both employees work for the same parent company.. It would be like a corporation with multiple offices not transfering its most experienced workers where needed because each building can have only so much in salery even though the checks are cut out of a central location. It makes no sense.. SO kudos to the DOE for finally having the light go on upstairs and realizing they don’t need new teachers when you already have a bunch of competent ones waiting in the bullpen. Is every excessed teacher competent? NO and I believe firmly that if a teacher has an unsatisfactory rating and is without a position they should be let go.

insiderknowledge… I just wanted to make a comment about why you say principals are not hiring from the pool… your opinion is that they are much more expensive than younger teachers. I would like to point out that I was given two offers at schools before the freeze and I have three degrees and 3 years of experience. You can go to the DOE site and do the math but this puts me way above the 42K you are talking about and much closer to the 70K those in the pool are going to make.

This leads me to ask why are these pool teachers not out hunting down the same jobs that I am getting interviews and offers for? And if they are hunting and interviewing, how come a principal is hiring me over a pool person? Hmmm. That leads me to think something is wrong with the people in the pool… and it has nothing to do with their cost of hiring them. But again, I do not know anyone in the pool so I cannot safely say that is why… just a huntch

I think one of the worst parts of this whole freeze is the fact that all the new teachers that have already been offered jobs are now having those job offers retracted. Yes I agree that something had to be done to help those teachers stuck in ATR, but to force schools that have already made an agreement to hire someone go back on that agreement is ridiculous. Many of those individuals have turned down other offers, canceled interviews, and even quit the jobs they had because they thought they were set for the fall.

Wow, “…just a hunch”. Chris, if I were to believe my own hunch, I’d think you were actually not a teacher, but a high-paid, PR accountability employee for the DOE. But, I’ll give you this, if I am totally wrong, it’s why we should be careful to judge others on “hunches”.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong on this but surely the people coming out of various teaching colleges throughout the city, tens of thousands in debt, are getting utterly screwed here. They can not (except in a few limited circumstances e.g. new schools) get a job in the city? So much for education being a top priority in the city administration…

Nice to know that your (hopefully at some point) future employers and union care so little. I am kinda surprised that this is not bigger news (only 5 articles on google news in my rather unscientific research) – it must be affecting an awful lot of people and is a complete indictment on the city’s education priorities.

Pogue – I am confused about Chris being a DOE employee because I feel the same way he does. I was offered, just like Chris, a job on May 1st, and now it is invalid because I am not in NYC. If the teachers in the pool were satisfactory applicants, why were they not hired for the position that I took? Is it because I took time and money out of my full-time teaching position to actively search for jobs while they did not? I have received invitations for multiple interviews throughout all the boroughs simply because I took the initiative to email the principals. So why do I feel as if I am being punished for being proactive?

Is the principal of PS84 being held responsible for making an offer he didn’t have the authority to make?

The principal knew the rules, or should have known the rules. He had no right to offer you a position. He either consciously lied to you, or is too muddleheaded to be tying his own shoelaces, let alone running a school.

The DoE has agreements with its current employees. By violating the agreements, it seeks to play new against old.

You did everything right. Sending resumes is the right thing to do. I don’t know anything about the program you are part of, but it sounds like a reasonable route. Interviewing? Of course. But you are trying to move into a district (a huge district) where there are teachers without jobs. It will not be, it cannot be, a free-for-all, new against old. We will, as best as we can, protect our members. And then we, and I will be happy to be among the first, will work to train, improve, and keep our newer teachers, protect them against abusive administrators, arbitrary dismissal, etc, etc.

To respond to Mr. John Hancock’s inquiry about proof that Alternative Certification programs are working…generally, test scores are coming up in the city, as reported recently. More importantly, the discussion on closing the achievement gap is fueling reform efforts throughout the country. The focus on making a quality education accessible to all children, regardless of poverty or race, parallels the growth of the alternative certification programs, not just in NYC, but throughout the country.

This is unscientific evidence. I do not claim to have statistics which could reflect where we would be now, in the year 2009, had we not introduced alternative routes to teacher certification some 10 years ago. However, I would not refute the statement that school districts are getting increasingly innovative. For decades, ed school graduates kept trying the same methods, but with diminishing results. NYCTF is now in its 9th year. There are Fellows or former Fellows in many schools throughout the five boroughs. Opening the teaching profession up to graduates of other programs seems to have had a positive impact.

I’m going to have to agree with Chris.
Also, schools have been hosting job fairs for months now, which is how a lot of schools got my information, so you just really have to keep an eye out and take charge of your own career, don’t just wait around for a job to be handed to you.

..Jonathan, I just looked through the Chancellor’s Regulations on the NYC DOE website, and have not found anything about how principals must hire teachers to their school. If I’m wrong, please show me where I can find this information so I can understand it better, but as far as I can find, the principal who offer Chris a job was acting within his rights.

I also want to present a scenario. GM has had to shut down a few of their factories. To no fault of their own this means the employees working at these branches are unemployed unless they can get hired by another plant. Why should it work any different for teachers? In any other parts of the country (and world) if a school closed down it would be the responsibility of those teachers to find a new job, they would not continue to be paid just because it’s not their fault. Sure it sucks, but it’s not like they don’t have warning. For example, everyone knows Brandeis is closing, so those teachers should be actively applying to schools, attending job fairs, and speaking with other teachers they know in the system to find a job. I can’t help but think that some (obviously not all) of the teachers in ATR are milking the system.

Chris,

Specific wrongs?

The principal has a contractual obligation to advertise the position on the open market. He did not.

The principal has an obligation to leave the position up for two weeks (not in the contract, I believe there is a memorandum). Clearly he did not.

Teachers looking to transfer via the contractually-provided vehicle, the “Open Market,” were entirely bypassed.

The principal knows when the hiring period begins. It does not constrain him from interviewing, but he knows that he cannot hire during that period. This principal ignored that, and thereby did some major harm to you.

Unreasonable? No. In my school, we have two vacancies. We knew about them months ago, the principal began asking for leads, he brought in and met several prospective transfers, including someone he (and I) really liked. When the “Open Market” opened, he posted both vacancies. He will call in for formal interviews several candidates, including the applicants he already informally met. He was upfront about the process from the beginning – so the applicants knew something about the potential timeline. He followed the contract to a T, and he enlarged the pool of potential applicants without harming those who had “applied” early. And every teacher in the City has a chance to apply; they’re advertised where they’re supposed to be. Winners all around.

Katie, a likely reason a principal would offer you a job ahead of an ATR is that you don’t have tenure. I sent out my resume to a handful of SBO schools when I was a two-year teacher and received a high number of interview requests. I decided not to interview, stayed put and tested the open market a year later when I was a much better teacher. I received no responses except for two schools where I had friends working.

I really do feel for the people who are being shut out, who really do want to make teaching and helping kids their life mission. But, let’s be honest about this debate and lay blame where blame is due…Bloomberg – a mayor who wants nothing more than to smash unions so new teachers can be hired in charters to work longer hours, work a longer year, give their ALL to the test scores, then burn out after a couple of years and leave. Klein – an education-policy-challenged lawyer who has reorganized DOE policies so many times, students, parents, and teachers (young and experienced) are confused about any positive direction to go. Randi Weingarten – a Union leader so soft as to allow Bloomberg and Klein to create this atmosphere of confusion and distrust, unchallenged. And, finally, Wendy Kopp of Teacher’s For America. I can’t believe TFA has not been mentioned in all of these arguments of teachers being hired. Experienced teachers are shut out of positions, young people who WANT to be teachers are being shut out, yet a population that will only commit to two years and then move on to their real career choice hold how many positions throughout NYC? All in all, it’s a mess, but it is one created by the four, above mentioned, not teachers. Direct your ire appropriately.

Teaching Fellows also sign on for 2 years, but are far more likely than TfAers to keep teaching beyond their initial commitment.

Seems ironic that the Fellows were slashed far further than TfA, when they are far more likely to keep contributing to our children’s educations for years to come.

I am a New York City Teaching Fellow, 2009 Cohort. I have been assigned to Bronx, District 75. I have been told that it will take about 3 years for me to complete the Fellows program in order to get the Master’s degree, and thus, the Standard Certification.

To give full disclosure, I am a teacher who was promised a position in March (although not formally hired, as the principal could not do that.) I went to an ivy league grad school of ed, taught in an urban district for 2 years (not through a program,) and wanted to move back to
New York, where I grew up. Obviously, I am back at square one.

The time people plan to teacher for, while not immaterial to the quality of our system is not guaranteed- for experienced teachers, newbies, fellows, or tfa-ers.

The real issue here is teacher quality, and ultimately, the quality of education for our young people (Remember Bloom-Klein, TFA, NYCTF, and yes, you, UFT, THAT is the stated goal.)

In any other industry, competition dictates hiring. The best candidate for the position is interviewed and selected. Cost of hiring, experience, personality, and skill are the main considerations.

Let’s apply that to the teaching industry. Cost of hiring should not be an issue. The DOE pays all teachers, and promised schools to up the budget should they want to hire more experienced people.

That leaves us with experience, personality, and skill. Let the schools decide who they want. Bottom line. The hiring freeze only forces principals to hire the candidates they did not want, forces teachers into uncertain positions. This impacts the children negatively because new blood is blocked from the system, the best teachers (not all of them, certainly) are kept out, and the city bleeds money on dead wood.

I always remind myself, and fellow teachers, that WE are adults, and we are there for the CHILDREN. We are not guaranteed lifetime employment, they are promised a good education. Let’s give them the best, no matter who they are, or where they are from.

Jonathan, you write that you understand the frustration of Lauren and others’ situation, but you clearly prioritize those currently in the union (correct me if I am wrong but your comments make you appear to be coming very much from the union perspective here.) But currently the teachers in the pool are paid full salary, those coming into teaching have either sacrificed their life elsewhere, or if they have been getting their certification, wasted a year or two and many tens of thousand of dollars in the process. I know which of those two groups I think deserve more sympathy. Not to mention how it was ever agreed to pay somebody laid off (even if through no fault of their own) until they found another position. And in response to Pogue, I agree that all the groups you mention also deserve much criticism (especially the Bloomberg administration and TFA), I think the thing with the union is that they have either fallen for or led the charge (depending on your viewpoint) in creating an old v new teacher tension. And that can only be disasterous for them in the long run.

Chris.. than you for taking the time for reading my post. However I think you missed one key point. A teacher is excessed based on his/her SENIORITY. This means you and your 3 degrees will be shown the door when the school needs to make cutbacks.. Now on the other hand kudos to you and those principals that look to add staff based on best qualified and not on dollars along but this isn’t going to be everyone. Also as mentioned by another person. ATR teachers have had a ton of bad press heaped upon them so you also become marginalized while in this pool. As I noted earlier if a teacher in that pool has a U rating for the year they should be fired. But this still constitutes less then half of the ATR pool.

Chris, generally a tenured teacher with a single U rating continues to teach… This is quite important today, as the number of administrators not competent to rate (or even to teach) has soared under Bloomberg and his Chancellor.

The teachers in the pool got there, in the major part, by working at schools that were closing (a few with U’s, the vast majority not) or by working in programs that got reorganized (a lot of alternative program teachers). Often, when a school has a long history, even of mediocrity, teachers feel loyalty to “their” school, and stay until the last year. Unfortunately, they have found that under the current administration, finding new placement is tough. The new transfer plan and the new accounting formulas conspire against senior teachers, and against tenured teachers.

Yeah, how’d that incentive go? Less than 20 ATR’s hired? Hmm, something certainly smells fishy in Leadership Academy Principal-ville.

Cecilia,

There are certain things I have realized from reading this blog. Thee are those in this blog who are amazing at looking at the numbers and asking great questions that are educationally based. There are those that offer experiences hoping to show how sometimes many variables make up a complex problem. Then, there are reactionaries. Those that I can almost guarantee in the last 3 years (and maybe ever) have given a rats behind about the system, educational philosophy and only until it became the “in topic” spoke out. Comments like the “DOE did offer an incentive last year to schools for hiring teachers from the ATR by offering to pay the difference between hiring a new teacher vs a teacher from ATR.” is one of those latter types. You really do not understand how the system works or how the new changes effect what I call the “trust structure”

A principal has always had each teacher being hired be worth a certain $$ amount in their budget. When that all changed, the system changed drastically, we also went through two budget cuts (one after money had already been allocated by the principals) and to boot a further threat of cuts. My point is this. Many principals are afraid (When I say many I can attest to at least 15 I know) They are afraid because they ask a very valid question. If a “power” can cut budgets without truly understanding the impact on a school, close down facilities without parent and educator input and not see the building boom that was coming. How can they trust an incentive to hire? How long do you think the incentive would last before you as a principal would have to eat the difference, where would you get the money? Would you trust the system? If you had any knowledge of how the administrative side worked I bet you would be scared also. When you read this, instead of becoming reactionary, try and think about my questions, and give me a principals answer. Try, as I ask my students to wear a different hat. Most importantly, try not to generalize things because it takes the human element out of what I consider the most important issue in America, Education. (and yes I am a hypocrite in the sense that I did generalize things at the beginning of this piece)

In this headlong rush to hold teachers accountable for student performance, but only as measured ON STANDARDIZED TESTS — not exactly a grassroots movement as you may have noticed — we’re missing the forest for the twigs amongst all the well-funded “bark”ing.

How do you measure how much a teacher inspires a love of learning?
Creativity?
A thirst for Understanding?
Imagination?
Good Citizenship?
Social Skills?
Future success?

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”
– W.B. Yeats