ATRs in the Teachers Lounge

October 22, 2009

ATRs in the Teachers Lounge

by Ariel Sacks

Strange happenings … There are ATRs in the teacher’s lounge of my school. Let me explain.

As you probably know, starting this summer the Mayor put a freeze on hiring of any non-DOE teachers. So teachers who just moved to the city, as well as newbies out of any teacher prep program, including NYC Teaching Fellows and TFA, have all been left with no job prospects in the public schools. This is because of the ATRs, who are teachers who have been excessed — NOT fired — from their positions.

Excessing happens when funding for a position closes up or a school closes down. Now, it is pretty difficult to fire a tenured teacher. It requires lots of documentation from the principal, multiple chances for the teacher to redeem him or herself, and there is strong legal representation for all teachers provided by the union, so even in the clearest of cases, it can take a few years. Many principals take the easy way out and simply dry up the position, thereby excessing the unwanted teacher. Often this is nothing more than a bad match between teacher and principal/school, and such teachers secure positions at other schools quickly. In other cases, the excessed teacher doesn’t find a position at another school, but continues to receive his or her salary from the DOE as per the contract — if you’re not fired, then you still have a job, even if that job is actually no job at all.

My school had a number of vacancies at the end of last year. We were able to hire a bunch of experienced NYC teachers who were fleeing their schools for the greener pastures promised by my school (I hope we’re delivering!). But a few positions remained open. My principal interviewed 37 ATRs. That’s right, 37. She said they were the most depressing interviews she has ever done, and that she “could not, in good conscience, hire any of them.”

Why were the interviews so bad? Are these teachers really the dregs of the profession? Or is it that they’ve become all too comfortable being ATRs with no teaching position and do not want to go back to the classroom?

Two weeks into the school year, we still did not have a math teacher for my grade. A string of subs covered the math class, while we attempted to wait the hiring freeze out.

A few weeks later, the city decided to place all ATRs in vacancies throughout the city. We received three from a high school that was shut down. These three teachers, all middle aged, have 10-15 years of experience and get paid much more than I do However, they do not want to be at my school, and they know they are not wanted either. In the classroom, they behave like incompetent substitutes. No order, no real planning, no real teaching. Some have been rude to students on occasion. Students get rude right back to them (and you know how middle schoolers can be when they feel disrespected). It’s not good.

Finally, we found a solution. The hiring freeze has been lifted in the area of special education. One of our special education teachers is certified to teach any middle school subject. She agreed to take over the math position, although she’s never been a head teacher before. We are now in the process of hiring a new special education teacher.

Meanwhile, we still have the three ATRs … in our classrooms covering whenever someone’s absent, and on our payroll as the most senior people in the building.

In the teacher’s lounge they are like refugees. It’s weird. I feel bad for them. They seem like they have come from a school that was, like many large urban public schools, more of a war zone than a learning environment. They seem almost traumatized, and ready to attack at any moment.

One of the ATRs is covering for a special education teacher who is on maternity leave. If no teacher is absent, I can count on her to be in my room while I have my CTT class. (When she’s not there, I’m on my own … another story for another post.) She’s actually a nice woman who is trying to do a decent job. She observed in my classroom, while students busily did their work, then came to the meeting area to respond to a poem. She visibly relaxed and her facial expression changed when she saw my students’ real capabilities. Now she greets me in the morning and tells me whether she’ll be in my class or not that day. She asks me about the curriculum, and is trying to work more with the students. It’s nice to see the shift, but honestly, I feel like I’m training her, while she gets paid twice my salary.

Another ATR as been assigned to teach an 8th grade advisory, since our (now) math teacher cannot, because she’s still in charge of all middle school IEP’s and needs time in her schedule for it, and I cannot because I am team leader and department chair and need time in my schedule for that. However, this ATR just hands out whatever materials we give him, and sits in the room and reads a book.

So who’s responsible for this situation? I do not fault the mayor. It’s a smart business move to stop paying for teachers who have no positions, especially in a recession. However, given the turnover rates in high poverty schools, you know which schools had to take the ATRs instead of the usual TFA’ers (who can be just as inept, but are usually far more committed and faster learners).

But who is responsible for these ATRs apparent low ability to teach? Look at the environment they must be coming from. Is it their fault they were teaching under horrible conditions and probably received no support? And, although, I believe principals need a real reason to fire a teacher, perhaps the union is at fault when the process for firing inept teachers takes years. Kids lose out during those years. And which principal gave these teachers tenure so many years ago? Were they different teachers back then?

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Should I just “suck it up” and teach this woman what I know? Like I said, she’s actually a nice person who seems eager to learn. Should I train this man to run an advisory? My kids deserve that…

Ariel Sacks teaches eighth-grade English and serves as a team leader at a middle school in Brooklyn. This post originally appeared on her blog, On the Shoulders of Giants.

143 Comments

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack

Tom Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 11:19 am

What kind of person considers themselves a leader in a school and considers willfully withholding training to new teachers in their school because she resents their contractual salary?

Perhaps if the school had hired ATR’s before school started, made them feel welcome and offered some training in unfamiliar (to some high school teachers at least) procedures like advisory, things would be going better.

Someday you may find yourself in the same position.
ceolaf
October 22nd, 2009 12:58 pm

We have a group of teachers who Ms. Sacks suggests might not have been properly supported at their old school.

They know that they are not wanted (i.e. respected? valued? seen as human beings?) at Ms. Sacks school, and maybe not anywhere in the system. After all, we all know that many principals have said quite clearly that they will not hire ATRs.

In what industries do we expect people to do their best work when they have not been supported and feel unwanted? In what industries do we even expect them to work hard?

Mr. Hoffman is right. Thing might have been different if they were treated like professional educators from the start, like a part of the staff with professional responsibilities. It’s interesting to me that the only teacher with whom Ms. Sacks has had extensive personal/professional contact, the one which she knows has been treated the least bit decently and about whose conduct she can testify first hand, that teacher acts like a professional.

Everything else she writes is hearsay.

********************

As for how long it takes to remove a teacher? It goes a lot of faster if they are properly evaluated all along. They only get tenure if they get good evaluations. And if principals wait until it has already been clear for months or years that a teacher is performing unacceptably to even begin to attempt to document this, it is the principal — NOT THE UNION — that is responsible for the delay.
Mr. Talk
October 22nd, 2009 2:12 pm

This article is a disgrace. We have here a teacher who obviously resents other teachers who make more than she does (one assumes she thinks she is worth more). She accepts the principal’s assertion that not ONE ATR was qualified to teach at her school as the gospel truth. She implies that she thinks these teachers are the “dregs” of the profession based upon…what? Hearsay? Obviously the author is in league with the principal–”WE’ tried to subvert the hiring freeze…”WE” found a way around it. As a teacher and a union member, do you really feel that you should be on your principal’s side as he violates the spirit and letter of the contract?

There is no such thing as a teacher who is licensed to teach all subject in a middle school. Did anyone fact check this piece? In truth, that special ed teacher is teaching OUT OF LICENSE in violation of the teacher’s contract and Klein’s hiring freeze.

There is an assertion here that TRAs are “more committed and faster learners” than ATRs. That is nothing but a bald faced slur on a group of teachers who have put in more years than the author and all the TFAs in her school combined.

Finally, I don’t think it’s the twilight zone you’re in, although I have no doubt, Ms. Sachs, that your head has wandered to some nether region and has somehow made it up a passageway vertically.

Gotham Schools–you should be ashamed to print such nonsense. Ms. Sachs, I sure hope your principal promised you some plum job for writing it.
Alexander Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 2:34 pm

It looks like people are objecting to the broad brush with which Ms. Sacks has painted ATRs.

I wonder if she could tell us a bit more about her personal experience with them.

I also wonder why she might question the need to train an ATR to do advisory. Wouldn’t most teachers need such training? Real advisory programs are not that common. (Dr. Rhia Hamilton just completed her doctoral disseration at Teachers College on advisory programs. If you’re curious, you might want to look it up. There is so little real research on advisory, it really makes some valuable contributions.)

And last, I cannot make sense of why Ms. Sacks would call TFAers more comitted than ATRs. Haven’t the ATRs been in the profession for years already? If TFAers are brand new, from whence does the assumption of their greater comittment arise? Again, this is a problem coming painting with a broad brush, methinks.
Michael M.
October 22nd, 2009 3:30 pm

Wowza.

Re “So who’s responsible for this situation? I do not fault the mayor. It’s a smart business move to stop paying for teachers who have no positions, especially in a recession.”

And why NOT fault the Mayor (and/or Chancellor) for what LED to those eliminated positions? And why NOT put those teachers into classrooms when the average class size is going UP.

This mean-spirited essay utterly sidesteps a good many questions that led to the ATR situation in the first place, and casts aspersions not warranted by any sort of individual performance review on ALL teachers who find themselves in ATR status.

Sort of… “If you ever deserved tenure, how’d you end up an ATR ‘ready to attack’ anyone who clearly envies your paycheck?”

The corker is that Ms. Sacks thinks *her* “twilight zone” is more surreal than that of the ATR’s.

Also, Ms. Sacks’ statement that three ATR teachers are the highest paid teachers in the building substantiates the assertion I’ve seen a number of times that school closures resulting in the ATR are driven by other factors than advertised. In this case, washing out high-paid senior teachers. And what happened to “hold harmless” as to teacher salary impacts on principals’ budgets? Didn’t we read here on GS that Klein had bundled that with clearing the ATR bench?

“Team Leader.” The definition is up for grabs. Hope it’s not tenured.
Leonie Haimson
October 22nd, 2009 3:31 pm

I don’t wonder at the negative attitude of these ATR teachers, who after many years in the profession have now been assigned to be substitute teachers and worse, to take the place of special ed teachers or teach CTT classes without any relevant training and outside their certification; why the author of this passage feels that this is appropriate use of their talents I have no idea. More likely if they were assigned classes that took advantage of their specific training and/or abilities they would have a more positive attitude.
mr. citizen
October 22nd, 2009 3:54 pm

The fact of the matter is that every single principal wants a good teacher and will pay whatever it takes to have one. The problem with the ATR pool is that the union contract prevents the DOE from differentiating between good ATRs and the problematic ones you would never want in front of a classroom of students. I went to job fairs this summer and had ATRs say things to me like “I hate middle schoolers” or “I bide my time on eBay while my students are working”, but there were also ATRs who had thoughtful and smart ideas about working with students and had the experience to back it up. If the ATR pool was reserved for teachers who want to teach, like kids and have some track record of actually getting results in the classroom, schools would be singing their praises. Instead, there are way too many bad seeds that give the talented teachers in the pool a bad rep.
Alexander Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 4:28 pm

Mr. Citizen,

I think that Ms. Stacks explained the problem quite differently. As she explained it, it’s not that there’s no way to differentiate the good ATRs from the the problematic. Rather, it’s that principals use ATR as a way to get rid of problematic teachers instead of fulfilling their own responsibility to evaluate them fairly and begin the process of removing them. By her reasoning, the problem is that principals are biasing the pool towards bad teachers. She also reports that — presumably as a results — not one in 37 ATRs could, in good conscience, be hired.

I also have to take issue with you claim that “every single principal wants a good teacher and will pay whatever it takes to have one.” What if the cost is someone they don’t like, who is high maintenance or causes trouble for them as a principal? What if the cost is letting go of some of their preconceptions?

it would be great if we could count on all principals, teachers and educators to do the right thing all the time, or even to live up to their own values all the time. But fact of the matter is that they, like members of every other profession and industry, are human beings. There are costs they won’t pay, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously.
QueensParent
October 22nd, 2009 4:30 pm

Well said Mr. Citizen. It is standard human resource practice to differentiate among employee abilities, evaluate accordingly, and then take appropriate action (re-assign, fire, promote, etc) but this practice is so alien in NYC, where everyone in a union must be treated the same regardless of ability, even if it means that the end result is children are abused or mis-educated in the process. What parent in their right mind would want a low performing teacher in charge of their kids’ class. The answer? No parent would. The adults know this practice is shameful and wrong, but they don’t care. They just care about getting paychecks for adults. Damn the children is what they are saying. Mayor Bloomberg called this question out a long time ago: Is the school system run for the benefit of adults, or for the benefit of children? With this ATR issue the answer becomes very clear. The only remaining question is how much longer this horrible practice of retaining low performing teachers in do-nothing jobs will go on in New York.
ceolaf
October 22nd, 2009 4:49 pm

QueensParent,

All teachers are a supposed to be formally evaluated every year. Only those who perform adequately are suppose to get tenure. Is that not a way to treat teachers of different ability levels differently?

Teachers who receive poor evaluations are subject to efforts to help them. Is that not another way?

Teachers who do not respond to such efforts are subject to dismissal, in spite of their having previously earned tenure.

What’s the problem?

Furthermore, promotions to Coach, Team Leader, Assistant Principal and/or Principal take prior performance into account.

What more are you calling for?

The issue here is not that low performing teachers are treated the same as high performing teachers. Heck, in Ms. Sacks’s story, the presumably low performing teaching (ATRs) are clearly treated differently than the non-ATR teachers. The issue, however, is something you allude to. It is standard HR practice to evaluate performance and record those evaluations in writing — annually if not more often. Ms. Sacks and I disagree on a few things, but we do agree that THAT standard HR practice has been skipped.

So, I ask you, in the absence of accurate evaluations of performance, how do you recommend we recognize which teachers are high performing and which are not?
Tom Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 4:53 pm

But in this case, the school, or Ms. Sacks at least, seems to be applying “the widget effect” as much as union and administration, resenting the possibility that experienced high school teachers dropped into a middle school after the beginning of the year might need time, help and support in adjusting to the change. Shouldn’t that be “standard human resource practice?”
mr. citizen (do it for the kids)
October 22nd, 2009 5:03 pm

Mr. Hoffman,

To the extent that principals should observe as much as possible and make better and more informed tenure decisions, I couldn’t agree with you more. The fact that something like 95% of DOE teachers receive tenure is stunning and shameful. However, principals who want a break from that tradition and want effective teachers for their students shouldn’t have to suffer because a principal 15 years ago forgot to enter a tenure decision. If the only out is to excess a bad teacher because of contract stipulations which make the arbitration process a total, endless nightmare, how can you blame that principal for doing so?

I blame a union contract that forces principals to pass the buck to other schools with regards to bad teachers instead of having the ability to get rid of them altogether. There are over 1,200 teachers who are a part of the ATR pool; you don’t believe that 37 of them are incompetent? I’d say that number is closer to, say, 800.

In any case, the bottom line is that principals are the ones held accountable for the student outcomes in their building, and if a teacher is high maintenance or causes trouble, it is likely that the same teacher isn’t seeking out professional opportunity and won’t accept constructive feedback. If you could prove to me through student achievement data that those same teachers are actually effective, that’s another story. Sadly, the UFT prevents schools from obtaining and using that kind of data to make evaluative decisions (at least at the secondary level), so if a principal perceives that a teacher is ineffective, I would argue that the cost of having a bad teacher in front of a group of kids should be taken a lot more seriously than mumbo jumbo “human being” costs about preconceptions and feelings.
mr. citizen (do it for the kids)
October 22nd, 2009 5:06 pm

And just to clarify, my comment is aimed at Alexander Hoffman and not Tom Hoffman.
Pogue
October 22nd, 2009 5:15 pm

Wow, I’ve never seen teachers being publicly attacked by another teacher before. Knowing how difficult the job can be over time, and how much time is devoted to trying to help children over the course of a career, this is a pretty sad occasion. I guess that’s how Bloomberg and Klein want it now. Divide, conquer, privatize, and reap the rewards.

Keep it sinking, NYC.
Miss Eyre
October 22nd, 2009 5:17 pm

Interesting that Ms. Sacks points out that when the ATR has specific responsibilities and kids to look after, she seems different. Wow. So maybe, just maybe, if ATRs were treated with respect and given the permanent positions they had (and merited) all along, they wouldn’t be spaced-out zombies, sitting in the teachers’ lounge with nothing to do? Color me shocked.

Oh, and not all nontraditionally certified teachers are as ignorant and ill-informed as Ms. Sacks makes herself out to be in this piece. Word from a (proud) NYCTF.
Miss Eyre
October 22nd, 2009 5:22 pm

Also: I once taught in a school with an advisory program. I went to eight training sessions, scattered throughout the school year, on how to be an advisor and also had meetings with the advisory team for my grade level once a week. Even after all that, I felt I only had the most tenuous grasp on being an advisor. It’s a very difficult job for even the most committed and idealistic teacher. Most everyone needs some training and practice to get good at it, just like anything else. So tarring these teachers because advisory is a challenge is doubly unfair. Even I, who was as idealistic (and naive) as any full-of-youth-and-energy nontraditionally certified teacher, needed to work at it.
Alexander Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 5:25 pm

Mr. Citizen,

If your goal is higher reading and math scores on the sorts of tests we have here in New York, you are doubtless correct in every instance.

If your goal is higher level thinkings, creativity, analytical thinking, persistence, empathy, imagination, communication, commitment, humility, joy, analysis and perspective?

I just learned a few minutes ago that Ted Sizer died yesterday. Perhaps this is a good time for people to revisit Horace’s Compromise (and Horace’s School and Horace’s Hope). Think about what the real aims of schooling should be, and whether the way we treat treat teachers and students are compatible with that vision.

You blame a contract when you admit that principals have not lived up to their responsibilities under the contract? You blame the contract when principals are willing to pass on their known problem to other schools — where those principals would have to begin the evaluation process from scratch, adding something like a year to the process? And your solution to the failure of so many principals to do their job is to entrust them to make arbitrary and data-less decisions about teacher quality without having to document them?

Seriously, Mr. Citizen, how can you trust principals to do that properly, fairly and in the students’ best interested when they weren’t doing that before? Or is it just the good principals whom you want to have this kind of power? How will you identify them?

I was told by my last principal “Stop worrying about critical and analytical thinking; just teach English.” Then he gave me a bad evaluation — expecting that I would grieve it and win the grievance — to show me that my efforts to get teachers involved in a collective conversation about how we might together support each others’ work was not appreciated.

Principals are human being. Some of them quite flawed. All of them with human amounts of insecurity, jealousy, pride and all the rest. How do you account for that?

The bottom line is that teachers see students daily, knowing just about all of them them far more intimately than any administrator will, and develop a felt obligation towards. There is no proposed mechanism for principals to be held accountable for the results you seem to care most about (i.e. test scores), but there is lots of pressure to hold teachers accountable for them.

I don’t side with teachers every time over principals, and I have great respect for how hard their job is. But relieving them of the requirement to evaluate and support their teachers? That’s not going to improve our schools or the meaningful outcomes and lessons we are hoping for.

So, please, Mr. Citizen, this week that saw the passing of Dr. Sizer, let me know when which things I have written count as “mumbo jumbo.”
Michael Fiorillo
October 22nd, 2009 5:25 pm

Cluelessness and arrogance combined: excellent middle management potential!

Such a totally blind sense of self-importance and superiority is common everywhere and in all fields - although its seems the epidemic is worsening in education - so for me the question is why would Gotham Schools publish it.

Is it “to start a conversation?” If so, a better conversation-starter could have been found.

Or is it to spread and validate a fundamentally pro-management attitude among teachers?
canwetalk
October 22nd, 2009 6:04 pm

I’m wondering if Ariel Sacks attended the Michele Rhee Leadership School of Anti-Teacher and Back-Stabbing Academy. I hope I never run in to you because I will give you a piece of my mind! This is the mayor’s fault and it will always be the mayor’s fault for creating this situation. If the mayor had not closed so many schools and had funded them to help those schools to turnaround these schools around the ATRs would be in classrooms teaching. You don’t get terminated for being excessed. Excessing has existed for many many years. Years ago it was called tipping! The only people who want excessed teachers fired are the mayor, Klein, Michelle Rhee and YOU. What kind of team leader are you? Does the T stand for traitor, the E for egotistic, the A for arrogance, and the M for mindless!

How dare you!!!!
fred
October 22nd, 2009 6:09 pm

i am an atr assigned to a school in the bronx. i was recently observed in my class, btw a vacancy, and not really my area of expertise, but since i am a “middle-aged” teacher with lots of experience i received a written response from my supervisor with congatulations on a job well done. yes, we senior teachers who make more money than you are paid this way because we are expert teachers and you are not; apparently basing your ill conceived opinions on a handful of atrs at your school. get a life…..
canwetalk
October 22nd, 2009 6:12 pm

To Fred,
Thank you for coming to the ATRs’ defense by sharing your experience. How many people would like to bet that she’s a team leader because she plans to eventually apply to Klein’s Leadership Academy? Anyone wants to bet a nickel! Because that’s what her comments are worth.
inexile
October 22nd, 2009 6:29 pm

Oh my god, I am so sick of teachers like Ms. Sacks. They’re the super teachers. They believe they are good at everything. They live for the “kids.” They have no life and think it’s appropriate to dedicate every living moment to help a kid. This is not a profession with certain parameters; for a teacher like this - it’s a mission, a calling. They make excuses for the kids’ poor behavior. Is it appropriate for middle school kids to disrespect a teacher because they feel disrespected? There’s always a hint of racism and class issues in a teacher like this. There here to save the poor brown kids - to change the world. Ugh make me barf! This was indeed a sickening post by a self-righteous, immature, ego-maniac. I agree with canwetalk, I see leadership academy written all over her. Get over yourself, Ms. Sacks.
Ariel Sacks
October 22nd, 2009 7:33 pm

Wow, lots to respond to. I am thinking a lot about the folks who’ve commented that Bloomberg and Klein are trying to divide and conquer and also shut down schools with lots of veteran teachers to save money. I’m not with that at all and you may have a point. Thinking about that… I have no problem with a veteran teacher making much more than I do as long as the teacher is working for it. I had no idea my post came off so negative towards the ATRs–the language some comments have used has really shocked me. I see their situation as being quite unfair for them, and their ambiguous status at my school is a real problem for everyone. That said, I was trying to be generous toward the 3 who are placed here because I have some sympathy for their situation and I also hate teacher bashing, but it seems I’ve teacher-bashed nonetheless? I agree with the comment that most of the excessed teachers find themselves jobs because principals will pay a lot for great teachers–and those that won’t can get out of town as far as I’m concerned. Well, here’s what I left out about these teachers who were not able to get jobs for themselves and were placed against their wills at my school.

One ATR said on the first day, “I don’t want to be here and if they put me in a classroom I’ll just babysit.”

One was given an advisory and told he’s the official advisor. We (my teammates) gave him curriculum and explained it to him. He passed out the written materials and sat at the desk reading the paper. We then told him he needed to grade the materials. He did not.

One said to a student about another student, “Don’t talk to him, because he’s dumb and won’t get anywhere in life.”

So, these things need to be documented by my principal. But this is where my negativity is coming from. I am posting this because I need to run right now, but will respond more later.
Mr. Talk
October 22nd, 2009 7:42 pm

“Sacks says she may one day pursue a job as a school administrator, but for now she’s happy as a teacher.”

Oh my. I am so surprised.

http://resources.topschooljobs.org/tsj/job-seekers/2007/07/18/profile_sacks_web.html.html
Pogue
October 22nd, 2009 7:45 pm

Wow, this makes me sentimentally long for the good old days of Socrates and “I had a teacher in the next room who…”.
canwetalk
October 22nd, 2009 7:51 pm

Ariel, These ATRs confided in you on how they feel and you used their weak moments of frustration and disappointment for your 5 minutes of fame.

It is unconscionable what you did by having your lengthy writing of these union issues blogged especially since you know nothing about their plight in this mayoral-corrupted control system. Do your research first! Speak to the chapter leader first! Read the New York Teacher Newspaper first! Call a UFT borough office and speak to a district rep FIRST!!! When you have gathered all your facts then speak on behalf of the teachers. You never know what the future has instore for you when the rug is yanked from under your feet one day. Remember there is always Karma in this system.
Marty
October 22nd, 2009 9:34 pm

The sounds like it could have been a post about a principal who allows a teacher to sit and read the paper instead of teaching. Instead, you blame the union, a distant third party.
Ariel Sacks
October 22nd, 2009 9:44 pm

A few clarifications about who I am in this profession: I am teacher and plan to stay a teacher. I do not like Michelle Rhee’s work. From what I can tell she has little respect for teachers. I believe teachers are the solution to American education reform, not the problem. But we need more of a voice. That’s what I try to do in my blog and with my involvement with the Teacher Leaders Network, which seeks to elevate the voices of teachers in education policy (Most members are veteran teachers).

That said, I am not a martyr teacher with no life. I’m not here to save the kids. I’m not a super teacher. I just like teaching. My school lacks veteran teachers and this is our biggest weakness. (We have a number of 5-10 year teachers but no veterans and I miss working among really experienced teachers). I do not believe that shutting down schools solves the problems of those schools or ensures that the students will get a better education. I am not a fan of Klein and Bloomberg, which I believe I’ve made quite clear in my blog. I probably do need to do some more research about the situation of ATRs. I really don’t understand it, and it does seem like poor planning on the part of the mayor. I know many good teachers who’ve been excessed and found jobs pretty quickly. Why did the ATR’s who are currently at my school against their wills not get jobs elsewhere? Is the problem here a combination of age discrimination and principals not wanting to pay for veterans? Or simply not enough positions? By the way, the ATRs at my school did not confide in me. If you thought that, you misunderstood me.

Now I need some clarification from some of you: Was my blog post harmful? If so, to whom? Words like “unconscionable” and “traitor” are very strong. The way you’ve polarized the conversation is exactly what you despise Klein and Rhee and the mainstream media for doing when they fuel the anti-teacher mentality that so many hold. If we, teachers, want to have a real voice in what happens, we have to be able to speak our minds and have real conversations about difficult issues, not hatefests. There are people with power who actually believe we have nothing of value to add to these debates (I’ve been at meetings with some. It is offensive). And those people would think my post was way too sympathetic toward the ATRs. So if you are telling me to go “get a life,” because I offended you, is that the same thing you say to the policy maker who makes decisions that affect our schools and students?

Finally, about collective voice. Do those of you who believe my post was offensive believe that the union represents our interests as a teaching profession?
Muriel
October 22nd, 2009 9:52 pm

Gee, Ariel, my pretty, I guess you’ve, in your short three-year career, been an ATR so you know exactly what it’s like, right? Why SHOULD the ATR guy listen to arrogant heartless little newbies like yourself when he was yanked out of a perfectly fine teaching position? What makes you better than him? Your illustrious years at Brown University? You have a lot to learn, and if you are as lucky as me, you too will live to be a senior, veteran teacher. You are clueless, snotty, elitist, ignorant, and have a lot to learn. I’m not about to educate you on the history of the ATR situation, but let it suffice to say that this situation never occurred before your corporate fascist leaders, Bloomberg and Klein, took over the Board of Education and made it the Department of Education. The union itself is at fault here too. The waste and corruption is just astounding, and your obvious lack of knowledge of teachers and their role in the labor movement makes your nasty and condescending comments even more reprehensible. You better hope that the powers that be don’t marginalize you the way you’ve marginalized these teachers who were competent at what they were TRAINED to do. You’re a department chair? The DOE used to have assistant principals as department heads. You’re a 3rd-year teacher and a department head???? You are cheap help!!
Rhoda
October 22nd, 2009 9:57 pm

Wow! I am really disappointed that Ms. Sacks published this. She is going to kill morale in her school and the CTT teacher she works with and whom she spoke about will not be all that thrilled with her. That will affect her classroom relationship with her students.

If I worked in your school in Brooklyn (and I don’t!), I would not trust you or want to associate with you as I wouldn’t know if anything I said or did would end up in print on the internet forever.

I won’t comment more on what you wrote in your post, but I think that you exercised very poor judgment in publishing this missive with your name. It was indeed extremely unprofessional of you to attack your fellow staff members (especially one you work in the classroom with, at least on occasion) in such a public forum.
Ariel Sacks
October 22nd, 2009 10:06 pm

Marty, you have a point. But let’s say a teacher literally sits and reads the paper in class every day. How long would it take to terminate that teacher’s contract? In my limited understanding, the teacher gets evaluated (along with all teachers) and receive a U rating at the end of a year. A whole year of no teaching. Is he then terminated? I think he gets another year to try to improve. Can he sit and read the paper for another year before getting terminated? It’s one thing if a struggling teacher is trying to improve, and then its a matter of getting the right support. But what if he or she isn’t? How long does the contract support that?
Rhoda
October 22nd, 2009 10:23 pm

Ariel, I have been teaching for 21 years (almost at top salary now) and have seen some terribly incompetent teachers in my day (including some who were protected by the administration for political reasons), but haven’t ever seen a teacher just read the newspaper in class all year long. There are ways for administrators to deal with that situation immediately–if this is allowed to persist, then it is a reflection on the administration and not the tacher.

The real problem is that you admit that you have a limited understanding. Perhaps you should not write about topics for which your understanding is so limited. (Research some of the horror stories on the internet!) You have gotten so much wrong, but more than that you still fail to grasp that by using your real name to discuss real people in your real school, you are going to cause a great deal of divisiveness.

I always help out my colleagues when they ask–whether they are more senior than I am or just plain newbies. Something about your post and your attitude makes you sound mean-spirited. I doubt that you are, but….

Have you ever tried to reach out to those ATR’s and make them feel welcome? Do you think that this article is going to make the situation better for them or for your school, and consequently for your students?

I have no problem with you voicing your opinion whatever I think about it–but it should have been anonymous. It is very possible that by being so public that you have harmed the morale of the staff in your school and that affects students a great deal!!! Trust me–I have been at this quite successfully for more than 2 decades!!!!!
Ariel Sacks
October 22nd, 2009 10:28 pm

Muriel, I’ve been teaching for 6 years. But yes, I am cheap help. My principal and AP taught for less time than me, though. (Don’t kill the messenger.)

I have to say, you think my post was condescending, but seem to think it’s okay to condescend to me directly, “my pretty,” and use sarcasm to make your point. Unfortunately, I think you know a lot I’d like to know but won’t get the truth out because you’ll stay offended by people who don’t know what you know.

Rhoda, I appreciate that just stated what bothered you without sarcasm and name-calling. I’ve only extremely rarely written about anyone specific at my school and never in an unfavorable light until this post. Most of my opinions about my colleagues are known to them. Maybe it was unwise to make negative feelings public, but I would never be having these conversations if I hadn’t put my experience and perspective out there. Again, did I actually harm anyone? I am beginning to think, based on all of your comments, that my principal needs to take on more leadership in this situation. I have been made to think that the ATR’s are not actually my colleagues. The CTT, I found out, is not going to stay in that role. The advisor may not either. So how much do I invest in these relationships? Really, what the heck is going on? Hoffman is right, the twilight zone must be worse for them, but it affects everyone.
Ellen
October 22nd, 2009 10:32 pm

Maybe we should go back to the issue of how a principal is assigning his/her staff? And address the issue of the CTT class…is there a CTT class or is there a period(s) when there are two teachers in the room. It’s not clear.
As far as the ATRs are concerned, would any one of us like to be moved around willy-nilly? it takes time to by into a school, as a teacher as a student or as a parent, and it sounds like some of the teachers might be more comfortable now than they have been in the past. Being accepted by your colleagues is a good first step. Pity never works.
I don’t think we should be hitting Ms. Sacks over the head, but questioning the principal of the school about using staff well.
SMH
October 22nd, 2009 10:35 pm

Let’s face it, the DOE lacks accountability on all fronts. I have seen and met ATRs that I don’t know how they got jobs in the first place. Lets remember how easy it was years ago to become a NYC teacher. I also have seen Principals sabatoge the efforts of an ATR looking for a legitmate position because they told them they would hire them, when in fact, they have intentions of using that ATR in a FT program. I have heard ATRs say I was offered three positions but I only want to work 15 minutes from home and those jobs were 25. I’ve had Principals reach out to many ATRs who won’t return their calls, refuse to interview and even turn down positions within their district. I’ve heard Principals say they refuse to hire ATRs in their building unfairly discriminating. I’ve heard ATRs with an entitlement attitude when lets face it, in corporate america many skilled people who have contributed to their organizations and taken their own professional development in their hands have been let go with maybe 4 weeks severance.

All ATRs as well as non-ATR teachers are not great educators and are effective in the classroom. There has to be better accountability. If a process proves to cumbersome or ineffective in vetting what its designed to do, it should be changed. Principals should be accountable for who they tenure. And just because someone was tenured after their 3rd year doesnt mean their quality as an educator is at the same level, however the process due to Contract rules makes it cumbersome and therefore as with anything else, people look for a ‘workaround’.

ATRs are human beings and should be treated as the professionals they are but lets stop with the violins and be fact driven not emotion driven. Some ATRs truly dont want to be in the classroom anymore. Who knows what led them to feel this way? Could be the politics, could be simple non-motivation, but there has to be away to get these individuals off of payroll and not forced to fill vacancies to teach our kids. To the rest, who want to teach, the whole system needs an overhaul for them to be treated with the respect they deserve.
Rhoda
October 22nd, 2009 10:59 pm

Ariel,
One thing I have found under Bloomberg and Klein is that experience in the classroom is looked upon as a deficiency. It is not. Sure, there are some burnt out teachers, but most of us stay in the profession because we love what we do and we (for the most part) do it well.

It seems that if the most senior people in your school are these ATR’s with 10-15 years of experience and your administrator’s (Leadership Academy?) have even less experience than you do (less than 6 years and already leading a school? Even though it is commonplace now, it is still shocking to me. When I started teaching in the early 1980’s–I took a couple of years off when I had my son and daughter–I was told by almost everyone that you shouldn’t even think about becoming an adminstrator until you have 20 years of classroom experience under your belt).

Experience yields wisdom. I think that your principal lacks that if s/he is not making this situation better for all parties involved. An unhappy staff makes for, ultimately, an unhappy classroom and a chaotic school. Unhappy and stressed out staff create the same emotions in students and no real learning can occur. I am sure you see that.

I am constantly observed by newer teachers who marvel at my class control. They always ask for secrets and tips–and I have many…but the biggest secret is that my 21 years in the classroom have taught me more than anything and have helped make me a very successful teacher (with very successful students).

And yes, I have seen some people throughout the years who made me cringe and who I wanted fired–the teacher who was drunk every day, the math teacher who couldn’t speak English and so on….

I work my ninth graders really hard (I choose to teach them, by the way–this is the least desirable group to teach in a high school) and make great strides with them….and yes, there are some math teachers they get in tenth grade and beyond who do nothing–I try to work with those teachers and have had some success.

You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, right? Remember, we are all in this to make our student’s lives better. It serves nobody to attack colleagues publicly or even to have colleagues know what we feel about them. How can you work with them if they know you dislike them or think they are unqualified?
Great leadership means inspiring others….all others. I consider all teachers in NYC to be my colleagues…not just the ones in my school.

I try to smile at everybody because you never know if that smile will be infectious and spread around…..

I think you made some valid points, but they should have been anonymous…and yes, I do think you caused harm to your school, your staff morale and in the long term to your students..

Your intentions in this blog entry seem noble, but remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good luck to you, but please think twice before you publicly excoriate anybody in your school. It just is bad practice.
Rhoda
October 22nd, 2009 11:06 pm

Errata–
I wrote:
and yes, there are some math teachers they get in tenth grade and beyond who do nothing–I try to work with those teachers and have had some success.
I meant to write ….and beyond who do nothing special.

Also, since I mentioned two highly unqualified teachers, I thought I should say what happened to them. The principal had the drunk teacher removed from the classroom. I believe the teacher later quit. The teacher who didn’t speak English was denied tenure and was fired.
John Powers
October 22nd, 2009 11:24 pm

Ms. Sacks,

Thank you for having the courage to speak truth to power. I couldn’t agree more with your assertions. Just two years ago, I became an unofficial ATR when District 79 closed, but fortunately I found a job quickly. The truth is I am an awful teacher and probably deserve to be an ATR. At least then I could feel I belong to a group that thinks and teaches like I do. Quite frankly, it is an awful feeling to come to work each day carrying feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and yes, even a bit of anger because I can not perform as others do.

I have tried everything! I have spent over $1,000 on various education textbooks and guides. I have observed master teachers with three to five years of teaching experience and have left their classrooms wishing that I could somehow shave ten years or so off of my fourteen years of service. What can I do? Is it possible to arrange a meeting with you sometime in the future? My principal is somewhat progressive in her stance toward education and I am sure she would have no problem inviting you into our school so you could demonstrate your masterly ways in front of my students. I work at Liberation High School in Coney Island. My students desperately need someone like you to come in and service them in ways that escape some of my colleagues and me.

If you are not able to arrange such a meeting during a number of regular school days, please be advised that we run after school classes. Although I am a member of our after school Inquiry Team, I am sure I could arrange to skip several IT meetings to observe and work alongside you in our PM English class.

Let me know what you think. If we cannot meet in person, perhaps we could Facebook each other and open a line of communication via message and online texting. Ms. Sacks, I am desperate for your help. I can tell from your post that you are a genuinely talented and compassionate person. Please do not let me down. Please do not let our students down. I am sorry. I should not pressure you. You have your hands full with that talentless ATR.

If only there were more of you Ms. Sacks. Tonight when I lay my head down to rest and say my prayers, I will ask my Lord to somehow allow your knowledge and talent to wash over all NYC schools and inundate all teachers with the necessary pedagogical tools and prowess to enlighten children and prepare them for life in the 21st century.

May the Force be with You,

John Powers
Aspiring Jedi Knight of Teaching
English Teacher
Chapter Leader
Liberation H.S.

My Phone #
1-800-RU4-REAL
Alexander Hoffman
October 22nd, 2009 11:40 pm

Ms. Sacks,

You write, “I have been made to think that the ATR’s are not actually my colleagues.”

You wonder what you have said that will cause damage?
David B. Cohen
October 23rd, 2009 12:09 am

Ariel,
When I read this blog entry, I thought it might be risky, and here we see why. I think you’ve been candid about yourself and your position, and you’ve exposed problems that many would rather not see. If there are repercussions at school, those are yours to deal with. For those online who are not directly involved but take it upon themselves to be personally offended, and then attack the messenger (often crudely), their approach reveals the limitations of their rhetoric and their ability to construct useful responses to issues you present. When you put yourself out there, you take chances, and on the balance, I think you’ve done well in your efforts to write about students, schools, and teaching.
norm
October 23rd, 2009 12:16 am

Pogue:
“Wow, this makes me sentimentally long for the good old days of Socrates and “I had a teacher in the next room who…”.

Scratch a few comments above and you might find Socrates still lurking. Socrates, of course, pretended to be a NYC teacher and used the “my neighbor spends every day reading the newspaper” argument. I heard that same line from a TFA once. I bet it’s taught in training sessions for TFA and the Leadership Academy (which is the grad school of TFA.)

What the kids would do to someone who spends the day reading a newspaper.
Ariel Sacks
October 23rd, 2009 12:21 am

Jedi John, I guess you are getting a good laugh out of this. I don’t really want to hear what you think about me, but I am interested in anyone’s thoughts about the issue at hand.

Mr. Hoffman, I’m not sure I agree that’s a damaging thing to say. It’s the truth. But maybe I should not be complicit in it. I’m not sure. The only real argument I’m hearing is that I shouldn’t publicly put down other teachers, and that I should respect them because of their years of experience and identify Bloomberg and Klein as the problem here–which I already do on many other issues. But when I’m working my tail off planning and grading, meeting with teachers, and they are in the teacher’s room chatting or photocopying word searches for their next classes, it kind of makes me look at them like, what do you do? Again, I’m not completely faulting them, because the situation they’ve been thrust into seems unfair or at least uncomfortable.

Your responses HAVE made me question my position a bit. I’m going to try to look at the situation within the framework of, these are my colleagues, and see if I see something different.
Ariel Sacks
October 23rd, 2009 12:36 am

Rhoda said: “One thing I have found under Bloomberg and Klein is that experience in the classroom is looked upon as a deficiency. It is not. Sure, there are some burnt out teachers, but most of us stay in the profession because we love what we do and we (for the most part) do it well.”

I couldn’t agree more. Just wanted to say that. And Bloomberg and Klein really don’t know anything about teaching. They just try to employ business concepts to education, which doesn’t work when it comes to actual children and learning. The idea that experience is not the most valuable a teacher has is really ridiculous and misguided. But also, yes, there are some burnt out teachers. I think burnout and years on the job are not as related as most people think. I know people who got burnt out after 2 years, and others who never burnt out after 30 years.
fred
October 23rd, 2009 6:48 am

to ar: the uft is mainly about security and benefits. it is also about education. see the curriculum they have prepared in the past. no need to go outside to highly paid consultants, textbook and test makers. im glad mulgrew was a teacher and chapter leader. its a good start and time will tell. i really feel bad for those kids who lanquish in our schools. mgmt seeks a solution in seperating the good from the bad. hey, i was a sp kid myself, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. we still need to do something with those who suffer from lack of support.
Muriel
October 23rd, 2009 7:13 am

Ariel, perhaps my anger at your uninformed comments about ATR’s drove my sarcasm and “condescending” remarks. However, you really need to develop empathy, and, judging from your background, you have the ability to analyze a situation beyond what you experience.
One ATR I know returned to their “home” school after an absence of 5 years. Why? This teacher was considered good enough to become a mentor, and then worked at that position for those 5 years. Bloomberg and Klein, in their infinite educational wisdom, got rid of the mentors. Their reward, including my friend, was to be relegated to ATR status. The agenda underlying all this is that the mentors were a group of senior veteran teachers and needed to be put out to pasture. That teacher is fighting the ATR status and has gone on over 30 interviews but no one is really hiring. Ariel, you need to develop some compassion for these people who worked for many years for lower salaries than teachers in other area districts. The payback was a secure job. Remember, teachers are civil service employees, not anything more as far as status. Then the “Education” mayor comes along and corporatized a civil service job. The union allowed ATR’s to be created by closing schools or getting rid of mentors and returning them to classrooms. So these people who worked many years for a lower salary in exchange for job security found themselves in this unconscionable position; furthermore, the union is hanging them out to dry. How would you feel if you were put in this position? The ageism was dripping from your post, reflecting the hard hearted spirit in which Klein and Bloomberg conduct business within the Department of Education.
My .02
October 23rd, 2009 7:26 am

We just got an ATR in my school, hired from the pool. This person is a terrific teacher- a team player, cares about the kids and does a good job teaching them (and they like/respect this teacher). I am sure that this person is not the only high-quality person in the pool. But pieces like this will continue to make it harder for those people to get regular positions because they continue to be painted as incompetent.
Patrick J. Sullivan
October 23rd, 2009 7:53 am

I’m concerned about how special education is addressed in your school. Why is it considered a satisfactory “solution” to pull the special ed teacher into math, leaving the kids with special needs without the teaching competence they require?

How many teachers are present for the CTT classes? You make it sound like there is just one on some regular basis.
Heather Wolpert-Gawron
October 23rd, 2009 9:02 am

Ariel,
This should be frustrating to every teacher who believes they are dedicated to their craft. This “dance of lemons” is not the only reason civilians look upon tenure and our profession with disdain, but it is a legitimate concern.

Here is an real example: The school received one of these teachers courtesy of a repentant district that admitted the teacher’s early school did not go through its due process to fire her. Principal A had the cahones to fight back enough to dissolve two of her classes for the sake of the kids within them and create a class in which so far there are no kids. Ethically, it makes me want to cry. The union protects this truly student-scarring teacher, while more students and work is piled onto other teachers in order to compensate for trying to make lemonade out of lemons.

I believe the union, whom I greatly support, has a responsibility to support the teachers as a staff as well as the individual. These teachers gave up their time and energy to try to train this inherited woman who clearly would rather have had free periods in which to do nothing.

Perhaps the unions can begin to look at the teachers being imposed upon, the overworked, underpaid, dedicated teachers who always step up to help even those who don’t want it. How is this equitable?

Anyway, I think we all need to hear more of these in-the-trenches stories and put our defensive fists down. Ariel’s story is a reality, and if we don’t look it in the face, education will never get better.

We all have those stories. Should education improvement not be our common goal together?
norm
October 23rd, 2009 9:12 am

If teachers had real power over the profession and were responsible to each other instead of the principal, these instances would be less likely to happen.
Gail Ritchie
October 23rd, 2009 9:39 am

After reading all the comments (and some of them are downright rude and mean-spirited), I have a better understanding of why so many in “education policy world” are anti-union. Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we don’t have a union, we have an association, because Virginia, like many southern states is a “Right to Work” state. What that means is that corporations and business are favored over individuals. And because unions have a reputation for protecting even the worst of the worst, all the good work they (the unions) do to protect the rights of deserving individuals goes unrecognized. Salaries are a good example. Anytime there’s a budget crisis, my salary gets frozen, and there’s nothing I or my association can do about it. We don’t have collective bargaining. To help balance its budget, the state of Virginia is considering restructuring our retirement system (which could lose me 40% of my “nest egg”), and again, there’s nothing I or my association can do about it.

Even an outsider like me can see that the ATR situation is complex, with errors made by many of the parties involved. There is no one person (Klein) or entity (UFT) who deserves all the blame. Rather, it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. In this country, we, as a society, don’t seem to value children or their education. Instead, we value entertainment and entertainers. Just follow the money. Do we invest in health care, school infrastructure, or decent salaries for the expertise of caring, knowledgeable professional teachers? No. But we do pay people millions of dollars to play games for a living and to star in movies and television shows.

Thank you, Ariel Sacks, for having the courage to question a negative situation and start a conversation about causes/effects and potential solutions. We teachers need to speak up about issues that affect education, because otherwise policy decisions are made by people who know little to nothing about our profession, resulting in situations like the ATRs.
ceolaf
October 23rd, 2009 11:08 am

Ms. Sacks,

Can we also remember that teacher salaries are up like 43% on Bloomberg’s watch? Why do I bring this up? Because the teachers Ms. Sacks has decried made a great deal less than she has, at equivalent points in their careers. These teachers whose commitment she has compared to people who might never have taught, who get their graduated degrees paid for and a huge share of which leave the classroom after two or three years and who come in — even for their short stays in the classroom — in an era of FAR higher teacher salaries.

And let me ask you this: how often would the truth be harmful to your students’ motivation? Do you always tell them the plain and unvarnished truth as you see it? Do you think that the fact that something is the truth means that it is always a good idea to say it publicly — or even out loud?

You’ve given plenty of reasons for why the ATRs motivation might have been hampered, hurt or crushed. How hard can you expect them to work in such temporary assignments. (You’ve made clear that your principal doesn’t think that ATRs ought to be hired, and even your sometimes CCT partner is moved around without warning.) If they are not treated like professionals — or even like colleagues — what do you expect them to do?

I learned a long time ago that if we have expectations for students they will be met. If they are low, they will be met. If they are high, they will be met. You work with middle school students; isn’t that your experience? Why do you think that low expectation for adults will not be met?

It is really difficult for teachers to chance or improve. There’s an sector-wide culture of teachers working by themselves and closing their doors to do their own things unsupervised. Asking for help is hard. Exposing one’s practice is hard. Building collegial trust is key to teacher improvement — the only way that schools can get better. When you insult particular identifiable teachers so publicly, you not only damage any trust that might otherwise have developed with them, you also cause other teachers to doubt whether you can be trusted. Why shouldn’t they wonder about you publicly insulting them someday if you think them sub par?

If I taught in your school and was having a particular problem with how to teach or structure something, a problem with a particular student, I know that I would not feel comfortable coming to you. You might appear nice and supportive, but I am sure you appear nice and supportive to the ATRs in your school. I don’t want my practice to be publicly ridiculed. So, when you come to my room, I would be that much more likely to put together my observation lesson plan. I’ll turn to someone I trust when I need counsel.
Jeff S
October 23rd, 2009 2:38 pm

A lot of people just don’t get it…put yourself in the place say of a 17 year veteran high school math teacher. For years, you have taught upper level math classes. Now for reasons of no fault of your own, an incompetent unqualified inept Chancellor decides to close your school and you are excessed. You find that in all the senior high schools, there are no positions to teach upper level math. You are told to go to middle schools and teach what is equivalent to fourth grade arithmetic or you are told by some neophyte Principal that he or she wants you to teach one of those fuzzy math programs where kids sit around in circles and instead of being taught math properly, work out “real life” problems (and never are able to take higher level math classes). Of course you are resentful. Your talents are being wasted. If that were made, I would be resentful too. Why should I have to prove how good I am after a decade and a half of turning out doctors, scientists, whatever.

We owe this situation to a chancellor who doesn’t have a clue. Instead of doing what was necessary, namely getting rid of the few trouble makers that were bringing down some of the great neighborhood schools, his reesponse is to close the schools, replace them with these new small schools when there is not one iota of evidence these new small schools provide the proper educational environment to meet all the neess of kids. And then you blame the teacher who resents being told he is a day to day substitute teaching special education kids many of whom have behavioral problems (not all but many). Walk a mile in their shoes before you criticize.
QueensParent
October 23rd, 2009 2:55 pm

My how I just love this discussion thread. For once, there is a frank admittance that there are out there teachers teaching who should not be, probably never, teaching. Yet they are still out there, harming children right and left. And people serious think that the way to deal with a poor teacher is to “help them?” My God are you serious? Fire them! Get them out of classrooms and stop harming children! How about that for a management approach?
Mr. Talk
October 23rd, 2009 3:55 pm

Quite frankly, QueensParent, it’s a stupid management approach. First of all, I don’t know a single teacher–not one–who thinks incompetent teachers should get to stay in their jobs. Let’s not forget that principals are the ones who hired these supposedly incompetent teachers in the first place. Why would a principal hire an incompetent? Of course, you’ll say the principal didn’t know, but in fact a principal can fire any teacher–for virtually any reason or no reason at all–for the first three years of that teacher’s career. Why aren’t principals held accountable if they hire and retain so-called incompetent teachers?

Many teachers, myself included, spent decades in schools with sparkling records, only to find ourselves staring down the barrel of a gun wielded by a leadership academy principal. My principal wanted me gone, and under your ridiculous “management approach”, I would have been fired. Instead I went to another school where I plan to continue educating children as well as any of my peers for many more years. My current admins love me and the work I do. My students perform at high levels. And there are thousands of teachers just like me who’d be on the unemployment line if people like you had your way.

Educate yourself on education, and then get back to us.
KitchenSink
October 23rd, 2009 5:58 pm

Mr. Talk, is there anything you can point to specifically that you think led the new principal to want to push you out? Is it something to do with a change in philosophy, or wanting to clean house and have his or her own people in?

I’m not trying to invalidate your experience, just learn more about how this dynamic works.
GGW
October 23rd, 2009 6:21 pm

Ariel,

Don’t sweat the vindictiveness on the thread. I’m sure your pulse went up a few notches as you read it! Continue to call ‘em as u see ‘em.
Michael Fiorillo
October 23rd, 2009 6:31 pm

Kitchen Sink,

Is it your implication that a new principal, who quite likely has far less classroom experience than someone like Mr. Talk, has the right to to remove a seasoned and accomplished teacher because of their “philosophy?” Have you ever heard of professional judgement and academic freedom? Oh, that’s right, professional judgement and academic freedom are relics that tenure and a union contract protect, and you charter folks and your venture capital backers are allergic to them.

Look at your language: you have implied that this teacher is dirt who must be “cleaned” away, and that any new principal has the arbitrary right to hire and fire, without recourse.

You must be quite a pip to work for.
Mr. Talk
October 23rd, 2009 7:01 pm

KitchenSink, I certainly don’t want to make this thread about me, because it is not. My story is of little relevance here, other than to point out that good teachers are frequently targeted for a variety of reasons, any of which could land them in the ATR pool or the rubber room on incompetence charges or whatever else a vindictive principal might dream up.

I never imagined I’d be within a hair’s breadth of being fired after so many years of dedicated service. I’m sure the thousands of ATRs felt the same as I did. What Ms. Sacks doesn’t realize is that there’s nothing to prevent her from being in the exact same situation some day. (BTW, Ms. Sacks, I’d stop making disparaging remarks about BloomKlein under my real name if I were you.Just a word to the wise).

I hope it never happens to her or anyone else, but if it does, perhaps she’ll remember how she implied that these dedicated professionals as the ‘dregs’ of the profession.
Becky
October 23rd, 2009 9:05 pm

Ariel,

After reading these comments, I applaud you for yanking the curtains back so the stage is revealed. It was amazing to me that so many people took offense to you questioning the current situation that is not providing” highly qualified teachers” in every classroom.
Pogue
October 23rd, 2009 9:17 pm

Jeez’, I wish someone would yank the curtains back on Bloomberg and reveal how so many politicians and leaders roll over for him.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
TeachMoore
October 23rd, 2009 10:04 pm

Like an earlier commenter on this thread, I find this ATR system in NYC baffling. I too work in an open shop state where teachers have neither tenure nor collective bargaining. The thing is, even without those protections, it is rare–almost unheard of–for a teacher to be fired for incompetence. Generally here, administrators find it easier to simply let contracts expire and not rehire them (similar to the ATR process you describe, but without a salary). From what you all have described, it sounds more like this ATR system might be a way for principals or higher administrators to eliminate people they may simply not like (???) as well as those who are not doing a good job. But, the process begs the question, if the person were in fact doing such a bad job, why not just put up the evidence of that and have the person removed from the profession period, rather than continue to pay them a salary? Perhaps what we really need is to examine our processes of evaluating teachers to ensure that those who are doing the work of teaching get rewarded (and protected from unfair dismissal or job loss) and that those who are not get removed.
I noticed that...
October 23rd, 2009 10:06 pm

Here’s how I see it. New teachers come into the system thinking that they are miracle workers and start pointing at veteran(seasoned) teachers as out-of-touch educators. These seasoned teachers, who were excessed from their large schools, are being treated as liabilities in other schools when they were once an asset in those phased out schools. They are placed unwillingly in a school that they don’t want to be in and are not wanted, either. So the newbies make the conclusion, by assumption, that these seasoned teachers are not pulling their weight or how Ms. Sacks states, ” they behave like incompetent substitutes. No order, no real planning, no real” teaching.” If teachers put in over 15 years in the classroom and have always received a satisfactory rating at the end of the school year and now they are displaced because of the Bloomberg-Klein system of closing schools and pitting the inexperienced against the experienced, do you think it is fair for someone with so few years in the system to categorically think that they are “incompetent subsitutes”. Principals rate teachers. Teachers do not rate teachers. Principals must provide professional support to those teachers who are weak and help them to become competent in their field. Principals MUST make the final decision of who get tenure or not. Principals MUST do their job of keeping track of those teachers for three years. Principals MUST show documentation of how they provided professional support and assistance to those teachers. Ergo, those ATRs have tenure because the principals deemed them fit and competent to teach. You are not all of sudden incompetent because you were unwillingly excessed out of a phased school. If principals don’t their job, you cannot blame the teachers for their tenure.

Here’s something else that peeves me. If a principal interviews 37 ATRs and none were fit to be hired, I’m wondering what type of interviewing questions were asked. Or did the principal see that these ATRs would show their union strength and the principal felt threatened by this. Remember many principals want to hire teachers that will make the data look good at the cost of true teaching and learning.

Let’s go Back to the Future - Newbies will eventually become “seasoned” teachers and they will eventually, in 15 years, be face to face with a bunch of newbies who will think that Ariel Sacks is a liability of the system and should be terminated for “No order, no real planning, no real” teaching.”"
DISGUSTED former ATR
October 23rd, 2009 10:09 pm

I found your blog to be completely insulting. I have been teaching for 14 years..the last 6 in a wonderful DOE school. After 5 years there I was excessed along with 7 others because of severe budget cuts. It had nothing to do with our performance. The last 7 hired were the teachers to go. My principal was devastated that he had to cut so many wonderful teachers. Why didn’t I get a job right away? I was told to leave my stuff in my room..more money comes in over the summer… I will find you something… dont; worry about it..and then by September my principal was unable to place us because no teachers left and no money came in over the summer. I was then left to scramble to find a job along with the hundreds of others in my same position. I am now in a CTT classroom working my butt of every day to do what I love most…teach children. Never in my LIFE did I see myself getting excessed. I left my former students and dear friends behind. I now travel an extra 15 minutes (add that to the 1 hr commute I already had) People assume that because you are/were an ATR you are incompetent. You should be ashamed of yourself for passing such judgment. It COULD happen to you…Maybe then you would see how horrible it feels. And YOU are a teacher? It makes me sick that someone who can be so hurtful and judgmental gets in front of a classroom every day. It will come back to you. It will…
norm
October 23rd, 2009 11:02 pm

Look at the hysteria. “For once, there is a frank admittance that there are out there teachers teaching who should not be, probably never, teaching. Yet they are still out there, harming children right and left. And people serious think that the way to deal with a poor teacher is to “help them?” My God are you serious? Fire them! Get them out of classrooms and stop harming children! How about that for a management approach?”

My God, the humanity.

Where’s the hysteria over the fact that every Black kid gets stopped numerous times by cops who profile them? Some kids even get killed. Where’s the push to remove poor cops?

Where’s the hysteria over these same “harmed” children by bad teachers who have to go to emergency rooms with probably the same percentage of bad doctors and other health care professionals? Some children even die due to nad medical care. Doctors have lifetime tenure, even those that kill people.

Where’s the hysteria over the often poor legal services poor communities get- yes passing the Bar is like tenure and there are plenty of bad lawyers. Our market based merit pay ed deformers probably agree with this one since the highest paid must be the best. But I don’t agree. I think there are bad lawyers who do a lot more harm than bad teachers.

Do you think there are no poor officers leading soldiers in war? That there are no deaths due to poor leadership? Where’s the hysteria over some of these same kids who grow up and go to war and don’t come back.

And should I mention the state of politicians who do immense harm to kids and adults? Think George Bush and how many former kids were way more than harmed.

Let the witch hunt for poor teachers continue.
Marty
October 24th, 2009 12:24 am

Ariel (wow, lots of new posts since your response to me), I’m not sure we need to talk about hypotheticals when we have an actual case in front of us where, clearly, the principal, if aware of the ATR’s behavior, is not doing his or her job.

But I’ll tell you something I learned years ago when I worked for a union: The contract is just a piece of paper. The side that is tougher, smarter, and more persistent wins the battles. If your principal can’t stand up to an ATR who reads the newspaper in the classroom, he or she doesn’t deserve the position. Blaming the union would be the most pathetic kind of excuse-making for poor leadership. And your using this case as reason to imply that we should lose one of our basic democratic rights (due process) is short-sighted and dangerous.
Marty
October 24th, 2009 12:40 am

Interesting comment by TeachMoore. I’ve heard that teachers in non-union states are less likely to be fired than unionized teachers (I think the article was in Counterpunch). Maybe QueensParent should move to Alabama and go on a quest to get rid of the bad teachers there who are being protected by???
DAVID PAKTER
October 24th, 2009 3:01 am

Regarding: MS. ARIEL SACKS

__________________________________

This individual appears to harbor great and deep seated anger that she is expected to impart her infinite knowledge to people whose salary is twice what Ms. Sacks currently earns.

Apparently Ms. Sacks, when she one day becomes “Chancellor Sacks”, will, on her first day of occupying the former Chancellor’s office pen a Decree that a new system will be enacted regarding teacher salaries.

There will be no Salary Differentials automatically awarded to teachers who earn education credits or Master’s degrees because it will be too cumbersome for Chancellor Sacks to vet what type or amount of “useful” knowledge was gained from those education credits or Masters degrees.

As for Salary increases based on years of teaching/Longevity, according to Chancellor Sacks, after age 35 or 40 it will clearly be logical that a teacher’s Salary should decrease by say 10 % per year as the brain cells of all those “old nags” begin to atrophy and clearly those “has been” veteran teachers would be best put out to pasture to vegetate and just graze all day til they are ready to be sent to the glue factory.

In the world according to “Chancellor” Sacks, just as in the world according to the present “Legend in his own mind”, the educationally uncredentialed, Faux “Chancellor” Joel klein, Esq., all that came before will gradually be eliminated as if it never existed.

The millions of people who were products of the NYC schools system for the past Century were obviously all “cheated” and prevented from obtaining a first class education by antiquated methods and people who refused to change with the times. Clearly- deadwood all of them.

How fortunate are we to have had a Mayor, whose Townhouse is just down the street from me, who in his infinite wisdom selected a former Federal Prosecutor to take control of the destinies of one million predominantly at risk, (due to poverty), children.

But now we are “saved”. The entire system is well on the way to being totally Privatized.

Beloved American Capitalism and “Chancellor” Klein and soon to be “Chancellor Sacks, will rescue us all from a supposedly dilapidated system that has outlasted its usefulness.

Oh “Brave New World that hath such people in it”.

All will soon be righted, all the old nags and old hags and Atlantic ocean Dead Wood, the flotsam and jetsam of all the education world’s endless seas will be no more.

People like myself, “aberrations” apparently in time and space, who went from Teacher of the Year, decorated in NY City Hall by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to hated, despised, villified, Whistle-Blower, confined for four years and counting to four of “Chancellor” Klein’s Rubber Room gulags, will become a thing of the past.

“Chancellor Sacks”, learning from and following in the foot steps of “Chancellor” Joel Klein, Esq. will make certain that any teacher who does not “know his/her place” will never last long enough in the system to have anything of which to report.

The system may one day find a way to rid themselves of my presence, but Klein and his countless lapdogs, lackeys, stooges and sycophants have a long road to tow ahead of them.

And even if they succeed by engaging in criminal behavior, that will not stop my Federal Lawsuit from proceeding.

I will live long enough to see “Chancellor” Joel Klein, Esq., stand in the Dock and be Sworn in to Testify under risk of Perjury as a Defendant in my Federal case- even if NY City Sheriffs must bring him by force in hand-cuffs, against his will.

But on the evening of that day, no doubt the next and future Chancellor will be lying in her bed, dreaming as she must every night that she will wake up to read a six column headline across the top of the New York Times that says in huge ivory black letters:

Chancellor “Ariel” - Sacks Another Trainload of Teachers”
__________________________________
KitchenSink
October 24th, 2009 11:12 am

Geez, Michael F, I thought I was using neutral terminology. For the record I don’t think “cleaning house” is a respectful term - but unfortunately it’s language I’ve heard over and over again in management across a variety of professions.

I don’t know what really happened to Mr. Talk or the ATRs Ariel describes. I’m just trying to find out more. And I thought Mr. Talk sharing the principal’s perspective, or at least surface explanation, would be helpful.
Ariel Sacks
October 24th, 2009 12:01 pm

Marty is right. At this point if an ATR or any teacher at my school is not fulfilling basic requirements of his or her job, it is the job of the principal to take action using due process. It is also the job of my principal to explain expectations and procedures to the ATRs placed at my school and give them the support they need to do their jobs.

I did not write about my situation in order to suggest that ATR’s lose their jobs. I am sorry if that has been the effect of my post. I see now the damage that could cause–I become political fuel for the people who want to save money by getting rid of “expensive” experienced teachers who’ve done nothing wrong, but work in a school that was closed down, or where funding was cut. Although it happens in other professions a lot, and people are left to find new jobs on their own, I value the job security our contract provides and our union protects. Teaching is too personal and full of risk-taking to have to worry that you could lose your job if the principal doesn’t like you or a choice you made. There needs to be due process for all of us.

I am going to take Rhoda’s advice and not discuss the situation at my school any more than I already have. In my opinion, the situation is unacceptable on a number of levels, but that may may not be for discussion here.

I think Renee brings up some productive direction: “Perhaps what we really need is to examine our processes of evaluating teachers to ensure that those who are doing the work of teaching get rewarded (and protected from unfair dismissal or job loss) and that those who are not get removed.”

It seems like policy makers want to change teacher evaluation and the only thing they seem to be thinking about is using test scores, which I think would be a huge mistake.

Is our current evaluation system working?

What should be the goal of teacher evaluation? Feedback for the teacher? A way to identify and support ineffective teachers? A way to terminate ineffective teachers? A way to encourage and reward effective teaching?

If our current evaluation system is not working, what changes could be made to it that would benefit teachers and students?
ceolaf
October 24th, 2009 12:23 pm

Everyone,

I think that Ms. Sacks has made some amazing mistakes in posting this piece as she has. However, she has also stuck around to answer her critics. She has not stooped the the level of some of the commenters whom — I believed — crossed the line and got personal in their disagreements with her. She has tried to defend herself, has asked (some) commenters to explain more about what they are saying, and has attempted to address all of our objections honestly.

She has even admitted some amount of fault.

Frankly, I think that the personal attacks in this thread against Ms. Sacks mark a real low point in what I have on this site. For all her poor judgment, Ms. Sacks has not lied or misrepresented herself or her views. She has tried to be honest. And she clearly has strived to accessible.

I feel bad for Ms. Sacks that she has had so many people pointing to how they think she is wrong, and how they think she approached this issue poorly. That’s a lousy position to be in, even if it is of her own making. But I really feel bad for the site that so many — I count four, but others may count differently — crossed the line of decency. It was surely hard enough for her with all the substantive disagreements.

I disagree with her on a number of levels, but I applaud her integrity in her sticking around. I have no doubt that the majority of commenters who have NOT engaged in ad hominem or personal attacks respect her willingness to engage and respond, even if we disagree with her on the substance of her post.

I hope that Ms. Sacks sticks around. I hope that she comments on other posts, responds to other people’s comments, and even continues to cross post from her own blog. Obviously, she’ll think twice about doing it again, and hopefully she’ll be more careful in thinking about impact of what she says in public forums on the people she works with. You see the very fact that she has a different view than me — and than so many of us — makes her a *more* valuable contributor to the site. If she’s willing to continue to engage like this, I welcome her continued involvement with Gotham Schools.
Ariel Sacks
October 24th, 2009 12:48 pm

Thank you ceolaf. You’re right, the personal attacks have been hard, mostly because I did not realize there would be a fight. If I’d known how deeply I would offend other teachers, I would have written a different post. But I’ve learned from this discussion, and appreciate the commenters who’ve really engaged around the issues. I think many of us in education are in our own bubbles, where we discuss issues with others with whom we know we agree. For me, the debate here has made me see the edges of my own bubble a little clearer, and that seems really important.
Alexander Hoffman
October 24th, 2009 12:52 pm

Ariel,

I’m going to keep making Ted Sizer references, though he deserves better.

The teacher evaluation system we have been using for so long is just another dimension of Horace’s Compromise. As long as teachers don’t create trouble for principals, principals won’t create trouble for them.

Do a “good” lesson when you’re being observed, don’t question the principals, and do a little bit to take things off of their plates/desks, and you’ll be fine. But if parents call, kids complain, teachers ask challenging questions or teachers even do a real lesson when being observed? That’s where principals start to notice.

Teacher evaluations is like students’ homework. Just do it the way you are supposed to do it and you’ll be fine.

It would be great if principals would allow great teachers who really contribute to students’ education do their thing, even when they are a pain in the ass. It would be great if principals worked to remove teachers who do nothing for their kids, but make their principal’s lives easier. But let’s be honest. Let’s look at what happens in classrooms between students and teachers. Brilliant pain in the ass students who create trouble, don’t comply but have totally mastered the material don’t get good grades. Nice, cooperative students who follow the rules and do everything they can to help the teacher manage to pass, even when they don’t really entirely understand the material.

Obviously, I am painting with a broad brush. There really are some fantastic principals who will bend over backwards to accommodate great teachers, and who focus on teacher effectiveness without regard to how much easier these teachers makes their lives. However, there are not even close to 1500 of them in this city.

I think Ted’s challenge to all of us as educators has been how to re-imagine schooling, and by extension the principalship, so that real substantive and lasting education for students is achieved.
sharese perry
October 24th, 2009 1:15 pm

Look, Ariel is 100% accurate of her assessment on ATR teachers. I am in the same position at my school. The only difference is I am a long-term sub trying to get hired, but duev to the hiring freeze I can’t. So I team-teach with an ATR; needless, to say I am experiencing everything Ariel has stated. The only difference is she has guts to state it and everone is attacking her. They do say the truth hurts!
Michael Fiorillo
October 24th, 2009 3:06 pm

KS,

My point was that by using the language you did, you were expressing overwhelming management bias in the guise of a “simple” question. Your unexamined assumptions rang off the page. You yourself then admit using a common management phrase. No, it’s not very pretty one, is it? Not pretty, but quite revealing.

Notice, for instance, that your reasons for Mr. Talk being targeted did not include ” principal’s desire to intimidate and send a message to the faculty” “power hunger” or “DOE policy.”

I’m upfront about my pro-labor and pro-teacher biases, which I find are are validated in the overwhelming majority of cases. I’m just proposing that you examine yours before you hide behind the “Gee, I was only asking” defense.
Michael Fiorillo
October 24th, 2009 4:26 pm

Ms. Sacks,

In my initial response to your posting, I described you as “clueless” and “arrogant.” Harsh terms, but I stand by them, for the following reasons.

Your posting was filled with unexamined assumptions that tilted overwhelmingly toward the DOE/corporate ed deform view of urban education, despite your later hedged statements about the mayor’s actions. In addition, your words and tone give off a powerful feeling of your sense of self-importance.

Let’s look at the data, shall we?

Your posting accepts at face value the Principal’s statement about her 37 “depressing” interviews. But why should we do that? Principal’s have been given a material incentive to not hire veteran teachers. Why did you not leave open even the possibility that this was a self-serving statement on the Principal’s part?

Your rhetorical questions about why no ATRs were hired (Paragraph 5) at your school embed and parrot the DOE/ed deformer line about ATRs. Why not ask, “Were these veteran teachers so demoralized by their abuse at the hands of the DOE and their betrayal by the union that they’ve become totally shell-shocked and dispirited?”

You uncritically talk about a “solution” (Paragraph that is at best little more than gaming the system.

Your professed sympathy for the ATRs (Paragraph 10) after you’ve attacked them comes off as superficial and condescending.

You say you do not fault the mayor. Perhaps you should educate yourself about how the Mayor and Chancellor’s actions are part of a nationwide - indeed, global - attack on public education and teachers. You explain his behavior based on his own premises and justifications. Isn’t critical thinking supposed to be something we teach our kids? If so, where’s yours?

Your statement about TFAs being “far more committed” shows your uncritical channeling of corporate ed deform rhetoric and PR. As Alexander Hoffman accurately pointed out in a comment, exactly how how “committed” is someone who parachutes from the Ivy League into a community for the express purpose of only staying 2 or 3 years? Do you really think this is a viable, sustainable, long term way to provide education to urban youth? Your post implies that it does. At least Teaching Fellows approach teaching as a career, not an often patronizing form of resume-building.

Your final paragraph leaves the reader with the distinct impression that you see yourself as the only adult who is put-upon in this situation, and that everything depends on your unique expertise and desire to help your students. Sorry, but that’s arrogant.

I’m sure the personal attacks against you were upsetting, but should you really be so surprised? People who’ve spent years teaching the children of NYC - many of whom have attended the weddings, college graduations and funerals of their students - are being attacked from all sides. Stay in the classroom a little longer and you may find yourself among them (unless, of course, your pro-management biases get you the “brass ring” of an administrative job).

Your post uncritically expressed and validated a widespread campaign to vilify and professionally destroy teachers. Are they, who rightfully see themselves as the targets of an Orwellian campaign to blame them for the ills of a looted society, expected to quietly accept their sacrifice to the Gods of the Market? Granted, you’re ultimately not the real enemy, but, harsh as it is, people were right to set you straight.
Ariel Sacks
October 24th, 2009 5:01 pm

Mr. Fiorello,

I agree with your criticisms of TFA.

I agree that I make a mistake in using my principal’s comment about the 37 ATR’s interviews, because that was hearsay. I wasn’t there for any of the interviews, so I don’t really know. I also had nothing to do with the decision to wait out the hiring freeze, or to use the ATRs as subs instead of filling the vacancies with them. You’re right, I trusted my principal’s judgment, and now recognize that there is a lot of room for error in that.

I also made a mistake in my post by implying that the ATRs at my school are representative of all ATRs in the city. I did make a false assumption there, painting with too broad a brush, as so many have pointed out. Today I’ve apologize for that on my blog in a new post.

We both hate the way the politicians and media paint teachers as the problem in public schools, vilifying experienced teachers. At the same time, do you admit that there are some incompetent teachers in classrooms, and that they make an impact on working conditions for all teachers? Should not the union care about that too? Do you believe the teacher evaluation system is efficient enough to remove the few teachers who are not fit to teach? If so, I suppose we just have an unfortunate situation that principals just need to take the time to deal with. But if not, we have a deeper issue that needs to be dealt with. If we do not begin to speak up about it, then we are vulnerable to then policy makers from Duncan to Klein will come up with their own ways of dealing with it without any teacher input, as they already are, using test scores as the vehicle.

I agree that teachers are being scapegoated to divert attention from the fact that American politics–in action–doesn’t really seem care about public education. But if we blindly defend all teachers just because they are teachers, we are more vulnerable to those anti-teacher folks who will find fault in our blind defense and seek to discredit anything we have to say.
Michael Fiorillo
October 24th, 2009 6:33 pm

Ms. Sacks,

I appreciate your openness to criticism and continuing response to it. I also appreciate that you write under your own name, which too many people posting and commenting on these sites refuse to do.

In response to your questions, of course there are many bad teachers, but I’d say that they have a more negative impact on their students than their colleagues. I’ve had some really dreadful teachers in my day, some of them verbally, emotionally and even physically abusive. Nevertheless, I survived. As for the young people in the public schools, unfortunately too many of them face threats and challenges in their lives far worse than incompetent teachers.

You must examine the context in which the debate about teacher quality and education in general is taking place. I don’t want to minimize our potential impact on the lives of our students, but why this (relatively) sudden obsession with the impact teachers have on the lives of poor children, especially from people who’ve previously had no concern whatsoever with education or poverty?

If you read Mayor Bloomberg’s autobiography, you will not see a single word about public education. Where was he, and others of his ilk, when 15,000 public school teachers were laid off in the 1970’s, a devastating blow to the public schools that took over a generation to recover from (to just use NYC as an example)? Bill Gates was busy building a computer software monopoly, which ironically goes unmentioned in all the diatribes about the government “monopoly” in public education. Eli Broad was busy building white-flight suburbs and gated communities in the Southwest. The Walton family was busy siphoning off for their personal benefit and ideological programs the unpaid wages and benefits of their employees. What gives these people the right to use their wealth to buy educational policy and proclaim themselves protectors of the rights of poor urban children? What gives them and their mouthpieces the right to set the terms of debate?

Look at the dismal position of the United States in most social indices. True, we stack up as mediocre in education, but that’s a big improvement over our rock bottom - among developed countries - status in areas like life expectancy, and child and maternal mortality. Where’s the plutocratic and editorial outrage over that? Where’s the outrage over the outrageous incarceration rate in this country, where many prisoners serve years in jail for non-violent crimes? In other words, why is the indignation and outrage so selective? It’s because, as fields that have already been privatized, health care and prisons (where, as reported in today’s Times, Arizona is privatizing its entire prison system, including Death Row: talk about perverse incentives!) are doing what they are supposed to do. The schools, on the other hand, have yet to maximize shareholder value.

Thus the attack on teachers and their unions, which are in the strategically most important position to defend the public’s right to participate in the education of their children, and to protect academic freedom. And thus the attack on their weakest link, bad teachers.

So, I have to disagree with you about our need to accept the ed deformers terms of debate about teacher quality, when it consciously excludes other professions. Where’s the outrage on the newspaper editorial pages over incompetent doctors? A few years ago, a doctor in Queens was found to be using used syringes on his patients. Not only did he not go to jail, he kept his license. Every job and profession is filled with incompetents: why the obsessive focus on teachers?

By engaging in debate with corporate education deformers on their own terms, teachers fall into a trap. What the the ed deformers do not distort, they will ignore. Klein, Duncan and all the other privateers must be actively challenged and fought, and not provided a few pitiful scapegoats, because those sacrificial victims will not satisfy them: they will keep coming until they have us, and our students, under their boots.
KitchenSink
October 24th, 2009 8:17 pm

Michael F, if all of the comments from your ideological colleagues were as cogently, rationally and calmly stated as your last entry, we’d have a much more productive discussion. And you make me ashamed for engaging at the petty level, which I sometimes do when I get riled up. (It’s made possible with a pseudonym, which you ably point out…but I’m certainly not ready to “come out.”)

You have a lot of good points, but I think you go to far. We’re humans; that’s why there’s always a lot of stuff wrong with everything we do. You left out the military-industrial complex, the constant distortion in the media on just about any issue you’d like, and on and on.

However, just because some rich people took advantage of their while privilege and their connections to make boat loads of money doesn’t mean their ideas are wrong.

Look around - the education system IS broken. I taught in a poor neighborhood before there were ATRs, and I have to qualify my comments by saying that my heroes are still some of the veteran teachers who had been at my school for decades and were at the pinnacle of their profession, but there were LOTS of BAD teachers, and the principal was out of control. If you read the fine print, I don’t think Bloomklein and Duncan etc. are just vilifying teachers. It’s about leadership, and it’s about a strong school culture. Hiring, cultivating and retaining an effective teaching team - and yes, that means as in any other profession on occasion removing ineffective employees - is a prominent way that school leaders can drive a school toward success.

I sense a hint of defensiveness, a fear that work protections won over the course of two generations will be chipped away, leading to the slippery slope of denigrating the profession.

We both want the same thing - I think the teaching profession should be lifted up as the noble and intellectually challenging work that it is. All we are saying is, “Give getting-rid-of-bad-teachers a chance.” Lots of people with lots of different ideologies - including 60s radicals - would agree with that sentiment. There are many you criticize who do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Michael Fiorillo
October 24th, 2009 9:38 pm

KS,

I seriously question whether whether you and I want the same thing.

But there is no question in my mind whatsoever that corporate ed deformers and our oligarchical overclass wants something very different from me. They want a privatized system where they call the shots, a system that inculcates and replicates the narrow market fundamentalism and will to power that has governed their lives and their domination over others. They want an educational system that serves their narrow self interest. Everything they say about teacher quality is just a smokescreen for that.

Behavior is the most honest form of communication, so I don’t don’t only listen to what they say; I watch what they do, and I see them doing their damnedest to create a separate and unequal, anti-democratic school system in the cities.

I see them pitting minority communities against each other, and having the effrontery to use the rhetoric of the civil rights movement as a cover.

I see them manipulating the idealism of young people to become fifth columnists in the teaching field.

I see them using natural disasters and economic crises that they bear a lot of responsibility for to force their ideologies into practice.

I see them blaming the failures of the schools, not on their unwillingness to adequately fund them over time, but on the people who have dedicated years to teaching the students in them.

I see them using their wealth, in the name of so-called philanthropy, to instead entrench their interests.

You say you sense defensiveness. Would you not have me defend myself when attacked? Or am I to thank these people for attacking my job protections, my professional autonomy, my academic freedom? Should I thank them when they come to steal my pension, which they can reliably be expected to do? Should I thank them for taking away my political rights as a parent to have some input into my children’s education?

Please, sir, may I have some more?
Loren Steele
October 24th, 2009 9:50 pm

Michael was exactly right when he stated that “By engaging in debate with corporate education deformers on their own terms, teachers fall into a trap.” ATRs are not my problem, nor are they the UFT’s problem. It’s all too common for incompetent leaders to fix their own mistakes by dumping on their employees or citizens. They agree to contract terms and back out when the contract becomes a financial or political inconvenience. There are layers upon layers of educational reforms that will have a more profound affect on our broken system than the scapegoating of displaced veteran teachers. It’s a speck versus mote discussion, and I’m sick of reading about it ad nauseum in every education forum. Kitchen Sink, there is no logical reason to give firing teachers a chance. There is no research drawing a causal link between the quality of teachers and the state of American education. I am quite sure that most people will be disappointed with the results of your intentions. I don’t blindly defend teachers, Ms. Sacks, but I will point the finger to say “there but for the grace of God go thee.” ATRs are the victims of bad luck and poor administrative decisions, and rather than support them or let them be, you join in the stoning party.
yomister
October 24th, 2009 10:05 pm

I think Ariel’s post is refreshing. It certainly reflects the greater diversity of opinion within the NYC teacher population.
Rhoda
October 24th, 2009 10:55 pm

Ariel,
I first wanted to laud you for being so open to all the criticism and for responding to it. I have a lot of respect for you in being such a “mensch”.

You brought up the question of teacher evaluation and I think it is valid. However, before we do that, we need to bring up the question of curriculum and how teachers are not part of the process of creating curriculum. What I am finding as a math teacher is that I am teaching less math and more coloring. I am wasting my time with students creating goals, or having them create “pretty” end products so that clueless visitors (clueless as to what learning really looks like) can see that “learning” is really taking place.

When my students come to me, they are don’t know basic computation skills, they don’t know their multiplication tables and have no clue as to what an x or y axis is. I don’t know exactly what is taught in the elementary or middle schools, but nothing is retained for very long. I am successful because I teach around the various inane mandates that we get every year.

Learning is not always a burst of colors. Learning can be a quiet epiphany or even something that takes days and is not so exciting to watch.

I mention all of this because before we can evaluate teachers we need to even decide what makes someone an excellent teacher. I have my theories–and I am sure that we all agree that teaching is not just a science but also an art. You have to have the personality for it. You have to love children. You have to be an expert in your field, an expert communicator and be able to engage students…..engage them by creating fun and meaningful activities–using a plethora of methods.

You quote Renee about evaluating the work of teachers….and I agree that is paramount. However, we need to look at the system we navigate around–the overcrowded schools, the decaying buildings, trailers that substitute for classrooms, the lack of funds, class sizes that were supposed to have been reduced but have not, the unwillingness of the DOE and chancellor truly to involve parents and the community in schools and so on. Did I mention testing, testing, testing and more testing….

I think I am rambling, but I do appreciate and share many of your frustrations. There are incompetents (administrators are included in this!!!) who negatively affect our students and make it harder for us to do our jobs. In my years of teaching (and I want to add that when I started there were so many 30+ year teachers..now there are close to none), I have yet to figure out how to address teacher/administration evaluations and how to help/weed out those who are not up to the job. I think an open conversation about that would be terrific!
Ceolaf
October 24th, 2009 11:01 pm

KitchenSink,

If it is about ladership. Then why favor a system that cuts new leader off from support? Why focus on recruiting new leaders who have yet to becomes master teachers — even though they will be the primary support for the deelopng teachers I their schools?

I think that leadership is key. And I think quite a bit about leadership development. A year a an acamedt, even if followed up with a residency. Is notthe end of the process. This is especially an issue when new leaders have so little experience before their promotions to principals.

In fact, the charter and “autonomy” modells put more on school leaders, making their sustained develoent all the more important. Ms. Sacks mentioned that her principal has less teaching experience than she dies. How long was he an AP before getting his own school?
Marsha Ratzel
October 25th, 2009 12:45 am

Ariel,

Well, you have certainly stirred up a hotbed of conversation. I think if more people were willing to talk about the pink elephants in the room then we wouldn’t have so many pink elephants!!!

It is one of the weaker areas in our profession…where we examine ourselves and the flaws that we have to see how we can improve. From reading through all the posts, it seems that these excess teachers reveal a problem within your system and the lack of any method for evaluating who should stay and who should go.

That problem isn’t unique to your system though. Many of us labor with teachers who shouldn’t be teaching anymore but we don’t have a system that acknowledges this. Where I work there are many structures in place to aid struggling teachers, giving them every opportunity to improve and learn…and yet it they don’t, they are never fired. There is a saying where I work that they “pass around the trash”. I think that’s a bit harsh, but I think the element of truth is there. It’s easier to transfer someone somewhere else…where it will be someone else’s problem than to solve it.

The part that breaks my heart in all this comes from who speaks for the children that must suffer through all the years of documentation that it takes to get rid of someone who isn’t doing their job appropriately or to a minimum level. These comments don’t seem directed at what’s best for the students but how should the system protect the adults. That seems sad to me and that we’ve lost our way.

I’m sick of seeing all the protectionism that the union fosters. It’s why I’ve quit paying my dues and want no part of an organization that isn’t designed to improve our profession. When our unions are willing to say that some are not suited for teaching and help get them into job/professions where they could be productive and good employers….then I will return to the fold. Why is it such a bad thing to let someone move onto a job where they can be successful?

Hang in there Ariel….there are many others that probably think exactly as you do but are unwililng to endure the personal attacks.
Polo Colon
October 25th, 2009 1:49 am

Well, Ms. Sacks the crock of baloney you wrote just demonstrates your own ignorance and incompetence! And you do sound like one of those administrators-gone-wild!

Looks like you might be a sycophantic supporter of the ignorant and incompetent team of Chancellor Bloomberg and his robot. Sounds like you are making a play for some job with them as another administrative terrorist! Why am I not surprised?
KitchenSink
October 25th, 2009 10:32 am

Geez, Polo, lay off the angel dust.

Michael F, you’re now talking about a much broader set of concerns than any micro policy decision in education. It’s hard to discuss finer points of policy when it all comes back to the big conservative conspiracy lurking out there. It’s not that I disagree with you on your points, but on those on which I do agree, I’m doing so as a concerned citizen and participant, and I’m not seeing the erosion of my voice or the voice of those in the community I serve. If anything, the charter movement is providing more agency for families.

If destroying public education and replacing it with a schooling-industrial complex is the game, why aren’t your “deformers” also putting charters, etc., into wealthier communities? Where is the Upper East Side or Carroll Gardens Charter School? Perhaps it is yet to come, we’ll see. My view of the charter movement in this city is that reformers and parents are taking advantage of the political aims of your conspirators to provide the kind of choices for poor families that middle class and wealthy families have always enjoyed.

Ceolaf, I’m as confused/concerned about the leadership academy profile as you are. The academy, drawing from the profile well described in other comments, is clearly not recruiting and training “principal as instructional leader.” Charter operators generally know that it’s not possible to have one person be the leading executive at the school and the instructional leader. That’s why most charters operate with an Executive Director - Principal arrangement (that’s two people), or Co-Directors, etc. I suppose the chancellor is heading down that road. But there doesn’t seem to be a plan about the ideal profile for this leadership arrangement.

That said, I know next to nothing about the leadership academy other than the spirited and hard working folks I’ve met who have graduated from it. They have definitely drunk the BloomKlein kool aid, but there are many in the system (like me and I suppose Ariel) who don’t think that’s such a bad thing.

And for the record, I don’t like to shop at Wal-Mart because of their labor practices. I am a registered independent but as my board chair regularly reminds me, the only Republican I’ve ever voted for, in my years upon years of voting, is this so called election-stealing, charter-giving, under-served-families-helping ‘corrupt’ mayor. So don’t pin me with your anti-this or anti-that ideological label.
ceolaf
October 25th, 2009 11:04 am

KitchenSink,

I was contrasting the Bloomberg/Klein model with something that might actually help school quality. What do we know about their agenda, in this area?

* Testing.
* Break up large school.
* Form more small schools.
* Open more charter schools.
* Leadership academy.
* Give principals more power/authority.
* Shut down DOE supports for principals.

I’ve got to say, it’s news to me that “most charters operate with an Executive Director - Principal arrangement (that’s two people).” Are there actually numbers on this? If not, it sounds like the the kind of thing that Ken Hirsh might want to compile. (Hey, Ken! You out there? Where you been? You ever coming back?) However, even with a colleague to help with business matters, removing centralized support and services for principals still leave more on the the principals’ desk. Perhaps you can explain a bit more about how this model better supports principals and their ability to support teachers than the old NYC Principal with APO (i.e. assistant principal of organization)?

But I was not talking about the charter model, in and of itself. Rather, I was speaking about it i the context of the larger Bloomberg/Klein agenda. They clearly believe quite strongly in the ability of school leaders to run great schools, and that their either are already enough good ones or they can create them fast enough to ensure their other reforms’ success. I see a shortage of great leaders, and think that it takes far longer to develop them than Bloomberg and Klein allow.
citizenette
October 26th, 2009 11:21 pm

Go on and tell the truth, Ariel, even if folks on this blog don’t want to hear it. I think your piece was well written and a great window into the ATR situation. I keep reading comments about ATRs being awesome teachers but anyone who’s tried to hire from that pool knows that is not true. Let the liars keep lying, Ariel, but someone has to tell the truth. Don’t back down.
Barnett Berry
October 27th, 2009 12:10 pm

It is impossible to respond to all of the 88 previous posts, but kudos in particular to Ariel Sacks who is raising important policy issues as a teacher leader who is willing to confront teaching and learning problems head on. Also, kudos to Michael Fiorillo for his thoughtful and civil critique of Ariel’s analysis, reflecting the long-time struggle for unions to overcome administrative abuses of teachers and the students they serve. More kudos for Ariel to point to where she may have overgeneralized her assessment of the ATR situation, as she continues to hold her ground on how and why teachers need to do a better job of establishing and enforcing standards within their ranks. Doing so will give the union the credibility to leverage the kind of grass roots change in school communities run by top-down, so-called “reformers.”
Kathie Marshall
October 27th, 2009 11:45 pm

Wow, Ariel, it is mind-boggling to see how much interest and venom your initial post has generated. How easy it has become to attack anonymously rather than try to engage in thoughtful challenges to our own thinking. I respect your willingness to post again and again in an attempt to clarify your position and admit to any weaknesses in your original post.

While as a teacher in Los Angeles I am unfamiliar with the terms “excessing” and ATRs, the situation in NYC is scarily close to that in LA. Just the terms differ, not the content. We, too, are experiencing mayoral pressure to privatize schools, and education is at risk all around us. We had thousands of out-of-classroom teachers forced back into the classroom this year, high school teachers thrust into middle schools, and several thousand teachers just a day away from tenure who were let go. We have 14 new teachers in my middle school this year, all of them displaced; my own core partner is a displaced math coach. There is a lot of emotional turmoil in saying good-bye to the past and moving warily into the new world of education. This is a difficult period for all of us, and it seems you stepped into a mine field on this one. A little civility might go a long way for all of us as we face these new demons, rather than demonizing each other.
Pogue
October 28th, 2009 5:27 am

From what I can remember, no one in the teaching profession got demonized until NCLB, Bloomberg, Klein, and the Rhee’s of education came along. Cops, doctors, lawyers, etc. just don’t seem to get publicly demonized as teachers do. It’s a strange little privatizing world we live in.
Barnett Berry
October 28th, 2009 6:46 am

Actually the history of teaching documents the long-standing “demonization” of teachers. Teaching’s occupational history includes longstanding control by laymen, a lack of clarity and rigor in becoming a teacher, and limited prestige and money income — limiting its professional possibilities. As a result teachers have struggled in stave off administrative and political demands for them to teach scripted curriculum while policymakers typically fill classrooms with underprepared teachers during times of shortages. For almost 100 years, woman, who would not only work for much cheaper wages, they were seen as more “naturally” inclined to teach children in a job that did not require a great deal of smarts. Historically, teachers have been seen as those who can nurture students and those needing to take directions from administrative authorities. These historical imperatives remain. But I see hopeful possibilities with public opinion polls suggesting that teachers are one of the most respected and trusted professions. One of the keys will be having the collective voices of teachers focus primarily on teaching and student learning. I wonder how blogs like this one can contribute to the building of that collective voice.
Michael Fiorillo
October 28th, 2009 7:07 am

Barnett Berry,

You make some excellent points. I would only add that in order for teachers to “focus primarily on teaching and student learning,” they have little choice but to struggle to oppose efforts to narrow the definition of and teaching and learning. This inevitably means involvement with the fallen world of politics and power.

Your reference to polls that show teachers as having the respect and trust of the public are also counteracted by well-funded efforts to demonize them and blame them for pathologies that they have little responsibility for. That too implies the need for engagement in the arena of politics and struggle outside the classroom.
Barnett Berry
October 28th, 2009 7:22 am

Mike. I could not agree with you more. The question I have is how to best “engage in the arena of politics and struggle outside the classroom.” Can unions do so by leading (not necessarily exclusively, but) with some of the most accomplished teachers, who can help the public make the connection between effective teaching and the political action needed to improve the plight of kids? The so-called reformers have made the case that teachers are the problem. Can well-respected teacher help reframe the discourse? I am betting yes - and actually proud to be working with several teacher unions in efforts to do so.
Michael M.
October 28th, 2009 9:40 am

Two quickies re Pogue:

Two or three generations ago, being a New York City school teacher was a fantastic career move, especially for educated women (including a number of my relatives) at the time. These days, not so. But that started to change well before NCLB.

I too can think of a good number of other industries and professions wherein the “let’s get ‘em young, enthusiastic, and cheap; and stigmatize the experienced (and higher paid)” mantra would be laughed out of the room. If teachers, why not bankers, lawyers, or cardiologists? Why not baseball players? Got bang for the buck?
Barnett Berry
October 28th, 2009 9:56 am

Michael M. Right on. I am thinking about the much deserved praise for Captain Sully who landed the USAir plane on the Hudson. (I live in NC but was in the City that day.) He continues to talk about how his experience and its role in his expert decision-making, which resulted in the savings of 100s of lives. while the policy pundits do not question the need for airline pilots to be experienced, the industry is trying to marginalize the likes of Sully - but are having difficulty now because of his story. Now, how we do draw on teachers like Ariel and many others who are posting on this blog to articulate carefully, using both research evidence and documented classroom practices, how and why experienced teachers matter most for student learning?
Mary
October 28th, 2009 10:10 am

Ageism is alive and well in all professions. The difference is, many professionals aren’t protected so can be fired for many different reasons. Many employers will hire someone young who can be molded to the environment in which they are hired be it corporations or legal field, etc. (How many police cadets are in their 40s?) And look at the difference between Sully and the two pilots who missed the Minneapolis airport. Thank goodness they lost their license. I respect the teaching profession, but don’t agree that being seasoned protects a person in other fields.
Michael M.
October 28th, 2009 10:59 am

BB and Mary,
First, it’s great that GS attracts commenters from all over the country. Kudos to the GS crew… and the civility of the commenters.

As to pilots, an excellent example. A pilot’s performance is more or less binary: Arrive safe? A+. But as the above examples show, incompetence and gross dereliction of duty are NOT experience-dependent, and experience such as Sully’s is not valued every day, and not reflected in standardized test scores designed to assess mere proficiency. SAME FOR TEACHERS.

As to cops, another excellent example. Why are rookies so young? My guess, in part: a reflection of the deal the public makes with the recruits. The STARTING pay is lame, but payoff comes later (either through promotion or OT), and the retirement plan is great. Also, NYPD training is great, and many NYPD recruits move on to higher paying jobs in the burbs. SAME FOR TEACHERS.
ceolaf wolfhelm
October 28th, 2009 11:31 am

Michael M,

There are many more components to a pilots job than just safety. There are the second concerns of comfort to the passengers, fuel economy and even ability to work with colleagues in a pleasant fashion.

When it comes to safety, I think that there is far more than to assess than merely a safe arrival. Major airline accidents are so rare that such a criteria would do little differentiate pilots and nothing to help us prevent accidents in the future. There actually are behaviors, habits, procedures, knowledge and skill that make a safe arrival more or less dangerous.

Pilots cannot be help accountable for everything that can lead to an disaster. And they cannot be get credit for every component of a safe flight. But the things that do that mitigate risk and increase safety are very important.

And so, they should be judged on what their contribution to the outcome, not the outcome itself. Great players sometimes play on lousy teams, through no fault of their own. Lousy players sometimes play on great teams, through no fault of their own. Pilots are no different. Nor are teachers.
Michael M.
October 28th, 2009 11:35 am

Dang it ceo, can you be a little more thorough? ; - )
ceolaf wolfhelm
October 28th, 2009 11:39 am

Michael M,

I think that this horse might not be dead. I mean, sure, it’s been buried for 3 weeks, but how can we REALLY be sure? I think that we should beat it some more.

More seriously, I am growing very sensitive to comparisons to pilots. I’ve about given up on the lawyer and doctor comparisons and think that pilots are a better way to go. There is still a place for the doc/lawyer stuff, but I want to push the pilot stuff as a good parallel.

Yeah, it’s part of my agenda, and you walked right into it.
Barnett Berry
October 28th, 2009 12:16 pm

great points. As long as we are on the issue of teachers as a collective it is well worth noting new research (by economists no less) who have found that schools that produce larger value-added achievement gains are staffed by teachers who are more experienced and qualified (certified) AND who work together over time.

Using 11 years of student data in North Carolina, researchers C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann have found that most value-added achievement gains are attributed to the make-up of teacher teams, not the traits and characteristics of individual teachers. I wonder if the powers that be in NYC have looked at these data.

Drawing on sophisticated analyses of this large database, they reported in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that peer learning among small groups of teachers seems to be the most powerful predictor of student achievement over time.

The researchers warn that using value-added methods to identify individual teachers for merit pay and other high stakes decisions may very well be confounded by how teachers learn from each other. As one of the study’s authors noted, “If you give the reward at the individual level, all of a sudden my peers are no longer my colleagues—they’re my competitors. If you give it at the school level, then you’re going to foster feelings of team membership, and that increases the incentive to work together and help each other out.”

I believe it is time to figure out 21st century teaching effectiveness systems that both identify expert teachers and reward them for spreading their expertise to others.
KitchenSink
October 28th, 2009 2:14 pm

Now you’re talking, Barnett. Collaboration is hard but worth it, and I’m glad to hear about data backing that sentiment.
KitchenSink
October 28th, 2009 2:31 pm

Michael M: Baseball trading deadline deals. I’ll give you Mark Teixeira (expensive veteran teacher) for four prospects (inexpensive newbies). Just read the sports page the last two weeks of July, or leading up to any other sport’s trading deadline for that matter. Teams don’t like to do it, but budgetary constraints are a REALITY anywhere there is a budget, because, again, there is not an endless well of resources.

Other professions? This concern in play as well. My cousin, in the banking industry, is out of a job in this recession because he is too experienced. They’d rather hire younger less expensive talent. Yes, that’s anecdotal, but this recession has been a mighty correction for a sector that has seen all kinds of underqualified people make all kinds of money, and plenty of senior folks are among those 10% unemployed. Partly for this budgetary constraint reason.

The UAW failed to recognize the coming storm (along with management, for different reasons) and refused rollbacks when times got tough; they helped kill the goose laying the golden egg, because the resources ran dry. GM is the goose, and bankruptcy is the death leading to the loss of jobs (the eggs are gone).

No bottomless well.

Medicine: 16% of our GDP, 11% in other developed countries. I’m not going any further than that. I don’t have much of a point, but I’ve got enough arrows pointed at me on this site, and the medical system is such a mess I have a hard time forming an informed opinion.

And the punchline: there is actually a limitless well of resources for lawyers - someone is always willing to sue someone else…
ceolaf wolfhelm
October 28th, 2009 3:09 pm

KS,

I don’t buy your analogy to baseball deals any more than I MM’s talk of pilots.

Players like that are traded NOT because of current costs, but because of future costs. They are traded for prospects when the team is about to lose them anyway. The prospects are NOT worth anywhere near the star player. Rather, the prospects over the course of many years are worth what the player is for a few months.

Moveover, much of the calculus there is bang for the buck. The star player in these sorts of deals is expected to make more in the next year than the prospects are expected to make over the course of a few years — combined!!

So, let’s bring this back to schools. There’s no need to go for cheap young talent in favor of more expensive talent because the veteran talent is not about to walk anyway. The veteran talent is not about to get a HUGE raise (i.e. future costs), and the difference between what the veteran and the prospects make is so very much smaller. Furthermore, prospects already have years of professional — though sometimes minor league — experience to measure, in perhaps the most measured and measurable endeavor in which mankind has ever embarked.

Oops. I went back to baseball there.

When a school can use the salary of one veteran superstar teacher for just one year to pay multiple high potential junior teachers for multiple years, the budgetary comparison makes some sense. But that’s not even close to what we are talking about here.
KitchenSink
October 28th, 2009 3:10 pm

Ceolaf, I’ve visited a lot of charter schools and studied some more, and seen a lot of models. I can say with confidence that it’s not uniform, but generally accepted in the NYC charter community as a best practice to have two senior folks, one exclusively in charge of instruction and one to handle the executive director type functions. Some of the networks go around this by having a principal and a management company that centralizes all of the ED functions across several schools. The bottom line is, most of the charters I know and love want the most talented instructional leader in the building to focus as much attention and time on classroom instruction as possible.

I just don’t see how this is possible in a system as large as the DOE. There are so many stakeholders to answer for. In charter land, a principal has to pay attention to, answer to and/or serve the parents, the teachers, the students, the board, and perhaps an executive director. The middle man is OUT along with the district office, the Support Organization network, the ISC, etc., etc.

I have my own little experience to count on. WHen I was teaching I was lucky to have my principal in my classroom more than 1 time per year. In charter land, it is an expectation that the principal is doing a walkthrough on a regular, if not daily, basis, multiple full-lesson observations per term, and in many cases multiple formal observations per year.

For those who cower in fear of the dictatorial administrator, remember that the teachers are free agents (to use another baseball analogy), there is no reserve clause (thank you Curt Flood and thank you NYS Charter Schools Act of 1998), and if a teacher is treated badly, that teacher is out the door and looking for a better boss. Bad principals in charter land don’t hold on to good teachers for too long, and that’s what leads to a bad school, and closure.

Much better accountability, in my mind, than the As and Bs that are relatively meaningless and go nowhere anyway.
ceolaf wolfhelm
October 28th, 2009 3:24 pm

KS,

Actually, that is precisely what I am doing my dissertation on. That is, how do principals manage, juggle and prioritize the multiple accountabilities to which they are potentially subject.

It is not at all clear to me that these pressures are any worse in a big district than a small district, but that is one factor I am examining.

I think, however, the the management literature has made fairly clear that the priority of the “man” in charge becomes the priority of the organization. If bettering instruction is not the #1 on the principal’s desk, bettering instruction does not become the priority of the school. I would mention, however, that that does not mean that the principal his/herself must work with each teacher, or that the principals have to masters of every subject or every grade.
KitchenSink
October 28th, 2009 3:59 pm

Agreed on your main point and your aside. I hope you publish widely because I’d like to read your work when it’s done!
KitchenSink
October 28th, 2009 8:40 pm

CEO, I missed your 3:10 pm message, seems we crossed in cyberspace. I think the difference you describe re baseball trades is a difference in degree, not kind. The principle is the same - budgetary constraints exist and compensation is a factor that must be weighed against perceived value to the organization when those two don’t exactly coincide and resources are scarce.

Perhaps we’ll agree to disagree, but I don’t see the difference. And no one is taking the bait on my thought experiment, dammit!
ceolaf wolfhelm
October 28th, 2009 8:55 pm

KS,

How dare you accuse me of not taking bait! How dare you!!!
?
October 28th, 2009 9:42 pm

I have a question. Ms. Sacks, you mention that ATRs were “assigned” to your school to cover the classes. Has the DOE, along with threatening to take the funds for vacant positions at the end of this week, also insisted on reinstating the freeze for any vacant positions and/or placing ATRs in them?

I just heard of a story of somebody being unable to hire a new teacher for a position in a new school in a subject area exempt from the hiring freeze…is there an implicit reinstatement of hiring restrictions or assignment of ATRs going on?
Toni
October 28th, 2009 11:42 pm

The comments on this posting have been very interesting. I have been reading therm everyday. I’m not a teacher, but I do work in a high school. It’s a full school now, 9th through 12th and all the teachers are extremely young. The only older person in the school is the guidance counselor and myself. I’m older than the principal so I could imagine how some ATRs feel working in a school where the principal is much younger.

Are most of the ATRs from schools that closed? If the majority of them are from failing schools, where are the principals from those schools that closed? Are those principals blameless for the closures of the schools? Were the principals just assigned to run other schools? Why doesn’t the DOE look to get rid of those principals the way they want to have a time limit for the ATRs. Do the principals have to go on interviews to find themselves other schools to run?

In my opinion most ATRs that have seniority will have a hard time finding new schools because of their salary. Why wouldn’t principals look to hire two newbies for the price of one experienced teacher. They think that they could train the newbies to do what they want, but they would have a much harder time training someone that is more set in their ways because of age, et cetera. Some of the older teachers don’t adjust to the new ways of teaching that quickly. Sometimes I think they are right — that the old way of teaching reading and math is the way to go.

The DOE should have put the hiring freeze in place a long time ago, but since they didn’t, it goes to show that the DOE is looking to push the hire paid teachers out of the system. They are better off offering a buyout so maybe the older ATRs would look to retire — that’s what the DOE wants anyway.

Most principals are extremely young, but when a school fails, you just hear that the teachers in the schools aren’t up to par. The DOE has given way too much power to principals, especially when it comes to the budget.

Since the DOE has offered to pay part of a higher paid teachers salary if they take them into their schools, and most principals haven’t, it just shows that most principals will do whatever it takes to hire very young teachers no matter what. The DOE shouldn’t have to threaten to take money back from a schools budget if they don’t fill vacancies with the ATRs. These principals should be looking to find the most experienced teachers possible — not by age.
Barnett Berry
October 29th, 2009 7:45 am

Excellent points, Toni. The GS blog posts of late have landed in what seems to be a twisted intersection between (1) a longstanding dysfunctional system of professional development and evaluation and (2) top-down managers who value less expensive and more compliant teachers. The dysfunctional system creates lot of collateral damage.

I have long argued (as a former teacher who left teaching in another dysfunctional urban school system well before I became “effective”) that many of the administrative elite continue to undermine efforts to professionalize teaching because the last thing they want to do is pay for growing numbers of expert teachers (like many of you posting here) who do not need scripted curriculum to teach effectively or in ways defined solely by them. The education historians have well documented this fact in the past - a fact we still struggle with today. A collective voice of accomplished teachers (highly regarded by the public), who focus on effective teaching and learning, is needed. They are not THE silver bullet - but a key lever for change nonetheless. (check out our work at http://www.teachingquality.org)
Teach
October 30th, 2009 5:53 pm

I find the tone of Ms. Sacks’ writing to be ignorant and immature. Any good person, especially one who calls them self an educator, would be hard pressed to question whether or not they should help/train someone who is so “nice” and “eager to learn.” I pity this teacher for having to work with Ms. Sacks while at the same time commend her for having the fortitude and optimism to rise to what must be an extremely humbling challenge. Also, I think Ms. Sacks should be learning from her .. education 101 - your heart needs to be in the right place. If Ms. Sacks views helping a colleague, who is so “eager to learn”, as “sucking it up,” I seriously question whether or not she belongs in a classroom in the first case. Also, I question her own performance and wonder if she is as perfect as she thinks herself to be. (What mistakes does she make in the classroom? Any good teacher/person acknowledges there own imperfections and needs for self improvement; especially if making an argument to disclaim the abilities of someone else, it’s only fair to exhibit a certain degree of humility and reflection!) Finally, I would like to ask Ms. Sacks what her next career move might be, as she is obviously so busy be a “Team Leader,” and “Department Chair”. So how long does she plan on being in the classroom? Certainly not long enough to be one of the “ATR’s” she likes to belittle and I am sure most definitely antagonize every day when she sees these people face to face. No, it’s pretty clear to me what Ms. Sacks is doing - nothing more than deflecting personal anxieties away from herself and her own insecurities so she can feel confident about her own flawless and perfect teaching, thereby building a resume based on artificial facts and loads of oh so impressive “leadership” accomplishments. This from a person who sees herself as so astute that she has nothing to learn from another who has more experience and a better attitude to boot!
Ariel Sacks
October 30th, 2009 7:25 pm

Teach, I am very very far from being a perfect teacher. I make mistakes daily. I plan to work at this for a long time.

As for the rest of your argument, I’ve decided not to discuss the ATRs at my school publicly anymore so will not comment on the situation specifically. I do agree with you that good teachers help one another.
Barnett Berry
October 31st, 2009 5:44 am

This is not about ATRs per se. But what is clear from history is that in occupations that develop into full professions the members themselves establish and enforce standards of excellence among themselves. Ms. Sacks, in her blog posts, most importantly raises questions about the struggle to do so in the dysfunctional system that many teachers find themselves - in your district and others as well. As we enter the second decade of the 21st century unions will have to change to survive and thrive. In order to thrive they will have to take on more leadership in defining teaching effectiveness and ensuring that all students have access to effective teachers. This is why Randi Weingarten has noted that with the exception of school vouchers, “no (teaching quality) issue should be off the table.” The UFT has a rich history of leadership in this arena. Decades ago Shanker began calling for peer review, and late in his life, he made the pitch that unions should no longer resist the use of student test scores in teacher evaluation systems. (This can be done the right way - and the UFT has begun to lead the way here, BTW). In the late 1980s, Shanker called for teacher-led charter schools; in the 1990s he called for a demanding test, administered nationwide, that teachers would have to pass in order to gain union membership.
Barnett Berry
October 31st, 2009 5:54 am

This post is not about ATRs per se. But what is clear from history is that in occupations that develop into full professions the members themselves establish and enforce standards of excellence among themselves.

Ms. Sacks, in her blog posts, most importantly raises questions about the struggle to do so in the dysfunctional system that many teachers find themselves - in your district and others as well.

As we enter the second decade of the 21st century unions will have to change to survive and thrive. In order to thrive they will have to take on more leadership in defining teaching effectiveness and ensuring that all students have access to effective teachers. This is why Randi Weingarten has noted that with the exception of school vouchers, “no (teaching quality) issue should be off the table.” The UFT has a rich history of leadership in this arena. Decades ago Shanker began calling for peer review, and late in his life, he made the pitch that unions should no longer resist the use of student test scores in teacher evaluation systems. (This can be done the right way - and the UFT has begun to lead the way here, BTW). In the late 1980s, Shanker called for teacher-led charter schools; in the 1990s he called for a demanding test, administered nationwide, that teachers would have to pass in order to gain union membership.
ceolaf
October 31st, 2009 7:33 am

Mr. Barry,

>As we enter the second decade of the 21st century unions will have to change to survive and thrive.

Your basis for this statement is unclear to me. What unions have shown that they have gotten stronger by whatever sorts of changes you have in mind? Are there examples in other countries that we can look at to understand your point?

Or is this a statement more about what you think unions ought to do, without any evidence that they “have” to do it?

>In order to thrive they will have to take on more leadership in defining teaching
>effectiveness and ensuring that all students have access to effective teachers.

“More leadership”? More leadership than whom? Who has taken any leadership?

Furthermore, it’s awfully easy to talk about “unions” generally. Do you mean chapters in each school? At the district level? State organizations? The national unions?

It’s important to understand that the dynamics and impacts of unions are quite different at each of these difference levels. Yes, there are some commonalities, but there are also big differences.
GGW
October 31st, 2009 10:25 am

“If I’d known how deeply I would offend other teachers, I would have written a different post.”

I wonder if this is a good mini-case study on how young teachers are taught (the hard way) to recant their critique of fellow teachers…

Ariel’s original perception was that some people in her school had “low ability to teach.” Which is tantamount to: she was concerned for the kids.

Now, after a string of personal attacks, her concern is - understandably - about offending adults.

One suspects Ariel would be (understandably) very, very reluctant to write again in this vein. We shall see.

Those of us who lean Left tend to decry the Blue Wall of Silence. If a cop testifies to even the most egregious beatings or worse of suspects by a fellow cop, he is isolated.

Yet we indulge it in K-12.
Michael M.
October 31st, 2009 12:07 pm

I dare say that while the Blue Wall of Silence analogy is apt in general, it is mis-applied here.

As I suggested earlier in this string, to extrapolate about teachers in general based on the ATR situation, or even about the ATR teachers based on a FEW in the ATR pool is to DENY the big picture: WHY is there even an ATR situation to begin with, and WHO is responsible for it?

The Blue Wall of Silence is about police officers circling the wagons when one does wrong. What have the ATR teachers done that would deserve such scorn from a one-lucky-test-outcome-from-either-bonus-or-being-in-the-same-boat “leader”?

Would Ms. Sacks behave as the few teachers she pillories if the roles were reversed?

Is the lack of sensitivity of potential offense the mark of a future leader? Maybe under THIS administration. Eight is more than enough.
Lynda
November 3rd, 2009 1:31 am

Dear Ms. Sacks:

While I applaud your willingness to take criticism and re-examine what you said in the article you wrote about ATRs, the fact is that you still said it and published it. I think that is what most ATRs who have been in this netherworld have a problem with.

I can tell you from my personal experience as an ATR that it is not a good place to be in and Dictator Klein and Mayor Bloombooger have no idea how trly damaging to the psyche being an ATR is. My middle school in the Rockaways was in the process of restructuring, so as the least senior teacher remaining in September, I was excessed and placed in the ATR pool. I came home crying every night because I had nothing to do. My husband made me seek out counseling because this situation was damaging my self-esteem nd making me question my worth. I even went on interviews, but the minute the principals found out I was an ATR, I was dismissed as incompetent. Eentually, the principal from my middle school in the Rockaways, who was the one that hired me, found a way to bring me back by lobbying the district office for more funds so he could pay my salary. I will be forever grateful to him for rescuing me from that tenth circle of hell.

When I faced going back into the ATR pool again after that principal left, I left and found a job in New Jersey. where thepay is better and most of the administrators don’t abuse you like they do here.

Your publishing this pice without doing your research about ATRs and even trying to understand what put them in your school in a situation it sounds like they were not trained for is not helpful. It only serves to paint ATRs in a negative light and as a former ATR, I find that deeply offensive.
Michael Fiorillo
November 3rd, 2009 6:08 am

Barnett Berry,

Your comment about Albert Shanker’s various proposals and how they might have anticipated current efforts to monitor teachers neglects to mention how these proposals have been hijacked - as has the very concept of school reform - by corporate privatizers.

The issue is not how Shanker and others may have originally conceived these things, it’s how they are being put into effect right now. And it’s not a pretty picture: demonization of teachers and their unions, arbitrary school closings and re-organizations, invasions of public school buildings by charter schools and attacks against professional autonomy and working conditions, with far worse speeding toward us.

The UFT/AFT’s willingness to “collaborate” on these matters is a sign of weakness, not strength or prescience. It seems that, with their deals in New Haven and with Green Dot in NYC, they are more than willing to sacrifice the interests of teachers and public education in order to keep the dues money rolling in.

What Albert Shanker said decades ago, under very different circumstances, has little relevance to the many dilemmas we face today. Keep in mind that the entire concept of school reform initially flowed from the frustrations, insights and efforts of teachers and parents in the public schools, but that’s nostalgia at this point, since the term and the process has been hijacked, perverted and turned into a weapon.
Barnett Berry
November 3rd, 2009 10:58 am

Mike. Thanks for your poignant post. I believe you are spot on (and I would love to meet you and discuss more of these issues over a cup of coffee). But how do teacher unions reclaim their rightful position in leading school reform? The unions were the progressives, when they emerged well over 100 years ago. Reform needs to be led by the most accomplished teachers who know what works in classrooms with kids and their families.
Michael Fiorillo
November 3rd, 2009 7:44 pm

Barnett Berry,

Unions, whatever their many shortcomings, are still the progressives, and that’s why they are perpetual targets. They are self-financed working class organizations that maintain wages on the high end, while bringing up wages on the low end. Union scale wages set the standard even in non-union shops. This is as true in education as in the auto, mining or any other industry.

Unions provide protection and a voice to people who would otherwise be powerless. They have historically provided political counterweight to the Money Power in this country. Their having won the right to picket has been an unacknowledged victory for civil liberties. Those are all progressive qualities, and they continue.

Teacher unions are an institutional defense for public schools and their students (thus the well-financed attacks against them): they fight against short-sighted budget cutbacks, and for programs to support vulnerable populations. They maintain class size levels and allow veteran teachers to be parts of the communities they serve without fear of removal. Progressive qualities, all.

As for for gaining the upper hand in reforming the schools, the teacher unions must do what all unions in the country must do: right the pathological imbalance between capital and labor, which is the source of many of the economic and social problems the country faces.

To put it in crude terms - which are the terms that govern and drive the ed deformers, despite their PR - it’s about power and control. Working people need more of it in and outside of work, and the overclass needs to hear the word “no” more often.
Barnett Berry
November 4th, 2009 5:06 am

Thanks Mike. I understand and appreciate (as well as embrace the importance) of the labor movement in advancing social and economic justice in America. I have a bit of family history here of which I am quite proud.

I wonder, though, how teachers’ unions can trump the powers that be and the long-standing efforts to de-professionalize teaching. It won’t be by relying on a revolving door of teachers — which many school “reformers” seek. What will it take to ensure more young teachers stay in the profession long enough to bolster their collective voice around the interests of students and their families.

How can the teachers unions “right the pathological imbalance between capital and labor? Can they do so by reframing the debate over teaching effectiveness and saying “no” to the power elites by saying “yes” to focusing more of their efforts on students and their learning - the ultimate beneficiaries of public education? In some ways it seems to me this is how this extraordinary discussion and debate (and sometimes diatribe) started on GS back on October 22.

A number of years ago Al Shanker wrote: “If teaching is to become a true profession, we must establish high standards for entry into teacher training programs and deliver high-quality preservice education to prospective practitioners. We must set and maintain high and rigorous standards for entry into the profession and evaluate practitioners according to those standards. We must provide support for weak teachers and, when necessary, counsel poor teachers out of the profession. We must become a major participant in the decisions that affect the working and learning environment of the school — for example, decisions regarding budget, hiring, curriculum, student placement, assessment, and instructional strategies.”

So how do we get from there from here? I suspect there must be some mix of Alinsky-esque organizing as well as members themselves, as Shanker posited, “evaluat(ing) the performance of practitioners and remov(ing) from the profession those whose performance falls below standards.”
Michael Fiorillo
November 4th, 2009 5:48 am

Barnett Berry,

There is a lot of truth in what Shanker said. The problem is that the unions are being snared into “…counsel(ing) poor teachers out of the profession” - see the PIP+ program in NYC and the new contract in New Haven - without having gained the political power to have a say in “budget, hiring, curriculum, student placement, assessment, and instructional strategies.” It’s not a good place to be.

This forum may not be the place to get into a debate about Shanker’s role in public education and national - and for that matter, international - politics. I would only suggest that the path he chose is partially responsible for the plight we face.

The UFT, with its $125 or more million annual dues income, has the potential to be a powerful force for the interests of teachers, students, public education and the public sector in general. Instead, it has chosen to use its resources in a parochial and narrow way, often sabotaging its own long term interests and those of the communities it serves. That must change, and then a new strategy of comprehensive engagement and struggle must follow, and soon.

It’s not just a struggle for the continuance of public education, but in many ways a struggle for representative democracy.
Barnett Berry
November 4th, 2009 5:57 am

Agreed - and the unions have to find a way to engage, not alienate, the new and next generation of teachers.
Ariel Sacks
November 4th, 2009 8:00 pm

Michael,
I’m very interested in your comment: “The UFT, with its $125 or more million annual dues income, has the potential to be a powerful force for the interests of teachers, students, public education and the public sector in general. Instead, it has chosen to use its resources in a parochial and narrow way, often sabotaging its own long term interests and those of the communities it serves. That must change, and then a new strategy of comprehensive engagement and struggle must follow, and soon.”

I actually wrote this comment last night before you had posted the above comment, but never submitted it:

The fact that the unions provide a voice for working people who otherwise would be powerless is progressive. But I wonder what is the position of the union regarding the state of the teaching profession. I agree there is very ugly maneuvering going on by the “Money Power” players. One of the weaknesses I see in the union is that it seems to
take a defensive position most of the time–and in many ways defending a profession that was set up for 20th century schools. The union ends up compromising with the money powers, and since the situation for teachers and schools was never that great to begin with, we are losing (and so are students). Speaking very broadly here, how can we take a more offensive position, fighting publicly for a new, teacher-led vision for schools and our profession? And as a part of that, how can we be the ones to take up the issue of quality teachers in every classroom instead of letting those far removed from classrooms preach about it?

(For the record, if I were in a position to make a decision that could improve teacher quality, then, despite the content of my original post here, “counseling poor teachers out” of the profession would not be it, or even in the running. Improved working conditions, including autonomy in the classroom and incentives for teachers to stay in the profession would be front and center. Unfortunately, at GS you’ve “met” me at the one moment when I have ever come down on teachers in my writing. Clearly I did not do that in a way that accurately represented my broader perspective of what’s happening and what needs to happen in our schools. I hope to do a better job of that in subsequent posts.)
Col. Graduate
November 6th, 2009 6:35 pm

This is ridiculous. I am a more than qualified college graduate who has been subbing for 2 years because of this ridiculous hiring freeze. I feel that principles should be able to run their own school and hire whoever they feel is most eager and capable to teach these children. We need to adopt the Chicago policy where if you do not find work as an ATR within 18 months than see you later! Lets face it, if you are getting paid a full salary how many of these ATR’s do you think are really out there looking for a full-time position.
Michael Fiorillo
November 6th, 2009 6:45 pm

Col. Graduate,

I suggest you get a little more experience teaching in the public schools before you spout your narrow and ill-informed comments. If you decide to actually stay with it, you’ll find out that administrators are not always the best judge of teaching talent or the interests of students, and that seniority is there to protect even people like you.
Col. Graduate
November 6th, 2009 7:05 pm

My comments are not ill-informed actually. I am speaking from my personal experience but if you never gone through this process than you wouldnt understand. The only thing that seniority does is allow the older teachers to slack off because they are considered “untouchable”. I’ve seen it many times over and over. The UFT does nothing for new teachers except discourage them rather than trying to encourage. Are we not considered a priority? After all I am paying my UFT dues on every paycheck.
Michael Fiorillo
November 6th, 2009 7:09 pm

Ms. Sacks,

I only just read your most recent comments.

Again, I commend you for your willingness to deal with these issues openly, using your real name. I hate using the cliche “learning experience,” but perhaps it fits.

Unions take a defensive position because the reality is that they have a very tenuous handhold on legitimacy in this country. Please keep in mind that until the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia and Wagner Acts of the 1930’s, they were legally seen as criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade. Many, many people still hold this view - I’m sure many of them in positions of power in the urban school systems of the country - although perhaps not for public attribution.

So, their defensiveness is well-earned. The comparative strength of public sector unions is an even more recent development, and one that is under broad attack on many fronts.

So, to go back to your point: why don’t the unions take up the issue of teacher quality? The problem as I see it is that the issue has been framed, and the terms of debate set, in such a way that we can only lose. Start off with the premise that the success of a child, as measured by high-stakes tests, is entirely on the shoulders of a teacher - which is the party line here - sets us up for failure. Acceptance of pseudo-scientific “research” only puts us deeper in the whole they are digging for us.

Every aspect of so-called education reform - changes in curriculum, school organization and governance, teaching methodology, etc. - has originated with teachers and parents, and was dutifully ignored by the powers that be, until they recognized their self-interest in dominating it, and proceeded to hijack it.

Having ignored the schools for decades while they amassed their billions, and lobbied against the income and capital gains taxes that would have adequately funded the public schools, I’m not willing to give them the benfit of the doubt on anything.

What the unions need to do is re-establish their power, and tilt the hideously lopsided balance of power away from capital and towards labor. Perhaps then we can pick up this conversation on a fairer basis.
Michael Fiorillo
November 6th, 2009 9:01 pm

Col. Graduate,

Your sense of self-importance and entitlement is evident in the statement, “Are we not considered a priority?” Well, frankly, as a substitute, not yet hired as a full-time teacher, you’re not. And again, once you are a full time, tenured teacher, you will hopefully come to understand the value of seniority, which is the only thing that prevents people from being thrown on the garbage heap, after years of service, by venal or incompetent administrators.

As for those incompetent teachers whom you’re so superior to, who hired them? Who gave them tenure? Who can’t build an effective case - which can be done despite the editorial page propaganda - against them? Doesn’t management have some responsibility here, and if they do, are they the ones you want to entrust to make these professional life-or-death decisions?

As for union dues, while I have a lot of issues with the leadership, the union has nevertheless earned your dues money by negotiating the scales and working conditions under which you work. While those are far from perfect, they’re far better than anything your could hope to get on your own. Your remarkableness as a teacher counts for very little with the city’s labor relations lawyers.

As for the union discouraging new teachers, again, are they they only guilty party here? Or is the discouragement of new teachers - a very real thing, but, believe me, discouragement is pandemic right now - the fault of a school system leadership that is incompetent when it is not malicious, which is then worsened by a weak and co-opted union leadership?
KitchenSink
November 7th, 2009 10:48 am

Michael F.,

You’re dead wrong on one count: “the premise that the success of a child, as measured by high-stakes tests, is entirely on the shoulders of a teacher…is the party line here”

Get past the fog of your righteous indignation and look a little deeper at the full set of policies advocated by the “deformers.” They talk about teacher quality, and they talk about leadership, and strong school cultures. There is just as much of a push to fix what’s happening outside the classrooms as their is inside the classrooms.

I’d like to see more attention paid to the holistic needs of children and families, a clear factor in student and school success. But if the CSA were more vocal, I’d bet we’d hear the same howling about principals being blamed for all the school woes.

Teachers are the central cog of any school community. They have their share of the responsibility. But I would disagree with anyone, even Joel Klein for whom I am a mole after all, who says that student achievement rests entirely with teachers.

And Ariel, in the same vein, I would like to question what you mean by teacher autonomy. The best teachers I have met in my life are resourceful, creative and hard working, and have a lot to contribute in terms of curriculum development and pedagogy. But unless they are part of a structured team, and have meaningful opportunities to contribute to a school-wide plan, their ingenuity is wasted when that child leaves the classroom and June and goes to a (possibly equally high-quality) disconnected, incoherent experience in the next grade. That’s not how you build a strong school community and a strong school experience for a child.

And fixing that problem, Michael F., is not about the teacher, it’s about leadership.
bob goldberg
November 7th, 2009 2:29 pm

I appreciate Ms. Sacks’ perspective. I don’t believe it’s her intent to disparage or stereotype ATR teachers. I believe that there are teachers like the ones she describes who have worked without professional support, excessed and forced into positions that they (and their principals) did not choose.

The problem is not in the teachers (or other teachers’ envy), but in an education system that doesn’t value education. This is the result of giving control of the school system to bankers and lawyers with no experience as education professionals. Principals are “empowered” to worry about budgets; schools are rewarded for empty statistics.

With class sizes upward of 32, there should not be teachers out of work. There should be more classes, more contact between teacher and student, more CTT classes, more music, art, science and (in this multi-lingual metropolis) MORE LANGUAGES!

The hiring freeze is damaging the schools - good teachers are out of work and grow discouraged with the profession, those with jobs are overworked, and while the so-called grownups call “crisis”, parents and students suffer the real crisis.
Michael Fiorillo
November 7th, 2009 7:18 pm

KS,

Please inform as to how “There is just as much of a push to fix what’s going on outside the classrooms as there is inside the classrooms.” Maybe in the fantasy world produced by mayor’s PR machine there is, but not in the universe my colleague and I inhabit.

As for fixing the problem of school communities requiring leadership, perhaps so, but we differ on where that leadership is to come from. As a parent and teacher I can only say that it’s definitely not going to come from people who at most have had little than a cup of coffee in the classroom, which rules out a significant percentage of the people taking over the schools.
norm
November 8th, 2009 11:40 pm

“They talk about teacher quality, and they talk about leadership, and strong school cultures. There is just as much of a push to fix what’s happening outside the classrooms as their is inside the classrooms.”

That’s part of the problem. They talk about all these things but the ed deformers don’t care squat about teacher quality or decent leadership or strong school culture. Jeez, you sound like a brochure for a degree from the Leadership academy.

The leadership in the NYC schools is at as low as point as it’s ever been. Do you really think teacher quality in NYC after 7 years of ed deform and in Chicago after 15 years is any better?

“The best teachers I have met in my life are resourceful, creative and hard working, and have a lot to contribute in terms of curriculum development and pedagogy. But unless they are part of a structured team, and have meaningful opportunities to contribute to a school-wide plan..”

Now you may claim that teachers in the school you run get to contribute to a school-wide plan, but I’d bet that in 90% of the schools in NYC they have little or no role at all. The so-called “structured plans” are almost all top down and there goes your creative, resourceful teachers off to better pastures outside the hard core urban areas and into the suburbs.

Sometimes we have to deal with reality, not textbook definitions of what an educational system should look like. If teachers are truly to be the central cog, until teachers play a truly meaningful role, including having a major share in deciding who will be principal and being able to hold that person accountable along with parents- call it bottom up accountability where there is real responsibility to the constituents instead of “vote me out every four years even though I can spend 100 million if schools are failing” - there will be no reform.
KitchenSink
November 9th, 2009 12:41 pm

Norm, your problem pn this one count is my problem too - I agree that in 90% of schools teachers don’t have a seat the CEP/meaningul SLT table - and that’s because of a crisis in leadership.

But I think things are getting better, not worse. I’ve seen enough of the old practices to know that I’m not interested in the abusive principals of the past. I’ll take the leadership academy CEOs-in-training over the authoritarian “my way or the highway” prima donnas I’ve had to work for any day. At least the CEOs in training have read the Michael Fullan, Roland Barth, books, etc., about distributive leadership.
Lynda
November 9th, 2009 1:56 pm
norm
November 12th, 2009 10:23 pm

So we have a 90% failure rate but things are getting better?

These CEO’s may have read the books but they must have poor comprehension.

Teachers have never been consulted in any meaningful way and never will be. Give me those old dictators who made it to principal by climbing up the ropes. At least they were once in teachers’ shoes.

The only way that will ever work is true teacher power. I bet on them to pick the best principal over any other method.
Edmund
November 22nd, 2009 3:52 pm

I am currently and have been looking for a full time position for some time now. When I was in Grad School there were so many vacancies in classrooms, so Education was a good profession. After graduating, we hit a series of hiring freezes, and I have been an over-qualified sub for a while now.

Life as a sub has gotten harder because of ATR’s providing coverages. Class sizes are also ridiculously huge. I have often heard teachers close to retirement dreaming of getting stuck in the rubber room for a year or two before they retire, so they can sit back and relax. The reasons why the interviews mentioned in the article were so bad was because of the above reason, ATR’s often do not want to work, if they can sit in the rubber room and get paid the same rate. It is a shame that UFT does not represent all of its membership, by shafting per-diems who want to work, unlike the ungrateful ATR’s.
Free Speech
December 16th, 2009 11:33 pm

Wow Ariel sparked some real conversation. Some good, some not so much. A lot of opinions and thoughts were thrown in so I thought I would throw in mine.
Ariel’s article was taken as mean spirited and inappropriate by many. Perhaps there was some truth to what she said perhaps there was great distortions. Perhaps she was mean but some of the comments were also. It was amazing to me how many times she responded to comments. Seemed like she was trying to defend her position but I don’t think anyone heard her. (For better or worse)
I guess what bothers me most about this whole situation is the lack of compassion and understanding. I think the focus should be on longterm solutions. Solutions that help the children, ATRs, the community, etc. I am teaching now for eight years. Or should I say learning for eight years. I learn each day how much I still have to learn. Learn about children, dealing with other human beings, being a better citizen to the world, being a teacher that my mentor teacher had the belief that I could become, etc. To summarize, let’s all remember we are in this together. Some of our collegues will be more to our liking than others but we are all collegues with things to learn from each other. Let’s work together to build not destroy.
Barnett Berry
December 17th, 2009 5:36 am

You are right, “Free Speech,” Ariel Sacks did “spark” some real conversation, reminding me of what I learned in my college major (sociology) about symbolic interactionism — a perspective that points to how people ascribe meanings to “facts” and “things” based on the meanings have for them and social interaction with others and modified through interpretation. In others there are multiple truths — not an absolute one.

Ariel has her truth (which I did not interpret as being an absolute one) based in part on her experiences in the classroom, her preparation as a teacher, and her intention to help create teaching as a profession where its members (not administrators or policymakers) establish and enforce standards in the field. If teaching will be become the profession students deserve — which will include the using of political power to serve them — then teachers like Ariel and others and will have to stand up, take charge, and ensure quality among their colleagues. This is why Dal Lawrence (Toledo AFT) and many others launched peer review programs.

I suspect others have their truths based on their experiences — which has included long-standing efforts to fight off administrative abuses of teachers and the marginalization of students. This is why many took offense at Ariel’s truth – recognizing that teachers must stand firm together in their struggle with the powers that be. Solidarity is the answer to their truth.

But there is not one truth. There are multiple ones here.

So how do we learn from each other, the powerful message which “Free Speech” writes here. But also we should think about how rapidly our society is changing and the role that a 21st century teaching profession must play if students will have access to the public education they need and teachers have the power and influence to act together on their behalf. I believe, based on my experiences (and my own interpretations) that the teaching profession and teacher solidarity must look very differently — and soon.

Our Twitter Updates

That was anticlimactic: Chancellor Klein just announced that school is closed tomorrow. Go stock up on cocoa now! 42 mins ago
What are odds that tomorrow will be a snow day in NYC schools? Mayor Bloomberg is holding a 1 p.m. presser to discuss the city's snow plan. 49 mins ago
Citywide Council on High Schools meeting is set to proceed as scheduled, for now. Same goes for the PEP meeting rescheduled from Jan. 26. 19 hrs ago
From the DOE: In anticipation of inclement weather, the Specialized High School open houses scheduled for Weds. have been postponed. 19 hrs ago
@datadiva What do you see as the biggest changes? We're having trouble figuring out what to make of the 2010-2011 changes. in reply to datadiva 19 hrs ago

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

guest perspective

October 22, 2009

ATRs in the Teachers Lounge

143 Comments

Leave a Reply

Tips, questions, feedback?

Mapping the Budget Cuts

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Our Twitter Updates

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Archives

Education Policy

Educators (NYC)

Educators (outside NYC)

Media

Organizations

Parents & Students

Teaching & Learning

Technology in Education

February 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

guest perspective

October 22, 2009

ATRs in the Teachers Lounge

143 Comments

Leave a Reply

Tips, questions, feedback?

Mapping the Budget Cuts

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Our Twitter Updates

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Archives

Tags

GothamSchools by Email

Education Policy

Educators (NYC)

Educators (outside NYC)

Media

Organizations

Parents & Students

Teaching & Learning

Technology in Education