GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Arthur

By the time the UFT and the DOE agreed to end seniority transfer more than half of all city schools had opted for the SBO Staffing Plan, that exempts them form seniority transfers … each year more schools were opting to participate in the SBO plan and it was clear that the SBO plan would replace seniority transfers. What the UFT did not anticipate was the impact of the accelerated closing of schools …

Teachers in schools wanted control over who came into their schools, the elimination of teachers from the hiring process (except in new schools) was a mistake … seniority transfers will not return under any administration, a creative way to extinguish the ATR pool and including teachers in the hiring process should be a UFT goal … but probably not until the post-Klein era.

Arthur

25/55 benefited many, many thousands of members, I supported it because so many members would gain, both the old BOE and the UFT were moving toward eliminating seniority transfers and moving toward an all SBO transfer system. Teachers support controlling who enters their schools. Unfortunately the union did not anticipate the ATR pool and did not negotiate a system for exhausting the ATR pool. I do not believe there is widespread support for seniority transfer among teachers, there is support for SBO transfers. Negotiating goals are issues that garner support among the large numbers of members. I fear we will have to wait for the next DOE administration before we see any significant changes, and the stagnant and faltering economy overshadows all.

Arthur

I don’t speak for the union and I think they were short sighted in not anticipating the size of the ATR pool. There are a number of ways of exhausting the pool, we’ll see whether the negotiaitions or so agreement after the negotiations does that … as far as returning to seniority transfer … is there a consensus among members. I doubt it. Teachers want to control who teachers in their schools, hopefully we can return to SBO for all.

And let’s not forget that it wasn’t just the tabloids, but also Joel Klein who continued to villify the UFT after we made major concessions in that contract.

Thanks for writing this. It captures all the indignity of what it must be like to be an ATR. I know I could never handle it, and I admire the many teachers who carry on despite the blatant disrespect shown them by the DOE. I agree that many teachers think that it can not happen to them (witness the recent article by Ms. Sacks) but we know that all it takes is a change in administration or a drop in test scores for a school to be savaged.

Peter, one big step the UFT could take in ending the ATR pool would be to permanently end “Fair” Student Funding. FSF has been a travesty because it requires principals to take on the salaries of senior teachers, thus giving them a disincentive to hire ATRs or any senior teachers at all. As Arthur correctly points out, why hire a senior teacher when you can get two newbies for the same price?

Is the UFT doing anything to eliminate FSF? To extend the hiring freeze? Are they doing anything at all? You can bet that once Bloomberg is re-elected, the gloves will be off.

Edwize first took a stance against the ATR proposal. Then overnight they changed their minds and those same people started singing a different song despite warnings from people like me who was excessed a few times in the 70s and also took a UFTseniority transfer.

I agrued if you want to give up the transfer, fine–but not the SBO. But the SBO transfer, a UFT program, also became a villian and Randi sold out all the older teachers who were excessed. A year later, Leo published some Open Market stats, but I stated those numbers would change drastically the next year and asked that he provide the stats a year later. Of course he never did. Why? It would prove my point that ATRs would not be a good economic choice for any principal. We all saw it. I am sure Randi saw it, but didn’t care since ATRs were getting their salaries. But at what price?? Humiliation. Even if the SBO transfer system was returned, principals would argue the cost of hiring a senior teacher to the members and spin it to look like the school would lose supplies, programs and positions. What ever happened to qualificaitons and experience?? You put it out to pasture so some newbie can learn the ropes and probably leave within the first 3 years. Ahhh the children. Do they benefit so much from the revolving door that does nothing to retain the best and brightest among us?????

I find this statement by Peter Goodman astounding:
“By the time the UFT and the DOE agreed to end seniority transfer more than half of all city schools had opted for the SBO Staffing Plan, that exempts them form seniority transfers … each year more schools were opting to participate in the SBO plan and it was clear that the SBO plan would replace seniority transfers.”

So we ended up with a system, in a world of total principal power, where most teachers play no role in most schools.

If half the schools didn’t have SBO plans, mostly because the principal didn’t want to give teachers any role at all, then half the schools were still available for UFT transferees. However, we know that schools that are troubled, and there are an awful lot of them, were not targets for UFT transferees. Generally, the UFT tranfer plan allowed a teacher who had put in years of work in a tough place to try to find some place that might be a bit less stressful to teach in and closer to home. Of course under BloomKlein, they have tried to make every place enormously stressful.
And of course, there are the cases where awful administrators were on your back.

The UFT transfer, had flaws in it, but still gave about 5-600 teachers a year an option. But it became a whipping boy for political reasons and instead of defending a plan that worked in its own narrow sphere, the UFT went along with the attacks. That Arthur would not have these options today is a sign of what has been lost.

The flaws as I remember: The current principal had to sign off I believe and that was unfair. I heard of people who got good jobs but the principal stopped them from leaving. My memory could be hazy.

Teachers put down a few choices and were sent to one of them. Some often didn’t get the school they wanted and passed and could not reapply for 2 years I think.

Principals often tried to intimidate some of the tranferees into not accepting the position, as they often had someone in mind.

They also found numerous ways to cover up positions. For years people who lived in Staten Island or New Jersey and wanted to transfer to SI, mostly for travel reasons – kept getting rejected while noticing a number of young teachers who were somehow working in the positions they had hoped to get.

So Peter’s follow-up:
“as far as returning to seniority transfer … is there a consensus among members. I doubt it. Teachers want to control who teachers in their schools,” must bring laughter to the overwelhming majority of teachers who have less than zero power. That argument is pure sophistry, but totally logically.

The just as astounding: “I don’t speak for the union” sparks much mirth in those of us who have been involved in the union for many years. Of course you speak for the union position. There is not one thing you have written or said publicly that contradicts any union position on any issue and you would find a way to justify just about anything the union decides to do. So, here’s another question not to answer: As a member of Unity Caucus aren’t you bound to support every position taken by the Caucus which runs the union or face expulsion (and the loss of those trips to conventions, jobs for friends and family, etc.) ?

Mr. Talk, if accountability works (and I’m not saying it does right now, but it needs to in the future), then a principal would want to hire a senior teacher over “two newbies” because that senior teacher could deliver better outcomes for kids than two newbies.

Those outcomes include but need not be limited to test scores, of course. There are relationships with families, building trust, instilling values, all things that can be measured in a variety of ways. If a school is challenged with high expectations, the disincentive would be to hire cheap, young talent because to do things right, they would require more oversight and training. I say that as a school leader who has hired both experienced, competent teachers and inexperienced newbies.

I would imagine that most of the teachers reading this would object to their “value” being quantified in a salary figure, but on a system-wide scale, that is exactly the devil’s bargain the brass has to make. SOMEONE has to figure out how much money to spend on each line item in the overall school budget, and at some point that comes down to how much it costs to retain an individual. Public schools ARE businesses, with the parent as customer and the taxpayers as the payers.

At some theoretical point, everyone would agree that it’s too expensive to hire an experienced teacher compared to two newbies. What about a scenario where a 20-year veteran was scheduled to earn $300,000 per year, and a new teacher $10,000, or even $50,000? Could you think of some other ways to spend the extra money?

There’s nothing magical about the “value” in the UFT salary schedule, it’s as arbtirary as the negotiations that took place 20 months ago or whenever it was. My question back to you is, “At what cost would you, if you were principal, hire a newbie over a veteran?” Rephrased, “Are the veteran teachers overpaid, or perhaps the new teacher underpaid? Should their value be closer to equal?

These ideas aren’t anit-teacher; they are fundamental to the sustainability of any organization. They are about the resource trade-off tensions that make life difficult for any organization, especially one where the lion’s share of resources go to personnel.

Ken,
The money shouldn’t follow the adults — or any other straw men.

I am unaware of any requirement that the supplemental funds attached to, say IEP or ELL status, are actually SPENT on such services. Nor am I aware of whether the small bumps associated with non-baseline FSF funding are anywhere near enough to cover the warranted services.

But “Fair Student Funding” sure makes a nice soundbite. After all, who could possibly be for “unfair” anything? Sheesh.

IO,
A whole week? Only 50% of the schools? So modest.

Seriously, how can you not give more credence to the randomness of how teachers landed in the ATR pool?

1,500 teachers were rated “U” (and there’s a whole GS article suggesting THAT’s not on the up and up). Is there even any correlation between “U” teachers and “ATR” teachers? If there is, I have yet to read about it.

You think the un-selected ATR’s are that much less capable than you at trying to land a job? When their livelihood is on the line? Got hubris?

The point is, Michael, their livelihood is not on the line. If it were, they might show up better for interviews instead of complaining about age-ism, etc. as the cause of their inability to land a position at a school.

As it is, ATRs are able to draw their salaries with little or no consequence.

Moreover, it doesn’t really matter how they ended up as ATRs…..that’s the spot they are in and that’s the spot they can get out of if they want.

Micheal F: Of course my lack of classroom experience would be exposed. Presumably and according to them, a capable ATR, though, would have the experience and skills to manage a classroom. The choke point, then, seems to be a lack of willingness to do the things necessary (i.e., brush up on interview skills, present as a conciliatory person, show up looking professional) to get a permanent position.

By the way, I don’t own a television and am as liberal as they come.

KS, this isn’t a business. A teacher who makes twice the salary of a newbie may not get results that are twice as good. Generally speaking, however, veterans get better results than newbies, so would you rather have your child taught by a veteran or someone fresh out of college who planned on leaving teaching in two years? I know who I’d choose.

What often gets lost in these discussions is that the reason we pay senior teachers more is because there need to be a salary path. Who would want to be a teacher, or any other profession, knowing that they’ll be making the same on day 1 as in the last day of a 30 year career? What other job do you know of where the rookies make the same as the experienced workers? Who would take a job where there was no chance for betterment or advancement?

Of course, you may want that sort of transient teaching corps, but I do not, nor do the vast majority of parents. If teacher quality matters, then you’d be in favor of creating a salary structure that would lure the best people and then work to retain them.

And if you really wanted accountability, you’d favor the end of “Fair” Student Funding. Principals aren’t “empowered” to hire the best teachers when they are under budgetary pressure to keep costs down.

As for the salary gap, it is essentially the same as it always has been. The most senior teachers make roughly twice what newbies make, and since we all go up at the same rate, that will continue indefinitely. If you really are a principal, I assume you were a teacher once. Did you object to the raises you got back then, or do you only object now? Did you earn your master’s plus 30 or did you tell yourself that you were only worth what a rookie teacher was worth?

Were you a better teacher after your first year, or did you not improve at all?

I look forward to your answers.

KS,

Re “then a principal would want to hire a senior teacher over “two newbies” because that senior teacher could deliver better outcomes for kids than two newbies.”

This assumes it’s up to the principal to have a class size of circa 50. Riiiiight.

Besides, how can we tell any more if there are better outcomes when 98% of the schools are getting A’s and B’s, and some huge percentage of the students are getting 3′s and 4′s?

There needs to be a balance between centrally (Tweed and UFT) set pay scales and principals’ decisions. It’s not as much of a Free Market as the widget-minded would have us believe.

Another example: Can principals CHARGE kids more to attend more in-demand schools with presumably better (and in a truely free market higher paid) teachers? Wouldn’t the Free Marketeers balk at giving away quality product at commodity pricing?

IO and Friends

ATRs are not sitting around doing nothing …the vast percent are teaching classes in schools, some are replacing teachers on leave, others “filling in” to whatever the principal assigns on a day-to-day basis. They are centrally funded and their position is temporary, and, they can be moved to another school if a vacancy occurs

Who are ATRs?

Some are teachers escessed from closed schools, some are newer teachers excessed due to budget cuts or register loss while others are returning from a leave and assigned to the ATR pool

Are they applying for jobs?

Many have appled for scores of jobs and never even interviewed and some have never applied. They have all been vilified by the Chancellor

Does salary impact ATR hiring? You bet it does … but the most important reason is the DOE message ,,, as Joel vilifies ATRs the principals get the message

Is there a fix? Yes, if the DOE wants a fix … or does it want to use the pool as a politcal issue?

Arthur

Of course I’ll send u a Christmas Card … u are clearly a dedicated teacher and union advocate … an exchange of ideas and opinions is healthy.

@Mr. Talk: I look forward to writing a longer reply, but I haven’t the time at the moment. I want to respectully acknowledge your question.

Briefly, I think you misunderstand my statement. I’m posing the question back to you: If you were in charge, and had to cut this or that expense to make the budget balanced, what would you do? Is there any disparity in teacher salaries that would cause you to say, “That teacher is just too expensive.” I’m talking value-neutral here, asking YOU to make a choice. It’s a thought experiment.

If the answer is no, there is no compensation disparity too great to make you choose a “cheaper newbie” over a better-paid veteran, then you are asking for a bottomless pit of resources. We don’t have that in this state.

And as long as there is a budget to be balanced, there is a business aspect to any endeavor. Talk to the principals who are now losing business managers due to the budget cuts if you want more information on that one.

While I’m on a roll, I have small issues to take with some of your thoughts, Mr. Goldstein, but I want to wholeheartedly and assertively agree (if that’s possible) with your sentiments about the approach of your different administrators.

You described the difference between an autocratic, even dictatorial, administrator, and a democratic, possibly authoritative one. There’s a tremendous difference, and there is a whole theory of leadership around the different behaviors and attitudes administrators demonstrate.

All the theories, typically based on action research, point out that a mix of styles is needed depending on the situation and any one-dimensional administrator is headed for trouble. We are all adults and know when we are able to walk all over someone to get our way (hence the need for even a democratic/coaching type to be authoritarian and top-down on selected occasions – you can’t make everyone happy all the time).

But the research also shows that school leaders with a predominately authoritative/visionary style (“Come with me”), which includes soliciting input, being specific and liberal with praise, admonishing in a predictable and respectful way in private when necessary, and always explaining the rationale behind decisions especially if some stakeholders’ input was solicited but ultimately not chosen as a course of action, are the most successful at retaining high quality teachers and demonstrating student success.

They are out there, and I’m fully aware that the monsters are out there as well and should be avoided like the plague, or sent packing by the top brass.

Mr. Sink,

I remember distinctly which of the two APs was better at teacher retention, as several of my colleagues followed me out of that department into not only my school, but others as well. I can’t comment on any studies or theories, but there’s something very special about a leader that inspires loyalty. And perhaps the way you describe is the way it’s done.

all this…. about that, sidesteps the real issue: why are our kids underperforming? where are the smaller classrooms? why do we teach to the test? is everyone going to college? art? music? phys ed? intro to the trades e.g….auto, tech, construction. learning for the sake of mastering a subject, a skill, a craft, an artform, a research paper etc. most of us entered the profession because we had inquiring minds and liked kids. now we argue about the worth of an atr. how about the worth of a nyc education?