I love hearing about research on effective administration. Where is the research that shows having an a-hole for an admin is harmful to kids and teachers? We only hear about the research that shows an effective teacher is the blah, blah, blah. And then the witch hunt for ineffective teachers begins. Where is the hunt for lousy admins? The stories floating around about the awful people running NYC schools are astounding. Yet they are ignored. If they get good scores no matter how they do it, they are considered kosher.

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.

If a principal hired all newbies who were making as much as they ever would, why should they try hard to improve, and what would be their incentive to stay in the system? Even now, with teachers able to make a decent living after a few years with a master’s, almost half leave before five years. How long do you think they’d stay if their salaries were guaranteed never to go up? Not too long, is my guess.

Of course, I think this is the end goal of BloomKlein and the ed “reformers”–the creation of a transient, poorly paid workforce who would teach test taking skills for a few years and then move on. It would save money in salaries, and make pensions almost irrelevant.

And I don’t think the question is whether the city can afford to pay teachers what they deserve–it’s whether our children can afford for the city not to pay teachers what they deserve.

Sorry for not answering your question, but it’s clearly a false choice. We don’t need to decide whether to hire cheap newbies or retain veteran teachers. We need to do both, as we always have. We need to retain the newbies who show promise and deny tenure to those who don’t. Principals should be held accountable for anyone who is granted tenure and later found to be incompetent.

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.

I’d like to see a lot more qualitative information out there, and a complementary set of inputs by teachers to match the outputs being measured. Teacher inputs can be measured if there is a clear set of priorites on the part of the school (or the system) and if those priorities are limited in scope. No one can do everything, but if a school community decides that, say, 1:1 reading conferencing with students is going to be a data collection priority, then teachers should be judged partly on the consistency and quality with which they implement that system. Mind you, teachers need to have a real seat at the table in choosing and defining these priorities. Otherwise there is no investment on their part — except for the Bloomklein hacks/moles that you all have accused some teachers of being, including me in my past life, and that was 10 years ago! — and you simply have the oppositional teacher vs. admin environment the UFT seems to love to foster. (Hey, it keeps them in business, to use a dirty word.)

On the school level, I’m not sure what a qualitative piece of accountability looks like when each school has different methods and priorities. But that’s why each charter school (at least with SUNY) has an Accountability Plan, tailored to its mission and its approach.

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.

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.

While you may not be sending me a Christmas card this year, I’m glad to see there are some things we agree on.

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?

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?

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.

Since when do “liberals” throw TEACHERS under the bus? Sheesh.

Do you have any reason to believe a random ATR is less capable than a random rookie, let alone a random anonymous “observer”?

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

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.

No, what is a farce is you presuming that you know something about a topic where your ignorance rings off the page. Whatever ideological disagreements people have on this site, most of them are well-informed and at least tangentially involved with education. Your comment proves that you are neither.

So what if you could fraudulently create a resume and get hired? Your lack of classroom experience would instantly be seen through, and you’d be chewed to bits.

I recommend you go back to watching Fox News, and when your mean-spirited passions stir, write a letter to the NY Post. Rupert Murdoch will be happy to give your a platform there.