GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

human capital (updated)

March 24, 2010

Number of teachers in excess pool down sharply from the fall

by Maura Walz, at 9:32 pm

new-atr-numbers

Chancellor Joel Klein threw out a surprise at today’s City Council hearing on next year’s education budget — that the number of teachers currently in the Absent Teacher Reserve pool has now dipped to 1,092 teachers, down about 600 people since the fall.

In its teachers contract demands this year, the city has asked for the power to fire teachers who remain in the excess pool for more than four months. Assuming the teachers currently in the pool have been there since the fall, if not longer, they would lose their jobs under the city’s proposal.

UPDATE: This post previously reported that the number of teachers in the excess pool had dropped below 1,000 as well as a different breakdown of how many years teachers in the ATR pool have been in the system. Klein gave those numbers verbally at a City Council hearing in response to a question from Council Member Daniel Dromm, who wanted to know if principals tended to excess more experienced (and thus more costly) teachers.

After we posted the numbers we heard from Klein, DOE officials gave GothamSchools an updated set of numbers, which we used to update the chart above.

Klein told City Council that the experience level of teachers in the excess pool tends to fall along a bell curve, with the greatest number of teachers having between five and 15 years of experience.

Department of Education officials couldn’t say today whether the range of ATR teachers’ experience levels was in proportion to active teachers, but we’ll update when we have those numbers for comparison.

Last May, Klein told principals that they could only hire teachers from within the system to reduce the ranks of teachers who remain on the DOE’s payroll but who lack full-time teaching positions.  The number of teachers in the pool, which peaked last summer at about 3,000 people, plummeted to around 1,700 teachers just after school started in September.

Print Print
  • Michael M.

    The pie chart raises a number of questions:

    1) How does the “years of service” of teachers in the ATR total (981) compare to the distribution of “YOS” in the general ranks?

    2) What was the age distribution of:
    a) Those teachers hired out of it?
    b) Those teachers retired out of it?

    “Bell curve” my eye. Gong show is more like it. IF (big if) this was a result of a non-age-biased, non-salary-biased process, you’d see some correlation to the distribution in the ranks. If THAT’s a bell curve too, and therefore a MATCH, I’ll concede. If not, see questions 1 and 2.

  • Invictus

    Although not all the numbers tell the truth, the fact is that these pie charts here clearly show who in the age scale are at a disadvantage. Expect these charts to get worse as more middle of the road teachers are placed on the ATR rolls as large school go through their impending closure.

    Even the DoE cannot masquerade the fact that the ATR rolls clearly show age discrimination due to their ineptitude.

  • http://jd2718.wordpress.com Jonathan

    1 – 4 years probably represents a bit less than half the active teaching force.

  • Michael M.

    Per Jonathan…

    If true, 13% of the remaining ATR pool corresponds with the least expensive (bit less than) 50% of the teaching force, and the younger/cheapers are roughly four-fold under-represented.

    In other words, 87% of the ATR pool corresponds with the MOST expensive (bit more than) 50% of the teaching force and are roughly two-fold over-represented.

    If 13% of the teachers in schools that closed to create the ATR pool had the same 1-4 years of experience, that would suggest a combo of the hirings and retirings were age-blind — and pay-blind.

    If the opposite, the suggestion would be that the school closings, the re-hirings, and the retirings, were WITH regard to age and pay.

    It’s hard to understand such under-representation and over-representation otherwise.

  • Michael M.

    Invictus,

    In friendly clarification, I take “their ineptidue” to refer to DOE, not the teachers themselves. Correct?

  • Michael M.

    Make that “Ineptitude.”

    Of all the words to fat-finger.

    (Note to self: pay attention to the squiggly red underline. Turns out “ineptidue” isn’t in Bill Gates’ dictionary for a reason. Still, it’s a keeper. Along with “disirregardless.”)

    e.g. “In this fiasco, so-and-so was the ineptidue.” And we — and the teachers — were the ineptiDUPED.

    Must. Get. (Decaf) Coffee.

  • Fred

    Just formally observed in a regular classroom, with a regular program since Sept. As an ATR I was randomly assigned to this school where I never taught. I have 17 years exp. I received a satisfactory with excellent comments. I am well liked by the students and staff.

    So, I asked the principal to put me on staff next year as a full-time teacher. Nope, she said, your too expensive and I don’t have the money!!!!!!

    PLEASE!–I hope the UFT can see what’s happening. They don’t want excellent experienced teachers because it’s all about the money. Leave in 1-10 years and no pension as well. Good Luck to all you atr’s out there!!!!

  • wdlr

    Yes, part of it is about money…but out of necessity. The school budget is going to be cut more than 4.9% across the board in NYC. Where are principals to get the money to hire more expensive teachers? By cutting important educational programs and shortchanging students who are supposed to be the priority in the school system. But then who cares about children when a fat salary is at stake?

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today
View all comments »

RSS Feeds

Newsroom posts Community posts All GothamSchools content

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Copyright Notice