GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

These teachers arent, actually unemployed. They are serving in schools as teachers. Contrary to stories that are circulated, they are running courses -full programs in many cases- being observed and are compelled to live up to the policies of their schools that apply to all of the other teachers.
From ground zero (and actual school), they are looking and working no different than the teachers of another generation (like 6 years ago), when they were assigned by the disctrict or moved in on a UFT senioriry tranfer (they’re working everyday, they get all the coverages & hall/ cafeteria duty, submitting grades at grade time, calling parensts and, generally speaking, being teachers).
Really, the idea that this stalemate (which I agree does exist) is at the root of all of this is way way too simplistic for such a smart guy as you.
The facts regarding the present war on teachers have many many more roots than just that one. They are much much more related to the burning questions around perception (when a school system has become directly accountable to an electorate, then perception becomes very very important) than they are around human/ financial resources (which is the broad category under which the ATR issue fits).
The real questions (‘who is to blame for the poor test scores?’ ‘will city kids be able to pass a tougher test?’ ‘where is all that tax money for ed dollars going if the results arent that much better?’ … and more!…), are freaking people -important people- out. They also, I think, require a scapegoat -just incase (just my own opinion there). These questions (related to public perception) are so much more important than the ATR issue.
Just one more word on that issue. If the mayor was such a good manager of people and money, as he was at his company, and in the city, then why would he establish a system (open market/ATR) that would cost him and our city (and state) hundreds of millions of dollars a year? I mean, why would such a brilliant guy create a system that used its human/financial resources SO POORLY, as to cost everyone soooo much money? Unless he wanted the perception that unemployed teachers are just collecting an empty paycheck to be front and center as he faces Educarion life in a RT3 world? Just an innocent(ly loaded) question.

Looking at the timing of various moves described in the petition, looks to me like the NYCDOE gamed the whole thing so that Bloomberg/Klein could take national credit for trying to make the data public while avoiding serious public technical discussions of just how bad and unreliable its underlying data really is. Data Tarzans pounding their collective chests from the teacher-report-trees. Cynical scam, at best.

I’m betting that both sides will agree to delays ad infinitum and the whole thing will die some natural death, or be so delayed that a final decision comes down in the next century.

TTL,

You’re missing one more angle from your conundrum model: The willful randomizing of teacher capabilities to suit the administration’s ends.

And, you assume both sides are playing fair. As a lawyer, you must realize such ain’t the case.

Klein, esquire, treats this as a big adversarial game, in which he holds all the cards, as well as the ear of the 4th estate, and in this episode would like to play from his marked deck while the refs cheer him on.

Nice to see you have retained a teacher’s idealism, but it is not valued within a block of Tweed, where dogma, not science, rules.

John G’s response has many good points. For example, he is correct that I erroneously characterized ATR teachers as “unemployed” They are, in fact, employed to do the ad hoc jobs that he cites. Maybe a better way to express that point would have been to say that those teachers are “underemployed but overpaid” as it makes little sense to pay a 5-period cafeteria monitor $80K/yr + the best benefits found just about anywhere.

I also agree that there are more problems that plague NYC’s education system than the UFT/DOE standoff. If I gave the impression that the impasse was the only problem, I apologize. I never meant to do so. Nonetheless, I think that the true impact of the global issues John G states are overestimated. Without doubt, John G is correct in stating, for example, a school system’s accountability to constituents or blame for poor standardized test scores, are on peoples’ minds, and they comprise much of the debate.

However, I don’t believe that those philosophical or broad concerns occupy the majority of the union’s or DOE’s thoughts. Instead, I believe that they take a more practical approach that places primacy on safeguarding their money and power. The union, completely understandably, will not agree to estrange some of its members, no matter how incompetent. The DOE, also completely understandably, will not agree to subject the success of its schools to the union’s inane assertion that a-teacher-is-a-teacher-is-a-teacher. To be sure, image is a part of maintaining power, but neither the union nor the DOE needs image, as evidenced by their willingness to foreclose the only avenue of employment for recent college graduates whose “teacher-education” enables them to do little else, and all parties’ willingness to ignore that fact — arguably an image nightmare, particularly given the job market desert for new hires, but strikingly absent from any discussion.

So, although I agree that those global and philosophical issues exist (and, I’m not discounting their importance to many people), I think that the union and DOE care more about $100+/mil in the here-and-now than they do about the 5-year impact of subjecting 9th graders to more stringent Math A Regents standards. And, I maintain that this impasse, which is rooted in the prime directives of the union (to passionately fight for its members…ALL its members) and the DOE (to provide cost-effective education), is front-and-center issue, and that throwing philosophical concerns (why do our HS grads consistently need remedial, HS-level math courses in their first year at college) amounts to mere diversionary tactics.

Regarding Michael M’s point — no one truly appreciates your cynicism more than me. But, the DOE isn’t the only institution ruled by dogma. Most, if not all, institutions invert the reasoning process: Establish conclusion — create reasons why your conclusion should be true — find facts that support your reasons AND ignore countervailing facts. Also, I agree with you that I assume that both sides are “playing fair” insofar as it means that neither side is lying or committing outright fraud. However, “playing fair” is a pretty mushy concept, particularly when the concerns I stated above exist for both sides.

I agree with Mr. Mulgrew- releasing these problem-ridden scores will have the same effect on parents that the stupid Learning Environment or Progress Reports have. They try to reduce things to an A through F system and end up confusing parents. What happens when my child is placed into the classroom of a poorly rated teacher? I am supposed to pressure the principal to change his class?
What then? Dozens of teachers with no students due to parental pressure fueled by inaccurate reports? Can the principal lay off these unpopular teachers? No. Are they then supposed to U-rate them out of their school? Yes. Is it an exhausting, multi-year process to u-rate a teacher out of a bulding? Yes. Does it take the principal away from leading the building? Yes. Does it create a poisonous atmosphere in a school? Yes.
This is another example of the DOE trying to use principals to rewrite the contract without backup or benefit of a new contract.
Throw these ratings into the East River along with the Progress Reports, Environment Surveys and Quality Reviews- millions wasted!