May 1, 2008
A Manufactured Crisis And An Attempt At A Naked Political Power Play
Filed under: Education by Leo Casey @ 12:02 am
The orchestrated campaign of the Department of Education against excessed teachers without a regular assignment is a manufactured crisis, created and fueled by Tweed for their political purposes.
Consider the following facts:
- When the Department of Education entered into the staffing choice system in the 2005 contract — which gave teachers the power to choose their school and school principals the power to choose their teachers — the UFT negotiation team clearly stated that such a system would result in a pool of unassigned teachers. The DoE agreed this would happen, but said it was prepared to bear that price.
- In the 2006-2007 school year, the Department of Education introduced changes in school financing and budgeting which have resulted in bias in hiring against more senior and experienced teachers, fueling the growth of the pool of unassigned teachers. [Note that the data in the Department of Education's New Teacher Project study is based on prior years, although the DoE -- and the New Teacher Project -- has had access to this more recent information for some time. Perhaps the reason that only the most faithful camp followers of Tweed finds the TNP report and data so convincing is that those who exercise independent judgment took note of these glaring omissions.]
- In a number of meetings and communications over the last year, the UFT has identified steps the DoE should be taking to diminish the numbers and thus the cost of unassigned teachers. The DoE has refused to discuss or take any of these steps.
- Specifically, the DoE has failed to implement the provision of the 2005 and 2007 contracts [Article Seventeen, B, Rule 11] which requires it to send unassigned teachers to schools with open positions, where they and the school principals make determinations on whether or not it was a good match. Instead, the DoE organizes staffing procedures to give applicants new to the system the first choice for open positions.
- Specifically, the DoE has refused to implement the provision of the 2007 contract [Article Seventeen, F] which would create a buyout for unassigned teachers who have been in the pool for more than a year.
- Specifically, the DoE has rejected out of hand UFT proposals to eliminate the disincentives for the hiring of senior teachers by having Tweed make up the difference between the cost of hiring the senior, unassigned teacher and hiring a novice teacher.
When the UFT filed an age discrimination suit against the DoE for its budgetary and staffing policies that have left a disproportionate number of senior teachers without assignments, and when UFT President Randi Weingarten blew the whistle on the DoE’s wasting of taxpayer funds at City Council hearings, the DoE retaliated by publishing the New Teacher Report it had been holding for this moment and launching its campaign against unassigned teachers.
There is no interest on the part of the DoE in diminishing the pool of unassigned teachers, of finding assignments where good teachers left without an assignment through no fault of their own can return to their life’s work. Rather, there sole interest is to manufacture a crisis which they believe they could use to win the power to fire unassigned teachers.
Indeed, after months of proclaiming that they were concerned with attracting experienced, accomplished teachers to schools in poor communities with the greatest educational challenges, the DoE is now pursuing a policy which would ensure precisely the opposite. What experienced teacher would take the risk of going to a school which might well be closed down, knowing that if they were unable to find another assignment the DoE would have the power to fire them?
To this attempted naked political power play, our answer is simple: not this union, not now or ever.
Permalink TrackBack Share on Facebook
14 Comments »
Comments are open for registered users and do not reflect the views of the UFT. Please read our general rules for commenters.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The rest of the story on the excessed teacher controversy…
I had been wondering what else was going on with the controversy over the excessed teacher pool in New York City. The politics here just seemed as if something was missing. Leo Casey calls it a naked political power play and lays out UFT’s perspective…
Trackback by Sherman Dorn — May 1, 2008 @ 8:29 am
No matter how you look at it, it doesn’t look good for anyone. Paying teachers not to work doesn’t fly in this economy.
I wonder what would happen if these ATR’s were offered positions. I bet they leave or retire, especially if they are senior staff.
Comment by Love to Teach — May 1, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
[...] million is a manufactured crisis? What the hell does a real one cost in this [...]
Pingback by Inflation! at More About Education — May 1, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
[...] Teacher Reserve (ATR) “issue” was created by the Department, part of a larger strategy. As UFT Vice President Leo Casey describes the union has proffered a range of strategies to resolve …. The Department created the “problem,” and has no interest in resolving the problem. [...]
Pingback by “The Gang of Two,” Why Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned to Repeat It « Ed In The Apple — May 1, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
There’s an ugly lesson here: we give today’s DoE flexibility at our own peril.
We can argue about whether we should have known 3 years ago - but there is no question today. No more inches, they will just take miles.
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — May 1, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Jonathan !!!
If you recall the terms of our last contract, we received a “large raise”, together with an agreement to perhaps get the 55/25, which we did.
These are very significant gains for many, especially the senior memebers who will be reaching $100,000 + in a few days.
Sometimes, in order to get, you have to give.
We also gave back a lot. Loss of control in certain areas, together with a loss of 5 days of summer.
Recently, I found out that many schools, school based, have voted to come in earlier the last week, and therefore were providing for a 5 day Labor day weekend, a very creative way of using the giveback and still enjoying the end of summer.
Hopefully, our next contract will have fewer give backs of substance.
We will never get the same increase in money from the next mayor though.
One thing about Bloomberg, he is a businessman first, and money is a significant variable to him.
Comment by Love to Teach — May 2, 2008 @ 5:25 am
Despite my strong opposition to the contract before last, I’m willing to consider that it was a good faith effort on the part of the UFT leadership to work with the DOE to make constructive changes in the contract. I didn’t agree with the overall idea of more work and fewer rights for more pay - I was already exhausted and stressed (and concerned about the gains being erased by future fiscal crises) and I’m not surprised that teacher turnover continues to be high. However, I think it was clear that the UFT didn’t want to play an obstructionist role in contract negotiations.
So, what have we gotten in return for our flexibility? continued attacks, continued distortions and slander (can the ATR’s sue the Times for calling them “idle”?). Worst of all, we have a system where age discrimination is now institutionalized and teachers become less employable as they gain experience and skills.
There’s really no point any more in negotiating with this administration. Randi went out on a limb by agreeing to a contract that was almost rejected by the membership and they’ve repaid her in the worst way. As Jonathan said, “no more inches”.
Comment by MichaelB — May 2, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
Wow. An SBO to still come in during the summer. How great is that?
Comment by Schoolgal — May 2, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Love to Teach, where are you coming from?
First of all: “paying teachers not to work” is BloomKlein’s PR. Teachers excessed or not come into work to do their job. If schools are not giving them classes to cover, that’s what Tweed designed, and that’s what it’s tolerating while BloomKlein spins the story negatively in the press. You as a union member don’t have to buy into their spin or repeat their words. Negotiating this last contract, the BoE rejected a system that had been in place for many years.These people WOULD have been put into new positions immediately in the old days. Throwing out the time-honored solution to excessing was a political decision by this chancellor to undermine the union and turn the public against union laborers.
You then say: “I wonder what would happen if these ATR’s were offered positions. I bet they leave or retire, especially if they are senior staff.”
Are you out of your mind? Senior teachers are people who lived under many earlier contracts. When they got excessed in the past, they worked where they were sent to work, unless something mutually acceptable could be worked out with Human Resources. They didn’t quit then, and there’s no reason they should quit now.
Lastly, what’s a “senior” teacher these days? It used to mean someone working 25, 30, 35 years. 20 is really mid-career, you have a long way to go until retirement, particularly if you start teaching in your twenties
But 20 years and 30 credits above a Masters is big money — I think $95K next October — and no employer should be looking to push out satisfactorily performing mid-career people to save cash.
Tweed is not only pushing out “senior” teachers. They’re killing off the middle ranks, too.
Comment by JW — May 3, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
I find much of this conversation amazing. The DoE is going nuts about ATRs precisely because of one of the gains in the 2005 contract — the job security protections. It is precisely that important gain that makes it possible for Randi and the UFT to tell Bloomberg, Klein and the DoE what they can do with themselves.
Comment by SOC ST TEACHER — May 3, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
You don’t get it. RW has never been able to tell them what they can do with themselves. Ergo, givebacks.
Comment by JW — May 3, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
JW’s point bears repetition - it is Bloomberg propaganda that says that teachers don’t want to teach. Our experience is quite to the contrary.
Social Studies teacher, we have members who want to work who are not being allowed to. It would be best to focus on them.
With full implementation of FSF, we could end up with many, many more senior teachers trying to find work and unable.
The DoE is harping on the ATRs because they are making a case that the protection should be weakened. The DoE has time on its side. We need to counter them, now. That would be a better place to direct your energy.
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — May 4, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
[...] we have published here the account of the practical proposals we have made to the DoE, again and again, to diminish the [...]
Pingback by Stubborn Facts, Pliable Statistics and The Manufactured Crisis of Excessed Educators | Edwize — May 5, 2008 @ 8:14 am
[...] with comment: Eduwonkette looks at the give and take and sniffs something afoul at Tweed. Leo Casey at Edwize hammers the TNTP data and muses about their cozy relationship with Tweed. Tim Daly at TNTP [...]
Pingback by “Legal Graft:” Sacrificing Kids for the Larger Goal, Weakening/Destroying the Teacher Union « Ed In The Apple — May 14, 2008 @ 7:55 am