September 1, 2006
Tweed Continues to Stumble As Jack’s Rules Fail
Filed under: NYC DOE by Peter Goodman @ 4:44 pm
In January 2003 Joel Klein proudly announced the creation of the Leadership Academy, led by Bob Knowling, an Internet entrepreneur, and Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric.
Three years later Knowling, who it turns out was a failed Internet entrepreneur, is gone, and the business world has cast aside the Jack Welch leadership mantra.
Sunlight is the enemy of Tweed. Virtually every decision at Tweed is made in the shadows, and only “newsworthy” data and is released. School report cards take more than a year to appear on the website, and requests for data are stonewalled.
The heralded Impact School initiative, a jewel in the Bloomberg crown, was sharply rebuked in a recent report.
Million-dollar fees to consultants, buried by Tweed, are now being questioned by the press and elected officials.
Why is everything beginning to fall apart?
Perhaps because the basic philosophy of Tweed, Jack’s Rules, is fatally flawed.
A recent issue Fortune Magazine exposes the shortcomings of the mantra of Jack.
OLD RULE: BIG DOGS OWN THE STREET
NEW RULE: AGILE IS BEST, BEING BIG CAN BITE YOU
Children First created ten mega, all-powerful regions. Consultation with parents or teachers or their unions was rejected. The Regional Superintendent was the local poobah.
The DOE devolution to “empowered” quasi independent schools rejects the concept of the all powerful Regional Superintendent. Big Dogs were losing their bark. Why?
OLD RULE: BE No. 1 or No. 2 IN YOUR MARKET
NEW RULE: FIND A NICHE, CREATE SOMETHING NEW
Tweed began by imposing the Workshop Model and a range of programs that were “the” answer to the ills of the education world. Welch advocates “ranking your players and weeding out your weakest,” a Darwinian approach to staffing. Leadership Academy aspiring principals were encouraged to use carrots and sticks, “good” and “bad” letters in files. A regional superintendent told her principals “if your staffs aren’t afraid of you, you’re not doing your job.”
Is the creation of 321 “empowered” schools a rejection of Jack’s Rules? Or, is “rating” schools on a scale from A through F a Welch approach to creating competition and weeding out the weakest?
OLD RULE: BE LEAN AND MEAN
NEW RULE: LOOK OUT, NOT IN
Critics of Jack’s Rules proffer “that it is narrowly designed to fix an existing process, allowing little room for new ideas or an entirely different approach.” Now innovation is the key: “Nothing will kill it faster than trying to manage it, predict it, and put it on a timeline.”
The true islands of success were not created by Tweed and are swept aside or ignored by them. The dismantling of the Chancellor’s District, the invisibility of the International High Schools or the Comprehensive Day and Night High Schools. Innovation is punished, not nurtured, by the mandarins of Tweed.
OLD RULE: RANK YOUR PLAYERS; GO WITH THE A’S
NEW RULE: HIRE PASSIONATE PEOPLE
Welch at GE averred, “We want A players. Don’t spend time trying to get C’s to be B’s. Move them out early.” Rather than create an A work force, Jack’s Rules create “increasingly disenfranchised employees” with no “sense of purpose.”
The sharp increase in U ratings coming with the implementation of Jack’s Rules has only angered teachers. The “improve results or else” mantra only drives out new teachers.
OLD RULE: ADMIRE MY MIGHT
NEW RULE: ADMIRE MY SOUL
Bloomberg and Klein manufacture press events, give carefully scripted speeches, and threaten unions and parents and critics, and appear to be without a soul.
Parents, teachers and students have no power and no voice; only the all-knowing leader is the fount of knowledge.
Only when the real stakeholders have a voice will we have a school system with a purpose.
Permalink TrackBack Share on Facebook
50 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
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree with you. But I’m afraid the last contract has very much enabled precisely what you criticize.
In case you need another example, today’s NY Times reports that Klein just killed a hiring freeze designed to help 1,000 UFT teachers find positions. They’re currently on the permanent sub corps that City Sue and Leo Casey championed.
Klein clearly plans to vilify these teachers just as he did the 44 administrators. Many of these teachers are probably jobless due to reorganization, not incompetence.
30 years of NYC school history suggest that bargain basement teachers are preferred over quality, and a look at the contract I just got in the mail suggests you get two new teachers for the price of one vet.
There is a serious lack of foresight among our leadership, and Joel Klein played us like a master.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 2, 2006 @ 7:19 am
Principals have been encourage to move away from veteran teachers in recent years. I don’t think it’s money. Teachers cost schools by their average salary, not by specific individual salaries. It’s become more important to hire people who will fear for their jobs and do as their told rather than do what’s best for students. Sometimes this works. Often it doesn’t. But I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing to have teachers get more flexiblity in where they work, regardless of years in the system. What needs to be firmed up is this new tactic that throws veteran teachers out when there’s a school reorganization.
Comment by paulrubin — September 2, 2006 @ 10:00 am
With 400 to 800 unfilled positions, 500 unassigned new teachers, and 1,000 teachers on the permanent sub list, according to today’s Times, Tweed’s motivation for preferring new hires is moot. It doesn’t appear to be “Children First,” in any case.
Your interpretation (which makes a lot of sense), mine, or any combination thereof, the results are pretty much the same.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 2, 2006 @ 10:49 am
When you are attacked, you are not supposed to just take it, you fight back.
Our union should be pro-active and attack Kleinberg. Instead we don’t even react when our very profession is under attack.
This union should be attacking the Kleinberg record on the following:
. The failure to lower class sizes.
. The failure to attract highly
qualified teachers due to
uncompetitive salaries & poor
working conditions.
. The culture of disrespect at Tweed.
. The failure to enforce student
discipline codes.
Where is the union’s medis blitz??
Comment by Chaz — September 2, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
If Tweed is stumbling, the UFT may be dead or in need of oxygen.
Our last contract gave up the store and
” What happened to or Labor Day Holiday “.
How is it possible that in an election year we gave back so much.
I still can not comprehend any basis for going in this past Thursday and Friday.
My regrets to my fellow UFTer’s who lost their time shares, summer vacations, US Open tennis fun, etc., etc.
For what !!!!!!
Comment by Civil Servant — September 2, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Here’s a comment I just received:
I am an excessed teacher with 25 years in the system. I know, I can’t believe it either! My school was reorganized this year, leaving almost 50 teachers - all experienced and tenured - in the ATR pool, which is not a place you want to be. This has been an education, a crash course, about what this contract means to all of us.
When a school is reorganized it is also renamed. (If it had the same name all of the senior teachers would have retention rights). Now you have a brand new school, or two new schools, or however many schools it was divided into. The principal now has to hire only 50% of the staff of the “old” school. Teachers must apply and be interviewed for these positions, seniority counts for nothing. Then the principal is free to hire anyone they want to fill the remaining positions - they can hire the rest of the current teaching staff if they want to, but this is not likely to happen. They generally hire brand new teachers. If you are not hired you become a well-paid sub.
I don’t know of anyone who was hired from the open market system. The DOE also sponsored “hiring fairs” for us, where I met a lot of teachers from reorganized schools. Oh, BTW, they had fairs for new teachers at the same time; new teacher’s fairs would begin at 3 PM, ours at 4PM, and then they would not admit us for another hour or so. Do you think they really want us to be hired?
The union has mailed us letters, telling us about their great job. They say that the city wanted to terminate us if we didn’t obtain a permanent position within 18 months, but they saved us - we can now stay in the ATR pool forever, if necessary. I can’t help but notice that the Kleinberg machine seem MUCH smarter than the UFT!!!
-excessed teacher
Comment by NYC Educator — September 2, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
I think good teachers (as well as principals and, most importantly, parents) should be happy that principals won’t have to hire teachers that they don’t think can get the job done. If teachers want more professional respect, one way is to reduce the number of ineffective teachers. If a teacher can’t find a position despite a large number of openings, it seems likely that the problem may be with the teacher.
Ken
Comment by curious3 — September 2, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Peter Goodman, I agree. What astonishes me really is the disconnect between the values we hope to teach the children in our schools (such as to value every individual, A-list or otherwise) and the values at the heart of Klein culture (Welsh’s list of rules). Can you really encourage the first from the center of the second? I am glad at least that between this wretched corporatized bureaucracy and our children there stand the teachers and other school-based educators who do not replicate Klein culture in their class.
Comment by Jackie Bennett — September 2, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
“I am glad at least that between this wretched corporatized bureaucracy and our children there stand the teachers and other school-based educators who do not replicate Klein culture in their class.”
Me too. However, with reorganization hanging over the head of every NYC teacher, I wonder how we’ll keep them standing.
I’m very concerned about UFT teachers who’ve been placed in ATR. It seems inevitable that Klein, with much fanfare, will demand they be fired in the next round of contract negotiations. This sort of demand has kept his no-bid contracts below the radar for the past few days, and will surely deflect the public eye from the lack of substantive educational achievement by this administration.
It also seems these teachers are not nearly getting a fair crack at openings. I just got an email from a fourth-year just excessed teacher stating new hirees are universally preferred.
It would be nice if someone in the UFT felt this situation merited a response.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 3, 2006 @ 9:53 am
What’s not known in all this is how many of the now unassigned teachers didn’t apply to all these hundreds of schools for their openings. And how many of these openings are in shortage areas that don’t really apply (middle and high school math, sci, foreign lang teachers for example).
The bottom line remains in place. If you want to be taken seriously, you’ve got to take your own situation seriously and the teachers of NYC have been anything but serious for decades. We worry about not having to punch time cards when we should be worrying about four things (maximum salary in the shortest period of time, job security, improved pensions, important working conditions like class size). The rest is hogwash.
Comment by paulrubin — September 3, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Paul,
I understand your sentiment. I agree substantially with your list of four things (as long as you add a fifth - keeping the UFT chapters strong enough that we can effectively bargain for the first four).
But I hope you are blaming us as a whole, and not the individual ATR teachers. Getting excessed happnes to lots of good teachers. It is not getting fired for cause.
In the case of old schools being phased out in favor of new schools, there is a sense of disbelief. Everyone knows it’s coming, but this year? Mr. Babylon’s account is perfect. His Bronx HS is close to complete phase-out, yet he still seems shocked.
I heard a story this spring of a large high school excessing a large number of teachers in a shortage area department to get rid of one trouble maker. (Can’t verify this).
Whatever, the circumstances, it is our collective job to protect each other.
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 3, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
I’m not blaming ANY individual teachers. I think the Post’s piece today launching a tirade against the 44 AP’s who haven’t found jobs and to a lesser extent the teachers in a similar boat, is an atrocity. If I were one of them, I’ve be seeking legal counsel to launch a slander/libel suit.
Comment by paulrubin — September 4, 2006 @ 8:47 am
One of the most important factors in this situation is the seemingly total inability of the Union to get any facts to the public. Never is a concise well orchestrated presentation made to the public in the face of DoE prevarications.
Case in point: pension reform. Whenever we seek it the DoE and press say we want full pensions after ten or how ever many years. No explanation is offered that we were seeking penalty eliminations not full pensions. In this case we have not even attempted to describe the excessing problem or explain ATR. Could it be that the Union sees ATR as some sort of negotiating victory in the same way it saw Open Market as a victory? BTW How many veteran teachers found new positions on the open market?
Maybe we could enlist our Junior Senator, whom we introduced to NY, as an advocate. She certainly has connections to the Chancellor as he was Ass’t WH Counsel before going to DoJ. Maybe she could offer her services as a mediator between the Union and DoE to find some equitable solutions to the myriad of problems facing teachers as a result of DoE decisions.
Comment by xkaydet65 — September 4, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Hey Jonathan,
I just read the Babylon posting you linked to. I recommend others read it to. I don’t know what I am missing, but if his posting is any indication, I wouldn’t want him teaching my kids. The result that his school has been shut down and he might not be able to find a new job (in part because he doesn’t want to work in one of those “progressive and productive places”) seems like it might be a good one. To be clear, I am guessing his postings include a fair bit of sarcasm, but the overall attitude is frightening to me.
I would be curious to hear the viewpoints on Babylon’s posting of other readers.
Ken
Comment by curious3 — September 4, 2006 @ 10:11 am
XK,
I couldn’t agree more.
Paul,
You probably know this already, but Jill Levy has advised her members to do precisely what you suggested and says she’s considering a suit on behalf of the union.
Meanwhile, regarding excessed teachers, the UFT says it’s “waiting for the contractual language to be hammered out,” and is “in dispute regarding the right of return for those in excess.”
While I’m no lawyer, it seems to me that things of such importance need to be resolved before signing a contract.
http://www.uft.org/member/rights/excessing/
Comment by NYC Educator — September 4, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Paul,
thanks for the clarification. Yes, then, we as a union need to take excessing more seriously, and yes, NYC Ed, how we as a union handled the excessing issues in the last contract seriously calls our seriousness into question.
Ken, you want schools to be shut down based on semi-fictionalized accounts you read on blogs? You are likely too smart - [I've already been chastised for saying the sorts of things I am thinking right now, so I'll leave it at that.]
Comment by jd2718 — September 4, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Ken
Those productive and progressive places are in too many cases a pressure cooker. If the rewards were present I’m sure teachers would apply in spite of the pressure. But what if any are the rewards?
For the principal and APs there are bonuses and promotions to ROCs. For the staff there is only pressure. Seven or eight years ago I was at a weeklong workshop in Dist 24. The facilitators honestly admitted how much more effort was being required of teachers. When I asked what’s the reward if the outcome was good they could offer nothing. In their presentations they had prattled about the corporate and business models so I asked them what does an employee of Microsoft or GE get when there is corporate success? Bonuses? Stock Options? What do we get? Some praise? (this was pre Klein where praise for teachers is not allowed)Why should any teacher agree to increased work and pressure? Their answer was that it was for the kids. I asked what about the money flowing out of the district to folks like Dr. Sinatra at SJU and to the NCEE to develop these programs. They weren’t doing it just for the kids. It was then that the discussion was in danger of turning hostile so i stopped
. But even though I would hate to have my daughter exposed to Mr. Babylon, he makes a point that cannot be refuted.Increase the pressure and tension on staff, increase the aura of uncertainty for its security and you will have a staff that does what you want. That’s life in many of the so called progressive NYC school.
For personal reasons I returned to my old school this year. It is an empowerment school. I am interested to see how the pressure affects the admin, which I respect, and the staff. Will it make for a better relationship or will it be the downfall of what was a good working relationship. Stay tuned.
Comment by xkaydet65 — September 4, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
To all:
Its very nice that we all agree that there may be real problems with the open market system. However, I don’t see our union doing anything about it?
Ken:
If you would only understand how excessing works. Once a school closes down or is split into small schools the principals of these small schools are required to take only 50% of the staff. If you are a new principal, you have already been informed who to take and not to take. No, the teacher selection is not based on what’s best for the students. The selection is based on whether the teacher is considered a “troublemaker” (protecting teacher rights). Therefore, the more experienced teachers, who know their rights, are passed over for young & inexperienced teachers. Many a quality teacher are not selected because they know their rights.
Comment by Chaz — September 4, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
I’m guessing that when we’re asked to work harder, the model that needs to be used is whatever is considered slightly more than typical for the average American teacher. If the average teacher had a 10 hour day, a 12 month year, taught 9 of the 10 hours, brought work home, etc., that that should be the city’s goal for us. Alas, that is not what the average American teacher does. In fact we already work about as hard as the average American teacher, probably under subaverage working conditions and that’s really the problem in terms of productivity. All you have to do is look to see whether there’s a shortage or a surplus of teachers. If it’s the latter, the job’s too easy or too well paid. If it’s the former, then politicians and parents need to put more on the table.
Comment by paulrubin — September 4, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
Paul,
I’d qualify your remark to refer to effective teachers.
Supply can always be raised by lowering standards, as 30 years of 800 numbers, ignoring test scores, lower pay scales for teachers who didn’t meet standards, and various intergalactic personnel searches have shown.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 4, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Paul, About the core of your post I’d like to mention something I posted on another thread.Your criticism of the Welch approach is timely, I had read the Fortune article, but rather than harp in a negative manner about the Tweed approach I’d like us all to remember and spread the word. The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army and Maarines, place great responsibility and flexibility with their junior officers and NCOs. If the U.S. Army can trust its platoon leaders to place mission before the plan why can’t the DoE? And sorry Mr. Klein,we the teachers are the school system’s platoon leaders not your Principals, not your Lis’s and Ris’s.With respect to author Ed Ruggero, lose the war at the platoon level, you lose the war! You’re losing it now Mr. Klein.
Comment by xkaydet65 — September 4, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
My understanding — perhaps someone would like to correct me if they have different information — is that almost 2 1/2 times as many UFT members received transfers under the open market system as did under the prior transfer systems. The limits on transfers, such as the rule that no more than 5% of a staff, or a high school department [such as Math] could transfer, are now gone. That suggests a more complicated picture than the comments on this post, with some positive gains in the new arrangement.
It is also my understanding — and again, correct me if I am wrong — that the problem with the phasing out schools has nothing to do with the open market, but the fact that the DOE unilaterally ended the provision which gave teachers in phasing out schools 18G rights to 1/2 of the positions in the the replacement schools in all four years of the phase out. If I am not mistaken, this very issue is in grievance now.
Comment by HS SHOP TEACHER — September 5, 2006 @ 6:05 am
The 18G rights of teachers in phaseout schools were NOT removed from the contract - the union assigns one member to each 18G committee - I’ve served on a number of committees, I was surprised that only a few phaseout school teachers applied for the small schools … the phaseout school applicants are “interviewed” and must criteria - similar to a comp time job … I found small school prncipals eager to hire experienced teachers … although few applied … the culture of small schools is very different than rather anonymous teacher role in many large schools …
Comment by Peter Goodman — September 5, 2006 @ 7:26 am
18G seems no longer in play during the “growing” years of a new school, ie they use 18G the first year but not the next 3, when they are still displacing people.
Did the DoE narrow 18G’s scope unilaterally? It appears so, but I am not certain.
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 5, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
HS Shop teacher,
where did that 2½ times figure come from? It is the first actual number that I have heard regarding the new transfer system. Is there a source?
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 5, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
I followed up on the specific issue of the comment above reprinted by NYC Ed. The person who made that comment needs to speak with their District Representative or Borough Representative. If you are the subject of discrimination or suspected discrimination, the person needs to contact their UFT representatives so that the UFT can investigate and take action. In addition, I have been told that the UFT is considering pressing an age discrimination suit and is looking for evidence that could support that claim.
Comment by Kombiz — September 5, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
3rd time must be a charm because that’s what it took to get a working password for this site.
That said, I would like to make the following points:
1: Many teachers did not know they were excessed until the first week of July–as with my school.
2: By the time they went to the wonderful “open market”, the pickens were slim and far from home.
3: A majority of those excessed are, in reality, new to the system. Yet Klein already refers to them as has-beens.
3: A majority of these teachers were hired under the SBO. Does Ken know what that means????
It means they went through a very though interview system with both staff and parents. They also had to give an actual lesson with the whole committee watching.
These teachers have already proven to meet the vision of most principals, and if given the opportunity, would do it again. These teachers should have been given the right of first interview. At the job fair this summer, they were scheduled after, not before, the college grads. What’s the underlying message here?
While the open market might have “some” advantages over the old transfer system, excessed teachers should still have the same protections they had under the old contract. For Klein to find loopholes in the wording of this contract just goes to prove how ambiguous this document is.
For weeks prior to the contract, I posted on this site warning of the dangers of not giving excessed teachers the right to vacant positions.
As for putting more pressure on teachers:
I don’t know where the rest of you have been, but I always felt the pressure. What’s been added is not pressure, but stress–More testing and less teaching. Creativity is dead in the water, and good teachers and now forced to follow scripts or mandates that may not meet the needs of their students.
Tweed may be stumbling, but our union is weakening, and there lies the real issue.
Comment by Schoolgal — September 5, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
All five of the excessed teachers in my school have been returned to my school, including the ESL coordinator who is highly regarded. He claims he didn’t even get an interview under the open market system.
HS Shop teacher:
What is the source that shows the 250% increase in transfers under the open market system? Better yet who gave you this number? I would be very interested to see the complete statistical information, if one actually exists.
Comment by Chaz — September 5, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
I checked with Ken Lubetsky who knows these numbers better than anyone else at the union. I’m told that HS Shop teacher is right regarding the increase, as Ken passed on to me it’s at least that high. The UFT is still processing the numbers, but Ken also passed on that the information was shared in meetings over the summer with Borough Reps, DR’s and others at sessions he ran.
HS Shop teacher is incorrect in a minor fact in his comment. The limits on transfers was 25% of a department and not 5%. The 5% of staff part is correct.
Comment by Kombiz — September 5, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
At most recent count, there have been approximately 2700 transfers under the open market this year. The most transfers that had previously taken place in one year, combining UFT transfers, transfers for racial integration and administrative transfers, was about 1000. We do not yet know all of the details about who did and did not get transfers, but clearly under the open market many more UFT members get transfers than ever before.
When we discussed this part of the contract here in the past, we pointed out that there were pluses and minuses to the open market, just as there had been pluses and minuses in the old system. [Our own preference would have been for something close to our old SBO Staffing and Transfer Plan.] Some of the pluses included: the removal of the limits on how many teachers in a school could transfer, making accessible all open positions in a school to transfers, and what was, in effect, a ‘no layoff’ clause for excessed members. Clearly, those pluses have resulted in many more transfers for our members, while protecting from layoff those members who did not find a position on the open market.
Before last spring, the UFT and the DOE had a common understanding and a longstanding practice of counting each of the four years of a old school’s phase out, and each of the four years of a new school’s phase in, as covered by the 18G process, with its rules. The most important of these was the rule that the new school must hire at least 50% of applicants from the phasing out school, provided that the applicants met the qualifications of the new school. Last spring, the DOE unilaterally abrogated this practice, saying that now only the first year was covered. [This decision was grieved, and will end up in arbitration.] As a consequence, fewer UFT members in phasing out schools received positions in new schools, which meant more teachers in excess. I do not have the figures in front of me right now, but if memory serves me correctly, at a recent count almost half of the teachers still in excess came out of phasing out schools. Many of those teachers would have received positions if the DOE had followed the contract and past practice.
Comment by Leo Casey — September 5, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
It seems to me that Klein is flexing his muscle for the sake of doing so.
Also, while the number of transfers may be accurate, it could reflect teachers who chose to transfer, as opposed to those displaced and sentenced to a purgatory that shows every indication it will lead to termination in the last contract.
It’s frankly idiotic to assume any teacher is unsatisfactory simply for having landed in a school that was shut down, but that’s the conclusion many will reach.
If 50% of teachers are retained and chosen at the whim of a Jack Welch principal (or anyone under the thumb of this Chancellor), I don’t see that as fair treatment of competent, working teachers.
I can’t imagine there are none of them in that ghost ship called the ATR, and I can’t imagine coming to work every day and being nobody either.
Will the UFT insist on maintaining the ATR teachers in the next round of negotiations? The outrageous short-sightedness of the last contract has left many teachers in a very precarious position.
What did you guys get for that?
Less than cost of living.
Less than nothing.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 5, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
Kombiz,
Based on what I’ve heard, I’m a bit surprised by what you report. Could we know more?
it would be great to have a data source. What Ken says (didn’t he retire?) is valuable, but numbers and a description are what we would like.
Obvious questions are: are Ken’s numbers SBO, or SBO plus seniority? And what were those numbers? Where do the open market numbers come from?
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 5, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
oops. I see that Leo already answered my question.
Almost triple the number of transfers? Wow. Will we learn more details about who transfered, from where, to where, and that sort of stuff?
I remain concerned about discrimination against older members and more experienced members. I don’t see how an individual member would be able to prove discrimination since it would be occuring at the school level against members of a class (older transfer candidates) rather than against an individual (more senior qualified candidate, as under the SBO), or rather than systemwide against a class (shift of U-ratings towards older teachers across the system where the UFT as a whole has standing)
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 5, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
The actual number of transfers under this plan does not mitigage in any way, shape, or form the plight of the thousand plus teachers caught in the web of Klein’s machinations.
To imply that this is somehow OK because more teachers may have transferred this year is offensive, preposterous, and illogical. Try telling that to the folks in the ATR pool, sadly trapped by Klein’s superior foresight.
The degradation of being assigned as a wandering substitute teacher when your only offense was happening to work at a re-organized school must be devastating. The thought of what the next contract holds for our fellow union members is little consolation either.
Klein killed a bill that would have given these teachers preference over new admits. Had this been contractually spelled out, there’d have been no need, and no option either.
It’s one thing to get rid of bad teachers. It’s quite another to degrade and humiliate union members just because they’re at the wrong place at the wrong time.
It’s unconscionable that contract negotiators didn’t see this coming.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 6, 2006 @ 5:29 am
Jonathan:
We are very interested in the breakdown of who received transfers, and who did not. We do not yet have that information, mostly because the DOE is waiting until the hiring/transfer season is over to do diagnostics. It is much easier to get a running count on the total number of transfers. As soon as we know the particulars, I will let you know.
Leo
Comment by Leo Casey — September 6, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
The Open Market System in and of itself isn’t the problem. It’s execution is the problem along with the practive of reorganizing schools and throwing teachers out into the wilderness. The obvious problem is it doesn’t take into account the reality that a poorly performing school will have plenty of good teachers. There just aren’t enough. Nevertheless I don’t look for us to get any of this back in the next round of negotiations. It’s too valuable to the DOE. They’ll want something for it and it’s only the UFT that gives up stuff for inadequate raises.
Comment by paulrubin — September 6, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
Paul,
I have to disagree. With the advent of open market, seniority no longer plays any role in transfers whatsoever. Even SBO transfers had a seniority component (schools were required to hire the most senior of those applicants who were qualified). Now we have no protections for senior members seeking to transfer. At the same time, we are phasing out or phasing down lots of schools. So we have more members than ever who need to transfer.
NYC Ed, this is part of Leo’s larger number. More people were transferring, albeit some of them out of necessity. It is important to know how many of them succeeded in finding new jobs, and how many did not. This will help us better understand the scale of the problem.
And Leo, the protection from layoff is simply not adequate if that protection is in the form of becoming an ATR. We’ve protected the check, but not the individual’s dignity.
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 6, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Did it ever occur to any of you who are waxing poetic about your sympathy for all those excessed teachers without jobs in new schools that many of those folks may never have sought another position? Rather than having to interview for and adjust to a new position in a strange neighborhood, they may have chosen to stay in their old familiar schools or districts. Maybe a vacancy would open, and they would have the right to return. If not, their security and pay are guaranteed. Many may even consider subbing a less stressful job, since you don’t have ultimate responsibility for a class, including all the paperwork, etc. What the union did is give them no-layoff protection, even if enrollment declined or their jobs were eliminated. That protects everyone who is excessed, not just the veterans with seniority.
Comment by CitySue — September 6, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
Sorry, my error. Obviously in the above comment, the right to return is irrelevant in the situation I posed.
At any rate, aside from everything else, there is a real educational benefit in having an ATR pool — and a real benefit to teachers too. If you’ve ever worked in a school, especially an elementary or middle school, where subs were hard to come by, you know how valuable on-site subs can be. Not only can kids continue their education, but the rest of the teachers are spared from having to take an extra 5, 10 or 15 kids from the class of the absent teacher. When there are no subs, some principals are just fine with breaking up a class, disrupting everybody else’s classes on that grade for the day.
And nobody ever really liked bumping. Even the senior teacher who did the bumping was often resented in the new school and made to feel unwanted. And of course some poor new teacher down the line was out of a job. But what choice was there? Now there is a choice. On balance, I think it’s a better deal.
Comment by CitySue — September 6, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
After reading the above comments, I can only conclude that this is a sad day for our union.
This has to be the worst spin ever, and tasteless at that.
Comment by Schoolgal — September 6, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
HS Shop teacher:
First, how many of these transfers were for excessed teachers? Do we have an age breakdown?
CitySue:
The spin you spun is unbelievable. All the ATR’s are in fear of losing their jobs under the next contract, not singing happy days are here again. the fact that they are still in their home school only reminds them how precarious their position is. Just look at the sadness and fear on their faces.
I agree with schoolgal about this being a sad day for our union.
Comment by Chaz — September 6, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
A number of years ago the union eliminated tipping by arranging for all the newer high school teachers who were excessed in February to remain in ATRs instead of being out of a job altogether. As I recall we all thought that was great. What is the difference here?
Comment by CitySue — September 7, 2006 @ 10:00 am
I’ve done a little research on City Sue’s question, and confirmed my suspicion there are significant differences between then and now.
First, Klein was not Chancellor at the time. More importantly, the chancellor was not concurrently hiring new teachers while demoting working ones.
Frankly, City Sue, I find it remarkable the implications of that escape you. I can assure you it hasn’t escaped the thousand plus excessed teachers who’ve done the painfully obvious arithmetic.
And the UFT, of course, had seniority rules that would have protected 25-year vets like the one whose letter I posted here. And for those who’d make the assumption that individual is a bad teacher, there’s no indication of that whatsoever.
This teacher’s only proven crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time under the “open-market system,” so revered by Edwize columnists like yourself. Perhaps you should re-read that post before commenting.
Now, City Sue—are you prepared to assure teachers in the current ATR pool that their jobs will not be eliminated in future contracts?
If not, City Sue, it’s fairly obvious who’s “waxing poetic” here.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 7, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Jonathan:
The first and most important obligation of a teacher union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood, and their ability to support themselves and their families, simply because the school district closed down or reduced their particular school. New York City is among a very small minority of school districts in the US that has that protection written into its collective bargaining agreement. Ours is not an ideal system of excessing, and no one here has ever said it is, but it has some very important positive features, and that is one of them. On this count, it is an improvement over previous contracts. I think that a fair-minded person would readily recognize this fact.
Comment by Leo Casey — September 7, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
Mr. Casey:
Love your new sideways ad-hominem approach. Let me give it a try:
A fair minded person would also weigh the fact that the people who like this change are both patronage employees making more than any working teacher, and notably beholden to those who pushed the contract. They’ve also both signed loyalty oaths.
How’s that?
Now let me get to the issue, which you, pointedly ignore:
The first and most important obligation of a teacher union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood…
Couldn’t agree more.
Under this system, which you call an improvement, veteran teachers are being demoted while new teachers are being recriuted.
I regret the implications of that escape you, as they did City Sue. Once again, I assure you it they haven’t escaped the thousand plus working teacher in the sub corps.
Are you prepared to assure teachers in the current ATR pool that their jobs will not be eliminated in future contracts?
Comment by NYC Educator — September 8, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Leo,
I agree entirely with NYC Educator here. Further, while we agree that
The first and most important obligation of a teachers union with respect to excessing is to see that members do not lose their livelihood…
it is with considerable displeasure that I note that you limit your comments to issues of excessing.
I also fail to see any improvement over previous contracts in this regard.
Lastly, the UFT has extra responsibity here. We failed to adequately counter the Board of Education’s massive high school restructuring, and in some cases even bought in to the nonesense that successful small schools could be mass-produced. Excessed teachers get caught paying for our inaction.
There are schools that are finishing their phase-outs this year. How many of them should become ATRs?
Jonathan
Comment by jd2718 — September 8, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
“Are you prepared to assure teachers in the current ATR pool that their jobs will not be eliminated in future contracts?”
This is akin to ask someone if they promise to stop beating their spouse.
The fact is that the NYC contract has what amounts to a ‘no layoff’ clause which protects every excessed members, whatever the reason for excessing, from layoff, and that this clause is very, very rare in teacher union contracts across the US. If you really believe that the first duty of a union is to protect a member from layoff when they are excessed, you would at least grant this fact. But the agenda here is to attack, attack, and attack, and to never concede even the most obvious of positive parts of the contract.
Comment by Leo Casey — September 9, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
With all due respect, it is not in any way “akin to ask someone if they promise to stop beating their spouse.”
Klein shows vision, and we do not. We’re embroiled in a chess game in which we consistently fail to look ahead.
Given who Klein is, and what he does, the current situation was entirely predictable. Furthermore, given his recent statements about the 44 unfortunate APs, not to mention those about the teachers, it’s entirely predictable he will loudly call for the dismissal of these teachers.
And then we will really be in a tough spot. For all I know, they’ll break up my 250% capacity school and I’ll be among them.
You’re certainly free to characterize me as simple-minded and contrary. Still, when you say things with which I agree, I’m the first to admit it. I praised your piece on Nicole Byrne Lau as better than that of the NY Times, or anyone in fact, and featured it on a Carnival of Education.
You’re also right about the Clinton documentary, and I agree with you on most things political.
But it’s a fact that our rights were seriously diminished under that contract. It’s also a fact that you were aware of what DC37 received, that PERB had endorsed lockstep bargaining, and that you failed to anticipate the sort of contract we received.
Before you introduced this contract, I was very supportive of the union, and had been published in NY Teacher on at least three occasions, not including various letters.
One of my letters in Newsday got me a personal letter from Sandy Feldman.
As for your “obvious” point, it seems to have eluded Jonathan as well. I can tell you for sure it’s eluded the ATR teachers who’ve written to me.
However rare the clause may be, and however valid it was, we gave it away, along with a host of things for which I and every working teacher took zeroes, for less than nothing.
I’m not a businessperson by any stretch of the imagination, but even I know that’s bad business.
There is a reason Klein, the Post and the Daily News regularly point to this contract as a model. There’s a reason why Klein denies the AP union a contract, pointing to the teacher contract as a model of the sort of sacrifices they need to make. Can you honestly maintain this is because the teacher contract was good for working teachers?
I’ve been working 22 years and I’ve never seen anything remotely like that contract.
Thank you for your response, which I did not expect at all.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 9, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
I meant to say we gave the UFT transfer plan away for less than nothing, not the current clause. As an experienced teacher, I can tell you that plan helped me. This one would not.
Comment by NYC Educator — September 9, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
I think I wrote a very positive comment on how the UFT protected me during my excessing, but no one here will publish it.
Comment by Schoolgal — September 10, 2006 @ 5:38 pm