Statement of The New Teacher Project | May 8, 2008
We appreciate the United Federation of Teachers’ continued engagement in the discussion on the policy for teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR), as well as the UFT’s willingness to publicize our recent commentary on their arguments against our report to date.
Based on the most recent response from the UFT to our findings, it is apparent that there are a number of fundamental disagreements between The New Teacher Project (TNTP) and the UFT in our respective interpretations of the available data. Although some of these disagreements are worthy matters of debate, we believe that the facts support our assessment of the problems of the current policy on ATR teachers. Now is the time for this discussion of facts to shift to a discussion of solutions.
It is clear that the current situation of ATR teachers is problematic; excessed teachers may serve in the ATR pool indefinitely at full salary, have no requirement to seek new full-time positions, and are more likely to have a history of performance problems. Some of them are earning tenure while in the reserve pool and the cost of supporting them is great – no matter which cost formula is used. We believe that the data we have presented in support of these conclusions are relevant, accurate and compelling.
A comprehensive policy solution is necessary to ensure that New York City’s mutual consent-based staffing system can continue to benefit teachers and schools. Such a solution must uphold the city’s commitment to mutual consent in its most essential definition – freedom of choice for both teachers and schools in all hiring decisions. Anything less threatens to undermine a system that clearly serves the vast majority of teachers and schools extremely well.
Our paper, “Mutual Benefits,” lays out a solution that we feel provides a fair, reasonable and supportive policy for excessed teachers: one that gives them ample time and opportunities to find jobs, but not unlimited time at full salary.
Today, we call upon the NYCDOE and the UFT—the two parties who are empowered to enact such a solution—to come together and find an answer to the problem of teachers who remain in the ATR pool over the course of many months. In order to continue moving toward a more realistic policy solution, we believe the NYCDOE and the UFT need to answer clearly the following five questions in the course of their negotiations. We have provided our position on the answers and urge both parties to do the same.
- Should mutual consent be required for each teacher placement?
- Should excessed teachers be required to search for positions?
- Should there be a limit on the amount of time a teacher can spend in the ATR?
- Should teachers be permitted to earn tenure while serving in the ATR?
- What should be the policy for teachers who spend an extended period of time in the reserve pool and are not hired despite interviewing for many positions?
TNTP’s position: Yes. “Mutual consent” means that both the teacher and school freely agree to a placement without restrictions or conditions on either side. It is the right way to approach teacher hiring. Mutual consent respects the professionalism of teachers and recognizes the need for teachers to function within effective instructional teams, not as isolated components within a larger organization. Our research of staffing policies in other urban school districts has shown that placements arising through mutual consent are more likely to endure and more likely to be satisfactory for all involved. As discussed in “Mutual Benefits,” New York City teachers strongly value principals’ opinions and consent in the hiring process. Asking principals to hire from a restricted pool of candidates or to prioritize one group of teachers over another undermines mutual consent and creates a slippery slope back to forced placement.
It is unclear whether the UFT supports mutual consent. While UFT representatives have acknowledged the benefits of this policy for teachers, they have said that the NYCDOE has a responsibility to “place” ATR teachers unless principals refuse these teachers, referencing a contract provision to that effect. Although this may sound innocuous, the process of “placing” a teacher pending a principal’s refusal is not mutual consent – it is a backdoor to forced placement. Schools could be pressured to accept teachers as a means of reducing the size of the ATR pool, and schools without formally appointed principals could quickly inherit a string of ATRs who may or may not fit the school’s instructional needs and culture.
We favor incentives for principals to consider and hire ATR teachers and an interview process that maximizes opportunities for ATRs. We agree with the UFT that offering to subsidize temporarily the salaries of excessed teachers hired into new positions could decrease the number of teachers in the ATR and eliminate any possible disincentive for principals to hire more senior teachers. We also support the notion of guaranteeing interviews (within reason) to excessed teachers who are close to exhausting their time in the ATR (presuming a time limit is enacted). But we strongly oppose the notion that teachers should be forcibly placed unless the principal is willing to fight that placement. Such an approach demeans teachers and damages schools.
TNTP’s position: Yes. We believe that when a teacher is displaced from a position, it is reasonable to ask that teacher to seek a new position at a school that is a good fit for his or her instructional style and needs. The NYCDOE should assist in this process to the greatest extent possible by providing time in the reserve pool, job-search support, incentives for principals to hire ATRs, and interview opportunities for teachers who have remained without positions for lengthy periods of time, but ultimately teachers should be responsible for securing new positions.
The data in “Mutual Benefits” indicate that most ATR teachers sought positions aggressively and found them as a result. However, others did not participate in the district’s online application system or attend job fairs where principals were seeking to find candidates. As a policy, we believe that it is not tenable for teachers to remain in a reserve pool indefinitely and without any requirement to conduct an active job search.
TNTP’s position: Yes. New York City cannot maintain an ATR pool that becomes a permanent home for teachers who lack full-time positions. Currently, an excessed teacher can remain in the reserve pool for an unlimited amount of time. The current contract empowers the NYCDOE to offer voluntary buyouts to teachers who remain in excess for more than one year. We are not opposed to the buyout option per se, but we believe that a voluntary buyout will not be effective if offered in absence of clear limitations on the length of time teachers may serve in the ATR pool. The voluntary nature of the buyout means that some teachers would elect instead to continue as ATRs; inevitably, some teachers who could get a position would take the buyout, while others who cannot will choose to stay. Time limitations would also discourage principals from wrongly using ATR teachers who are centrally funded to fill regular vacancies without formally appointing them to those positions.
Instead, the district and the union must agree on a reasonable time limit for teachers who do not have positions. Rather than being dismissed, teachers who exceed their time limit in the reserve pool should be placed on unpaid leave with the option to return to the district at the same salary and seniority level.
TNTP’s position: No. Tenure is a meaningful accomplishment signifying that a teacher has completed his or her probationary period and been deemed worthy of a long-term appointment to the district. A probationary teacher who is not serving in a full-time position cannot be fairly evaluated according to the standard required for conferring tenure. The UFT alleges that some teachers in the ATR are teaching “full programs, with regularly scheduled classes,” and we have discussed the flaws we see in this claim. A teacher who is assigned a full program may not even be teaching in his/her own license area. The expectations for lesson planning, assessment, grading, and interaction with parents are different for ATR teachers than they are for teachers in full-time, permanent positions. Consequently, successful service as a reserve pool teacher is not the same as successful service as a teacher of record.
We propose that time spent in the reserve pool should not be counted toward tenure. Under the current policy, a teacher could become eligible for tenure after spending only a short time in a regular classroom position – even one year – followed by two more years in the reserve pool. To confer tenure in such a situation undermines the professionalism that we all seek in teaching.
-
5) What should be the policy for teachers who spend an extended period of time in the reserve pool and are not hired despite interviewing for many positions?
TNTP’s position: These teachers should be placed on unpaid leave, with the right to return at their previous salary and seniority level if they are able to find a position within a certain number of years. Ensuring that teachers search actively for positions will go a great distance toward decreasing the size of the reserve pool. The vast majority of excessed teachers are quality instructors who will quickly be hired into new positions. However, there will inevitably be teachers who are not hired by any school – no matter how many times they interview and no matter what incentives are offered to principals. There may be other teachers who are content to wait for positions in specific schools to open, which could take years. Such outcomes are inevitable in any system that respects the principles of mutual consent.
As discussed above, we strongly disagree with the argument that a principal should eventually be compelled to hire ATR teachers, and we do not believe it is fair or reasonable to leave them in the reserve pool indefinitely. We propose substantial job search support for excessed teachers along with incentives that encourage principals to hire those who are a good fit for their schools. But New York City should not be required to fund the full salary and benefits of teachers who are unable to find new positions after a full year in the ATR.
Both the New York City Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers share an interest in a policy that minimizes the number of teachers without full-time teaching assignments and that supports an open and fair staffing system. It is now time for both parties to take action. The current policy is ineffective, unsustainable, and frustrating for all concerned. To be effective, a new policy must create a comprehensive solution for excessed teachers in the ATR pool that meets a number of different needs, as outlined below.
The New Teacher Project believes that an effective and reasonable policy for excessed teachers must:
- Protect the principle of mutual consent.
- Provide incentives for excessed teachers to seek and accept positions that are a good fit for them.
- Provide incentives for principals to hire excessed teachers who are a good match for their schools.
- Ensure adequate job search support and opportunities for excessed teachers.
- Be financially sustainable over time.
In “Mutual Benefits,” The New Teacher Project offered a proposal for a comprehensive policy for excessed teachers. The Department of Education has indicated publicly that it is receptive to that proposal, and the United Federation of Teachers has indicated that it is opposed to it. But the UFT has not proposed a comprehensive policy of its own, and the NYCDOE has not been specific as to which aspects of the TNTP proposal it supports and which, if any, it rejects.
We call on the United Federation of Teachers and the Department of Education to come to the table to determine a comprehensive solution. The question is not whether this problem should be addressed, but how. We are confident that both parties can find an answer that respects teachers and that honors their shared commitment to do what is best for all students.
