Today Chalkbeat covers
the budgetary ramifactions of the new agreement between the UFT and the NYC
Department of Education in which the DOE will place ATR teachers (on Absent
Teacher Reserve) in schools with vacancies, whether the principal chooses these particular teachers or
not. In addition, unlike earlier years,
the principal will have to pay the full amount of their salaries – which are often much higher than the average teacher salary, even though the school only receives funding for the average salary under the Fair Student Funding system, implemented by Joel Klein in 2007, after much controversy and protest.
As an earlier
Chalkbeat article explained, the cost of the ATR pool has risen to more
than $150 million per year, according to an IBO estimate, and included 822 teachers at the end of the last school year --
teachers who had no permanent assignments but had been “excessed” because of
school closings, enrollment decline, disciplinary offenses or low ratings from
their principals. The existence of a wasteful system like this is the confluence of large number of factors
and policies adopted by the DOE during the Bloomberg administration: mass school
closings and their replacement with charter schools, NYC’s version of a student-weighted
funding system called Fair Student Funding, and the agreement made in 2005 not
to place tenured teachers who had lost their positions into schools with openings,
but leave the choice of who would fill these positions completely up to the principal’s discretion.
Earlier this summer, the DOE announced
plans to place hundreds of these teachers into school vacancies by Oct. 15, even
if principals
objected. And yet one of the reasons that the ATR pool has grown so large
and principals remain reluctant to hire them, no matter their
qualifications, is that one of the peculiarities of the Fair student
funding system, at least in NYC, is that it requires principals to cover the
whole cost of their staff, by allocating per student funding to a school based
on the average teacher salary -- which has decreased in recent years due to
teacher attrition.
According to Chalkbeat, based on IBO estimates, “on
average each ATR teacher received a total of $116,258 in salary and fringe
benefits for the past school year. (By comparison, the base
salary for a city teacher as of May 2017 was $54,000). “ Thus for every average teacher hired from the Absent Teacher
Reserve, a principal could hire more than two new teachers for his or her
school.
At the time, Robert
Gordon who devised the Fair Student Funding system for Joel Klein in 2007 was
quoted in the NY Times as saying that the system would allow principals “to retain their most experienced teachers if that is what they
want to do.'' This
shows that the idea was devised to provide an incentive to schools to get rid
of their experienced teachers, through the ATR, the rubber room or otherwise. At
the time Randi Weingarten, then head of the UFT warned in the above article that
“it will destabilize good schools and give
principals a disincentive to hire experienced teachers simply because they cost
more.''
Advocates like
Noreen Connell of the Educational Priorities Panel was quoted in the same NY Times
article that “the funding
proposals have the potential to do lasting damage for decades to come.'' More specifically, she warned that by not covering the costs
of a particular staffing ratio, the system would lead to sharp class sizes when budgets
were cut—and principals would have no choice but to increase class size, get
rid of their experienced teachers, or both.
Class sizes have
indeed risen sharply since 2007, and nearly ten years after the recession many schools still only receive 87% of the funds that they
are owed via the FSF formula. I would argue that the system is
inherently misconceived and undermines the quality of schools, since there are
only two observable, quantifiable school-based factors that have been shown to
lead to more learning – small class size and experienced teachers.
I don't know any
other school district in the country that has adopted this version of Fair
Student Funding and that demands principals cover the full cost of their staff
no matter what their salaries. If you do
know of another district that does this, please let me know below.
Bill de Blasio
promised when he was running for office he would re-evaluate
the FSF system, but has not done so.
Certainly, no NYC Mayor would impose this sort of rigid funding system
on local police precincts or firehouses, and demand that NYPD or fire company captains
cover the cost of their staff -- – even if could mean shortages if they had particularly experienced officers.
If any Mayor did try to impose such a system, no doubt he would face
mighty resistance from his own Commissioners as well as the police/fire fighter
unions.
Just as I am not
aware of any other district that has adopted NYC’s version of the FSF system, I
don’t know of any district that has given principals the right to hire outside the
reserve of teachers already on staff. When Cami Anderson ran the Newark school
system from NYC she adopted the system, but it was later deep-sixed
by Chris Cerf when he was appointed as Newark Superintendent – because it was
recognized as too expensive and too wasteful.
If teachers are
incompetent or have engaged in misconduct, they should be dismissed in the
usual way, via a 3020-a disciplinary hearing, rather
than put into the Absent Teacher Reserve.
I
know of several former principals and administrators who say this is
time-consuming but eminently doable. If teachers have not been found to
exhibit any of these deficiencies, they should be offered to principals to
reduce class size or provide other services at no expense to the school. If
there are any teachers left over in the reserve, their contracts should be
bought out. The current system is an absurd waste of money. And NYC’s Fair
Student Funding system needs to be re-evaluated in light of its detrimental
impact on teacher experience and class size.
5 comments:
Thank you for writing about this. The vast majority of ATRs have never been found unsatisfactory or brought up on charges. Those that have had would have been terminated if sufficient grounds were found. Finding all of us guilty by association (even though most of us came from shuttered schools) and keeping us out of the classroom is an expedient excuse and is solely because of our salaries. My last principal couldn't hire me because of my salary and his severely cut budget for next year. It's the same story for ATRs and newly excessed teachers (that have hit the 10 year mark) all over the city.
Thanks for standing up for ATR teachers, Leonie.
This district built a new school to relieve overcrowding. They first told teachers from the overcrowded schools that they would be transferred to the new school, but instead gave the new principal his choice of whom to hire. http://www.postindependent.com/news/local/some-teachers-left-out-in-rfsd-shuffle/
I know Scott Stringer promised to change FSF. And that's all I have to say about that.
Thanks for educating us on this. Why is this so hard to change? As you say, these systems are so fundamentally flawed, it's hard to believe anyone can advocate for them. I don't understand why it's not making headlines.
Post a Comment