The word "excess" suggests these teachers aren't needed, which is far from correct. In my experience, though, article writers don't get to choose titles.
This piece, unlike many others I've seen, doesn't single ATR teachers out for eternal infamy. However, there's quite a lot unsaid. For one thing, this mess was largely exacerbated by Bloomberg and his wasteful, unproductive school closures. Every time that happened, the staff had to reapply for jobs. Had I not transferred from John Adams back when I did, I'd probably be an ATR. It's largely just a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time.
Bloomberg's goal was not building up the ATR, but firing teachers en masse. He was not what you'd call coy about it either. He's spoken publicly of his idiotic notion to create classes of 70 and have the very best teachers run them. (After all, his kids didn't attend public schools, so why should he care?) A major contract demand for him was that UFT set a time limit on ATR teachers. This would've left many to lose their jobs for the offense of being in the wrong place at the right time. I'm very grateful UFT hung tough on that. Bloomberg would've fired half the teachers in NYC just to give Cathie Black a tax break on her penthouse.
Though I'd rather see them placed, ATR teachers can be very useful. For example, in my school a teacher suffered a tragedy I won't go into. Because there happened to be an ATR available in that teacher's subject area, our students got uninterrupted instruction. When the teacher returned, all the classes had been taught the same lessons consistently, as opposed to having been covered by five different teachers who may or may not have been at the same point.
Every single class taught by an ATR teacher would otherwise have to be taught by a substitute teacher. I'm not a math expert, but if you allowed for the cost of substitute teachers for every single class taught by an ATR teacher, I'll bet that 100 million figure would be considerably lower. NYC pays the highest rate in our area for substitute teachers. (They're worth every penny. I have to cover classes from time to time, and it's more challenging teaching kids you don't know than kids you do.)
For a long time, if a principal didn't like you, all she had to do was press charges against you, have you go through a pointless 3020a hearing, and then say she didn't want you back. It seems fundamentally unfair to be charged with something, beat the charges, and lose your position anyway. Of course that was the entire point. I'm told that Carranza and Randy Asher have halted this practice, and principals are just that much less imperial nowadays. Superintendents now make these decisions. I'm sure they can make bad decisions too, but either way, that's not the fault of the teacher.
Then there's so-called Fair Student Funding, Bloomberg's idiotic notion that principals have to pay teachers out of the school budget. It actually encourages principals to hire newbies at half the price of experienced teachers. Then there's Bill Gates' reformy notion that no teacher improves after the first three years, and who knows how many Leadership Academy grads have been spoon-fed that nonsense? I can't speak for everyone, but for better or worse I'm the best teacher I've ever been right now. I learn from trial, error, and experiences. In my line of work, teaching kids from all over the globe, I have new experiences every year, every month, and every day.
Hey, if the NY Post thinks all these teachers should be in classrooms, I couldn't agree more. Put each and every one to work instead of leaving them in this outlandish and unnecessary purgatory. Let's reduce class sizes for public school students systemwide. To create space, I'd be perfectly willing to toss Eva Moskowitz out on her million-dollar ass. How about you, Governor Cuomo? Why not forsake a few suitcases of cash and pull that law that says we have to pay her rent? That's what a real education lobbyist would do.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Posts
