At the very least, one Bronx principal said, he’d be wary of the
hire. “If someone automatically puts an ATR into my school,” he said, “I
would go in there and observe them quite a bit.” --- Chalkbeat
Chalkbeat as usual doesn't get to the heart of the matter. That the DOE is making sure not to provide financial backing to schools taking ATRs - schools I am betting will be chosen based on the ability of the principal to be especially vicious. Note not one contact from the reporter with a comment from an ATR.
They are walking in with targets on their backs.
Mulgrew of course is exposed as a sham supporter of ATRs - instead of screaming about the fair student funding formula he says this:
Principals have historically exaggerated the
impact on their school budget of hiring someone from the ATR pool,” he
said in a statement. “We have found the impact of hiring a more
experienced teacher, whether from the open market or the ATR pool, does
not derail a school budget.”
What a crock - of course the higher salary impacts a school budget -- that was the very purpose of Fair Student Funding in the first place -- to incentivize principals to do salary dumps. As usual the UFT comes up on the wrong side of the issue.
The article does at least point up the UFT flip-flop in providing financial support to the school.
Ironically, this is an issue the UFT set out to tackle in its 2014 contract
with the Department of Education. A provision in the contract states
that schools that hire an ATR teacher would not have that teacher’s
salary included in the school’s average teacher salary calculation. That
agreement stood for both the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school years.
“Principals no longer have a reason to pass over more senior educators in favor of newer hires with lower salaries,” the UFT promised in a statement on the 2014 contract posted online.
During the 2016–17 school year, the DOE also offered two options for
subsidizing the salaries of ATR members. The first subsidized the costs
of permanent ATR hires by 50 percent the first year and 25 percent the
next. The second allowed principals to have the full cost of the
teacher’s salary subsidized for the 2016–17 year. Ultimately, a total of
372 teachers were hired with those incentives last year.
But starting in the upcoming school year, neither of those
policies will be in place. Schools will not receive the incentives and
the salaries of ATR teachers will be included in a school’s average
teacher salary once they are permanently hired.
The UFT declined to comment on the apparent flip-flop, and
neither the UFT nor the city’s Department of Education could estimate
the average number of years of experience of teachers in the pool.
The article by Daniela Brighenti is oh-so leaning in the direction of the ed deform attacks on ATRs -- behind which is an attack on teacher tenure protections. Daniela might have reached out to some ATRs to get their take -- maybe she thought she would catch something.
This is the lead blurb.
ATR FUNDING When members of the Absent Teacher Reserve are placed this fall, schools will incur the full cost of the new hires, without incentives the city has provided in the past. Chalkbeat
Did Chalkbeat funder Families for Excellent Schools (I'm guessing here) write this piece?
At the top of their article it says: support independent journalism -- my biggest laugh of the day - so far.
Look at the photo that leads their piece -FES gets 20 people out - probably paid - and that becomes the lede.
Look at their headline:
draining the pool [echo of Trump draining the swamp]
New York City’s plan to place teachers from its Absent Teacher Reserve pool could take a bite out of school budgets
Here is the complete article:
When city officials announced a plan
to place hundreds of teachers without permanent positions into
classroom vacancies this fall, an immediate question arose: Could
schools afford them?
That’s a critical question because the pool, known as the Absent Teacher Reserve, has historically
been made up of teachers who are more senior than average, and
therefore more expensive. Some principals say that makes an already
bitter pill — having a teacher they didn’t choose — even tougher to
swallow.
What we do know: Under the new policy, schools will incur the full
cost of the new hires, without incentives the city has provided in the
past.
And over the last school year, these teachers cost the city a total of $151.6 million, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. That means, on average, each of the 1,304 teachers in the pool last fall received $116,258 in salary and fringe benefits.
By comparison, the base salary for a city teacher is $54,000. The city
has said that roughly 400 teachers would be placed into open slots this
fall.
“This is part of the injustice of the ATR placement,” said Scott
Conti, principal of New Design High School in Manhattan. “Schools might
not want them and they will cost schools more in the future, taking away
from other budget priorities.”
Per city policy,
a school’s budget for staff is based on its number of teachers and the
average of their salaries. During a new hire’s first year, his or her
salary isn’t factored into the school’s average teacher salary. But
after that year, it is. Since a school’s budget is capped based on the
number and type of students it serves, if a school’s average salary goes
up, principals could be forced to cut from other parts of their budgets
to fund personnel.
“If you hire a senior person, the first year, you have no effect, but
the second year that affects your average,” said Mark Cannizzaro,
executive vice president of the city’s principals union. “So it does
catch up to you.”
But Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of
Teachers, isn’t buying it. “Principals have historically exaggerated the
impact on their school budget of hiring someone from the ATR pool,” he
said in a statement. “We have found the impact of hiring a more
experienced teacher, whether from the open market or the ATR pool, does
not derail a school budget.”
Ironically, this is an issue the UFT set out to tackle in its 2014 contract
with the Department of Education. A provision in the contract states
that schools that hire an ATR teacher would not have that teacher’s
salary included in the school’s average teacher salary calculation. That
agreement stood for both the 2015–16 and 2016–17 school years.
“Principals no longer have a reason to pass over more senior educators in favor of newer hires with lower salaries,” the UFT promised in a statement on the 2014 contract posted online.
During the 2016–17 school year, the DOE also offered two options for
subsidizing the salaries of ATR members. The first subsidized the costs
of permanent ATR hires by 50 percent the first year and 25 percent the
next. The second allowed principals to have the full cost of the
teacher’s salary subsidized for the 2016–17 year. Ultimately, a total of
372 teachers were hired with those incentives last year.
But starting in the upcoming school year, neither of those
policies will be in place. Schools will not receive the incentives and
the salaries of ATR teachers will be included in a school’s average
teacher salary once they are permanently hired.
The UFT declined to comment on the apparent flip-flop, and
neither the UFT nor the city’s Department of Education could estimate
the average number of years of experience of teachers in the pool.
According to city education department officials, the majority of
most schools’ budgets can be used at principals’ discretion. For
example, principals can choose to hire more newly minted teachers, or a
smaller number of veteran teachers. Or, they can hire fewer teachers
overall and use the remaining money on things such as professional
development or after-school programs, the officials said.
But critics say forced placement of teachers takes some of that
freedom away from principals. Multiple principals said that, because new
hires do not alter a school’s budget until the second year, some of
their peers might be tempted to rate ATRs placed into their school
“ineffective” so as to not have to hire them permanently and cause their
average teacher salary to rise.
Under the city’s new policy, ATR teachers placed by the city only
become permanent hires if they are given a “highly effective” or
“effective” rating in the observation portion of their evaluation at the
end of their first year in a school.
At the very least, one Bronx principal said, he’d be wary of the
hire. “If someone automatically puts an ATR into my school,” he said, “I
would go in there and observe them quite a bit.”
City education officials said it isn’t so easy to rig an
evaluation since it relies on a “well-defined rubric based on evidence.”
In general, they noted, budget concerns are likely misplaced.
“The number and salary of teachers at a given school changes
significantly as schools do regular hiring from year to year,” said one
official. “We work with schools to ensure they have the budget to fund
the teachers they hire.”
Look at the photo that leads their piece -FES gets 20 people out - probably paid - and that becomes the lede.
No comments:
Post a Comment