April 14 update - Let me add the "Tenure binder" bullshit - I met a teacher whose binder was due today - busywork for teachers with not a word out of UFT/Unity which has allowed indignity after indignity to be loaded onto the backs of teachers.
Oh - and every secretary I speak to as I distribute lit says how awful it is for them compared to the days of yore -- UFC should have paid more attention to one of the most important people that keep schools running.
11. Tears for Tiers -- 60 Years of power, 6 pension tiers. One addition per decade.
* Seniority transfers - the bad teacher myth
I received this from a teacher who has a friend who pushed back on seniority transfers and her ambivalence about seniority and merit demonstrates how deep the ed deform anti- seniority myth of the bad teacher has infiltrated our ranks.
He believes that seniority transfers aren’t a good thing because schools could easily get stuck with ineffective teachers if based on seniority alone when someone else would be much more qualified. He said, shouldn’t principals be able to make choices for their own schools?, I said well I think there should be a balance of power and principals now have all the power to hire people for all kinds of equally invalid reasons, eg less senior teachers are cheaper, or they want to hire someone for personal or political favors rewards for compliance to toxic leadership etc and do you think the ATR pool is a good thing Did I miss anything because in one sense he does have a point that seniority alone may not the ideal sole deciding factor. I’m not sure know ideally how to balance other than maybe giving priority to senior people while still allowing for other merit-based criteria and maybe through an SLT process.
I defend seniority over merit as the only system that really works even if we have some clinkers. We have seen how abusive principals can be even to tenured teachers. And merit is in the eye of the beholder. My defense of seniority as the only fair system even when a few bad eggs slip by because the principal judgement is too flimsy. If we elected principals I would have trust.
He has a point if you take the principal side of things. What is the reality we faced? The overwhelming majority of seniority transfers were competent teachers with maybe a stinker thrown in here or there.But that's like saying don't ever cross the street because someone got hit by a car or fly because some plane once crashed.His view is all too typical of the attempt to brand the so-called "bad' teacher as the problem with our schools.I saw teachers I'd rate from 1-10 on scales of competence. Most were 5-8. The 1s couldn't last anywhere.So what he's doing is taking the CSA point of view -- like principals have no way to get rid of a bad teacher?But I forgot to include that there was a limit to seniority transfers in terms of numbers a year. Maybe 600?I do not believe principals own the schools and teachers should have a right to be part of the process of whom they will be working with.Also - the open market system was put in its place which is good for many people.The old system - if you wanted a transfer -- non seniority etc - the principal had to give permission.Principals used pass the lemons -- get rid of a teacher you don't like -- you see to them a lemon coudl be a great teacher but one that speaks up and criticizes -- they want mice.