Sunday, June 12, 2016
Highly Effective But Can't Get Permanently Hired.
I know of two teachers who were hired provisionally at the beginning of the school year and rated "highly effective" this school year and were told that they will be excessed back into the ATR pool at the end of the school year. Both teachers are 28 year plus veterans are in their 50's and make $108,811 annually. Get the message? Remember when Chancellor Carmen Farina stated that only 400 ATRs were capable teachers? One would think the two teachers who were given "highly effective" ratings proved they are capable teachers. Then why didn't the Chancellor demand that they be permanently placed? The answer is she talks out of both sides of her mouth. On one hand she wants "quality teachers" while keeping in place the school-based "fair student funding" that penalizes schools who hire "highly qualified" veteran teachers. You can't have it both ways.
That brings me back to the two "highly effective" teachers and why they cannot get a permanent position, despite both of them being the best teacher in their subject area at the schools they are in. The answer is complicated. . First, its their salary, the school that picks them up provisionally, only pays the average teacher salary of the school for the year and possibly for the length of the contract, till 2018. However, if the school permanently appoints them, the school gets them for free the second year. Sounds good right? Except their is a major catch. Once a school permanently appoints an ATR the school must include the teacher in their seniority list and if there is excessing, a less senior teacher will be excessed first. Few principals want to take that risk, especially those with an institutional knowledge how things are supposed to work.
Second, the school may be required to pick up the entire ATR salary at the end of the 2018 contract and few schools would be pleased to see their already tight budget squeezed further by picking up the full salary.and few principals are willing to take that risk. The union may claim otherwise but just ask principals who are savvy would they trust the DOE to continue to pick up the difference after June of 2018?
Finally, the DOE budgeting process encourages principals to pick up "the cheapest and not the best teachers" for their school. The less expensive the teacher, the more budget money for the school to use for other needs. Is it any wonder that principals fall all over themselves to hire "newbie" and untenured teachers while veteran teachers don't even get an interview on the Open Market Transfer System?
The UFT will claim what I am posting is an "urban myth" but they refuse to prove it by hiding the secretive statistics that Solidarity caucus has been attempting to foil and has been refused by both the DOE and UFT to provide the data. That's because what I wrote here is the truth and not an "urban myth" that our disconnected union leadership would have you believe. Now you know the truth on why these two "highly effective" teachers cannot get a permanent placement.