DCist: D.C. to NYC: Breaking Down Unions, Teachers, and Excess

JonboyDC

Fri, 02 May 2008 14:19:31 -0500

"Rhee is handling this particular matter entirely appropriately, and I'd say that Parker was lucky to get the assurances that he did get." I think that what Parker could have held out for, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, would be for jobs to be assigned based on seniority -- so the oldest teachers from the closed schools would be able to diplace younger teachers from the schools that are being kept open. However, that would have resulted in lots of teachers losing their jobs immediately. What he bargained for ensures that the teachers being pushed out get a one-year severance package (essentially) -- not a bad deal. (On the comparison between NYC and DC public schools -- it's true that NYC has a lot of schools with serious problems, but it also has a few of the finest public schools in the nation. If only DC had a few schools that rose to the heights of the best schools in NYC).

MS

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:27:49 -0500

Wow, the job security for teachers is just crazy. Do people actually think they have a constitutional right to their job? Under these circumstances, I think Rhee is doing more than enough. I would actually have let them go with a nice benefit package, but I guess paying them to do nothing is another way to go.

Nate

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:08:08 -0500

I usually come down "pro-teacher" (whatever that means) on these contractual issues, but I really don't understand the argument for keeping teachers on payroll if there are not actually jobs for them available in the system. Rhee is handling this particular matter entirely appropriately, and I'd say that Parker was lucky to get the assurances that he did get. I can understand provisions in the labor contract that prevent employees from being screwed over (greivance procedures, processes in place to prevent age discrimination, etc.), but I can't understand why any employer should be forced to continue to indefinitely pay staff for whom there is no work. 'Excessed' teachers who are not assigned to full-time positions at new schools should be required to work as full-time subs or something similar if they want to stay in the system.

Rachael Brown

Thu, 01 May 2008 15:39:39 -0500

OldPoster: To clarify - the buyouts were designed as an "out" for teachers at the schools designated for closure and restructuring, consequently reducing the number of potentially excessed teachers, not as a means of creating positions for those teachers to fill. The buyouts were only open to teachers at the 50 schools affected, and not just for teachers approaching retirement, which is one reason why the WTU was upset - they had expected a blanket decrease in the retirement age. The issue is what to do with teachers who are already on the DCPS payroll, but who are either not needed or are not hired by principals to fill vacancies. Issues like staffing budgets and needs (which are based on projected enrollments) also come into play.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:37:30 -0500

This is why Rhee was doing the buyout plan - get rid of older teachers with seniority, thereby creating teaching positions and fill them with the excessed teachers. By the way, MoCo has the same thing, although they call it surplussed teachers. It seems like a pretty standard provision of the teacher union contracts.

DL in DC

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:31:56 -0500

My initial thought (with no inside knowledge) about why it is "impossible" is that the students aren't all being sent to the same school. This isn't a matter of a school building going away for some temporary reason, so the entire class is just moved to one other school and held in parallel. I assume that the students will be distributed to the appropriate "nearest" school.

DCster

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:01:09 -0500

Rhee's plan for the excessed teachers - giving a one-year employment gaurentee but no automatic placement - seems reasonable. While these teachers shouldn't be blamed for declining enrollment projections in the schools where they taught, this seems like a way for DCPS to adjust the number of teachers to the number of (declining) students in the near future. I'm not sure though why the logistics of having teachers transfered to the same schools students are transfered to are deemed 'impossible.' It's not like the students are disappearing. Are the class sizes just going to double?