D.C. to NYC: Breaking Down Unions, Teachers, and Excess
D.C. Public Schools and New York City Public Schools have a lot in common – both are large, expensive, chronically low-performing systems that have recently come into seasons of serious reform under mayoral control. Both are also currently wrapped up in brewing controversies over excessed teachers, and it’s not pretty in either town.
Basically, an excessed teacher is a teacher within a district but without a job, and due to the upcoming closings of 23 schools, and the restructuring of 27 others, D.C.’s about to get a lot of them. Last week, D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee finalized an agreement with Washington Teachers' Union president George Parker that would classify teachers from the 23 closing schools as “excessed,” which under the teachers’ contract means they can involuntarily be placed at any school in the system, but are guaranteed a job and are given preference in filling vacancies.
All things considered, it’s not a bad deal for the teachers, but some parents are saying that it’s unfair that teachers won’t automatically be transferred to the same new schools that their students will go, despite the impossible logistics of such a plan, and some union officials are upset that Parker went along with the agreement because it denies seniority to older teachers in filling vacancies. The ever-outraged WTU vice-president Nathan Saunders said to the Post that Parker, "has got to be stopped; he's giving away the store.”
Excessing teachers is a messy issue, because while they can’t be fired, there isn’t always a place to put them, as New York City is currently finding out. In 2005, the city implemented a “mutual consent” hiring provision into the teachers’ contract, which says that a school has the right to approve its staffing, and senior excessed teachers can’t simply override newer ones in filling vacancies. It was a welcome reform for obvious reasons – Education Sector's Andrew Rotherham called it bringing “a healthy level of talent sensitivity into hiring” – but it also created a group of teachers who can’t seem to get hired.
What’s more, a new report released this week by The New Teacher Project (which, incidentally, is Rhee’s old stomping ground) places the cost of this unhired group at about $40 million per year. To put that figure in perspective, it’s only slightly less than D.C.’s $44 million in projected savings from the school closings and central office housecleaning. The report also recommends a provision that would remove teachers from the system who have remained unemployed for twelve months – something the union definitely doesn’t want.
Why is this report important for D.C.? Well, we’re about to see our own pool of unhired teachers grow, and because of the similar politics and ideology at work in the D.C. and N.Y. systems, whatever Mayor Bloomberg and N.Y.C. Schools Chancellor Joel Klein decide will likely inform decisions that are made here. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t make sense for either D.C. or New York to keep paying salaries and benefits for teachers they don’t need (as the New York Times editorial board was quick to point out). But for teachers’ unions to stay in the game (and save face), they need to find a way to protect their teachers while not blocking progress. Pitting teachers against the administration isn’t the way to do that, as Parker knows and Saunders should figure out.