Unfortunately, I don’t know much more about the New York City excess teacher issue after reading Jennifer Medina’s NYT story than I did beforehand…it’s a lot of back and forth rather than the kind of authoritative accounting The Times could really add some value by providing. Based on the story it seems like the crux of the UFT’s calculations and argument that this is not as costly a problem as the city says is an assumption that all of the teachers in the excess pool should have been given jobs before new ones were hired.
But, that’s a really debatable premise seeing as the whole point of the new placement system was the idea that schools had to want to hire teachers for them to work there. In other words no one is guaranteed a job. And that, of course, is the larger backdrop here anyway.
There is also the question of how many reserve teachers are teaching full time now. The UFT says about 200, the city says about 30. Hmmm…can they both be right? Doesn’t seem so. The title of the article, “City and Teachers’ Union Disagree on Reserve Pool” illustrates the problem here. Somewhere there is an actual fact base and the city and the UFT cannot both be right about it based on their current positions…it’s, you know, more than a disagreement!
Medina! We turn our lonely eyes to you…