pool report

Fariña’s message on ATR pool: No forced placement

Chancellor Carmen Fariña offered new clues today about a looming issue in the city’s contract talks with the teachers union: how to handle the Absent Teacher Reserve.

Speaking at a City Council hearing, Chancellor Carmen Fariña was unequivocal that the city would stick with its current policy of not forcing teachers to work in specific schools or principals to accept teachers they don’t want.

“There will be no forced placement of staff,” she told Council members. “This is one of the things, when I come back in a couple of weeks, we’ll be happy to discuss.”

She was responding to a question about the future of the Absent Teacher Reserve, the pool of teachers on the city’s payroll who currently do not have a position. The ATR pool, which currently includes 1,200 teachers, has been a source of tension between the city and the union since its numbers swelled during the recession and as the Bloomberg administration closed schools.

The ATR pool was created because of a 2005 contract change that introduced the policy of “mutual consent hiring.” That policy has been seen as a win-win for teachers and principals, who have had more say over the makeup of their staffs.

But a consequence of that policy is that the city is on the hook for the salaries of teachers who decline jobs they are offered, who apply for but aren’t offered jobs, or who choose not to apply for jobs at all. At its current size, the pool costs the city more than $100 million a year—money that would be saved if the city were allowed to assign those teachers to specific schools.

The city could also reduce the ATR pool over time by other means, like instituting limits on how long a teacher could be paid without having a position. That was the preferred policy of the Bloomberg administration, and the strategy that Washington, D.C. took to prevent a similar problem in 2009. 

With negotiations ongoing between the city and the United Federation of Teachers over a new contract, those reductions could be way for the city to find money to use for its pre-kindergarten expansion plan or backpay for teachers. February report in the Daily News indicated that changes to the “forced placement” policy were under discussion, though a de Blasio spokesman denied that shortly afterward.

In a statement, UFT chief Michael Mulgrew said that the ATR pool was being discussed and signaled that he wanted its members to remain in the school system.

“The teachers in the ATR pool are an important resource for the school system and their assignments are part of our ongoing negotiations with the DOE,” Mulgrew said.

Fariña also said that the broader issue is under discussion, telling reporters that the ATR pool “is something that we’re reviewing right now, even as we speak.”

Teaching teachers

Some New York charter schools could soon be allowed to certify their own teachers. What could that look like?

PHOTO: Stephanie Snyder
Erica Murphy, school director of Brownsville Ascend Lower Charter School in New York, oversees students in a fourth-grade English class.

One charter school teacher training program gives first-year teachers a part-time workload and allows them to learn alongside mentor teachers.

Another has summer workshops that include home visits with students’ families.

A third network often starts the year with a week of workshops at a Westchester hotel, has a staff member devoted to professional development, and brings in consultants for math, writing and reading instruction.

These are a handful of training programs at charters that may soon substitute for the formal state certification process, which requires obtaining a master’s degree and passing certification exams. Under regulations proposed by SUNY last week, some charter schools would largely be able to design their own alternative certification programs that would be valid at other SUNY-authorized schools. And charter leaders say those programs will be heavy on practical experience and embedded within the schools’ existing teacher improvement efforts.

The proposed change is intended to relieve hiring pressure on charters, which are currently required to have no more than 15 uncertified teachers — and to free teachers from burdensome certification requirements.

Teachers unions and top state officials were quick to criticize the idea, arguing that putting less trained teachers in classrooms hurts students. To many charter school leaders, though, the training they already offer inside their schools is more relevant than what education schools provide.

“Come to me with a degree in astronomy,” said Jeff Litt, superintendent of Icahn Charter Schools. “If you spend a year with me, I’m going to turn you into a successful teacher.”

The proposed change would require SUNY-authorized schools to apply for permission to run their own certification programs. Those programs must include at least 30 hours of instruction, 100 hours of teaching experience under the supervision of an experienced teacher and the completion of certain State Education Department workshops — all of which is far less than a typical prospective teacher would need to complete before becoming certified through the regular process.

Charter leaders like Litt say there is little evidence to support the idea that certified teachers are better at improving student performance than uncertified teachers. In fact, some studies do show certified teachers can be more effective than uncertified teachers, but the differences are relatively modest.

Even if the state’s current certification is no silver bullet, said Jonah Rockoff, an education researcher at Columbia University, the lingering question is: Can charter schools come up with something better?

“Great teachers have many complex skills, so the key is how charters will train these new hires,” Rockoff said in an email. “A master’s degree is no guarantee, but that doesn’t mean everybody can teach.”

A lot of schools say they already have come up with something better — and the state’s certification process is either an unnecessary nuisance or, worse, an impediment to progress.

At Democracy Prep Public Schools new teachers are required to attend four weeks of training during the summer, said CEO Katie Duffy. Once teachers start working, there is an instructional coach on staff to give feedback to teachers, which might involve videotaping and reviewing lessons with new teachers, she said. One day each week, students are dismissed early and the staff participates in professional development workshops.

In the midst of that process — which Duffy considers the real driver of success — new teachers currently have to find time to take graduate-school courses.

“First of all, you don’t have the time to go back to school and you sure don’t have the money,” Duffy said. (Some networks, including Democracy Prep, do pay for continuing education.)

Steven Wilson, founder and executive director of Ascend Charter Schools, feels the same way. At Ascend, Wilson said, they try not to give any first-year teachers the full responsibility of leading a classroom. Instead, they allow new teachers to learn the ropes under a mentor and help the new teacher gradually increase their workload over the course of the school year.

And some, including Wilson, believe the existing certification process can be harmful. Education schools, he said, are “awash with deeply harmful jargon and practices.” He said Ascend has to unteach some of the practices teachers learn in education school and the requirement to go back to school discourages some prospective teachers from entering the practice.

“The requirement to do this is a turnoff to the very people the profession needs most,” Wilson said. “Are you going to take a year of your life and go to a third-rate education school? No, you’re going to go to a profession where you don’t have to do that.”

One of the arguments in favor of alternative certification is that it makes charter schools more welcoming to professionals who have a background in something else — like history or engineering, for instance — but now want to teach.

“We’re always looking to attract those individuals into our network,” said Janelle Bradshaw, superintendent at Public Prep, noting that under the current rules these professionals often do not have the requisite credits. “Then, what we do is provide you with the tools and the resources to become a strong and effective teacher.”

But Dirck Roosevelt, a visiting associate professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College, says professional success doesn’t always translate into the ability to lead a classroom. “To know mathematics sufficiently to design a bridge or to supervise the construction of a bridge is not remotely the same thing as to know it in such a way that you will know what your sophomore algebra student is going to find difficult,” he said.

If these regulations pass, charters’ training will be subject to oversight, Joseph Belluck, charter school committee chair on the SUNY board, said last week.

Reached Wednesday, SUNY did not provide details about what the oversight might entail but hinted that it could be linked to student performance.

“Should any SUNY charter have the opportunity to establish a SUNY charter school teacher certification program, the strength of such a program will directly link to how well students perform,” said Susie Miller Carello, executive director of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute.

Certified or not, charter networks say, they want prospective teachers to thrive in the classroom — and already work to ensure that.

“We, as a public school, have the responsibility to put great teachers in front of kids, regardless of certification status,” said Ian Rowe, CEO of Public Prep. “We bear that responsibility even if 100 percent of our teachers were certified. From that perspective, I don’t see a difference.”

Clarification: This story has been updated to explain that Democracy Prep pays for the cost of professional development and certification. 

mend it or end it?

Why a long-time critic of teacher professional development is arguing against Trump’s push to cut federal funds for it

Teacher at a professional development session.

Someone looking to make a case for cutting funding for professional development would do well to cite the work of TNTP. The organization’s 2015 report titled “The Mirage” argued that districts were spending billions to help teachers improve — with little return on investment.

So it’s somewhat surprising that Dan Weisberg, the president of TNTP — an education reform-oriented organization previously called The New Teacher Project — was on Capitol Hill this week pushing back against the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to Title II funding, a large share of which goes to teacher professional development.

“We at TNTP are professional development skeptics, but I would say that we are seeing and doing work across the country [indicating] that the trend is positive in terms of work being more disciplined,” Weisberg told Chalkbeat.

Weisberg said the cuts “would be really unfortunate and have bad impacts on educators and kids.”

In one key way, Weisberg’s position is not surprising: his organization contracts with districts to provide services and is sometimes paid through Title II funds. (Weisberg notes that this accounts for a very small fraction of TNTP’s budget.)

That may mean his objections fall on deaf ears within the Trump administration, which has indicated skepticism of an education establishment it sees as benefitting from the current system. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has also argued that school spending is unlikely to benefit students.

Still, TNTP’s position indicates the breadth of opposition to the budget slashes, which have faced fierce skepticism from a number of education groups and from lawmakers. The cuts are seen as unlikely to be enacted in full.

The Trump budget proposal eliminates a $2.4 billion program known as Title II, Part A or Supporting Effective Instruction, which the administration has described as duplicative and ineffective. In 2014-15, nearly half of that money went to professional development.

Weisberg — along with a number of education reform groups and the superintendents of the Tulsa and Baltimore school systems — made the case to Congressional staff that it was important to “mend not end” investment in teacher training.

“Our argument to folks on the Hill was that Congress actually made some positive changes that brought more discipline to the spending of these federal funds,” he said. “Zeroing it out now or substantially cutting it is really pulling the rug out from some good policy work Congress has done.”

Weisberg also said he has had informal, “off-the-record” conversations with the Department of Education staff suggesting that they are also not enthusiastic about the cuts.

“They were given some very tough decisions to make in the budget process,” he said. “Let me put it this way: I don’t think you’re going to hear vociferous objections from the Department of Education if Congress decides to fund those programs.”

TNTP and others have long argued that there isn’t much strong evidence of the effectiveness of professional training for teachers, though a number of recent analyses offer more clues as to what makes professional support for teachers work.

One recent overview of research suggests that individualized coaching helps teachers improve and increases student test scores. Two new studies on mentoring of new teachers suggest that it can increase student test scores and teacher retention.