THE ISSUE: The DOE’s challenge to best fill positions vacated by excessed teachers.
Why do you call the new financial incentives to place excessed teachers a “step back” (“The Chancellor’s Step Back,” Editorial, Nov. 24)? Would it be “a step forward” just to kick them out the door?
Most of these teachers were excessed because their schools were phased out and replaced by schools that seem to prefer newer teachers.
Your misconception is that all teachers in the excessed pool were handpicked for excess because of their incompetence, or that years in the system make them worse teachers.
Should we turn the rookies out to pasture in 10-15 years, as they too degenerate in skills and motivation? Why not term limits for teachers?
Contrary to your assertion that teachers who have been excessed are those whom “no principal will hire without a bribe,” teachers are let go from a closing or contracting school from a list in strict seniority order.
Principals did not want to hire excessed teachers who cost too much, leaving many mid-career teachers in limbo.
However, Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) teachers work in schools, and at the school where I teach in The Bronx, they are all teaching classes.
Please correct your hateful view that incompetent teachers are “excessed.”
Your editorial grossly mischaracterizes the dedicated educators in the ATR and the smart agreement developed by the Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers.
ATRs are experienced teachers and other personnel whose careers were thrown into limbo when their programs were downsized or their schools were closed. All along, they’ve simply been saying “Let us teach,” and this agreement should go a long way towards making that happen.
It’s a solution that saves millions of dollars and gives kids the benefit of quality teachers.