« Why Buy the Teacher When You Can Have the Teaching for Free? | Main | Tuesday Links »

Guest Blogger Tim Daly on The New Teacher Project's Report

Tim Daly is the President of The New Teacher Project and the lead author of "Mutual Benefits."

Over the past several days, representatives of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and others have sought to challenge specific findings of “Mutual Benefits,” our recently released study on New York City’s school staffing policies. We appreciate the UFT’s engagement in this dialogue and welcome their participation.

The New Teacher Project (TNTP) researched and released “Mutual Benefits” with the goal of sparking a substantive, data-driven policy debate from which better policies would emerge. We are glad to see this debate taking shape and remain optimistic that it will lead to reforms that better serve New York City students.

As our paper indicates, the current policy on teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATRs) is flawed in four fundamental ways:

1. Teachers in the ATR have no incentive to search for positions aggressively and no requirement to apply for positions
2. Teachers have earned and will continue to earn tenure while serving in the ATR
3. There is no limit to the amount of time teachers may serve in the ATR, earning full salary and benefits regardless of their placement status
4. The ATR includes a higher concentration of teachers with documented performance problems than the overall teacher population, and that concentration is growing over time

It is important to note that our assessment of these flaws in the current policy has not, to our knowledge, been rebutted or addressed by any criticism of the paper to date. We stand by these findings and continue to believe that, if unaddressed, the stresses that these flaws put on the school system will inevitably undermine the fair, open and efficient staffing process now in place in New York City.

Though the arguments by the UFT and others against our findings and recommendations have not centered on these core issues to date, many of them mischaracterize our research and threaten to distract everyone involved from the real issues at hand. Below we respond to each of the primary arguments leveled against our report, as discussed primarily in posts on the UFT’s official blog, EdWize.org, and on Eduwonkette.com. We have asked both sites to post this response as part of the larger discussion.

One-third of ATRs are teaching “regular programs” on a full-time basis.

This assertion is inaccurate and misleading for several reasons, including:

1) It wrongly includes guidance counselors

The UFT estimates that 200 or more individuals in the ATR are, “teaching full programs, with regularly scheduled classes, just as they had done when they were regular assigned to schools.” However, the UFT includes not only teachers but also guidance counselors in this figure. Our report does not include data on guidance counselors or address their hiring patterns at any point. Guidance counselors should therefore be excluded from this calculation. Data from New York City’s payroll system appear to indicate that approximately 85 guidance counselors remained in excess as of April 2007.

2) It includes District 79 teachers, whose excessing and hiring processes were anomalous

In his posting on EdWize.org, Leo Casey of the UFT claims that 270 of the 665 teachers in the ATR are from District 79 alternative schools. Neither figure is correct. According to the NYCDOE’s payroll system, 123 teachers from District 79 schools were in the ATR as of December 2007. These teachers were not included in the 665 figure or our study in general because District 79 underwent a substantial and atypical restructuring in 2007 that led to many teachers changing schools. The rules governing the hiring process for these teachers differed from those for other excessed teachers.

For this reason, TNTP did not include 2007 excessed teachers from District 79 schools in its analysis; it would have been misleading to consider them along with other teachers whose excess process was quite different and far more typical of the city’s normal hiring process. If the UFT believes that the restructuring process for alternative schools should have happened differently, that is a worthy debate – but it is quite separate from this one.

Even so, District 79 teachers fared very well in obtaining new placements. Overall, only 24 percent of teachers excessed from District 79 in 2007 still had not found a new position by December—lower than the unselected rate for teachers who were not from District 79 schools.

3) It is based on an unreliable data source

Last, the UFT’s data is of questionable quality and requires more scrutiny and explanation. It is not enough to conclude that because a teacher reports working a full class schedule that the teacher is actually filling a full-time, permanent vacancy. Self-reported data is vulnerable to a host of inaccuracies. For example, the teacher could be substituting for a teacher who is on long-term leave but who will return again. Verification of the UFT’s claim would require communication with the building principal and an examination of the course allocation for each school. It would require knowing whether the only factor preventing principals from placing ATRs into permanent positions is the budget issue raised by the UFT, or whether they are assigning them to classes merely because they have been instructed to do this as the best way to accommodate ATRs who are housed in their buildings.

It is entirely possible that some teachers in the ATR are effectively teaching on a full-time basis. Indeed, as we have noted before, it is difficult to know exactly how principals are putting these teachers to use. In instances where a reserve pool teacher truly is filling a permanent position, we believe that teacher should be formally appointed to the position. That is a reasonable and fair outcome. Limiting the amount of time a teacher may serve in the reserve pool, as we recommend, may in fact provide an incentive for principals to appoint these teachers to positions formally (or risk losing them).

TNTP and DOE claim that excessed teachers are “incompetents that no one wants in their schools”

TNTP neither believes this to be true nor has made any such statement. While we have been straightforward in our discussion of the trends in the job-search and hiring patterns of excessed teachers in the ATR, our analysis of these trends is based exclusively on the data available to us. We cite the fact that ATRs who remain unselected for one year are about six times as likely to have a past U-rating as the typical DOE teacher. Nineteen percent of the ATRs excessed in 2006 who did not have a position by September 2007 had a U-rating. Those are facts, and they are meaningful facts in this discussion.

In light of these data, we have suggested that at least some teachers in the ATR may be unable or unwilling to find new positions. However, we have never claimed (in the report, in this statement, or elsewhere) that past performance problems are the only reason that teachers remain unselected. As the data show, some teachers did not access the primary job search avenues available to them: hiring fairs and filing online applications. The data show that teachers who found positions were far more likely to use these avenues. It is our belief that the vast majority of teachers in the ATR pool are competent and hirable, and if they engaged in a well-structured, aggressive job search, they would be hired.

"The DoE has done nothing to find permanent positions for excessed teachers… serving as ATRs”

As indicated in our paper, the NYCDOE offered extensive job-search support to excessed teachers through a newly created Internal Hiring Services Center (IHSC) that operated during the summer and fall of 2006 and 2007. The IHSC, which TNTP operated at its own expense in 2006 and with NYCDOE support in 2007, was created expressly to help excessed teachers find new jobs and it provided a broad range of staffing supports to ATRs. For example, in 2007, IHSC staff sent out 2,414 welcome letters and placement guides to excessed teachers; created and distributed a bi-weekly newsletter to 2,314 individuals via mail and email; developed a website specifically for excessed teachers, with job search tips and event listings; provided in-person support to 496 excessed teachers at seven NYCDOE job fairs; communicated individually with 823 excessed staff members; and offered 18 skill-building workshops, information sessions and “office hours” for excessed staff at locations across the city. This work is important and is consistent with TNTP’s longstanding commitment to matching teachers with schools where they can thrive.

What the NYCDOE has not done is slot teachers into open positions without the teacher or principal’s consent (an action that the UFT sometimes refers to as “placing”). As our previous research has demonstrated, slotting or force-placing teachers on schools is an extremely ineffective staffing method that damages schools and corrodes the staffing process by ignoring the will of teachers and principals. We continue to believe that a return to forced placement is the worst possible policy outcome for New York City in this debate over excessed teachers.

• “So long as the teachers and guidance counselors remain as ATRs, they remain on the central DoE payroll, and the school can have the benefits, but not the cost, of their services.”

This argument assumes that all ATRs are paid through central DOE resources. That is incorrect. Of the 235 teachers from 2006 who were still in excess in December 2007, the salaries of 81 (34 percent) were funded through local school budgets, not the central budget. In those cases, the principal is paying the teacher’s salary but has not made the decision to appoint that teacher to a permanent position. Likewise, nearly half (48 percent) of the teachers excessed in 2007 who were still unselected as of December 2007 were locally funded. It is possible that some principals with teachers who are centrally funded may have an incentive not to appoint them to full-time positions, but this does not sufficiently explain the situation of all ATRs by any means.

DOE wants to fire all ATR teachers immediately

This is flatly incorrect insofar as it relates to TNTP or its report. TNTP believes that the policy for excessed teachers is fundamentally flawed and must be changed, but we do not advocate for taking action against any ATR teachers immediately or for permanently dismissing them from the system. An effective excessing policy must offer a fair amount of time for teachers to seek consensual positions. Our recommendation is one full year for tenured teachers and three months for probationary teachers. Past data suggest that this is more than enough time for the overwhelming majority of excessed teachers to find placements.

In its Edwize posting today, the UFT profiles two 2007 excessed teachers who are in the reserve pool. Neither has been in the reserve pool for a full year yet. Under TNTP’s proposed policy, both would still be in the reserve pool at this point with the opportunity to continue looking for a position.

Furthermore, even if teachers exceed their time in the reserve pool, we recommend placing them on unpaid leave, not firing them. Such teachers would be welcomed back at their previous salary and seniority level if they are able to find a full-time, permanent job within a certain number of years (with the exact time period to be determined by the UFT and the NYCDOE). Virtually no other industry offers a policy this generous. To equate a policy of extended reserve pool time and unpaid leave with “firing” is misleading and unhelpful to this debate.

“The $81MM figure is manufactured”

Our report states that the cost of providing salary and benefits to teachers in the ATR as of June 2008 is projected to be $81 million. This is a fact, based on the seniority levels of the teachers in the ATR and New York City’s standard salary scale and benefits package. The UFT has suggested that some of the costs for ATR teachers are offset by savings elsewhere (for example, in reduced substitute costs), making this cost lower. We agree. But the UFT has not shared the methodology behind its calculations. We would be happy to review these calculations and discuss their implications.

At the end of the day, no one has argued yet that the policy of unlimited reserve pool time for all ATR teachers is not an exceedingly expensive one for the district, and no one has argued that the costs will not continue to grow unless the district ends its commitment to mutual consent and slots teachers into opening.

TNTP is trying to protect positions for its Teaching Fellows

We find this claim reprehensible and could not disagree more strongly. A non-profit organization, The New Teacher Project strives to improve teacher quality so that poor and minority students can get the education that our country has promised them. Accordingly, our programs respond and adapt to the needs of the local schools that they serve. We have never and will never advocate any policy position because it creates opportunities for our programs to hire more teachers. In fact, in keeping with our mission, we seek to increase the stability of school systems and increase average teacher retention so there is less hiring to do. We also focus on high-need subject areas such as math, science, and special education, and have voluntarily curtailed our programs in other subjects where the supply of teachers is greater.

We honor the service of all New York City teachers, including the more than 8,600 we have helped the city recruit, but our bottom line is maximizing the number of excellent teachers in classrooms, not seeking to ensure that they are recruited by our organization specifically. We look forward to the day when every child is taught by a high-quality teacher and cities like New York no longer need us to help meet their new teacher needs.

We welcome a debate over the data on these issues. We are confident that a close look at the facts will drive a consensus that the current policy is flawed and must be amended. Though we have disagreed with the UFT about our report, we believe that this debate will be productive and we believe that the UFT wants what is best for teachers and schools, just as we do.

Mr. Daly,

I assume you have at least two years of teaching experience, so I'll call upon your ethics and honor as a classroom instructor. What do you say to the students when you make a bone-headed mistake? The best answer is, "I'm sorry."

You answer with debater's points, especially when you criticize the UFTs data as unreliable. YOU DID THE STUDY. IT WAS YOUR JOB TO PRODUCE RELIABLE DATA. (You published the study. You designed the methodology. If you may be off as much as 29% (of teachers) or 75% (of money), you must explain the oversight.)

If the data is unreliable, then the proper response is "I'm sorry."

Dean Millot said it well, management "wants to make life easier for management." He also argued that this was the latest shot in a war of a "raw struggle for power based on beliefs that reinforce self-interest." Millot knows better than I but I'm inclined to attribute mistakes to reformers who are "all so certain that they are right."

You seem convinced in the righteousness of your case. But the ends don't justify the means. Consider for a second that we teachers may disagree with you without being evil.

Mr. Thompson,

What are you talking about? Mr. Daly doesn't say that the data TNTP used are unreliable, he says that the data the UFT produced are unreliable. The TNTP report looks to me like it has very good data, and it is thus incumbent upon the counter-arguer to produce data that support their case. Mr. Daly supports his conclusions very strongly in the report, and reaffirms them even more strongly here.

Kudos, Mr. Daly, for answering the critics with a slam dunk. The UFT clearly has little interest in letting mere facts cloud their conclusions. If I were a doe-eyed idealist, I might suggest that they are the ones who should apologize, but my body's thirst for oxygen precludes me from holding my breath in anticipation of that outcome. When the facts don't support your case, just make up new ones! That approach is so predictable as to be boring by now. Mr. Casey, get a little creativity, please.

It's nice to see that the attempt to keep this discussion centered on the data, the policies, and their impact on kids. Socrates is probably right - nobody is about to apologize to Mr. Daly for the personal attacks on him or his organization. Let's move past it.

Hopefully we can focus on the facts of their report, the rebuttal and this well considered response. Let's finally leave people and egos out of it and engage in a little "accountable talk" as we would want in our classrooms.

1. ATRs don't aggressively search for jobs (but ATRs get segregated to separate rooms at hiring fairs, and principals are encouraged to go to the new teacher room and bypass the ATRs)

2. "Nineteen percent of the ATRs excessed in 2006 who did not have a position by September 2007 had a U-rating."

And 81% had been rated positively for their entire careers, and were being passed over...

3. "...we do not advocate for taking action against any ATR teachers immediately..."


That's the heart of it. If you're advocating against teachers. If, as Edwize points out, you're taking big DoE $, then your study is easier to understand.

The DoE is trying to generate higher turnover... you specialize in offering high turnover on the hiring end... they've enlisted you to advocate higher turnover on the firing end.

There are facts and there are facts. Daly again uses the % of U-rated ATR's instead of the raw numbers which as Eduwonkette pointed out, make the case he is trying to make irrelevant.

"What percentage of these teachers have received an Unsatisfactory rating more than one time in their careers? Only 6 percent - about 14 teachers. I am not denying that these rates are higher than the NYC teacher population as a whole. They are. But the raw numbers provide much needed context, and we shouldn't have to dig deep in the report to find them."

As often happens, 14 teachers are used to bludgeon the rest. And by the way, I actually know of a few competent double U-rated teachers who were hounded by a vicious principal.

The attacks on Daly are related to contracts with the DOE and their influence on the highly political nature of his release of the report.

To claim there is no connection is to ignore basic reality and common sense. I wonder what % of contracts would disappear if the report said something favorable to ATR's. Better yet, give us the raw numbers of the current contracts.

I know an excellent teacher with double "U" ratings because she had a vicious principal who gave her the U's for attendance during the two of her 15 years in which she was seriously ill. Someone should have told her to take a leave of absence -- like our principal did for another teacher who was subsequently ill.

And there are people with U ratings NOT for anything to do with the classroom, but their ability to get along with a particular supervisor. Sometimes a supervisor will even write wonderful evaluations of your teaching, invite the Cambridge people to visit your classroom, but give you a "U" rating because you and he/she disagreed on an issue in public -- you were insubordinate. In your evaluation, that teacher and the colleague I mentioned are lumped into a group which you imply is incompetent at teaching and that's not fair.


Perhaps it is because research has been so politicized, but you missed the point.

Research is called research because the researcher is supposed to SEARCH for the truth - the whole truth. Researchers shouldn't just search for their side of the argument. If they were doing their job, the TNTP would have searched for the side of the issue that the UFT is now explaining.

Another reason why this isn't a dog bites man story is that we are used to researchers who "don't know what they don't know." If the TNTP lacks the expertise to produce fair well-rounded research, they could have asked the UFT for advice. After all, they've had meetings for seven months. They wouldn't have had to reach the same conclusions as the teachers, but they could have then tried to produce an informed study.

Many can't find jobs because their careers have been tainted, often by unsubstantiated accusations or personal grudges. Many have been dedicated hard-working teachers for decades and are simply broken by the experience or being sent to Th Rubber Room. No wonder many don't pursue other jobs. How about counseling? I am amazed there's no class action suit against the DOE for the abuse of rights of these teachers.

Tim, I appreciate your willingness to engage in debate on this issue, both here and on my previous post.

Socrates, I think that UFT's finding that many ATRs are carrying full loads is relevant to this debate, not just “made up facts.” Nothing that Tim wrote above calls into question their basic finding; in fact, much of TNTP report draws on self-reported data. Like John, I wonder why these data weren't collected and analyzed as part of the original report. In any event, the first step in moving this debate forward involves pinning down what proportion of ATRs are teaching regular loads.

I also wanted to clarify a critical feature of the budgeting process. Tim notes that many teachers are on local budgets, but I suspect that it’s the younger teachers on local budgets. As I understand it, here's the budgeting rule: If the teacher comes from a closing school, the ATR goes on central payroll. If a school is simply deciding that it wants to close down one of its programs, or its student enrollment goes through the ordinary dips, the ATR remains on the school's budget.

Tim noted in his previous comment that senior ATRs are more likely to come from closing schools, so I'd like to see the experience levels of the ATRs broken down by the source of funding. This would likely clarify that experienced teachers are more likely to be centrally financed, which may explain, in part, why they are more likely to remain in the ATR pool.

A reader just asked for the link to Weingarten's letter to the ATRs. Here it is in case others are interested:


I have one question that I have not seen asked:

What does this report have to do with TNTP's mission?

Hi Corey, Welcome back - you've been missed during your exam crunch time.

TNTP both recruits teachers for many teaching fellowship programs and does consulting for districts - here's more on their model and mission:


Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

  • eduwonkette: Hi Corey, Welcome back - you've been missed during your read more
  • Corey: I have one question that I have not seen asked: read more
  • eduwonkette: A reader just asked for the link to Weingarten's letter read more
  • eduwonkette: Tim, I appreciate your willingness to engage in debate on read more
  • Dr Susan Jonas: Many can't find jobs because their careers have been tainted, read more




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here


8th grade retention
Fordham Foundation
The New Teacher Project
Tim Daly
absent teacher reserve
absent teacher reserve

accountability in Texas
accountability systems in education
achievement gap
achievement gap in New York City
acting white
AERA annual meetings
AERA conference
Alexander Russo
Algebra II
American Association of University Women
American Education Research Associatio
American Education Research Association
American Educational Research Journal
American Federation of Teachers
Andrew Ho
Art Siebens
Baltimore City Public Schools
Barack Obama
Bill Ayers
black-white achievement gap
books on educational research
boy crisis
brain-based education
Brian Jacob
bubble kids
Building on the Basics
Cambridge Education
carnival of education
Caroline Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby charter schools
cell phone plan
charter schools
Checker Finn
Chicago shooting
Chicago violence
Chris Cerf
class size
Coby Loup
college access
cool people you should know
credit recovery
curriculum narrowing
Dan Willingham
data driven
data-driven decision making
data-driven decision-making
David Cantor
Dean Millot
demographics of schoolchildren
Department of Assessment and Accountability
Department of Education budget
Diplomas Count
disadvantages of elite education
do schools matter
Doug Ready
Doug Staiger
dropout factories
dropout rate
education books
education policy
education policy thinktanks
educational equity
educational research
educational triage
effects of neighborhoods on education
effects of No Child Left Behind
effects of schools
effects of Teach for America
elite education
Everyday Antiracism
excessed teachers
exit exams
experienced teachers
Fordham and Ogbu
Fordham Foundation
Frederick Douglass High School
Gates Foundation
gender and education
gender and math
gender and science and mathematics
gifted and talented
gifted and talented admissions
gifted and talented program
gifted and talented programs in New York City
girls and math
good schools
graduate student union
graduation rate
graduation rates
guns in Chicago
health benefits for teachers
High Achievers
high school
high school dropouts
high school exit exams
high school graduates
high school graduation rate
high-stakes testing
high-stakes tests and science
higher ed
higher education
highly effective teachers
Houston Independent School District
how to choose a school
incentives in education
Institute for Education Sciences
is teaching a profession?
is the No Child Left Behind Act working
Jay Greene
Jim Liebman
Joel Klein
John Merrow
Jonah Rockoff
Kevin Carey
KIPP and boys
KIPP and gender
Lake Woebegon
Lars Lefgren
leaving teaching
Leonard Sax
Liam Julian

Marcus Winters
math achievement for girls
meaning of high school diploma
Mica Pollock
Michael Bloomberg
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee teacher contract
Mike Bloomberg
Mike Klonsky
Mike Petrilli
narrowing the curriculum
National Center for Education Statistics Condition of Education
new teachers
New York City
New York City bonuses for principals
New York City budget
New York City budget cuts
New York City Budget cuts
New York City Department of Education
New York City Department of Education Truth Squad
New York City ELA and Math Results 2008
New York City gifted and talented
New York City Progress Report
New York City Quality Review
New York City school budget cuts
New York City school closing
New York City schools
New York City small schools
New York City social promotion
New York City teacher experiment
New York City teacher salaries
New York City teacher tenure
New York City Test scores 2008
New York City value-added
New York State ELA and Math 2008
New York State ELA and Math Results 2008
New York State ELA and Math Scores 2008
New York State ELA Exam
New York state ELA test
New York State Test scores
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act
passing rates
picking a school
press office
principal bonuses
proficiency scores
push outs
qualitative educational research
qualitative research in education
quitting teaching
race and education
racial segregation in schools
Randall Reback
Randi Weingarten
Randy Reback
recovering credits in high school
Rick Hess
Robert Balfanz
Robert Pondiscio
Roland Fryer
Russ Whitehurst
Sarah Reckhow
school budget cuts in New York City
school choice
school effects
school integration
single sex education
small schools
small schools in New York City
social justice teaching
Sol Stern
Stefanie DeLuca
stereotype threat
talented and gifted
talking about race
talking about race in schools
Teach for America
teacher effectiveness
teacher effects
teacher quailty
teacher quality
teacher tenure
teachers and obesity
Teachers College
teachers versus doctors
teaching as career
teaching for social justice
teaching profession
test score inflation
test scores
test scores in New York City
testing and accountability
Texas accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act
The Persistence of Teacher-Induced Learning Gains
thinktanks in educational research
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Tom Kane
University of Iowa
Urban Institute study of Teach for America
Urban Institute Teach for America
value-added assessment
Wendy Kopp
women and graduate school science and engineering
women and science
women in math and science
Woodrow Wilson High School