Q: Date to know when someone will be excessed by?
A: Mike Sill says it is 15 days into the term.
We checked the Contract and the New York State law on excessing and layoffs.
Here is what we found under Contractual Article 17B Rule 12:
Rule 12. Teachers identified as being at risk of being excessed at the commencement of the following school year will be informed of this no later than June 15, or as soon as is practicable if identified as being at risk of excess after June 15. The deadlines for excessing teachers will continue to be governed by applicable law.
If we concede that schools are getting a budget cut, have people been notified that they are in danger of being excessed yet?
As for the applicable law, I believe we are talking about NYS Education Law Section 2588.
The title: Seniority, retention and displacement rights in connection with abolition of positions in city school districts of cities having more than one million inhabitants
That would be New York City. Everyone needs to read this law even if we are not lawyers as there are some extremely important provisions.
On excessing:
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no classroom teaching position may be abolished after the fifth school day of the fall school term or after the fifth school day of the spring school term and all transfers or personnel changes resulting from such abolitions which would cause the displacement of a classroom teacher shall be completed prior to the fifteenth school day of such terms, provided that the chancellor, after consulting with any affected community school board, may waive the aforesaid limitations in a specific instance because of emergency conditions or for reasons of special hardship.
Positions cannot legally be abolished after day 5 of a semester unless the Chancellor declares an emergency or special hardship situation. Since the city budget is due on June 30, it is kind of difficult to see a financial emergency or hardship declared on September 15 but one never knows in the current climate. The DOE then has ten days to move people which is kind of what Sill said.
What about layoffs?
Back to Section 2588:
1. For the purposes of this section, the tenure areas applicable to all professional education positions shall be defined as the license areas established by the city board pursuant to subdivision ten of section twenty-five hundred seventy-three of this chapter, provided that, effective July first, nineteen hundred seventy-six, there shall be a single elementary teaching tenure area encompassing kindergarten through grade six.
We know layoffs go by license.
Now for the provision we all need to study.
3. (a) Whenever a teaching position is abolished under this chapter, the services of the person holding a position within the tenure area of the position which is to be abolished who has the least seniority in the city school district, including all full-time equivalent substitute service and all full-time equivalent service as a paraprofessional, shall be discontinued, provided that the services of a person who has acquired tenure within such tenure area shall not be discontinued if another person holding a position within such tenure area has not acquired tenure.
Tenure matters folks. The wording of the law is fairly straightforward.
As for bumping less senior people by going back to a prior license where one achieved tenure:
4. (a) A member of the teaching staff who has been regularly appointed or a member of the supervisory staff who has been properly assigned or appointed and whose services are terminated pursuant to this section, shall be entitled to be placed, upon his application, in a vacancy within the tenure area of a position where such individual shall have previously served under regular appointment as a teacher or proper assignment or appointment as a supervisor, and if no such vacancies exist he shall be entitled to displace the person with least seniority serving in the tenure area of such other position, if he has greater seniority, based on length of service as a member of the teaching or supervising staff in the city school district, including all full-time equivalent substitute service and all full-time equivalent service as a paraprofessional, than such person.
What happens if someone is excessed from a school but not laid off?
Here it gets a little tricky. This is Contract Article 17B, Rule 11 put into the Contract in 2005:
Rule 11. Unless a principal denies the placement, an excessed teacher will be placed by the Board into a vacancy within his/her district/superintendency. The Board will place the excessed teacher who is not so placed in an ATR position in the school from which he/she is excessed, or in another school in the same district or superintendency.
What if a principal does not want any of the senior people who have been excessed to replace her/his laid-off teacher?
Also, could Rule 11 be interpreted by UFT as a de facto no-layoff provision since it says someone who is excessed becomes an ATR? I think the layoff law would easily override this provision but we have no grievance process until at least October 1 so who knows where this goes? It could end up chaotic.
Do all of you see anything else that I might be missing here?
I was excessed in late September a few years back. Uft said it was legal..
ReplyDeleteWhat about rule 10 i believe- with 20 or more years in the system you cannot get excessed from the buildimg???
ReplyDeleteYou are right about rule 10.
DeleteWohoo! I'm starting my 21st year in the DOE. Looks like I can't get excessed out of the building. (Not that I am in any danger of being excessed)
ReplyDeleteWhy is my proposal to have senior teachers take a sabbatical with sabbatical pay (for half a year or a full year) labeled decisive and too much of a financial burden on senior teachers? My proposal would harness the good will solidarity generated by seniors showing solidarity with less-experienced, usually younger though not always, but lower paid members. We would also agree to close make all members who are not Tier 4, Tier 4 members. Next to the current, extremely divisive contract and legal excessing and furloughing and termination plan, my proposal is far more democratic. As things stand we have a system that divides us by age and experience to such an extent that we have not even the solidarity to replace Unity, the powerful controlling un-democratic group that is pissing away, contract by contract, concession by concession, all of our protections and benefits. Retirees, with few exceptions like James, really have little interest in what happens to us and they continue to dominate. Senior teachers (and I recognize that seniority is sacred and must not be sacrificed under any agreement or through anything akin to the ATR debacle) are so disconnected from the Tier 6 people, a growing percentage, and would need to step up in the interest of solidarity and democratic unionism.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why not be proactive and set aside some of those dues to close some of the gap that the senior workers will experience by sabbatical?
I realize this is out of the ox stuff. But to continue as we are is not going to change anything.
Number of layoffs will be influenced by whether schools are open or are zoomed. They can furlough a lot more people when there is no building to open. And don't discount the offer of a salary cut in exchange for some layoffs.
ReplyDeleteI said involuntary sabbatical for senior teachers in my opinion would be divisive since many of the senior teachers can't afford the pay cut. Many also have no desire to go back to school.I never took a sabbatical. I would not want to be forced to be a student again.
ReplyDeleteAs for senior teachers, in 1991 enough senior teachers stepped up to save my job when the membership voted to lend a portion of our raise to the city in exchange for no layoffs, no return requirement from sabbaticals, a retirement incentive and the midwinter break. Those senior people who could not yet retire who voted yes were real lifesavers and they were on Tier I which is the best pension tier anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThere we go, proof that seniors teachers can show solidarity for teachers with less seniority.
ReplyDeleteBut we are not in 1991 by a long shot.
As things are structure now can a 1991 like deal happen?
The rules, including rule 10, are easy enough to manipulate and violate. As 12:10:00 AM's case demonstrates, the UFT will often explain away the rule you thought was protecting you. You often have to fight, the UFT and the DOE to get the rule to work for you.
ReplyDeleteBuildings can be closed. Departments can be closed. All sorts of methods can be used to break the rules. And, always remembers that the agreements are full of language that allows the bosses to do most anything if they put children before your rights or in the interest of the school or in an emergency. The rules, as they stand, are, as I said previously, one of the most divisive things in the union. Not that we can operate without them, but we should look, proactively to help everyone out. The ones in a position to do that are the more senior teachers.
and its 15 school days...so thats why they basically have til end of September every year
ReplyDeleteI was in danger of layoff in 1991. My plan was collect unemployment, work on my Masters and then get rehired at some point. I was a newbie, still lived with parents. I never expected senior teachers to give up rights or money to keep my job. NYC teaching jobs will open up again. A lot of turn over and people will retire. No one wants to stay in the disfunctional NYC doe. Shelly, your proposal is admirable but most of us can't afford the sabbatical. I never took one because I couldn't afford the pay cut. And quite frankly, most newbies need a little humility.
ReplyDeleteEasy solution. Buyout, buyout, buyout
ReplyDeleteYup. Under 40 years old. Very open to walking away immediately.
ReplyDeleteRe James' query on rule 11 de facto..... yeah they could but they won't. They will gladly bargain away our rights or money to stop layoffs. Layoffs mean less dues. Everything else is up for grabs. In a few months we'll have more to add to our shitty union list.
ReplyDeletei am sorry, but i fail to see the city buying out a 36 year old teacher and paying them a pension for the next 50 years as a cost saving measure. they would rather you walk away or earn your retirement imho.
ReplyDeletePeople can dream can't they?
ReplyDeleteI don't know why the Post calls this a "racially charged screed"; maybe they are projecting.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case (to stay on topic) be careful of social media. This a.p. from Staten Island will likely be fired for her...insensitivity.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/21/doe-to-probe-staten-island-assistant-principal-for-facebook-post/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
What is the likelihood that the hiring freeze will be lifted for Mathematics? I'm was working full-time for the DOE, bounced because the school was a nightmare, and have been subbing, now long-term subbing remotely.
ReplyDeleteI interviewed for a few schools and have received two unofficial offers and two who are waiting to extend unofficial offers.
There are many scenarios and speculation over a retirement incentive. If history is used as a guide they want to make sure it is effective and an one time deal. However it can fall through until year.
ReplyDeleteIf it is a shortage area, hold out some real hope but who really knows? If it is remote learning again, they may be able to go with fewer teachers. If it is a hybrid model, again who knows? I wish I had a better answer.
ReplyDelete7:11, she will be fired but students use the N word all day and it is ok?
ReplyDeleteI was excessed and then re-hired by the same school. In the past I found documents stating that you can not lose building seniority if you left your building involuntarily. I can no longer find the documents I could easily find I. The past. Does anyone know anything about this?
ReplyDelete