Both the Sunand the Times today take up the thorny issue of 'excessed' teachers, after a UFTpress conference and volleys of emails and other communication between DOEand UFT leadership. Of the city's 15,000 teachers, about 1,000 have been 'excessed' from their schools -- because the school closed or was restructured by the DOE or as the result of budget-cutting efforts by CEO principals faced with contracting school budgets. (It's also entirely possible that some weak teachers were moved out to improve the overall quality of teaching, but no one addresses this question directly.)

Excessed teachers are assigned to the Absent Teacher Pool -- which the nonprofit New Teacher Projectsuggests will cost the city $74 million in 2008-09. The Pool is a kind of human reservoir, that schools can dip into in order to fill temporary or longer-term vacancies.

The Catch-22 here is, no surprise, money. The contract negotiated between the city and the UFT in 2005 significantly increased teacher compensation, which was long overdue. But for principals looking to trim $75,000 or so from their budget, laying off an experienced classroom veteran in favor of less-costly newbie makes tough sense.

The DOE wants to limit the time a teacher can remain in the Pool; the UFT says that's not what they agreed in the contract and wants a hiring freeze until excessed teachers have jobs. Several members charge discrimination, saying that principals aren't interested in more-expensive, older talent.

How to best use the teachers in the Absent Teacher Pool will surely persist as a nagging and very expensive question: How many teachers at failed or closing schools -- some of the same classroom leaders who received big cash rewards a few days ago -- will find themselves there next year?