One of the ATRs went down to 65 Court Street to make some changes in her personnel file and decided, while there, to get a DOE employee identity card. She had her picture taken and received her new identity card. Shockingly, she noticed that the new identity card had stamped on it "ATR". The educator told the person who gave her the identity card that she didn't understand why "ATR" must be stamped onto the card since its demeaning and by September she might land a position. The response is that is what the DOE has ordered her to do. An itinerant teacher who I know showed me her DOE identity card and it just had her name on it not "itinerant teacher". This is just another example of labeling the ATRs.
We all know that being an ATR confers"second class citizenship", Thanks UFT, and if one won their 3020-a discipline hearing they are labeled"untouchables". Now it seems that the DOE is stamping on the identity cards "ATR"! What's next? Requiring the ATR status on our clothes? If the DOE could legally require it, in my opinion they would. The DOE already have included a red discipline flag on files of educators who have had a substantiated OSI or SCI investigation even when the substantiation turned out to be false when required to provide real and relevant evidence in front of an independent hearing officer.
There is no doubt in my mind that the DOE is trying their best to eliminate the ATR pool by any means possible. Be itfield supervisor harassment, useless weekly rotations, or special rules that reduces ATR "due process rights". I expect the DOE to use anything in their toolbox to make being an ATR an uncomfortable experience and if an ATR breathes wrong, expect a "U rating" or 3020-a charges to follow. The union? They are part of the problem and not part of the solution since they have either agreed to, or ignore the DOE onslaught on the ATRs.
It now appears the UFT leadership not only screwed some of their own members, the ATRs, teachers who resigned or discontinued or died, and members on unpaid maturity leave and yes, members who went on disability, but it now appears the UFT contract allows the City to not pay retroactive raises to ex UFT members who resigned between 2009-2014 to become DOE administrators. That's right, all these administrators who became assistant principals and principals are assumed to have resigned by the City and are not getting their well deserved retroactive raises that they worked for. Moreover, for UFT members who want to be administrators in the future, will not be getting their retroactive raises or lump sum payments going forward. While I have little sympathy for these administrators, especially the vindictive and leadership academy administrators its still not fair to deny them of the money owed them. Apparently all UFT members who went to a non-UFT title will also be screwed and not receive their retroactive raises as well.
According to chalkbeat, this is one of the major stumbling blocks between the City and the CSA in negotiating a new contract. However, there may be other unresolved issues as well. For example the City wants the CSA to agree to a 7% return on their TDA instead of the existing 8.25%, without any givebacks and the CSA agreeing to a similar ATR provision for their excessed members.
The City and UFT agreed not to call the two 4% raises as retroactive raises to get around giving every member and ex members their well deserved raises but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't claim its a goose. However, both the UFT and the City is doing just that. Blogger JD2718 has an excellent post on how the UFT stopped using the term "retroactive raises" when they sold the contract to the members and is a must read.
As I expected, some ex-members who resigned or were terminated before the age of 55 have decided to file a lawsuit to get their much deserved retroactive raises between the 2009-13 school years which was unfairly deprived by the City and the UFT in the recently negotiated contract. How any union could eliminate up to 9,000 ex members from getting the retroactive pay that they worked for is just plain wrong. Yet, that is exactly what happened with the UFT. It appears the UFT violated the equal protection under the law provisions in New York State, I guess time will tell if the lawsuit is successful.
While I believe the inadequate contract was a favor to the De Blasio Administration that allowed the City to establish a "city pattern" that got the City off cheaply. However, why did the union sacrifice many of the members to satisfy the City? Not only will 9,000 ex members who resigned. terminated, discontinued, or died not get their retroactive pay but add another 3,000+ ATRs who are now second class citizens with an expedited 3020-a process based on a vaguely worded and defined "unprofessional behavior". Moreover, any ATR that won their 3020-a hearings will be not offered vacancies or temporary positions by the DOE. These 250+ educators are now known as the "untouchables". This group, I'm told will include any ATR "U rated" in the last school year.
Hopefully, the ex members will win their lawsuit and be getting their much deserved back pay and the next lawsuit the union may have to deal with is the ATRs for their failure to properly represent them and allowed the DOE to impose different rules on them that no other Municipal unions have for their members.
The education reformers have redoubled their efforts in trying to eliminate teacher tenure and flush from a victory in California,which I believe will be reversed on appeal, they and their deep pocketed benefactors (the 1%) have filed asimilar lawsuit in New York State. The premise of the lawsuit in New York State is that the state teacher tenure laws violate the constitution that requires that every student should have an adequate education. This lawsuit is just another attack by the education reformers on the teaching profession and the teacher unions.
Interestingly, the tenure laws in New York State are more stringent than in California. For example, it takes three full years of satisfactory ratings before tenure can be granted by the Principal. Furthermore, the tenure decision can be extended for another year or two if the Principal and teacher agree to do so. In the last year in NYC only 56% of the teachers received tenure, while the rest were either extended or discontinued. Moreover, the New York State teacher evaluation system will allow for a path for dismissal. Finally, once tenure is achieved, the teacher can still be terminated for misconduct or incompetence but gets "full due process rights" by going through a State 3020-a hearing in front of an approved arbitrator who decides the case.
Until a teacher gets tenure, the Principal can terminate a teacher "at will" and its extremely rare for an untenured teacher to win their appeal when terminated. Chapter Leader Arthur Goldstein wrote about one such case when an untenured teacher went to bat for his students as their IEP's were being violated by the school administration and where not getting the state mandated services they needed.
When I was in the infamous "rubber room", I encountered hundreds of teachers during my stay. The common theme was that most of the teachers were there because of problems with their principals. I'm not saying that the teachers were blameless but in many cases the principals were told how to embellish, pervert, and distort the incidence to make it seem serious, just to get the teacher out of the school. It is only when the teacher goes in front of his or her 3020-a arbitrator can the teacher reasonably expect an impartial hearing. If the DOE had its way, almost 100% of the teachers charged would be terminated, just like that for untenured teachers orteachers who appealed their "unsatisfactory ratings".
If there wasn't tenure would any teacher stick their neck out and advocate for their students, report wrongdoing, or question policies that appear to hurt the academic achievement of the students? Few would. Does one want to go back to the "bad old days" when nepotism, cronyism, and personal likes or dislikes dictated the fate of teachers? I think not. One of my friends who was untenured reported Regents cheating to her administration and her satisfactory observations before the cheating report became unsatisfactory after the report and was discontinued since it appears the administration was in on the cheating (in fact SCI was called and confirmed that cheating took place and had the educator removed). Hopefully, the State Supreme Court will find in her favor and force the DOE to give her job back.
Nobody wants to work in an environment where any accusation by a student or administrator or the failure to take on extra responsibilities could lead to termination without "due process". As it is, there will be a teacher shortage in five years and weakening or eliminating teacher tenure will accelerate the pace of good teachers leaving the profession. Yes, tenure is important if school districts are to attract and retain "great teachers" and do what's best for their students by placing them first.
Over the last few years the New York State Education (NYSED) has directly or indirectly used some of the RttT funds to go after teacher licenses who were terminated in their 3020-a hearings for "moral turpitude". While theState always went after educators found guilty of a crime or criminal actions and removed their teaching license, it appears the State has expanded their definition of "moral turpitude" to include non-criminal actions as well in an attempt to get rid of more teachers. Lately the Office of Teaching Initiatives has allocated more money to investigate more 3020-a termination cases that were not criminal in nature. According to my sources, NYSED has used a portion of the increased federal funds allocated to the State (RttT?) to expand the State's "good moral charterer" determination to include non-criminal actions of sexual misconduct, corporal punishment, and other non-criminal actions that lead to the teacher's termination in the 3020-a hearing process.
Moreover, the NYSED has also included educators who took a stipulation to resign or retire rather than go through their 3020-a hearing that fit into the ever broadening definition of "moral turpitude". It appears all this is part of NYSED's attack on teachers, be it the badly flawed Teacher Evaluation System, their insistence to use high stakes testing against teachers while admitting that it's not appropriate for students, or the ever broadening of the "moral turpitude" clause of Article 83.. In fact, I know of a case of a teacher who was unjustly terminated in 2011 for corporal punishment in which she tried to restrain a violent child and never hurt the child in restraining him. When her unfair 3020-a decision was reversed by the State Supreme Court as being "shocking to the conscience", only to be reversed again in a 2 to 1 Appellate Court decision, ahe found herself three years later subject to NYSED's punitive Article 83 regulation.
While nobody wants teachers who are a danger to the children to have a license, it appears that the NYSED is using a broad brush to label many educators as not deserving of a teacher's license and many deserving educators can no longer be a teacher simply because the NYSED has expanded the "moral turpitude" clause to include educators who are not and never have been a danger to the children and that's not fair or right for that matter.
Once again, I have checked over ten schools in Queens that advertized for an Earth Science teacher on the Open Market Transfer System (OMTS), and didn't receive one interview. That's right, not one interview! Maybe because I am part of the "untouchables", ATRs who survived their 3020-a hearings that the DOE doesn't want to see in the classroom. However, in speaking to many of my teaching colleagues coming from closing schools or programs, they haven't received any interviews either! According to Gene Mann of the UFT 4,000 teachers change jobs using the OMTS. What Mr Mann fails to say is few of them are highly experienced and high-salaried teachers. The vast majority are untenured teachers who want to get out of poorly performing schools resulting in a destabalizing of the very schools that need a stable teaching staff.
What do we excessed teachers have in common? Age and salary/ Most of my colleagues make $80,000 or more and are over 50 years of age. That's right its age and salary discrimination. Principals will not hire us because of the "fair student funding" and the bias against ATRs. Try to get this information from the DOE and UFT and they claim ignorance and a FOIL request to the DOE was ignored since neither organization wants the truth out. Now that there is no "hiring freeze" look for the ATR pool to increase by September from the 2,400+ to as much as 3,000 as few ATRs took the inadequate buyout.
Our union betrayed the ATRs and no matter how our union spins this contract, the union is allowing the DOE to stigmatize excessed teachers and demonize those that won their 3020-a discipline hearings. No other City union would agree to make some of their members second class citizens and allow the DOE to practice a de facto age and salary discrimination as part of the contract. However, no other union is like ours that screws some of its members while slapping themselves on the back for an inferior contract that even DC37 beat.
In a groundbreaking decision that has ramifications throughout the nation, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a 6 to 1 decision ruled that the State cannot reduce retiree health benefits, once approved. According to the state's highest court the constitutional protections trump the State's proposed 2012 pension reform changes that the Legislature and Governor have agreed to. The decision, written by the chief justice said the following:
The Court, led by Justice Charles Freeman, did not specifically rule on
the pension reform law, but declared “it is clear” that all pension
benefits, including health insurance, cannot be, as the Illinois
Constitution mandates, “diminished or impaired,” which the ruling called
the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the state’s Constitution.
The key here is the State's Constitutional mandates that pension benefits cannot be "diminished or impaired". This very same clause is in New York and a dozen other State Constitutions. Therefore, these States, including New York, will now have a precedent to follow if any of these States decide to reduce retiree pensions, including health benefits. Therefore, in 2017, when the next New York State Constitutional Convention is convened and if the State Legislature and Governor decide to tackle pension reform, it will appear that already retired State and Local government employees will not be affected, based upon the Illinois court decision.
While its possible that New York State could tackle pension reform in 2017, it appears highly unlikely that the State cannot change the Constitutional mandate that retiree benefits cannot be "diminished or impaired" based upon the Illinois Court precedent.
That brings me to the education reformers who are spearheading the assault on educator pensions and teacher tenure laws. All these education reform groups want to eliminate pensions and replace it with an inferior 401k/403b plan or none at all. Furthermore, when one looks atcharter schools, which is what the education reform groups strongly support and believe all schools should end up to be, almost all of them have inferior pension plans, some don't have matching contributions and afew don't even offer a pension plan! In the education reform playbook its not about educator job security and pensions but how to maximize profits for their hedge fund allies who fund their groups and the charter schools. In fact, long-serving teachers is not what they want. High teacher turnover, and making the teaching profession a transitional job is their goal and teacher tenure laws and adequate pension benefits is contrary to that goal. Consequently, look for the education reform groups to continue to attack teacher "due process rights" and compensation in the form of pensions and health benefits.