There is some talk about the provisional nature of the ATR Agreement and it is a cause for concern. Just to clarify how it works. A Principal from school B needs to pick up an ATR with a Chemistry license. For the first year the ATR is a provisional and if either the Principal or ATR believes that the fit is not good, the ATR is released from school B and the Principal does not receive the $22,500 bonus for the ATR. I can see where those "Leadership Academy" Principals who hire only newbie teachers could abuse the process by releasing ATRs each school year and pick up others for the next school year, only costing the Principal the $45,000 for a newbie teacher for each ATR. However, I believe this will be an uncommon occurrence (I hope) and most Principals will want an experienced teacher running their classrooms.
On the other hand, look for the ATRs to dominate the "Open Market Transfer System". Since Principals can pick up an ATR for a newbie teacher salary, why would a Principal select a $85,000 per year appointed teacher when they can get an equally experienced ATR for $45,000 per year? It is interesting how quiet Leo Casey of Edwize has been on how many senior appointed teachers received jobs through the "Open Market Transfer System" last year and I don't expect him to give us those statistics because of the obvious results, few senior teachers were moved. With the ATR agreement look for little if any senior appointed teachers to be successful using the "Open Market Transfer System" since the ATRs are much cheaper.
While the ATR Agreement is a victory for the union and a defeat for the DOE it will also restrict any chance of appointed senior teachers from using the "Open Market Transfer System" to change schools.
5 comments:
A good question, though, is how many senior teachers try to transfer? Sometimes a school goes bad, and someone might jump ship, but as a rule a teacher who has been in a place for 10, 15 years tends to be loyal. Often they won't even think about other possibilities.
There's a risk, of course, that someone could get trapped. But you are right, the primary feature here is the victory over the DoE.
Jonathan
Union win?
DoE loss?
Try and clear your Daze Chaz.
Jonathan:
Good question about how many senior teachers actually tried. However, what ever the number the results are probably dismal.
anon:
Come off it. The agreement is a win for the teachers and a loss for the DOE. Going back to the Seniority Transfer System is not going to happen if that is what you are waiting for.
This agreement is the first real win for us since the terrible 2005 contract even if it does not satisfy you.
Chaz. I think you are missing a point about why many principals, especially those with little ed background, don't want to hire experienced teachers who can see through the bull of the ed jargon and just might tell the emperor he has no clothes. There is enough insecurity around to make them prefer a newbie who they know won't have the knowledge to look askance at some of the programs they are putting in.
I would bet a lot less ATRs get jobs than you think. After a year, watch the DOE and press go after those who didn't and the howl to drive them out of the system will resound. Thus, in some ways this is a long-term investment by the DOE and why I don't consider this a win for the UFT.
Norm
Norm:
I'm not missing the point. I did mention that some Principals may not hire ATRs or abuse the system. However, I am optimistic that most principals want experienced teachers over newbies if only for better classroom results. Of course time will tell if one of us are correct.
Post a Comment