When the UFT, with much fanfare, negotiated an agreement with the DOE to give Principals a financial incentive to hire some of the 1,740 ATRs for classroom positions. I admit I was all for the agreement since the Principals can get an experienced teacher for a minimal cost. What Principal wouldn't want an experienced teacher in the classroom? It made sense that Principals would want an experienced teacher to improve their test scores. It is all about the children, right? Wrong? many Principals still rather hire a "newbie" teacher with no classroom experience than an experienced ATR with good management skills.
Today's New York Daily News reported that only 16 ATRs have been hired to fill a classroom vacancy since the November 2008 agreement while 295 "newbie" teachers have filled the rest.The reason it is not about the children but about the Principal. Many of the Principals, especially the Leadership Academy Principals, would rather have inexperienced teachers who when told to jump responds "how high" rather than an experienced teacher that might say "why"? Further, many of the younger Principals are intimidated by the experienced teachers and refuse to hire them. Finally, ageism is also a part of the equation as many Principals discriminate against the older teacher and don't want them in their schools.
The union's ATR agreement with the DOE should have resulted in over 300 ATR offered a position in the classroom. Instead the Principals continue to fail to do what's best for their students and hire inexperienced teachers who take years to develop effective classroom skills. Unfortunately, "Children Last" continues.
12 comments:
We all know that principals these days don't pass gas unless they have permission from above!
You can figure out why they are not hiring ATRs.
Justice:
Of course I can. It is obvious that Tweed is encouraging the Principals not to hire ATRs and so that the DOE can claim that they tried their best but the ATRs are not wanted and ask for a 12 month time limit in the next contract.
Once again, Ms. Weingarten, with much fanfare, accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
Aside from Tweed, there are nasty APs that don't like certain ATRs because that ATR spoke up against them in former schools (problem one of the ATRs who is a former mentor is having).
Also, want newbies that will jump when told too. Old times won't and they don't likethis.
To Chaz and everyone above: couldn't agree more with all your comments.
Having much experience on both sides of the fence — ATR more than a year, now in a position having bumped someone into being an ATR — I just keep fighting the best way I can find at the time.
I can't file ATR-related grievances anymore like I used to (against no preference sheets, formal obs., circ. 6-R, no per session etc.), but I can write letters, join protests, and provide information and support. Oh, yeah. I can blog, too.
The only thing that counts for me anymore in this infected system they've created is integrity.
Integrity??? Both the DOE and UFT lack this ingredient. The DOE practices age discrimination and the UFT ignores the abuses in the classroom.
You knew I meant our personal integrity.
They don't have integrity or crediblity.
Of course I did. I just wanted to rant a little.
Any agreement should have insisted that ATRs must get hired before any newbies. That negotiating 101. If the DOE really wanted to resolve the ATR situation, they would have readily agreed. Of course, neither they nor Randi really want the situation to go away. It's a PR stunt for BloomKlein (they won't let me fire these teachers who are doing nothing!) and a potential economic boon for Randi (1 fired ATR=2 union dues payments from rookies).
once again, Randi, where are you? Our union dues are the only thing the union likes about us.
Mr Talk:
You hit it on the head. If the DOE was serious the ATRs would be hired first.
UFT ATR agreement was good for the UFT cronies for the free wine and cheese.
What did they ATRS got? Nothing.
Post a Comment