Why Does The DOE Continually Violate The ATR Agreement?

Last week I received a change in my assignment and was sent to a middle school, despite the fact the ATR agreement plainly states that rotating ATRs can only be placed in their district.   My district is District 77, Queens high schools, and that is the only district I am required to rotate in.  Yet the DOE continually violates the 2011 ATR agreement and tries to dump ATRs outside their district.

Luckily, I contacted Michael Sill and Amy Arundell who swiftly contacted the DOE and over the weekend I received a revised assignment to a high school in my district.  The question I have for the DOE are the following:

1. Is the DOE ATR group just a bunch of incompetent boobs?
2. Does the DOE ATR group simply ignore the 2011 ATR agreement?
3. Maybe the DOE ATR group tries to trick the ATRs by assigning them to an out of district assignment as if they are required to report or face disciplinary action?

I cannot say which of the three above questions apply, maybe all three, but if you believe you are placed out-of-district, please contact Michael Sill of Amy Arundell at UFT headquarters as quickly as possible and explain why the placement is wrong.  If the DOE does not place you in your correct district by Sunday night, report to your last school until the proper placement is assigned.  Do not simply stay home!  Otherwise, you will be marked absent without cause.

Speaking of the ATR agreement there are two other issues that need to be clarified.  First, the ATR incentive may have a hidden condition that wasn't explained by either the DOE or the UFT.  I have been informed that the first year of the ATR incentive is free for the calendar and not school year.  Meaning that schools will wait till the second semester to pick up ATRs since they can get the ATR for free for both the second semester of this school year and the first semester the next school year.  The same goes for years two and three when they get the ATR at a reduced cost.

Another hidden condition is that the school would still be responsible initially for the ATR salary and get reimbursed by the DOE which is a disincentive for principals who are on a tight budget and are reluctant to shell out up to $54,000 in salary for the second semester and hope the DOE will pay them back at the end of the school year.  If this is true, I see many principals deciding against hiring ATRs for their vacancies.

Finally, does the realigning of New York City licenses with New York State licenses allow the DOE to use it as an end around of the ATR Agreement and put high school teachers into middle and elementary schools?  Will the UFT allow it?  I certainly hope not as the DOE will most certainly take advantage of this and abuse the ATRs even more than they do now.

Remember, the ATR information meeting is scheduled tomorrow at 4:30pm at the Queens UFT office.  See you there.

Update:  Amy Arundell has clarified and corrected the issues dealing with the ATR incentive and the license expansion.  According to Ms. Arundell the DOE came up with the ATR incentive to try to place ATRs in permanent positions since schools are being paid for the vacancies anyway and it makes little sense for principals not to hire the ATRs for these paid for vacancies,  unless they have ideological motives that only hurt their students who end up with no teacher.

As for the license issue?  Amy states that it will not affect the placement of ATRs in their district.  The DOE cannot force place an ATR outside their district without the ATR's approval, even if his or her license now allows for them to be placed in, for example, in a middle school if they are a high school teacher.  

Amy also informed me that the DOE's assignment to a middle school was a "computer glitch" doe to a new computer system and new personnel. In other word the DOE showed their incompetence and carelessness in not checking to see if the placement meets the 2011 ATR Agreement.

.