Friday, October 12, 2018

The Union Leadership Once Again Failed The ATRs.





























The Union and the City has negotiated a new contract and once again the union leadership failed the ATRs.  According to what is known, the only change is that schools cannot hire "newbie teachers" once the school year starts instead of October 15th.    This change may allow some ATRs to snag a provisional position for the school year since some teachers may have taken another position in a better school at the last minute.  The result is that  these vacancies will be in the worst schools.

According to South Bronx Schools, the ATR salary will no longer affect a school's budget, if permanently hired for the length of the contract and a special program that will employ ATRs in running a small  learning group for struggling students.  However, I have not seen this identified.  In my opinion these changes on the margin will not reduce or eliminate the ATR issue.

Regardless, the union leadership failed to get the DOE to eliminate the school based Fair Student Funding that incentivizes principals to hire the "cheapest and not the best teachers" for their school.  Moreover, the union failed to get the DOE to change hiring procedures that would require schools to hire from the excessed teacher list in the District before hiring "newbies".  Finally, the union agreed to the DOE's forced placement and useless rotation of ATRs,

We still remain second class citizens.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

"To better serve the Bronx......Its a COOKBOOK!!

Anonymous said...

Big class action lawsu8t against Mulgrew.

ATR 25/55 said...

How does that help ATRs? For example, if there are 120 math teachers in Queens and only 3 vacancies Day 1, who gets it - alphabetically? By Seniority? Years as an ATR? Sure doesn't help the other 117 math ATRs covering every other subject. This contract is a disgrace. The city can't even pretend that the coffers are bare, yet are demanding more health coverage givebacks and a raise that doesn't reach inflation. Vote NO! These Vichy Unity leaders still haven't given us an updated contract book - they seem to have gone the way of telephone directories. If we, and other city unions reject the pattern set by DC37 (more like I.Q. 37) then maybe Red Bill will get it. Can't be the Progressive savior to the Dems if you're giving the shaft to the donor base. One more year of this nonsense and I'm out.

Anonymous said...

Mulgrew has no shame.

Anonymous said...

once again your hopes have been crushed. so glad I left with the buyout. you are getting what you deserve and even with all the many disappointments year after year after year with janus passed you still keep paying uft dues! what saps and suckers you are! grow a pair and walk. think about how well the union officers are doing off your hard earned dollars. can anyone say
paul egan.

Anonymous said...

Chaz, I have a question that's a bit OT but one I cannot get a clear answer on. You or anyone of your readers in the know can help me out a great deal here. When an issue must be voted on by delegates at a DA - especially a big one, do the delegates go into the DA meeting and vote with their gut instinct without ever speaking to the teachers at their respective school or is the correct way to go about this to first get a consensus vote of the teachers in the school on the respective issue at hand and then go to the DA and vote what the school feels as a body? I'm not concerned with a, "Well, it should go down like this but there really isn't anything written in the rules that says it has to be done this way" scenario. Is there a SPECIFIC way delegates for a school, who have been voted in to represent them, should go about a DA meeting and vote? Chapter input and consensus or they go with their own decision? Much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Newly elected chapter leader here. This morning I made a printout document of various things gathered from online sources and blogs of what some of the new things the tentative contract has. I had my teachers vote throughout the day before I went to the DA meeting whether they want the contract or not. Overwhelmingly (roughly 80%) of the teachers voted for the new contract. That informed my decision, although personally I was one of the 20% that voted No (this sh*t will not help pay my rent in this city!!). It think its important for Chapter leaders that are VOTED by their teachers to represent what majority wants. What does everyone else do?!

Anonymous said...

Meathead Mike did it again. Another lousy contract behind closed doors. He doesn't care about ATRs. This is just a coverup so ATRs will pay dues. It's time to get up and vote "no" and show the UFT - especially Mulgrew that what he says isn't going to be swallowed so easily. He can take his "This is the best we can get" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Anonymous said...

great question 727

Anonymous said...

"A minimum of 2-3 observations" oh geez , you guys are so sweet LOL. That simply insinuates that "gotcha" is alive and well. The wording has harassment all over it. Enjoy another 3 years principal intimidation and sham write ups. The union is looking reduce the amount of veteran teachers in the system as well.

Anonymous said...

What about field supervisors? This unit is just a waste of money!

When an ATR comes into the school the school should be able to give positive feedback period!

The observations are ridiculous when an ATR is only in that classroom for a day or week.

DOE just going through the motions and make a mockery of what real meaningful observations and feedback is really supposed to be about!

Means nothing!

Anonymous said...

ATR Field Supervisors are still needed to harass and U rate unjustly ATRs. Stark is needed to do the dirty work.

Anonymous said...

Vote NO to this BS contract!

Anonymous said...

At this point, for most teachers who have enough experience to see the corruption of the 'system,' the best you can do is keep your head down and try to make it to an early retirement.

Anonymous said...

"Newly elected chapter leader here. This morning I made a printout document of various things gathered from online sources and blogs of what some of the new things the tentative contract has. I had my teachers vote throughout the day before I went to the DA meeting whether they want the contract or not. "

Appreciate the reply and great that you do this, but I don't think this answers my question. Yes, you do this, and it should be commended, but, is this the way IT SHOULD HAPPEN IN ALL SCHOOLS? There has to be something in the union's literature that expresses the protocol to what SHOULD take place. That's what I can't seem to find an answer to. Again, anyone in the know - I and I believe many others would appreciate a knowledgeable response.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know about the ATR meeting Brooklyn when it is .

Anonymous said...

Majority mommy-centric staff will NEVER
vote down a contract...majority wont even vote...HEALTH CARE...HEALTH CARE...HEALTH CARE...as long as that stays solid...no way...Jose..

Anonymous said...

Majority mommy-centric staff will NEVER
vote down a contract...majority wont even vote...HEALTH CARE...HEALTH CARE...HEALTH CARE...as long as that stays solid...no way...Jose..

That's not the point I am trying to understand. I recognize as well as you do that a, "Majority mommy-centric staff" will never vote down a contract.

I am trying to understand what exactly is the protocol of a delegate before voting. I know it's all BS. I'm just trying to understand for myself - nothing more nothing less.

mkrstic said...

The Daily News just slammed ATRs.

Anonymous said...

ATR Brooklyn Meeting: October 22! Call UFT to make sure!😊😊😊

Anonymous said...

Delegates are supposed to gauge what the members of their individual schools want and use that as the basis of judgment in how to vote for either a "yes" or a "no" on the contract. The problem is that many, many, delegates never even bother to show up at the delegate meetings and plenty who do are UNITY hacks who will vote however they are told. As for me, I am voting no for the simple fact that veteran, tenured teachers should have exactly what the rest of NYS has and that is one formal announced observation, and one informal unannounced observation. Mulgrew caved to the DOE by allowing a minimum of 2 informal observations. This means admins can continue to partake in Dansielson drivebys as mush as they like.

Anonymous said...

Being rated in another system it is also discriminatory. And not having assigned classes is discriminatory while they hire new teachers. Having our Union negotiate secret deals without voting on it is discriminatory. Being rated by someone we never met is outrageous. The whole ATR Pool is discriminatory. Etc....
Shameful and ridiculous. The Union is to be blamed for the harassment that we put up with, and the abuse. Field Supervisors have a blank check to lie, and harass ATRs.

Anonymous said...

I am a not Unity and I’m a Delegate and I asked the entire staff before I went to the meeting and I got 3 responses. People are sheep. Even when it’s about themselves.

Anonymous said...

The DOE is complicit about the press release.

Anonymous said...

We need to get rid of Field Supervisors.

Anonymous said...

ATRs should not be rated. If there is no pemanent placement than there should not be observations for a teacher whi does not know the school.

Anonymous said...

Ask them if we are going to be harassed by Field Supervisors in the future?

Anonymous said...

Thank You 5:27 I called the union and they don’t know anything
Thank you

Anonymous said...

Yes, it will be much easier for APs to rate someone ineffective by having to do only 2 observations. If you bomb one, you're ruined. Teachers don't know what they are voting for and are shooting themselves in the foot. Make the APs work and earn their pay. The APs are going to love having to do only 2 observation per teacher. Also, the raise is a joke.

Anonymous said...

The Union wants to get rid of ATRs.

Dragan Vujovic said...

Minimum 2 or 3 observations...it should be MAXIMUM 2 or 3 observations...what a BS, what a scam...