One of the provisions in the ATR Agreement between the union and the DOE was that any vacancies or long-term placement would first be offered to the most senior ATR in the District and in their subject area. However, already the DOE has seemed to violate this most important provision by putting less senior ATRs in these positions in violation of the ATR agreement. How do I know this? It just happened to me!
I had inquired about a recently opened position in my subject area in a struggling school and contacted the school on my own time to arrange an interview to see if I can fill the position. I met with the Assistant Principal who was very happy to interview me and the interview went well. However, as the interview was winding down with the Administrator to my shock he said the following" I would give you a chance if the ATR Tweed sent me doesn't work out". The ATR the Administrator was referring to is somebody I know and has half the seniority that I do. How can the less senior ATR be given first dibs on an open position when the DOE and union claimed the following in the ATR Agreement:
"When one or more vacancies occur the DOE will send the most senior Excessed Employee in the District/Superintendency with the appropriate license to the school{s) for consideration for placement, except the DOE shall not be required to send Excessed Employees who have already been sent to a school for consideration of placement pursuant to the paragraph".
Here is proof positive that the DOE has violated the ATR Agreement and where is our union's response on this apparent violation of the Agreement? You guessed it, "we are looking into it". I am not holding my breath.
Just another example how ATRs are being treated by both the DOE and our union.
What they have done with this ATR stuff is ridiculous. I am a middle school Social Studies teacher 'covering' a grade 6 SETTs/ELL/ inclusion science class where there were 2 women who are both CB teachers and they were excessed from the school last year and the principal doesn't even have the vacancy posted. I really don't get it
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, Chaz, I trust you, but can you provide a link for your quotation about the clause regarding the hiring of the most senior ATR teacher within a license area? I hadn't seen that one until you quoted it. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the agreement mentioned anything about seniority. But it did state that the school should try out ATRs first. But in the end, they can hire from outside if the ATR doesn't work out. Which basically means ATRs do not have much of a chance unless they really impress the principal.
ReplyDeletenyc ATR:
ReplyDeleteIt is the DOE/UFT ATR Agreement under excessing.
Nyc ATR:
ReplyDeleteIt is under II-B-1 of the agreemen.
any word from the union? Any word at all?
ReplyDeleteNorm:
ReplyDeleteThe union has so far been silent about the apparent violation of the ATR Agreement. Further, I do not expect to do anything about it and i believe that this will just go away.
Just another example of the DOE and union negotiating an agreement which Tweed does not follow and the union is unable and/or unwilling to enforce.
NYC ATR:
The paragraph is in the ATR Agreement that I linked in my article below.
II Consideration of placement of excessed employees, B-1 pg 1.
There is a day to day sub with a FULL program....he is somebody's husband! They all the newbies have special ed licenses..so they can be hired and teach whatever! The union is of no help. I am grieving this and they say I will probably lose. How can I lose? A day to day has rights over certified teachers..oh right I have the wrong last name and my tongue isn't long enough!
ReplyDelete