Some people who have been critical of the union leadership, have decided to support the contract. These well-respected bloggers are nyc educator, DOEnuts, and JD2715. One thing all three have in common is that they are not ATRs.
By contrast, all bloggers who are ATRs. South Bronx Schools, ATR Adventures, and ATR NYC have voted no. Moreover, ICEUFT, run by a retired ATR recommended a no vote. Finally, I, as an ATR also voted no.
It's a pity that our usually reliable allies, while giving lip service in support of the ATRs, still voted yes for the contract, despite the contract not making any significant changes to the ATR pool.
Just to remind my readers here is what its like to be an ATR. Read the history of the ATR pool.
- ATRs have no say in their placement and rotation.
- ATRs must accept a provisional appointment, even when the school is unappealing.
- ATRs are observed by field supervisors in a strange classroom with no knowledge of the students and no ability to affect their grade..
- ATRs found innocent of 3020-a charges still has a "Scarlet Letter" attached to their file by the DOE as if their guilty..
- ATRs realistically have little opportunity for per session.
- ATRs are treated as :"second class citizens".
- If the ATRs survived their 3020-a hearing, they are considered "untouchables" for vacancies.
- Fair Student Funding makes it almost impossible for veteran teachers to receive an offer for vacancies.
- DOE continues to demonize ATRs and wants them terminated.
Now you know why ATRs voted no.
lets just vote and move on as the atr pool remains the same forever and ever. Its sad that the doe never addressed the atr issue. I only have one question to the doe and that is why. Why treat people like this especially when your atr pool is just a fraction of the entire teaching force in the nycdoe.
ReplyDeleteA couple of hundred or a thousand or two atrs and eighty thousand teachers. With that being said why keep this pool of people so unhappy? These people dedicate their livelihoods to the better of the system and the kids so to continue this is so so sad and really mind boggling.
I can only laugh when I read how the DOE is telling the media that they are encouraging principals to hire veteran ATRs when the truth is so very different. The only thing the DOE is trying to do is to terminate the ATRs by allowing field supervisors (assassins) to recommend to the Superintendent to terminate the ATRs through the 3020-a process. The DOE, with the UFT leadership's complicit assistance, has pushed to reduce the ATR pool by harassing ATRs to resign or retire rather than push principals to hire the ATRs in their district. In particular, veteran ATRs with ten or more teaching experience are being targeted for termination while only untenured ATRs are being picked up.
ReplyDeleteI, of course, as an ATR voted No. Screw that piece of crap, raises under inflation, ATR force placing, (un)fair student funding keeping, joke of a contract.
ReplyDeleteThere is systemic discrimination having the UFT complicit. Why would the UFT give a blank check to Field Supervisors coming with an agenda? Many young teachers are uncertified, while ATRs are being harassed by Fiel Supervisors rating ATRs U unfairly. The new contract does not change anything.
ReplyDeleteThere will be no more rotations for ATR.
ReplyDeleteYou wil remain in your school for the entire year.
Starting right now next year.
I voted no and I an not an ATR. The raises don't keep up with inflation and who knows what surprise increases in medical the city and Mike Mugew-spelling like that on purpose- have in store for us.
ReplyDeleteI voted no! The ATR Pool, unfair student funding, raises that do not keep up with inflation, and observations still not clearly defined! I know I am missing much more! No! No! No!
ReplyDeleteI voted yes, not to disrespect our ATRs (we have 3 wonderful "Awesome TeacheRs"), but for the simple fact that if we did succeed in a No vote, the UFT would still do nothing in a new round of negotiations with the DOE in regard to ATRs.
ReplyDeleteWhat I will do, is when Mulgrew is up for re-election, is vote for an opposition candidate, so the people who have allowed this problem to continue unabated can be appropriately penalized.
voted no, 10 year health benefits need to be reinstated.. the union gave them away for nothing in return and no explanation. The uft makes it sound like a plus in the press release.. http://www.uft.org/news-stories/new-agreement-preserves-age-55-retirement-restores-post-labor-day-school-start
ReplyDeletePensions for new UFT members will become vested after 10 years of service, rather than the current five. New UFT-represented employees will be eligible for retiree health insurance coverage after 15 years instead of 10 years, rewarding those who choose teaching as a career.
Those people in the Executive Board of the UFT should be observed out of license, and with students they met for the first time.
ReplyDeleteChaz, thanks for labeling me "well-respected." I at least try to be thoughtful.
ReplyDeleteI have never approached a contract from my personal self-interest. I try to look at the common interests of members of our union, with a special focus on our most vulnerable members. ATRs are among our most vulnerable members.
But ATRs are not our only vulnerable members.
All of our lower paid titles are receiving across the board raises on top of the (sub-inflationary) 2, 2.5, 3% raises that all of us get. For our lowest paid members, paras, that works out to raises slightly above inflation.
But our paras also get a modicum of due process, where there was none. Suspensions, indefinite, and without pay, can proceed after a single allegation. In many cases, it was impossible to hang on without pay, and the suspension was tantamount to being fired. Establishing due process for vulnerable members is a very big deal.
Look, I'm not cheering rah rah for this contract. Our lists of pluses and minuses were quite similar - I think we see the same thing. On balance, though, I think it should have been a yes vote.
Jonathan