Will The DOE Finally Place ATRs?

The DOE has finally taking steps to place ATRs.  In schools that have a history of hard to fill certain subjects and retain teachers , the DOE has decided to allow principals to hire an ATR free of charge, as long as the school keeps the ATR.  This has resulted in some ATRs getting a position since the Principal will no longer be responsible for the ATR's salary.

According to Susan Edelman of the New York Post, there are 930 ATRs and this is a slight reduction from the previous year as 170 ATRs took the $50,000 buyout,  Regardless, the DOE is still paying over $100 million dollars yearly for ATRs..  It should be noted that the ATR number only include teachers and excludes Guidance Counselors, Social Workers, and paraprofessionals.

The only reason that there are ATRs at all is that the Bloomberg policymakers are still in charge and have resisted the Chancellor's goal to place ATRs in vacancies.  This year the schools hired 4,800 new teachers as nearly a thousand ATRs languish without a position. .However, as the Chancellor has slowly  removed or pushed out the Bloomberg policymakers, the DOE has loosened restrictions   to hiring ATRx such as allowing select principals to hire ATRs, free of charge.

In 6he next few years I see the ATR issue fade into history.  At least I hope so.

Will The ATR Pool Change?

It's another year and while Chancellor Richard Carranza has made some administrative changes at the DOE, he has made no real changes when it comes to the ATR pool.  The DOE has tried to encourage principals to hire ATRs but since most ATRs are older and in the higher salary range, averaging over $98,000 annually, schools do not want to take on the hefty salaries associated with the ATRs.

Sure, the DOE has tried to set up an ATR hiring program like paying for the ATR's salary the first year, one half their salary the second year, and one quarter their salary the third year.  However, principals are not stupid and realizes that by the fourth year the school would be responsible for the full salary of the hired ATR.

Moreover, the DOE told principals that if they hired sn ATR to permanently fill a vacancy and they achieve an effective rating, they must hire the ATR,.  However, there is a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through if a savvy Principal knows how to manipulate the system and many do.   The loophole would allow the school to refuse to permanently hire the ATR and hire a cheaper alternative.

The DOE got so desperate in trying to reduce the ATR pool that every other year they offer ATRs $50,000 to resign or retire but only 170 ATRs took the offer and those ATRs who take the DOE incentive are probably resigning or retiring anyway.  With more schools closing or downsizing and teachers who win their 3020-a hearings the ATRs are replaced by others.

One small change is that the DOE will no longer use the $2,000 fine or 30 day suspension limit to automatically put the educator in the ATR pool. .Teachers, unless they are considered a threat to students, will be sent back to their school, regardless of their or the Principal's wishes.  This change is expected to help reduce the ATR pool.  In addition, there will no longer be field supervisors who evaluate ATRs but the school principals will evaluate the ATRs

The result is that the ATR pool has remained relatively stable of around 1,200  over the last few years, despite the above DOE programs and the incentives.

Until the school-based fair student funding is changed and the DOE penalizes principals who refuse to hire ATRs, nothing will change and that includes the ATR pool,

The DOE's ATR Incentive Program Is A Joke.

We have a new Chancellor, Richard Carranza and he has claimed he will change the ideology at the DOE.  Presently, he has done little to achieve it.  School based Fair Student Funding (FSF) continues to discriminate against veteran teachers.  Most of the Bloomberg era policymakers at Tweed are still in place, and the ATR situation continues unabated.

The ATR incentive program has been a joke.  It has proven ineffective as few ATRs have achieved permanent positions unless, the ATR is a bilingual special education certification or an ATR is willing to go to the Bronx.

The ATR incentive program allows schools to hire an ATR for a vacancy and not pay the ATR's salary for the first year.  The second year the school only pays half of the ATR's salary and the third year the school pays 75% of the ATR's salary.  However, in the fourth year the school is responsible for the entire ATR salary and if it's a small school the ATR's full salary will mean a significant increase in the school's budget expenses.

Further complicating the problem is if the school hires an ATR for a vacancy provisionally and gets an effective rating.  The school must select the ATR to permanently fill the position, unless the Principal convinces the DOE that there are exceptionally circumstances of why the ATR shouldn't be selected.

Finally, the DOE has offered ATRs $50,000 to either retire or resign since the DOE's FSF and their inadequate incentive program has not reduced the ATR pool as there are still 1,000 ATRs in the pool.

If the DOE wants to significantly reduce the ATR pool then they should go back to the incentive program they had for 2010 where the ATRs hired to fill a school vacancy where only charged to the school as a "newbie teacher".  The school would then then be charged for the ATR's salary as if  the ATR started at step 1-A, then 1-B, 2-A and so on.

Mayor Bill de Blasio Needs To Revamp DOE's Teacher Hiring Process

Back in 2005, the UFT under President Randi Weingarten negotiated the worst contract in NYC education history by giving up seniority transfer and Civil Service protected bumping rights.  By doing so, it allowed  the DOE to impose school based Fair Student Funding (fsf).  The result was that it incentivized principals to hire "the cheapest and not the best teachers" for their school. Consequently, student academic achievement suffered due to the influx of cheap "newbie teachers" who lacked classroom management. curriculum expertise, and the experience to handle different student learning styles.

To fix the problem, the Mayor and Chancellor needs to eliminate school based fsf and restore District-based hiring as it was before fsf.  Moreover, all vacancies must be filled by excessed teachers in their content specialty before "newbies" can be hired.  This will eliminate the 1,000 strong ATR pool that drains the DOE coffers, help reduce class size, and eliminate the need for offering a $50,000 bribe to retire or resign from the DOE.

Until the Mayor and his Chancellor restores the old hiring process,   the DOE will continue to pay 1,000 teachers and other educators to babysit classrooms and that's a shame.

Why Doesn't The Union Fight To Eliminate School-Based Fair Student Funding?

In 2005, them UFT President, Randi Weingarten badly miscalculated and agreed to eliminate seniority transfer, which allowed the DOE to impose school-based Fair Student Funding (fsf).  Ms. Weingartem's miscalculation was that she didn't think that the DOE would allow ATRs to be without a classroom and pay 150 million dollars yearly.  However, Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg believed it was worth the extra cost to eliminate veteran teachers and close schools while hiring inexpensive "newbies" in their "education on the cheap" policy.   Of course Fair Student Funding did not affect the union leadership, only their rank and file members were affected by this perverse and discriminatory policy. 

The main reason the union leadership didn't fight fsf is that they are not affected by the policy.  Moreover, it doesn't hurt that they get double dues from the 1,300+ ATRs and the "newbies" hired by the schools in place of them.  Finally, why should the UFT President, Michael Mulgrew, butt heads with his friend the Mayor?  Better to have 1,300+ ATRs being glorified babysitters, with no right to refuse forced placements,  than advocating for their placement back in the classroom and pissing off his buddy the Mayor.

Breaking News - ATRs Are To Stay In Place For The Semester.

I have been informed that the DOE will leave ATRs in place, at the school they started in for the rest of the semester.  I had heard this rumor last month and it seems that is what has happened, with some exceptions.

Will ATRs be rotated at all?  I do believe they will be rotated for the second semester.  Let's see if that actually happens.

Just to remind ATRs, the useless rotation was proposed by the UFT leadership back in 2012 and adopted by the DOE.  So blame our union leadership for the rotation that make ATRs a stranger in a strange land.

If ATRs Had Their Own Bargaining Unit, They Would Have Voted Overwelmingly No!

The UFT contract easily passed with only school nurses voting against it.  However, if ATRs had their own negotiating unit, they would have overwhelmingly voted no!

Why did ATRs vote no?  Let me count the ways.

• ATRsa re treated as second class citizens.
• ATRs are forced placed.
• ATRs cannot refuse an assignment.
• ATRs are rotated without consent.
• ATRs have few opportunities to take per session jobs.
• ATRs are observed in strange classrooms.
• ATRs are observed by field supervisors.
• ATRs have no input in student grades.
• ATRs are discriminated by the DOE's school-based fair student funding policy.

Now you know why ATRs voted no on the contract.

Rotatuon Or No Rotation? That Is The Question.

Rumors are flying around that ATRs will stay in one school the entire school year,  However, according to the DOE ATR rotation is still in force for this school year.  When will ATRs be rotated is anybody's guess.?

Originally, ATRs were to be rotated this month and that may still be the case.  However, I have also heard that ATRs will stay in one school for the semester   It is possible that the ATRs will not be rotated at all.  Of course nobody at the DOE or UFT will confirm or dispute the rumors.

Even principals have no clue on how long they can depend on having the ATR in their school.  Therefore, they cannot assign ATRs to a class since they cannot depend on the ATR being in his or her school a month from now.

You would think that for stability sake the DOE and UFT would have come to an agreement on how long an ATR is assigned to a school.

Why ATRs Voted No On The Contract.

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.

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.

Has Anything Changed For The ATRs? No!

There was some hope that an outsider would be appointed Chancellor and "clean house" at Tweed, eliminate "Fair Student Funding", and require that all excessed teachers be placed before "newbies" could be hired.  Disappointingly, the new Chancellor, Richard Carranza, did none of the above.  While 1,000+ veteran teachers are in the ATR pool, 5,000 "newbies" were hired this school year.

Tuesday, a new school year begins and there are over 1,000+ ATRs, mostly veteran teachers, will find themselves in a strange school for a period of time until the DOE arbitrarily decides to move them to another strange school. Moreover, the ATRs will find themselves observed by both the school administration and the field supervisor while teaching in a strange classroom with students who know that the ATR doesn't control their grade.  Finally, the ATR will have no say in the school they are assigned to.

• The school has no parking?  Too bad.
• It takes over two hours by mass transit.  Tough luck.
• You are assigned to a school without an elevator.  So what.
• You have a handicap sticker and the school offers no accommodation.  That's your problem.
• You don't like the school climate?  You have no say in the matter.

We can only hope that the next contract negotiated by t5he UFT will eliminate the ATR pool by placing all ATRs in their subject area before any vacancies can be filled.  Stop with the gimmicks like provisionally placed, teaching out of license,  or giving extra periods to existing staff.

While I can hope for positive change for the ATRs, realistically, I expect.little change for the plight of the ATRs as both the present UFT leadership and the Bloomberg policymakers at the DOE accept the status quo.  Therefore, look for the ATR pool to be unaffected and that's a shame.

ATRs Are Pawns When Negotiating A New Contract.

Every chess player knows that the goal to checkmating your opponent is to sacrifice  pieces to achieve that outcome.  In chess the piece that get sacrificed most often is the pawn.  In a well played game, few, if any pawns remain on the chessboard.   The same can be said when it comes to contract negotiations between the City and the UFT.

From the 2005 contract on, the City has asked the UFT for an ATR time limit;  Checkmate had the union agreed to one.  Thankfully, our union leadership has not allowed the City to checkmate ATRs.  However,  other abuses to the ATRs has resulted in the ATR sacraficing many of their "due process" rights.  Let's look at what the union sacraficed that has made ATRs second class citizens.

• Elimination of seniority transfer and civil service bumping rights.
• Failure to fight the discriminatory Fair Student Funding formula.
• Suggested the useless and demeaning ATR rotation.
• ATRs have no say in their assignment.
• Failure to stop the ATR field supervisor observations.
• Refused to assign an ATR Chapter.
• Allows the DOE to have three ATR lists for assigning teachers to vacancies.
• Let's not forget the Scarlet Letter (flag) on a teacher's file.
• No mutual consent.

Maybe the City cannot checkmate the ATR but they can make the pawns mighty uncomfortable while trying to elude capture. 

Why Many UFT Members Are Conflicted About Paying Dues. However, ATRs Are Not.

New York City Educator wrote on his blog why we all should be paying union dues when Janus is settled.  He correctly points out why union representation is important and despite the arrogance of the union leadership, we must stand together.  I considered myself a loyal union member and help other members with their issues.  However, its hard to be loyal to a union who's leadership cares more about themselves and political favors than the members they are supposed to represent.  As an ATR I am furious how we are treated as second class citizens and if you came out of discipline, an untouchable,  Moreover, the ATRs have no chapter representation and cannot request a change of schools.  Finally, there is no mutual consent as the ATR cannot refuse an assignment.  Let's not forget the field supervisors as well.

The DOE treats the ATR as if they are "bad" or unwanted teachers as the DOE fair student funding policy makes hiring veteran ATRs financially unappealing.  The union leadership, rather than pushing the DOE to eliminate this unfair policy, looks the other way.  Notice how the ATR issue wasn't addressed by the UFT on negotiating the next contract?

When three out of four union members didn't even bother to vote in the last union election,  How many will voluntarily pay their union dues?   60%, 70% or 80%?. Who knows?  However, when it comes to the ATRs   I suspect the majority will refuse to pay their union dues since they feel the union leadership has failed to properly represent them.

While NYC Educator is right that we need a union to protect our hard won gains, the problem is that our union leadership does not deserve the respect from the members, especially the ATRs who have been betrayed time and again by the self-serving Unity leadership.

Read ATR Adventures blog for how most ATRs feel about the union leadership.

Will The DOE Protect "F" Status Field Supervisors From ATR Lawsuits? Maybe Or Maybe Not.

It has come to my attention that a teacher, who became an ATR, filed a lawsuit against the Principal and the Principal's Advisor.  Of course the Principal was protected as a DOE employee from personal liability.  However, the DOE appointed advisor was not an active employee but was defined as a consultant.  The result was the Principal's advisor was not protected by the DOE from liability.  The result was the consultant had to hire his own lawyer on his own dime.  Moreover, he ended up paying the teacher $25,000 and his own lawyer as well..

This brings me to the field supervisors (assassins).  Most of the field supervisors are retired Principals or Assistant principals.  The are hired on an "F" status basis and are considered contract employees.  Therefore, its possible that if the ATR, who feels they were unjustly evaluated by one of these "F" status field supervisors, if the ATR files a lawsuit its possible that the "F" status field supervisor would not be protected from liability by the DOE.  If that is the case, then the "F" status field supervisor would have to hire their own lawyer.

I cannot say for sure that is the case, but based on the Bronx case it might be worth the effort to sue the "F" status field supervisor and see if the DOE decides to protect them.  Ir the DOE does not protect them from liability, the result would be the eventual elimination of the "F" status field supervisors since the money they receive is not worth the risk of a lawsuit.

To Join The ATR Class Action Lawsuit It Has Been Extended To February 28th.

The potential class action lawsuit against the DOE for their discriminatory treatment of the ATRs has been extended to February 28th.  To join the lawsuit it cost $250.  Attorney Bryan Glass has agreed to file the lawsuit and he has an excellent reputation.  Mr. Glass has worked for both the DOE and NYSUT as an attorney both prosecuting and representing teachers at their 3020-a discipline hearings.

The class action lawsuit will show that the DOE discriminated against veteran excessed teachers by implementing policies that penalized schools who hired a veteran teacher.  Providing field supervisors who gave out bogus observations on ATRs who were assigned classes where they didn't know the students and had no ability to affect their grades . Refused to allow ATRs who came out of discipline to be hired by a school, despite being found innocent of the major charges against them.  Made it difficult for ATRs to apply for per session grading and other activities. 

You can read the summary at Glass Krakower​ LLP

The link can be found Here.

Will There Be Another ATR Buyout? Yes, No, Maybe.

Now that we are in the second semester of the 2017-18 school year and yet  another ATR incentive has been a failure.  The latest published data showed that only 41 ATRs were placed in vacancies, out of 1,202 at the start of the school year. While a few more may have landed permanent positions since December, the percentage of ATRs being offered a vacancy is in the single percentages.  The question is with the previous failures of the ATR incentives and the inadequate buyout packages, will the DOE propose another ATR buyout at the end of the school year?

Over the decade, the ATR pool has slowly been drained, from 2,400 at it's peak in 2008 to 1,200 this school year.  This draining is due to two primary reasons.   The first was that few schools actually closed in the last four years under Mayor Bill de Blasio and second, the average age and experience in the ATR pool is in their 50's and with eighteen years of experience.  This places them near retirement age and experience, especially the 25/55 option that many applied for.  Therefore, over the years many ATRs retired and few were replaced in the pool.  This allowed the DOE and UFT to falsely claim that they were making progress in reducing the ATR pool.  The truth is far different.

Sure two ATR buyouts resulted in approximately 220 ATRs who took the bait but almost all of the ATRs were retiring anyway!  The only way to really drain the ATR pool would be to eliminate Fair Student Funding and take staff salary considerations out of the hands of the principals.  Better, yet bring back the hiring policy that was in existence for decades that gave excessed teachers first dibs on vacancies and allowed for bumping of untenured teachers.

Back to any potential ATR buyout.  There could be one since the ATR pool is expected to swell with the closing of 14 schools and the merging of five other schools.  Moreover, two large high schools will be sending a significant number of teachers into the ATR pool as they are forced to reapply for their jobs.  The last thing the DOE and UFT want is an increase in the ATR pool. A buyout might help eliminate any increase in the ATR pool.

On the other hand, there might not be an ATR buyout since the two previous buyouts failed to significantly reduce the ATR pool.  Furthermore,  both organizations will not count ATRs in provisional positions as ATRs, even that they will be back into the ATR pool at the end of the school year.

Maybe, if a new contract is hammered out by the end of the school year, a new ATR buyout might be included in it, or maybe not.  Only time will tell.

The History Of The ATR Pool.

 



Before the implementation of the terrible, "giveback laden" 2005 contract, excessed teachers were given priority and must be placed in vacancies in their District before principals can hire from the outside.  In fact, most excessed teachers were give a list of up to six vacancies and could select the one the best suited them.  Moreover, since, all teachers were considered units, salary was not a factor.   Hiring a veteran teacher had  advantages since they possessed classroom management skills, curriculum knowledge, and institutional memory.  the schools were happy to get them  Sure, principals tried to hide vacancies, sometimes in vain, and waited until all excessed teachers in the District were placed, before filling the vacancies.  However, the bottom line was, except from obsolete titles like a typing teacher, all excessed teachers were placed in the vacancies as permanent employees of that school.

Thanks to our disconnected union leadership, they negotiated away two vital programs that allowed the DOE to create the ATR pool.  The first was the seniority transfer system that allowed veteran teachers to bump untenured teachers if they wanted the position.  The second and most important program the union agreed to eliminate was the right to bump less senior teachers if the veteran  teacher's job was eliminated.  This is a basic program for all Civil Service employees and the union agreed to this on the condition that the newly created ATR cannot be fired for not having a classroom position.  The DOE eagerly agreed to the condition and from day one in every contract negotiation the DOE has tried to renege on the deal by asking for an ATR time limit.  Failing to achieve their goal of obtaining an ATR time limit, they have gone to great lengths to tell the media that the ATRs are "bad" or "unwanted " teachers.   Now that the DOE is sick and tired of shelling out $150 million dollars annually for the ATR pool, the DOE's decade long disparaging of the ATRs has made it difficult to place them.

Fast on the heels of the terrible 2005 contract was the implementation of the destructive school based fair student funding (fsf) that penalizes schools who hire veteran teachers since under the fsf the average actual salary of the school is used and it incentives principals to "hire the cheapest and not the best teachers" for their school. Moreover, with schools funded at 85% of their fair funding, raised to 90% (apparently its only 87%( this school year, this further pushes principals to hire as cheap as possible.  The union leadership know full well what fsf meant to the ATR pool as an influx of veteran teachers were excessed due to the 162 closing schools and reduced programs as the new small Bloomberg schools that replaced the larger schools hired mostly a "newbie" teaching staff and few veteran teachers were selected.  At it's peak the ATR pool was close to 2,400 educators.

Over the years the DOE has tried to offer incentives to principals and buyouts to ATRs with limited success.  The two ATR buyouts were so inadequate only a total of 226 teachers actually took the buyouts and almost all of them were retiring anyway!  As for the incentives, the only one that had a significant impact was the November 2009 incentive that allowed principals to hire ATRs and only be responsible for the salary of a "newbie" teacher. This also coincided with a hiring freeze.

Over the years the ATR pool has slowly diminished as ATRs have retired and until next school year there were few school closings.  However, with two large high schools having staff reapplying for their positions and 14 school closings, the ATR pool will probably increase from the 1,202 at the beginning of this school year.  One negative change for the Caren Faina years was that the DOE set up three lists of ATRs.  The first were from closing schools and programs and were the only ones offered by the DOE to be hired by schools.  The second list where for ATRs who received unsatisfactory or ineffective ratings and the final list were ATRs who won their 3020-a hearings and were excluded from the hiring list by the DOE, unless there was no other ATR available in the subject are in the Borough.

What the future holds for the ATR pool is in question. Will the new Chancellor eliminate the fsf and force schools to absorb the ATRs or will it continue as is.  Only time will tell.

School Based Fair Student Funding Discriminates Against Veteran Teachers And Hurts Student Academic Achievement.

There is little question that the DOE's use of school based fair student funding has hurt student academic achievement by making it difficult, financially,  for schools to hire veteran teachers and far too many schools have teaching staff with little experience and steep learning curves.  More importantly, the academically struggling and Renewal schools suffer the most as few veteran teachers are hired and the remaining veteran teachers leave those schools for either retirement or a better teaching environment.

When school based fair student funding was proposed by the DOE in 2005, the UFT understood the implications that it would cause an explosion of veteran teachers in the ATR pool and warned the DOE not to impose such a system.  However, instead of aggressively confront the DOE and stop them in their tracks, the UFT leadership meekly allowed the DOE to do as they pleased.  The result is a continuous group of 1,200+ teachers that are excessed and due to their age, salary, and seniority, they cannot obtain a permanent position.

With the imposition of fair student funding principals were now incentivized to "hire the cheapest and not the best" teachers for their school.  The Open Market System is simply a joke for veteran teachers as fair student funding penalizes principals who want to hire a highly skilled veteran teacher.  Moreover, "newbies" are prized because they will actually lower the school's average teacher salary and if they don't work out or leave, so be it, there are other "newbies" to take their place.  Finally, every year between 4,000 and 5,000 teachers leave the system, yet the ATR pool remains stable as the few ATRs who retire are replaced by teachers excessed due to closings and downsizing or won their 3020-a termination hearings.

Please go to Bryan Glass's web page.  the teacher's Lawyer, and fill out the questionnaire, if you are an ATR as a potential class action discrimination lawsuit may be filed if enough ATRs fill out the questionnaire. 

As long as the DOE uses school.based fair student funding, discrimination against veteran teachers will continue and that's not good for student academic achievement.

DOE's ATR Placement Policy Is A Failure - Part 2.

Last month I wrote a post that suggested that the DOE's ATR placement policy was a failure, which was based upon anecdotal evidence.  Now Charkbeat has published data, supplied by the DOE that confirms my previous post. According to the Charkbeat article only 41 ATRs were permanently placed since October 15th.  That is only 10% of what the DOE anticipated with their ATR placement policy.

Interestingly all 41 ATRs who were permanently placed were excessed due to school or program closing and not due to disciplinary or legal issues.  Which strongly indicates that the ATR assignment folks keep at least two separate lists of ATRs.   Moreover, the DOE admitted that the ATR pool consists of 1,202 educators and not the 822 that they claimed previously.  Finally,  their claim that the 1,202 numbers is 20% less than last year is false   Last year's number was 1,304 and that means the actual reduction is not 20% but 7%!

Another interesting item is that the DOE has admitted that principals would have to agree to permanently hire the ATR and would not be assigned without the approval of the Principal.  A clear win for  the principals.

The bottom line the more things the DOE claims to change, the more they stay the same. The DOE's ATR placement policy is a failure.

Principals Win On ATR Placements.

According to my sources, the DOE's ATR placement policy has not significantly changed the amount of ATRs permanently leaving the ATR pool, when compared to previous years.  While the DOE's ATR buyout removed 120 ATRs from the pool.  These ATRs were retiring anyway!  The retiring ATRs were quickly replaced by the DOE's aggressive persecution of veteran teachers who were subject to 3020-a hearings and few were returned to their school after their completion.  Moreover, as some schools downsized or closed altogether, fresh blood is added to the ATR pool.  Finally, with Fair Student Funding, few, if any, veteran teachers are offered permanent positions due to their salary, age, and institutional memory.

Almost all the ATRs I know are either rotating or given a provisional position.  Of the approximately 100 or so ATRs I know, only 2 were offered a permanent position and they are both doubly certified in Special Education and ESL.  A severe shortage area.  I suspect that is the case citywide,

It certainly appears to me that the DOE's ATR placement policy is a failure and has not significantly reduced the ATR pool, once you include the provisional placements who will all be back into the ATR pool at the end of the school year,  Add the teachers from Flushing and De Witt Clinton high schools at the end of the year and it does not bode well for a reduction in the ATR pool next year.

Will the DOE approve another ATR buyout and sweeten the pot by offering a year's salary and pension credit?  Who knows but if they don't change the existing DOE policy on teacher hiring and eliminate fair student funding, that's the only way to permanently reduce the ATR pool.

Obviously, the DOE's ATR placement policy is a failure and a win for the principals who want to retain their vacancies for the next group of "newbies".