May 2, 2008

print icon

ATRS: How Low Can the DOE Go?

Filed under: Education by Ron Isaac @ 9:42 am

“How low can you go?” Chubby Checker asked that question in his 60s golden oldie song hit “Limbo Rock.” Well, ask ATRs, the poster children of limbo, (many of whom are golden oldies also) about the depths to which the DOE has sunk in their campaign of slander against them, and they will belt out something like “to the bottom of the pit of shame.” Has the DOE no honor? Can’t they choose fair play over power politics? It’s a rhetorical question asked for dramatic effect. There is only one answer and it is devilishly discouraging.

ATRs are veteran teachers who were dislodged from their positions and rendered rootless simply because their school was closed or restructured (sometimes for specious reasons).

They did not lose their jobs for any reason related to job performance. While constrained to work as substitute teachers they continue to collect full pay and benefits, which makes sense to any non-demagogue.

To get new teaching positions they must apply to principals who cannot be forced to accept them. Because the cost of teachers’ salaries is now borne by individual school budgets, principals are in effect coerced to show the kind of fiscal “leadership’ exemplified by Herbert Hoover rather than Franklin Roosevelt.

With all the gory cuts to their instructional programs and school resources imposed by the DOE’s latest round of budget slashing and burning, why would a principal hire a senior teacher instead of two novices for the same price? Therefore the displaced ATRs, among the most experienced and visionary professionals in the system are shut out and shut down. The DOE takes that as evidence that they are inept and unmotivated parasites and should all be given the bums rush. Fire them all, whoops the DOE! That would save the city 81 million dollars. It would also collapse the livelihoods and take food off the table of hundreds of perfectly innocent teachers.

The UFT came with creative ideas to place ATRs and save the city money too. They suggested using these tried and true teachers who are already being paid rather than recruiting new teachers for permanent jobs. They urged the DOE to help teachers find positions, rather than leave them stranded on their own. But after donkeys’years of going through the motions of negotiations, the DOE wouldn’t roll off their “Throw ‘em out!” mantra.

So what’s on tap on the DOE’s jukebox? Will it be the same old song and tired refrain?

For sure not Checker’s “The Twist.” Maybe that alternative number “Twist of the Knife”? And naturally the style is punk.

10 Comments »

Comments are open for registered users and do not reflect the views of the UFT. Please read our general rules for commenters.

  • Hi Red, I mean Ron,

    It’s been awhile.

    What I find amazing about this and Leo’s post is you both claim the ATR situation has something to do with the reorganization of the reorganization. But, if you check out the facts, the September after the contract was passed, Klein sent an email to all principals telling them they could not hire an excessed teachers because they were deemed “incompetent”. Even the NYTimes reported this, but not one word of Shock!! Shock!! from the UFT.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 2, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

  • Ron:
    Re. “ATRS: How Low Can They Go?”

    Here are more questions?
    Regards,
    Phyllis C. Murray

    Why don’t ATRs have a place?
    Why is school funding a disgrace?

    Why are they trying to unravel the sabbatical?
    Why is tenure viewed as something radical?

    Why are so many kids speaking incorrectly?
    Why aren’t dictionaries and thesauruses a necessity?

    Why are teachers teaching to the test?
    Why aren’t Kindergartners allowed to rest?

    Why are NYC Schools segregated?
    Why is the new curriculum over rated?

    And why do teachers have to work a second job?
    And why is it the teachers’ fault when they are robbed?

    Why must teachers purchase a “school supply”?
    Why does Teachers’ Choice begin in August and not July?

    Why is two hundred dollars,a stipend for a teacher,
    when a thousand dollars would be sweeter?

    Why is a teacher guilty until proven innocent?
    Why is everyone else’s opinion but the teacher’s more significant?

    Why are they still finding asbestos,PCBs, and lead in classrooms?
    Why do teachers’ complaints sound like looney tunes?

    Why are new teachers leaving the public school system?
    Why is it longevity is not a part of the teachers’ vision?

    Why won’t NYC public schools close in treacherous weather?
    Why is it other municipalities can “get it together”?

    Why are NYC publuc schools in such bad condition?
    Why is the government building so many state-of-the-art prisons?

    Why did they put “an army of police” in NYC Public High Schools?
    Why is there more money for metal detectors than educational tools?

    Why aren’t trees and shrubs cultivated outside school buildings?
    Why don’t that check into how school kids are living?

    Why aren’t there more gifted and talent classes?
    Why is special education more and more inclusive of inner city masses?

    Why is dissent seen as disloyalty?
    Why are unanswered questions a teacher’s reality?

    Why does one inclusion teacher have to stand alone,
    When the other teacher is sick at home?

    Why isn’t there a substitute,
    When there is plenty of budget loot?

    Why is one cluster teacher covering for two,
    When inclusion mandates what to do?

    And why are 13 students in a Special Ed class?
    And why isn’t the kid’s waiver in at last?

    Why does the teacher stand alone,
    When the Para is sick at home?

    And what happened to 12:1:1,
    Why can’t Johnny read and find the sum?

    Why is staff development for lunch,
    With Bayer & Tums the dessert teachers munch?

    Why are loss of preps an issue?
    Why is Kleenex a conference tissue?

    Why are 5 absences questioned?
    Why is a lockdown a schoolwide suggestion?

    Why are mass preps still given?
    Why are school aides and teachers driven?

    “Why they gotta open your package and read your mail”
    Why is school almost synonymous with jail?

    Why is harassment so hard to prove?
    Why are rubber rooms the next move?

    Why?

    Phyllis Murray,
    UFT Chapter Leader

    Comment by phyllis c. murray — May 3, 2008 @ 8:04 am

  • I have included aline from Randi’s letter to the ATR’s.

    ” As you recall from the meetings and correspondences since last summer, we have tried to get the DOE to be more respectful of ATRs and provide full-time placements to those of you that want them.”

    I do not understand the option for those who do not want a full time placement.
    What will their duties and functions be, and is the UFT supporting this approach.

    Comment by Love to Teach — May 3, 2008 @ 11:47 am

  • Schoolgal, I had never heard about that Klein letter to principals telling them they couldn’t hire excessed teachers. Do you have a copy of it? It’s scandalous, against the contract, and probably worth a lawsuit, don’t you think?

    Love to Teach: I don’t know what options they’re all contemplating for the future, but until now, if you did not pursue a new position, or if you did but were not granted one, or if you did and were not even granted an interview, then you’d remain in your school (or get placed in another one) and do what they assign you each day.

    This is a very viable option for a number of reasons, including but not limited to these:
    – you know and like the kids,
    – they know and like you,
    – you are comfortable with your colleagues,
    – you like the commute (or the a-c, the parking, the cleanliness of the building, elevators, etc.), and
    – you enjoy the challenge of new tasks or groups of kids each day.

    Most importantly, though, you know your enemy.

    I don’t use that term lightly, and it should never have come to this — that such a large number of administrators have become the “enemy.” But that’s what’s happened in Kleinworld. So, a position may look innocuous on paper, but there are so many poorly selected, trained and venal non-educators running schools these days that it’s sometimes plain safer to work in a place you already know. So, you opt to stay where you are. The contract (which I happen to dislike intensely) does allow this option, even if the negotiators all thought everything would work out just fine for the ATRs when they signed it.

    Comment by JW — May 3, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

  • Look Love,

    Your point regarding those who are collecting a salary and yet have not actively tried to secure a position will be a hard pill for the public (and some teachers) to swallow. Had the UFT brought suit right away in Sept. ‘06 when Klein instructed principals not to hire “undesirables” as he called ATRs, we would have a better case with public opinion. Unfortunately, the UFT let that remark pass and some ATRs felt, “what the heck, I am still getting paid, so why get a position”. Edwize (either CitySue or Maise) responded that ATRs are very happy because they do not have the stresses and can still collect a salary. Pretty stupid response from Edwize. The UFT was so busy trying to sell the Open Market, that they ignored Klein’s attack because to do so would have admitted they made a giant mistake. With so many schools facing closing next year, the ATR payroll has to increase. That is why ATRs will be protected until the end of this contract. After that, it is highly possible that these teachers will be unemployed. And that is the price of voting on a contract based on salary only.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 3, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

  • Schoolgal,

    If it’s a hard pill for the public and some teaches to take, then it’s the Union’s job to change that perception. It didn’t, and it’s not clear whether they were just outsmarted when they agreed to it or thought that ATRs would be just have to be collateral damage if at some point down the line they’d have to bargain away no-layoff.

    I have spoken with a number of ATRs. Most of them “actively tried” to get a job and found the system was rigged against them — brutally. They went online and didn’t even get an interview, they went to job fairs and had to wait until all the newbie teachers got interviewed first. Alarming, demeaning, and unfair.

    As to your comment about some ATRs saying “What the heck, I am still getting paid, so why get a position,” it’s wrong to assume what ATRs felt last spring or continue to feel 8 months into this.

    First of all, we’ve been scared the whole time of losing our jobs permanently. We don’t trust the union. We actually have no reason trust the union. It’s also not all that pleasant going into a building where you’re not wanted on the payroll — it’s kind of like being a second-class citizen. As the year progressed, we became more fearful of the next step, when principals could try to intimidate us out of our job, push us to retire earlier than desired or get us expelled through trumped-up 3020a charges.

    In any case, it’s a callous remark. There are probably just as many (or more) teachers who are not ATRs saying “What the heck, I’m still getting paid, let me do the minimum I can get away with.” Being an ATR doesn’t make you a better or worse teacher than anyone else. There are people in positions and not in positions who don’t take as much interest in their job as they should.

    The membership must hold together on on all things that affect the membership. They must really THINK this could happen to them (even if it’s not likely to) and not buy into thinking that ATRs are slouchers, or not doing enough for themselves. It’s divisive to think that way.

    If you want the ATRs to go out and look for their next job, then I say: Okay, make EVERYONE go search for a new job each year. That’s obviously outrageous, but it’s also pretty outrageous to assume excessed people should go out looking for a job when it’s one of the very reasons why people choose teaching in NYC, to get the kind of job security you don’t get when you work in suburban townships.

    There’s a couple of other parity issues, by the way, that no one is talking about.

    First, the teachers of core subjects will mostly always have a job until they wish to retire, because the principal would have to cut many positions in that subject before a senior person could be eliminated, and they’re just not going to be able to do that. But with the electives, where there is only one of you in the building, maybe two, your position can be cut easily. And it’s been done often enough these past five years — to save money, or in the name of more literacy and math as in 2003. All these new schools that have been created don’t start with a full range of subjects. It takes time to get those electives back into the course offerings.

    I hope you can see that some people will ride out their careers pretty safely without having to look for a job. Are you suggesting that ATR teachers in the electives should be HAPPY about job-hunting every time a principal or Klein cuts their position, while core subject teachers will never really be put into that position? We pay the same dues as other teachers, but our jobs will always be more fragile, especially in hard times. It would be terrifically unfair if the very nature of one’s subject — whether it’s an elective or otherwise hard to come by — puts some members out there knocking on doors more frequently than other members, whose very subjects are more secure.

    As it is (and here’s another parity issue that’s not been addressed), ATRs are barred from per session, which means they don’t have a way to maximize their gross pay in the three years prior to retirement that count towards their pension calculation. This is already unfair to the senior ATRs, and no one is rushing to help us out here. I’m not sure they even thought about it until recently, when I brought it up.

    Remember, too, that some of these electives teachers have, by contract, been teaching larger classes their whole career (50 for music and phys ed). That’s a third parity issue that’s not been addressed, and I’ve brought this one up up many times, to no avail.

    Solidarity.

    PS: Do you have a copy of that Klein letter telling principals not to hire ATRs?

    Comment by JW — May 3, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

  • JW

    I said that given Edwize’s response that ATRs are happy because they are getting paid without having the stress of a classroom job, and didn’t blast the Klein email, I could understand the “What the heck” attitude. Yet, I don’t see your comment blasting Edwize’s “happy comment”. A few issues back an ATR wrote a very moving letter in NYTeacher explaining how awful it felt to be in that position.
    The Editor responded by reminding the writer ATRs are still being paid and ignored the emotional plea of the writer.

    The story of the Klein email appeared in September ‘06 in the Times and I believe the Post and News. I don’t have a “copy” because I am not a principal. But, I was outraged and the UFT should have been too.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 4, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

  • JW,

    I would also like to add that you need to re-read my comment instead of taking it out of context. I said the “next contract” will probably not protect the ATRs. I wasn’t speaking in the present. If you have reason to believe that the next contract will protect you, then you do trust this union more than I. And, I hope you are the one who is right. But if I am not, and with a number of schools closing in the Fall, I have to be realistic in wondering if the city will be willing to cover their salaries again.

    Again, you will see that my comment was in complete agreement with yours.
    I had expressed my outrage on this blog back in ‘05 and was against the ATR provision. I voted No to that contract due to that provision.
    If you check the Edwize archives for Sept, Oct and November of ‘05, you will know how strongly I fought. I just wish others could have agreed with their vote.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 4, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

  • N.Y./Region

    Klein Halts Plan to Make Schools Take Unassigned Teachers
    By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

    Published: September 2, 2006

    On the eve of the new academic year, Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein abruptly scrapped plans to impose a hiring freeze that would have forced principals to fill any last vacancies with unassigned teachers already in the system.

    Mr. Klein said yesterday that it was more important for principals to choose their own staff than it was for the city to place potentially undesirable veteran teachers who must stay on the payroll even if no school offers them a position. Read full article.

    Comment by Schoolgal — May 4, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

  • We are in agreement all the way. I just slightly misread this bit: “Unfortunately, the UFT let that remark pass and some ATRs felt, ‘what the heck, I am still getting paid, so why get a position’” — in the sense that since I never heard any of them say that, I thought you were FEELING or THINKING they were saying it. Thanks for clarification.

    Most importantly: same as you, I absolutely do not think the ATRs are safe, in this contract or in the next one. If nothing else works to get us off their budget, principals always have the failsafe option to U-rate them: this year, the next year, until bye-bye. I wanted to work my 25, don’t think it’ll happen in this environoment.

    Comment by JW — May 4, 2008 @ 6:22 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.