November 19, 2008

UFT, DoE Agreement Addresses ATR Educator Issue, Saves Money For Schools

Filed under: Education by Leo Casey @ 10:46 am

In an important agreement that addresses the underlying causes of the placement of growing numbers of New York City public school educators in the ATR pool, the UFT and the DoE have established a protocol to improve dramatically their placement in regular assignments. The agreement creates substantial financial incentives for schools to hire ATRs, replacing what were heavy budgetary disincentives.

The agreement was reached after the UFT responded to these growing numbers with a “Let Us Teach” campaign which profiled the committed, accomplished educators who wanted to teach and care for students, but were instead languishing in the ATR pool.

“This is a terrific agreement that benefits everyone,” said UFT President Randi Weingarten. “These experienced and qualified people have essentially seen their careers put in a holding pattern due to the downsizing or closing of schools. They have been struggling to find permanent jobs in large part because schools have been opting for less experienced personnel at lower salaries. By eliminating the financial obstacles that have prevented principals from hiring them, we should see more permanent placements, and that in turn should reduce the size of the ATR pool and save the school district money.”

Specifically, under the terms of the agreement the DoE will

  • urge school principals to hire ATR educators, and end the separation of ATRs in all job fairs/hiring halls;
  • subsidize schools that hire educators from the ATR pool the difference between a starting teacher’s salary and the cost of the ATR educator’s salary for eight years;
  • subsidize schools that hire educators from the ATR pool a lump sum equal to ½ of the salary of that educator;
  • allow schools to hire educators from the ATR pool for up to one year on a provisional basis, with the above subsidies kicking in if the school converts that hire to a permanent placement;
  • create a list of schools where ATR educators may be needed, based on factors such as school size and absences, to which educators in the ATR pool can apply for assignment.

Currently, schools are charged the full cost of the salary of all hires, and so have a substantial economic disincentive for hiring experienced, accomplished ATR educators over novice teachers. As well, the DoE has promoted the hiring of novice educators, often at the expense of experienced educators in the ATR pool.

Since this protocol is a ’side agreement,’ it leaves intact all of the existing collective bargaining agreement — in this instance, the system of mutual consent by both school and teacher in hiring and placement, the job security for current UFT represented titles and the ability to arrange a retirement buy-out for educators in the ATR pool.

The UFT and the DoE have agreed to review this agreement in a year.

The full agreement can be read here.

7 Comments »

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

  • [...] 19, Randi Weingarten spoke to John Gambling on his WOR News Talk Radio (710 AM) show about the new ATR agreement, Michelle Rhee and teacher tenure, and Randi’s recent speech in [...]

    Pingback by Audio: Weingarten On “The John Gambling Show” | Edwize — November 19, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

  • Several years ago the DoE or Board of Ed or whatever they were calling themselves) dropped unit costing of teachers.

    They bent their budgeting software in pretzels to charge each school the real cost of each teacher, but to reimburse the school at exactly that rate. “No change, no change” they lied, “nothing to worry about”

    When SBO transfers were eliminated and the “Open Market” with its vile name was introduced, lots of people, including some who should have known better, declared that this would lead to a much more ‘open’ much more level playing field. They touted the higher transfer numbers, without examining who was actually transferring.

    And then when Fair Student Funding (another lie buried in a bizarre name) was introduced, all was clear. Senior teachers wouldn’t be able to transfer; those in closing schools wouldn’t have jobs. Enough schools, along with the UFT, howled, that the DoE agreed to delay implementation. But they never backed off. Senior teachers got a short-term reprieve, but the offending condition, the threat to their jobs, was not removed.

    So senior teachers, ATRs, sat in closing schools, without work. Jobs were opening, but the DoE penalized principals for not hiring from outside the system.

    And then the financial crisis hit, and the DoE blinked. They looked bad. Not because they were misunderstood, but because the public understood them perfectly well: they intended to swallow the cost of senior teachers just to make them look bad rather than to put them to work.

    So they backed off.

    Not because the are reasonable. Not because they are nice. Because we beat them. Because they were nasty, evil, venal, and we exposed them.

    We don’t get many wins these days. But on this issue, we forced them to retreat. I;ll take wins where we get them.

    And I’ll celebrate downtown on Monday…

    Jonathan

    Comment by jd2718 — November 19, 2008 @ 5:19 pm

  • [...] Edwize [...]

    Pingback by ATR Deal - comments, no post « JD2718 — November 20, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

  • Yes Randi, ATRs have been struggling.
    However, this situation is one of the union’s making, yet I never see any newspaper comments apologizing for this grave negotiation mistake.

    I hope you realize that Rhee’s merit scheme is not going to help teachers or students unless teaching to the test becomes the only lesson children learn.

    So I just hope our union, and that includes AFT, has learned that sometimes going to the “dark side” is not always the best fit.

    Comment by Schoolgal — November 20, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

  • I am a very skeptical of the agreements we agree to and think that we’ve made TONS of mistakes in recent contracts…but I have read over this one a dozen times, thinking of every loop hole and negative that I could…I think it is VERY well written on our behalf, especially the fact that the school does not get the financial benefits unless they actually keep the ATR in a position. This is a WIN! The one small caveat is the sunset clause…but it creates a precedent that future agreements will probably be based on.

    We should all be proud of this agreement!!!!!

    David

    Comment by Teacher31231 — November 20, 2008 @ 8:37 pm

  • I just hope that this doesn’t help Klein on his quest to be Secretary of Education.

    Comment by R. Skibins — November 23, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

  • Any union leader who backs this agreement should resign.

    You people have created 4 kinds of tenure, which paves the way for throwing some of us under the bus in the next contract. That’s cause for concern condemnatioin, but not for surprise: it’s the way you always negotiate our givebacks — incrementally, hoping we don’t notice.

    This agreement only creates incentives to re-hire SOME of the ATRs back, the centrally funded ones, and Weingarten was very clever in her press release to avoid mentioning there’s more than one kind. She says there more than once that the DoE can hire “from the ATR pool,” avoiding any mention of the fact that there is no incentive whatsoever to hire back ATRs whose positions have been cut and who remain on the school’s budget.

    So, here are the 4 kinds of tenure, though I’m sure you’re not losing any sleep over what you’ve done:

    1. Tenured educators in real positions, paid out of the school’s budget.

    2. Tenured educators in real positions, paid in part by central for eight years; principals get extra money the first year to sweeten the deal.

    3. Tenured educators in provisional positions one year at a time, paid in part by central. Principals will get that extra cash only if they keep them on permanently. It’s like an auditioning for your job. Disgraceful that you allowed this.

    4. Tenured educators who will remain ATRs, paid for by central or by the school. Obviously, the least privileged category: the teacher’s qualifications and years of service make absolutely no difference to anyone. In fact, the vets are worse off, because two-for-the-price-one hiring still flourishes citywide.

    Comment by woodlass — November 29, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.