Why in the era of Newtown and Parkland are ATRs denied keys for locking their room?

Last week 17 people, students and staff, have lost their lives to gun violence on campus.

One key way that teachers helped many students to survive in the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was to lock the classroom doors.

A lesser well known ugly truth is that in members of the Absent Teacher Reserve are often not given keys that allow them to lock the classroom doors. ATRs know why this is done. ATRs are treated as pariahs. Neglecting the needs to equip with them with the essential tools to do their job is another way to ostracize and demoralize them. However, declining to give ATRs classroom keys is a serious safety problem. The NYC Department of Education has done a cruel thing in failing to see that ATRs are fully equipped. The DOE and the UFT have known that this is an ongoing problem. They are both failing in a duty of leadership and rectifying this.

Deadline of ATR class action suit against the NYC DOE extended to end of month

The deadline for joining the class action suit of ATRs against the New York City Department of Education has been extended to Friday, February 28, 2018.

See the post from last week for details on the excessed teachers' lawsuit.

ATRs are suing the DOE!

EDIT: The class action joining deadline is moved forward.
It's finally happening: New York City ATRs are suing the city Department of Education.

Members of the Absent Teacher Reserve, or ATRs, are getting fed up: fed up with the field supervisors doing bogus observations in classrooms teachers just encountered, principals run amuk, writing up veteran teachers for petty things so that the DOE can quickly lower salary costs and relieve a teacher of full pension, fed up with the blatant age discrimination, and OF COURSE, fed up with the union (the UFT) for saying the DOE's line that teachers could get real assignments, if only they polished their resumes and had modern skills.

The law firm of Glass and Krakower (www.ghnylaw.com) is taking up a class action lawsuit on the case. They are an established practice with successes in challenging cases of teacher abuse. As part of the case, the legal team is looking into ways that teachers that teachers have been abused in their particular cases.

Here is the link. There is a deadline of February 9.

www.ghnylaw.com/atrsuit

And a form, associated with the suit to fill out: http://teacherslawyer.blogspot.com/2017/12/asking-courts-if-fair-student-funding.html?m=1

ATR's letter, on legal issues we face

A letter by an ATR to attorney Maria Chickedantz:

Dear Ms. Chickedantz,

   I thought I would present my views on the ATR issue to you by e-mail, for discussion at the April 20th scheduled meeting.

   I recently retired after 25+ years as a secondary high school Social Studies teacher. From March 2011 until my retirement, I was an ATR, rotating among Queens High Schools.

   I contend that the DOE treatment of ATRs has been arbitrary and capricious, violating the UFT contract and resulting in discrimination in the work place.

   Reasons:

1) There is no written policy by the DOE stating expectations and responsibilities for ATRs. The schools do not expect us to teach lessons or have lesson plans, yet many of the DOE roving supervisors do. As ATRs, we are substitutes, and are expected to carry out lesson materials that are left by the absentee teacher. It is accepted that it is the school's responsibility to provide lesson materials if none is left by the absentee teacher. Yet, there are roving supervisors who expect to see ATRs with generic lesson plans, teaching classes, even outside their lesson areas, which is unrealistic, setting up the teacher for failure. 

2) Again, without any written policy, the DOE allows the roving supervisors to observe an ATR in a teaching capacity, with a class and students the ATR is not familiar with. Again, this is arbitrary and capricious, setting the teacher up for failure. These observations have nothing to do with our job duties as ATRs, covering classes for absentee teachers. It also violates the UFT contract, Article 7A, which stipulates that teachers must have programs with specific subjects and classes. Since ATRs do not,they can not be fairly evaluated as teachers.

3) The evaluation system by roving supervisors is arbitrary and capricious because not every ATR is assigned one. In the three years roving supervisors  were in place, I had one only one year.

4) Principals and DOE abuse ATRs by using them to cover teaching  assignments with out hiring permanently. Principals are not charged for ATRs that are used provisionally and thus save money by dismissing them at end of semester.

5) Even though there are generally over 1000 ATRs in any given school year, the DOE discriminates by hiring between 4 and 5 thousand new teachers annually

Solution:

DOE must place ATRs in available positions on a permanent basis by seniority, before hiring new teachers. In this way, they can be fairly evaluated like other teachers.This also solves the problem of an ATR pool for the future.

Thank you for your consideration in possible litigation on behalf of ATRs. The UFT does not choose to advocate for us.

Sincerely,

James Calantjis

Teachers appeal to the union, in defense of an ATR

EdNotes reported that teachers at a MORE caucus leaning school were upset with how an ATR was being treated by the field supervisor who was visiting the ATR at the school.The teachers gave the ATR teacher their backs by signing letters of support for the excessed teacher! The union needs to wake up and show the same level of commitment that Mike, EdNotes and the teachers at this school did for this ATR.

ATRs experiencing the DOE railroading and inadequate UFT defense need to get involved in the class action lawsuit.

Teachersat Elementary School Support ATR With Letters of Support

There's an ATR in my school that is going through hell 

with his field supervisor.  My CL had the UFT Dist Rep come to our school to meet with the ATR when his field supv scheduled a meeting with the ATR and was planing to bring another field supv with her.  I suspect she was bringing back up bc the last time she was at our school the ATR asked me to be present (CL was unavailable at the time).  She refused to have a discussion with him in my presence (as his union representation). My heart goes out to this guy bc it seems clear to me he is being set up for a U rating.  He comes to our school and is given whatever coverage is available and he truly does his best to assist our kids as best he can under these circumstances.  We can look out for him as long as he is at PS -- but we can't do anything about his field supv ratings and once he's gone I'm assuming he won't find the same support elsewhere.  Is there anyone he can contact to help him navigate the bullshit?... This is the first ATR we've had that has told me their story.  I'm always welcoming to them and let them know we have an honest CL they can reach out to but since they don't know me they rarely open up like this guy did.  He overheard a conversation I was having about the state of our union and gambled I could be trusted.  This guy said PS --- is the first school he's been in where he feels some union strength-.... Thanks for everything you guys do----teachers would have no avenues to follow if it weren't for people like you. .... email to MORE activists from former chapter leader

This was sent to Mike Schirtzer and myself from a trusted supporter and source. (I'm not using her name or school to protect the ATR who could be traced - she would be fine with using her name.)

She noticed a very competent ATR being harassed in her school and jumped in to support him along with her colleagues. That school has 40 people signed up to be MORE members. (They could have even run their own slate in the UFT elections out of their school alone.)

Having his story reinforced by a trusted teacher and former chapter leader is immense. Our advice to her was to gather support within the school for the ATR by writing letters about his work in the school for him to use in a defense and she did exactly that.

She put me in touch with the ATR and we spoke for hours and I got the full story of the actions of his field supervisor and her cohorts. His story is very credible. And there might even be religious persecution issues on the table.

During our conversation he mentioned others in some schools, including principals, who praised his efforts. I suggested he start gathering names and numbers and possible statements. If they bring him upon 3020a charges, there will be a list of witnesses for him.

We hear so many complaints from ATRs about the treatment they get from colleagues in schools they are sent to. One ATR I spoke too calls the field supervisors "failed supervisors." The apparently awful James Quail, a former principal and district superintendent from my district whom I've known since 1970, is the grim reaper of field supervisors, pops up in the picture. 

We hear a lot about the gotcha mentality of ATR field supervisors - the DOE wasteful jobs program for retired principals.

See- 

• Chaz's School Daze: A Letter To A Field Supervisor From A Disrespected ATR.

We also hear lies and slanders from people with their own political agenda that MORE is not supportive of ATRs when in fact the members of MORE who have influence in their schools bend over backwards to be supportive, as this story confirms.

The ATR told me that this school had the most serious sense of union of any school he has been in since he became an ATR. And there is no little irony that the school leans toward MORE instead of Unity for support.

The MORE contact, upon seeing an ATR who had impressed people in the school come under attack by a new field supervisor (the old one found no fault), took action by writing letters of support for the ATR and sending them out to come point people at the union and possibly the DOE with more people to come if the harassment continues. They also gave the ATR copies. And she went in when he met with the Field Supervisor at one point and at another with a district rep. 

When will the UFT say something about the enormous waste in paying field supervisors to observe people functioning as substitute teachers? Do they observe regular subs? Did anyone in the history of this school system spend time and money to observe subs?

This is the letter that has been sent to Amy Arundell at the UFT who has contacted me -- and repeatedly - that she will get involved. I give Amy the benefit of the doubt and will track the outcome.

Dear Amy Arundell,

Mr. X is an ATR who was sent to our school for one of his temporary assignments. He arrived at school each morning and performed his duties as a substitute teacher in various classes depending upon which of our teachers was absent that day. He made the best of a very difficult situation. Although he did not know our students and did not know what grade or type of class (self-contained, ICT, bilingual, general ed) he would be assigned to cover, he engaged the students and we were happy to have him as part of our school community. He was punctual, respectful and eager to assist our school community on each day he arrived in our school.

As you are aware, ATRs are given sub assignments no different from day-to-day subs, yet they are observed and are expected to teach as if they have the same familiarity with the class as a permanent staff member would be expected to have. This unfair process allows for abuse on the part of field supervisors who too often act as if they are observing a teacher who has spent months with the children they are teaching rather than someone who has met a class for the first time and may have zero experience with that particular grade or may be teaching a class out of their license area.

We are writing to you, the UFT rep who is assigned to assist ATRs, to express our concern that Mr. X is being set up for failure by his field supervisor who, in our opinion, has been less than professional and fair with him. This concern was brought to the attention of UFT District --- Rep,  who promptly came to our school and met with Mr. X and his field supervisor Ms. Y as well as an additional field supervisor, who was invited by Ms. Y. The fact that Ms. Y felt it necessary to invite a co-worker to attend reeks of intimidation. It is the reason we asked [the dist rep] to come to the school when this meeting was scheduled. It was clear to us that Mr. X was about to be unfairly tag-teamed by two field supervisors as an act of intimidation. There is no other reason for two field supervisors, paid by the tax payers, to do the job of one field supervisor.

Mr. X has finished his rotation at PS X. But we have told him to think of PS X as his home school and to keep in touch with us regarding his treatment elsewhere. We are asking that you initiate and maintain contact with Mr. X and ensure that he is not scapegoated out of a job in order for a field supervisor to make her bones with the DOE. Based on how Mr. X conducted himself at PS X, it is clear to us that the man deserves to keep his paycheck and benefits. We believe in having a strong union that looks out for our most vulnerable members and it is our hope that you will demonstrate that such strength still exists. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely, 

CL, PS X Chapter Leader

------, Former PS ----- Chapter Leader

---------------------------

Dear -------

We the undersigned support our union brothers and sisters who are ATRs. Our current and former chapter leader keep us informed on union matters and we realize that ATRs have lost their permanent positions through no fault of their own We realize that our school could be phased out in the near future and we too could find ourselves in an ATR pool where we will be vulnerable to lose our jobs, pensions and health benefits. We feel strongly that ATRs be protected and we ask that Mr. ....... be treated in a manner we would expect to be treated under such circumstances. It is our hope that Mr. ........ is not left hanging out on a limb without support now that he has left our school. We hope that our union stands by him and protects him from any injustices that he may face in his future as he travels from school to school as an ATR. It is what we would want our union to do for us if we had to walk in his shoes. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

PS ..... Staff Members (signed below)

A reminder: ATRs that are seeing themselves heading in the direction of a U rating for the year are urged to contact DOEatreducators@gmail.com, about joining a class action suit.

ATRs' lawsuit on observation violations

Some ATRs are starting a class action suit on the issue of observations.

The lawsuit focuses on making a complaint contending that the DOE has violated the DOE-UFT contract regarding ATRs, specifically, on DOE violations of “Teaching for the 21st Century.” You can access the document here: http://www.uft.org/files/attachments/teaching-for-the-21st-century.pdf

The UFT has this page on observation rights as well: http://www.uft.org/doe-documents/observation-evaluation

There is a goal of January 28 for having names and grievances for starting a lawsuit. Those interested in joining should do so by contacting the email address below. Please email that address or the address at the top of this page for the problematic points that you should be noting.

Please send your name as a contact if you might be interested in joining this potential suit, to doeatreducators@gmail.com.

UFT to ATRs: your job in schools is to prep for the field supervisor; you need to advocate for yourselves

Another big topic at the UFT's official ATR meetings was observations and field supervisors.

For other topics this month in these meetings, see the postings here and here.

When you break down what the UFT's official representative says to us: your mission comes to this: your duty over all else is to be ready for demo lessons. The other tricky thing is that she is telling us that we have to do the UFT's and the DOE's work in correcting local administration misdeeds.

We are supposed to have demo lessons ready for use in case our field supervisor appears.  All UFT instructions to us are shaped around the eventuality that a field supervisor appears.
(Of course, this conflicts with the nominal purpose of our work: substituting for absent teachers in the absent teacher's subject. See this blog posting about how this naturally sets up a conflict with the students.)

Reflecting the steady theme that our main mission is to prepare for field supervisors is Amy Arundell's statement to one member that asked, how is it fair that we are judged on a lesson out of our subject, that another teacher has left, and how are we to be responsible for sub lessons that are imperfect? Her answer was that in the event that the students are distracted and off-task, then we should switch subjects and assignments and bring in our own sub lesson.

What is highly problematic is that we are judged on following certain guidelines given to ATRs. Yet, these guidelines are only distributed at the ATR meetings. And many ATRs were unaware of these meetings or the high value information disseminated at these meetings. These guidelines are not sent to all ATRs from the UFT or the DOE via email or US mail. They are not posted on the DOE or UFT websites. Wouldn't this call the absurdity and offensiveness for all to see if they were posted this way?

Thus, the DOE & the UFT treat these stipulations as the real contract. But only a fraction of the ATRs are at these ATR meetings. So, we are subject to what the DOE/UFT treat as the official contract, a contract that most ATRs are not informed of. Never mind that these stipulations of supplanting nominal class topics with our own lesson agendas or the overriding mission that we make all of our attention for the likelihood of being observed by the roving field supervisor are not in the general DOE-UFT contract or in the (between official contracts) periodically renegotiated DOE-UFT side agreements on ATRs.

Adding to the contradictory messages is the DOE/UFT line that the field supervisors are helping us find positions (which is why they ask us for our resumes). This is a highly doubtful mission of the field supervisors, because as all parties know, it is extremely rare for teachers to get placed, due to Fair School Funding, which Unity Caucus-UFT agreed to in 2007.  See this blogpost explaining how post-2018 contractual conditions drive principals to be risk-aversive and avoid hiring ATRs. With all of the observations happening it is more likely a Russian Roulette.

These are all serious concerns as the DOE has issued U ratings to ATRs based on sub setting observations.

As always comes up in these meetings the local (school) DOE administrators --usually at new, small schools-- violate the agreements. One of the most common violations is assigning ATRs to duties outside the contractual agreement, or duties such as standing hall duty if there is no sub assignment. The UFT rep at the meetings tells us that we must challenge the local administrators. This puts us in an awkward position. We could be brought up on insubordination charges or at least labeled as having a bad attitude.

Members will be relieved to know that two particular field supervisors have been removed, but the UFT cannot inform us who they are.

One major detail is that not all ATRs get field supervisors. A common thread among those getting them is that they are upper ranges of years with the DOE. It has been revealed by some retired principals that the DOE has certain spreadsheets flagging staff by salary, and that targeting is concentrated on higher salary staff. Another factor in play as to whether teachers get targeted by field supervisors is whether teachers have taken many sick days. This is problematic because this creates an inducement to not stay home and shield staff and students from one's illness. Also, it intimidates teachers and other excessed staff from giving attention to ailing children or parents. The latter is particularly a problem for the middle aged ATRs who are tending to rising needs of aging parents. What an awful thing to do- pressure people to keep a distance from parents in their parents' last years.

Basically, the UFT is telling us that we have to be our own advocate. In fact our appointed advocate has said so much: "You have to stand up for yourselves!"  This is problematic. The UFT must have high-level meetings with  the DOE to enforce these. When the DOE wants something done it makes sure all principals comply, such as training in security procedures. (By the way, parents would be interested in knowing that ATRs are routinely denied keys. In emergencies teachers are supposed to lock rooms. But this is not an option for ATRs, since they are usually denied keys.)

Besides, ATRs have enough stress, preparing for lessons for kids we don't know and trying to fit in, in alien territory, to have the added job of advocating for ourselves.

Hey, UFT, do your job and advocate for us. Don't expect us to do it.

UFT to ATRs: We're not going to advocate for you -- On the eve of the Friedrichs decision the UFT talks like this?

The UFT held official ATR meetings at the boro offices in recent weeks. As pointed out earlier, there were many problems with how the meetings were timed. They were inappropriately timed for actual teacher schedules.

The way that the meetings were conducted were problematic. These were informational meetings, with Amy Arundell speaking in a yelling tone for about an hour. She repeated some points several times. Her taking up most of the time with a one-way delivery was similar to the way that President Mulgrew takes up over an hour with his running monologue at the Delegate Assemblies that leave little time at the end for member questions. As one commenter reported, her response to one member was, "OK, Mr. glass is half-empty." Is this any way for a representative to speak to a member? Shouldn't a union (or rather, Unity caucus) that staunchly refuses to allow members for represent themselves speak in a more cordial manner? Or is the union so arrogantly confident of its power that it doesn't need to consider how it speaks to members?

While the UFT could be facing the end of the union in terms of dues income, the UFT is acting in as cavalier a fashion as it ever has. Is it any wonder that Arundell speaks so flippantly? This is a union that takes a King George III approach to representation on the question of ATR representation. With this kind of attitude is there any way that the union expects to successfully appeal to ATRs for dues if the Friedrichs decision turns government employee unions into open shop unions? Is the UFT planning to cut us loose?

The comments below speak to the reactions that many ATRs have had about the UFT's position during these meetings, that the UFT is acting more as an arm of the NYC Department of Education, just echoing the DOE's line. ATRs have consistently said that observations of ATRs in subbing situations are deeply problematic and illogical. (On the issue of ATR observations, see here and here. Here is the UFT's justification of the observations. What clearer case do we have that the UFT is operating as the arm of the DOE?) Instead of hearing our concerns, the UFT representative has spoken in a scolding tone to the ATRs, delivering what the ATRs must do. It's interesting that past guideline sheets that the UFT gave the ATRs spoke of rights and responsibilities. This year's sheets just spoke of ATRs' responsibilities. Why the change? This is a union that speaks to the members, rather than being influenced by its members.

The DOE has succeeded in imposed on ATRs conditions that are imposed outside of the contract. Related to this comment:  "Why is there not an official document from the UFT and DOE stating these expectations for ATRs? Instead, there is collusion between the UFT and DOE to allow harassment of ATRs behind the scenes." nowhere in the contract is there anything about conditions under which ATRs can be observed. It's not surprising that this is the case, because the UFT would probably not be able to logically justify the inappropriate conditions that it allows and that it directs ATRs to follow, through directives in the informational meetings.

The following is from an email addressed to UFT ATR rep Amy Arundell, UFT president Michael Mugrew, Queens boro rep Rona Freiser, Queens High Schools district rep James Vasquez and alternate district rep Washington Sanchez. Following that letter is an ATR's analysis of the UFT's position in the meetings.

 Dear Ms. Arundell,

 If this account of the ATR meeting is correct, the UFT is not advocating for us. This position sounds like it came directly from the DOE.

 These are unrealistic expectations set up for  ATRs to fail. How absurd is it to expect teachers covering classes to have lesson plans when the reality is that they don't know what their assignments are until they arrive to work. In addition, the school's expectation is for the teacher to implement the lesson that was left by the absentee teacher, which is usually only a handout.Many times, there is no absentee materials, in which case you "baby sit" the class. In four years as an ATR, I have never been asked to have a lesson plan for a coverage by a school.

 Why this disconnect between the school reality and these expectations? Would you be able to teach a lesson to a class out of subject or teach a different subject and have the students cooperate? In addition, is it not so that if a teacher who is observed out of license, that lesson can not be used in a final evaluation? 

  It seems the UFT wants to be" politically correct" rather than confront the DOE in advocating for ATRs.

 Why is there not an official document from the UFT and DOE stating these expectations for ATRs? Instead, there is collusion between the UFT and DOE to allow harassment of ATRs behind the scenes.

 Ms. Arundell, it is assumed you are a mouthpiece for the UFT position. If not, you should be replaced as the ATR liason.

To Mr. Mulgrew I say, do the right thing  and have the courage to advocate for the ATRs who are being subjected to stressful and unrealistic working expectations.

Sincerely,

James Calantjis

HS Educator

Hi all, 

I went to a Queens UFT ATR meeting several days ago.

Instead to oppose the shameful treatment of ATRs by their field supervisors,  UFT actually agrees with all of the DOE inhumane demands as:

1. Field Supervisors may conduct unannounced, informal observations. These may be done even if you are covering a class out-of-license.
 (As [an arts] teacher, I'm required to actually teach [a foreign language]!?!)

2. If your Field Supervisor and you agree on a time to be formally observed, but on that day the needs of the school dictate that you must cover a class out-of-license, you can still be observed, but the observation must be informal. 
(What a sudden psychological shock that can cause a heart attack!)

3. Field Supervisor may request a copy of your lesson plan, in conjunction with an observation. You should always have a copy of a lesson plan, either one you wrote, or one that was left for you. 
(But, an absent teacher almost never leaves his/her lesson plan; usually they leave only a handout, if so.)

4. Whether you are observed or not, if you are covering a class out of license, and you are not provided with a sub-lesson plan, you may teach a lesson in your license area. 
(This is crazy for several reasons - that the students will not listen to you since a) you teach a different subject b) they treat you as a substitute teacher whom usually they do not listen at all!)

Comments about these UFT recommendations???

Why does the DOE insist on putting ATRs in the position of usurping topics for students' classes?

Following on some other questions that we posed to the UFT, ATRs should also pose to these questions to the UFT this week at meetings:
Why is New York City DOE expecting ATRs to displace the subject agenda of the classes that they cover? Why is the UFT acting as the glove to the DOE's hand on this policy? It's a disservice to both students and teachers.

This week the UFT is holding informational meetings in which it tells ATRs what the DOE expects of them. In previous years the UFT told ATRs not to worry about the field supervisors, that the only ATRs getting U ratings are ATRs having attendance or conduct problems. However, in the 2014 to 2015 school year numerous ATRs got career threatening U ratings. As noted recently, because of the rash of the U-ratings that teachers suddenly received after two decades of unblemished services, some ATRs have begun pursuing lawsuits. The UFT, incredibly, has staunchly backed the expectation that ATRs be evaluated in subbing contexts. In a vastly under-recognized problem that the union is ignoring, many decent teachers are receiving U-ratings with students that they have just met. Read this Chaz blog post and this post too. Just how will the UFT defend its record if the Supreme Court's decision on the Friedrichs v. CTA case goes the wrong way for teachers' unions? "Be thankful you've got a job" doesn't cut it when the UFT is asleep at the switch on the issue of inappropriate field observer observations that become U-ratings for the year.


It is a good occasion then, to closely examine the awkward and contentious role that ATRs are put into as they impose their lessons that are often irrelevant and disruptive to students' daily class schedules.

For the general public and for ATRs new to the rotation process:
In normal school systems and in the NYC DOE before rotation of ATRs began in 2011, schools had teachers provide their assistant principals with timely lesson plans that fit in with the sequence of topics in the calendar of lessons that teachers had with classes.

However, since the DOE began rotating excessed teachers, it has expected ATRs to bring in lessons of their own into classrooms. So, in the Bloomberg and not really post-Bloomberg era, administrators and regular classroom teachers usually have no lesson for the ATRs. This means that not only are the students missing out on an education by the absence or their teacher, there is no appropriate lesson for the ATR substitute teacher to deliver to the students. The students' sequence of learning is disrupted.

Just what does the DOE expect for the ATR to do in this situation? The DOE official policy is that when neither the school administration, nor the absent teacher leaves a lesson the ATR should bring in their own lesson. And given that most ATRs are displaced specialists of some sort, an art teacher, an earth science teacher, an English teacher, a math teacher, a reading specialist, a social studies teacher, they have very specialized backgrounds and very specialized lessons. However, often the subject specialty does not match the subject that the ATR is covering.

Thus, the application of the DOE rules means that in art class the ATR following the DOE field supervisor mandates must intrude with their own lesson. This means that students enter their third period art studio class fully expecting to do some drawing. Yet, the English Language Arts teacher must deliver a Common Core lesson, engage the students and get some written work from the students. If the ATR does not impose her own lesson, she will risk running into trouble with her field supervisor. Not surprisingly, this introduces tension between the students and the teacher right off the bat. The students will say, "This makes no sense. This is an art class, not an English class. I'm not going to do this." The ATR that wants to stay on good graces with the field supervisor she will tell the students, "Just please do my lesson. I'm only following orders."

Just imagine the kind of conversation that this can lead to when the kids go home?
"How was school today? What did you do in art class?"
"We didn't do art. We had to read some English teacher's Common Core reading passage and work in groups on a graphic organizer."

Even if the period's subject matches the ATR's subject expertise this leads to conflicts. We are not in France, where every class across the city is on precise the same topic on September 29. Earth science ATRs can have a fine lesson, only to be told "we learned that last week!"

Isn't this a great disservice to students? The UFT claims to care about students and families. Then why does it aid and abet the hijacking of students' scheduled topics for the purpose of ATR's demo lessons in preparation for field supervisor fly-by observations?

Isn't this a disservice to teachers? Can't the UFT understand that teachers don't like disrupting students' schedule of lessons with irrelevant topics to students' scheduled topic for the period? This is no insignificant matter, particularly as many field supervisors are giving out career-endangering U-ratings.

Lawsuit material & official ATR meetings

When observations in rotations began in fall, 2011, the UFT was full of excuses. Observations in rotation were appropriate, they were in just a few districts and lastly, they were just part of a pilot program.

Now that these observations, are in full bloom, the U ratings are piling up. The teachers are observed out of grade license; they are observed out of subject license.  They are observed with students they have just met. The students know that they can misbehave, pay no attention, with no consequences to them. And now, with the all electronic devices access rights, teachers have an additional impediment handicapping their ability to maintain classroom management, an issue that then UFT secretary Michael Mendel said in fall 2011 was appropriate to judge ATRs on. 
For discussion of this absurdity, countenanced by the UFT, see this June's "Field Supervisors, the proverbial DOE Sandmen vs. ATRs."

As U ratings rain upon ATRs, the UFT's response? "We'll contest them when your 3020-a hearings come up."

Now, we hear that lawsuits are being planned. Is it any wonder?



Incidentally, amidst the chaos, the UFT is having its yearly borough-level meetings. Here is the 2015 schedule of official ATR meetings, in case you are not in the loop:

We hope that your year is off to a good start. As promised, we are contacting you to let you know that the UFT will be holding informational meetings for ATRs in the coming weeks. Whether you are new to the ATR pool or not, we want to make sure you have the opportunity to ask questions and get answers.

Here are the dates and locations:

Queens

• Date: Monday, Sept. 28
• Time: 4–6 p.m.
• Location: UFT Queens borough office at 97-77 Queens Blvd. Directions »

Bronx

• Date: Monday, Sept. 28
• Time: 4–6 p.m.
• Location: UFT Bronx borough office at 2500 Halsey St. Directions »

Manhattan

• Date: Thursday, Oct. 1
• Time: 4–6 p.m.
• Location: UFT headquarters at 52 Broadway Directions »

Staten Island

• Date: Thursday, Oct. 1
• Time: 4–6 p.m.
• Location: UFT Staten Island borough office at 4456 Amboy Road Directions »

Brooklyn

• Date: Monday, Oct. 5
• Time: 4–6 p.m.
• Location: UFT Brooklyn borough office at 335 Adams St. Directions »

Field Supervisors, the proverbial DOE Sandmen vs. ATRs

Teacher ratings for the year are out and the DOE is giving career jeopardizing evaluation ratings that arise from teaching in substituting contexts. New York City excessed teachers, ATRs, if you haven't gotten your rating yet, click to this link.

As being covered well at the Chaz blog and the ICEUFT blog, the DOE has been giving U ratings to ATRs in substitute assignments. Read the blogs. Are there any ATRs writing comments defending the DOEUFT's status quo, defending the UFT's performance?

The observations of ATRs in rotating assignments is unprofessional and unacceptable on several counts:

*The ATRs often don't know the students.

*The ATRs often have been covering a class out of license, with or without the regular teacher's lesson plan.

*The ATRs are told to differentiate lessons for the students, but they have not met them or have not been provided their IEPs or other personal data such as ELL status.

*The people tolerating or designing these policies from De Blasio, on down to Farina, to ATR central, to the field supervisors are forgetting what they probably observed from their own childhood experiences – students do not consider substitutes worthy of respect, and the older the students, the less likely that they are to do the classwork.

*The ATRs are being evaluated on factors that are not sanctioned by the DOE-UFT contract: Common Core and Danielson, when the ATRs are supposed to be evaluated under "Teaching for the 21st Century."
*Many ATRs are getting their first stream of U ratings and letters in the file in 21 years. Doesn't it seem like Farina's DOE is trying to beat the clock to prevent teachers from collecting full pensions. 

We ought to recognize the bigger picture of what is happening. Just as with the Sandmen in the film "Logan's Run," who hunt down people for termination the Runners, those people over 30 years of age that refuse to submit to euthenasia, this U-rating process is feeding into larger societal trends of deprofessionalizing, of ending careers of people over 45, of accomplishing the effective breaking of tenure, of evading paying full pensions due, all goals of reformer politicians such as Cuomo. Age discrimination is rampant in the employment field. The DOE is accomplishing the introduction of the larger social trend of terminating or harassment of workers over 45. On the latter, see the report, "Is 45 the new old age in the workplace?" which references "Logan's Run." 

The DOEUFT: The DOE can do all of this, unimpeded because the Mulgrew (Unity & New Action endorsed) and Barr led UFT does not and will not make priorities out of protecting ATRs and abiding the contract. Instead, the UFT continuously refuses to allow ATRs to have their own true representatives. See for example here and here.

Violation of union obligations to ATRs is the by-product of the UFT's dogged refusal to allow true, accountable representatives. While it may not be actual collusion, in end result: allowing the destruction of professional lives, the effect is as though there is collusion.

Things were better under Cathie Black: The UFT actually gains from the absurd system of ATRs in rotation, and playing along with the fraud that ATRs just need to try harder to find jobs during the Open Market Transfer period. From a budgetary perspective it would make sense to place ATRs. However, the UFT goes along with the rotation system, one of the early innovations of Chancellor Walcott. Here's how the UFT benefits: the UFT draws in full dues for the ATRs in rotations plus it pulls in dues from those teachers in positions that the ATRs could have otherwise filled. So, the UFT benefits by getting two dues income streams. It is curious that the UFT treasurer is in a group message to ATRs. Are the DOE and the UFT coordinating on certain levels that ATRs should know about but do not? See the latest post at atrnyc.blogspot.com 

Some goals to pose in the ATR meetings at the UFT borough offices

Some goals to pose to Amy Arundell and the UFT in the ATR meetings at the borough offices on September 9 (Manhattan and Queens), September 11 (Staten Island) and September 12 (Bronx). The Brooklyn meeting was held on September 8.

1. Points We Want to Make

• Was the return to the previous way of funding teachers’ salaries, so as to remove the “roadblock” of higher salary costs from principals’ consideration when hiring, a part of the contract negotiation? Why not?
• Last school year, some ATR members were observed by their field supervisors, out of license. Why did the UFT allow this?

• Recommend that next school year, the DOE arranges for all current ATR members, to collectively meet, to have a day of professional development. At the same event, allow the UFT to hold its annual UFT meeting for ATRs that is currently held borough-wide, after working hours.
• Demand protection from physical harm from students and consequences for their actions, if it does occur.

2) Questions to ask at the UFT’s ATR Meetings

• Considering that a significant number of students are reading below grade level, what is the UFT doing to urge the DOE to put librarians back in schools and reading teachers back in the classrooms?
• Why were many members of the ATR, who applied on the “Open Market System,” not given interviews?
• How many members of the ATR were appointed to positions prior to the beginning of the school year?
• Explain who pays ATR members’ salaries if hired provisionally versus being appointed. How long does the DOE pay/contribute to their salaries once in these positions?
• What plans are underway, by the DOE, to create opportunities/new programs for ATR members with Art, Music and CTE Trade licenses?
• What happens to ATR teachers who were U-rated last school year?
• Why didn’t the UFT respond to the repeated lies and/or attacks on members of the ATR pool by the media (“Crain's,” the “NY Daily News,” the “NY Post,” “WNYC,” the “NY Times” and the “Wall Street Journal”) and Chancellor Farina?
• Why is the UFT “turning a blind eye” in many cases to ATR members’ complaints of harassment by school administrators or ATR field supervisors?
• If ATR members are terminated after 3020a hearings, for unprofessional behavior, do the members lose their entire pension minus the years they contributed?
• Despite repeated requests for a definition of “unprofessional behavior” on the part of ATR members, which could result in an expedited 3020a hearing and ultimately, termination, why is the UFT’s answer vague or nil? Stating that the arbitrators will be able to recognize such behavior is not considered an adequate response, according to the ATR pool. How may the ATR avoid such problematic practices if they don’t know what they are? Why are ATR members singled out for disparate treatment, while the remaining membership is not?
• According to chancellor there will be no forced placement. Then explain how ATR members, who do not accept a position in their license area and in their borough, are to be considered as resigning?

3) Goals

• The UFT should allow ACRs and ATRs to have borough-level elected representatives with Delegate Assembly voting rights, as our number at approximately 1,000 is comparable to the number of UFT members in many districts.
• The UFT should facilitate the creation of new positions for borough representatives dedicated to the ATR pool.
• Due to that fact that the following incidents happen quite frequently, instead of putting the onus on ATR members to complain to Chapter Leaders or UFT representatives, the UFT should inform school administrators to:
  • stop assigning ATR teachers to do clerical tasks.
  • stop assigning multiple periods of cafeteria, hall and bathroom duty.
  • inform School Safety that ATR members do not have to scan.
  • insist that schools provide bathroom, classroom and elevator keys.
• The UFT should insist that the DOE puts in writing, in explicit detail, a list of the unprofessional behaviors that principals can use to return ATR members back in rotation, and that could result in an expedited hearing and ultimately, their termination.

Some ATRs are being evaluated under dual evaluation systems

Some bad practices from Bloomberg's time are intensifying under de Blasio's Farina. One is the NYC DOE's having ATR Field Supervisors with over-reaching power observe ATR teachers with students that they have just met, that day, that period. A worsening nightmare, is that an untold number of ATRs are actually falling under dual evaluation system, under the flakey ATR evaluation system (here, here, and here) AND under the new Danielson-based Advance evaluation system. Is this all to protect Field Supervisors' jobs, to sustain the viability of their jobs, all in order to terminate ATRs out of their jobs?
The following description is just one instance of the rampant contract evaluations in practice under chancellor Farina's "new, improved" DOE. Unsurprisingly, interpretation of ATR observation conditions for temporarily placed ATRs is an area where the DOE and the UFT do not see eye to eye.

Rotating ATRs are covered by the 2007 to 2009 NYCDOE-UFT contract conditions, as there is no replacement DOE-UFT contract yet. ATRs are subject to the S and U observation system. Since they are not in a regular school they are allowed to request in writing to have pre-observation and post-observation conferences, as required under Articles 8J and 20 of the contract, as regularly assigned teachers were allowed to do, pre-Advance. Some Field Supervisors are accepting these written requests. Others are not. Also, as in the following case, some are not agreeing to submitting post-observation written requests, in person; and some are insisting that post-observation conferences can double as pre-evaluation conferences. All of this, of course, is in violation of Articles 8J and 20 of the contract. On the issue of observation reports, pre-Advance, read further here.

I am currently in a long-term assignment that started in mid-November until the end of the school year. I was evaluated in mid-January by a field supervisor. I thought it was strange that I was assigned to a school until the end of the year and yet was still going to be evaluated by a field supervisor, and not by the principal of the school. There was a pre- and post-observation and I received an S rating.  However, in early April I was told I would be evaluated by the principal using the Danielson and not the ATR S/U system. So far, the two informal observations at my assigned school have gone well with no rating below an effective, but still it seems being thrown into the Danielson system at this late date is ridiculous. Also, I am told my original S rated observation by the field supervisor won’t count which also seems unfair.

It gets better … In addition; I am told that the field supervisor still wants to observe ATRs (there are a few of us assigned long-term to this school). How can we be singled out like this for dual evaluation systems?

Also, I recently received a copy of my evaluation via email (yes, it took 3 months!) and at the end of it the last sentence reads; “It is understood that the post-observation conference for this lesson will serve as the pre-observation conference for any future observations.” It should be noted that I gave my field supervisor the request for a pre- and post-observation when she first contacted me. They want me to sign this and fax a copy back to them!

Observations in sub assignments, is this how Farina's DOE will "eliminate the ATR pool?"

ATRs are roundly frustrated with the very notion of teachers being plopped into classrooms they don't know and then experiencing high-stakes evaluations on their performance with students they do not know, in schools they do not know, with bell schedules they do not know. There is no known precedent, prior to this year, for teachers having their careers put at stake over high stakes evaluations with students they just met. The folly of ATRs rotating and getting observations in sub assignments only came about two years into Bloomberg's third term. Yet, chancellor Farina is definitely extending this questionably valid process.

The UFT has failed to speak up on this. Michael Mulgrew was directly asked about this during his appearance on WNYC on February 17th, but he didn't address the issue. The union's statements about teachers needing to get new wardrobes and get more professional development play into the media's and the DOE's line that ATRs are incapable. In October, 2011, the union publicized its agreement with a "pilot program" for rotating supervisors to evaluate rotating teachers in a handful of districts. This followed on other key events in the history of the ATR condition. 2005, the UFT sold a contract eliminating the seniority transfer. 2007, the union agreed to Fair Student Funding, opening the floodgates for principals rejecting ATRs for new teachers. June, 2011, the union's executive board agreed to rotation.

The union got shnookered with the line that this was a pilot program tried in a few select districts. With pilot programs the results of the pilot are shared. Where was the analysis of that first year? And did you notice? About observations in the first year, 2011-2012, Amy Arundell said that the only teachers getting U's at the end of the year got them for attendance issues. For the second year, 2012-2013, Arundell took great effort at the yearly boro level UFT ATR meetings to snuff out any discontent over the prospect of career-threatening U ratings. In the October, 2013 meetings Arundell called people that raised the issue “fear-mongerers”. By the end of this January, the pattern became clear: Roving ATR Field Supervisors are giving out Unsatisfactories at an unprecedented rate. One Queens supervisor is giving them out at a 50 percent rate. It is clear that they are at war with us. They couldn't get rid of LIFO. Note that the LIFO battle happened in mid-2011 and that by the fall the city meted out this rotate and observe program. They're pursuing the same tenure-breaking objective by this contract-breaking and all common sense-defying strategy. No education expert has stepped forward and has defended this approach of dropping teachers into alien situations and placed make or break expectations on them.

There are multiple contract violations in the course of these observations. The 2007-2009 Contract still applies to excessed teachers in rotation. Yet, some Field Supervisors are refusing to accept written requests for pre- or post-observation conferences. There are multiple reports of roving supervisors giving only part of a period to a conference. Thus, Articles 7A and 8J of the Contract are being violated. Common Core was launched after the 2007–2009 Contract was signed, yet in clear violation of the Contract, supervisors are mandating that lessons conform to the Common Core, a program so controversial that many in the legislature are having serious doubts. Some supervisors are going a step further and are mandating that teachers follow Danielson, yet this legally only applies to teachers in regular classroom assignments. In general, these observations appear to be arbitrary and capricious, violating the professionalism of educators. Because of the arbitrary and capricious issues these observations are in violation of Article 20 of the Contract.

And the uniform testimony is that supervisors are forcing ATRs to sign statements that they have received documents and that they have discussed certain questions such as “How many days are left in your CAR?” And what's up with pressing us into a discussion of the Family Medical Leave Act? Are they trying to get us to spend less time in the classroom?

Here is an excellent public letter summing up the issues at stake in the evaluations, followed by some ATR testimonies of the outrages of the ATR evaluation scam.

….Coming soon: ATRs turn the tables and write their quality reviews of the schools.

Dear Chancellor Farina,

    I thought I would inform you, in case you were not aware, about the ATR roving supervisors.

    The supervisors contact the ATRs and arrange to have them teach lessons in their subject areas in schools they happen to be in that week. The ATR, whose job it is to cover classes and implement the absent teacher's lesson plan, is thrust into a teaching environment, where he/she does not know the students or the school environment. In many cases they are asked to teach generic lessons and do not have access to classroom teaching resources. In essence, they are set up to fail, and at the mercy of the supervisors, who hold them and the lesson to unattainable standards.

    I think you can see how this practice certainly abuses the professionalism of teachers. They are being observed in an arbitrary and capricious manner without benefit of having a regular program or classes. They can not demonstrate effective classroom management, tone, differentiation of instruction or teaching rigor, in a one period lesson with students they do not know.

    ATRs should not be forced to conduct these high stakes lessons under these conditions. If the DOE wants to observe lessons, these teachers should be permanently placed in schools and in proper teaching environments.

   ATRs are valuable resources that are being wasted doing substitute work at high cost to city taxpayers. The DOE has hired 5000 teachers this school year while there are some 1200 ATRs. In addition, there is an ATR unit with several employees under Nicki Stanley at DOE central that adds to the cost, along with the expense of roving supervisors.

   I hope you will take a close look in to this matter and dismantle this ATR unit and roving supervisors, placing ATRs back into permanent classroom settings.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
Educator

Another:

I heard from one ATR that his supervisor came in and had him do a lesson (math) the same day using the regular teacher's lesson plan. She came back a couple of weeks later and gave the observation a satisfactory. He does not even know her name and she did not give him a copy of the observation.

Another:

It has come to my attention that the "observations" we are all undergoing are not actually valid and that the various networks are creating work in order to stay relevant.  Also, I was told all network contracts expire in July of this year and many are scrambling to find jobs - as APs,etc.  I don't know how much is actually true, but the following does make sense:

Our observations cannot be valid in that we are not privy to the academic backgrounds of the students we are "teaching" during the observation. Thus, we - AND our "supervisor" - are not aware of any IEP or learning accommodations and cannot accurately evaluate our lesson. For that matter, they cannot judge by previous grades or exams if we are teaching the "appropriate" materials. If we receive a U, we are then required to receive specific feedback and that is impossible for the same reasons. It also negates the observation process' requirement of being observed again to see if we have made the appropriate changes as specified and discussed with our AP.  These supervisors have 40-50 ATRs they are responsible for. Are they all researching the students they are observing us teach? Are they going to follow up with us? Arrange for us to see the same class and students to monitor our progress? Are they all prepared to professionally develop us if they find us lacking?  Really?

According to the person I spoke to this is all BS and busy work. Nothing so sinister as they are targeting us, or looking to find information out from us. It was also pointed out that if such were the case, we would all be undergoing the SAME procedures and that is clearly not the case. Some supervisors are requiring incorporation of common core, others are not. Some are making arrangements with the school beforehand so we can "feel comfortable" in the classroom, others are not. Some are staying the whole period, others or not. The very lack of consistency seems to point to the non-validity of these observations.

Again, don't know that it's true, but it does seem to make sense.  What exactly are the rules for ATRs and observations?  I don't think there are any.  Is there anything specific about us in the contract? Any provisions or guidelines or ANYTHING? If there isn't, then how can we be reprimanded - or evaluated - on something that doesn't exist and does not have any parameters for evaluation?

Another:

My friend got a U.
Then my friend was recommended for a vacancy by the same field supervisor.

Another:

I don't have an observation story (yet), being observed as a sub flies in the face of common sense. I don't know from what period to the next what I will be teaching, 90 percent of the time there are no lesson plans left, often I have been put in bilingual classes (I don't speak Spanish), I am been given hall and lunchroom duty. Are we supposed to carry around lessons for four subjects in nine different grades? As you know, the culture and expectations vary widely from school to school so it is very hard to prepare. I don't think ATRs are treated and differently than subs. The administration doesn't care what goes on as long as it's quiet and no one gets hurt. Pretty sad.

Another:

It appears that the roving supervisors are pouncing on teachers that are newly excessed. They observe them within the first few months of being excessed. I met a ten year veteran from a eastern Queens HS, a science teacher from a ten year plus veteran from western Queens HS and a fifteen year+ veteran from a southeast Queens HS, who had this experience. 

Another:

I was excessed in June this is my 10th year but only my first as an ATR and a field supervisor met with me over a month ago for a pre-observation conference. I have yet to receive a date or time when this observation will take place.

Another:

I was called by a science teacher last school year. The woman was given a class coverage for a bilingual class in math, neither of which were in her license area. She did the best she could do under the circumstances, in particular the language. The kids spoke only Spanish. 

So, she did the best she could do with gestures.

The Field Supervisor saw her after class. He told her that she had a "U" rating because she "didn't do her job." She asked him what her job was. His response was " teach the lesson as if you were the teacher." She was outraged. As anyone under these conditions would be. 

She told explained to him that she was at a huge disadvantage, as she was not bilingual and not a math teacher.

He walked back the rating to a "S". He said to her it's a very low "S".

I told her, after she told me the story, that an "S" was an "S". It didn't matter what he said. I told her that once she got the observation, she should sign it and fax it back immediately. She did, and she moved on.

The audacity of these horrible Field Supervisors just amazes me.

Fraternally yours, 

Clare D. Cortez, Teacher in the Traveling Pool since 2011