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

Day 8 of yellow journalism war - Educator appeals to Mulgrew to speak up

Day 8 in the yellow journalism war on displaced teachers (ATRs) and the leaders of the UFT still have not spoken up.

An ATR writes an open letter to president Mulgrew, asking him to counter the aspersions.

Dear Mr. Mulgrew,

  It is disappointing that the UFT is not defending the professionalism of the ATRs from the disparaging aspersions by newspapers such as the Daily News and the Post, which affect public opinion.

  As you know, ATRs are not being hired by principals. Those that receive "provisional" positions for vacancies are dismissed after the semester and new, untenured teachers are hired. The principal saves on his budget by using the ATR during the semester and in hiring a new teacher afterwards.

  Therefore, it is no fault of the ATRs that they are not attaining permanent positions.They are experienced educators and valuable resources that should be in the classrooms. The UFT is partially to blame for negotiating the weekly rotations which have caused hardships and the "provisional" assignments for vacancies, which the DOE has perverted. 

  The UFT needs to speak out publicly defending ATRs and negotiate with the DOE to have ATRs placed in permanent positions before new hires. The DOE should revert back to the unit values for paying teacher salaries.

  On a related matter, it is shameful that the UFT is silent in allowing DOE roving supervisors to harass ATRs with teaching observations that clearly violate the contract and the professionalism of teachers.

Roving supervisors arrange a period in a subject to observe the ATR teaching a lesson, which has nothing to do with their responsibilities as ATRs. They are being observed in an arbitrary and capricious manner which could be grieved under Article 20. The ATRs are asked to teach content or generic lessons in  environments in which they do not know the schools or the students. or have access to resources. They are being "set up to fail" by being held accountable for unattainable standards by the supervisors. Article 7A requires that teachers have daily programs,subject classes with students,room assignments and also that a preference sheet be completed. in some cases Article 8J (pre and post observations) is being violated. For ATRs to be put in this position is clearly unprofessional and an abuse of their rights as teachers under the contract.

  The UFT should acknowledge these abuses and work to end their practices. In fact, The UFT should begin a law suit to negate all observations of ATRs by roving supervisors.

  In conclusion, I am hoping that the UFT will end its silence and publicly stand up for the ATRs, including Guidance Counselors and Social Workers,

Sincerely,

James Calantjis

Educator 

Day 5 in yellow journalism war vs. ACRs/ATRs & no word from the UFT

This is day five since the Daily News began its war against ACRs/ATRs, as discussed here and here. Blame really goes to the New York Times for starting this back in December. Not one UFT official has come to our defense. We applaud chapter leader Arthur Goldstein, who spoke out in our defense, Thursday and today and chapter leader Patrick Walsh, who defended us in his comments at Goldstein's blog.

Goldstein handily rebutted the News' arguments concerning U-rated teachers and formerly accused teachers. Then he wrote in closing, addressing the core point, that there is a lot of stereotyping of ATRs:

Here's my question---how is mentioning these selected cases any different from taking members of a religious or ethnic group, highlighting some accused of behaving in a sensational fashion, and then gently leading readers to the conclusion the entire group was unfit or undesirable?

Our past president Randi Weingarten did produce the 2005 contract which got us here, and she didn't fight the Fair Student Funding formula. But in 2008 she did speak publicly in defense of the pedagogical integrity of teachers in the ATR pool.

"These are good teachers, mostly from closing schools. But rather than create a win-win situation, the system - despite repeated requests - refused to deal with these issues."

High School ATR gets scolded by a so-called colleague

 An ATR initiates a substitute lesson where there is none, and a colleague retaliates. As often happens, a traveling teacher is placed out of license age range and is placed in awkward circumstances.

I had an incident a few weeks ago where one of our own colleagues (a teacher) at an elementary school became very upset with me, claiming that I do not know how to talk to her first grade class. (I have a high school license.) I was covering the class as a push-in tech teacher (the technology teacher had called in sick). No absentee lesson plans were available.

I began giving the children a piece of paper to create a small timeline and our own colleague (a teacher) cuts me off and says "No, I rather you read this little magazine with them." The children were uninterested and began tossing the magazine in the air. I said to the children in front of their teacher (who was still in the classroom even though I was covering her class) "It is not a good idea to throw those in the air, and it would not be nice if I have to tell your principal that you are playing around with these magazines." At that point this teacher (a colleague) flips out on me, yelling "That's not the way you talk to children. This is not high school!" I was taken aback, like really, in front of these little kids you are yelling at me? She then states you could have brought a book and read to them. I said "Do you want me to read to them? No problem, I will read to them." The teacher then says OUT LOUD in an angry tone, "NO! Just go. Just go, I got this. You can go!"

I left the room a bit shaken and it was 7th period. I went to the teachers lounge and saw the dean and told him the story of my incident and asked him what he thought about what had just happened. He said perhaps she was upset because I mentioned the principal. He also said I should not worry about it. My ATR supervisor came to the school I was assigned to this week and I was handed a letter requesting a meeting with the principal at the school where the incident took place. The letter stated "bring a union rep because this can lead to disciplinary action".

I attended that meeting with the principal, AP and my ATR supervisor were all there trying to make me out to be a trouble-maker. The union chapter leader from their school was present and she was supportive. Long story short, nothing was proven, even though they said I abandoned my post. Principal said he has 90 days to decide if I get a letter in my file. My disappointment is mostly with the teacher who is supposed to be a colleague, yet went out of her way to try to bring trouble to an ATR who is in survival mode already. Thanks for hearing me out. I'm displaced and discouraged and highly disappointed in our own colleagues. I expect it from administration, but from teachers????

ACRs/ATRs tell the truth of the situations after another New York Times slight

The New York Times again ran an article slighting ACRs/ATRs. However, the UFT leaders fail to publicly speak up for us and fail to dispel misleading generalizations of how staff became displaced. On the side many in our union who want our support buy the Campbell Brown sort of line that we are "bad teachers". Displaced staff speak up and give their accounts of why they are ATRs, and why they do not have permanent assignments or real appointed positions.

1) Based on DOE documents ACRs/ATRs have obtained, roughly 3/4 of displaced staff are in pool because of school closings or co-locations

2) Displaced as ACR/ATR due to fraudulent charges

a) any student charge will be validated if the principal or the investigator wishes, with principals freely soliciting fabricated stories made up on the spot

b) teachers surviving the accusation stage pay a mob-style shakedown fine and then return to the classroom

3) Vast majority of teachers (80%) at the last figure in long term assignments had satisfactory ratings (May 2011 Gotham Schools); others are getting their first U ratings observations while in rotation, with coverage (substitute) classes they just met, have no relationship with, do not have the power of entering a grade for them, do not have the parent or guardian phone numbers for them.

Positions are eliminated as UFT reading volunteer program undercuts literacy coach positions, as teachers are given college adviser duties for advisories, undercutting guidance counselors, as many guidance and social work positions over-all are given to outside private contractors.

4) Principals have played favorites and have replaced ACRs/ATRs with their own staff preferences

5) Not hired because fair student funding has encouraged principals to hire cheaper teachers

a) job fairs are a fraud

b) at the fairs established teachers are forced to compete with Teaching Fellows, Teach for America recruits and other new people

c) experienced educators are passed over for positions for which they are qualified, while unqualified teachers take their place

Instead of fighting the displacement process the UFT has repeated the DOE line that we need to retool our resumes or beef up our wardrobes. We are supposed to be protected by tenure. Why is the union cooperating with this tenure-crushing ploy that we need to reapply for jobs? This is a back-handed breaking of tenure. ACRs/ATRs did not leave their jobs. They were displaced as new hires took the places they would have had when new schools replaced old schools.

The union seems to have forgotten that by ignoring the hiring of Teacher for America recruits and other novice teachers, the DOE violated on-again, off-again hiring freezes, freezes that they used to insist on. The DOE opened the door for their displacement of veterans with the excuse that they filled shortage areas, then the UFT allowed that to happen for all licences.

Here are some of the stories of how ACRs/ATRs entered the pool. We tell them, since the UFT gives us no page in the union newspaper.

I am a guidance counselor, excessed by new principal because she said she had no money in budget to pay my salary, and she illegally lowered my caseload to 11 students. Yet she hired another gc for a few days a week, instead of keeping me for those days. Where is the help the UFT promised us? Several principals have said to me that no money in budget is no excuse.

The school that I taught in for twelve years was closed,and I was put into the ATR pool. In thirty years of teaching I have 1) been teacher of the year, 2) had thirty years of satisfactory ratings, 3) been one of the teachers that was asked to create the music curriculum that the city used, 4) helped several students get scholarships, 5) had the highest number of students from any one junior-high school in the all-city junior high school orchestra, 6) trained students that have gone on to professional careers in music. I have been completely ignored ten times when I have applied for positions that were posted via the DOE website. On the two occasions when I was asked to come to a group interview, all of the other candidates (who for the most part were much younger that me) gave up and said "there is no way that we can compete with this guy". However, I was never even invited back for the second round of interviews. So far this school year, as I have been traveling through the schools (which I don't mind so much really) I have come across three of my former students who are now teachers, and they all said that I helped to inspire them to become teachers (guess I haven't done such a bad job after all).

Then there is this testimony, which echoes disturbing stories that are coming in privately every few days: that ATRs are getting U ratings for observations of lessons in substitute situations. The UFT knows that the DOE wins nearly every U rating appeal, yet it agreed to this evaluation program from the outset, going along with the ploy that this was just a pilot program in just a few districts. What a way to end a career.

I am 64, after 18 years of service my school closed and was replaced by two new schools with young principals who in turn hired young, inexperienced teachers. During 18 years, I never received a U rating. Recently, I was observed out of my subject and grade, and I received my first U because I could not control three students. I was told that even though I did not know their names and they did not know me, I am supposed to be able to control them and teach, although their own classroom teacher could not control them. I will retire soon in Florida.

What happened to the UFT's age discrimination lawsuit for ATRs in 2009

There are so many interesting news items lurking in the past. Back in 2008 the UFT started a lawsuit against the DOE, on behalf of the ATRs. This was publicized in an April 10, 2008 article in the union's paper "UFT sues Tweed for age discrimination". The UFT argued that in creating the Fair Student Funding formula the DOE created a disincentive for principals to hire teachers. The UFT reported: "The lawsuit argues that the DOE essentially shifted from an age-neutral system to one that has a disparate impact on older teachers." Weingarten defended the ATR's reputation: "These are good teachers, mostly from closing schools. But rather than create a win-win situation, the system - despite repeated requests - refused to deal with these issues."

Yet a year later, the union dropped the suit. Today the age discrimination problem remains. By our survey of our members, which comprise one-tenth of the number in the excess staff (ATR) pool, 86% polled are 50 years of age or older.

Chaz's School Daze wrote on the issue:

Randi & Joel Do It Again - The UFT Secretly Dropped Their Age Discrimination Lawsuit When They Signed The Unenforceable ATR Agreement

It appears once again Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein negotiated an agreement that resulted in the UFT members getting the short end of the stick. JD2718 reports in his blog that an apparently secret agreement between the UFT and DOE resulted in the UFT dropping their age discrimination lawsuit as a part of the unenforceable ATR agreement that has so far resulted in only 16 ATRs given classroom assignments. Time and again the Joel Klein's DOE negotiates in "bad faith" with the UFT and refuses to live up to the negotiated agreements. Be it the ATRs, the "rubber room" or paperwork reductions. The reason is simple. Our union refuses to ensure that any agreement have enforceable provisions. Both sides leave enough "wiggle room" in the language to allow DOE to ignore the intent of these agreements. >

According to JD2718 the age discrimination lawsuit was discussed at last Monday's Executive Board meeting and he summarizes the following:

At last Monday’s Executive Board meeting a question and follow-up about the UFT’s age discrimination revealed:

-the suit was withdrawn, without prejudice, when the ATR side agreement was reached.
-to refile the suit, the UFT would need to collect fresh information.
-members individual suits were not withdrawn.

This is shocking. I was under the impression that the UFT dropped their original age discrimination lawsuit because of legal issues on the use of the data collected. In other words the NYSUT attorney didn't believe the age discrimination case would succeed based upon the information. Now it turns out that the UFT secretly bargained the age discrimination lawsuit away in the unenforceable ATR agreement. How come the UFT didn't report this as a part of the ATR Agreement in their press release? The reason is quite obvious to me. They were embarrassed and afraid to tell the teachers the truth that this is what the union gave up for the ATR agreement. Therefore, they kept the age discrimination lawsuit issue secret to the members. To my knowledge, no teacher who was part of the dropped age discrimination lawsuit was told the truth. They were all apparently told that the age discrimination case had no legal standing. Now that the truth is known, it now makes sense why the UFT is reluctant to file a new age discrimination lawsuit despite he influx of older teacher in the "rubber rooms" and the ATR ranks.

I can only say what my friend Woodlass said in her comments to the information provided in JD2718's article. SHAME, SHAME,. SHAME.

“Places, Everyone!”- in Which the Former ATR Plays the Role of Obedient Minion. Or Not. And All the UFT Reps are Going By the Same Script.

The Teacher Under Assault's story tells us a UFT that is merely a service organization, not an advocacy organization. It shouldn't have to be this way.

So, where were we? Oh, yes, we were at the part of the story where the principal tells me that the students at the Middle School where I was subjected to constant racial taunts and epithets “Don’t know [I’m] white”. OK. I guess looking at me (I am one of those people who burns in 15 minutes with SPF 512) didn’t give them a clue. Riiiiiiight. 

And where IS the UFT in all this? The fearless defenders of teachers’ rights has been hard at work…..

Wait, give me a minute to check my files….

Hold on, maybe it was an email…. Nope, not there either….

Ah, here we go! Nope, that was the result of yet another MRI showing ANOTHER back injury as a result of this latest bias assault….

Let’s see, it’s gotta be here somewhere. UFT, UFT, hmmm…..

Well, I guess they haven’t done all that much after all.

OK, maybe that’s a little harsh. Allow me to give a synopsis of what HAS been done to date. I have met with my district rep, borough rep, and my Victims’ Support person at my borough UFT office TWICE. Both times, my statement that the indifference to the students’ attacks and race baiting, coupled with the principal’s “they don’t know you’re white” comment are discriminatory and evidence of racial bias, led to a VERY quick changing of the subject and a reprimand to “stick to the facts of the case – that you were injured in the line of duty. We are not here to discuss the other issues.”

I insisted that under no uncertain terms do I have the intention of returning to teach in a building where the students are permitted to commit bias crimes while the principal empowers them by pretending they do not exist. I said that I need to know what can be done and who can be contacted to ensure that I do not return to this situation where I feel retaliation would be the order of the day from the minute I entered the building. I was given more paperwork to complete (they are great at giving me more homework to do whenever I squawk), and left with assurances from my borough rep that they were “working hard behind the scenes to get this resolved, but we really have no power. It’s up to the network and your network is based in another borough, not this one, which means we really have no clout in this matter.”

Um, really? There are only FIVE borough reps in the whole city. They all answer directly to Mulgrew. Did my borough rep mean to tell me that these five reps don’t know each other and never speak? That they can’t call each other and say, “Hey, it’s me from the borough next door, I need a favor”? They can’t get Mulgrew to sit with them or make a phone call to hash this out? I am sure the head of the police or firefighters’ unions would be more than happy to work on behalf of a member who was being beaten (literally) on the job. Or is it that NO ONE wants to talk about the fact that whites can be the subject of bias crimes and that teachers being beaten and abused by the very students for whom they are held “accountable”? Any mention of the fact that if I were a black teacher being taunted, called the “N” word and beaten by white students, I would have been pulled from the school and the principal reprimanded within a week led to an abrupt end to the meeting, with assurances that they were “working on it”.

Since then, everyone at the UFT has been following the same script.

I received a call about a week later from a UFT social worker. She wanted to know how I was doing after me recent diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and the finding of yet ANOTHER back injury (on top of the ones that came from the first time I was plowed down in the classroom). So I laid out the basics and once again, insisting that what happened to me should be treated as a series of BIAS INCIDENTS, and that since the student said she could “do whatever [she] want to this damn white bitch” right before she pushed me down, the attack should be treated as a HATE CRIME. Immediately, her response was, “we are not here to discuss that right now. I just am calling to check up on you and see how you are as a result of this latest line of duty. Those other things are not part of the conversation right now”. If this sounds familiar, it’s because I heard the same line from my Borough and District Reps and Victims’ Support Advocate in my last meeting.

At my first Medical Bureau exam, I was met by a UFT rep to guide me through the process and witness my medical exam. Since we had a lot of time to kill while waiting, I began to share my story with her and share with her the emails and reports pertaining to my situation. I once again made the observation that, if I were a black teacher being treated this way by a white administrator and white students, I would have been pulled from the situation within a week. Her response? “We are not here to discuss that right now. At this point, we are only here to have your injuries assessed and make sure the Line of Duty is approved so you keep getting paid. These other issues have nothing to do with it.” Wow, that sounded familiar!

Recently, I had my second medical exam, and this time, the social worker who originally called me from Victims’ Support accompanied me to the Medical Bureau. Once again, given that we had much time to kill, I began to share with her some of the emails and reports I had compiled which showed the race baiting and bias incidents I was subjected to, and the lack of response or sensitivity on the part of administration. She wouldn’t ever read anything I shared with her, handing it back immediately and saying, “We are not here to discuss this right now. The important thing is making sure that your LODI request is properly submitted and approved so you can get the treatment you need.”

She, too, has been assimilated.

So it appears that everyone here has an assigned role – My district rep makes the occasional phone call to assure me that they are “working on it”. The Victims’ Support advocate answers the occasional email and gives me more paper to fill out when I get noisy. And the social worker holds my hand through the process and assures me that the Victims’ Support people are “very good at what they do” and that these racial issues are “irrelevant”.

And I guess my role is to be obedient, do as they say and realize that race is irrelevant here.

But what if I don’t?