An ATR goes vs. a NY Post hit piece on ATRs

A retired ATR response to a negative letter in the New York  Post for hit piece on ATRs.

Dear Mr. Benjamin,

Your opinion piece today on "Rubberrooms" is misinforming readers and disparaging ATRs. 

The NYCDOE has allowed ATRs to be discriminated against by not permanently placing them in vacant positions. Even though the DOE says it has placed 500 ATR teachers into regular positions,  the reality is that most of these teachers were placed provisionally and then dismissed at the end of the school year, going back to the ATR pool. In this way, principals were not charged the full cost of these teachers to their budgets. In effect, the DOE allows principals to manipulate and misuse the ATR pool. That is why, they do not want to give out specific information about ATR numbers and placements.

In addition, the NYCDOE hires four to five thousand new teachers every year while the ATR pool stays at around one thousand teachers on average. Therefore, if you are an ATR, you will likely not be hired on a permanent basis due to principals wanting to save money on their budgets by hiring new teachers.. It has nothing to due with teacher quality.

It is a mistake to disparage these teachers as "dysfunctional and ineffective", associating them with "Rubber Rooms." Most of these teachers were excessed from their schools. Some went through 3020a hearings because of their whistleblowing to protect student, parent or teacher interests at the school level. There are many ineffective and vindictive principals who use the evaluation process to punish teachers who want the UFT contract adhered to or report Special Education violations or speak out about ineffective school leadership teams, for example.

Instead of disparaging teachers for being in the ATR pool, they should be  placed in vacancies and fairly  evaluated for their  performance as other teachers.  The DOE is costing taxpayers over 100 million dollars a year, as you reported, when the simple solution is to place these experienced teachers into permanent vacancies.

The idea that ATRs are "bad" teachers"  and negatively affecting the schools they are being sent to without any  evidence is an absurd and  biased opinion that is scapegoating good, experienced teachers, who through no fault of their own, are trapped in in the ATR pool .  

 I would welcome the opportunity to write a published rebuttal to your " Post Opinion."

Sincerely,

James Calantjis

Middle Village,NY

Educator

Six basic questions that neither Farina nor Mulgrew have had the sense to address about the coming closures of 3 Brooklyn schools

Now that three (3) "troubled schools" in Brooklyn will be closing next year for "under performance and under enrollment", why hasn't anyone put this complex question to

FARINA and MULGREW...

1) Where do these teachers go when they are excessed??

2)  If they will be placed, how can they be placed when there are over 

     1,500 ATRs still waiting for placement?

3)  If these teachers are leaving the "closing" schools for other placements in

     "vacancies", will ATRs be placed in that "coverage" (provisional positions)

      when the school officially closes?

4)   How can the ATR pool go down when the DOE/UFT is creating this cycle?

5)   During an election year, will anyone address this "dark secret"?

6)   Who will acquire the available space when the schools are closed - 

      charter or the other public school?

If these questions are already answered, and the newspapers haven't put 2+2 together for the QUANDARY that will arise in 2016-17, then this dilemma is not addressed in some plausible way!!

Keep in mind, the next salary increase happens in MAY 2016 and many of our ATRs are reaching salary levels that are going beyond the compensatory levels within school budgets. (Despite Principals being told, it's not coming from their budgets unless over the allotted "average teacher salary in the bldg) This will definitely put a major strain upon hiring any ATRs for 2016-17 budget levels. For example, those teacher reaching 15 yrs are now prime targets for being "over budget and over age" and the most senior teacher in some schools will be 13yrs, if that!!  Hence, where do these teachers start to find positions especially when majority of positions are not on the DOE website or advertised as expected.