Official UFT meetings for ATRs are coming soon, starting this Tuesday

Initially, this semester there was no news of UFT ATR meetings, but there was news of career training meetings, "Success Strategies for ATRs," that we would have to pay $10 for. This fiasco was covered by the Chaz blog a short while back. Why should we have to pay for a training? This is our union. We should be getting meetings and trainings, without special fees.

Now, the UFT has announced that it is granting official meetings for ATRs, a month later than usual. But similar to previous years, some of the meetings are being scheduled on days when there are mandatory school meetings we as NYC DOE teachers must attend, for parent-teacher conferences. The latter are absurd in themselves, as we only know these students short term, and often just days before the meeting.

Does the UFT really not want ATRs to attend informational meetings? They don't want us in the same place, so that we can see that these are AARP gatherings? Or for the reason that too many of us might have important questions?

We should ask for honest responses on what the DOE-UFT side agreement to the contract stipulates to us -what does the sunsetting of the ATR side agreement mean for any changes for us this year, on whether anything has changed in conditions that we can expect with field supervisor meetings and observations, on the union's progress in opposing the Fair Student Funding (FSF) fiasco (the true reason why we are not truly hired at schools), on what the union is doing to combat the media smears against ATRs, on what the union is doing to make sure that schools can tolerate actual safety threats to teachers. Chaz recently discussed the FSF policy and certain media talking point myths against ATRs here. (In addition to opposing ATRs for monetary issues, the DOE does not want ATRs because they as veteran teachers carry an institutional memory of the DOE BOE pre-Bloomberg when schools functioned better and teachers were treated with more dignity.)

When will the UFT stop playing along with the DOE's fictions, like we don't get hired because  any issue other than our higher cost? When will the UFT stop playing along with the DOE script that the field supervisors are here to find us positions when the UFT knows full well that their function is to meet a quota to terminate us? When will the UFT publicly call out that the field supervisors ultimately play no useful function for the students or for the teachers? The UFT knows full well that the DOE each year hires five to six thousand new teachers a year when it can draw from the pool? When will the UFT confront the DOE's preference to keep certain positions unfilled, with a rotating teacher every one to four weeks, rather than place a teacher, many of these classes being in Regents exam subjects?

Usually the union likes to focus on what the schools can or cannot do with ATRs or issues like bathroom keys, but we should also press issues that cut to our ability to keep our jobs. Why won't the UFT enforce the contract and force schools to humanely furnish us with critical keys or secure lockers for our belongings?

Informational meetings will take place in each of the UFT borough offices:

Brooklyn, 335 Adams St.
Tuesday, Nov. 1, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

Bronx, 2500 Halsey St.
Thursday, Nov. 3, 4 to 6 p.m.

Manhattan, 52 Broadway
Monday, Nov. 14, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

Queens, 97-77 Queens Blvd.
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

Staten Island, 4456 Amboy Rd.
Thursday, Nov. 17, 4 to 6 p.m.

You are welcome to attend the session that is most convenient for you. We hope to see you there.

Big story about a consulting firm for flyby ATR observations

There's a log of important ATR stories in Ed Notes: there's a report of a consulting firm for the observations that appears to show a conflict of interest.

ATRS Targeted by Brienza Consultant Firm Formerly Run by Mulgrew's Sister

An ATR told me an interesting story. In addition to a field

supervisor, he was also visited by some guy from a company called Brienza Academic Advantage who told him they were hired by the DOE to "assist" ATRs - read that as - "assist the DOE in getting rid of" ATRs who have been targeted.

Michael Mulgrew's sister, Kathleen Mulgrew-Daretany, was the COO of Brienza, as reported by Sue Edelman in an April 28, 2013 article:

During her leave, Mulgrew-Daretany worked as chief operating officer for Brienza’s Academic Advantage, a Brooklyn-based company that sells teacher-training seminars and student tutoring. She is listed as COO in a Brienza’s organizational chart filed with the DOE. She left “last year,” a company official said.

DOE payments to Brienza’s rose from $5,109 in 2002 to $10.9 million in 2012, when the city received No Child Left Behind funds for after-school tutoring, officials said.

What happened when this Brienza guy observed the ATR? Well, the ATR was not actually teaching a class but in there to assist another teacher and during the lesson played no role at all.

So how astounded was he when this Brienza guy tells him he wants to meet on the ATRs prep to discuss his "lesson" and see where it could be improved.

"But I didn't teach a lesson," says the ATR.

The Brienza guy ignores what he said and insists there was a lesson.

Surreal in some worlds, but in the tangled relationship between the UFT and the DOE, business as usual.

Let's follow the bouncing ball:

• The UFT abandons ATRs to the fates and refuses to give them any representation by allowing them their own chapter. 
• When challenged the UFT/Unity leadership says "ATRs are not a permanent position."
• The DOE agrees with their partners at the UFT - that the ATRs are not permanent and has a plan to phase them out. They spend an enormous amount of money hiring field supervisors - known among many ATRs as "failed supervisors" in previous positions.
• In addition to the failed supervisors being used to go after ATRs we now find out that they have hired Brienza, whose COO was the sister of the UFT president.
• Brienza is clearly hired not to assist the ATRs but to assist the field/failed supervisors in removing ATRs who become a target.
• They are all being very careful to make sure that when they observe the ATRs they are covering in their license areas and they often badger the people in the schools to make sure to get certain classes for the ATR, better if they are the worst classes in the school -- yes, some people at the school level are annoyed enough at these FS and consultants to be supportive of ATRs whom they think are doing a good job in a bad situation.  

In all of my criticism of the UFT I rarely accuse the leadership of out and out corruption. But someone explain to me how they are so silent while enormous amounts of money is being spent to monitor people who are in essence substitute teachers. In the over 100 year history of the NYC school system, have outside agents ever been hired to monitor subs? So we know that the way a sub does his or her job is and has always been irrelevant as long as they are not utter incompetents.

So it is clear that the very purpose of field supervisors and Brienza is to get rid of people by putting enough pressure on them to get them to leave. We know that there are union officials who have been told about these stories. Public silence.

That the UFT/Unity Caucus leadership is complicit even if not outright, but by their silence.

A MORE meeting addressing ATRs

Please come to this special MORE Caucus event on Sunday afternoon, February 28 12-3 pm, at P.S. 58, 330 Smith Street, Brooklyn. Absent Teacher Reserve issues will be among the topics on the agenda. Other agenda issues include Family leave, Opt-out, and a Member-driven union.

The MORE Caucus-UFT platform pledges to reintegrate ATRs into schools of their choice.
Co-location with charter schools and other new schools has driven the excessing crisis. Perhaps the biggest factor currently impacting principals' reluctance to hire ATRs, is "Fair Student Funding." Additionally, "leadership academy" principals want to hire teachers that lack an institutional memory of their contractual rights. Many of the new recruits are Teach for America trainees who arrive with a mere five weeks of training.
The MORE platform further pledges to end the UFT involvement in UFT charter schools, except as representation of union members. It calls for the union to be member-driven. To that end, it calls for union positions to be subject to election and recall. MORE's platform proposes that dues increases should be voted on at the Delegate's Assembly. 

Jia Lee, MORE's presidential candidate, wrote this statement of support of the ATRs:

The Absent Teacher Reserve: An Injury to One is an Injury to All

By Jia Lee

MORE Presidential Candidate

Imagine you’re standing alongside a rapid flowing river. You see someone being carried along mercilessly. You jump in, holding onto a rope and pull this person out. As soon as you emerge, you see another, so you jump in again. Each time you emerge, you turn to see more people. Perhaps, others join in solidarity. We become so enrapt in trying to save people, we never venture to find the root source of the problem. 

The Current Situation:

According to a recent Chalkbeat article, City Data Shows Number in Absent Teacher Reserve Remains Steady*, there are currently 1,083 teachers in the ATR pool, down from 1,102 in January 2015. The city reports 500 new teachers hired full time in 2014 and 2015, and since January of 2014, 450 teachers have exited the system. The article does not specify who was hired full time and who left the system. There is no breakdown. We know new teachers are being hired into the system while hearing horror stories by our mid-career colleagues in the ATR. The numbers don’t adequately tell the stories and experiences of the teachers who have been displaced, made certain through negotiations by union leadership.

Further, there is no mention of the unfair and arbitrary treatment of teachers in rotation or those placed into provisional placements. In a system that is under one of the most top down and oppressive conditions ever, being in the ATR has seeped negative connotations and stigma. Internalized oppression has manifested into traumatic disorders and affected the quality of life of so many of our colleagues. It’s unconscionable. Yet, our union leadership fails to understand that an injury to one is an injury to all.  

Despite the provisions in the newest contract that is supposed to make it easier for members in the ATR pool to go on interviews, there is an unspoken and subversive feeling that something is not right. Has anyone outside of the ATR asked how teachers in this situation are evaluated? Most, so entrenched in their own survival, don’t realize that those in the ATR are under an observation and evaluation system that is not written anywhere in our contract. Ask anyone who is in this situation at your school.

The Source

The framing of the stories continue to be controlled by the same folks who have spent untold billions to privatize public education. We have yet to read or hear about schools as places where people form relationships to foster nurturing places for teaching and learning- that once dismantled, the human nature of that work is destroyed. Teachers are not interchangeable widgets. At the core of of a school is the community of people within it. Forcing teachers to go from school to school, as if they are interchangeable, ignores and worse, does not care to support the teachers, hence the students in the school. We must understand that all UFT members are subject to arbitrary school closures based on invalid metrics, so we must stand in solidarity with teachers who are placed in our schools and welcome them.

In the Chalkbeat article, there’s an acknowledgement that the number of teachers in the ATR have remained steady due to the stall in school closures that were so aggressive before DeBlasio took office. Even with the stall, there was an agreement made before the change of mayoral and chancellorship power. Only one side remains constant, and that is the Unity leadership who helped to create the ATR. It is frustrating beyond comprehension as to why, given the precarious conditions of moving and having to adapt from school to school, our union leadership shot down a resolution by a very well known teacher in the ATR, to have, in the least, its own chapter with elected representation. One would think that the union leadership has something to gain from preventing such empowerment. As a chapter leader of seven years who’s attended nearly every delegate assembly, I started to take note of all the times our current president proudly stated that they helped us avoid layoffs. However, what the leadership does not seem to remind folks of is how they conceded to school closures and the displacement of teachers, an egregious act that would put them in the same boat as ed deformers.

Returning to the analogy I started with, through collaborative research and work with others within and beyond MORE, we have made our way to the source of the attack on our profession, students and schools. Many already know that the UFT is the single largest teachers union local. We stand in the way of a greater objective by the corporate elite who are vying for control. Years ago, our leadership cowered to the false rhetoric being put out by the Koch brothers and Broads that the source of an “achievement gap” was the teachers. So, despite the mountains of evidence that standardized tests could not be used to evaluate schools and teachers, our leadership welcomed it. They welcomed mayoral control, the Common Core with its high stakes tests, Danielson rubrics, charters (the UFT started two) and scripted curriculum, while doing nothing to combat the managerial and lean production model used by administrators coming out of the leadership academy.

The state then used a norm-referenced bell curve designed to ensure a bottom percentage of schools that could then be labeled as failing. Many of those schools were targeted for charter co-locations. As schools closed, teachers, students and entire communities were displaced. This played right into the false narrative by ed deformers. The leadership of our union fails to acknowledge that their strategies of “having a seat at the table” are dangerous and damaging. What they helped to create is a breakdown in membership-wide solidarity. Our first defense is us; it has not been and will not be the leadership.

The MORE caucus, is not, in and of itself, a top-down structure. We have bylaws that ensure term limits and democratic decision making. If you have ever attended a MORE general meeting, you know that we painstakingly work to make ensure that anyone who wants to speak on an issue, raise proposals and have an opinion that differs from others is heard. We work to have distributive leadership within our structure, creating, in practice, the kind of union we want to see.

Our MORE 2016 Platform** states:

• MORE seeks to dismantle the notion of an absent teacher reserve and provide for all teachers to find a school community that is the right fit.
• MORE believes in a strong ATR chapter with elected representatives

*http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2016/02/19/atr-number-remains-steady-city-says/#.VsofV4wrIy4

**http://morecaucusnyc.org/2016/01/02/our-2016-platform/ 

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.

Proof that DOE/UFT expects ATRs to countermand administrators, and proof that the UFT advocates for the DOE, not for teachers or parents

There is clear proof that the DOE's field supervisors have given U ratings to ATRs out of license and has expected ATRs to usurp the authority of the local administration. The Chaz blog's “Halloween Special - Horror Stories From The ATR Pool” showed several examples of DOE professional misconduct toward ATRs. See the case of the science teacher U-rated doing a coverage in a foreign language class. This rating is outrageous. How can a teacher be rated on carrying out the lesson that was not their own creation, carrying out a lesson that is out of their professional license? The DOE took the position that the teacher should have switched from carrying out the lesson that the teacher left, and switched to a lesson that was in the subject within the teacher's license.

Additionally, the idea that teachers must interject with a lesson confounds the nature of teaching and learning. Lessons are given sequentially, in context of prior lessons building knowledge up to the current lesson. Concepts depend on a previous lesson. For example, there are classes a, b, c, d, e, f, g. Knowledge builds sequentially. The student in class “d” has been through classes a, b, c. The student would be bored with having to repeat a lesson. Yet, if the teacher is bringing in “g” or “h” the student is frustrated with a lesson that is sequentially too far along. This is why we see at the high school and college level the term, “prerequisite.” Certain topics are needed before others can be introduced. The DOE's insistence on teachers dropping in from above and interjecting their own topical agenda, displacing the agenda of students, fails to understand this fundamental point of pedagogy.

Also, there is the issue of Units. Besides the issue of lessons within a unit, there is the issue of lessons that are of different units. Despite the efforts of the city to have uniform unit schedules, it is obvious to ATRs that in all the subjects, math, science, social studies, foreign language, English, different schools and different teachers are in different units, following their own calendar. This is the United States, not France, where lessons all over the country are on identical topics, no matter the city or town. Here again, we see the DOE expects the ATR to drop in and deliver a lesson that is in great likelihood out of place. Foreign language students might not know the words on weather. Chemistry classes could be covering molecules instead of solvents. History classes could be covering Africa instead of India. ATRs are expected to capture the attention and cooperation of students. However, is the DOE considering that it is frustrating for students to be getting different topics from what they are expecting.

Isn't it clear that the obvious objective of the lesson, in the DOE's eyes, is not to carry out the local administration's lesson, but to carry out the ATR's own intruding lesson? This is an expectation that pressures the ATR to challenge and undercut the authority of the school, the authority of the teacher. And it misserves the students. Just as parents are recognizing that the point of standardized tests are not to judge students, but to judge teachers, parents ought to recognize that the DOE's aim is not to give students a substitute lesson, but to turn students into guinea pigs for a gotcha game against teachers. Why should students consent to being guinea pig tools of the DOE instead of students of the topic that they came to class for? Principals, the absent teachers, parents and students themselves ought to feel insulted and unrepresented in this absurd DOE policy.

The second outrage is that the UFT has backed the DOE at every step of this that should offend every one of the parties mentioned above. The UFT at the the once a year group forums for ATRs and in its instructions to ATRs backs the DOE in this mandate that the ATR intrude on the student's scheduled topic and intrusively bring in their own topic. The UFT has not taken the position of opposing field supervisors on principle, nor has it opposed on principle the idea that field supervisors can get away with observing teachers out of license. In its failure to oppose the observations it is obvious that the UFT is backing the DOE's position and opposing the ATRs' position.

Just why does the UFT support the DOE instead of its own members? Isn't this ironic, as the ATR UFT members are paying dues to an organization that backs central DOE, against the interests of the substituting teacher, the absent teacher, the local administrators, the students and the parents?

Is it any wonder that teachers are pursuing class action lawsuits against the DOE? Isn't it obvious that the union isn't representing them and that they are having to resort to representing themselves?

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 »

President Mulgrew: Do something about these absurd ATR observations

Many school chapter leaders are aghast at potentially career jeopardizing observations under substituting conditions. Yet, the logic of the controversy eludes the union which still staunchly opposes elected Absent Teacher Reserve representatives. And remember that UFT secretary Michael Mendel firmly endorsed observations of ATRs back at their pilot program introduction in a few Brooklyn districts in 2011.

Observation is covered at length in Article 6 the NYC DOE-UFT Memorandum of Agreement for the 2014 contract. However, observation is discussed nowhere in Article 16, the section which for the first time contractually institutionalizes the ATR condition. It is agreed between the City and the Union that ATRs are under observation conditions in "Teaching for the 21st Century." 

Yet, some observers (Field Supervisors) are doing the following which are outside of contractually sanctioned conduct for observing ATRs, and thus are grievable actions:
*Mandating use of the Common Core State Standards (mentioned only once, and parenthetically in the contract)
*Refusing oral or written requests for formal pre- and post- observation conferences
*Using Peer Validators (teachers or administrators serving as evaluators of other teachers, they receive $16,000 from the City on top of their regular salary)

Observation issues:

Regular classroom teachers do not leave lesson plans.
The city and union policy is that ATRs should bring in their own content. Students protest that this is inappropriate for the subject of the class session. ATRs are left with just saying that they are just following orders from higher up and that students should cooperate with the intrusion of the ATR's lesson agenda instead of the subject of the period.

ATRs have been observed and negatively rated when teaching a lesson in a content are outside of their own content area license or grade level.

Students:
ATRs are being judged when teaching lessons with students they do not know. They have been deprived of federally mandated access to Individual Education Plans (IEPs), yet have been judged by evaluators on their capacity to properly differentiate lessons. Teachers are judged as to having rapport with students, but as teachers do not know the students this is not possible to the ideal extent.
Teachers are expected to have classroom management over the students but as the students know, ATRs lack the grade or disciplinary authority over the students.
Teachers have sought and have been denied the opportunity to shadow a teacher in their content area and to be observed in that class.

Room issues:
Teachers have been denied proper preparation access to rooms for the purpose of setting up rooms for observations.

Technology:
Teachers have been denied access to classroom technology. In worst case situations they have been denied passwords. In other situations they were not given full introduction and access by technology persons upon their assignment to the school. Often, the technology is nominally operative, but is not accessible to the ATR under observation.

School order and discipline:
There is an escalating crisis from the unregulated use of cellphones in class. Students text each other, play music and videos, shoot pictures and videos of teachers.

Yet, in many schools administrators do not act to squelch their use. Yet, teachers are expected to come into class and command attention of students.

And let's get real: when you were in school how many kids really did the work that a sub gave? So, why should it be realistic to expect that today's students would act any differently?

Did you ever think that a teacher's career would rest on whether kids did “it doesn't count” class work.

Inappropriate evaluator backgrounds and observations vs. student safety

esides the whole idea of being rated on observations, supervisors are not familiar with our grade level/subject area/school operations.

Informals make no sense. We could be anywhere. I was criticized for not assessing in a 15-minute informal when I'll never see these children again.

Being expected to do a whole lesson with all the components in elementary schools with little children during last period when dismissal safety is the priority, or first period when they are arriving and removing winter outer clothing, is obviously a setup. As a parent, I would sue the DOE if I knew an observation took priority over my child's well-being.

Peer observations - Teachers don't want to be observed and critiqued. Is this a way of creating distrust between us and colleagues?

We have been told by the UFT to cover lesson plans if left by the classroom teacher. Supervisors want us to go beyond teachers' directions.

Ask teachers where they send their children to school and why. I would never put my child into this nonsense.

I have not had access to training in the reading and math programs being used now and it was implied that this was my fault. Plus, the Pearson reading program is so inappropriate that schools are discontinuing its use.

Have I said enough? I hope the UFT listens.

What the UFT says about unfair observations

The UFT has sent word that any ATRs that feel that they have unfairly received U ratings should contact Amy Arundell [aarundell@uft.org] or Mike Sill [msill@uft.org].

And also remember that it was the UFT's Secretary, Michael Mendel, that said it was all proper for ATRs to be observed in subbing circumstances in Fall 2011, when the UFT agreed to the change from placement of ATRs to rotation of ATRs. Many ATRs are now facing termination after observations in these inappropriate settings. In a new precedent: ATRs are receiving termination letters well in advance of the end of the term in June.

The author at the Chaz blog wrote a very good analysis of Mendel's tenure in the UFT leadership. He took important steps that have been important setbacks for veteran teacher in general and ATRs in particular, on issues ranging from the seniority transfer, to Fair Student Funding, to dealings with the DOE.

Here is Michael Mendel's 2011 letter sanctioning the "trial" program of ATR observations in certain Brooklyn districts. Notice how the slippery slope of trial allowed this program to progress, with no review as to how the observers operated.

An ATR teacher who goes by the name "ATR in Perm" forwarded to us a letter that UFT Secretary Michael Mendel sent to ATR teachers in Brooklyn Districts 13-23, 32, and 73 (the Brooklyn high school superintendency). 

Mendel's letter is a follow-up to the DOE's recent announcement that a group of administrators called "Field Supervisors" will begin evaluating ATR teachers.

Below is Mendel's letter (with a few key points highlighted by NYCATR). Following the letter is ATR in Perm's response; he who forwards the message gets first dibs at trashing it. 

Dear colleague,

The UFT has been informed that the DOE will implement a new supervisory system for ATRs in Brooklyn community school districts (Districts 13-23 and 32) and Brooklyn high school superintendency (District 73). They have labeled it a pilot, though they did not indicate how or when the pilot would be evaluated; nor have they indicated if or when they would extend this system to other ATRs. We were informed about this plan, but had no input into it. I am writing to assure you that the union will continue to make sure that your rights as a UFT member are not violated and your professionalism as a teacher is respected. 

The DOE has created a new position, that of field supervisor, with the intent that field supervisors will provide some measure of evaluative continuity to the members whom they observe and to whom they provide professional feedback. They have done this because state law requires that all teachers must be evaluated and rated. 

As always, the UFT will monitor the implementation of this new system carefully to make sure that it is implemented appropriately (e.g., that members are observed on things like classroom management, and not on things like content when they are teaching out of license — in other words, things that make sense). We will address concerns that come up with the DOE immediately. Above all, we will continue to hold the DOE’s feet to the fire on the main tenet of the June ATR agreement, which is to fill all long-term absences and leaves with ATRS and to help members in the Absent Teacher Reserve find permanent positions. 

We know that you play a valuable role in virtually every city school, under often challenging circumstances, and that your contributions are often unrecognized. We are committed to ensuring that ATRs are treated like professionals and are working to make sure this new supervisory system does that. 

If you have questions or concerns, please contact your district representative or Amy Arundell at aarundell@uft.org.

ATR in Perm: The UFT's Michael Mendell issued a letter on the UFT's position on the ATR teacher evaluations. Shockingly, the area that visiting teachers routinely have the most trouble with, classroom management, is an area that Mendell thinks is fair game for evaluating teachers.

"We are committed to ensuring that ATRs are treated like professionals . . ." Yeah? Well, why are you letting us get evaluated on handling kids who we've just met minutes ago? School tone, set by administration, as to whether they discipline students in a timely fashion or whether they coddle them, is the greatest factor (aside from home upbringing) in how kids will react to even the sternest and most confident Classroom-Management-minded teacher.