What's worse: the Rubber Room or the ATR?

Our resident gadfly, Philip Nobile, sent the following email to Amy Arundel, who is the UFT's liason to the teachers of the ATR.  To the best of our knowledge, Ms. Arundel has not yet replied.  

Amy: 

Tom Bennett, my Brooklyn District Representative, told me that ATRs must perform any duties that regular teachers perform. Since C-6 assignments vary from school to school, it’s hard to know whether some ATR orders violate the contract. 

Chaz’s current blog post on ATRs had this comment from an ATR:

If a principal tells me to answer phone -file - copy or do cafeteria duty, I politely say NO and that I will grieve immediately. Then I go back to the teacher's room and take out my book. It has worked every time because it is the LAW! Atrs are letting themselves be abused even more than we are!! Don't let them abuse you - just say no.

Do you agree? 

An admirable chapter leader further commented on how he/she protects ATRs: 

I'm a chapter leader in a small school in the Bronx. One thing that I make sure is to inform the members, even the ATRs, of their rights. I check the ATRs' program to ensure that none of their rights are violated. When the rotation of ATRs begin in October, I speak to the ATR(s) and tell them about their prep, lunch and professional periods. If I see something wrong, I immediately go to administration to have it corrected. It is the responsibility of the chapter leader to protect the members. I don't know how chapter leaders do it in a large comprehensive school, but in a small school there should be no excuse from the chapter leader.

Bill Kalogeras at Automotive is the only CL who treated me similarly in my travels last year throughout Brooklyn/S.I. Why hasn’t the UFT drawn up an advisory to CLs on how to handle ATRs? Or have I missed it?

In the good old days of rubber rooms, we not only had elected reps (liaisons) and monthly meetings at 52 Broadway, but Randi produced a brochure on our rights. 

Can you explain why ATRs in good standing get less respect than accused members in the past?

Philip

What to do about Hardship Commutes for ATR Teachers

For the teacher who must be mobile,
Here's some advice from Philip Nobile.

Article 18D of the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows grievances for hardship commutes--i.e., one-way travel from home to school via public transportation exceeding 90 minutes.

Unfortunately, the UFT did not put that provision in the ATR agreement. So when I grieved repeated 90+ minute treks from Brooklyn to Staten Island last year, the heartless DOE said tough luck and the Chancellor’s Representative denied at Step 1 and Step 2 (see here).  Showing surprising solidarity, the UFT agreed to take the case to arbitration, which could be months away. 

Pending our sure victory bye-in-bye, you don’t have to lay down and ride out the hardship, especially a six-weeker. Here are some recommended moves that could help.  

►Email Amy Arundell and your District Representative and ask them to call Lawrence Becker, head of Human Resources, requesting a healthier and more humane commute in your case.  Offer Becker, an extreme travel hardliner, a golden bridge of retreat. If Becker says no, you go to the principal. The UFT must get its hands dirty and not leave all the work for us.

►Either the DR or you calls the principal and explains your situation; the principal can overturn your assignment for any reason; maybe he won’t want a tired and possibly resentful teacher in his building. No skin off his nose if you go elsewhere.

►if you prefer less fuss, schmooze the school's ATR person on your circumstances, and say in a nice way that you won’t arrive until second period. At least you won’t lose sleep, the most hateful hardship for me.

Any other suggestions or anecdotes ?

Why does the UFT ignore the ATR?

Why doesn't the UFT pay much attention to the hundreds of teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve? Why did the UFT promise to meet with them and fail to do so? Why did the UFT promise to print an article about the ATR but printed little more than a footnote?  Why has the UFT failed to do anything about the ATR teachers' lack of representation in the UFT Delegate Assembly?

Philip Nobile has an answer that most ATRs will find to be a good fit.

Why won’t the UFT meet with ATRs? It’s a no-brainer. Rubber- room teachers under suspicion had de-facto chapters with elected liaisons who had monthly rendezvous with top dogs like Michael Mendel and LeRoy Barr at 52 Broadway. They got respect. But not us, all in good standing. We are the union’s homeless, abandoned on the battlefield, disenfranchised by Mulgrew et al. 

A homeless family

Back in September, we had to twist arms to arrange borough meetings. Amy Arundel and Barr made the rounds in October, preening solidarity while denying our right to a chapter. Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor, not a bad fellow out of the foxhole, pledged a repeat meeting and guaranteed timely responses to our inquiries. 

Would that it were so. There has never been a second meeting and nobody at the UFT will say why. I reached out to the leadership four times this month without luck. On February 1, curious about the emergence of field supervisors, I wrote: 

The DOE's cockamamie plan to observe ATRs cannot be ignored. The UFT saw this coming, but as far as known, since ATRs are not in the loop, you guys have done nothing to protect us. The least you can do now is agree to ATR meeting in the boroughs--just like last October. Howie promised more meetings then. Can you give us a date?

On February 2, Amy Arundel, Our Lady of ATRs, responded in a terse email: “no teacher has been u-rated.” 

My same day reply: 

Good to hear from you. Yes, we know nobody has been U-rated...yet. But why wait and face a fait accompli? If I may say so, it's your job to get ahead of, not behind, the curve. 

The question on the table now is: What is the UFT doing about this development, if anything? You know that the DOE is up to no good with field supervisors. But you are keeping us ATRs out of the loop.  

The obvious next step is another ATR meeting in the boroughs during which you can consult us, your constituents, about our rising concerns. So tell us--will you arrange a meeting asap? 

Arundel went silent. 

On February 3, I emailed my Brooklyn District rep Tom Bennett, et al., about his nonchalant, party-line comments re field supes, and  I recast the idea for a meeting: 

The DOE did not consult the UFT on this arrangement. But that is no excuse for the union’s passivity. For example, Amy’s Antoinette-ish throwaway: “No one has been u rated.” 

Marie Antoinette offers a plate of cake.

You owe us solidarity. You can start with borough meetings, and fast. To the leadership: will you or won’t you call a second ATR meeting as Howie Schoor promised at the first one in Brooklyn? We deserve an answer. 

The leadership must disagree.  As for the courtesy of a reply, forget it.  Ever willing to extend a golden bridge of retreat, I gave Schoor another shot on February 8th:

Now your'e breaking two promises--not only your pledge to have another ATR meeting, but also to quickly answer ATR queries. 

I don't get it.  Why won't you say yes or no to a meeting?

What’s not to get? Mulgrew et al. regard ATRs as an inconvenient marker of their impotence. They surrendered on grievances, seniority transfers, linking evaluations to test scores, and first year incompetence appeals except for 13 percent. ATRs could be next. It’s easier to sell us out when they don’t look us in the face.

Photo credits:


     http://i.huffpost.com/gen/230633/thumbs/r-HOMELESS-FAMILIES-large570.jpg


     https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5fQBRw3OWQEtZmvPj0JfkjzBFQAeYCabPOvkrbQ3PJLm8FBRo

Philip Nobile rolls the rock

Poor Philip Nobile, NYCATR's gadfly correspondent.  Just as Sisyphus spent an eternity pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll back down, so Nobile has spent most of this school year begging the DOE and the UFT to relieve him of hardship commutes from his home in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn to ATR assignments in Staten Island. NYCATR has published some of his previous rock-rolling correspondence with the UFT gods and goddesses; below is the latest installment. 

Message #1 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Philip Nobile

To: Thomas Bennet (UFT BASIS High School representative), Howard Schoor (UFT Brooklyn Borough Representative), Amy Arundell (UFT Special Representative)

Dear colleagues:

According to hopstop, Tottenville is 18.6 miles from my house, entailing a 1:57 commute by public transportaion. This assigment exceeds the roundtrip time limit by almost an hour! How can the union allow this abuse? 

My New Dorp assignment was changed to Automotive after I complained to Tom last month. I would like the same consideration for Tottenville.

Whatever was done before can be done again, presumably.

Please let me know what you can do, not just for me, but for all ATRS. 

Thanks for your consideration.

Philip

       

Message #2 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Howard Schoor

To: Philip Nobile

cc: Debra Poulos (UFT Special Representative)

We will try to get your assignment changed. You can also file a grievance if you choose to do so.

          

Message #3 

Date: January 12, 2012

From: Philip Nobile

To: Howard Schoor

Howie, 

Any luck? What was the method? Whom did you call? What did they say? How did it happen the last time? If DOE said no, how do I grieve? Would this be a first? Thanks. 

 Philip

Image credit:  http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/zooms/sisyphus.gif

       

ATR teacher has never been used in his content area

An ATR teacher known as Every ATR has some interesting thoughts about the DOE's new plan for evaluating him and his colleagues in Brooklyn.



A substitute teacher dodges paper airplanes.
I am a HS ESL teacher. So far none of my ATR assignments have used me in my content area. I am troubled by the DOE's position that ATRs who are not covering classes in their content area will be judged on their classroom management. skills. When students in high school see a substitute (and that's what we are to the school's administration and to the students) the students see party time. Students won't sit still for a lesson. If absentee work is left students may or may not bother to do it. The UFT's advice to "teach what we know" just doesn't fly with high school students. These students, teenagers, will complain that what the sub tries to teach is not what the class is supposed to be. 


I understand from Amy Arundel, that the UFT has sent to the DOE a protocol for how principals should be utilizing ATRs.  It seems to me that until a protocol is in place for how ATRs are to be used, no one should be observing any ATR, particularly if they are being used out of their license area. By the way, aren't observations only supposed to be done when a teacher is actually teaching a class in his or her content area? 


By the way, as I've moved from high school to high school in Brooklyn, I've noticed that these new mini-schools have pretty much the same level of student as the school I was phased out of--low academics and high behavior problems. The only difference I can see is that these mini-schools have far fewer students and far, far more technological resources. I've also noticed that they are following administrative and pedagogical models that seem strange and useless. Exactly what is "ADVISORY" ??? 

Keep the faith.

Photo credit:

      https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLRItiEX3T_0zmNr6mdeYMUcbD5gA11SHpbyRdl-DNzISiPc4cpl_QyOXX65HUrEqH5s4FrLGFGqRYeFW77D3ADK_MK7QutG9Yzh_FGc-wRhJ3GLMasAfDFDUDUNUQXTCEEMZk44c-C20/s400/substitute+teacher.jpg

NYCATR gadfly stings horses and lipsticked pigs

Philip Nobile, our resident gadfly, has been corresponding with UFT officials again. NYCATR is proud to present Nobile's stinging messages to the UFT, and not so proud to present some of the UFT's responses.

MESSAGE #1:

December 2, 2011

From: Philip Nobile

To:  Thomas Bennett, Basis HS representative; Amy Arundell, Special Representative; Howard Schoor, Brookly Borough Representative; Cc: Michael Mulgrew, President; Michael Mendel, Secretary

Dear colleagues :

You have not responded to my email query of November 12 quoted below:

"According to Tom [Bennett], the UFT is talking to DOE about insane ATR commutes. I urge all deliberate speed. I just got my 3rd S.I. order in four weeks [Nobile lives in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn]. Please update. When did the UFT last speak to DOE on this matter and what was the conclusion?"

As you know, ATRs are discontented with their plight, especially considering that we are barred from the committee reviewing the agreement. This is typical of how Unity leadership operates. The top tells the bottom (ATRs) that they are unworthy of chapter representation or access to DA or chapter leader meetings. And topping off our disenfranchisement, you deprive us of basic information like the above.

Please answer my question. Thanks for your consideration.

Philip

MESSAGE #2:

From: Thomas Bennet

To: Philip Nobile

Dear Philip:

I said we are talking to them. By that I mean we had hoped that the DOE would see that a more sensible approach to the Tottenville-Bed-Stuy shuttle would be in everyone’s interest. I haven’t heard much from ATRs in the last few weeks, so I’m wondering if DOE has started keeping people closer to home? 

Your assertion that all ATRs are disconcerted with their plight, and their lack of equanimity arises from their ignorance of “secret” bargaining sessions, access to DA, and separate chapter representation is not borne out by my experience, and I speak with a lot of ATRs. 

Naturally, if I hear anything about a change of policy, I’ll let you know. And please keep me informed about any changes you experience in the field.

I’m still looking for you at Staten Island Tech. Perhaps we can team-teach my Global class one of these weeks.

T.B.

MESSAGE #3:

From: Philip Nobile

To: Thomas Bennett

Tom,

Apparently, we talk to different ATRs. I've never met a contented one.

Mulgrew's lipstick has worn off this pig. The ATR situation is akin to the rubber room fiasco, and the UFT's hands are all over it. How would you like to sub in a different school every week? Silly question.

Anyhow, why won't somebody tell me:

 (1) who from the UFT has talked to DOE about ATRs and when;

       (2) what was on the agenda and what was the DOE's reaction
       to commuter complaints, and the UFT's counter-reaction; and

       (3) why are no ATRs on the the UFT review committee?

These are basic questions. We need to know if you're fighting for us. In the name of transparency the UFT owes ATRs an explanation.

On the other hand, only co-teaching with you could carry me back to S.I. 

Philip

P.S. Howie promised future ATR meetings at the October fest. Do you have a date in mind?

Image credits:


     https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSahLVwPtYHgF-ELDgOL68q9D3iZQsUnHrD1dwDywEVAhuoSz13UA

     http://strategichighperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lipstick-on-a-pig.jpg

Guess who reads NYCATR?

NYCATR recently published a report from an ATR teacher in the Bronx who was removed from the classroom and relegated to office duty after he was "implicated" in an "incident"; the "implication" consisted of a parent's complaint that her child had been pushed (but not injured) by another student while standing on line, an "incident" that was neither observed by nor reported to the ATR teacher at the time of its "occurrence."

We have often complained that the UFT pays little attention to the misery of ATR teachers. In this case, at least, we must admit our error.  Less than 24 hours after the posting of the aforementioned report, NYCATR received an email from Amy Arundell, the UFT's Special Representative who has addressed ATR issues a number of times.  Here is Ms. Arundel's message:

  

I was very concerned when I read the post named above. I have never received an email from any member describing anything of the sort that is described here. It is a very disturbing anecdote and I would like to assist the member. Although the school is named, there are four schools - PS 153, one in each borough except SI.

If you can contact the person and make sure she/he has my correct contact details, I would appreciate it.

NYCATR responded with appreciation for the concern; we also took advantage of the opportunity to whisper a few sweet somethings into the ear of a well-placed UFT representative.  Here is NYCATR's response: 

Dear Ms. Arundell,

Thank you for your concern about the ATR teacher who was removed from his teaching post after being "implicated" in an "incident." I have forwarded your message to the teacher.

I am glad to hear that you are not satisfied that ATR teachers "have a job," regardless of how demeaning that job might be. Just yesterday, a UFT representative visited the school where I now have (after three years in the ATR) a provisional position. When I raised with him the ATR issue, his response was that the UFT saved their jobs. When I countered that being shifted from school to school on a weekly basis is a miserable existence, he simply repeated that the UFT saved their jobs. When I asked if saving jobs was the sole reason d'etre of the UFT, he repeated, once again, that the UFT saved the jobs of the ATR teachers. I hope you understand why I was extremely disappointed with this gentleman's responses.

          Respectfully,


       Joseph Moses




Picture credit: http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/tearchermailbox4c.gif

ATR teacher can't go home again

The following report was submitted by a teacher who would like to be known as Absolutely Teaching Ready.

Occupy Wall Street protesters read pro-ATR fliers.
Notice that the protesters all appear to be dressed in
clean clothes and none of them are scratching due to lice.

I just came back from "Occupy Wall Street" and raised the issue of ATRS there while passing out fliers to the people at the School Discussion circle. There was a lot of support for us.

I've spent the week at a multi-school location, the former Wingate High School. The trail I am taking through the borough lets me relive some of my family history. Wingate was the high school many of my cousins went to. Now it is four schools and the one I was assigned to was the School of Public Service - Heroes. Or not. I will leave you to decide when I discuss my week and the behavior of the Principal, Ben Shuldiner.

A few years ago, Shuldiner made news as the youngest principal in the system. I think he should be making news for how he misbehaved towards teachers this week.  When I checked in on Tuesday, the Principal told me that since there were four schools in the building, he would send me to wherever I was needed. I said nothing, hoping the matter would not come up. The Principal told me how he had received UFT awards for cooperating with the Union.  Later that morning I was told to go upstairs and cover an 8th grade class ( I've been a high school teacher) at the School for Human Rights. When I arrived a very nice fellow who turned out to be the Principal (I didn't know it at the time) listened as I explained that my presence there was a violation of the Union-DOE agreement since I was not assigned to a campus, but to a school. I covered the class (no lesson plan was available) and spent a half hour showing pictures of Occupy Wall Street and encouraging the children to discuss the economic issues or political issues their parents may be concerned about. When I went downstairs to the Heroes school, the Principal asked me if I had a complaint about anything. I explained again that it was a contract violation to be sent upstairs. I also contacted the UFT Representative for my former school. I asked him to let me know if anything gets resolved.

There were at least two other ATRS at this location, two Haitian-American gentlemen who fit the age profile for ATRS, both in their late 50s like me. Both by the way hold math licenses, one hasn't had an appointment for three years. One was assigned to a school upstairs. When we were not assigned a class we all sat in the staff lounge of the Public Service Heroes school.

The next morning the Principal came and told our brother from upstairs he "was not allowed in the school because"--pointing at me--I had brought up the matter of assigning teachers anywhere in the building. When questioned, he told me he wanted to discuss "expectations"; I suggested we discuss my expectations, but he had other ideas. 

The following day I was assigned a teacher's schedule. The school has an SBO (School Based Option). Classes are one hour long. Some days teachers have four classes and a Professional period, other days they have five periods. Since the teacher I was assigned had only four classes that day, I assumed I would have four. An hour later, I was given another class to cover; this meant that I would teach 5 hours! When I suggested that I would like to speak to the Principal I was told that I could discuss the matter with the Chapter leader during our respective lunch periods. I did that and told the Chapter leader that as I was following a teacher's schedule, I expected to get paid for an emergency coverage. 

Again I contacted the UFT Rep. I hadn't heard back from him but the School Chapter leader had. So the arrangement for shifting us to other schools was ended (for now). Later, I also wrote to Amy Arundel who, to her credit, did write me in the wee hours of the night that I should be paid for a coverage. 

But something else that happened that day was that during our lunch hour our friend who had been chased out of the Heroes school came down to break bread with us. There were several teachers in the staff lounge. Suddenly the Principal, Ben Shuldiner, appeared and in a gruff voice demanded to know what the brother was doing there in his school. (The obvious answer, of course, was that he was eating a sandwich.)

"Get out!", he shouted at him. "Get out now!" I told the principal he was behaving inappropriately. I asked him why he was doing this. He asked me, "Is that a question? I am not going to answer it!" When the UFT brother began to get his things together slowly (i.e., not fast enough for the principal) Shuldiner told him he was going to get security. Our fellow ATR left and a few minutes later the Principal returned with a Security Guard. 

Later that day our third ATR was watching a class and as the students attended to their assignments, he opened up a  book. The Principal came into the room and started shouting at him, in front of the students, "Close the book now!" 

The three of us have talked about this and I've asked them to contact the UFT Borough Reps to complain about the way they were treated. The behavior of the Principal towards them was markedly different in tone from me. It was, in my opinion, abusive and racist. What's more, when another Principal in the building tried to speak to Shuldiner about his behavior with the ATR, he refused to meet. 

The entire week demonstrated to me why ATRS need their own chapter leaders.  I've requested that the UFT Reps develop a list of items that both UFT members who are ATRS and the Principals they are assigned to should know to maintain contract compliance. These should include the matter of multi-school locations and how ATRS can be fairly treated when assigned to schools with SBOs. 

I would like to point out that the system is ripe for abuse and without guidelines and clarity the ATRS are likely to suffer. I will keep all informed whether I get paid for the "emergency coverage" and whether or not the Principal hears from the District Rep about his abusive, even racist behavior.

Next stop? Why the High Schools for Sports Management in the former Lafayette High School Campus, Bensonhurst. I left Bensonhurst 54 years ago when I was five years old, as my family was movin' on up to Canarsie. But now I am back in the old 'hood.  I hope I have a quiet week.

No Bright Lights at Manhattan UFT-ATR Meeting

This afternoon, October 11, the UFT held a meeting for Manhattan-based members of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).  The following report was filed by Marjorie Stamberg, a veteran union activist, and now a veteran contributor to NYCATR.

In terms of the information presented by Amy Arundel, today's meeting was basically a repeat of the earlier borough meetings last week.

There was one new item: principals who keep an ATR the whole year have an option to offer a written agreement for the teacher to sign indicating the teacher will be included in the school budget. Even so, it will only be provisional. Has anyone been offered this or know of anyone who was offered this?

It seems the leadership was mainly anxious to head off the hot issue of an ATR chapter. They made sure every district rep in Manhattan was there and kept repeating that they would be responsive to all phone calls. While it is important for the district reps to be aware of ATR issues, in no way is this the same thing as ATRs having full voting rights and elected representation in the union and at delegate assemblies--especially for teachers who are moving from school to school each week.

Several people spoke powerfully about this issue. As to the view that being in a different school offers opportunities to meet and interview principals, another teacher made the point that by the end of the year's weekly trek, this could impact negatively. For example, a principal could say that they've been in school after school and still had no offers.

Despite the many schemes to keep principals from gaming the system, there can be no solution until teacher salaries are again paid by central (avoiding the "two for the price of one" syndrome) and a return to seniority transfer, which the union gave up in 2005.

Again tonight, there was no real discussion of the deep issues facing ATRs.  In addition, only ATRs were allowed to speak despite the requests of many who have been advocating on this issue in the union.

I was appalled at the lack of respect for Roz Panepento who was told she couldn't speak. Roz is the author of "The Reckless Reorganization of District 79" and was the chapter leader when hundreds were excessed in our GED programs as well as the School for Pregnant and Parenting Teens.

D79 was the poster child for mass school closings and teacher ATRing. The former district superintendent, Teach for America star Cami Anderson is now running the Newark school system with Mark Zuckerberg's money.

Photo credit: http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/manhattan/midtown/timessquare/night/0512-15-07.jpg

Staten Island ATR meeting another sham and a fraud and a phony facade

A teacher named Sue filed this report about the UFT meeting for ATR teachers that was held on Staten Island on Wednesday, October 5.

Unwashed masses attempt to flee Staten Island.

There was no crowd. Only a handful of mainly elementary school teachers. There were only two high school teachers. Everyone seemed frustrated and angry. Emil Pietromonico and Amy Arundell were the storytellers.

Ms. Arundell began her propaganda spiel and became very agitated if anyone interrupted her speech to, God forbid, ask a question. We were told to write down our questions and to save them for the "question and answer" section of the night. 

Anyway, here is a summary of what she said:

1) ATRs will be moved around weekly so that the principals do not get a "free ride" using the ATR in a vacancy and allowing central to pay for the teacher.

2) Per-diem subs will no longer be allowed to cover vacancy positions. ATRs within that license will get an "audition."  However, principals are not obligated to hire the ATR.

3) High school teachers are basically screwed because their districts are so broad and they can be sent anywhere within a district.  Ms. Arundell said the placements are computerized and can NOT be changed.  No talk about the union fighting to keep high school teachers closer to home. "Too bad" was the answer when I spoke of my dilemma. When I told them that I was sent from the south side of Staten Island to the farthest school in the district they really couldn't care less. I have to go and that's that. 

4) More tales were spun. And then she started the speech about how the union fought hard to keep us. Bloomberg wanted to get rid of us. Blah Blah Blah.  One man agreed with her as he said "100%,  the union saved our jobs and are doing the best for us." I think he was planted in the room by the UFT.  Others started to agree with him and I felt the lukewarm coffee I had been served try to make its way onto the floor.

Finally, the unwashed were allowed to speak. When I asked why the DOE allowed the hiring freeze to be lifted over the summer she spewed something about more vacancies in the license areas than there were teachers. When I prodded her about why there were still ATRs in these license areas she had--surprise--no answer!

My findings:

THE UFT is doing nothing to help us and if we do not fight for our rights we are SCREWED!

UFT to ATRs: Information, Yes; Organization, No Way in Hell

Report from the Brooklyn ATR Meeting (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)

By Philip Nobile 

A crowd of over one hundred, mostly over 40 years of age, listened to a 45-minute presentation by Special Rep Amy Arundell and Co-Staff Director LeRoy Barr and then asked lots and lots of questions about our absurd predicament for almost two hours. The presenters were incisive and sympathetic in the information department. Apparently, they had cooled off from their hot meeting in The Bronx on Monday. 

“We know the DOE will screw things up and we’ll stay on top of this,” promised Barr who repeated the party line that ATRs should be happy rather than angry with their new deal. “It was not an ATR agreement, it was a no-layoff agreement,” he emphasized. “The DOE said you didn’t work. They wanted to lay you off. We will not allow them to lay you off.” 

Nevertheless, Barr’s solidarity soon evaporated when he squelched the unanimous clamor for establishing borough chapters to represent our interests. “We’re not here to talk about that,” he said, adding with typical top-down arrogance, “that’s not what you want.” 

The Information 

Arundell, a former middle-school Social Science teacher from the Bronx, is the UFT’s personnel person and now its designated ATR authority and apologist. She began with the mechanics of next week’s rotation and later addressed specific inquiries. Some highlights: 

►Brooklyn high school teachers will be assigned to District 73 or District 76 (including, horrors, Staten Island). K-8 teachers will remain in the districts from which they were excessed. This is a contractual right. 

►Principals cannot keep you in your current school unless they hire you to fill a vacancy, budget you on Galaxy, and inform the DOE.  No exceptions. 

►Your file stays in the school from which you were excessed and it’s unclear where files go if your school is closed. 

►You can be observed anytime, even if you’re teaching out of license.  

►Ratings are up in the air. No agreement yet with the DOE, but the UFT is opposed to evaluating teachers who spend only one week, or even one month, in a school. 

►If you’re absent, see the payroll secretary. For long term absence, contact Special Representative Debbie Poulos. For personal days, call your District Representative. 

►If you don’t get a new assignment in your DOE email by Friday, October 7, continue to report to your current school next Tuesday, October 11.

No Way In Hell Organization 

Several attendees, including this correspondent, protested the UFT’s pretense of representation via strange and ever-changing Chapter Leaders and soon-to-be overwhelmed District reps as back-ups. Without chapters of our own, we are out of the normal union loop, unable to attend chapter meetings and forbidden access to Delegate Assemblies. Even our allegedly lesser brethren in rubber rooms of yore had elected liaisons and monthly meetings at 52 Broadway. Denying such basic union rights to ATRs is unconscionable. 

Arundell pre-emptively defended the UFT’s third class representation of ATRs: “I will respectfully disagree that Chapter Leaders are not capable of representing you,” she said, raising her voice. “YOU ARE REPRESENTED. YOU ARE NOT A DISTINCT CLASS.” 

Nobody in the audience bought this poppycock. Cheers and clapping greeted the following dissents. 

►Herb Michael, former Chapter Leader, said: “I’m not convinced I’m really represented. We’re in a special situation. That’s why there’s a special agreement including a committee to review compliance. I’d feel more comfortable if some ATRs looked at it. We need to meet on a regular basis. Why can’t we have a motion on the floor to elect a chapter leader?” 

This is when Barr claimed that he knew better and that we didn’t want chapters to represent us. Adopting Randi Weingarten's line against rubber room chapters, he said, “You don’t want to be in a permanent class.” Such strained reasoning--as if chapter status would mean anything more than standard representation for us outcasts. At the least, Randi appeased reassigned teachers with monthly meetings in Manhattan. But ATRs in good standing are deprived of that small kindness. 

►John Lawhead said: “I’m amazed at the innocence of your assumptions. I’m in a school with no Chapter Leader. And now you’re telling us that District Leaders are going to make up the difference? What kind of union do you want to be, merely a service organization? You’ve got to use us in some way. We could be reps in schools.” 

By this time, Barr was gone and Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor stood in at the podium. He was whispering in Arundell’s ear while Lawhead spoke and may have missed his larger point about the UFT’s soul. But puffing up, he said that he would make certain that District Reps did their jobs. 

►Your correspondent, former Chapter Leader and three-year graduate of Brooklyn’s Chapel St. rubber room, spoke up: “I wanted to thank LeRoy for telling us what we want. But I know what we want; (turning to the audience): How many of you want a chapter for ATRs? (the room erupted unanimously in favor and I turned back to Schoor). Will you explain why we can’t have a chapter and will you give us your sign-up list so that we can better organize? 

Schoor and I have a complicated history. He is a nice fellow and has been generous with his time and assistance over the years. But just as often he has failed in nerve apropos my quarrels with the UFT and DOE. For example, I sent him three emails prior to the meeting asking for permission to briefly organize ATRs on site before the start of his informational session. No response. So I renewed my request on arrival. The answer was no. “It’s our meeting,” he said. I reminded him that his Special Rep Liz Perez, speaking for Barr, originally rejected my suggestion for an ATR gathering and that today’s meeting was just as much ours as the UFT’s. That got me nowhere, of course. Thereupon I entered the packed conference room and while people finished up their noshes, I defied Schoor by introducing myself and urging my colleagues to press our agenda as outlined in a Grassroots Education Movement broadsheet handed out by Norm Scott of ednotesonline. Schoor tried to shut me down almost immediately, but let me finish without interruption. 

As for our demand for a chapter, ever Schoor, the tone-deaf bureaucrat, declared that Union policy was made by the Executive Committee and Delegate Assemblies blah, blah, blah. And no, he would not share the sign-up list. In retort, I jabbed, “Such is the democracy we work in!” 

As the meeting wound down, two older female ATRs summed up our frustration with cris de coeur eliciting loud cheers. Said one: “Mulgrew doesn’t seem to care. Notice he’s not here and I bet he won’t be at the other meetings either.” 

And the other: “It's all about age and money. School aides are teaching classes in my school. Principals will not hire us. Where is the union in this? I want my dues back.”

Photo credit: 
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvJMVRz32Ds33koGKwBmBvrKnWMP3hhs9YfOTIDSHNbQf08Zye1Q

Letter from the Bronx UFT meeting

Marjory Stamberg, a longtime UFT activist, filed this report from the UFT's meeting for members of the ATR in the Bronx. The meeting was held on Monday, October 3, 2011, at 2500 Halsey Street.   

I attended the UFT ATR meeting for the Bronx borough yesterday (October 3). This is by no means a full report but a brief summary of the contentious issues and burning questions that were raised.

The UFT leadership people presiding were Amy Arundel (Special Representative), backed up by LeRoy Barr (Staff Director), who stepped in to try to cool things out when tempers started to rise, as they did frequently.  Arundel attempted to justify the June agreement on ATRs, which grew out of the deal on no layoffs of teachers. In exchange for that, it appears the ATR situation was used a bargaining chip. To save the DOE money, they agreed to use the ATRs in place of day-to-day subs. Those who are not given permanent assignments will be moved from school to school on a weekly basis (!) UNLESS a principal takes the affirmative action of alerting DOE central that he or she wishes to keep the ATR for more than a month. 

Time after time, the ATR teachers at the meeting spoke out and said that in this way things were made worse for them than before. Before now, many had the possibility of being in one school for a length of time, even if denied the rights of an assigned teacher. Now they must move every week to a new place and begin the wrenching process of adjusting to a new school--everything from locating keys to the bathroom, lockers, copiers, as well as relations with a new set of teachers and supervisors.

Arundel explained that no teachers will be forced to accept an assignment out of their district; she said that teachers should call the union if they receive such an assignment. Arundel also said that no teacher can be forced to do hall duty or cafeteria duty all day; ATRs must be treated as every other teacher on staff.

The important issue of evaluations was raised: how is an ATR teacher to be evaluated if the teacher is in a school for only one week? Arundel said that this is being negotiated with the DOE and the UFT position is that the teacher cannot be evaluated by any principal who has worked with that teacher for only one week.

Arundel and Barr kept coming back to the UFT default positions, which were two:  

*Regarding the weekly trek from school to school, Arundel said the UFT wanted this because the principals have been gaming the system, using an ATR like a full-time staffer without any rights and without paying for them. This, they hope, will force the principal to pay up and assign the teacher if they want that person around. (This, by the way did not work in District 79 last year, where the ATR teachers from Rikers worked all year and all but a very few were NOT assigned after the year of work in our school).

*If you don’t like any of this, the UFT bottom line is you still have a job and a paycheck. You could be in Chicago or Los Angeles and have a cap of a year or 18 months to get an assignment or you’re out.  

There are several points that needed to be raised and answers to questions that were not heard from the UFT officials:

1) Data: Arundel stressed that the union is amassing data, but the fundamental data questions were not addressed. How many ATRs have been given assignments this term, and how many ATRs are in the pool?

2) Since everyone in the room was demonstrably over 30 years old (many far over), there is clear evidence of age discrimination. Why is this not being fought directly?

3) If ATRs are to be treated as every other teacher, why are the ATRs not given a UFT chapter, with voting rights, delegates and chapter leaders?

The meeting was handled in a very bureaucratic way. Teachers were asked to speak only to the specific point at hand, without discussing the broader picture: the desperate situation of ATRs who are in this situation due to the UFT’s capitulation and give-away of seniority transfer rights and creation of the open market in 2005, and the union-busting attempts and school-closing patterns that are creating new ATRs every year.  If a teacher did speak to the specific point at hand, they were told that their questions were too detailed to raise in a group setting and to see the representatives individually after the meeting.

I was only allowed in the meeting after a prolonged interchange with a union representative, even though I explained that I was a UFT delegate and had spent a large number of hours advocating for ATRs in the past.  I mentioned that my District, D79, was probably the poster child for the mass excessing that took place following the “reckless reconstruction” of D79 in 2007, when hundreds of teachers were thrown out of their classrooms and hundreds of students lost in the process. Even then I was only allowed to observe, not speak.

Photo credit: http://www.uft.org/files/photo/bronx_boro_office_1.jpg