Do you trust the UFT?

Here is the image that graces the front page of the latest edition of the UFT's New York Teacher:

Brothers and sisters of the ATR: Are you howling with laughter? Are you cringing? Vomiting? Smashing your computer?

We at NYCATR have decided to leave the comments about this image to you, the readers.  Please send us your thoughts by commenting on this blogpost.  We recommend that you use the following format:

I do not trust the UFT because... 

Picture credit:   http://www.uft.org/files/photo/in-uft-we-trust.jpg

How important is the ATR issue?

You really gotta hand it to the UFT's "newspaper," the New York Teacher.  

True, they've never published the article that they promised about "teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, including how teachers became part of the ATR." Still, they published some great articles in the latest edition (December 22, 2011).  For example:

*(p. 1) a headline stating, "Parents get information and resources from the union" (but not ATR teachers);

*(p. 8) a full-page article about the UFT's participation in the fight for  voting rights (which ATR teachers, who do not belong to any local chapter, do not have);

*(p. 13) a half-page editorial by our President, Michael Mulgrew, who writes that "2011 has turned out to be the year that people said 'enough'" (you're right, Mike--ATR teachers have taken enough abuse);

*(pp. 24-25) a two-page spread about the UFT's "Annual Parent Conference" (which means they meet with parents about as frequently as they meet with the ATR teachers);

*(p. 33) a notice about the New York Teacher obituary policy (where someday you might read about a teacher who served 23 years in the ATR).

The piece de resistance, however, came on page 38 of this venerable 48-page publication:

 *approximately 1/16 of a page dedicated to a summary of a resolution in support of the ATR that was passed at the December 7 meeting of the UFT's Delegate Assembly.  

My writing teachers always taught me to write a conclusion, and I teach the same to my students.  In this case, however, I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions about whether the UFT thinks the ATR issue is particularly urgent or important.  

     

  

The UFT keeps its promises by publishing them

I would like to believe in the UFT.  I would really love to feel in my heart that they stand behind me and all other New York City teachers with all their strength.   Alas, I find myself feeling like Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984--I desperately want to believe that a man holding up four fingers is really holding up five, but I can't deny the reality in front of my eyes.  

On November 9, the UFT posted on its website a resolution regarding the teachers of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).  It included the following:

RESOLVED that the New York Teacher will run an article on teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, including how teachers became part of the ATR.

Has the UFT kept its promise?  Only in the measliest sense of the word.  Yes, an article was published, on page 3 of the November 24th edition of the New York Teacher.  It consisted of a very brief summary of the resolution mentioned above, including the promise to publish an article about the ATR in the New York Teacher.  In other words, the UFT is keeping its promise to publish an article about the ATR by publishing its promise to publish an article about the ATR.  Does that sound like Orwellian doublespeak?  You bet it does.

I'll bet I know the answer to a few other questions, too:

* Why was this article on page 3, and not on page 1 or 2?

* Why did this little four-inch report on the ATR have to share space with news about four other UFT resolutions, none of which relate to the ATR issue?

* Why did this article get the headline "ATR measure breezes through," as if the ATR is not a contentious issue that has inspired hundreds of teachers to attend raucous meetings and has inspired one UFT official to deliver a  "demagogic rant" in opposition to a resolution that was proposed on behalf of ATR teachers? 

* And, finally, why didn't this article contain--as promised previously by the UFT--any information on "how teachers became part of the ATR"?

Could it be that the UFT wants this little ATR nuisance to quietly fade away?  Could it be that the UFT has nothing meaningful to say to a group of over 1,000 teachers who were sold like a mess of pottage so that King Bloomberg wouldn't lay off any teachers?  Could it really be that the UFT leadership believes that their job begins and ends with saving jobs, but the quality of those jobs is none of their business? 

What do you say, dear readers?

Picture credits:  https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ36SCx6enSEvpoWJSkfBHqNIf2QLNzgm_70ID6ZxIlHRhxJYXdZN26Iws2YsK0Vw1XFBoWTpvKYkFUv1jaAyTRxllxrZj8n0lJ3qkwKm1AdeE1TMAor-eigLoZbsMzY9npn0HykAdRRY/s320/vlcsnap-2011-06-19-10h01m16s168.png


http://barkersandrubes.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/king-bloomberg.jpg?w=480&h=558

Once again, the New York Teacher fails to report on the ATR

Once again, NYCATR presents you with an empty box, this one found on a streetcorner in Brooklyn, reposing among lovely fallen leaves and less-lovely bags of garbage.  The empty box represents, again, the number of words that the latest edition of the UFT's New York Teacher devoted to the Absent Teacher Reserve.  

Have no fear, however.  The UFT has passed a resolution in which they promise "that the New York Teacher will run an article on teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, including how teachers became part of the ATR."  The resolution also promises the following:

*the United Federation of Teachers will direct its chapters and Chapter Leaders to reach out to members of the Absent Teacher Reserve who are assigned to their schools, to welcome them, and to support them;  

*the UFT [will] demand that the DOE create a protocol for Principals so that UFT members going into a school for the first time will be treated professionally and given the information for that particular school necessary to perform their duties;  

*the United Federation of Teachers will continue to educate Chapter Leaders about the rights of teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, and direct its chapters and Chapter Leaders to continue to proactively protect those rights, and to intervene if those rights are being infringed upon by administration, as the ATR may be justifiably reluctant or fearful of speaking up; 

*the United Federation of Teachers has always and will always stand for the dignity of all UFT members.

Is the UFT sugarcoating the new ATR deal?

We recently summarized an official DOE document that gives the nitty-gritty details of the new rules for deployment of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).  

          *click here for a link to the DOE document

               *click here to see NYCATR's summary

Now, the latest edition of the UFT's newspaper, the New York Teacher, has provided their own summary of the ATR agreement (see page 3 of the August 4th edition). 

The problem is that there seems to be a discrepancy between the DOE's version and the UFT's version.  

The DOE says that vacancies created by long-term absences will be covered by ATR teachers on a "trial basis," prior to a school using a per-diem substitute;  a principal may remove an ATR teacher from such a "trial" at any time, at which point a per-diem substitute may be hired.

     *In other words, there is no guarantee that any ATR teacher will ultimately land the long-term assignment.  If, after subjecting an ATR to a trial, the principal still prefers a per-diem  candidate, Ms. Per-Diem gets the gig.

The UFT reports: "Every long-term absence or leave must be filled by an ATR.  Two ATRs must be sent for consideration for placement to any school that has at least one vacancy.  The principal can accept them or not." (Italics added by NYCATR.) 

     *This sounds like the assignment will definitely be given to an ATR teacher; the only question is which of the ATR teachers will win the beauty contest. 

And so, we wonder:

*Did the UFT have access to a DOE document that NYCATR

hasn't seen yet?

*Does the UFT know how to read?

*Is the UFT trying to sugarcoat a lousy deal

that they negotiated for the ATR teachers?

The author of this blog is pro-UFT, but he is an equal-opportunity questioner. Any answers out there?

News Flash: Teachers in Absent Teacher Reserve (ATRs) are misused

I know two ATRs who work in the same high school.  Sam is a real expert on European history; Ed is an experienced math teacher. So what happened recently when a social studies teacher and a math teacher were absent on the same day?  You guessed it: Sam got the math classes and Ed got the social studies, and the students got cheated.

Then there was the woman who was an excellent special education teacher for kindergarten and first grade.  When she was excessed and became an ATR, where was she sent to cover classes?  To a junior high-school, of course. 

In a similar vein, here's a little item from the latest edition of the New York Teacher:

Sharon Kennedy, a librarian at PS/IS 325 in East New

York, was excessed last year and is now teaching 6th

grade as an ATR in Brooklyn while a teacher runs the

school’s library.

Listen, why worry?  The DOE's motto is Children First, so all this must be for the benefit of the children.