The DOE and UFT apparently couldn't come to an agreement on a new ATR agreement and the 2011 ATR Agreement is now back in force, except for the weekly rotation being monthly. No mandatory interviews, no expedited 3020-a hearing for ill-defined "unprofessional behavior", no automatic resignation for missing the first two days of a new assignment or missing two mandatory interviews, and no being treated as second class citizens. Most ATRs are jumping with joy as the 2014 ATR Agreement is no more. Despite the DOE/UFT propaganda that there are less ATRs in the system (1,162), the truth is that when you add the ATRs in provisional appointments or temporary leave replacements, there has been little change in the total amount of educators without a permanent position.
True, the DOE has pushed their field supervisors to "U" rate rotating ATRs and force them to resign, retire, or be terminated but they are replaced by the continued downsizing at the renewal schools as these struggling schools continue to lose students and cannot attract the students from the community and are not allowed to take over-the-counter students. The result is more teachers are excessed into the ATR pool from these struggling schools. This school year the schools hired over 5,700 teachers, most of them"newbies", to fill their vacancies. Yet the ATR pool remains stable as few experienced ATRs were even given interviews for these positions.
Now the DOE with or without UFT consultation, has decided to offer principals an incentive to hire the ATRs. According to the Principal's weakly, the DOE incentive is as follows.
Effective October 5, schools in districts 1-32 that hire Centrally-funded excessed teachers on a regular, permanent (not provisional) basis during the 2016–17 school year, will be eligible for an allocation to subsidize the cost of the teacher to the school. For each of the first three years that the teacher remains at the school, the school will receive the following allocations, reflected in the TO in Galaxy:
§ In Year 1 (FY 17), schools will receive funding for 100% of the cost of the teacher;
§ In Year 2 (FY 18), the funding will cover 50% of the cost of the teacher;
§ In Year 3 (FY 19), the funding will cover 25% of the cost of the teacher; and
§ In Year 4, the school is responsible for the full cost of the teacher.
..
On the surface one would think that the schools would jump at the chance to get a highly experienced ATR for the classroom for free the first year and at half price the second year? The problem is the DOE proposed a similar incentive the last two years that included getting the ATR at half price the first year, free for the second year, and at the school's average teacher salary for the length of the contract (2018). The result? Few, if any veteran teachers were offered permanent positions and in some ways the last incentive was a better deal for the schools then this proposal. Why didn't principals jump at the chance to get an experienced teacher for cheap you asked?
On the surface one would think that the schools would jump at the chance to get a highly experienced ATR for the classroom for free the first year and at half price the second year? The problem is the DOE proposed a similar incentive the last two years that included getting the ATR at half price the first year, free for the second year, and at the school's average teacher salary for the length of the contract (2018). The result? Few, if any veteran teachers were offered permanent positions and in some ways the last incentive was a better deal for the schools then this proposal. Why didn't principals jump at the chance to get an experienced teacher for cheap you asked?
T The reason is quite simple really. First, once an ATR takes a permanent position, he or she takes their rightful rank in the school's seniority system and if there is excessing the ATR would probably have seniority over less experienced school staff who would then be excessed. Second, in schools with Leadership Academy principals the veteran teacher is dangerous due to their institutional memory on how collaborative schools work. Third, the ugly head of age discrimination is a real concern as many principals want younger teachers they can abuse rather than veteran teachers who can sniff out bullshit when presented to them. Finally, once the ATR is in a permanent position, only a 3020-a hearing in front of an independent arbitrator can result in the teacher's removal from the school. A headache that some principals rather not go through if they don't need to.
T The latest DOE incentive to encourage principals to hire an ATR is inadequate and is doomed to fail for the reasons I listed above. Let the union and the DOE show me otherwise with real statistics and not unsupported statements. The only way the DOE can get principals to hire ATRs is to completely ban schools in the District from hiring new teacher until all the ATRs in that subject area are placed. Principals who try to hide their vacancies would be penalized by either eliminating the hidden vacancy from the school's budget and/or take disciplinary action against the Principal. Then you will see the schools falling all over themselves in recruiting and hiring from the ATR pool with only a handful of educators with obsolete licenses left in a vastly reduced ATR pool..
o