Class Size and the ATR

In New York City, if the last numbers I heard are accurate, we have 800 unassigned teachers. Now those numbers are from last year. They don't include teachers newly unassigned, and they don't include teachers who were temporarily assigned for last year only. The number could be far different in September. Just for the sake of argument, though, let's call it 800.

One single teacher can teach up to 170 students under our current contract. That's too many already, but in a whole lot of schools teachers are teaching even more than that. That's because, under our contract, when there are oversized classes they don't always have to be resolved. There could be a "plan of action" on the part of the city, and if some arbitrator likes it, well, that's the plan.

Here's the thing, though--the only "plan of action" that solves the problem is bringing the class size down. And once we do that, we still have the highest class sizes in the state. We should be focusing on bringing current class sizes down, something we haven't bothered with in over half a century. I'm forever amused by UFT leaders saying we sacrificed money to win class size limits, because if they were even born, they were in diapers when that happened.

Let's get back to here and now. Let's give our 800 ATR members a small break, and say they only have 150 students each. 800 times 150 is 120,000. If ever class in NYC is oversized by two, and we give them to ATR members, we could fix sixty thousand oversized classes. Personally, I doubt we have that many, but if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.

Now it isn't altogether that simple, of course. ATR teachers are all over five boroughs, and it's highly unlikely that whatever they teach is exactly what students in oversized classes need. Not only that, but if you're an ATR in Queens, the city can't simply send you to Staten Island. We have agreements, and not even Donald Trump can have Whatever He Wants, Whenever He Wants.

So if I'm a Queens ATR, you can't send me to Staten Island. You could, however, ask me if I want to go to Staten Island. The worst I could do is say no. I work in a generally desirable school. Sure, we may get a Boy Wonder supervisor now and then. We might even get a Girl Wonder. But I once watched a principal tell a young teacher to be careful, because there were a hundred people who wanted his job. I'm sure the principal was right. So maybe someone would travel to come to us. I know a lot of people who do, and I'm one of them.

Let's say that doesn't work. Just because I like my school, you don't have to. Maybe my school sucks and I'm delusional. Who knows, really? Wherever you are, kids need you. It's beyond ridiculous that the city won't put you to work because some principal might get his feelings hurt. If you're a Queens teacher, you should go to a Queens school. If that means an actual reduction in class sizes, well, so be it. Why is there a single oversized class when we have an Absent Teacher Reserve? Why are there classes of 34 and 50, the highest in the state, when there is an Absent Teacher Reserve?

Let's put the ATR to work tomorrow, and stop worrying about the scare stories from Families for Excellent Schools, or their well-reported rallies of nine people. Let's give jobs to our teachers, and teachers to our students. This is what you call a win-win. If I'm an ATR and I suck as badly as stories in the tabloids suggest, let some principal slide off his imperial keester and prove it.

Otherwise, let's make sure there are enough classes for teachers to teach and students to attend.

Am I naive? Are there further complications I haven't anticipated? If that's the case, it's on DOE and UFT to sit down and figure out solutions. These are two huge problems that can be used against one another to cancel each other out. If it's not a total solution, it has to be at least a partial one.

If it isn't, I'd like to know why.

UFT Contract--What's Worth Paying For?

I'm going to speak strictly for myself here. There are a lot of things we've called "givebacks." These usually entail giving up rights or privileges for money. Leadership will sometimes say things are better this way, but I'm not generally in agreement. It's never popular to accept less money, but there are some things I think would be worth it.

Number one on my list is class size. I realize this has played part in no giveback. But jeez, it's been 50 years with no change whatsoever. Not only that, but the exceptions are so broad you could drive a fleet of Mac trucks through them, side by side, and still have room for Trump's military parade. It's common sense that the fewer students you have, the more time you can spend helping each and every one. If that's not enough, there is rigorous research that will tell you (duh) that reasonable class sizes help students to learn.

Let's also note that we have the highest class sizes in the state. How do DOE hacks claim to put "children first, always," and stand by that? In some cases, our class sizes are 60% higher than those of other districts. Parents consistently tell the DOE that class sizes are their number one priority. The DOE ignores this and places its collective head in the sand.

We, UFT,  really ought not to be paying for this. As a result of the C4E lawsuit, the city submitted a plan in 2007 to reduce class sizes across the board. It was approved by the state, but the city just ignored it. It's kind of amazing they come to us with Danielson, sit around and tell us just how much we suck, but won't bother spending a dime to make things better. I would forgo part of a raise to push class sizes back.

If the DOE cares about children, it must then care about class sizes. If it doesn't, it's on us to work something out, or beat them into submission. I don't care which. 

It's ridiculous we cannot grieve letters to file for being (a.) inaccurate, (b.) stupid, or (c.) all of the above. If the principal accuses you of throwing a cheeseburger at a student, and you did not, in fact, throw said cheeseburger, that is not grounds to have the letter removed. You have to wait until 3020a to contest it. Meanwhile, all you can do is write a response. If the principal doesn't like it, he can put another letter in your file, because why not?

I used to read a book called Go Dog Go to my daughter when she was very young. In it, there is a pair of dogs that keep meeting. One dog repeatedly asks the other, "Do you like my hat?" The other replies, "No, I do not." If you told a dog you did not like her hat, your principal could place a letter in your file. How could you respond? Could you write an impassioned response explaining what you didn't like about the hat? Could you write how stupid you feel the letter is? Guess what? If the principal doesn't like that letter, you could get yet another letter in your file, because why not?

In fact, there are things you can grieve. You can grieve if the occurrence happened over three months ago. You can grieve if the administrator failed to meet with you before issuing the letter. Here's what happens then--the principal calls "legal," and some DOE employee who likely as not has never bothered to read the Contract will say, "Sure you can do that. You're the principal. You can do whatever you want."

You will then go to Step Two, where another DOE employee will say the thing that happened was not, in fact, an occurrence, and therefore it doesn't matter that three months have passed. Or they may say that the thing that happened did not actually become an occurrence until the principal found out about it. Because guess what? They haven't read the contract either so they do Any Damn Thing They Feel Like.

I'd pay to open further grievance for letters in file. I'd pay to stock legal with people who knew ass from elbow, and hearing officers who knew the same. I'd also pay to place each and every ATR. It's a crime we have even one while a single class is oversized. I understand we can't place ATR members just anywhere, but I'd reach out and offer for every opening.

I know, the city has a surplus, and we shouldn't pay for anything. I think some things are worth paying for. Whatever we got for givebacks is blood money and I'd just as soon give it back.

What do you think?

Chalkbeat Blathers Otherwise, but We Are All ATR

As the city enters contract negotiations with the United Federation of Teachers, reformy Chalkbeat is, predictably, running a hit piece on the Absent Teacher Reserve. I'm particularly fascinated by Chalkbeat's assertion that ATR teachers are collecting "bonuses." I've been a New York City teacher since 1984, and I've never collected a bonus in my life.

A bonus is a one-time payment you get when your company gives you something beyond your pay scale. I watch a show called Billions on Showtime, and the traders get bonuses based on their performance. While the city has tinkered with various schemes that gave bonuses to schools and a few odd positions like "master teacher" or something, I don't recall merit pay to individuals ever being a thing here. If it ever was, it isn't now. And if it ever was, ATR teachers weren't on the receiving end. They certainly aren't now.

What Chalkbeat is whining about is the fact that our brothers and sisters in the ATR are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that they get step raises just as the rest of us do. Like all teachers, they get credit for education above and beyond a BA. And hey, if Chalkbeat and the commission who wrote up this hatchet job wish to correct it, they can alter the pay scale so that all teachers reach maximum at eight years. I don't think anyone in the ATR will object.

The fact is the steps given for time are not bonuses. They are in our contract not to award us for breathing, as readers may gather from this typically uninformed and biased article, but rather to avoid having us hit maximum salary as quickly as we once used to. Because of the steps, the city saves millions and millions of dollars by putting off paying us, and by never paying max to teachers who don't hang around for at least 22 years. It used to be 20 when I started. The higher that number gets, the more money the city saves.

As far as I can tell, this "nonpartisan" commission did not consider any solution so radical as placing these teachers in full time positions. Reformy Chalkbeat considers this common sense solution "controversial," saying principals would hide the positions rather than allow the city to fill them. Evidently, principal insubordination is not controversial in Chalkbeat World. Since principals get away with sexual harassment and grade fraud and keep their salaries, I'm given to wonder what exactly they have to do before things become controversial.

One thing I really love about this story is the headline, which ominously warns, "New York City's Absent Teacher Reserve could get pricier as teachers collect raises, bonuses." Let's ignore the usage of English conventions, and let's ignore the previously addressed nonsense about bonuses. Let's just dig a little into the piece. After the various reports about gloom, doom, and costliness if offers us this:

Still, the commission’s report found that the Absent Teacher Reserve overall will cost less than previous years. 

Well who would've thunk it? Didn't the headline warn us about all those expensive ATR teachers? And yet they could become more costly. Also, they could become less costly. Also, for all Chalkbeat knows, money could start falling from the sky, and if enough ATR teachers pick it up, they could retire and save the city a ton of money.

Let's examine another assertion from Chalkbeat:

The reserve is comprised of teachers who don’t have a permanent position because their schools were closed, or because they face legal or disciplinary problems. 

That's not entirely true, but why should Chalkbeat trouble itself with fundamental understanding or research? Stuff like that takes time, and maybe via shortcuts, Chalkbeat saves money. Judging from this article, saving money is more important than trivialities like truth. Teachers who face legal or disciplinary problems are reassigned. The only ones who end up in the ATR are those who've already faced them. In fact, if they were deemed unfit they'd have been fired, not placed in the ATR. But hey, it's Chalkbeat, and Gates and Walmart don't contribute to them to hear stuff like that.

On this astral plane, the solution to the ATR issue is not firing them. Make no mistake, if that happens principals will be able to throw trumped up charges at any or all of us, dump us into the ATR, and fire us after a certain amount of time. While Chalkbeat says it's been done in places like Chicago and DC, they've proven disastrous for union and working teachers there. Of course I don't expect Chalkbeat or a "nonpartisan" commission to care about that.

But just like we'd be perfectly willing to allow top salary in eight years, thus averting those awful "bonuses" so bemoaned by Chalkbeat and the commission they dug up, I'm confident UFT would be perfectly happy to agree that all ATR teachers to be placed in positions. If they're as bad as the scary rumors propagated by Chalkbeat suggest, let the city prove it. The fact is they've failed to do so for each and every working ATR teacher who's faced charges. Otherwise, we'd be talking about ex-teachers.

As much as I and others have complained about the 2014 contract, we could have secured it earlier if the union had given up the ATR. Doing so would have placed targets on all our backs, not just those of ATR members.

No raise would make that worthwhile. Maybe the city should stop placing problem codes on the records of teachers who it's failed to fire. Maybe the city should stop sending them all over the place to work as subs. Maybe the city should place ATR teachers, if for no other reason, simply to reduce the highest class sizes in the state.

In fact, maybe NYC ought to stop attacking working teachers, stop forming "nonpartisan" groups that don't know the facts, and start a productive and fruitful relationship with those of us who devote our lives to teaching the city's children.

Me and my crazy ideas.

Alice in Reformyland

I don't link to the 74, but the reformy Gates-funded make-believe teachers over at Educators 4 Excellence are making a stink over the ATR. It seems they and their reformies care a great deal about students in so-called failing schools, the ones full of poverty, health issues, and homelessness. Since their Dear Leader, Bill Gates, has already decided to ignore those problems, the former untenured teacher who runs E4E has decided to go a different way. the same way StudentsFirstNY went.

They're asking all sorts of questions about the ATR, like which ones were removed for disciplinary charges. You see, in Reformyland, charges are the same as convictions. It doesn't matter if said charges led nowhere, and by the way, all of them did. Otherwise these teachers they want to know about would've been fired rather than retained. This is mentioned nowhere in the 74, which is just one more reason there's no link.

Why are the former teachers who run E4E all in a tizzy over the ATR? I can't read their minds or look into their souls (which have likely as not been sold for Gatesbucks anyway). They're probably all excited for the same reason Klein was--this is a key to breaking union and putting us out on our own. One thing UFT leadership did right was hanging tough on giving ATRs a time limit so they'd face dismissal. That happened in Chicago, if I'm not mistaken, and has been a disaster.

We are all ATRs, whether or not you know it. It's just a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time. I work just a few miles south of Flushing High School, and just a few north of what was Jamaica High School. Am I a better teacher because I happen to work at Lewis? Of course not. In fact, I came to Lewis from John Adams High School in 1993. Back then there was a UFT transfer plan and we could pick a new place. Had I stayed at Adams, I'd have had to reapply for my job and quite likely would've become an ATR. It can happen anywhere. You never know. The only thing you can be sure of is that the teachers will be blamed.

There's a reason why reformies are harping on ATRs, and that reason is they want working conditions for union teachers as tenuous as possible. That way they can build more non-union charters and make more teachers work 200 hours a week with no rights. You don't want to teach the extra class? Screw you. You don't want to take parent phone calls until 10 PM? Screw you. You don't want to take a bus trip to Albany in which you teach a lesson on the bus? Screw you. You have no tenure and you're fired. We can always open up another can of teachers, especially now that we don't have to bother with that pesky school certification.

Getting rid of the ATR means fire at will, folks, and it's likely as not that you and I will be the ones fired. Don't buy into the stereotypical nonsense about ATR teachers. It's not their fault their schools were closed. It's not their fault there are cute little academy schools full of newbie teachers where no one wants to take on a veteran salary. It's not their fault that whatever nonsensical charges, likely as not pressed by Bloomberg and his flunkies, failed to stick.

It's certainly not their fault that publications, up to and including the NY Times, choose to baselessly stereotype them. I'm not sure what's happening over at the Times. They just did a feature on a lovable, pasta-cooking Nazi next door type. I do know this, though. We need to protect the ATR with everything we got, because whither they go, so go us all.

That's exactly what the reformies are counting on.

ATRs Are the Golden Key for Reformies

Thanks to the blogger at ATR Adventures for alerting me to pieces I miss. This one, from the NY Post, is important for several reasons. First of all, it's important that they even bothered to speak with a real teacher and former ATR in the form of James Eterno. That's a step up from a lot of the nonsense I've seen on the same topic in Chalkbeat.

It's also important that the article attributed this demonstration, like others of its ilk, to a reformy astroturf group. In this case, it's charter-loving StudentsFirstNY, and offshoot of Michelle Rhee's group. Rhee, of course, has moved on to a gig that deals with actual fertilizer rather than what passes as information with her BFFs.

The big question, of course, is why the reformies are so preoccupied with the ATR, or Absent Teacher Reserve. Why, if they want to push privately run charter schools, do they even care whether or not we put these people to work?

I'd argue the answer is pretty basic. We are all ATRs waiting to happen. It's just a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time. I worked at John Adams High School for about seven years. It was just a simple twist of fate that I'm not there anymore. When Adams became a Renewal school, or whatever they were calling it that year, all the teachers had to reapply for their jobs. I recall reading the majority didn't bother. That could easily have been me. Or you.

Even the NY Times is piling on ATR teachers. I expected better from them, but I've been wrong before. Of course newspapers have unions, and they'd probably like them to go away. Who wants to deal with contracts when you could just cut pay, benefits, and rights? Once you do that, you can treat people any damn way you please, and keep more money for yourself. And that's directly relevant to us.

Right now, NY charter schools can certify their own teachers any way they want. It's a month of training, 40 hours in the classroom, or something, and then they are teachers, sort of. Charters have a turnover problem. They treat people like crap and people seem not to like it. People say it isn't sustainable if you want to, oh, get married, have children, live a life or anything like that.

This is tough for charter school bosses. In fact, I know charter teachers who've moved to public schools, and they aren't going back, ever. Despite all the things I write, and all the nonsense we endure, our jobs are a walk in the park compared to charter schools. Can you imagine having to take a cell phone home to answer questions after work? Imagine having to take bus rides to Albany at Eva's beck and call. Imagine having no contract, no rights, and no voice.

People who run charter schools have not only imagined, but also realized all those things. They see them as a prototype for all of us. They're reinforcing it with their limited certification. What if the charter teachers can't move to public school gigs? People with charter certification will be stuck. It's unlikely there's time to work in a charter and take night classes. After all, you have that phone to answer, and you've probably only slept eight minutes, what with making home visits and doing who knows what else.

The ATR was an egregious error in the 2005 contract, quite possibly the worst mistake the UFT ever made. We made a strong showing against the awful contract, but it wasn't good enough. The ATR is kind of our Achilles Heel. Bloomberg used it against us, demanding a time limit for ATRs. Leadership, to its credit, hung tough. Of course, this resulted in an inferior contract for us and a pattern that was the worst I've ever seen.

This notwithstanding, giving up the ATRs would place targets on all our backs. Close this school, close that school, wait a few months, and then fire everyone. Where do fired teachers go? Many I know have gone to charter schools. It's ironic that the people out marching against ATRs are perfectly OK with that.

Here's why it's OK--degrading and debasing middle class jobs is a win for the hedge funders and gazillioanaires who fund groups like StudentsFirst. They'll shed crocodile tears about how it's all about the children, but it's all about the money. Janus isn't enough for them. They want it all, they want it now, they want more, and they don't give a golly gosh darn if you go begging, eat cat food, or both.

That's the master plan, in fact. Crap jobs for you, crap jobs for the children they claim to love, no union, and bring back the good old days of the nineteenth century. Child labor isn't far behind.

Doing to the Times What the Times Does to ATR Teachers

Judith Miller was a reporter at the NY Times. She was known for "anti-Isiamic bias," and was famous for perpetrating the weapons of mass destruction nonsense that dragged us into a costly and endless involvement in Iraq. She was also involved in the disastrous matter of Valerie Plame. Though she acknowledged having used inaccurate sources, she went on to work for Fox News and Newsmax, likely offering the same crap she did at the Times.

Jayson Blair was famously caught fabricating sources, yet continued on writing. Blair wrote a book called Burning Down My Master's House, and people not only bought it, but also evidently read it. In the book, Blair revealed substance abuse, and revealed that he had committed said abuse before he left the NY Times.

Numerous columnists on the NY Times write baseless reformy nonsense. This includes Nicholas Kristof, who put forth the absurd notion that teacher certification was keeping Colin Powell and Meryl Streep from careers as teachers, though neither of them had expressed any remote interest in doing so. Kristof also thinks that students need to learn Spanish before they learn Chinese, as though no American child has Chinese family, or interest in learning the most-spoken language in the world.

NY Times Columnist Charles Blow thinks Eli Broad is fighting the good fight to "reform" education. Diane Ravitch deems him hopelessly misinformed, and says he relies on flawed information. He's one of several NY Times columnist who got on board with the Common Core lovefest the paper seemed to embrace.

Former food critic Frank Bruni was made a columnist, and writes a whole lot of nonsense about city teachers. He indulges in stereotype and says it's nearly impossible to fire teachers. Oddly, I know teachers who have been fired, and I'm just a lowly teacher, without nearly the resources of a NY Times reporter. Bruni relies on interviews with E4E folk for information, and that's good enough for him. Bruni relies on logical fallacy like appeal to authority to make his point.

Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm using stereotype to bash the NY Times. I'm giving you several examples, drawn from who knows how many, and painting a picture of the entire organization. This is the same as when people point to members of a religion, racial group, or nationality and attribute some quality to said group as a result. I'm an ESL teacher. I have taught students from every corner of the earth, from many religions and countries. One thing I've learned is that no stereotype is true.

Over at the NY Times, education reporter Kate Taylor has learned no such thing. Thus, she takes a handful of anecdotes about ATR teachers, places them all into a story, and paints the entire group with one brush. That's stereotype, that's logical fallacy, and make no mistake, that's what the Times is offering us as reporting.

This is no different from the trash we see in NY Post and Fox News editorials. I read education reporting all the time, and the Times is way behind the News and the Post. I remember, years ago, reading that the February break was a big loss for parents, because they'd have to find some way to care for their children. Unlike every single teacher in NY, the Times was unaware that NYC's preferred alternative to the week off was teachers going in for PD. There was no scenario under which the students were going to attend, but that didn't get in their way of demonizing the UFT.

This Times story is a disgraceful piece of trash. This is exactly how Campbell Brown made her career as a reformy, and the Times story is no better than any of the nonsense propagated in the tabloids by Brown. Kate Taylor should get in touch with her inner sense of shame, if indeed she has one.

Another Day, Another ATR Hatchet Job

The NY Post today has yet another assault on the Absent Teacher Reserve. Naturally, all blame is cast on the United Federation of Teachers and those who find themselves stuck in the ATR. No blame whatsoever is assigned to Michael Bloomberg, Patron Saint of Reforminess, who had an equal hand in creating this monstrosity.

Like reformy Chalkbeat, cited in the editorial, the Post bemoans the salaries of teachers without regular assignments, and also goes on to complain when the teachers are actually assigned. The clear implication is that teachers should be fired without due process. That's a slippery slope because we are all ATRs.

It's important to note that any teacher can be brought up on charges at any time, and that even if the charges are nonsense it's likely some minor one will be sustained. Maybe you used your phone in the school, or did something equally inconsequential. That's enough to fine you a few thousand bucks and place you into the ATR. Then you're doomed, if the Post gets its way.

Note also that the Post harps on salary. Teachers make too much money and it's best, evidently,  to fire them and save it. That's an odd argument for a piece purporting to be concerned about children. Do you want your children to grow up and be fired because their salaries are too high? It's not hard to infer the Post is fine with that. Those of us who actually care about children want decent working conditions for them.

...the ATR crowd averages 18 years of tenure — which means their salaries are too high for many principals’ budgets.

Yup, it's the money. I'm not sure how the Post expects to recruit the quality teacher it claims to want for less. NYC has tried that for decades and it's resulted in various intergalactic teacher searches. I myself got this job as a result of a subway ad. The utter lack of respect for experience in teachers shows how little the Post appreciates education, as well as a cynical lack of expectation that with age comes wisdom.

Another issue this brings up is so-called fair student funding. The fact is principals were not always tasked with worrying about teacher salaries in their budgets. This needs to change, and I hope UFT leadership moves toward making that happen. Doubtless the Post, which seems to hate the idea of teachers being compensated for their work, would cry bloody murder.

The Post offers absolutely no evidence for their main premise, that children will suffer as a result of being taught by ATRs. Make no mistake, this is a stereotype, promoted and reinforced by reformy Chalkbeat and others. If there are some ATRs who shouldn't be teaching, there is a process to remove them. Precisely zero of these ATR teachers have been removed by this process. The Post may or may not know this, but I do, and now you do.

Bernard Gassaway, former Boys and Girls HS principal, tweeted one test of that: “If ATRs are truly qualified top teachers, then place them at the highest performing schools where vacancies exist. No exceptions!”

It's interesting that the Post uses an argument from the leader of a school that, by Bloomberg standards, failed for many years. Also interesting is the fact that Gassaway himself took no responsibility for it, instead blaming the city. Then there's the strawman argument that UFT says ATRs are "top teachers." I have no idea whether or not that's true, and I'd argue, rather than stereotyping ATR teachers for better or worse, we should judge them individually.

All I'm saying is, by the DOE's own standards, no ATR teachers have been deemed unfit. Therefore firing them is beyond the pale. This is particularly true because Gassaway and the Post gleefully spread stereotypes about them. Not only that, but the DOE actually has a Scarlet Letter thing on the records of many, warning principals not to hire them even if they want to.

If the Post likes arguments like Gassaway's, I have one for them. Why not have the charter schools, which they say perform miracles, take all the low-performing, impoverished, non-English speaking and learning disabled students and work their magic? I mean, since we all suck and they're so wonderful, why not? On this actual astral plane, a whole lot of charters weed out students they find difficult, dump them back into public schools, and then pretend they don't exist. It's no coincidence that some Moskowitz Academy got caught with a "got to go" list.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of arguments that pit us against kids. I go into work every day to help New York City schoolchlldren. The Post represents the interests of privatizers hoping to profit off of them. The Post cried for years that ATR teachers weren't placed. Then when there's finally a program to place them, they cry even louder.

What the Post really wants is to see people fired without justification. It wants the erosion of due process. And with that, who will stand up for things that really help children, like reasonable class sizes and decent facilities? The Post? Reformy Chalkbeat?

Please.

The ATR and the Big Lie

I've never been an ATR, so I can't speak from experience here. My experience is limited to being an occasional substitute teacher, not one of my favorite things. I was in my school a few times this summer, and one day a secretary asked me to cover a class. I thought I'd maybe help out, so I asked, "Which class?"

She told me she needed a teacher for a day, and that there were three classes, two hours each. I told her thanks but no thanks. Two hours is a long time to work as a substitute teacher. I generally sub exactly once per semester, because that's what the contract requires. Some teachers volunteer to do more for extra pay, but not me. I don't even want to do the one.

As a teacher, I form relationships with students. They're not always the best, but they're always relationships. That's why I make it a point never to have students removed. I always think it's better they worry about what I will do, rather than some dean or AP. Really, what can they do that I can't? I also feel like allowing students to bother me that much signifies that they've won somehow. I've given up and shown them they are too much for me. I don't like to give them that.

However, when I'm subbing, I don't really give a golly gosh darn what the students think. I never have to see them again, so I'm happy to toss someone out so everyone else sees I'll do it. Of course, that works two ways. Obviously all the students know they won't see me tomorrow either. So why should they be on their best behavior, or anything remotely resembling it? Why not toss absolutely everything at that substitute teacher, and why not literally? Who's gonna know? Who's gonna care?

Now imagine that you're an ATR teacher, and your stock in trade is showing up and teaching whatever to whomever. Physics today, Chinese tomorrow. And then there are the principals, quoted in reformy Chalkbeat, who say how awful ATR teachers are. I'd only hire 5% of them, maybe, they say. And there are two issues with that.

Issue number one, of course, is if I were teaching Chinese or physics, I'd be totally incompetent. I know virtually nothing about either. Even if a teacher were to leave me lessons all I could do would be follow instructions, watch the kids and hope for the best. And the fact is that I get lessons for subbing far less than half the time I do it. Sometimes I hear that teachers should give lessons in their own subject area. Now mine is ESL, so it would be ludicrous to give such a lesson to native speakers. But even if I were to give one in ELA, imagine the reaction of a group of teenagers when a sub they will likely never see again gives a lesson on a different subject. And even if it's the same subject, it's ridiculous to compare the class culture of a regular teacher to one of a sub.

Issue number two is that principals, already overworked, now have to do way more observations than ever. NYC demands double the state-required two observations per year. Even if that were not the case, if I were a principal, it would not be a high priority to observe teachers who were just passing through. I'm chapter leader of the most overcrowded and largest school in Queens. My job is nuts (and believe it or not, I'm not complaining). The principal's job is crazier than mine. There is just no time to fairly assess teachers who aren't around very long. Frankly, I very much doubt the principals who cavalierly toss out these percentages have even bothered to look. The impressions we read about in Chalkbeat are fomented and reinforced by the stereotypes promoted by, among others, Chalkbeat itself.

If someone wants to make me ATR for a day, or a week, or whatever, I'd be happy to participate and let a reporter follow me around. Then they could see what it was really like. Personally, I doubt they have any interest. My success rate as a sub, by my own estimation, runs around 50-50. Sometimes kids are cooperative and I let them do what they want. Other times, they need to make a show, and I need to have one or two removed before they settle down. Sometimes, they never quite settle down and I can't wait to be out of there.

I wonder if any reporters from Chalkbeat ever had or saw a substitute teacher. To compare a classroom with a culture, developed over time, with one led by a total stranger the students expect to never see again is preposterous beyond belief. Watching Chalkbeat and others work up this nonsense so that "Families for Excellent Schools" can organize a dozen parents to protest teachers going to work is beyond the pale.

ATR detractors are mad the teachers are getting paid without regular classes. They're mad the teachers are getting regular classes. Their demand is that all these people be fired for no reason whatsoever.

For my money, they can all do what Mooch says Steve Bannon does.

Another Day, Another UFT Member Takes the Fall for a Principal

That's what this story in yesterday's Post suggests. This time it's not a teacher but rather a guidance counselor. After all, we're all UFT members, so why not share the fun?

Now that's not to say that there are no consequences for principals. Principal Santiago Taveras was found to have changed grades and course codes for a bunch of students. You see, for Taveras, it was a matter of honor. He boldly stepped down from his cushy deputy chancellor gig to take that principal job and show the world that Bloomberg's former flunkies could do anything. When screaming and shouting didn't get the test grades he needed, well, he had to do something.

As for consequences, well of course there are consequences. When real things happen, when they are proven, principals in NYC have to face consequences. For Taveras, it meant yet another demotion. Not only that, but his $198K salary was reduced to $150K. That's some tough love from no-nonsense Chancellor Carmen "It's a Beautiful Day" Fariña. I mean, how's an important guy like Taveras supposed to get by on only 150K a year? He must think about that each and every moment in his new gig as "educational administrator" doing Whatever the Hell That Is.

As for guidance counselors, well, they don't get treated any better than teachers. This one was fined $7,500,  and I presume made an ATR. After all, you can't have counselors who change grades to make things look better. That would be a disgrace. Actually, though, the counselor says she didn't do it. The counselor says she declined to make the change on the last day of school. Not only that, but check this out:

Taveras’ signature — not Hunter’s — was on a grade-change form, 55 to 65, and there was no paper trail on another change from “no show” to 55, according to testimony. Without paperwork, only a principal can change a grade and enter it into the system, a veteran clerk explained.

Well, that's one guilty guidance counselor. At least that's what another $1600 a day arbitrator decided. Never mind the clear evidence she didn't even do it. And what about the fact that Taveras had already been found guilty of this very behavior? What about the fact that he'd been removed from his job for it?

The arbitrator, in his infinite and well-compensated wisdom, deemed that irrelevant. The important thing was--well I have no idea what the important thing was. I have no idea why this counselor was made to pay $7500, or what she did wrong. My best guess is insubordination. When your principal says to cheat, well, you'd better get to cheating. Otherwise, be prepared to wander from school to school.

And you'd better hope the DOE hasn't got another top-secret file on you, that you used your cell phone in the school building, or that you turned off the lights when you showed a video. Those are career-ending offenses these days. Anyway, who knows what else this counselor may have done? Maybe she took 46 minutes for lunch instead of 45. Maybe she chewed gum in the school building. Maybe she didn't use enough soap when she washed her hands. It could be anything, really.

I guess this is yet another story Campbell Brown won't be spreading all over the media. After all, now she's got a gig for Facebook doing something or other. I mean, she's qualified. She has a Face, and for all I know she's read a Book. Given a story like this, on the heels of a similar one just days ago, it appears to me that due process is a thing we can not be negotiating or legislating away.

Now I don't know everything about these cases. But I've got firsthand experience with arbitrators make questionable decisions. It appears to me, far from going out of their way to defend incompetent UFT members, they seem to be accommodating the wishes of crooked administrators to blame us.

Maybe UFT members aren't the only ones in need of PD.

Thanks to Bronx ATR

Who Had this Man Fired?

There's an amazing and multi-layered story in yesterday's NY Post. A lot of people say that teachers can never be fired, but here's a story about one who was. (And he isn't the only one, because I know others.) I see a bunch of charges, none of which seem to merit a whole lot of response, if any.

Evidently this school has a gender-bender day, where students dress up as the opposite sex. I wonder how students already struggling with gender issues would feel about that. I wonder how parents would feel. In any case, gender-bender is a thing at this school, but visits to Malcolm X's grave site are off limits. And wouldn't you know it? This teacher not only questioned gender-bender day, but also wanted to take his students to see Malcolm's grave site.

But that's not all this teacher did. He turned the lights off while showing a video! Can you imagine? Not only that, but he showed a clip from a Boondocks cartoon, and maybe there was a bad word or something. Also, he used a cell phone in school. (I actually don't know any teacher who has not used a cell phone in school. And in fact, when I show a video clip, students routinely get up and switch the lights off. I let them do it, so maybe I should be fired too.)

This is the flip side of all the crap spread around by Campbell Brown, and the incurious one-sided reporting of Chalkbeat. In fact, it even links to another story that says what's really going on, which evidently escaped the notice of the arbitrator who ordered the firing. You see the principal, the one Campbell Brown wants to make firing decisions, was embroiled in a cheating scandal. And waddya know, the fired teacher was one of the ones who blew the whistle on him.

At first, they fined the teacher $2,000 for this petty nonsense and placed him in the ATR. You'd think the principal would be happy just to bounce this guy, who as far as I can tell did nothing of significance beyond blowing a whistle. Maybe, if the video clip was that questionable, they could have asked him not to show clips like that. But evidently that's not enough, so the principal, or the DOE, or likely both decided to dredge up whatever they could muster, and do a second 3020a on this guy. The genius arbitrator went for it hook, line, and sinker and fired the guy.

I mean, hey, a teacher who turns the lights off when he shows a video? A teacher who uses his cell phone in the school? This is the anti-Campbell Brown. UFT, or anyone, could use this guy as the face of why principals and the DOE should not and cannot be entrusted to fire people without due process. In fact, this is an argument that due process can go awry, and that even $1600 a day arbitrators are not infallible.

An incredible takeaway here is that this principal has never taught except as a sub. How on earth does the DOE hire someone like this? For all I know, he's Leadership Academy. After all, Klein saw teachers as just another stop on the Axis of Evil. Why not just drag someone off the street and make that person principal? I have no idea where this principal came from, but the story certainly alleges some funny things were happening at this school.

This fired teacher embarrassed not only the principal, but also the DOE. Who decided that this whistleblower needed to pay? Who dredged up a bunch of ridiculous charges and took this man's job? And what on earth made an arbitrator decide there was merit to this nonsense?

Let's also be clear on this--all the charges that the teacher faced on 3020a number two occurred before 3020a number one. You see, once you've been placed in the ATR, even for inconsequential nonsense that garners a $2,000 fine, you're under a microscope. Did the DOE deliberately save half of their trumped-up nonsense for round two so they could fire this guy?

Honestly, I see nothing here that merits one round of 3020a charges, let alone two. At the very worst, if the Boondocks video were that egregious, it could be a letter to file. This story, to me at least, is conclusive evidence that the DOE should not be trusted to fire teachers. And that's before we even look at the shoddy judgment of the highly-paid arbitrator. The fact that all charges happened before 3020a round one suggests the arbitrator's conclusion the teacher was "beyond remediation" is  utterly flawed and false on its face.

I was a little tough on the NY Post the other day, but they have their moments. This is one of them. Maybe they'll do better if they read their own stories before stereotyping ATR teachers, many of whom are in the ATR for reasons like these, or no reason at all.

Reformy Chalkbeat Doubles Down on ATRs, Informs Readers It Knows Nothing

In yet another article, reformy Chalkbeat ponders the issues involved with the ATR. Naturally, they don't bother to interview an actual ATR, because what value could that possibly have? As usual, the experience of the people living through this particular social experiment is given not a single word. After all, why should they talk to working teachers when Students First and others pay people to spout The Gospel According to Gates and Walmart, both of whom fund Chalkbeat?

The first question Chalkbeat has is about the average number of years an ATR teacher has. Naturally, they bring up the cost of the ATR so their readers and funders can deplore it and call for their heads. Then it cites seven-year-old figures, because why bother digging for new ones? And why bother talking to ATR teachers and reflecting on their experience? If they were to do that, they might as well be education bloggers, or others who actually talk to ATR teachers on a daily basis. You won't see people like that writing for Chalkbeat anytime soon. So the answer to Chalkbeat's big question is, "We don't know."

The next urgent question Chalkbeat has is how many teachers are in the ATR for disciplinary reasons. Naturally Chalkbeat goes to TNTP, created by Michelle Rhee, because you can just never have too much reforminess is a piece of education reporting. And for the record, the TNTP CEO is another guy who trashes ATRs in the pages of Campbell Brown's blog, so his opinion, while utterly predictable, is indispensable. What teachers may have been accused of, whether they have been deemed guilty of said accusations, or whether the charges were trumped-up nonsense is of no relevance and therefore not even mentioned. It's always easier to assume they are all unfit even though none have been found to be. And again, Chalkbeat does not waste one minute of valuable time talking to an actual teacher and answers the question, "We don't know."

How long have teachers been in the pool? Chalkbeat again goes to teacher-bashing TNTP, because why bother talking to anyone else? Teachers? ATR teachers? Meh. After all, Chalkbeat reporters aren't paid by the hour.  The answer? "We don't know." In fairness, Chalkbeat also suggests a principal thinks ATR teachers may not have received PD, and may therefore be unfit. Every teacher reading this has been to PD, and every teacher reading this could have advised Chalkbeat on its value. Fortunately for Chalkbeat, they don't talk to working teachers, so that makes their job a little easier.

Chalkbeat also asks where ATR teachers have worked in the past. As someone who regularly communicates with ATR teachers, I'd say, "Everywhere." Chalkbeat, of course, can't be bothered talking to those of us who actually do the work, so their answer, yet again, is "We don't know." But it's important because the teachers, the ones they have not established to have done anything wrong, may have done something wrong, and may be placed in low income areas. Here's a newsflash, Chalkbeat. Anyone may have done something wrong. You, for example, may have done a half-baked, biased job of reporting, and people in low-income areas may rely on you for information.

Finally, Chalkbeat asks the important question--what are ATR teachers certified in? And guess what? They don't know. Chalkbeat thinks ATR teachers may need retraining, because they may be certified in subjects that aren't that popular. In fairness, there's a lot of that going around. I heard somewhere there were journalists who presented and published features on subjects about which they know little or nothing. Of course, I didn't bother speaking to any journalists before coming to this conclusion, because why bother? Chalkbeat wouldn't.

For the record, I am in total agreement with my friends at the ICE blog, who suggest the aim of the ceaseless and baseless attacks on the ATR is to bust union. A lot of people don't know it, but we are all ATRs. Just be in the wrong place at the right time, and it could be you.

Reformy Chalkbeat Deems Paying Teachers Inconvenient

Who'd have thought that Chalkbeat NY, after taking all that money from Gates and the Walmart family, would suddenly go all community service on us? Evidently, it's not convenient for principals to pay teacher salaries. You know, they're expensive, and that money could go to all sorts of things, not the least of which is stocking the principal's office with free donuts and prostitutes. After all, that principal's job is stressful, what with all those pushy teachers demanding money and stuff.

And hey, isn't teaching a calling? Shouldn't teachers be begging for the right to do this job? After all, it's for the children. Shouldn't teachers be role models, waking up at 4 AM to clean stables, working nights at the car wash, and doing the whole teaching thing just because they're dedicated? Won't they then inspire children to also work for free so that Walmart, which funds Chalkbeat, can also stop having to pay people when they work? Can't the punters see how this will maximize profit?

I just adore the photo Chalkbeat chooses to recycle, the one of a dozen people organized by the well-financed so-called Families for Excellent Schools standing around stereotyping ATR teachers. It would take me about five minutes to organize a dozen people to stand outside the Chalkbeat office with signs that say "Chalkbeat Sucks." I wonder if I could get papers to cover that. Probably not, because oddly enough, papers don't seem to find crappy reporting a problem.

For example, I've been reading the same story for weeks--ATR teachers suck, and they are a big drain on the budget. Why should we pay them if they aren't working full-time? Also, if they are appointed to work full-time, that sucks because they suck. Why? Well, some of them have been charged with this or that, and they therefore must be guilty, even if the process says they were not. Also, the people who haven't been charged are all guilty too, for no reason whatsoever, and therefore they also suck.

Scott Conti, some principal somewhere, is quoted saying schools might not want them and that they will cost more in the future. You know, salaries go up, and those unreasonable teachers still want to get paid, and are unwilling to work for free. I suggest that Scott Conti work for free, and lead by example. Let him wake up and clean stables and work the car wash at night. Or maybe he could get a squeegee and stand around a bridge with a rag. You know, he could set an example of good old American ingenuity.

I'm also disappointed in UFT leadership, which seems to believe that, even with the idiotic so-called Fair Student Funding, that there will be no issue hiring senior teachers. In fact, schools themselves now have to pay teachers out of their own budgets. Why would a principal hire a 100K teacher when a 50K teacher would do? After all, who values experience anymore? You could stock your whole building with newbies and turn them over every three years before they get tenure and start speaking up.

And hey, if you do get stuck hiring ATRs, why not harrass them until they leave?

At the very least, one Bronx principal said, he’d be wary of the hire. “If someone automatically puts an ATR into my school,” he said, “I would go in there and observe them quite a bit.” 

Isn't it cool how the principal knows what he's doing and therefore chooses not to be identified? And isn't it cool how Chalkbeat just goes along with it? But wait, they've saved the biggest whopper for last:

City education officials said it isn’t so easy to rig an evaluation since it relies on a “well-defined rubric based on evidence.”  

Oh yeah, the Danielson rubric is absolutely infallible. If it says this, then that's what principals will do. In fact, the only time Danielson rubric doesn't work is when, you know, principals report things that didn't happen and fail to see things that did. I saw video evidence of a rigged observation where a supervisor failed to see things that happened and distorted things that did. Yet the city cannot imagine such a thing.

Over at Banana Kelly the principal didn't even bother to show up to classes before writing observations. She got caught but how many did not? And if I saw video evidence of some Boy Wonder supervisor rating things that didn't happen, how many times could that supervisor have done it when it wasn't filmed?  And how many times is that replicated citywide?

You won't learn that reading Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered to interview a single working teacher, let alone one of the ATRs about whom they are ostensibly writing.

Great work, Chalkbeat! Orwell would be impressed.

Same ATR Attack, Different Day

In the Daily News, there's yet another hit piece on ATR teachers. This one is unique in that it's written by a public school parent. However, it fails to distinguish itself beyond that. It contains the same tired old arguments that every other hit piece has.

I have to trust that the principal is picking the best teachers and holding them to high standards.

Well, actually you don't. There are some awful principals around. Two of them were just bounced very publicly--the one from CPE 1 and the one from Townsend Harris. And if you read Sue Edelman over at the Post, you hear about all sorts of hijinks from these figures. In fact, assuming that principals are infallible is almost as offensive as assuming ATRs are "dud teachers." But it's equally ridiculous.

They land in the ATR — sometimes for a short period, sometimes for a long one — because they are unable or unwilling to find full-time teaching positions after losing their placements.

Actually quite a few land in the ATR because their schools close. A whole lot of schools were closed by Michael Bloomberg for test scores. In a game of musical chairs, he ended up closing even new schools he'd opened to replace original closures. With Mike Bloomberg, nothing was ever his fault. The buck stopped with the ATR teachers.

We've always known it was tough for older teachers to find jobs outside the city. We cost more money, and we know our rights. A lot of principals, the ones the writer deems infallible, would rather deal with more pliable newbies. And under so-called fair student funding, schools have to pay actual teacher salaries. Principals might think twice before laying out extra tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, that wasn't contained in this, or indeed any hit piece on ATR teachers.

In a rational world, if a teacher couldn’t find a job somewhere in our massive school system, he or she would be cut loose. 

I'm gonna have to make an inference here that the United States, led by Donald Trump, is somehow representative of a "rational world." In Europe, unions are more powerful and seniority rights mean a lot more. In New York City we gave them up in 2005. I know because when I was a new teacher, I got bumped out of several schools. If placing hundreds of teachers in limbo for no good reason is rational, if firing them for no reason is rational, I shudder to imagine what is not.

We know that in 2014, a third of the teachers in the ATR had unsatisfactory ratings and a quarter faced disciplinary charges.

What we don't know is why they had unsatisfactory ratings. Was it because they didn't do their jobs well, or was it because they reported malfeasance by the principal? I know people who fit that description. Or was it because the principal was exercising a personal vendetta? I've seen that too. As for disciplinary charges, they are just that. Were they proven? What were they? I know a person who had to pay a fine for missing one meeting and asking someone else to place a sign on an office door. Does that make him incompetent? You'd think so if all the info you had was this article.

But all the mayor seems to care about is rewarding the teachers union during an election year. So instead of fighting to protect public-school kids, he is focused on building support for his reelection campaign.

That's what you call a strawman. Until and unless this writer can establish to me that she can read the mind of Bill de Blasio, it's nonsensical. You might just as easily assume that the city is telling the truth when it says it wishes to put ATR teachers to work. Of course, in the "rational" world of this writer, people are fired based on unsubstantiated accusations. Hey, it's just as likely de Blasio believes people are innocent until proven guilty. I read somewhere that was the American way.

Parents should trust that only quality teachers can stay in the system, but the ATR pool is evidence of the opposite.

This is an odd conclusion, since the writer has offered absolutely no evidence that ATRs are not quality teachers. That's one of the disadvantages of basing arguments on stereotypes rather than facts. You could just as easily substitute any racist or bigoted conclusion here. People of this color, this religion, this nationality are all terrorist, drunk, cheap, stupid, or whatever. Allowing them in our country keeps us from making it great again.

More than half of them had stopped even applying for teaching jobs, meaning they weren’t so interested in being in the classroom. 

Yet another foray into mind reading. Now I'm not sure how many doors you need to have slammed in your face before you stop knocking on them, but people are intelligent and learn from experience. In fact, the DOE places black marks on certain ATRs and warns people not to hire them. And even if they didn't, now that fair student funding enables principals to hire on the cheap, no one's surprised to see that city principals are now picking and choosing just like Long Island principals do.

It's unfortunate that superficial nonsense like this is what passes for argument nowadays. But in a country quite literally run by mediocrity and worse, that's what you get.

Boots on the Ground

I don't know whether anyone has noticed, but we are in crisis. The President of the United States came to our area yesterday afternoon and endorsed police brutality, while a bunch of police officers stood behind him and applauded. Then the Suffolk police force made a public declaration that they do not, in fact, support the policies they applauded, probably because some lawyer told them they'd be liable when the inevitable lawsuits appeared.

This was one day after Trump's people tried to take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans so they could give a tax break to people who least need it. Here in NY, we have a bill that could enact single payer floating around in the ether, but going nowhere so far. I'm not sure where the IDC, the Republicans who pretend to be Democrats, who keep Democrats from controlling the Senate, stand on that. I'm not sure where Andrew Cuomo, key enabler of the IDC who now poses as Bernie Sanders, stands on that.

One thing I do know is that union in America is living on borrowed time. Scott Walker essentially killed it in Wisconsin, and that's the model Trump's stolen SCOTUS likely wants to emulate. Maybe the cops don't need to worry, because in Wisconsin they managed to keep their right to collectively bargain. After all, someone has to protect the state house when the bootless and unhorsed come out with torches and pitchforks.

It's great we participated in the Women's March. I've never seen anything like it. I marched with UFT in the Puerto Rican Day parade. It was great, but not broadly political, I showed for the Mayday event. It was pathetic, with maybe a few dozen of us out there, at least half from MORE/ New Action. I will be there for the Labor Day parade, and I invite you to join me. But it's far from enough.

As far as I can see, our response to the outrage that's occurring all over the nation is "Public School Proud." Now I'm Public School Proud. I don't need a campaign to know that. But I'd like to hear about this somewhere other than the UFT Delegate Assembly. Every day I read the papers, and learn of the perfidy of ATR teachers. They are terrible because they don't have regular positions. They are also terrible because they're going to be placed in regular positions.

The WSJ, the NY Post, and Campbell Brown are horrified by the ATR. Why can't they just crawl away and die? After all, Brown is not only a failed journalist and a self-appointed education expert, but she's also named after a soup can. Shouldn't that be credibility enough for anyone? Students First NY, funded by Gates, manages to get a group of a dozen parents to stand around and hold signs, and it's covered by every local paper.

We have tens of thousands of members. Why can't we get a few hundred people to stand somewhere for ATRs, for medical insurance for all, for union, for almost anything, and call a few reporters? Why can't we call them, let the press know of an angle, and get stories out there? It's been years since a large scale UFT action.

I am nobody, but when I became chapter leader, I got my school in every city paper and many local papers. I may do that again, because despite the city's agreement to give us space for our existing students, they've already started to overload us, thus welching on the agreement. It is beyond my comprehension why UFT leadership, with a paid staff and resources that dwarf mine, cannot manage to do what I did alone.

We need to activate membership now, or at least try. It will be a different game in a post-Janus world, and every moment we wait is a moment wasted.

NY Post Hates You and Everything You Stand For

Yesterday I noticed four pieces in the Post that were distinctly targeted at us. The first was a cheery little piece about how well NYC schools are funded. The second was about how test scores went up because exams were easier. The third was about a ruckus between a couple of top people at UFT. (Evidently Donald Trump is not the only person who has to worry about leaks these days.) Then, of course, there's the obligatory anti-ATR piece.

Before I say anything else, I have to add that I am a frequent fan of Post education writer Sue Edelman.  Sometimes I disagree with her columns, but she has a knack for finding and exposing crazy principals., Every time she exposes some principal wearing her fur coat while ignoring her job, or pushing all the teacher desks out on the street, I silently applaud.

Now I can't read the minds of the writers, so whatever I say here is guesswork. But when you compare New York City spending with that around the nation, I figure you ought to include cost of living. I mean, I'm not personally all that shocked that we spend 10% more than Syracuse, although it's presented as an outright scandal. Naturally, our salaries are also to blame. It turns out we have a very high salary compared to teachers elsewhere. Never mind that a whole lot of states pay teachers so poorly they run off in droves, or that we can't really keep them here either. And forget about the fact that teachers in our immediate surrounding area earn well more than we do, and have done so for at least the three decades I've been teaching.

As for test scores, I distinctly recall, when they went up under Bloomberg, the general conclusion in the press was that he was a genius, and his reforminess was working. Diane Ravitch was skeptical, noting that the NAEP scores did not parallel the gains. It took years before the NY Times caught up with Ravitch, and I doubt the Post ever did. (I stand corrected here, because Sue Edelman actually wrote several pieces about this.) Of course, with Bill de Blasio in office, there's no giving credit for test scores.

The fact is that the scores, the ones around which schools live or die, are nonsense. My students are rated by the NYSESLAT, which they took months ago, and which we scored months ago. Yet we have no idea how our students will be placed because they set the cut scores after students take the tests. Can you imagine what your principal would say if you pulled something like that? Sorry, Mr. Principal, but I can't give grades until I figure out how to pass exactly 81% of my students. Miss Grundy passed 80% and I need to do better. No wonder the state believes we're such crooks that we can't grade our own students. They think we must be as bad as they are.

The big scandal in UFT brass looks to be between Howie Schoor and Ellie Engler. I know them both from UFT Executive Board. The very first time I got up to speak there, Ellie Engler set up a meeting with the school construction authority. Because of that, my school will get an annex to address our rampant and chronic overcrowding, so I'm a fan. (Norm speculates Ellie was not a friend of Debbie Poulos, in which case Ellie's misjudged. Debbie is an aggressive and creative problem solver, and she's helped my members more than once. If I ran UFT, I'd have her cloned and send at least one Debbie to every borough office.) I know Howie only because he runs the meetings and regularly offers a range of cursory, off-the-cuff, to outright mystifying answers to my questions. It's nuts the Post goes so crazy over a typo in an email, but I really wonder who leaked it and why.

Yet leaks are problematic, says Post columnist Michael Goodwin:

Leaks, leaks, leaks are Exhibit A. Why they continue, and why nobody has been fired for bad-mouthing the president to the media, ­remain a mystery. Why does Trump put up with it?

 
You see the discrepancy here? Leaks in Trump's White House are bad, and there needs to be retribution. Leaks in the teachers' union need to be celebrated, and we need to do feature stories on them even if we barely understand what the hell they are about.

Naturally there is a piece about how the astroturf group StudentsFirstNY managed, with the bazillions they get from Gates, to assemble 20 parents to protest ATRs. It's always nice to see an organized group indulge in mindless stereotype, and it's not surprising that the Post manages to interpret this corporate-sponsored act of ignorance as "ripping deBlasio apart." That's so stupid I won't give it any more attention. And for my ATR friends wondering when UFT was gonna say something, here is Mulgrew's response. When Mulgrew wonders whether anyone will print UFT "rebuttals "about ATRs I wonder whether UFT has submitted op-eds for publication. If anyone can clue me in, the comments are open.

Now I know the Post's positions are probably not big news to any teacher who reads the papers. But I'm kind of tired of hearing how awful I am for drawing a salary. I teach the children of New York City and therefore perform a more valuable service than President Trump, who appears top devote himself to golfing, decimating union, getting tax cuts for himself and his BFFs, and taking away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans.

I'll sit while I wait for the Post to share my opinion.

In a Shocker, Campbell Brown's Website Attacks ATRs

Over at Campbell Brown's blog, to which I will not link, there's a hit piece on ATR teachers. Evidently it's a disgrace to pay teachers who don't teach, but it's also terrible if they're allowed to teach. It's written by a lawyer who has never taught, and who boasts of helping to write the 2005 Contract that enabled the ATR, the one he's ironically so worked up over.

The lawyer then musters the gall to call the forced placement of ATR teachers as "the dance of the lemons," which is how he interprets placement based on seniority. This was a favorite phrase of the reformy stinker Waiting for Superman, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it since. You see, every teacher who wants placement is terrible.

In fact, I'm a case in point. In 1993, before the horrible practice was finally ended, I used the UFT Transfer Plan to go from John Adams High School to Francis Lewis. I did this because my supervisor gave me an ultimatum--I was going to teach all Spanish or she was going to put me on a late schedule, precluding the second job I needed to pay my new mortgage. This was not precisely because I was the terrible teacher Campbell Brown's article proves I am. (Nor was it for the good of the students, because both she and I knew I was better at teaching ESL). It was, in fact, for her convenience, because she was tired of the current Spanish teacher sending kids to her office. Because I never sent kids to her office, this was my punishment.

I did not bother to call Francis Lewis to ask about the position. A favorite motto of mine is, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." I thought it would be awkward if they told me there was, in fact, no position, and I got it anyway. I thought the possibility was high that they would protect the position rather than bring me, an unknown quantity, on board.

Of course, Campbell Brown's lawyer friend knows I am terrible, because every teacher who wants to make a move is terrible. (Not to be outdone, the Wall St. Journal calls us "perverts, drunkards, and ofther classroom miscreants.") Naturally, only principals can judge whether or not teachers are good because they are Mary Poppins--Perfect in Every Way and teacher judgment is always unreliable. Never mind that the recently dismissed principal of Townsend Harris was reviled by students and staff, or that she had a horrendous history at Bronx Science. Never mind that CPE 1 Principal Monica Garg placed the UFT chapter leader and delegate up on charges that were not remotely substantiated. And never mind the other abusive supervisors all over the city.

Better we assume that principals are always right, and teachers are always wrong. Who cares if the DOE was unable to sustain charges? Isn't it enough that they were charged in the first place? I, for one, am glad there are lawyers like this around. What, you were charged with a crime? Well then you must be guilty.

Doubtless if his family or friends were arrested for crimes, be they major or minor, he wouldn't make a bunch of phone calls and urge they get representation. Surely he'd advise them to plead guilty and request the maximum sentence. In fact, a whole lot of people in the ATR were not only charged, but also went through a process. In fact, they were found not to merit removal from their jobs.

That's not enough over at Campbell Brown's place. Once you're charged, you're guilty. No one should have to give you your job back, and if you don't get a job you should be fired. Never mind that you're walking around with a black mark on your record advising nervous principals you may be trouble. And never mind that all the principals need do if they don't want the ATRs back is give them a rating below effective.

It occurs to me, but not the lawyer, that vindictive principals would certainly take advantage if there were a time limit to the ATR. I can name supervisors who would be much happier were I not around. Of course they're entitled to feel that way, and it doesn't mean they'd necessarily act on it, but we all know supervisors who would place inconvenient people up on charges whether or not they merited them.

While I have not been accused of being a bad teacher, I can imagine a lot of reasons principals would refrain from hiring me. There's this blog, for one, There's the fact that my presence can be inconvenient on other levels too, as an activist and chapter leader. I can't really blame them if I'm not on their A-list. I also can't blame a whole lot of ATR teachers for not being in aggressive pursuit of jobs they're hardly likely to win.

But I certainly blame Campbell Brown's writers for suggesting that I or my ATR brothers and sisters are a bunch of lemons. That's a blatant stereotype, and I'm not at all sure why stereotyping teachers, or anyone, is still socially acceptable.

Evidently that's the price we pay for devoting our lives to teaching the children of New York City.

Placing the ATRs

It's actually a good thing that someone's thinking about having ATR teachers, you know, teach. Now I'm not suggesting that having them teach twelve years ago wasn't a good idea either. I found it incredible that we gave up seniority transfers to place so many of our brothers and sisters in limbo. I do know, at the time, that UFT leadership thought it would be a temporary situation. On the now-defunct UFT blog, Edwize, I think it was UFT's "City Sue" who contended that it had been done before.

Evidently no one counted on Joel Klein hiring new teachers while thousands of current ones wandered around in purgatory. But he did indeed, and so did his successors, while ATRs carried the Scarlet Letter in one form or another, shunned by principals and fellow UFT members, vilified by the papers, and with chances of placement that were less than optimal.

So they say now, if positions aren't filled by October, ATR teachers will fill those positions. They will likely do this by "mutual consent," which, in NYC means the actual teachers get no say in it whatsoever. Usually it means the principal decides, but in this case it evidently means Big Shot Educrats decide, and the only way the principal gets rid of these teachers is by rating them below effective.

This is problematic, of course, because principals could very well be prejudiced against incoming ATRs they had no voice in placing. Now theoretically, everyone is treated fairly now that we use a rubric to judge, because there can be no variation in human judgment once you use a rubric. On this astral plane, however, I have seen Boy Wonder supervisors write up things that did not happen and fail to observe things that did. There are plenty of Boy Wonder supervisors out there listening only to the voices in their heads, and if principal's voices enter the mix, that could potentially be even worse for ATR teachers.

I'm not saying all principals or APs are like that, but some are, and anyone who's been reading about CPE 1 or Townsend Harris this year knows some are even worse. I have to add that this is not true everywhere, and in fact four members of my own department are former ATR teachers.

But there are yet other considerations. In a whole lot of schools, teachers have "emergency" coverages and teach six classes. The pay can be very good, and having five of these classes still costs less than hiring certain teachers. So what if, for example, in my school there were 70 such classes? Would that mean there were five openings to be filled by ATR teachers? Or would it mean there were zero openings and 70 teachers were running around juggling six classes?

And what about class sizes? Oversized classes are becoming part of my DNA. If there are thirty oversized classes in my building, or yours, why on earth can't we hire an ATR or two so as to reduce them? A lot of principals might say, "Oh, that teacher might not be good enough."

I have to say, Mr. Principal, placing 35 students in a classroom isn't good enough. We have the highest class sizes in the State of New York, and violating our already too-high class sizes is simply unconscionable. Instead of making a thousand teachers wander around like Bedouins, we ought to place them and give them the same chance we'd give any working teacher.

Once we start doing that, we won't need to have this discussion anymore. While there is one opening, while there is one oversized class, there should not be one ATR, ever.

Day by Day in the ATR

A lot of us have no idea what ATRs go through. I speak to ATRs frequently, and I have a very good idea of how I'd feel as an ATR. Over at ATR Adventures, Bronx ATR tells it like it is, and pretty much like I thought it would be:

 Everything is taken away from you, except the pay check. 

Many ATR teachers tell me that the answer they get when they complain to UFT reps is that they still have a job. I'm glad for that. But as for me, a lot of my identity is wrapped up in what I do. If I were coming to work every day to teach Chinese, physics, trigonometry, or whatever, I would feel very differently than I do now about the prospect of coming to work every morning.

You will have no routine. You won't know the kids, teachers, administrators, building, or neighborhood. 

That's pretty depressing. We make little connections that make our lives meaningful. Our relationships with our students deepen and blossom over the year and we're eventually able to understand them fairly quickly. Of course, on the first days they're testing us to see what they can get away with. Thus the saying, "Don't smile until Christmas." If you're an ATR, Christmas never comes and every week could be the first week.

You will spend a lot of money in parking garages or on tickets. You will have a new cold every time you change schools, because of the different populations and stress. 

You sometimes need to get the hang of parking. At some schools, people rent driveways so they won't have to spend time looking around. That last part, about frequent colds,  was unexpected. But I do know several ATRs who have frequent colds and health issues. 

You will have to carry everything with you- coat, bag, food, etc.. You will start at 9 in one school, 7:35 at another.

School schedules are notoriously fickle. I think at our school this is the first time in a while it's stayed the same two years in a row. But imagine going from one school to another. Every time you make connections, it's time to leave. In our chronically overcroweded school there are places to hang coats. But bags and such, well, you'd have to be lucky.

And don't forget the rampant prejudice against ATR teachers, by both us and administration. Back when I used to write for Gotham School, where they subjected me to brutal editing, they gleefully posted a piece by a young teacher full of stereotypes about ATRs. I'm lucky that, in my school at least, admin seems to take them one at a time. There are four former ATR teachers permanently appointed in my department, though one is technically an English rather than ESL teacher.

Bronx ATR has some good advice for his ATR colleagues:

  Try to have a positive attitude. Try to exercise more, preferably before work. Watch yourself for depression and addictions ( shopping, overeating, gambling, and any of the more illicit ones). I have several friends who have become seriously ill and quit. Dress in layers - some schools are 90 degrees, others 40. Carry hand sanitizer and earplugs. (Yes, believe it or not, these rooms can get so loud your hearing will be in danger.) Carry some generic class work. Expect no help from the UFT and you won't be disappointed. Pick your battles, because you may win the battle and lose the war. Most importantly- don't lose your head.

I'm going to first say I understand having low expectations. But I'm also going to say that people in leadership do help ATR teachers. I learned this when Amy Arundell, who I did not know at all at the time, called me out of the blue and demanded that I help an ATR teacher get a job in my school. I was pretty happy to get a request like that. It was much better than previous requests, like, "You MUST support this thing/ candidate/ bad idea/ whatever." Those requests were easy to ward off, with, "What are you gonna do if I don't? Throw me out of Unity Caucus?" People who work for the union don't expect to hear that.

Anyway I managed to get this person an interview, my AP was impressed, and this person was temporarily hired. Alas, the principal was not impressed, and this person was gone at year's end. But a year or two later we got a new principal who actually liked what he saw, and now this person is permanently appointed. I was very proud to be part of a loose group of people who found common cause and made this happen.

Of course low expectations mean never being disappointed. I make it a point to enter certain enterprises with very low expectations. The rest of the advice is on point, and I've seen bad things happen to those who don't take it. I'd add that blogger Chaz has a very healthy attitude about being an ATR, and that's worth emulating too.  He strives to find the humor in his situation, and manages to overcome the worries that bother so many ATR teachers.

Be kind to ATR teachers you meet. They're usually in that situation for the crime of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Show them around and introduce them to people. Try to make them as comfortable as you can. Always remember, there but for the grace of God go you, or indeed me.