A Day in the Life of an ATR, a Title Without Rights

One of my favorite blogs, NYC Educator, had a guest ATR post again this week that needs to be read. The fact of the matter is, there is a new subgroup of union members who have no rights: "ATR"s. Who is an ATR? First, "ATR" stands for Absent Teacher Reserve. Second, who becomes an ATR? You would think that if a school closes, that's when someone with a tenured position becomes a sub, temporarily. Or, in situations where a school loses students so that the number of classes offered are downsized, then a career teacher leaves the school and is assigned a substitute position somewhere else, temporarily, while the UFT works to get another full teaching position...right?

Nope, not exactly. An employee may hear from a supervisor that next week they will be assigned a different school as an ATR. No other explanation. If a person is charged with 3020-a, either fairly or unfairly (in NYC a person is charged first, then the case is created afterwards by "legal", Office of General Counsel), and is given any kind of penalty for any reason, he/she will suddenly become an ATR. Dont spend too much time on how this happens, no one is told. I mean, no one outside of the DOE and UFT/NYSUT reps.

Teachers/ATRs call me and tell me that they are told to go to "job fairs". When they go, they go with their resume, in good faith, ready to interview for their license area. But there are no jobs offered in their license, or when there are, they hand out their resumes never to hear anything about that position again. So they go home, and go to the substitute position and work in whatever office they are assigned to, waiting for their next assignment or next "job fair". They may see the exact same position listed as vacant later on. Principals do not hire ATRs for permanent positions often, if at all.

Some hear that they are working at a school for a month, but then are suddenly told to go to another assignment for week 2 of the 2012-2013 school year. The ATR, happy that at least he or she is getting paid, does whatever he or she is told. Even assignments are changed arbitrarily.

The only "good" part about this process is that ATRs cannot be observed because they are working outside of their license. I think this is going to change. I think that ATRs are going to be kept in a school for more than 1 week, then charged with something. And remember, if the person has "become" an ATR because he or she was found guilty of incompetency or misconduct at 3020-a, then is charged and goes to a second 3020-a, this in most cases means termination, more or less automatically. Also, the employee brought to 3020-a is placed on the Ineligible/Inquiry List" by Theresa Europe (NYC Gotcha Squad) and Andrew Gordon (NYC DOE Human Resources). Much, much more on this List very soon. 

Puleaze, folks, why are so many teachers "allowing" this process to occur? 

I am working on ending it, so anyone who wants to know more should email me at betsy.combier@gmail.com. Watch for a press release soon.

Below are the posts on NYC Educator from "Guest ATR" which I think need to be read.

Betsy Combier

NYC Educator

Thursday, August 16, 2012

How to Crush a New Teacher in Five Short Years

 by special guest blogger Suddenly ATR

Summer 2012: "I'm sorry to inform you that you've been excessed for the school year." Early morning calls are the worst, and this was no exception. I'd go on the open market except I was excessed the day open market ended.

Summer 2007: I moved back to NYC to join the "Teaching Fellows" program. I had no teaching experience, but that didn't matter. I was told that the NYC school system had a "critical shortage" of science teachers, and since I had a science background, I applied.

The teaching fellows training was fun. By fun, I mean it was entertaining and laid-back, and left us completely unprepared for the realities of teaching in an urban classroom. We learned the basics of a "lesson plan," and some important skills like "scaffolding" (still don't know what that is, all these years later), Bloom's taxonomy of questioning, and got a debriefing of some educational and developmental theories. I remember I read about Piaget's stages of development. After the daily training was over, the fellows-in-training would often go to the local bar and drink till the wee hours of the morning.

Summer 2012: I still see the NYC Teaching Fellow ads. I wonder why they are still hiring teaching fellows when there are so many ATR's floating around the system. I realize that I was excessed because of my lack of seniority, but in terms of salary, I am now considerably more expensive than most teaching fellows. I do get some encouraging words: "You might get hired because you're a fairly cheap ATR."

Summer 2007: All teaching fellow trainees were placed in a summer school classroom to observe a senior teacher. I was placed in a large Bronx high school that is now closed. The school looked run-down -- paint was chipping, random doors were broken, and if the school possessed a smart board or projector I never saw it. The rooms had no air conditioners, and the students were miserable. The summer school teacher I observed was very old-school. His tests and worksheets were from decades ago. He wrote voluminous notes on the board. But he had the respect of a very large and impatient group of students. He diffused angry students with a mix of humor and sarcasm. I'm sure if he were observed today they'd say his lesson wasn't differentiated.

Summer 2012: I feel as if I'm a passenger on a train to Nowhereville, and that somewhere along the way, there must have been stops where I could have gotten off the train. I envy all the teaching fellows that got off the train. Some of them got off after a few days, some after a few months, some after a few years, but two out of three fellows get off the train one way or another by the end of the fifth year.

The strange thing was, I had started off the 2011-2012 school year with a definite plan to get off the teaching train. The plan was to teach one semester, and resign the second semester. I was quite frankly miserable for a lot of reasons, and thought I needed a fresh start. But the 2011-2012 school year ended up being by far the best school year I ever had, despite little things like my school being on the list of 24 schools Mayor Bloomberg tried to close. I had great classes with some of the sweetest, smartest kids. My portfolio was filled with good observations. Some days I'd admonish students with a "Don't write on the board!" but saw that the students were writing "We love you, Ms. __."  I didn't even consider resigning by the time February rolled around. Why resign when every day was meaningful and happy?

Summer 2007: I went to many interviews after the 6-week training program was over. I was finally hired by a school that had been desperate for a science teacher. On the first day of school, I heard that the last science teacher they hired had also been a teaching fellow, but after a terrible day in February, she quit the next morning. A student had made some crude comments to her and she wanted the student suspended. When the student wasn't suspended, she walked. The principal apparently thought very highly of her and tried several times to contact her, but she cut off all contact with the school, and didn't even bother to return to retrieve her personal belongings.  I gulped for a moment when I heard this story, but I was convinced that it couldn't be that bad.

Summer 2012: I flip through the pictures on my phone. I had taken pictures of all the chalky love letters my students had written on the board this year. "Ms. __ is awesome." "You look so pretty Ms. ___." "Happy Valentine's Day Ms. ___!" "Happy birthday, Ms. __!" ""We will miss you, Ms. __!"

Sniffle.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Am I Real? Or Am I ATR?

LINK

 By special guest blogger Suddenly ATR

I showed up to my assigned school Monday. I walked into the main office, introduced myself, and explained that I was assigned to the school for a month as an ATR. The secretary nodded, and I tentatively asked what I'd be teaching. (I knew I'd be subbing in some capacity, but I still expected to be in a classroom.)

"Teaching?" she said, horrified. "You're an ATR, you don't get classes." 

Ok then. What was I supposed to do? 

"Well every day you show up at quarter to nine, and you're going to be helping out in the office. You know, answering the phone, lots of paperwork, stuff like that. Are you good on the phone?" 

I was a little surprised. But I went to the "welcome back" staff meeting, where the principal, who seemed a nice enough lady, introduced me as a new ATR and said I'd be there for a month. Nice school, I thought. It'd be nice if I was teaching here. There was a brand new teaching fellow, and another completely new-to-the-system teacher that were joining the school.  

After the meeting it was time for department meetings, but since I was an ATR and not part of any department, I had nowhere to go. "You could go sit in the teacher's lounge and read your ipad or something," the principal told me. The other ATR assigned to the school decided to do exactly that, and spent the rest of the day in the lounge reading a newspaper. I instead went to the meeting of the department I'd be assigned to. Everyone was nice, and one teacher suggested that since I knew the subject, I could be used in the month that I was there to tutor some students, when I wasn't busy in the office. 

Lunchtime. The new teacher showed me a place close by the school to get lunch, and it felt so strange, me talking like a grizzled veteran of the school system to the brand-new teacher. He asked me how it was that I was a teacher but I was going to be working only in the office. 

"I was excessed," I told him. 

He paused. "What does that mean?"  

After lunch all the new teachers had some workshop to attend, but I was sent back to the main office where I was told there was a lot of work to be done. The other ATR was still in the lounge reading his newspaper. Well, there was a lot of work to be done. I had to make about 2000 copies of some entrance exam sheet, and then I had to alphabetize all student files. The person who had alphabetized them before had messed up completely, and they were glad that I "knew the alphabet." 

Several paper cuts later, I was told I could go home and tomorrow I'd continue with the filing, copying, and various other office duties. "Thank you for helping out," someone yelled as I left the office.

Probationary Teachers and Getting Their Jobs Back: Matter of Brown, Hazeltine

A more recent case than that of Golomb, however Aisha Brown was not successful at overturning her discontinuance either. Perhaps someone out there might want to read the decision and opinion of NYS Supreme Court Judge Alexander Hunter, who in my opinion has no time for tenured teachers.

Brown v City of New York
2012 NY Slip Op 31472(U)
June 1, 2012
Sup Ct, New York County
Docket Number: 114039/11
Judge: Alexander W. Hunter Jr 
Republished from New York State Unified Court
System's E-Courts Service.
Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for
any additional information on this case.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.

LINK 

But then there was the case of Chris Hazeltine, who won his Article 78:

 

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION

FIRST DEPARTMENT

NOVEMBER 29, 2011

THE COURT ANNOUNCES THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:

Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

4915 In re Christopher Hazeltine, Index 115412/09

Petitioner-Appellant,

-against

City of New York, et al.,

Respondents-Respondents.

_________________________

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for

appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan B.

Eisner of counsel), for respondents.

_________________________

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York

County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered March 2, 2010, which

granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition

seeking, inter alia, to annul respondents’ determination

terminating petitioner’s probationary employment and the

underlying 2006-07 “unsatisfactory” rating (U-rating) and to

direct respondents to reinstate him to his former teaching

position with back pay, and dismissed the proceeding brought

pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously modified, on the law, to

the extent of granting the petition with respect to petitioner’s

2006-07 U-rating, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s probationary employment was terminated based on

an “unsatisfactory” rating on his year-end performance review of

his third year of probationary teaching.  To the extent that

petitioner challenges the termination, this claim is time-barred.

A petition to challenge the termination of probationary

employment must be brought within four months of the effective

date of termination.  Further, the time to commence a proceeding

challenging the termination of probationary employment is not

extended by the petitioner’s pursuit of administrative remedies

(see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City

School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 767 [1988]; Matter of

Strong v New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 AD3d 592 [2009], lv

denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]).  Here, the effective date of

petitioner’s termination was August 24, 2007, the date his name

was placed on the invalid/inquiry list, and his petition was not

filed until November 2, 2009, more than two years after his

termination.

However, and as conceded by respondents, the petition is not

time-barred to the extent that it seeks review of petitioner’s U-rating.  

 The determination that petitioner’s teaching performance

was unsatisfactory did not become final and binding until the

Chancellor denied his appeal sustaining the rating (see Matter of

Johnson v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 291 AD2d 450 [2002]).

We hold that the determination of the Chancellor that

petitioner merited a U-rating, based on two incidents taking

place in March and May 2007, lacked a rational basis and was

arbitrary and capricious.  During the March 2007 incident,

petitioner allegedly verbally berated a student and pulled her

chair while she was seated in it. 

 However, the school’s parent advocate, who witnessed the incident, 

testified at the hearing that the student was pushing her chair towards the 

door when petitioner asked her to leave the classroom.  When the student

reached the doorway, it appeared that she would tip over the door

saddle, whereupon petitioner grabbed the chair.  The parent

advocate further described the student and her mother as

“confrontational.”  The parent advocate testified that the

principal never asked her account of what transpired.  The

The U-rating was also allegedly based on a classroom

observation made on June 14, 2007.  However, petitioner denies

that any such evaluation took place and no documentation of the

evaluation was produced at the administrative hearing or in the

article 78 proceeding, and none appears in the record.  The only

observation report in the record is a satisfactory rating, dated

February 8, 2007, by the assistant principal, who testified on

petitioner’s behalf at the hearing.

The principal also refused to hear the accounts of other students

concerning the incident, contrary to the Chancellor’s regulations

and school procedure, which require interviews with and written

statements from all victims and witnesses as soon as practicable.

Despite petitioner’s concerns about this particular student, the

principal nonetheless asked, on a subsequent occasion, that

petitioner “cover” a class which included the student.  The

assistant principal, who witnessed the conversation between

petitioner and the principal, testified that the principal

refused to remove the student from the classroom, despite

petitioner’s concerns that she might make other accusations

against him.  The principal told the assistant principal that

“[h]e had nothing to worry about.”

The procedural irregularities in this case are troublesome.

The signed but undated report of investigation does not appear to

have been sent to the Office of Special Investigation until May

20, 2007, nearly two months after the incident.  Lines where the

preparer was to indicate the date the Office of Appeal and Review

was contacted, the termination date and the date the report was

prepared were left blank.

During the May 2007 incident, petitioner was allegedly

unable to control a class that he escorted to the cafeteria.

4However, the assistant principal, who shared lunchroom duties

with petitioner that day and was his direct supervisor, testified

that she too could not control the students at the time of the

incident and that she specifically directed petitioner to seek

assistance from the principal for the safety of the children.

She described petitioner as “very effective” in his role as

lunchroom monitor.  Since the determination that petitioner’s

performance merited a U-rating lacked a rational basis, we hereby

grant the petition to the extent it seeks to annul that

determination. 

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED:  NOVEMBER 29, 2011

_______________________

CLERK

Probationary Teachers and Getting Their Jobs Back After Given Discontinuance: Matter of Golomb

The Department of Education is currently discontinuing probationary teachers so that it seems like far fewer people - good or bad in his or her teaching abilities - get tenure. Statistically speaking, this is true. It's very infuriating when I hear that a great teacher has been discontinued on the very day that, had he or she worked, tenure would have been automatic. 

What can a person do? That will be looked at continuously this year by me, along with others, but I might as well start with Mira Golomb. Ms. Golomb was discontinued from her probationary position in September 1977, but then the Chancellor overturned the discontinuance, (this almost never happens today) and she got her job back in September 1978. She then filed an Article 78 to get her back pay, and lo and behold, 

"At the time that the petitioner received the Chancellor's letter, the policy in effect at the board of education was to pay back salary to pedagogical employees who had been discontinued or denied tenure and who were subsequently restored. In October of 1978, this policy was reversed without notice to the teachers' union or to employees who were awaiting back pay."

Who knew? Why did the policy change without the UFT screaming and yelling about restoration to "make whole"?

Not fair.

Betsy Combier

MTR OF GOLOMB v. BD OF EDUC

106 Misc.2d 264 (1980)

In the Matter of Mira Golomb, Petitioner,

v.

Board of Education of the City School District et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.

August 15, 1980

James R. Sander for petitioner. Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel, for respondents.

---

GERALD ADLER, J.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, a probationary teacher, seeks back pay for the period of her discontinuance from September 6, 1977 to June 22, 1978, when she was reinstated by the Chancellor.

On September 6, 1977, petitioner returned to Bryant High School and was orally informed by the principal that her services were terminated. Hearings were conducted the following January. On June 22, 1978 the Chancellor informed petitioner that he did not agree with the recommendation to terminate. In September of 1978, petitioner returned to work.

At the time that the petitioner received the Chancellor's letter, the policy in effect at the board of education was to pay back salary to pedagogical employees who had been discontinued or denied tenure and who were subsequently

[ 106 Misc.2d 265 ]

restored. In October of 1978, this policy was reversed without notice to the teachers' union or to employees who were awaiting back pay. Petitioner did not become aware of the change in policy until October, 1979. A notice of claim against the board of education was executed on November 24, 1979 and received by the board of education on December 5, 1979.

The petitioner claims that the board of education's determination not to award petitioner back pay is illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. The respondent contends that since the petitioner was a probationary employee she had no right to permanent employment and that the respondents acted completely within their discretionary authority when they discontinued petitioner's probationary services and then offered her reinstatement.

Section 2573 of the Education Law grants a school board the authority to dismiss a probationary teacher at any time. "Such an employee has no property rights * * * and may be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all". (Matter of Venes v Community School Bd., 43 N.Y.2d 520, 525.) Petitioner, as a probationary employee, has no independent constitutional right to permanent employment or due process to termination (Board of Regents v Roth, 408 U.S. 564; Longarzo v Anker, 578 F.2d 469). Therefore, the only rights to which petitioner can claim entitlement are those termination reviews afforded her through the collective bargaining agreement and set forth in section 5.3.4 of the board of education by-laws.

The by-laws provide only for a post-termination administrative review proceeding to assist the Chancellor in determining the reasonableness of the recommendation that probationary services be terminated. The review proceeding is conducted by a Chancellor's committee and results in an advisory recommendation to the Chancellor. The Chancellor is free to accept or reject the recommendation as he sees fit. He need not set forth findings or reasons for its determination (Matter of McAulay v Board of Educ., 61 A.D.2d 1048). Absent a showing of "stigma" or other constitutionally impermissible action by the board (Bishop v Wood, 426 U.S. 341) (none is alleged herein) the only basis

[ 106 Misc.2d 266 ]

under which the final determination of the Chancellor can be overturned is if under State law, it is determined to be "arbitrary and capricious". (Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 N.Y.2d 835, 836.)

Petitioner has introduced no evidence which indicates that her February 16, 1979 discontinuance or termination reviews were wrongful, illegal or improper. It is undisputed that respondents acted completely within their discretionary authority when they discontinued petitioner's probationary employment. Respondents' later reinstatement of petitioner was also within their discretionary authority. It was not an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication on the merits of petitioner's earlier discontinuance.

Petitioner has no basis for her claim to entitlement of back pay upon her reinstatement. Neither the Constitution nor New York State law recognizes the right of a reinstated probationer to an award of back pay. An employee who has not worked has not delivered consideration for the payment of wages. Thus, in the absence of a statute requiring the payment of back pay upon reinstatement, a public body is not required to pay back wages since such a payment would be an unconstitutional gift of funds (Matter of Mullane v McKenzie, 269 N.Y. 369, 373; see NY Const, art VIII, § 1; Matter of Boyd v Collins, 11 N.Y.2d 228, 234).

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.