Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Friday, June 9, 2017

A Happy Teacher is a Good Teacher by Betsy Combier

Danna Thomas, a kindergarten teacher at Windsor Hills Elementary School in Baltimore, and the founder
of Happy Teacher Revolution, smiles and snaps her fingers while a fellow teacher shares a good moment from earlier in
 the day. 

—Erin Irwin/Education Week

by Betsy Combier

Parents know and their children know when their teacher is happy with them, the school, and everything in the environment. The teacher's tone of voice, body language and actions in the classroom express their feelings as well as mood. I don't know many - if any at all - who can hide these characteristics of being human. I imagine an excellent actor could do it, but not everyday for a school year. That's why I am perplexed at the number of rules, regulations and laws that principals in New York City are laying on their staff in order to control , militarize - and yes, even criminalize - teachers. Who benefits from this? No one.

Yet we hear all the time about teachers quitting because of harassment, discrimination, assaults, verbal abuse and other misconduct by the principal, for any and all reasons, some valid, many others not valid.

Why has this been the pattern and practice of the New York City Department of Education? First, because they never put children first. Never. Principals are now responsible for the budget, and good results. So what comes first is the group or individuals who are the flavor of the month, to get fired, charged, or removed from the budget; then, the curriculum has to be the one favored by the vendor with the most money or by the donor who could give the most money. Whether the program or curriculum works does not matter. After all, the NYC DOE employees believe, they are spending public funds, not their own, so who cares?

By the way, this emphasis on results pushes principals to lie cheat and steal to keep their jobs or to stop any rebuke from superiors. Changing grades is systematic. This altering of records is more or less expected. Of course again, no consideration of the effect of these records altering actions are ever felt by principals. They keep their jobs.

Second, the New York City Department of Education is putting into action the national bias against unions and teachers which is fueled by very rich people who can spend money on national major and social media to spread the word of how bad public school education really is, and how bad teachers are who have tenure. The word "tenure" is a bad word to the "I've-never-been-in-public-school-but-I-hate-tenure" people, who push into the public consciousness the picture of a tenured teacher sleeping in the classroom, hitting a small child, or knitting during a math class. Their claim is that "once you have tenure, you stop working because you have your job for life. No one can fire you, thus all teachers are lazy, sit around and do nothing, or hurt children physically and emotionally. These tenured employees should all be fired and tenure must end."

Tenure remains public policy in New York State for now. But teachers are being thrown into termination hearings known as 3020-a Arbitration every day. in these hearings, teachers are accused of lying, cheating, stealing, or being incompetent, harassing, verbally abusive and/or criminally insane. The charges are made up for the most part to remove expensive senior teachers making more than $100,000 or thereabout, or are too old, ill, or simply whistleblowers. Many - not all - lose their jobs.

Campbell Brown is an excellent recent example of someone who wants tenure to end. So far, she has not been successful in her many lawsuits.

Let's stop and think for a minute and visualize a different scenario, where teachers are respected, where creativity and innovations in learning are celebrated, and where children and their unique differences are placed first in importance in education policy and practice.

I believe that anyone who knows a senior teacher knows how rich the experience and knowledge of this person is, and how useful their senior status is. I believe in tenure because we need to treasure the abilities of senior teachers to handle all difficult situations and to be there for their students. 98% of the teachers I have met, worked with and know are such people. Frankly, I dont see the NYC Department of Education seeing my point anytime soon. It is not in their financial interest.

There is a better way to educate. Put the client first!!!! The parents and the children are the focus, not settling your budget in the black and changing records of the innocent to improve a school's public image.

Let's give this a try.

Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Social-Emotional Learning: It Starts With Teachers
How Teachers' Stress Affects Students: A Research Roundup
Harnessing Student Emotions in Service of a Cause
Can Yoga Help Prevent Teacher Burnout?
How Teacher-Prep Programs Can Embrace Social-Emotional Learning
The Life Lesson a Teacher Learned in Rehab (Opinion)
Happiness Before Homework: Focusing on Feelings in the Classroom (Opinion)
'Is Social-Emotional Learning Really Going to Work for Students of Color?' (Opinion)

How Teachers' Stress Affects Students: A Research Roundup
By Sarah D. Sparks, EDUCATION WEEK, June 7, 2017
LINK

New research is helping to clarify how teachers become chronically stressed, and how it can affect their students’ well-being and achievement.

“Relationships really matter for learning; there’s a lot of evidence around that,” said Robert Whitaker, a professor of public health and pediatrics at Temple University.

In one 2016 study, University of British Columbia researchers tracked the levels of stress hormones of more than 400 elementary students in different classes. They found teachers who reported higher levels of burnout had students with higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol each morning, suggesting classroom tensions could be “contagious.”

For example, in one forthcoming study previewed at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) meeting in San Antonio in April, researchers from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands interviewed a small pool of 143 beginning teachers over the course of a year. Those who showed higher levels of stress at the beginning of the year displayed fewer effective teaching strategies over the rest of the school year, including clear instruction, effective classroom management, and creation of a safe and stimulating classroom climate for their students, than did the teachers with lower initial stress levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Virginia is conducting one of the first long-term experimental studies of how classroom-management techniques affect teachers’ stress and effectiveness in instruction. Researchers from the university’s YouthNex research center and the Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning randomly assigned nearly 200 early-career teachers in 100 schools in three districts to normal district training or training in the Good Behavior Game, a research-backed social-emotional-learning program in which teachers reward students’ positive group behaviors. Teachers who used the game also had one-on-one video coaching every two to three weeks for a year, to help them identify their own stress levels and ways they can improve their interactions with students.

In the first study from the project, which is forthcoming, Jason Downer, the director of the Center for Advanced Study, found that nonparticipating teachers who started the school year feeling very stressed and “emotionally drained” had significantly worse classroom management and a spike in student disruptions by the spring. Stressed teachers who participated in the Good Behavior Game stayed stressed during the year, but it didn’t affect their classes as much, Downer found. “With the intervention, you weren’t seeing dramatic improvements over the year, but you had the status quo. With stressed teachers [who did not participate) you see a dive” in classroom behavior. There was no effect for teachers who didn’t start the year stressed.

“We need to consider the context for interventions, when teachers are stressed coming in and are teaching a chaotic classroom,” Downer said in a discussion at another research conference earlier this year.

How Teachers See Stress
So what makes a classroom normal for one teacher and stressful to another? University of Texas at Austin researchers, led by psychology professor Chris McCarthy, found that the answer depends on whether teachers feel they have the cognitive and other resources to meet their students’ needs.

The researchers used federal Schools and Staffing Survey data to create profiles of the “demands” on teachers, based on: their and their students’ background characteristics; whether their classes had high proportions of English-learners, students with disabilities, or students in poverty; and whether their racial group made up a minority of those in the school. They then compared those demands to teachers’ reported resources and whether the teachers felt they had autonomy in their classrooms. Teachers whose demands were greater than their perceived resources were only half as likely to say they would choose to become teachers again as were teachers who saw their demands and resources as balanced. Teachers who reported more resources than demands (a smaller group), were more than twice as likely as teachers with “balanced demands and resources” to say they would become teachers again and would return to their district next year.

“This is purely about perceived demand and resources; two teachers in the same school and teaching the same kids could feel they have more or less resources,” said Richard Lambert, who co-wrote the study. But, he added, individual schools often had very different concentrations of the most high-need students in different classrooms. “That’s something that administrators absolutely have control over. If I’m a 4th grade teacher, and there are three others down the hall, we all know five minutes [into the school year] that Ms. Jones got dealt a much harder hand this year. The perception of whether you feel treated fairly by your principal is enormous” in its relation to teacher stress, he said in a discussion of the study at AERA.

Coverage of social and emotional learning is supported in part by a grant from the NoVo Foundation, at www.novofoundation.org. Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Rizwan Gondal Loses in Court Because He Failed To File a Notice of Claim




Gondal v New York City Dept. of Educ.
2005 NY Slip Op 04488 [19 AD3d 141]
June 7, 2005
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, August 24, 2005


Rizwan Gondal, Appellant,
v
New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents.
[*1]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered October 6, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
According to the complaint, injurious statements were made about plaintiff's performance as a teacher by the principal of the New York City public school in which he worked. Plaintiff's claims, however, insofar as they purport to seek damages for defamation, are time-barred, since plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within the applicable three-month statutory period (see Education Law § 3813 [1]) and never timely sought permission of the court for a filing extension (see Education Law § 3813 [2-a], [2-b]).
Plaintiff, in any event, alleges no cognizable claim for defamation: the complained-of statements either were not published to third parties (see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 AD3d 180, 183 [2003], appeal dismissed 2 NY3d 758 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]), were undisputedly true (see Aguinaga v 342 E. 72nd St. Corp., 14 AD3d 304, 305 [2005]), or were shielded by the qualified privilege accorded communications between parties on matters in which they share a common interest, plaintiff's [*2]conclusory allegations of malice being insufficient to overcome the privilege (see Hanlin v Sternlicht, 6 AD3d 334 [2004]).

Plaintiff's remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

To Win a Reversal of a U to an S An Educator Must Cite Violations of the UFT Contract and Show Bad Faith

The point of the First Department Appellate Division in reversing the decision to grant a change to the U-rating is that the Appellant teacher did not raise the issue of the violation of the UFT contract at the school level observation.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

IN RE JEROME RAZOR, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

3013, 101079/13.2017 NY Slip Op 00932
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Decided February 7, 2017.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 9, 2015, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, granting the petition to the extent it annulled respondents' April 3, 2013 determination denying petitioner's appeal of his U-rating, and directing respondent Board of Education to expunge the rating and replace it with an "S" rating, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for appellants.
Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman, Gesmer, JJ.
Petitioner failed to preserve the issue of whether the U-rating should have been annulled based on an alleged procedural deficiency or deviation from the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by his union regarding observation practices, since he never raised the issue at the administrative level (see e.g. Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 26 NY3d 983, 985 [2015]; Green v New York City Police Dept., 34 AD3d 262, 263 [1st Dept 2006]).
Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Monday, June 5, 2017

Mitchell Robinson on Teacher Evaluations


Some unpopular thoughts on teacher evaluation

by Mitchell Robinson

I’ve been working on teacher evaluation for most of my career as a teacher, administrator, and teacher educator; first being evaluated, then doing the evaluation as an assistant principal and subject area coordinator, then helping design a state-wide beginning teacher evaluation initiative. After nearly 40 years in education, all I can say is that the current system is the worst I’ve ever seen.
If the goal of these systems was to get rid of the so-called “bad teachers” that supposedly exist in great numbers in our schools, it has been spectacularly ineffective. Every form of teacher evaluation winds up identifying only between 1-3% of teachers as “ineffective”–yet we continue to spend precious money and time in the vain attempt to purge the system of these “bad teachers”.
Here’s the truth–it’s a colossal waste of time to keep pouring good money after bad in this attempt. Why?
Not because there are zero weak teachers–there are some, though as most will acknowledge, a surprisingly small number.
Because bad teachers self-select, and weed themselves out of the classroom well before any evaluation system “catches” them. Why?
Because the job is too hard to do it without finding any level of satisfaction or fulfillment–and the money isn’t good enough to keep them in the classroom, unlike other jobs where people report low satisfaction, but remain in the job for the financial rewards.
Here’s another truth–we know quite a lot about how to evaluate teachers. And we, quite simply, don’t have the stomach to do it. Why?
Because it requires time, money, and effort. It also requires knowledgeable experts to spend copious amounts of time in teachers’ classrooms, watching them teach, talking about teaching, providing professional development to address the teacher’s reflections on their practice, and targeted feedback on matters of content, pedagogy, and instruction.
I’ve helped design such a system, and even though it wasn’t perfect, it worked better than just about any other approach. It still didn’t “catch” large numbers of bad teachers, though. Why?
Because they just don’t exist.
What this approach to teacher evaluation did do was empower those teachers to “own” their own practice, and to be responsible for their own improvement. It was also a valuable form of professional development for the experienced teachers who served as the “evaluators,” many of whom reported that they learned more about teaching from participating in the process than from other forms of professional development.
You know what isn’t very useful? For non-experts to provide their “feedback” on teacher quality–which in our current environment is most of what we get. All-knowing policy pronouncements from folks who have never attended a public school, never sent their own children to a public school, have no degrees in education, and have never taught anyone anything, but are now–because of how much wealth they have squirreled away, in positions of authority over public education in our country. (Psst…that’s you, Betsy…)
At the risk of sounding rude and condescending, unless it’s about providing evidence of a teacher abusing a child or committing some sort of crime against a child–in which case, as a court-mandate reporter, I’m obligated to go to law enforcement with those claims–I really am not interested in “your thoughts” about how well you think your kid’s teacher is doing. because you don’t know. Why?
Because the teacher one parent thinks is awful, another parent thinks is a hero. It’s why we don’t have the relatives of crime victims serve as the judge and jury for the persons suspected of committing those crimes.
Because they aren’t objective–and they aren’t supposed to be. Parents are supposed to see the world through their kids’ eyes. It’s not their job to evaluate teachers. And unless you are a teacher, or an administrator in your kid’s school, it’s not your job either.
I’ve been teaching since 1980, and get asked to do evaluations of music teachers all the time–and I always say no. Why?
Not because I don’t know what “good teaching” looks like–I do. But that’s just *my* opinion of what good teaching looks–or sounds–like. Because I don’t feel qualified to judge another teacher if I haven’t worked in their context; understand their students, their colleagues and principals, understand their building and district “culture”, who had their job before they did, what are the community’s expectations, what that teacher’s background is, and dozens of other specifics that can’t be captured on the 4-point scale we currently use.
And now, two final notes:
With respect to parents as “consumers”: When you make this comparison it only reveals your misunderstanding of the complexity of teaching and learning. Education is not a business. And it should not be run like one.
My kids have had teachers I thought were great, and ones I didn’t think were so hot. It happens. And when it does, it’s my job to do what I can to help my child keep learning. Not to pretend I know better than them how to do their job–because guess what? I don’t. And neither do you.
With respect to improving parental involvement: You know what teachers want you to do?
§         help their kids do their home work
§  make sure they practice their instruments
§  make sure they get to all school events, concerts, plays, sporting events, etc.
§  travel with them
§  take them to museums and art galleries
§  watch movies
§  read to them
§  feed them healthy meals
§  spoil them with ice cream
§  sing to them
§  play with them
  §  let them know that all those tests they are forced to take don’t tell us anything about how much they know, or who they are

Try to support what their teachers do with them for 7-8 hours per day. And tell them that they should respect their teachers–and model that respect by not complaining about them at home in front of their kids.

Matter of Anna Finkelstein v Board of Education and the Importance of the UFT Grievance Process

Decision by a Panel of the Appellate Division, First Department in Matter of Finkelstein v. Board of Education, __A.D. 3d__, N.Y.L.J. 5/15/17 p. 19 col. 3 [1st Dept. 2017] reversing Justice Alice Schlesinger’s ruling on behalf of a probationary teacher, appearing in the May 15th New York Law Journal.

It underscores the importance of availing oneself of existing grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (C.B.A.), and a willingness (at least by this appellate panel) to excuse (or ignore) the investigator’s written report as a perceived “technical violation” of the  C.B.A.

She was deemed entitled to nine days pay, pursuant to Education Law Sec. 3019-a, due to insufficient advance notice of her termination of employment.

Matter of Finkelstein v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.
2017 NY Slip Op 03850
Decided on May 11, 2017
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 11, 2017 
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Feinman, Kahn, JJ.

3959 101540/14 

[*1]In re Anna Finkelstein, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Appellants.




Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for appellants.
Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Gregory M. Ainsley of counsel), for respondent.


Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 16, 2016, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the amended petition, or, in the alternative, to submit an answer, granting the amended petition, which sought, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondents, dated December 23, 2014, discontinuing petitioner's probationary employment, and ordering that she be reinstated with full salary and benefits retroactive to September 30, 2014, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the petition granted only to the extent of awarding petitioner nine days' pay in accordance herewith, and the cross motion granted to the extent of dismissing the petition insofar as petitioner seeks reinstatement of her probationary employment, retroactive pay in excess of nine days salary and benefits.

Petitioner failed to avail herself of the grievance procedure set forth in her collective bargaining agreement before commencing the instant action seeking relief under CPLR article 78 (see Matter of Gil v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 146 AD3d 688 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Matter of Sapadin v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 246 AD2d 359, 360 [1st Dept 1998]), and the court erred in relieving her of her obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies.

In any event, a probationary employee may be terminated for "almost any reason, or for no reason at all," as long as it is not "in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763 [1999]; see also Matter of DeVito v Dept. of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 112 AD3d 421 [1st Dept 2013]). "[T]he burden falls squarely on the petitioner to demonstrate, by competent proof, that a substantial issue of bad faith exists, or that the termination was for an improper or impermissible reason, and mere speculation, or bald, conclusory allegations are insufficient to shoulder this burden" (Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2006] [internal citations omitted]; see also Matter of Witherspoon v Horn, 19 AD3d 250 [1st Dept 2005]).

The record shows that petitioner's dismissal was made in good faith and was based on substantiated findings after an independent investigation demonstrating that she neglected her duties and falsified records (see Matter of Thomas v Abate, 213 AD2d 251, 252 [1st Dept 1995]). The investigator's delay in publishing the written report amounted to a mere technical violation of the collective bargaining agreement, as petitioner received timely notice of the allegations, as well as an opportunity to respond, prior to the issuance of the report (see Matter of Freytes v City of New York, 146 AD3d 678 [1st Dept 2017]). The court's conclusion of bad faith stemming from the lateness of the report was purely speculative (see Thomas, 213 AD2d at 252).

However, petitioner is entitled to nine days' pay pursuant to Education Law § 3019-a [*2]because she was given inadequate notice of her termination (id.; see Matter of Tuckersee Matter of Tucker v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 10, 82 NY2d 274 [1993]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 11, 2017
CLERK

Saturday, June 3, 2017

The UFT/DOE Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) Agreement 2017 and Buyout


Think about this for a minute: there are new agreements for ATRs ironed out by the UFT and DOE without representation by an ATR chapter leader. Why? ATRs have no Chapter!!! Right there you should begin to worry.

Don't jump out of your chair and run to the nearest office to sign up for the severance package or buyout. Read everything first, then decide it is right for you.

You should base your thinking on your status, such as do you have any "ineffectives"? Do you have a field supervisor biting at your heel?

If anything like that or  any other random bad-thing-without-reason has happened to you, I would do the buyout and leave the Department. Once the "I'm never wrong" DOE puts their target on your back they can be relentless and it is not fun. It is downright insulting, harassing, and dangerous  to your health. They obviously want newbies who cost less and are much easier to get rid of than tenured teachers/ATRs. But as you know, tenure has little value in NYC right now.

Nonetheless, consider all options for you, including whether or not you will get another job quickly or at all. If you are re-assigned, and/or charged with 3020-a, you have been placed on the "no-hire" problem code, and your fingerprints are flagged.

Stuff like the problem code must be reviewed and considered. Don't do anything in haste, and six months from now or a year from now realize you made the wrong choice.

Think think think. The great philosopher Winnie the Pooh always does.



Betsy Combier
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials


2017 ATR Agreement
Whereas both the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (the "DOE") and the United Federation of Teachers ("UFT”) have expressed a joint interest in reducing the number of UFT represented employees who are or become ATRs; and

Whereas both parties agree that section 16 of the 2014 MOA (set forth in Article 17, Rule 11 A of the Teacher's contract and other corresponding provisions of the other collective bargaining agreements between the DOE and the UFT) has expired;

Now, therefore, the terms and conditions governing ATRs as set forth in the 2007-2009 collective bargaining agreements and memoranda of agreement entered into prior to the May 1,2014 MOA govern, with the modifications set forth below:

For purposes of this agreement, ATRs shall be defined as all UFT represented school based titles in excess after the first day of school except paraprofessionals, nurses and occupational and physical therapists.
I. Severance Program
The DOE will offer a voluntary severance benefit to all ATRs who have been in the ATR pool for one or more school years as of May 31, 2017, who volunteer to resign/retire and who execute an appropriate release in a form prescribed by the DOE in consultation with the UFT, except those ATRs who have agreed in writing to resign/retire from the DOE in connection with the disciplinary process (the "Severance Program"). (Employees with charges pending are eligible for the Severance Program.)
The period during which ATRs may volunteer to resign/retire in accordance with the terms of the Severance Program shall commence on June 5, 2017 and terminate at 5 PM on July 14,2017. The effective date of separation from service shall also be no later than July 14,2017.
Eligible ATRs who volunteer for this Severance Program shall receive, at the employee's option, a severance payment of either:
1.     $50,000 in a lump sum non pensionable payment to be made within 60 days following the end of the severance period or,
2.     $35,000 in a lump sum non pensionable payment to be made within 60 days following the end of the severance program plus six months of health coverage for the employee including coverage for dependents, spouses and/or domestic partners.
For purposes of determining eligibility for the Severance Program only, time spent as a provisional hire or in a provisional assignment shall constitute time as an ATR. Employees who meet the above criteria who are provisionally hired or provisionally assigned at the time this Severance Program is offered are also eligible for the Severance Program.

In the event that an ATR who participates in the Severance Program returns to service with the DOE, the ATR shall repay the severance payment received, through payroll deductions in equal amounts, within six months of the ATR’s return to service. This provision shall not apply to ATRs who return to service as day to day substitute teachers or on a part-time ("F status") basis.
II. Assignment of ATRs
After October 15, ATRs will be given a temporary provisional assignment to a school with a vacancy in their license area where available. The DOE, at its sole discretion, may choose not to assign an ATR to a temporary provisional assignment who have been penalized (as a result of a finding of guilt or by stipulation) in conjunction with §3020-a charges based on the circumstances of each case.
The DOE shall not be required to send more than one (1) ATR at a time to a school per vacancy for a temporary provisional assignment. These assignments will first be made within district and then within borough. ATRs shall also be given temporary provisional assignments to cover leaves and long term absences within their license area within district and then within borough. ATRs in Districts 75 and 79 shall be given temporary provisional assignments only in the same borough, within their respective district, as the school to which they were previously assigned.
All temporary provisional assignments for an ATR in BASIS will be within the same borough as the school to which they were previously assigned.

ATRs serving in a K-12 or 7-12 license pursuant to the agreement between the DOE and the UFT dated August 25, 2016 (e.g., ATRs serving in Physical Education K-12, English Secondary, Mathematics Secondary, Social Studies Secondary, English as a Second Language, and Foreign Language) will not be sent to schools with vacancies or to leaves or long term absences outside of the division (i.e., Elementary, Middle, High School) which they were assigned prior to entering the ATR pool.

It is understood that at any time after a temporary provisional assignment is made, a principal can request the removal of the ATR from this assignment and the ATR can be returned to the ATR pool and be subject to the terms and conditions of employment then applicable to ATRs pursuant to this Agreement.

To the extent that the provisions above conflict with the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement dated June 27, 2011, the ATR agreement dated Sept 6,2012 and any provision of Article 17, Rule 11 B of the Teacher's contract and other corresponding provisions or other current collective bargaining agreements between the DOE and UFT, the provisions above shall govern.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew
Here is the ATR Buyout:
Dear member,
Exercising a contractual right, we have been trying to negotiate another voluntary severance package for members in the Absent Teacher Reserve for the past few years. We are happy to announce that we were able to secure one.
The UFT and the Department of Education have negotiated an agreement for those in the Absent Teacher Reserve that includes a severance package with two options.
In the 2014 Absent Teacher Reserve agreement, the severance package was based on length of service. This time, eligible Absent Teacher Reserve members, including those provisionally hired, who agree to retire or resign from June 5 through July 14 may choose to receive either $50,000 in a one-time payment or $35,000 and six months of health insurance. This money is not pensionable.
To be eligible for the severance package, you must officially have been an Absent Teacher Reserve member on or before June 1, 2016 through today. You have received this letter because you were an Absent Teacher Reserve member in September 2016 and may be affected by this agreement.
Starting in the 2017-18 school year, the agreement also permits the DOE to provisionally assign Absent Teacher Reserve members to a school throughout their borough, which is a change that allows for more flexibility. Since the 2014 agreement expired at the end of the 2015-16 school year, we have been operating this past school year under rules that existed prior to the 2014 agreement.
You should be hearing from the DOE about what to do if you wish to accept the severance package. Use this online form if you have any questions about this settlement.
If you are considering retirement as a result of this agreement, it’s important that you contact a UFT pension consultant in your UFT borough office. Visit the pension section of the UFT website for borough office phone numbers and more information about the pension services the UFT offers.
Sincerely,
Michael Mulgrew
UFT President
Friday, June 02, 2017
The ATR Buyout Incentive Is Inadequate And Insulting.

Once again our disconnected union leadership secretly negotiated an ATR buyout incentive, without any ATR input. While the complete ATR agreement has not been published, UFT President, Michael Mulgrew's letter to ATRs has given us the general details of the ATR buyout. The buyout incentive is short on money and is not pensionable. That alone makes the ATR buyout incentive inadequate.

According to the UFT, ATRs who accept the buyout and retire or resign, have two options. Option 1 is to receive a lump sum of $50,000 or option 2 is to receive $35,000 and get six months of health benefits. However, if the ATR resigns to take the ATR buyout, they will no longer be eligible to receive the four lump sum payments of their retro money owed from 2009-10 and the 2% raise owed to them next June.that would cut deeply into the money received in the ATR buyout.

The major problem with the ATR buyout incentive is that the money is less than a half a year's salary for a 20 year teacher. Moreover, teachers who want to participate in NYSUT's attractive Catastrophic Major Medical (CMM) plan would not be able to since you must be an active member as of January 1, 2018 and the ATR buyout incentive is only for the time period between June 5 to July 14, 2017. Finally, many ATRs who are retiring at the end of the school year may have already put in their retirement papers and may not be eligible for the ATR buyout incentive since, according to Mulgrew's letter, they must submit their retirement papers between June 5 and July 14.

Based upon the failure of the previous ATR buyout in 2014 that saw just 8.5% of the ATRs take the incentive, I suspect that the DOE will be fortunate if 10% take the inadequate and insulting buyout. Honestly, I cannot see an ATR willing to resign for the buyout, maybe a few ATR retirees who haven't already put in their retirement papers might take advantage of the buyout but not many.

By the way, if you're an ATR assigned to a District, the new ATR agreement for the 2017-18 allows the DOE to place you in any District in your Borough. Another loss for the ATRs. Then again, our disconnected union leadership doesn't have to worry about what school they will be "forced placed" in.

ATR SEVERANCE PACKAGE

Excessing

There are times when a school reduces the size of its faculty, such as when it experiences an unexpected drop in student enrollment, loses a budget line or pursuant to state or federal law, is being closed, or phased out. Excessing is the process of reducing staff in a particular school when the number of available positions in a title or license area in that school is lower than the number of people in the school who require an assignment in that title or license area. It usually occurs in June in preparation for the next school year or in January in preparation for the next term. According to the UFT/DOE contract, you must be informed in writing by June 15 if you will be in excess for the next school year, but it is still possible to be excessed after that date due to changes in enrollment or the budget.
When a teacher is notified that she is in excess, she must register on the Open Market System for purposes of providing updated contact information. She will also have access to a list of current vacancies throughout the city and the right to apply to any or all of them in her license area.
When one or more vacancies occur in a district in a license area, the DOE must send excessed teachers (who registered on the Open Market System) to the school to be considered for placement. If the principal accepts a placement, the teacher becomes part of that school. If the principal denies the placement, the teacher will be an ATR in her district or superintendancy.
The DOE after Oct. 15 is obligated to send an ATR to any school in the district, then borough with a vacancy in the teacher’s license area. If there aren’t any vacancies in the teacher’s home district, the DOE can send the teacher to a school with a vacancy in the teacher’s license area in the same borough. The principal retains the discretion to keep the teacher or return him or her to the ATR pool.
Excessed employees are considered ATRs.  ATRs may be sent to schools within their district, or schools within their borough that have vacancies in their license area.  ATRs cannot refuse these assignments.  Any ATR who refuses an assignment and does not report to the assignment witin two work days of receiving written notice of the assignment without good cause shall be treated as having voluntarily resigned his/her employment.
ATRs may also be sent on mandatory interviews.  ATRs must report to these interviews.  Any ATR who misses two interviews without good cause will be deemed as voluntarily resigned.