One of our favorite new blogs (and Gotham Schools too) is NYCATR. Today they compare the UFT and the DOE view of the ATR agreement. Yummy!
(Head on over and read the other good stuff: NYC ATR - http://nycatr.blogspot.com/)
We recently summarized an official DOE document that gives the nitty-gritty details of the new rules for deployment of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR).
Now, the latest edition of the UFT's newspaper, the New York Teacher, has provided their own summary of the ATR agreement (see page 3 of the August 4th edition).
The problem is that there seems to be a discrepancy between the DOE's version and the UFT's version.
The DOE says that vacancies created by long-term absences will be covered by ATR teachers on a "trial basis," prior to a school using a per-diem substitute; a principal may remove an ATR teacher from such a "trial" at any time, at which point a per-diem substitute may be hired.*In other words, there is no guarantee that any ATR teacher will ultimately land the long-term assignment. If, after subjecting an ATR to a trial, the principal still prefers a per-diem candidate, Ms. Per-Diem gets the gig.
The UFT reports: "Every long-term absence or leave must be filled by an ATR. Two ATRs must be sent for consideration for placement to any school that has at least one vacancy. The principal can accept them or not." (Italics added by NYCATR.)*This sounds like the assignment will definitely be given to an ATR teacher; the only question is which of the ATR teachers will win the beauty contest.
And so, we wonder:*Did the UFT have access to a DOE document that NYCATRhasn't seen yet?*Does the UFT know how to read?*Is the UFT trying to sugarcoat a lousy dealthat they negotiated for the ATR teachers?The author of this blog is pro-UFT, but he is an equal-opportunity questioner. Any answers out there?