Friday, September 30, 2011

Origins of the ATR Pool: A Short History

Originally Posted 2:45, updated 1PM

Look for an upcoming ATR flier for distribution and sharing. 

Thanks to Teachers for a Just Contract for sending this clarifying information:
The ATR pool is not, in fact, directly related to the right to seniority transfer.  It is related to what is mentioned in the small type:  the end of the practice of placing of excessed appointed teachers in nearby unencumbered vacancies (although that was not a seniority right, see below).    
These are two entirely separate rights.  The seniority transfer required that schools post half their unencumbered vacancies in the early spring.  (This is a slight simplification, since there was also transfer for racial balance, but let's leave that aside)  Teachers then could apply and the most senior in the specific license applying for a position was hired.  
 Excessing would take place long after the deadline for the  seniority transfers,  at the very end of the school year.    Before the 2005 contract, the excessed teachers would be placed in nearby vacancies in their licenses.  This took place even in schools that had already opted out of the seniority transfer system by adopting the SBO transfer.  (This btw was not a seniority right. There was no bumping. They were placed in vacancies, or displaced only unappointed teachers.)  What changed to stop this was that principals got the power to decide who their school hired.  Even if the seniority transfer were to be restored, without the right of excessed teachers to be placed, there would still be ATRs, since teachers who already have positions could get the positions posted on the seniority list, and schools only had to post half their unencumbered vacancies. 
I know this doesn't make much difference, we should have both rights.
Next week the UFT is holding borough ATR meetings at the borough offices. We believe this is a response to the agitation around the ATR question. The ostensible purpose of these meetings is to reasure ATRs that they will not be laid off out of seniority but will not address the underlying issues that ATRs are bringing up regarding being moved from school to school.

The flyer says they will answer questions and address your concerns. Bring your stories.

Just last night I got an email from an ATR in south Staten Island who was assigned to a school in Bushwick. There is some physical handicap involved and the ATR has to use public transportation. On purpose? I bet it is.

Thanks to ICE's  Jeff Kaufman for this related info:
District 76 is BASIS which covers all of Staten Island and schools in South Brooklyn, Williamsburg and Bed Stuy among other neighborhoods. The rest of Brooklyn is Brooklyn HS which is district 73. It appears the ATR is being assigned within the district. While BASIS is terrible just think about my old district, 79, which has a city-wide reach.

Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.


  1. If District 76 is BASIS why are there different superintendents for different schools. For example, schools such as Grady and Lincoln have one superindentent listed under BASIS while schools in Williamsburge and South Brooklyn are listed under a different superintendent in Brooklyn superintendency.

  2. Supt are based on Districts. BASIS covers a wide range of disricts. DOE has purposely made them irrelevant.

  3. I'm trying to understand how the 2005 contract affected (runined) the seniority transfers and how excessed teachers are treated.

    So principals are supposed to indicate vacancies, yet they still hide them.

    Open Market applies to all applicants who would like to work in that school, yet principals rarely choose veteran teachers or they tell the candidate that they plan to create and post the vacancy for that particular teacher (cronyism is still alive).

    We have a 2005 contract, two MOA for the ATRS and I still hear from others that the provisions agreed upon are still not enforced.

    I'm still confused why the 2005 contract was voted in favor of not keeping seniority transfer and the placement of excessed teachers. Somewhere along the line we lost alot of rights. Our veteran teachers as ATRs have jobs, but all respect and rights for their profession have taken a toll.

    The open market transfer (misnomer) only benefited the principals and TFA, etc. It was never intended to provide options for veteran teachers. I truly feel that we need to demand a change to this process or teachers will end up losing much more, eventually their jobs.

  4. I know an ATR who is physically handicapped. He went to the UFT and they were able to place him in a school for the entire year where he wouldn't have to do a lot of traveling.


Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating). Or because your comment is irrelevant or idiotic.